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

CRIA Admits P2P Downloading Legal in Canada 106

Posted by Zonk
from the maybe-they-fell-asleep-at-the-wheel dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Recording Industry Association — the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA — this week filed documents in Canadian court that seeks to kill the expansion of the levy on blank media to iPods since it fears that the system now legalizes peer-to-peer downloading of music in Canada. CRIA's President Graham Henderson argued in his affidavit that a recent decision from the Copyright Board of Canada 'broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CRIA Admits P2P Downloading Legal in Canada

Comments Filter:
  • by sqrt(2) (786011) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @06:53AM (#20614787) Journal
    To our dear neighbors to the North, since your government seems to think it's OK to just assume you're all breaking the law anyway, and charge you accordingly with the extra price on blank media, you might as well do your best to get what you're paying for. Fill those torrent queues with music, movies, and games you already paid for with this levy!

    Also, if you don't mind, keep seeding when you're done ;)
    • by djmurdoch (306849) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @07:27AM (#20614927)
      You've got it wrong: the government thinks that it is *not* illegal to copy music for personal use. The levy gives me the right to make copies of music for my use. Period. Nothing illegal about it. And why shouldn't it be legal? Why should the government support one or two particular delivery methods, rather than letting me get the music any way I like, as long as the artist gets paid?

      Unlike the US version of the levy, I don't need to copy onto levied media. Copying anywhere is fine. The argument for this is that the levy can be expanded (and there's currently a motion to expand it to the iPod, which is what the CRIA is objecting to).

      But do note that this applies only to music, not to movies or games. No levies paid to them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        You've got it wrong: the government thinks that it is *not* illegal to copy music for personal use. The levy gives me the right to make copies of music for my use. Period. Nothing illegal about it. And why shouldn't it be legal? Why should the government support one or two particular delivery methods, rather than letting me get the music any way I like, as long as the artist gets paid?

        Well no, I think he got it absolutely correct. The Canadian government assumed everyone, or a large percentage of the po
        • by djmurdoch (306849)
          Well no, I think he got it absolutely correct. The Canadian government assumed everyone, or a large percentage of the population, was going to be doing it anyway and so authorized a charge on all media of a certain class.

          I don't know the history, but I think that sounds close enough: they assumed lots of people would be doing it, so they legalized it. The levy was put in place as compensation to the artists.

          But the OP wasn't right in saying that we're "all breaking the law anyway". If he'd said lots of p
          • That's basically right. The underlying basis behind the levy in Canada (IAAC, BTW) was that since most people who had internet, a CD/DVD burner/flash card reader/external HDD etc. would either a) download from P2P sources or b) backup all their multimedia content to the above media, and all of their friends' content as well or c) all of the above. Therefore, the Canadian government struck a deal with the media associations in Canada to levy all recordable media as a way of payment to the content creators
            • by djmurdoch (306849)
              It's not to say that those who stick out can't be prosecuted, since copyright law supersedes this, however it does protect the average person from random litigation.

              No, that's not right at all. Section 80 of the Copyright Act [cb-cda.gc.ca] specifically legalizes copying for private use. Copyright law allows private copying.


              The gist was 'we can't possibly sue everyone for copyright infringement, so we'll just levy the means by which to copy, and only pursue those that exceed the levy by a significant amount'


              That might h
          • But the OP wasn't right in saying that we're "all breaking the law anyway". If he'd said lots of people would be breaking the law if the private copying right hadn't been legislated, then he might have been right.

            But that's not what he said, what he said was:

            since your government seems to think it's OK to just assume you're all breaking the law anyway, ...

            which is a substantially different thing. I think most people understand that "all" in the above is not to be taken completely literally.
        • Actually the Levy is a very bad thing for small business. Canada's software industry is pathetic and the Levy is the reason why. People writing software and putting it on CD's get automatically levied whether they are pirating or not. Every time I have to pay that stupid levy I realize that this tax is whats killing my career and it makes me very angry.

          Personally I have no sympathy for the RIAA or its Canadian version. I think they are scum and their industry should die a painful death for what they have do
          • by djmurdoch (306849)
            I'm sorry, but I think your argument doesn't hold up.

            You don't get levied on non-recordable media. So if you're distributing software on CDROM's, you don't get charged a levy. So you must be talking about very small runs where it's not economical to press a CDROM.

            But the levy is only $0.21 per CD-R. Are you in the business of selling small numbers of copies of software at a price where you can't absorb $0.21? I think that's your problem, the levy isn't your problem.

            There used to be a legitimate complain
      • You've got it wrong: the government thinks that it is *not* illegal to copy music for personal use. The levy gives me the right to make copies of music for my use. Period. Nothing illegal about it.

        Which makes this quote:

        CRIA's President Graham Henderson argued in his affidavit that a recent decision from the Copyright Board of Canada 'broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement.'

        wrong. They are not "illegal file sharers," they are completely legal file sharers, who are not infringing in any way.

    • by InvalidError (771317) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @08:16AM (#20615109)
      While it is legal to download, distribution (upload) still isn't, therefore leaving finished torrents of infringing material continue uploading once the download is complete would be a liability.
      • by schon (31600) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @10:58AM (#20616081)

        leaving finished torrents of infringing material continue uploading once the download is complete would be a liability.
        No, it wouldn't - because you're not uploading - someone is downloading from you. (This is not just semantics.)

        The law in Canada states that it's OK to copy music for your own personal use. This means that you can borrow a friend's equipment and music to make a copy for yourself, but your friend would not be allowed to make a copy for you (even though the end result is the same, it's the intent that's different.)

        How this affects uploading or downloading: when I fire up my bittorrent client and connect, I am initiating a download. In effect, I am the one downloading, using the hardware and software of other people. When someone else connects to my machine, it requires no action from me - they're simply using *my* hardware and software to make the copy.

        Think about it: if you go to a website and click a link, *you* are downloading (making a copy), but there is nobody else involved in the transaction - just you and the remote web server. There is nobody clicking something on the web server to enable the transfer. (Note that "who put the file there in the first place" is an entirely *different* question.)

        Note that this has already been decided by the court - the difference between uploading and downloading is who initiates the transfer. If you initiate the transfer, then you're either downloading or uploading, but it requires no action from anyone else, there is no uploading happening.

        Note that "making available" is a different legal question. There is currently an effort by the CRIA to add "making available" an exclusive right of the copyright holder (which would negate this entire argument.)
        • by digitrev (989335) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Saturday September 15, 2007 @11:22AM (#20616267) Homepage
          Actually, in Canada, making available isn't illegal. You can see the full text of the most recent case here: http://reports.fja.gc.ca/en/2004/2004fc488/2004fc488.html?tag=nl [fja.gc.ca]

          So as of the last 3 years, it has been fully legal to make your music available as well as download music. Seems that Canada does support a certain amount of privacy.
          • by osu-neko (2604)

            Good link. For those who don't want to wade through the whole thing looking for the juicy bits, here's the tender morsel of goodness:

            Under Act, subsection 80(1), the downloading of a song for a person's private use does not constitute infringement. There was here no evidence that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings.

            Mmm mmm good...

          • by DJGreg (28663)
            Thank you for the link. That is good information, although it's not piracy, it's sharing for personal use.
          • by eiapoce (1049910)

            So as of the last 3 years, it has been fully legal to make your music available as well as download music.
            GOD BLESS CANADA
          • by B3ryllium (571199)
            As a Canadian, I like decisions like this. But does that mean I share my music collection? No!

            I'm too paranoid about going over my bandwidth limits. :)

            Also, I've bought more CDs in the last year than I have in the preceding decade. By which I mean, I bought a CD this year! (Teddy Bears - Soft Machine)
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by schon (31600)

            Actually, in Canada, making available isn't illegal.
            Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was.

            What I meant is that it is completely legal now, but that the CRIA is attempting to make it illegal. Whether they'll succeed or not depends on how corruptible our legislators are.
            • by Anithira (1034254)

              What I meant is that it is completely legal now, but that the CRIA is attempting to make it illegal. Whether they'll succeed or not depends on how corruptible our legislators are.

              A better question to ask is how much influence the CRIA has left, considering they lost the biggest Canadian labels. If I was a polition (and I'm glad I'm not) I'd be more willing to listen to Canadian artists and companies than large international companies, especially with the past few blows the RIAA has taken. I expect we will see a levy on iPods and mp3 players, and I will be happy to have that. I have no problem paying a little extra per disc since the money will be going to the artists, maybe not

        • This means that you can borrow a friend's equipment and music to make a copy for yourself, but your friend would not be allowed to make a copy for you (even though the end result is the same, it's the intent that's different.)
          The end result is the same if you only have one friend. If you have 100 friends, there's a big difference between burning 100 CDs and loaning your CD to your 100 friends, so they can copy it.
      • Ignoring Schon's point that the current state of Canadian law is that even uploading is permitted (or the respondent to Schon's comment above), any time you are using a torrent, you are uploading, not just when you're completed the download.

        This is why torrent "downloaders" have gotten notices while Kazaa downloaders haven't (only Kazaa uploaders have gotten the notices, I believe).
        • any time you are using a torrent, you are uploading, not just when you're completed the download.

          Given that I used to maintain my own BT client and eMule mod, I 'kind' of know that.

          IMO though, uploading is a protocol requirement for downloading since download speeds usually suck otherwise. Once the download is done though, continued sharing/seeding can directly translate into facilitating copyright infringement and distribution.

          From the link in digitrev's post...

          Exclusive right of making available provided

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by c (8461)
      Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

      First, it only covers music.

      Second, while downloading is generally accepted to be legal (even before this crap), uploading may still fall under distribution, which isn't. We've had a judge question that (with logic along the lines of "there can't be a download without an upload, so if the download is legal..."), but there's been nothing conclusive.

      The idea with physical copies, for example, is that it's legal if I lend you a CD, you make a copy for personal use, and I get
    • by takeya (825259) *
      Believe me I will. I don't even need to burn it to taxed media, I can just keep it on this hard drive or the mp3 player I bought online.
    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      But, but...

      Think of the profits!

      All those poor leeches^FCRIA executives NEED their $250K/yr salaries, 5 martini lunches, & $10k/nite hookers!

      Oh, the huge manatee! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the PROFITS?????????????

  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @07:01AM (#20614811) Homepage Journal
    I hate it when its perfectly legal to do illegal things.
  • They wanted that levy in the first place, now they don't. Make up your damned minds!

    (and as a note: I don't download copyrighted material at all -- for the most part, it isn't worth it. I am just getting fed up with their have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too philosophy)
    • Is it any surprise that they will try to change the laws when they don't suit them?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zotz (3951)
      "(and as a note: I don't download copyrighted material at all -- for the most part, it isn't worth it. I am just getting fed up with their have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too philosophy)"

      Given up reading slashdot have you?

      "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster."

      Check the bottom of the pages....

      I know what you are getting at, but if you use the net, with the laws as they currently stand, it is practically impossible to not download (in so
    • what the hell are you supposed to do with cake if you can't eat it?
    • by jamstar7 (694492)

      I am just getting fed up with their have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too philosophy

      More of a 'have their cake, eat it too and make YOU pay for it' philosophy.

      And no, you don't get cake.

  • I wonder if storage capacity has had anything to do with changing attitudes.
    • Cassette Tape - copies 1 album
    • Compact Disc - copies ~12 albums (mp3)
    • Apple iPod - copies ~10,000 songs
    At 99 per song, I'm sure the average college student with an iPod, has spent $10,000 on iTunes, but perhaps the CRIA feels differently.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2007 @08:29AM (#20615189)
      Yes. And it's panic that the cash monster they created is coming back to bite them.

      Look, it's a really silly idea that the incumbent group gets a government/taxpayer subsidy to make sure they stay in business, particularly when that group is nothing more than a middleman between the customer and supplier (musician). It's bad from the standpoint that it doesn't encourage efficiency in that middle layer and that stems from the fact that there is no competition.

      But that aside, the government and middlemen decided they should get a subsidy in the form of a tax on blank records. That way everybody says "We all know what blanks are for, and that's to copy music, so we'll tax you and we don't have to sue people, etc etc". So everybody is happy. Music can be copied around, and while it's not perfect, it keeps the money going to enough place that the middlemen are happy because they get billions for doing nothing, and people are somewhat happy because everybody acknowledges that for the tax they get to copy music around.

      Except the fly in the ointment is that less and less people actually burn to a CD. CD's are clumsy because of their limited capacity, and so people want to take 100, 1,000, and 10,000 songs with them. And it all goes onto a media where there's no tax. Worse, people are trading songs from all over the world via P2P there's no control over how quickly music gets copie,.. so the government in it's limited imagination says "no problem, we'll slap a tax on iPods and all is good". Except that it means the iPod levy, besides bringing less money proportionally to the record companies, also fully legitimizes P2P in Canada. To which the taxpayer says "Of course it does. You get your money, so you have to acknowledge that this is fine. At long last, the record companies (a.k.a. "the Middlemen") finally see the trap of their own doing. In accepting the fee all along they've legitimized the concept that non-profit copying is okay.

      And since they've accepted the premise of "copying okay as long as we get money", they have no philosophical argument that P2P is wrong or hurts artists. And now the only thing we're arguing about is the price. From their standpoint, they feel they're owed $10,000 per iPod, except they know they would never get that. At most a few hundred. But even then, people would just come south and buy in the U.S.

      So they've lost the argument in Canada. The only thing left is for them to crawl back into their hole and figure out how to make the musicians pay for all of this.

      I find the way the Internet is slowly cutting up the record companies fascinating, and it will be interesting to see how they either adapt or die in the next decade. My bet is on "dying", but we'll see.
      • Things that are big and vicious, like RIAA/MPAA/CRIA, tend to die slowly, flayling around, trying everything they can to prevent the inevitable, and there can be a lot of collateral damage before they finally breathe their last.. We should be careful...
      • by jamstar7 (694492)

        The only thing left is for them to crawl back into their hole and figure out how to make the musicians pay for all of this.

        Never heard of 'Hollywood accounting'? It's a system where you sign a contract that nobody can figure out whereby your profits go to cover the record company's losses. They use that in films & TV as well; Babylon 5 is one of the most profitable TV shows ever made, but they're still screwin JMS on the back end.

        And the companies are very creative when it comes to finding 'losses'

        • Steve Jackson is still trying to get New Line to allow the audit on LotR 2 & 3 after finding about $125M of funny accounting in LotR 1.
      • I hope they die!
        Music creation costs nothing compared to high budget movies. I don't want those movies to go away so I dunno what to do to clean up the movie industry's mobsters. But the recording industry needs to die. Its time. Music can be created cheap and bands can deal with online distro themselves. The only people that can really do the work that the bands cant do is setup huge shows. And shows should be the way a middle man makes money. This way there is more shows to go to! yey!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Superpants (930409)
      Are they going to expand this levy to cell phones as well? Mine has 2 gigs of memory and I use it all the time as a music player. There's also my hard drive and all the other components that store music information on my computer and play it back, will there be a levy on that as well. Then there's radio receivers and internet access itself...I think it's time that major record labels realize that they are no longer needed. Aside from the sparingly relevant music that they put out there, they only exist to e
      • Re:Does Size Matter? (Score:5, Informative)

        by djmurdoch (306849) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @10:35AM (#20615897)
        Are they going to expand this levy to cell phones as well? Mine has 2 gigs of memory and I use it all the time as a music player. There's also my hard drive and all the other components that store music information on my computer and play it back, will there be a levy on that as well. Then there's radio receivers and internet access itself...I think it's time that major record labels realize that they are no longer needed. Aside from the sparingly relevant music that they put out there, they only exist to exploit their artists and their customers. I have no pity for any hardship that they encounter.

        You have to remember that there are multiple players here, and they don't all want the same thing. The CRIA represents multinational labels, and they now hate the levy because they hardly represent any Canadian artists, so they don't get much of the payout.

        Then there's the CPCC and the other collectives, who actually collect the levy. They'd love to expand it to cover everything.

        And there's the Copyright Board, the government body who gets to hold hearings and make decisions. They're actually pretty good at finding a balance. The rule they seem to follow is that if a medium is mainly used to hold recorded music, then it gets the levy, with the amount depending on exactly how often it's used for music, and how big it is. So generic hard drives are probably safe, but the ones in MP3 players probably aren't. (They were nearly taxed once before, but escaped on a technicality. If the levy survives the multinational lobby, I would guess they'll get hit.)

        If your phone's memory is mainly used (i.e. by most people, not just mainly used by you) for downloaded recorded music, it might end up being levied.
        • by 0xC0FFEE (763100)
          So what you're saying is that the CRIA (multinational) is trying to limit additional revenues to CPCC and other national entities since they (CRIA) don't see much of it anyway. It looks to me that the national entities operate on leaner budgets but also contribute more to Canadian artist development than the CRIA. Therefore, this could be construed as a move by the CRIA to crush national competition by limiting their income and therefore decreasing (indirectly) exposure to Canadian artists.

          Gotta love bus

  • Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fox1324 (1039892) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @07:26AM (#20614919)
    Looks like poetic justice to me. They're the ones who asked for that ridiculous tax in the first place, and now its coming back to haunt them. Serves them right- it was an obvious corporate cash grab, apparently rammed down the throat of innocent Canadians (with the aid of the government, no less) for no good reason. I say, don't let them repeal it.
  • Paying for Media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Algorithmnast (1105517) on Saturday September 15, 2007 @07:41AM (#20614979)

    Here in the U.S., we pay a 2 percent royalty [house.gov] on all medium capable of storing and playing back music.And we've been paying it since 1992, when the "Digital Audio Recording Technology Act" was passed.

    However, our Congress hasn't set up a legal link between the paying of that tax and our legal rights to use the devices in any ways that exceed thing on which we don't pay a tax.

    It seems that in Canada you have that right attached to a tax. Hm - being taxed for something and gaining a benefit. How novel!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RealGrouchy (943109)

      It seems that in Canada you have that right attached to a tax. Hm - being taxed for something and gaining a benefit. How novel!
      Don't be fooled. They were trying to screw us over. They just didn't foresee this consequence.

      - RG>
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tomhudson (43916)

        That's because they originally asked for the tax when you could only fit 10 - 15 songs on a cd, cd burners cost $700, and blank media were $35 a piece.

        Now you can fit hundreds of mp3s on a cd, cd burners cost less than $20, and blank media are ... gee, at less than half a buck a piece, they're mostly tax nowadays ... dvd blanks, at 20 cents a piece, are now half the price of cd blanks.

    • by Scudsucker (17617)
      I think that only applies to "music" cdrs, not "data" cdrs.
    • by uolamer (957159) *
      wonder if thats why my last 1TB hard drive cost $300.02... but seriously i think that tax is applying to the music CD-R, not data CD-R, but i could be wrong. doubt it is getting applied to memory cards, hard drives, etc. unless it comes with/in a music player.
      • by HTH NE1 (675604)
        It does apply to the Music CD-R (there are apparently no Lightscribe Music CD-Rs at all) and not to the Data CD-R. It applies to the dual-deck cassette recorder but not the single-deck recorder.

        AFAIK though it has not extended to flash memory and hard drives in the US, nor to any blank DVD media.

        Imagine a JBOD-Jukebox of Music CD-Rs formatted for data sharing music. Now imagine the cost for multiple CD drives and latency for a changer instead. They have a vested interest in not letting tariffed media get
    • Uh oh... the last time you lot started talking like this there was something of an incident in the Boston Harbour.

      Personally, I'd love to see you do it again with the recording industry. You cannot imagine the warm fuzzy feeling I get imagining crates and crates of the latest Britney Spears album sinking to the bottom of the harbour.
      • by ScoLgo (458010)
        "You cannot imagine the warm fuzzy feeling I get imagining crates and crates of the latest Britney Spears album sinking to the bottom of the harbour."

        Don't worry. Britney's 'performance' at the VMA's last week will help insure that you get your wish. She finally proved to everyone that her (lack of) talent is the best tool available to accomplish your dreams.

      • by Sj0 (472011)
        Or you could throw something that has a chance of selling more than 2 copies into the harbour instead...

        I mean, Throwing the latest Britney Spears album into the river is as useful as throwing the latest Micheal Jackson album into the river. You're actually doing the record companies a favour, because at least they can claim insurance on the materials!
    • Here in the U.S., we pay a 2 percent royalty on all medium capable of storing and playing back music.And we've been paying it since 1992, when the "Digital Audio Recording Technology Act" was passed.

      No.

      You're thinking of the Audio Home Recording Act. It actually only applies to certain media and devices, not all of them capable of storing or playing music. For example computers, computer hard drives, data CDRs, most portable music players, etc. don't fall under the AHRA. Also you're wrong as to what the ro
      • So, what this all comes down to is that the RIAA and the media outfits failed to account for the possibility of more advanced (i.e. non-AHRA-compliant) recording methods in their original thinking, and maybe got a little too specific. Now that they've finally grasped that technology has passed them by, they want to rewrite the deal.

        I guess I'm not too surprised. Emperor Palpatine summed it up nicely: "You will pay the price for your lack of vision."
        • Well, the exception for computers was deliberate and discussed at the time. There was a fight over whether portable music players fell under the AHRA, but it was determined that they did not back in 1999. I don't recall hearing any noises about bringing them into the AHRA recently, though.
          • No argument from me. After losing the Diamond Multimedia [theregister.co.uk] case, I haven't heard much about the RIAA going after portable players either. And I'm sure any such activity would have been front-page news here on Slashdot.

            On the other hand, a lot of the commentary I hear from RIAA and music studio execs (always to be taken with a grain of salt, to be sure) revolves around the fact that portable storage is now comparatively huge. You can walk around with a black (or maybe Apple beige) box in your pocket with fi
            • by HTH NE1 (675604)

              Nobody with that much music on their player has actually spent fifteen or twenty thousand dollars though, so I have to agree with what one executive said, "Everyone knows those things are full of pirated music" (or words to that effect.) Oh sure, that's maybe not the legal definition of "piracy" but the point is well taken.

              There's another tact: what do you define as music? I don't mean as a matter of taste, but rather that there are other types of audio that can be encoded as MP3 or AAC files which provide more content per dollar. Podcasts can extend for an hour or more, be completely free, and have new content available daily, and there are many of them with overlapping interests. Then there's the ability to store non-playable content like essential application suites and password vaults.

    • by xanadu113 (657977)
      So if RIAA gets money from blank CD's, and an unsigned artist is producing their own albums, burning their own CD's, then..

      Who is stealing from who? Are people downloading music stealing from the artists (many who are buying their merchandise and attending their concerts), or is the recording industry stealing from unsigned artists?

      Why should I, as an unsigned artist, be paying money for every blank CD I use to record my music?

      -Myke
    • It seems that in Canada you have that right attached to a tax. Hm - being taxed for something and gaining a benefit. How novel!

      American suckers. Paying taxes and not [wikipedia.org] getting [wikipedia.org] anything [wikipedia.org] worthwhile [wikipedia.org]. Hm.

      • The trick is that the tax is usually related to the benefit directly. For instance, gasoline taxes are used to pay for your vaunted highway system. Water and sanitation are paid for directly (IIRC you pay the water company on a per usage basis even if they are subsidized with income taxes). The thing is is that in this case we have a tax on an item to pay for a right that is still not a right. I'm kind of partial to the canadian viewpoint. If you tax people for copying materials because they will copy music
  • IANAL, but my own thoughts on it are that since I have paid the levy I am free to copy whatever music I want onto those blank CDs. I would be interested to know if the artists actually are getting the proceeds - if so then I would think this would be doubly bad for the Canadian mafiAA. After all, if the artists are getting paid then most mafiAA claims to the moral high road go out the window.

    At the time the levy was imposed DVDs were not available as a storage medium for the mainstream. Now that it is tim
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)
      Apparently the copyright organizations who get the levy aren't so good at paying it out to their member artists. If I remember correctly someone figured out that they hadn't paid out ANY of the levy funds and there was a small scandal over it. It seems the music copyright cartels don't care about the artists. Who would have thought?
  • it will be interesting to see how long will this "loophole" stay on, and will some arms be twisted in canada before it is "closed". the international copyright "protection" organizations seem to cry a lot about some "rights" being abused and laws being violated. at the same time they keep using mafia-like tactics on a large (twisting the arms of the Russian government to close mp3.com early and the Swedish government to raid the pirate bay) and small (frivolously suing left and right in the US) scale. i for
    • No the way it works is it's not illegal to possess copied audio cds [or mp3s]. It's illegal to distribute them. We pay a levy which means we are entitled to copies.

      So basically downloading is legal, uploading is illegal.
    • by mh101 (620659)

      twisting the arms of the Russian government to close mp3.com
      Just a quick correction, mp3.com and allofmp3.com are two unrelated companies. It's the second that is the Russian group of questionable legality.

    • by kaos07 (1113443)
      It will be interesting to "see" how "long" it "takes" before you "break" the "record" for the most "amount" of quotation "marks" in a Slashdot "comment".
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The CRIA didn't admit that P2P downloading is legal here: "While Henderson and CRIA make it clear that they disagree with this interpretation, they are obviously sufficiently concerned that it reflects Canadian law that they have burned their remaining bridges with Canadian music in order to try to persuade the Federal Court of Appeal to allow them to intervene in iPod hearings."

    I'm pretty confident that if the Copyright board ruled that P2P downloading was legal that the act would be amended in short order
    • This is not to say that it would be impossible to write a filesharing program that was not caught by the distribution rule, but it would be a less efficient system because it would encourage leeching, unlike bittorrent which rewards sharing.
       
      I believe the word you're looking for here is Usenet.
  • by Rix (54095)
    It's just a rebranded wing of the RIAA.

    The association representing Canadian artists is the Canadian Music Creators Coalition [musiccreators.ca].
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by aoni782 (1075319)
      This isn't true, the CMCC represents only 179 artists [musiccreators.ca].

      Also, the CRIA was formed in 1963 [thecanadia...opedia.com] as the Canadian Record Manufacturer's Association, and aren't a 'wing' of the RIAA. They are the RIAA's counterpart in Canada.
      • The CMCC represents essentially all major Canadian artists.

        The CRIA represents no Canadian artists, rather the American corporations who make up the RIAA. They use the "CRIA" name simply to suggest they have a Canadian connection; they don't.
  • I wonder if buying a Canadian iPod, and paying the "copyright exemption tax", even if it's shipped abroad (eg. America, UK, Azerbaijan...) would exempt the owner from liability in that country. In the US at least, paying Canadian taxes usually exempts one from paying the US equivalent (Canadian taxes are usually higher). I'd love to see a good lawyer argue the RIAA's lame lawyers out of landing liability on these American users of Canadian iPods. Not least because iPods are like the drugs Americans are alre
  • err no... in Belgium we already have levies on CDs, DVDs, hard disks & some others. They are collected for artist copyrights association which redistributes them essentially in function of artists sales. I think those taxes only go to music artist for the moment but that will probably change someday as software companies and computer games providers should get their share as well. As far as i know not one case of p2p copyright infringement from users has been brought to the court as copies for personal

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.

Working...