Canadian Recording Industry Goes After P2P Users 481
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."
Levies already! (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprised by Videotron (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Why I love Canada (Score:3, Informative)
>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.
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:1, Informative)
Hmm, I thought this was covered on
The difference in Canada is that anyone can make a copy from an original CD for personal use. For example, I could buy a new CD and lend it to all my friends, they could each make their own copy, and that would be perfectly legal. But if they lent that copied CD to one of their friends, and that person made a copy from the copy, that would be a problem.
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, I can borrow a friend's new CD and make a copy with no laws being broken.
Re:Videotron (Score:5, Informative)
Another article (Score:1, Informative)
Re:CANADA (Score:3, Informative)
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:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation. Stupid, iddnt it?
Re:What exactly is illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
What is illegal is uploading (sharing) songs which you do not have distribution permission from the copyright holder to the general public. For example, if i open a private FTP site and i prove that only my friends have access to it, then it falls neatly under 'fair use' clause. More concretly if i go to my friends house and rip all my music on his computer, this falls under 'fair use' also.
The Canadian copyright act is also a reason why the CRIA gets a levy on blank medias and hard drives and can't sue file swappers as efficiently as the RIAA. Hence the 29(!). lol.
Don't take this as a legal advice though i could be wrong, or it could cost you a lot to defend this position.
Re:the last laugh (Score:5, Informative)
(If anybody is going to contest this, at least do a search first on previous Slashdot stories. This has been covered many times and even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that downloading is legal [cb-cda.gc.ca], but distributing is not.)
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
Only P2P? How about Google and FTP? (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What exactly is illegal? (Score:2, Informative)
No. This would be an example of distribution, the same as if you made a copy of a CD and gave it to a friend. Both cases are not allowed.
Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain (Score:1, Informative)
"In terms of protecting the identity of our subscribers, we're doing everything we can, but if there's a court order we certainly won't fight it," [Videotron's parent company, Quebecor Inc.] executive vice-president Luc Lavoie told The Globe and Mail. "We're actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing."
Why don't you call Luc Lavoie yourself and tell him how delighted you are to be one of his customers?
Luc Lavoie
executive vice-president - Corporate Affairs
Quebecor inc.
Office : (514) 380- 1974
Mobile : (514) 236- 8742
lavoie.luc@quebecor.com
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:3, Informative)
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 surrender THEIR copyrights if they want to use THEIR chosen distribution method. Foul! Utterly unacceptable abridgement of my rights of equal protection of the law, and other fundamental rights.
Copying of Copyrighted work is NOT automatically illegal, and it is a violation of your rights as a content producer when someone tells you that it is.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Official levies (Score:5, Informative)
- 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:You might remember me (Score:4, Informative)
Bryan Adams
Randy Bachman/Guess Who
Big Sugar
Big Wreck
Blue Rodeo
Buck 65
Cowboy Junkies
Crash Test Dummies
Danko Jones
Melanie Doane
Edwin & The Pressure
54-40
Nelly Furtado
Gob
Matthew Good
Headstones
I Mother Earth
Sass Jordan
Diana Krall
Chantal Kreviazuk
Avril Lavigne
Lighthouse
Amanda Marshall
Sarah McLachlan
Holly McNarland
Moist (defunct), see David Husher
Alanis Morissette
Bif Naked
Not By Choice
Our Lady Peace
Sam Roberts
RUSH
Sloan
Sum 41
Three Days Grace
The Tragically Hip
Treble Charger
Shania Twain
Wide Mouth Mason
Neil Young
At least check out: Rush, Tragically Hip, Neil Young (you know), Sam Roberts, Sum 41 (for the kids)...
Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain (Score:4, Informative)
The number seems to be valid.
Re:coincidentially (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain (Score:5, Informative)
Luc Lavoie
executive vice-president - Corporate Affairs
Quebecor inc.
Office : (514) 380- 1974
Mobile : (514) 236- 8742
lavoie.luc@quebecor.com
Yeah, this is the actual contact info, see the end of this page [quebecor.com]..
S
Re:coincidentially (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-337
"Copying for Private Use
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording."
Re:CANADA (Score:2, Informative)
Some other issues. The new Canadian fedral privacy law will mean that the ISP's have to be carefull when handing over personal data, meaning, CRIA will probably need court orders. Canadian courts don't rubber stamp search warrents like the American courts do, so resonable proof will have to be given. Also, Candian courts have tended not to like hypothetical or greatly inflated damages. (you lost how much for an album that is out of print and that you no longer have in stock?)
This looks like a trial attempt to see if they can repete what the RIAA is doing, but in Canada. They will probably have much less success. If anyone reading this gets served with one of these notices, get a lawyer.
PS. last time I was in the states, CDs sold for $10 - $15 US and currently sell for about $15-20 Canadian. Check some of the on-line sellers like Amazon.com or bestbuy.com for more up to date American prices.
No surprise (Score:2, Informative)
Well that's no surprise. Videotron is owned by Quebecor which owns a big part of the music market in Quebec. They own the music, the artists, their careers, musicstores
They are totally opposed to music sharing. Since a couple of months, they are leading a big campaign against file swapping. They also owns television channels and newspapers, so we are constantly reminded that getting music for free is illegal and bad.
You can see a couple of the ads they have on their website [canoe.qc.ca], one of the most "important" Quebec website, here [canoe.ca].
They translates to " swapping harms the music artisans
Quebecor is evil.
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Freaking CRAZY (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Videotron (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's nice to be appreciated. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:You might remember me (Score:2, Informative)
Legal to copy album you don't own in US (Score:3, Informative)
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 audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this per The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! (Score:3, Informative)
This is currently being reviewed by the federal court, from the 2003/2004 Media Levy decision. In the media levy, the Copyright Board of Canada nixed a zero-rating scheme that would have exempt certain organizations, potentially including certain qualified system administrators, from the media levy. In its absence, the dissent (who was pro-zero rating scheme) indicated that the whole levy scheme would now be at an impasse, and would need to be wholly revamped.
Incidentally, in Australia, an equivalent levy was struck down in 1993 for being a "tax" improperly Constitutionally implemented. The CSMA and Retailers of Canada, official objectors to the media levy, are applying for judicial review of the Copyright Board's decision on the grounds that it is, similarly, an unconstitutional tax.
It's early, and doesn't mean much (yet). (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:You might remember me (Score:1, Informative)
Sorry, the CD-R tax is Canadian alone. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, people keep telling me that it's wrong to label other nations as evil, but for some reason that doesn't apply when they get to talking about America.
Re:It's not so bad (Score:3, Informative)
First off, it's not tax breaks -- CanCon is a condition of their broadcast license. Secondly, the CBC is a poor example since a large part of its mandate as the government public broadcaster is to support Canadian culture.
Finally... Come on, get serious for a second. There is more to Canadian music than Rush and Celine Dion.
A Canadian "true rock" station can also choose to fill it's CanCon with Barenaked Ladies, Nelly Furtado, Avril Lavigne, Big Sugar, Wide Mouth Mason, Matthew Good, Nickelback, Our Lady Peace, Great Big Sea, Sarah McLachlan, Sloan, Tal Bachman (and father Randy of BTO), Tea Party, Tragically Hip, Alanis Morissette, Bif Naked and more. And that's without having to go back into the "oldies" catalogue.
And plenty of time is still left for to generic American trash like Brittany - ooh, ooh, ooh, if only we didn't have CanCon rules, we could listen to even more of her, Christina, and NSync.
On the othe hand, I would like to apologize for all Canadians for foisting Anne Murray onto an unsuspecting world.
E.
You forgot Subsection 2 though. (Score:1, Informative)
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
So basically, because the file sharer's are using (2)(c), ie they are communicating to the public by telecommunication, they are not subject to the exclusion of infringement in 80 (1).
It's important to read _all_ of the subsections, even if they are a gordian knot of exclusions and exceptions.
What's really screwy is that I can let someone copy my entire 90 gigabyte self-ripped MP3 collection, but if I make the copy FOR them, I'm infringing.
Re:OH NO!!! (Score:1, Informative)