Canadian Minister Promises to Fix Copyright Law 569
Mashiki writes "In Canada, we can download Mp3's and their assorted goodness without too much of a hassle, recently the CRIA and their friends lost the court case. Well, it would appear that the new Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherre, has spoken and those words were: 'As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law.'"
Heritage Minister's background: (Score:2, Informative)
Helene Scherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage [pch.gc.ca]
Re:Sharing's legal, distribution ain't... (Score:3, Informative)
Remember it isn't the act of obtaining an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work that is copyright infringement, it is the act of making such copies available to other people in the first place (if you didn't make then available to anyone else, then the copying would fall under the jurisdiction of fair use, and you would be fine).
So putting copyrighted files, whether or not someone else actually bothers to download them, is violation of copyright (unless of course permission to distribute in that fashion has been granted, of course) because you are distributing an unauthorized copy of the work.
An analogy might be a bookstore that photocopies a book without authorization, rebinds it, and puts it on the shelf with a price tag on it. Whether or not someone actually buys that book, the store has committed a copyright violation.
Re:Sharing's legal, distribution ain't... (Score:1, Informative)
You have a lot to learn about tcpdump & ethereal, my friend.
Re:WTF???? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF???? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see a significant difference in the photocopier analogy.
Putting a file in your shared folder enables distribution, but it is not in itself distribution. In fact you point that out yourself in that perhaps "nobody has yet downloaded it". If nobody else has it, then it's not distributed.
Just like putting a photocopier in a library enables distribution.
Re:No power. (Score:4, Informative)
As a member, the minister can certainly introduce a bill for consideration (indeed, in practice only bills introduced by ministers get passed, as there are few free votes in Canada.)
Re:CDR Tax (Score:2, Informative)
There's a lot more to Canadian music than celine (celine sucks. Noone up here likes her...)
Re:WTF???? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTF???? (Score:3, Informative)
There's no fair use under Canadian copyright law. The Copyright Act has exceptions provided for what it termed 'fair dealing'. Canadian courts have specifically refused to use examples from American case law with regards to fair use, as the provisions under the two different schemes are different in fundamental ways.
So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?
The argument that was used is that placing files in shared folders is passive. Distribution, which is what is prohibited, is active. It seems to be comparable to someone who sends out a list of CDs they have, and then sends out copies to whomever wants them, but with a computer automating these steps on the user's behalf. This finding is contrary to what I assumed the courts would find on the issue, but I can at least understand the argument in this case.
Calling Concerned Canucks (Score:5, Informative)
People fail to realize it but we pay in the US too (Score:2, Informative)
Re:People fail to realize it but we pay in the US (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Firstly, since cd sales do not appear to have suffered ANY ill effects in the 5 or so years that mp3s have been available to the public at large through file swapping services, I think its highly unlikely that the music industry will feel compelled to slash prices.
But more to the point, I think that the very bands you mentioned are the ones more likely to suffer as a result of fileswapping. Independant bands and lesser known names get exposure and sell more cds, while the big names who put out overmarketted crap are the ones who are downloaded.
The marketting may have convinced you that you have to have the new Britney spears album, but why ask mommy for the 15 dollars when you can just as easily download it. Meanwhile nearly all the cd's I've bought in the past few years have been of groups I've NEVER heard played on the radio and never would have heard of at all had I not downloaded a song beforehand.
If anything, I think the reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard is not because it hurts cd sales (we already know otherwise) but because it works against their efforts to create those "safe bets" you mentioned. Suddenly using media monopolies to ensure that the latest piece of crap the backstreet boys put out is played constantly on the radio doesn't have the effect it used to . .
It basicly boils down to this... (Score:4, Informative)
Sharing a file in itself makes no copies. So, there's no copyright violation until an actual copy is made. And when a copy is made, one of the two parties is making the illegal copy, the question is which one.
Yes, it is made on the sharer's machine. But you may again argue that this is like making it on the library's photocopier. What the court seems to have found is that it is the downloader that is initiating the copy, and thus the downloader that is guilty of copyright infringement.
That, combined with the legality of making a copy for private use, means it looks like Canadians are home free. At the moment, neither sharer nor downloader can be prosecuted for copyright infringement. Something tells me that'll change. Quickly.
Kjella
liars (Score:3, Informative)
So there's a singer who commented, can't remember his name, and he said that it's bad for the industry. He said that he himself haven't been affected because around here the customers are "loyal" but he's sure that p2p have a dramatic effect on the english part of Canada and on the US.
In short. UK and Australia try to hide record-breaking sales, this singer says that Quebec is not affected and yet the music industry is saying that p2p is a huge disaster that's gonna ruin there industry. Odds are that they are lying. Why? I'm not sure. The industry seems too old and too tired to adapt itself to change.
Re:CDR Tax (Score:3, Informative)
In Finland we pay similar levy, and nobody is talking about removing it even as they propose completely moronic new Copyright law based on the recent EU directive that, for example, makes it illegal to circumvent a copy protection to make a legal backup copy.
They want to have their cake *and* eat it too. And politicians are too clueless to stop it.
Re:Malcolm has the right idea (Score:3, Informative)
Don't blame the yanks for this one, it's all our (the British) fault [itv.com].
Re:No power. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:And as citizens of Canada... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The bitch got bribed (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, with the Federal election around the corner, the "bitch" was invited to speak at a record industry function and no doubt has high hopes of being bribed (in the political donation sense).
E-mail is just as good (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/contacts/index_e
Sending an e-mail ensures that the minister will get feedback quickly after her comments, letting her know that there's a fire to put out.
Frankly, I don't see any new law happening before the next election, so the easiest solution is to vote the Liberals out. But be sure to let them know your intent anyway. I sent my e-mail off last night.
Yogurt in British Columbia
Re:Exlain to me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:People fail to realize it but we pay in the US (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada, we pay a much higher fee [cpcc.ca], $0.21 on each CD-R and $0.77 on each CD-R-Audio. So, on a 10-pack of CDs for $10, we pay an additional 21% for the levy.
Dave
Re:CDR Tax (Score:3, Informative)
There is no way any government will willingly give up any revenue stream. We Canadians now pay a surcharge on the hard drives of devices like the iPod, which, like the CD-R tax, assumes that the average consumer is a copyright criminal and must be fined in advance.
Except that the "CD-R Tax" isn't technically a tax. If it were, it might actually be easier to swallow (though not much easier). It's a levy. It's collected by our government "on behalf of the music industry" and while government likely gets a percentage for collecting it, the majority of the money actually goes to the music industry. It's a revenue source, alright, but it's going towards padding the music labels' bottom line, not funding social programs.