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.""
Woo Canada! (Score:3, Interesting)
Stuff like this only helps.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I dont think this is over by a long shot (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't celebrate yet. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Woo! Proxy Time (Score:2, Interesting)
As others have said, this case (RTFA) doesn't deal with this, it's more about the music industry not having sufficient proof of infraction to compel the release of the names.
Judge says "no copyright infringement" (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, he said:
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Copyright infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
The real ruling is that simply putting the mp3 files into a shared directory (via a P2P) is not copyright infringement - that goes under personal use. IANAL, and I haven't read the text of the ruling, but to make a call like that probably requires the judges to create a for deciding whether or not something is personal use or copyright infringement.
So now, we have to find where the line is:
- Thomas;
I'd love to see 'em even try to sue me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to be too pedantic, but can a copyright holder actually violate their own copyright by pirating a copy of a song? It would seem to me that if I am the ultimate owner of a song, I have the right do do with it whatever I choose.
Therefore, an RIAA representative downloading a song from a Napster node is not an illegal act on their part-- which means that it's not an illegal act on the part of the uploader?
I feel like the RIAA can't have it both ways. If the act is illegal, then both parties are guilty. Or is the RIAA committing a crime, and then refusing to press charges against itself?
I feel like I'm chasing my tail on this one...
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Legality? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, download away if in Canada. If you have ever bought a CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, or other types of recordable media, you have already paid for the priviledge. But your sources will potentially still be in trouble
It is a weird situation that the music companies can only try to go after uploaders/servers here, but I think it is just payment for the obscene recording media levies that everybody has to pay. I'm bitter, because I buy all my music on ordinary CDs (I think it is the right thing to do, unless the artist provides some other means of compensation), and yet I pay that damn levy every time I buy a data backup CD-R with no music on it at all. So, enjoy the fruits of the levy deal, music industry! Maybe you should lobby the government to repeal the levy
Ha Ha!
Laws in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, maybe I should move to North Mex^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCanada. Less psychotic right-wing fundies. And Canadian chicks are hot, they have good beer, and they don't shoot everything that moves on two legs.
Missing mod option (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Judge says "no copyright infringement" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Canadians Are Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Woo! Proxy Time (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/0
Sounds to me like uploading's legal too.
No, uploading is not legal in Canada (IANAL, &c).
Check your definitions again.
Having a file on your hard drive is not, by any reasonable definition, uploading.
Opening the door so that others can access your system is not, by any reasonable definition, uploading.
Telling people your door is open (and what your address is) is not, by any reasonable definition, uploading.
If people come through your open door and help themselves, you are not (by any reasonable definition) engaging in distribution. They are doing the copying, not you.
Under Canadian law this is apparently legal. Ironic, as I just asked this question in another thread before this story ran
Re:So wait a minute (Score:1, Interesting)
The US has a life expectancy close to that of Cuba ( a third world country).
Definitions critical to steering clear of trouble (Score:2, Interesting)
It is important to get it right, especially if you live in Canada and plan on sharing music (legally). Upload that song to an FTP or web server somewhere and you've broken the law in Canada. Leave it sitting on your hard drive and open the door for others to download it (via bittorrent or what have you) and you are, apparently, not breaking the law in Canada.
This is important to understand if you're planning on doing something like this. It may seem like a nit-pick, but in an environment where large, dying corporate powers are routinely smashing the little guy's life to smithereans in a belated effort to save their obsolete business models, legal definitions like these are critical. Get it wrong, and you'll find yourself wearing a big fat bullseye inviting those thugs to destroy your financial life.
Half-truths (Score:2, Interesting)
"Judging it of consequence to complete the destruction of the public buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed -- the capitol, including the Senate house and House of Representation, the Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President's Palace, Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac."
Of course I'm sure the Canadians played a pivotal role in cheering on the powerful British forces from the sidelines. They also incited Indians against American settlements on the border, God forbid their militia fight their own battles. While the U.S. chose to repel the unfair rule of the British, the Canadians smiled and took it up the ass, only gradually rebelling, with ideas borrowed from the United States. I wonder if the British would have eventually even given Canada sovereignty had the U.S. not weakened and driven them out from most of North America.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Interesting)