Music Industry Loses In Canadian Downloading Case

pref writes "'Canada's music industry can't force Internet service providers to identify online music sharers, a Federal Court judge has ruled.' They wanted the Internet service companies like Sympatico, Rogers and Shaw to give them the real identities of the individuals so they could sue them for copyright infringement. They were seeking a court order requiring the companies to provide the information. But they didn't get it, so the Internet companies don't have to identify their clients and the music companies can't proceed with their lawsuits.""

Canadians Are Evil

[monstroyer (748389)]

Of course Canada, a socialist country harboring terrorists, would have a judge corrupt enough to *not* allow the law to break down the doors (and backs) of pirates. The whole country is a cesspool of leftist anti-american pot smoking jocks. Half their salaries taxed and for what? Medicare, Infrastructure, Social Programs, and Freedom? Give me some good old fashioned blatant class differences based on race any day of the week. We need to buckle down and attack these northern communists ASAP. Axis of evil anyone? Downloading music is the first step to the downfall of America, we must stop them at all costs. I have a gun and i'm on my way!

A better CAPTCHA solution?
Sunday March 14, @02:10PM
Pending

To CAPTCHA or not to CAPTCHA?
Saturday March 13, @06:12PM
Pending

Why Don't I Have a Girlfriend?
Saturday February 07, @10:22PM
Pending

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[jjohnson (62583)]

Oh please... we are not *jocks*.

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and those left-wing pinkos have a LIBERAL [liberal.ca] government! It's right there in the title "Liberal Party of Canada"! They don't even deny it, much less try to hide it, as any sane people should.

And right on our continent, too! How can we allow this to stand?

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[MoonBuggy (611105)]

But I thought it was America's duty to liberate people? Now I'm just confused!

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[quacking duck (607555)]

We do actually. The tar sands in the province of Alberta [gov.ab.ca] contain more than enough oil to sustain civilization for awhile--problem is that it's harder to extract and process than mid-east oil wells.

Lest your prez gets any wacky ideas though, I can assure you that we DO NOT have any weapons of mass destruction! ;-)

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[MrAngryForNoReason (711935)]

I can assure you that we DO NOT have any weapons of mass destruction! ;-)

You claim that after unleashing Celine Dion and Bryan Adams on the world.

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[Dirtside (91468)]

You claim that after unleashing Celine Dion and Bryan Adams on the world.

Now, now, the government of Canada has apologized for Bryan Adams on numerous occasions.

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[Curtman (556920)]

Yeah, it proves the electorate doesn't give a damn about provincial finances until its too late. I'm a Manitoban, who saw us go from years of surpluses under the Tories back into a defecit under the NDP in just one term. They also were kind enough to reform the labour laws so that to form a union in a workplace, you need 30% support for it, and it takes 75% to support removal of the union. How nice and democratic. I sure hope the conservatives get their act together for the next election, that last one was a cake walk for Doer and his goofy policies. Just now I went looking for a link, and whats the top story on news.google.ca?

• NDP's voodoo economics hides real deficit picture [canoe.ca]

Ontario is practically begging us to build a new mega project hydro dam at Wuskwatim, and these goofy NPDers are hesitant. We've got Ontario, and US State governors making trips here offering money to help build the thing. They're worried about the expenditure. These freaks need to go.

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[Lumpy (12016)]

Wasn't there a movie with John Candy in it about that exact topic...

and if you did attack wouldn't they require you shout your insults in english AND french?

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[jjohnson (62583)]

*whoosh*

Re:Canadians Are Evil

[tanguyr (468371)]

i know i'm going to regret this in the morning...

See dear AC, there's this little thing called sarcasm.. I'd look into getting your sarcasm detector fixed

The great-grandparent post is not (only?) an example of sarcasm, it's (mainly?) an example of irony. Irony [reference.com] means saying the opposite of what you mean, whereas sarcasm [reference.com] just means using a cutting tone designed to taunt or hurt. They very often go hand in hand: you'll utter an ironic statement in a sarcastic tone, but knowing and understanding the difference *absoluetely* guarantees you the distinction of most anal pedant in the room (prepending statements with "It's interesting to note that..." also helps).

Damn you Sound and Sense, damn you to hell!

i'll just get my coat now...

Hooray!

[Vargasan (610063)]

Hooray for Canada.

Wait... Which country was the 'Land of the Free' again?

Re:Hooray!

[Shakrai (717556)]

Good for Canada! I don't really think it's an ISPs business to get involved in civil matters between outsiders and their clients. If I ran an ISP in this day and age I would keep my radius and/or DHCP logs for 24-48 hours. If RIAA can't subpoena me in that amount of time that's their problem.

Does anyone know what the outcome of the similar case in the US is? Last time I heard anything the appeals court had reversed the lower court decision -- so RIAA started suing IP addresses (some of which weren't in the US as I recall). Was there any resolution to this or is it still in litigation?

As an aside I don't really think it's the business of an ISP to hide their customers when they break the law either. I just think RIAA should be held to a higher burden of proof then just giving a judge (or a clerk) an IP address and getting the name of that customer. They should actually have to prove that IP address was engaged in illegal activities. Does anyone here really think they can do that for each and every file sharer? If this was held to a real burden of proof these cases would stop tomorrow.

I wish somebody would have the backbone to actually fight one of these instead of rolling over and settling. It's basically going to come down to "He said"/"She said". Sure RIAA says I was sharing files -- can they prove it with the testimony of a neutral third party? Somebody they are paying to find people on P2P networks hardly qualifies as neutral.

Re:Hooray!

[Crudely_Indecent (739699)]

As a network admin for an ISP, I can say that SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS REASON I delete logs after 5 days. When the local police or FBI calls asking if we have logs for a certain period of time I happily say "Nope, we delete logs after 5 days" and send 'em packing. I can't afford to have any of my servers taken for evidence. 5 days of logs is just enough to deal with the trivial issues that commonly arise, and just short enough that no government agency will be asking me for them (ain't beaurocracy grand)

Keeping the anonymity of our clients is one of the few luxuries that an ISP has left. If I began handing out my customers names to ever government agency that demanded them, this ISP would go out of business quickly. Who wants an ISP that will sell them down the river? Word of mouth spreads quickly, and I like my job!

I figure, it's none of my business what you do with your connection. As long as you don't attack my infrastructure I won't stop you. If you get caught doing something illegal, I didn't help catch you. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

Until they pass a law requiring me to keep these logs, I'll continue to delete them.

Re:In that case...

[Shakrai (717556)]

In that case you might be the one breaking the law. Where I live, any ISP is required by law to keep such logs for at least a month

Well I worked in the ISP business for three years and we never heard of such a law. Of course we kept our logs for a longer period of time then that but we were never subpoenaed for them.

I wonder what would happen if you just ignored their initial e-mail subpoena request the way AOL used to ignore their abuse mailbox. By the time they get around to mailing you a certified letter hopefully your logs will have expired and they are SOL.

Sorry, but as a network admin I have better things to do then research my clients for RIAA when they haven't even won any sort of lasting judgment saying they have the right to this information.

If law enforcement comes knocking and tells me that one of my clients threatened to kill the President or blow up the school then that's quite another story (somebody's life might be in danger).

But if RIAA wants me to spend a couple hours digging though my logs then they can pay me my usual consulting rate to do it. And they will agree to indemnify me in the event that they lose their case saying they have the right to this information and my client(s) that I turned over decide to sue me. Otherwise they can go to hell.

Don't celebrate yet.

[Liselle (684663)]

Well, I RTFA (someone reply with "You must be new here" for your free +5 Funny), and it doesn't look to be a cause for celebration. It seems as if they didn't present compelling enough evidence to the judge.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies onto shared directories on their computers which were accessible by other computer users via an online download service," the judge wrote.

I'll wager that once the Canadian recording industry gets its wagons in a circle, they are going to try again. Regrettably, one failure won't stop them.

Re:Don't celebrate yet.

[chimpo13 (471212)]

someone reply with "You must be new here" for your free +5 Funny

Okay, I'm game. You must be new here.

I'll turn off my karma bonus (all due to goatse links), and see what happens.

Re:Don't celebrate yet.

[JohnWiney (656829)]

From the Globe and Mail's version: "The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Justice von Finckenstein said. That means that making it easy to copy isn't the same as copying, and is not copyright violation.

Re:Hooray!

[by Anonymous Coward]

It goes much farther than reported here. I have just heard the details on TV.

It seems that what most music downloaders do is perfectly legal here in Canada. The only limitation is that the download must be for the user's own use.

Futher, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE MUSIC INDUSTRY TO PROVE THAT YOUR INTENTION WAS TO DOWNLOAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL RESALE!!!

THEY NOT ONLY HAVE TO CATCH YOU DOWNLOADING, THEY HAVE TO CATCH YOU SELLING!!!

Don't you wish that the USA had civilised laws like that?

That's so sad!

[neiffer (698776)]

I was hoping to get sued in Canada instead of the States. After the exchange rate, I was hoping to pay about $0.78 per song, beating the iTunes price!! :)

Dion or no..

[Borg453b (746808)]

Dion or no Dion - I'm moving to Canada :D

Woo! Proxy Time

[Gothmolly (148874)]

C'mon you Slashdotters in .ca, how about setting up some anon HTTP proxies so that the rest of us can download freely? Your ISP logs can't be subpoenad, so we can all download stuff via your pipes, and the Evil Record Companies can't do anything!!!

Re:Woo! Proxy Time

[Br!an of Paco (677083)]

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/03/31/downloa d_court040331 Sounds to me like uploading's legal too.

Re:Woo! Proxy Time

[Abcd1234 (188840)]

As others have said, that's not actually true. The judge said, and I quote:

"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service"

So, this goes to the heart of the P2P uploading matter. Basically, it's the judge's interpretation that making files available for download does not constitute uploading.

Go after the IP

[grafikhugh (529618)]

What is to stop them from suing the IP number and using the court case as a means to identify the user? Didn't the RIAA have to take that aproach after losing a similair lawsuit ?

From the Judge:

[big_groo (237634)]

From The Toronto Star [thestar.com]: "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

He compared the action to a photocopy machine in a library. "I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service," he said.

Besides, the IP changes, and the ISPs *don't* have to divulge who had the IP at any given time. Kind of hard to sue in that case...

Hahahah...

[Frennzy (730093)]

Too bad for the R I Eh Eh, Eh?

Actually, the ruling means a bit more

[salemnic (244944)]

Another Source [canoe.ca]

This ruling not only means that the CIRA can't get user information from the ISPs, but that file swapping in Canada does not even infringe on copyright - it's completely legal.

If you're Canadian, that means a big weight off your shoulders, for now.

Error in Title

[Dashing Leech (688077)]

It's not a "downloading" case, it's an "uploading" (distribution) case. Downloading is legal [drmwatch.com] in Canada.

Good judges

[flossie (135232)]

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies onto shared directories on their computers which were accessible by other computer users via an online download service," the judge wrote.

So this is what happens when you have tech-literate judges! Where can we get some from?

Favourite qoute from a similar article

[oblivionboy (181090)]

In a related article from canoe.ca [canoe.ca], the judge was qoute as saying,"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service,"

Doesn't this analogy actually make more sense, than alot of the analogies to "theft" that the record industry has thrown out?

On the other hand, it may not be that valid, because to actually photocopy an entire book would be prohibatively expensive. Where as with P2P whether you download an entire album or just one song its the same cost. Free.

Re:Favourite qoute from a similar article

[AndroidCat (229562)]

This analogy is a direct comparision with another case [canoe.ca] just a few weeks ago where Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body for Ontario lawyers, had a photocopier in their library...

Other newsfeeds

[damian.gerow (458051)]

Two other newsfeeds are carrying the story as well -- both say essentially the same thing, but CBC has some related stories that may be worth reading: The Toronto Star [thestar.com] and CBC [www.cbc.ca]

IANAL, but I believe this comes from the quirk in Canadian law that you may make copies of something for yourself quite legally, just not for others. Since the people sharing aren't making the copies, it's legal.

Canadian court refuses ISP subpoenas

[belmolis (702863)]

It isn't clear what the real impact of this decision is. If you read the article, it quotes lawyers as saying that the music industry prepared a sloppy case and that it can always try again. It may only be a temporary victory. But at least it sounds like the Canadian courts are requiring a higher standard of evidence of infringement than the US courts are.

Judge says "no copyright infringement"

[thirty-seven (568076)]

Even more significant, in my opinion, is that the judge in this case said the reason why he wouldn't give a court order for the ISPs to release names is that he didn't consider this copyright infringement [www.cbc.ca].

Specifically, he said:

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

To me, this sounds like he's saying that standard P2P file sharing is not copyright infringement. It sounds like as long don't actively upload the file to someone else, or personally authorize them to download it from you, then its OK.

I like it!

[gagy (675425)]

Earlier today I posted about how glad I am that I don't live in a twisted country like the US, because of a wonderful law that's being discussed. Here's a quick little tidbit.

File sharing would be punishable by prison sentences of up to ten years in addition to large fines. Another bill introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - Called the "Pirate Act" - would empower the Justice Department to initiate lawsuits against file sharers. According to the both the entertainment industry and Sen. Hatch, P2P networks are virtual dens of thieves, with the most pernicious of un-American activities occurring in an attempt to lure young Internet users into a lifetime of lawbreaking. In defending the Pirate Act, Hatch said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these "human shields," the P2P companies are trying to blackmail the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue. "Unfortunately, piracy and pornography could then become the cornerstones of a 'business model,'" Hatch said in a statement. The illicit activities of file sharers "then generate huge advertising revenues for the architects of piracy."

And Then I got flamed because in Canada we pay excise tax on CDs (and soon to be other recording media) because they can potentially be used for pirating copyrighted works. I totally agree with that law. The money goes to the recording industry (I think) and everyone is fairly content with the deal. (besides, it's only a few bucks and it seems fair enough to me. Yeah, i know, majority of the people use the CDs for legit purposes, blah blah blah).

How to apply as a skilled worker immigrant

[Gord.ca (236984)]

In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html [cic.gc.ca]
It seemed relavant :) (Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)

Re:How to apply as a skilled worker immigrant

[MKalus (72765)]

Current turn around time is ~2 1/2 months.....

2 Weeks for HRDC [hrsdc.gc.ca]
6 Weeks for CIC [cic.gc.ca]
2 Weeks for CPC [canadapost.ca]

M.

summary is not really accurate

[harlows_monkeys (106428)]

OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you.

Reading the story, we see that this is indeed the case. The ISPs weren't compelled to release the IDs because the music companies had not shown sufficient evidence that a copyright violation had occured. If they had shown sufficient evidence, the ISPs probably would have had to cough up the names.

Open share is not Distribution

[kwandar (733439)]

I've been saying for a while in comments here on /. [slashdot.org] that leaving an open share (what the CRIA would refer to as uploading) would not necessarily constitute copyright infringement.

According to the Globe and Mail [globeandmail.com], the judge stated ""The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution"

This is a huge win for the Canadian public if it stands on appeal as Canadians will be legally able to download, and to have music available in shared directories, allowing both uploading and downloading.

Well, I'm proud!

[ferratus (244145)]

I'm truly proud to be Canadian today... Oh, except for that tax on media ..

Oh, and Celine Dion. Yeah... sorry about that.

obligatory Rick Mercer apology

[WormholeFiend (674934)]

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna' have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was
different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly
veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Thank you.

Re:obligatory **Colin Mochrie** apology

[SirSlud (67381)]

It was Colin Mochrie who did it.

Re:Don't even think it

[jemartin (636867)]

According to the CBC [www.cbc.ca], the Judge ruled that file sharing is within the bounds of Canadian copyright law.

Specifically, from the Judge's ruling: "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

Re:Woo Canada!

[s20451 (410424)]

The people at the wheel seem saner, more composed and less twitchy

I guess you don't live in Quebec, then?

Re:So wait a minute

[RetroGeek (206522)]

Legal access to addictive drugs

What, you cannot buy cigarettes where you live?

Re:Legality?

[Cruciform (42896)]

Yup, it's legal to download, but redistribution is still a no-no. So you have to force your client software into a 'leech-only' setting to remain within the law.

Still, this doesn't mean Canadians will be able to get off scott free when it comes to downloading music and other media. The storage media levies that get put in place may be quite substantial, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a "study" result in a claim that people that use greater than X amount of bandwidth a month are more likely to be pirating and therefore should incur additional levies.

On the plus side, Canadians are less likely to be robbed at gunpoint for their iPod full of tunes. ;)

Re:OH Canada.

[s20451 (410424)]

How long can Canada do this before they get pressured to follow in their oppressive neighbors' lead?

I'm sorry ... who's oppressive now?

Canadian broadcasting law includes Canadian content restrictions. Fully 35% of all music broadcast on Canadian radio must be CanCon [media-awareness.ca], meaning at least two of the composer, performer, recording venue, and lyric writer must be Canadian. For television the fraction is 50%.

Sounds pretty benign, until you realize that it is therefore illegal for US stations to broacast in Canada, which includes satellite broadcasts. It is illegal to receive US-based satellite signals in Canada, and doing so could result in a visit from the RCMP and confiscation of your satellite equipment [www.efc.ca]. All this for simply watching HBO, MTV, or even the Superbowl commercials (local stations rebroadcasting the Superbowl in Canada substitute their own ads).

In spite of this, Canadian television has yet to produce a domestic hit television series, and virtually all our recording artists flee to the states.

That's nothing!

[Bvardi (620485)]

I hear they're going to make 35 percent of piracy be Canadian content as well! Several of my friends have recently had CRTC officials show up with MP3's of Anne Murray - mind you I think he went the easier route and just went to prison....

(The above posting should not be read by the sarcasm challenged. If you are unsure if you are sarcasm challenged, please immediately report to your local comedy club for testing. Do not, repeat, do not take any sarcasm unless able to process it - otherwise grave side effects of confusion, loss of bowel function, and several people pointing and laughing in your general direction may be experienced. At no time operate any kind of humour while unable to process sarcasm. Lock all puns in a safe place and gently croon yourself to sleep in a darkened room. Trust me you'll feel better for it)

Danhm, You're quoted in The Toronto Star

[RedCard (302122)]

Danhm, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but you're quoted in the Toronto Star.

Thestar.com - Court rejects music lawsuit [thestar.com]

Enjoy your 15 minutes!