Music Industry Loses In Canadian Downloading Case 736
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.""
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... Which country was the 'Land of the Free' again?
Awesome. (Score:3, Insightful)
Woo! Proxy Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Go after the IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even think it (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, but aren't they facing the chance of being sued anyway? So yes, you can go back to swapping songs, since nobody has been sued YET - but that doesn't mean you aren't leaving yourself open to it when they get their act together.
gay married music pirates! (Score:1, Insightful)
Favourite qoute from a similar article (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Go after the IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Canadian court refuses ISP subpoenas (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The loophole (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I'm surprised but elated that the Judge seems to have been technically competent enough to see this. However, downloaders be warned: the music industry will now proceed to actually participate in copyright infringement by downloading those shared songs or otherwise monitoring the downloads of those shared songs. The "my songs are shared out but were not actually downloaded" argument might not work next time.
Re:Legality? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go after the IP (Score:1, Insightful)
Canada's latest round of privacy laws, introduced in January of this year, will stop them. Read about it here [privcom.gc.ca]. In fact Canada has a Privacy Commissionaire who fights for the peoples' privacy.
Re:So wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Well its now 10am and Im on my 5th cup of coffee. Time for my cigarette break.
Socialized health care.
Ohh crap. Tripped down stairs. Leg hurts like hell. Time to go to a doctor.
Me: My leg hurts.
Doctor: Stay off it.
Me: How much do I owe you?(after paying bill I apply for Chapter 11)
While in agreement with the ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with the CRIA obtaining subpoenas against people that they can positively identify as file uploaders of the member companies' copyrighted material? It's not outrageously hard to have somebody at minimum wage sit behind a terminal and try to download music from Canadian ip addresses. And once you have that, it's a known act of copyright infringement anyway, which as we all know, is illegal.
I don't condone the recording industry's stance and think they should be looking to leverage the technology instead of fighting against it, but they do have the legal right to demand information on people that they have reasonable evidence of illegal activity on. Let them sue the people that upload, not people that use the technology that could either upload or not.
Besides, I'm not sure we want the ISPs to take on the role of gatekeeper either. This is a legal liability on ISPs and the costs of that will be borne by the end-user.
Re:So wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you cannot buy cigarettes where you live?
Re:Go after the IP (Score:2, Insightful)
From the Judge: (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
summary is not really accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't celebrate yet. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe the RIAA knows how to line the judges pockets, with money, better?
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
They thought it was a fair exchange when they agreed to it, but mp3 technology, and the decline in price of burners, now make them regret the deal.
It's the old saying - they made their bed, let them sleep in it!
Re:Woo! Proxy Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OH Canada. (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that depends on what you consider a hit and what you consider Canadian television.
Many shows are filmed in Vancouver with at least partly Canadian cast members. Quite a few shows have been produced by the CBC which I would call hits. Royal Canadian Air Farce and This Hour has 22 Minutes both spring to mind. Hell, if you can't call The Red Green Show a hit, I don't know what is.
Re:Woo! Proxy Time (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:OH Canada. (Score:2, Insightful)
Accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
If you follow the government link you will see the rules are stated differently. The original link contends that "music" must be Canadian. I'm not sure which is correct but I was under the idea (having worked in a volunteer position in sports broadcasting for a local small radio station) that "up to" 35% of the content played on the radio from 6am to midnight" had to be Canadian.
Anyone who listens to daytime radio can verify that a good portion of it isn't music. I can say that one of the reasons that the radio station covered this live sporting event was so that they could air 3 hours of Canadiana per day. That allowed for 6 fulls hours of free playing. It was my understanding as well that locally produced advertising and the DJ's themselves were considered Canadian content. The link that you gave and the link that I gave are confusing on this.
"In general, 35% of the sound recordings played on a radio station between 6 a.m. and midnight must qualify as "Canadian content" as defined by the MAPL system."
Regardless.....we do have laws that force our radio stations to air Canadian content. This is not in doubt.
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:1, Insightful)
Message to recording industry... (Score:1, Insightful)
1) lobby the government to make people pay levies on most recordable media, to compensate artists for personal copies of musical works, which is thereafter specifically allowed;
2) sue people for making music available for others to potentially copy for their personal use.
Please choose only ONE option at a time.
Re:While in agreement with the ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Which in a way makes sense, an upload would require a conscious action, no?
Is a "Webserver" uploading to you? Or are you downloading?
It is an interesting problem. If it sits on your personal computer and get's downloaded it is not mediated by you, then you can share as much as you like but probably can't just set up an FTP Server.
Will be interesting to watch to see what CRIA is coming up with next.
Re:Don't celebrate yet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sanest decision I've seen in a while. Of course the NAFTA IP rationalization stuff that's going on will try to ram US values down the rest of our throats, further causing us to vilify americans.
Re:OH Canada. (Score:2, Insightful)
The CanCon rules were put in because Canadian content providers were *not* presenting Canadian content at all. Canadian radio stations would *not* play Canadian music. And this has nothing to do with quality. There was no such thing as fair competition; radio producers would throw out demos without listening to them. Canadian musicians had no chance.
The only way that Canadian musicians could get popular in Canada is if they made it big in the States beforehand. Think of how many Canadian musicians you actually know of before the 1970s. Neil Young? Robby Robertson? Paul Anka? All of whom gained fame south of the border first.
So bitch all you want. But our content situation Would be in an even *worse* situation without CanCon.
Re:Well, I'm proud! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, Canada imports most of its music from U.S. record companies anyway. Why spend effort protecting mostly foreign interests? Don't send your money to Brittney Spears -- buy locally!
Re:In that case... (Score:3, Insightful)
>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).
How can you say that, dude? The lives of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti are most certainly in danger if someone is pirating songs or movies. Hilary might not get that Caviar Flambe' Cheese Souffle for breakfast and starve to death, and Jack might get killed in an auto accident because he couldn't afford the air bag upgrade for his H2 and drove the Testarosa that day instead - and all because you couldn't find the time to "dig through" your damn log files.
Re:summary is not really accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
"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. "
Actually, it works this way because the CRIA failed to establish a liklihood of infringement by the parties they were going after, or that the names would even bind to the IPs.
IF there was real infringement and IF they names were likely to attach to the IP numbers provided by the CRIA, the Court would undoubtedly allow the CRIA to have the names.
What you may not realise however, is that the Court stated that merely having files in a folder available for sharing (or even being shared) is not copyright infringement, and this is where the CRIA's case really fell apart. They'd have to show you "actively" distributing (eg. advertising that you had the files available, or pushing an upload now, button).
Prove it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:1, Insightful)
So? North Korea's official name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"...
--
"Music Industry"? No, It's a Cartel! (Score:4, Insightful)
"a group of similar independent companies who join together to control prices and limit competition"
Do they control prices?
Do they limit competition?
Of course they do! They it's a Cartel!
Re:Half-truths (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course it was the Brits, Canada didn't become sovereign until 1867. duh. dolt.
Slashdot, then and now (Score:3, Insightful)
"They shouldn't be suing Napster or Kazaa, they should sue the individual copyright infringers! That is the legal and moral thing to do."
Slashdot circa today:
"Nobody should be suing anybody! I have no good reasons."
More weirdness (Score:2, Insightful)
The users can't stop the copies from being made because they're locked into the software, and shouldn't be expected to stop using the service (which they use for other reasons).
The authors can't be expected to be liable for the (mis)use of software bey their userbase, so long as it has a "substantial non-infringing use".
Vendor lock-in meets free speech.
OK, I know I'm way out west, here...
It's not about our rights, its about the copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if the lawyers just made a really weak case or what the deal was, but the judge just didn't think that the users were violating any copyrights, ergo, there was no need to reveal their names.
It's true. My Canadian news told me so.