The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today on SOCAN's case against internet service providers to force them to pay fees and found against SOCAN. SOCAN is the organization that charges fees for the use of copyrighted material and then sends it back to artists.  Read the entire ruling here.  From the headnote:

The creation of a "cache" copy is a serendipitous consequence of improvements in Internet technology, is content neutral, and in light of s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Act ought not to have any legal bearing on the communication between the content provider and the end user. "Caching"is dictated by the need to deliver faster and more economic service, and should not, when undertaken only for such technical reasons, attract copyright liability and therefore comes within the shelter of s. 2.4(1)(b). The Board's view is correct and its' decision in that regard should be restored.

An internet service provider's knowledge that someone might be using content-neutral technology to violate copyright is not necessarily sufficient to constitute authorization, which requires a demonstration that the defendant did give approval to, sanction, permit, favour, or encourage the infringing conduct. Notice of infringing content, and a failure to respond by "taking it down" may in some circumstances lead to a finding of "authorization". Therefore, authorization could be inferred in a proper case, but all would depend on the facts.

The Copyright Act is often presented as "a balance" between the rights of those who create works of the arts and the intellect and those who wish to use such works. However, the balance is only tangentially at issue here because Parliament has expressed the view in s. 2.4(1)(b) that those who provide internet infrastructure are not properly to be considered "users" of such works for purposes of the Act.