Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Canadian Recording Industry Goes After P2P Users 481

Posted by michael
from the america-in-miniature dept.
Txiasaeia writes "Taking its cue from its American counterpart, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has begun the hunt for music file swappers. Unlike the RIAA, the CRIA are trying to find 29 (!) swappers only who use either Shaw, Telus, Rogers Cable, Bell Sympatico or Quebec's Videotron. Some companies like Shaw are openly opposing the request, whereas others, like Videotron, are pretty much planning on rolling over once the paperwork is done. Videotron customers beware: they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.' Arguments in the case begin on Monday in Toronto."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Recording Industry Goes After P2P Users

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:45PM (#8271146)
    Article sez:
    For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player. But the practice is illegal in the U.S.

    Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?
    • Looks like you slept throught the DMCA. Um I dunno what to tell you, American's got screwed? Know your rights? Don't live under an evil oppresive government? Words fail me.
    • by garcia (6573) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:50PM (#8271234) Homepage
      the longer something is reported incorrectly the more people believe it to be true.

      Just ask the Slashbots.
    • by Loki_1929 (550940) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:51PM (#8271247) Journal
      "Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?"

      It's more of a grey area in the US, especially since the DMCA. While it has historically been viewed as 'fair use' to create a backup copy of a copyrighted work, circumvention of a copy protection scheme (no matter how pathetic and ineffective it may be) was made illegal by the DMCA. Also, many CDs ship with a EULA of some sort, which often prohibits creating even a single copy of the works contained within.

      Essentially, it's something for which arguments could be made either way based on previous rulings and copyright laws, but it's something which would probably never actually be prosecuted.

      • Since when is CDDA copy-protected?

        The place where I draw the line on this whole copyright question is here: when some party (or the State) decides on my behalf that it is not acceptable to distribute *MY* copyrighted work, that I expressly *WANT* distributed.

        I get very tired of hearing how it is "illegal" to distribute copyrighted works. What that is saying to the artist is, you must surrender your copyrights entirely if you want to distribute your work.

        But certain corporations are not required to surr
        • "Utterly unacceptable abridgement of my rights of equal protection of the law"

          Equal protection? Assuming you're in the US, you've fallen into the very trap some have been setting up for quite some time. For Christ sakes, a company/corporation/conglomerate/etc is NOT, I repeat NOT a person. It is NOT a human being. It does NOT have a 'right to live'. It is nothing more than a business venture - albeit a large one. The moment you allow large companies to have 'rights', especially rights that equal those of
    • by 503 (236565) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:53PM (#8271271)
      As far as I know, making a personal copy of your own CD is still legal in the US. In Canada, however, you are allowed to make a personal copy of an album that you don't own.

      In other words, I can borrow a friend's new CD and make a copy with no laws being broken.
      • by Vaevictis666 (680137) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:12PM (#8271546)
        Just remember, though, that your friend cannot make a copy, and give the copy to you. If you want the copy, you need to be the one making it.
      • At least in the US, you absolutely have fair use rights, which include parody, archiving, and excerpts for exemplary or non-commercial purposes. You can see the law here [cornell.edu].

        What's more, you have every right [cornell.edu] to get together with friends and make tape copies or digital copies of music on digital audio recording equipment.

        I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an a

    • by NanoGator (522640) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:01PM (#8271395) Homepage Journal
      "Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?"

      Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation. Stupid, iddnt it?
      • by pla (258480) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:24PM (#8272418) Journal
        Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation.

        Copy restriction?

        Ooooooooh! You mean "broken"! I get it now.

        No, you see, you've misunderstood... Phillips owns the IP rights to the concept of a "Compact Disc". By a company claiming that they have produced such an object, they provide a certain basic level of guarantee that they have complied with Phillips' specifications. How can we can "circumvent" an access control mechanism on a CD, when no such mechanism exists in the spec?

        Why, if these "broken" CDs deliberately violated the spec, well, that would count as outright fraud to still call it a CD. So they must simply have broken. Does the DMCA also say that "in the event a product breaks, you may not repair it"?
    • by Yo Grark (465041) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:10PM (#8271522)
      Poorly written article.

      Guys, they are only going after people who DISTRIBUTE files.

      And so they should.

      Leaving the "occasional" offenders alone, and those who are obeying our laws and downloading only.

      Call me a leech, and I'll say it's the law up here.

      The people coulnd't have asked for a better law.

      Yo Grark
    • by gearheadsmp (569823) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#8271673)
      MP3's are frowned upon by certain "people". In fact, these "people" have setup a web site [whatsthedownload.com] for consumers who are "confused" about file sharing. They even have a message board [whatsthedownload.com], which I strongly encourage you to post there about your opinion of the RIAA. This was orignally mentioned in orthogonal's [slashdot.org] journal.
      • by danielsfca2 (696792) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:52PM (#8272772) Journal
        This is awesome.
        From that site, Stacie Orrico's quote about file sharing (emphasis added):

        "Well, I do realize how much the picture of artists is skewed when I get questions all the time like, 'Oh, so what kind of car do you drive? How big is your house?' It's like, 'No you don't understand, like I'm just trying to pay for my gas. I don't drive a nice car and I'm just trying to pay the bills and trying to have enough to buy groceries.' People just assume that the second you have a song on the charts," [i.e. you've earned millions of dollars of revenue for record labels] "you're a millionaire and truth is I've been in the industry for six years and still working towards the financial benefit. You put so much financial support into building an album. Between the clothes, and the sets, and the recording, and all the other people who are involved taking little bits of your money as you go along. So, especially if there is an artist that you really like and you're really enjoying, support them, support them with your $10 bucks." [out of which they'll see about 50 cents.] "Show you're a true fan, I think it's important."

        Who wants to bet that not a single RIAA/CRIA exec has any problem paying their bills? Perhaps without traditional record labels, an artist like Orrico could record her music herself with a few thousand dollars of studio time (credit card), then sell just 50,000 copies of the single on the iTMS, and actually come out way ahead!

        What's that I hear? Oh, it's the moans of agony coming from the RIAA headquarters. The past called. They want their distribution model back.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:46PM (#8271160)
    Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such popular Canadian albums as "Nothing But Rush: A History of Canadian Popular Music".
  • by sdcharle (631718) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:46PM (#8271168) Journal
    Turns out they're only prosecuting if less than 80% of your pirated mp3s are not by Canadian artists.

    Oh wait a minute, that is pretty bad.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I will have the last laugh when my leeching brother with his damn bittorrents gets busted ! Finally I will get greater than 5Ks on my DSL link :-)


    Oh happy, happy days :p

  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:47PM (#8271174)
    Article sez:
    Videotron is in a unique position because its parent company, Quebecor, also sells music, Videotron says it is concerned about copyright protection and considers file sharing to be "theft."

    Well, there we have it. ISP attitudes on copyright and privacy issues are completely tied to how much content the ISP's parent company owns. Road Runner customers beware, and Comcast customers better hope the Disney deal doesn't go through.
    • "Well, there we have it. ISP attitudes on copyright and privacy issues are completely tied to how much content the ISP's parent company owns. Road Runner customers beware, and Comcast customers better hope the Disney deal doesn't go through."

      Just working our way towards the reality of the 'Alien' series of films. What The Corporation wants, The Corporation gets. Human beings are expendable - profits are not.

    • All the major Canadian high-speed ISP's are part of vertically-integrated corporations to some degree :

      Videotron is owned by Quebecor, who publish newspapers, sell music, run an online 'portal', etc. Videotron also owns the Quebec equivalent of 'American Idol' and thus now has a hand in artist development.

      Rogers Cable is part of a huge company that owns magazines, radio stations, video rental stores, a large cellular phone network and the Toronto Blue Jays.

      Sympatico is part of Bell, which also owns part
  • Levies already! (Score:5, Informative)

    by morcheeba (260908) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:47PM (#8271180) Journal
    This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies [neil.eton.ca] based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made [neil.eton.ca]. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)
    • Re:Levies already! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:49PM (#8271224) Homepage Journal
      This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)

      I am confused. Am I getting fined in advance, so that I can download or does the industry want it all ways?
      • Re:Levies already! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PunchMonkey (261983)
        I am confused. Am I getting fined in advance, so that I can download or does the industry want it all ways?

        Guess what! The "Music Industry" isn't a single entity, there's plenty of different players each with their own viewpoint, everyone from the Artists to the Labels to the Publishers to the Retailers have their own views and opinions.
      • Re:Levies already! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JudgeFurious (455868) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#8271682)
        PunchMonkey is right in his reply to your post. They aren't a single entity at all but let's forget about that for a moment and for the sake of argument lump them all together and call them one. Having done that then the answer is indeed "Yes, the want it all ways".

        They've always wanted it all or rather both ways. That's what they do. That's how they've always done it.

        "The Recording Industry" is based on a business model that can be summed up neatly as "Fuck everyone above and below you as hard and as often as you can" and it's been an accepted way of doing business for so long that they'll fight to the death to continue doing it.

        I don't doubt for a moment that they see absolutely nothing wrong with how they go about their business.

      • Re:Levies already! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evilad (87480)
        Yes, you _can_ download all you want. They're going after the people who _upload_ files.

        This hardly seems reasonable: if you're uploading, for all you know, your downloaders are legitimate users who have damaged their own copy of the CD. Only the downloader knows whether they are infringing copyright.
    • Whoops. They backed off the MP3 levy [neil.eton.ca] down to $25/40GB, but I didn't see that in the main chart. I'm not Canadian, so I haven't followed this too closely.
      • Official levies (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ian_Bailey (469273) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#8271706) Homepage Journal
        can be found in this FAQ [cb-cda.gc.ca].

        - Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 each
        - CD-R and CD-RW: 21 each
        - CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 each
        - For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data.

    • Re:Levies already! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Loki_1929 (550940) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:00PM (#8271374) Journal
      "This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)"

      The beauty of this levy is that it doesn't matter whether you're backing up Quickbooks or sending grandma some jpegs of your trip to Disneyworld - you're paying the music industry money for each CD-r. That's one of the best laws the entertainment industry ever bought.

    • Re:Freaking CRAZY (Score:4, Insightful)

      by symbolic (11752) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:13PM (#8271556)

      The CD itself probably costs less than $0.21 to manufacture. What it boils down to is this: the music industry (and all of its lined pockets) want, pure and simple, a welfare program that's tailored specifically to them. And they have it. Hope all these CEOs feel good about being on the public dole.

      If this happens in the US, it will be a blatant violation of due process, as such a tax implicitly accuses, tries, convicts, and sentences someone without ANY indication that they've even so much as THOUGHT about copying something.
      • Re:Freaking CRAZY (Score:3, Informative)

        by jimsum (587942)
        I'm sorry to say this already happened in the U.S., and even earlier than in Canada (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). At least we Canadians can legally make copies as partial compensation for this rip-off, you Americans just get to pay.

  • Good. (Score:2, Flamebait)

    I don't understand why nerds get so up in arms when people defend their intellectual property.

    If people are breaking the law and sharing music then they deserve what happens. Yeah yeah yeah, they should make sure the person they're suing is the right one and they should be reasonable about the penalties. But they certainly don't have to just stand by and bend themselves over a barrel.
    • Re:Good. (Score:2, Interesting)

      Canadians can damn well get upset about this .... if it turns out they are going after people who are only engaged in "leeching", which has been ruled legal in Canada.

      Personally, as a SHAW customer, I say "bring it on". Since I can honestly say I've never shared one bit of mp3, but have downloaded many, I almost hope that I get one. Of course, legal fees would break me, but I'm pretty sure I can find a lawyer looking to make a name for himself to work pro bono
      • Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)

        I'd be interested to see how exactly Canada has defied international copyright conventions.

        Please refer me to this mythical "leeching" ruling.
    • by garcia (6573) *
      the problem isn't with the people protecting their interests... The problem is that large conglomorates own portions of everything and have a direct influence on the business practices and politics involved.

      That's called a monopoly and is generally frowned upon...
    • Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Loki_1929 (550940)
      "they should make sure the person they're suing is the right one and they should be reasonable about the penalties. But they certainly don't have to just stand by and bend themselves over a barrel."

      This is certainly reasonable, but it does not make for a sustainable business model. What would you have the recording industry do once it has alienated so many customers that it starts bleeding money profusely? Shall we subsidize the entertainment industry like we subsidize the airline industry? Or shall we le
  • by Tester (591) <olivier.crete@ocrete3.14.ca minus pi> on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:47PM (#8271184) Homepage
    I'm not surprised at all that Videotron would support that. They are owned by Quebec's biggest (only big) media conglomerate, Quebecor.. Which is also the world's largest printer (Quebecor World), but that's pretty separate from Quebecor Media...

    So Quebecor media also owns, appart from Videotron (cable), the biggest TV network (TVA), the most read newspapers (Le journal de Montreal and Le journal de Quebec), quite a few magasines and more importantly in this case, Musicor.. a record label.. They are not well known outside Quebec though, because all of their media are in French... but they are THE dominant player in Quebec...
  • International Pileup (Score:3, Informative)

    by erick99 (743982) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:48PM (#8271196)
    I don't know why, but I am surprised that other countries are doing what the RIAA has done. I thought that perhaps Australia and Canada would have a more laisse fair (spelling?) approach to this or a more measured response. And, the Canadian approach may,indeed, be a bit softer though I am not sure. I still do not understand how the recording folks seemingly blow right past the option to price their products more reasonably. Would they really lose money at $10 - $13 per CD? If so, then I don't know what options remain. However, I do believe that there is an economic max/min equation that would show that there is some point at which a lower price brings in enough of an increase in sales to maintain profitability. Then, perhaps, everybody wins.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

  • Why I love Canada (Score:3, Informative)

    by GoofyBoy (44399) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:49PM (#8271207) Journal
    >For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player.

    >But under the Copyright Act, it remains illegal to give or sell a CD copy to a friend, since it's not for personal use. In the same vein, distributing copies to friends online is prohibited.

    I have a solid legal footing why I am a Kazza-leach.
  • by andih8u (639841)
    How is this unlike the RIAA? They started off small, hitting users of the major US ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, etc. I don't know all of the Canadian ISPs, but those sound like all of the big ones to me.
  • by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:49PM (#8271209) Journal
    Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things? It would be nice to have our government to take a stand against the oppressive RIAA and stop this litigation before it gets going too far. The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S.
  • CANADA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Killjoy_NL (719667)
    I guess in this case you CAN really blame canada :)

    I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't.
    Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

    If cds were cheap here, I would say "all power to them" but right now they cost about $30,- each.
    What is the approx. price of cd's in the US? a somewhat empty mind wants to know.
    • Re:CANADA (Score:3, Informative)

      by leerpm (570963)
      I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't. Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

      According to some interpretations, the law is the same here in Canada too. Downloading is apparently legal, while uploading is not. That's why if you read the article you will see they are seeking uploaders only.
    • Re:CANADA (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa (526365)

      Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

      Actually they weren't that specific, they just wanted their interests looked after, and saw downloading and CD swapping as a threat.

      But it's the right direction to take: go ahead and make downloading and distribution of copyrighted material illegal... but don't ban P2P, don't mandate DRM, and don't take away our rights in the process, the rights to make backups, to convert digital co

  • Videotron (Score:4, Interesting)

    by addie (470476) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:50PM (#8271238)
    Not entirely on-topic, but I'd like this to be heard...

    I've never had more trouble with any internet/TV company in my life. Horrible customer service, no explanations for outages, outrageous rates. I had to hire a lawyer to get out of a $900 cable TV bill. Not only did I never sign up for cable TV, I don't even own a TV!

    But with the way the market works here in Canada (I don't know about the states or elsewhere) there is only one cable provider in each of the major urban centers. So, so much for healthy competition. I'm not at all surprised that Videotron will simply hand over IPs/names to the CRIA, it saves them paperwork and hassles, and fits in with their total disregard for customer service and respect that they've made themselves known for in Montreal.
  • *Yawn* (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:51PM (#8271242)
    Taking its cue from its American counterpart, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has begun the hunt for music file swappers.

    Next up: Sun rises, sun sets.

    Anyone else getting really tired of reading about *IAA? We're all well aware of the issues involved, I don't really see the need for this to be front page material nearly every day.

    Let's have some priorities, please. Like our daily SCO story...siiigh. It's times like these that I wish we had voting rights like Kuro5hin, because every morning I load slashdot, I have trouble telling whether it's actually new news, or the same 2-3 topics over and over.

  • by laurent420 (711504)
    "Working on behalf of major record labels, the CRIA is reportedly hunting for 29 Canadian customers from at least five different ISPs"

    Damn! they're on to me and my 28 cohorts!
  • by Spyder (15137) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:51PM (#8271245)
    Peer to peer sucks bandwidth, a direct cost to any service provider. The only reason any ISP is going to stick up for users is for the PR, Fact-o'-life.
  • Media Levies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AttillaTheNun (618721) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:58PM (#8271342)
    Does this mean the CRIA is going to rebate or cancel the levies I pay on every CD-R I buy so that I can presumably burn CRIA content?
  • here we go again... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R (734295) on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:58PM (#8271360)
    Something tells me we'll be hearing from Canadian music-swappers about how "the record companies only put one or two good songs on a CD...". If they, and all their U.S. counterparts, vote with their money (i.e. don't buy CD's, or iTunes songs, etc) and stop downloading music, the *IAA will have nothing to explain away lost profits, and the record companies will be forced to produce decent music to survive.
  • by sewagemaster (466124) <sewagemaster@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @12:59PM (#8271366) Homepage
    Videotron customers beware: they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.

    they're delighted because that would reduce users bandwidth usage. in videotron's POV, they only care about the company saving money. i dont think they really care about the "non-ethical" aspects of music sharing. they're one of the first ISPs in quebec (quebequeers) that started the monthly download quota limit. and of course by saying they're delighted, it just makes themselves look "ethical".

    i used to use bell canada, and all of a sudden in a month they charged me $100 because of going over the bandwidth download limit. i didnt get any sort of notification. about 12 months later, many people started to complain and they took off the cap. it's all about ISPs making and saving money.

  • by mumblestheclown (569987) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:00PM (#8271372)
    Scenario 1A: Copyright holder uses police to go after copyright infringers.

    Slashdot Response: "Why do the police have to do the **AA's dirtywork! This is blah blah blah corporate shills blah blah blah."

    Scenario 1B: Copyright holder privately goes after copyright infringers.

    Slashdot response: "Can you believe the nerve of these people. This is what the police are for! blah blah blah nazi stormtroopers blah blah blah."


    Scenario 2A: New, obviously-designed-primarily-for-warez-pr0n-and-mp 3z-technology emerges.

    Slashdot Response: "Technology is blameless! Go after the infringers, but leave technology alone!"

    Scenario 2B: Infringers gone after.

    Slashdot Response: "Can you believe the nerve of those people shaking down college students!"


    Scenario 3A: Copyright is used to protect somebody else's intellectual property

    Slashdot Response: Copyright has outlived its usefulness! Viva la revolucion!

    Scenario 3B: the GPL is violated.

    Slashdot Response: Hang em high!

    • by fishbowl (7759) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:29PM (#8271751)
      You enumerate some valid points. But you miss mine:
      The Collateral Damage aspect.

      It has become cemented into general mindset, by propaganda, that it is always illegal to copy or distribute any creative work that is copyrighted.

      The problem is, this attitude does not take into consideration any copyrighted work whose author *wants* distribution. Should the author be expected to surrender his copyright entirely? Or should there be only a finite number of tightly controlled distribution methods available? Or is it the author's choice?

      When the music industry clamps down under the umbrella of "copyright protection", what they are *Really* doing is trying to eliminate a competing distribution method, and they are also laying the groundwork for a fundamentally different sort of copyright than what has historically existed.

      You should be able to copyright *and* distribute your work. You should NOT be forced to choose between keeping your copyright and distribution. But I believe that is going to be the net effect of the current trends. Write all the songs you want, but you need to either put them in the public domain or else sign the rights over to "Us" if you want them distributed.

      I realize that publishing companies have a right, even a duty to protect their interests, but their right to do so ends abruptly when, in order to make the effort to protect their rights, they abridge MY rights. I am on SOLID legal ground to insist that their rights end where mine begin.

      I'm just waiting for the day that a distribution medium is shut down on the basis of copyright infringement, even though the copyright holders had approved of the distribution. I'd think of it as winning the lottery if someone presses charges against me for copying my own music, that I wrote, produced, performed and recorded, that I hold the copyright to, and whose distribution is MY business, and not anyone elses.

    • Or my favorite:

      Scenario 4: One of the largest geek web sites in the world with tens of thousands of visitors allows those visitors to post their individual opionions and thoughts. As a result you get a broad spectrum of thoughts on any given issue.

      Clueless Monkey Response: Slashdot is hypocritical! Clearly everyone on Slashdot shares a hivemind so multiple points of view on a single topic indicates a state of hypocracy. It certainly couldn't mean that the thousands of visitors actually have differing

  • by fingerfarm (656131) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:00PM (#8271386) Homepage
    Hasn't the CRIA hurt us enough with CanCon [craptastic.com]?
  • In India, Bollywood makes P2P servers for us.
    In America, Hollywood attacks P2P servers for you.

    I have doubts.
  • by axxackall (579006) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:05PM (#8271463) Homepage Journal
    They go only for P2P users, right? So if I use Google to give me a list of FTP sites in which directories there are files with MP3 in the name, and then I donwload those files (without knowing what's inside the file), then I am supposingly OK and did not violate any Canadian laws, right?

    Thanks God, today you can download tons of various (good and bad) music files using just Google. I don't even know, why people use P2P? Using a simple script you can have easily few gigabytes of music just in few days.

    But is it safe?

  • by meanfriend (704312) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:11PM (#8271538)
    From the article:
    But under the Copyright Act, it remains illegal to give or sell a CD copy to a friend, since it's not for personal use. In the same vein, distributing copies to friends online is prohibited.

    and a related article:

    Canada deems P2P downloading legal [com.com]

    I'm in Canada and I've sampled a number of songs from the binary newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* as the law allows me to (for now)

    That's not a P2P service, obviously, but from the ISPs own newservers. So wouldnt the ISP make a better target? After all, arent they distributing content to 900,000+ subscribers (according to the article)?? Think of the damages one could claim against an ISP if they were found guilty of copyright infringement on that scale.

    Why pick out 29 individuals to pursue legal recourse? Because it's about fear and publicity. These 29 people are not likely to have the inclination, resources, or will to fight an expensive legal battle. Like the RIAA cases, they will settle for a couple thousand $ and a press conference where they tearfully apologize for thier wrongdoings. Fellow canadians who do not follow the legal aspect of such issues closely will simply hear 'file sharers get sued' and freak out and think the downloading music is wrong: mission accomplished. Will the press make the point that personal copying in Canada is LEGAL when reporting these stories? Possibly, but I'm not betting on it.

  • Rogers Cable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend (674934) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#8271705)
    Rogers Cable is my ISP. The other day I got snail-mail spam from them, promoting their Digital Video Recorder and a movie-on-demand service.

    I suspect they might crackdown on bittorrent movie downloads pretty soon... considering they have no monthly download cap.

    Hopefully they upgraded their cable infrastructure to support the additional load for the set-top movie boxes, otherwise I'll be one unhappy high-speed cable customer.

    And for those who dont know, Rogers also offers TV cable, Cellphone services, and operates a video rental store chain.
  • by Txiasaeia (581598) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:51PM (#8272025)
    I liked my original title better:

    2004-02-13 15:32:16 CRIA Seeks All 29 File Swappers in Canada (articles,music) (rejected)

    It had a sense of irony and humour, y'know? Anyway, I really can't wait until they start handing out subpoenas. If I get busted (highly unlikely), I am *so* taking this to the courts! First of all, it's civil and not criminal so I won't go to jail, and second, we've got some fairly intelligent judges up here who would definitely be able to make a fair ruling on this case.

    My defense: as soon as I heard that the CRIA was going to be following in the footsteps of their older American brother, I decided to never buy another CD and never download another MP3. This also includes refusing to buy music-related merchandise as well as concert tickets. I'm in my early 20's, so I've got many, many years of not purchasing music ahead of me.

    Besides, if it's legal to download, then why shouldn't it be legal to upload? I mean, come on! The ONLY WAY you *can* download is if somebody sends you the file! Either prosecute both or neither!

  • by EulerX07 (314098) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:15PM (#8272305)
    Videotron was the brainchild of Claude Chagnon, a very successful businessman in Quebec, who had a lot of interest in medias. Videotron had interactive TV in the late eighties, and invested a lot of money into bringing out cable internet to cover the most customers possible.

    All changed when he decided to merge with Rogers Cable. Quebecor saw this as an opportunity and used nationalistic rantings and political influence to get the "Caisse et Placement du Quebec" to invest with Quebecor and avoid having a Quebec company join up with one from out west. I couldn't believe people actually believed all that BS but it worked. Instead of winding up with a coast-to-coast network with tons of users, a media giant wound up getting the biggest cable and high-speed internet provider in Quebec.

    I was a tech support monkey when that happenend, and I couldn't believe it. We quickly saw where it was gonna go. Pierre K. Peladeau (that's french for Darl McBride, he's the a-hole son of one of the richest man ever in quebec, who passed away in the nineties) started complaining that the management of Videotron was one of the worst one he ever saw. He proceeded to turn almost all of the cable installation/service call work to sub-contractor, to get rid of the highly payed and qualified techs. He also wanted to lower the salary of the tech support people (making barely 15 bucks an hour on average), and transferring some of the load to his 8 bucks an hour slave call centers. The techs went on strike for a year (I was gone at that point), but Quebecor had the infrastructure to make it work without them (with the help of scabs).

    Of interest is that our IP telephony project was in highly advanced stages before the buy-out, with techs using it at home for beta testing. That was quickly thrown out the window after Quebecor stepped in, along with many interesting R&D projects. That could have been big in a few years, but thank to the short sightedness of greedy PK Peladeau, Videotron will miss the boat. PKP managed to suck the soul out of the company to make it the most profitable for his short-sighted, greedy, spoiled kid mind.

    I don't know if you can tell, but I don't like him too much either.
  • by gordguide (307383) on Friday February 13, 2004 @03:21PM (#8273137)
    Certainly newsworthy, if only because it's somewhat related to one of the biggest US stories of the last few years, so It's appropriate that /. posts it.

    But, this is very early. It will take a while to play out, and there will be more news to come.

    Before any of this can even get off the ground, there's Privacy Legislation to consider. Not a one of these ISPs can comply with the demand for names (even if they are suspected of wanting to, such as some have said about Videotron) unless they vet the order with whole bunch of lawyers.

    Chances are the lawyers will nix it right there; the penalties for complying if it violates the Privacy Act are very serious, and will be assessed on the ISPs themselves.

    Certainly CIRA is not a law-enforcement agency, and John Law won't be investigating any part of a civil complaint. So, a court order will have to compel the ISPs to provide any information before any of this can start.

    Canadian courts can consider judgments from any jurisdiction, so although it won't be a legal precedent that must be followed, the recent US cases denying the names to the RIAA will almost certainly be part of the ISPs arguments against complying.

    Then there's the matter of violations of the Copyright Act. It's quite clear that uploading music is against the law (there are quite a few paragraphs in the legislation that spells out a wide variety of specific examples), so not much problem there.

    Finally, there's the matter of penalties. This is where it gets kind of strange. CIRA can't hope to get much money from anyone it successfully sues; there's no statutory penalty scheme as in the US and even if there were, Canadian law requires penalties to fit the level of harm.

    The penalty phase would be pure speculation, but as food for thought I expect the courts are going to value the cost of uploading a song in mp3 format as worth perhaps 99 cents if they base it on market value (PressPlay online music store in Canada). That's 99 cents once. Next song, next 99 cents.

    I would be shocked if they value it higher without any financial gain from the defendant; cases of "true piracy" (1) don't extend much beyond confiscation and a fine loosely based on the value of goods duplicated.

    Certainly I could be wrong, but I don't see anyone getting dinged for anything even remotely approaching the statutory penalty for a single instance of infringement in the US.

    CIRA can hope to get some favorable rulings, and wave that around as a warning to others. But the cost of each prosecution is going to vastly exceed the value of a judgment, although they might be awarded costs as well.

    And there's great danger in a precedent that doesn't advance CIRA's position (starting with the Privacy Law obstacle). It's risky for them to start this stuff up, but since they have, we can assume they're willing to accept the risk.

    (1) I've used the definition of Piracy used by IFPA, the umbrella organization for such national agencies as CIRA and the RIAA. They define Piracy as commercial copying and sales of CDs; essentially what legislatures refer to as Counterfeit duplication. By their own definiton, sharing music is not Piracy, which is why I used the phrase "true piracy" here.

    I'm well aware that the term Piracy itself is somewhat controversial, but I take the position that English is a living language and definitions are as much about use as references in dictionaries.
  • by Namarrgon (105036) on Friday February 13, 2004 @06:44PM (#8275502) Homepage
    Does anyone else think the Recording Industry Association of America missed an obvious acronym [reference.com] when they failed to name themselves the American Recording Industry Association?

    Too late, Australia [aria.com.au]'s got it now :-)

    Or maybe these guys [aria.org] just beat them to it...

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid

Working...