Slashdot Log In
CRIA Admits P2P Downloading Legal in Canada
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Sep 15, 2007 05:39 AM
from the maybe-they-fell-asleep-at-the-wheel dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
Firehose:CRIA Admits P2P Downloading Legal in Canada by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Get Your Money's Worth (Score:5, Funny)
Also, if you don't mind, keep seeding when you're done
Re:Get Your Money's Worth (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Get Your Money's Worth (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Get Your Money's Worth (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Get Your Money's Worth (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 bough
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?????????????
I agree with him. (Score:5, Funny)
You are no longer a Pirate (Score:4, Funny)
if crime is legalized, then only criminals will be (Score:2)
Schizoid if I ever heard it! (Score:2)
(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 phi
Surprised? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given up reading slashdot have you?
"All trademarks and copyrights on this
Re: (Score:2)
More of a 'have their cake, eat it too and make YOU pay for it' philosophy.
And no, you don't get cake.
Does Size Matter? (Score:2)
- 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 spNo, it's just panic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does Size Matter? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Paying for Media (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
- RG>
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
No.
You're thinking of the Audio Home Recording Act. It a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, a lot of the comme
Re: (Score:2)
American suckers. Paying taxes and not [wikipedia.org] getting [wikipedia.org] anything [wikipedia.org] worthwhile [wikipedia.org]. Hm.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Britney's 'performance' at the VMA's last week will help insure that you get your wish. She f
Re: (Score:2)
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 actuall
I hope they expand the levy to DVDs and more... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
canada as the new mp3.com? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically downloading is legal, uploading is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The CRIA is not Canadian (Score:2, Informative)
The association representing Canadian artists is the Canadian Music Creators Coalition [musiccreators.ca].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:You're still stealing from people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're still stealing from people (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is stealing from whom again?
The private copying levy [wikipedia.org] exists on the premise that people are paying to allow for certain types of private copying. The law excludes some activities (e.g., if you copied music from any source and then started selling it -- illegal), and allows others (e.g., if you borrowed a music CD from a friend and copied it for your own personal use -- legal). It still makes distribution of music illegal, and, yes, as far as I know, it doesn't cover software or DVDs.
It's my personal decision that even though it is legal in Canada to do some types of copying thanks to the private copying law and the CD levy, I still buy my music. Why? Because I think the levy deal sucks for the artists. They get hardly anything (even less than normal), and the agency involved in distributing the money can't properly account for what people actually buy (i.e. the popular artists are the only ones likely to see much).
But would I be on a firm legal grounds if I did decide to exercise the rights granted under the private copying law? Absolutely yes. I'm paying for it. So, shut up. It's the record companies that are being inconsistent here by lobbying for the levy in the first place, but still claiming that people making any kind of copy are "stealing" music. No, in many circumstances it is already paid for. In Canada, if Billy loans Jane a CD to copy it is NOT stealing, it is entirely legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Supporting the bands you like is great, but I'm sure most of them would agree that they actually receive more money from tick
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Nothing is being 'STOLEN' from you. Simply don't buy music from
Yup, but. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yup, but. (Score:5, Informative)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040407114727/http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1563030 [archive.org]
Quote: "Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled Wednesday that the Canadian Recording Industry Association did not prove there was copyright infringement by 29 so-called music uploaders. He said that downloading a song or making files available in shared directories, like those on Kazaa, does not constitute copyright infringement under the current Canadian law."
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reminds me of the ol' Microsoft vs. Sun discuss (Score:3, Insightful)
And there are about a million devices worldwide that use java - from cell phones to computers to whatever
And no, mono doesn't count. It sucks (but then again, so does C3).
So, to put it back into the conte