Canadian High Court Says ISPs Don't Owe Royalties 486
canwaf writes "According to the CBC, and the other guys: In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. They continue in their decision that Internet access providers are not bound by federal copyright legislation. Coupled with an earlier story on Slashdot, this is a very good thing." Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail's article, too.
Good precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good precedent (Score:2)
Re:Good precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Not "any kind". Only musical audio recordings (no spoken word is permitted), and only the person doing the copying is permitted to use the recording (so you can copy your friends shit, but he can't copy it and give it to you).
Re:Good precedent (Score:2)
Re:Good precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good precedent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good precedent (Score:5, Informative)
It is pretty hard to overrule the SUPREME COURT.
As it usually does, the Canadian Supreme Court has made a sensible ruling here.
Speaking of CDRs, as a Canadian I pay levies (which are forwarded to the record companies) on all blank media that I purchase, so as far as I'm concerned I'm ALREADY paying for my right to copy music, even if it comes from the internet. Its a relief that my ISP won't be forced to contribute to that racket as well.
Don't forget that most of that money winds up going to Bryan Adams and Celine Dion anyway (I'll remind everyone here that the Canadian government has already apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions, so please lets not start that discussion again!)
Re:Good precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
But yes. It still strikes a chord with me every time i have to backup a virus strewn windows computer onto CDs that, because i'm reformatting YET AGAIN, I'm indirectly financing Chad Kruger (who makes shitty music, and more money then me). It's almost as if these people are getting payed every time windows fucks up. Hm...
Re:Good precedent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good precedent (Score:3, Funny)
Allow me to introduce myself: I am the grammar nazi. Your remark was cringe-inducing, so I felt compelled to mention that you really, truly meant to write "for all intents and purposes".
Re:Good precedent (Score:4, Funny)
so they don't owe the queen? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:so they don't owe the queen? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:so they don't owe the queen? (Score:2)
And she has a pret-ty big expense account (canadaonline.about.com/b/a/067960.htm)
Good news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
Good point. Though I'd like to point out that broadband is canada is much cheaper than it is in the USA. 3.0/640K DSL for CDN$35/month, no caps, limits, or threatening letters when you go over your 'unlimited' quota [golden.net]. (I don't work for this company
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
SOCAN isn't poor. SOCAN has LOTS and LOTS of cash.
The reason being that every artist and label in the country pays into them, and they charg for radio play of members' music pretty much everywhere.
In fact, I remember a lawsuit with a local restaurant who was playing CDs over the stereo system and got the stick from SOCAN because he wasn't paying his royalties (not that there was much sympathy in the community for him, since that guy was a raging asshole).
I could be wrong on the details, but I'm sure t
This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I download music and movies and (very occasionally) games without fear of reprisal, since the Supreme Court here actually interprets our law correctly, by reading both the letter and the spirit of the law.
One supports the other. If a movie/song is terrible, I delete it. If it's good, I buy it, and often, other movies/songs by the same artists. If you track my spending habits, my downloading is directly linked to my spending. I'm the same way with books, I hit the library and if I read something I know I want to read again, I buy it.
I know this is a rant, but I hope the rest of the world realizes that THIS IS HOW COPYRIGHTS SHOULD WORK!
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
As Americans, we have to be a tad more cautious about what we 'share' but doesn't really effect our downloading (while running peerguardian, to make sure downloads don't come from the riaa/mpaa lol).
Joking aside though - when I have downloaded in the past it was directly tied to what I bought later. I simply wont buy music/movies I have not downloaded and I simply will not pay $20 for a cd that two years from now I can buy at $9 on the discount rack. This also comes into play with our economy right now - being in this recession (they call it what they want but until they can sustain their family on less than $20,000/yr I don't even hear the words coming out of their unknowledgeable mouths) it's directly effected how people buy things in this Country and 'yes' sales are down (and will stay down) in some segments of music/movies - whooptie doo - when everyone's working and happy, they spend more money....
Anyway - I'm glad the will of the People is heard in Canada on this issue.. Too bad the pockets are lined too thickly here in the US for the common people to be heard anymore.
-Peace!
Why waste the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that.
Re:Why waste the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us know that it's obvious, unfortunatelly there are groups which want to convince people that ISP are responsible.
Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this may sound like a troll, but it's basically true: Here in the US, most laws and court cases involving business are not decided on logic and right and wrong, they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.
Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
Time to make a run for the border!
they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.
I'm sure there are some cunning linguists out there, too.
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why waste the time? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why waste the time? (Score:2)
but if there existed applications similar to squid or some p2p caching apps for the telephone networks, I am dead sure there would have been some or the other discussions like this regarding telcos as well
Re:Why waste the time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because (in the US at least) ISP are not defined by the law to be Common Carriers.
A Common Carrier is required to carry whatever content is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such). But because they have to carry it (even if it may be illegal) they can't be held responsible for doing so.
This ruling could be read as a move toward common carrier-like status for ISP's. That could be good for people who want to pass MP3's around, bad for people who want SPAMers to not be able to fill their inbox with crud.
However, if the ruling had gone the other way, we might well have seen ISP's get a certified right to block SPAM, MP3's, and anything else they didn't like, including HTTP requests to competing search engines, and VoIP packets where the ISP isn't getting a cut of the call toll.
It's an interesting ruling, but the roulette wheel is still spinning, and the ball is still bouncing.
Re:Why waste the time? (Score:5, Interesting)
But unlike telcos, ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS. Using your logic, I could see that an ISP, as a common carrier, would have to carry the spam, but as a service provider could then very well not deliver it. It's mildly similar to call-blocking features sold by the telcos. Sound reasonable?
Common Carrier ISPs make a ton of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually is simpler than that.
Define ISPs as common carriers (after all, in 99.999% of the cases that is effectively what they are, and any other course leads to a madhouse of government regulation and oversight).
Define SPAM to be illegal, just as SPAM faxes are illegal, and just as obscene and threatening phone calls are illegal.
Then, place enforcement where it belongs, with the authorities (who can require cooperation from ISPs), not the ISPs themselves, who should be in the business of providing connectivity and services, not enforcing the law.
Those services, as you correctly point out, would (and already do) logically include mail filtering software of varying quality.
Re:Common Carrier ISPs make a ton of sense (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the clearly obvious solution. I think most slashdotters would agree in an instant.
Be advised that there are segments of the industry who have vowed to never allow this to happen (again, at least in the US). They use language like "...nationalizing the infrastructure we've built with private investment..." and other such arguments. Their logic follows the general train of thought that, since (for example) the cable company paid to put down the wires, they should
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
The atmosphere's lawyer, Moria, had no comment, but whooshed out of the courthouse with a whistling sound.
Copyright Infringement!! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, good and bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if prosecuting copyright violations becomes too difficult to be worth it maybe a better system will ensue?
Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
1) Not hated by the world
2) Speak mostly English
3) Hockey
4) Weaker music industry lobby.
5) Lower Crime Rate
6) No Bushes
Cons:
1) Cold
2) Curling
3) French-speaking People
4) French-speaking People
Not much of a decision here.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
1) Except for the US and Canada.
2) Depends on where you are. Eastern Canada has some STRANGE dialects
3) Yup. Can't argue with that.
4) Makes me want to go buy a flag.
5) That's mainly because everyone is too busy getting munchies to bother with much crime
6) Oh, we have plenty of bushes. We just don't have any of the George W. variety.
Cons:
1) It's only a little chilly 10 months of the year.
2) It's better than football.
3) Stay out of the east
4) Come live in the west, and you to
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
So when you're chasing beaver, nothing refreshes you better than a nice cold Molson Canadian.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot
0) Real Beer
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Please, people! Stop arguing over whether moose piss or horse piss tastes better and just agree that it's all ungulate piss.
*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Alcohol by volume (used in Canada) and alcohol by weight (used in the US) make it look like Canadian beer has a higher true alcohol content. Do the conversion and they are the same. 4% ABW is almost the same as 5% ABV.
2) How much hops and how roasted the grains that are used in the beer. Since Budweiser uses a lot of ric
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
it for the ladies
You must be new here...
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
7) Free health care
8) Polite people
9) Chicks can go around topless.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you have a system where a healthy populus is good for the people (less tax money taken out) instead of good for the companies (the threat of being sick or injured allows companies to raise rates).
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly enjoy visiting Quebec and having French friends for a bit of diversity. So with your shallow comments I'd just as soon you stay out of the country.
The whole anti French thing is more than a bit tired and really counter prod
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
You have got to be kidding? I apologize on a weekly basis on behalf of Canada for allowing Celine Dion to wreak havoc on the world.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't all "love" the Queen of England. I don't even personally know her, why would I "love" her. In fact I think most people simply tolerate her as a necessary celebrity although there is a sizeable portion of Brits here who still are Monarchists. Something I will NEVER understand. Monarchy by definition is discrimination as it's defined by the idea that there is someone who's "better" than the rest of us simply by birth.
Oh, and you can keep Celine Dion in Las Vegas for all I care.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you don't watch the CBC. French bashing and Anglophone bashing is 30% of the humour on our STATE-SPONSORED television network. Canadians don't tolerate racism? Apparently we tolerate people with no sense of humour though. I wonder which is worse.
BTW.. I would appreciate it if in the future you didn't presume to speak on behalf of me.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Statements like this bug me.
And finally....
But then I happen to think that identifying one's self with a nation is right up there with identifying one's self with a race... speaking collectively on behalf of your nation is right up there with speaking collectively on behalf of your race... and excluding or condemning people based on their nation, is right up there with excluding or condemning people based on their race.
I'm being far too harsh though... I know, you were probably just making an off-the-cuff comment to defend francophone Canadians and it came out wrong. People use "we" and "them" to describe a nation or race all too casually.
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
OK, in the interests of fair play, ya know why the Newfies were in favor of Quebec separatism? If Quebec leaves Canada, it cuts 3 hours off their drive to Toronto.
See, you can pick on any province in Canada with minimal effort.
Language laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared to whom? Take a look at what people pay in Western Eupope, and tell me what you think then.
Feh!
ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... (Score:5, Funny)
CDR/CDRW discs: they facilitate recording pirated music;
Sound Card manufacturers: they facilitate ripping;
Loudspeaker makers: we can hear pirated music through this equipment.
My ears -- yes! sue my ears. They faciliate hearing this music!
Emm, I'm digging now, ehh; why not sew my lips shut too. I can whistle a tune without paying royalties.
See where this is going? DO YOU? DOOO YOU???
- Oisin
Ears (Score:2, Funny)
Now that you mention it, in the States, your ears would be sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement, along with the rest of your body, if you downloaded pirated music. In Canada, however, your ears could not be sued because it's legal to download pirated music, just illegal to distribute it to other people. No word out on Torrent files, as they do both by default. My guess would be that in Canada you could not be held liable for downlo
Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... (Score:2)
Your ears have no money, it's the headphone makers they need to sue! Those guys are rolling in cash, and think how many pirated songs are listened to on their merchandise. Plus I hear they keep their money in banks, and terrorists keep their money in banks too, so they must be in league with the terrorists!
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Terrible! (Score:5, Funny)
Good? This is horrible!
How am I to continue my suit against paper-makers and ink producers on behalf of book publishers?
Oh, wait, I can still do that in the "Land of the Free", the United States.
(It's the land of the free for corporations -- they can get away with anything. It's the land of the fee for taxpayers.)
Dear RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
The music is watermarked with a primitive technology called a 'jingle' that will help you identify which station it was.
Sincerely
Tod
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet (Score:4, Informative)
not to mention bud is basically legal there!
If by "basically legal" you mean "in practice," then you're basically right. The police tend not to make much effort to prosecute for marijuana possession in Canada.
This is way off-topic, but I want to dispel a misconception. Conan O'Brien once mentioned on his talk show that "Canada's parliament is considering legalizing marijuana..." This was so inaccurate as to be totally incorrect. In fact, at the time, there was a senate committee report that recommended that parliament consider decriminalizing marijuana.
So it wasn't parliament, by which one typically means the House of Commons (the elected lower house), it was the Senate (the unelected upper house). And it wasn't even the whole Senate, but just a committee. They weren't "considering," it was just a report that made a recommendation. And nobody was talking of legalization, just decriminalization, the difference being that it's still not legal, but you just wouldn't get thrown in jail, nor will you get a criminal record for possession - just a fine, rather like a traffic violation.
Some time later, a decriminalization bill was proposed in the House of Commons, but I believe it was dropped when the election was called about a month ago, so there has been no movement by the government in terms of actual legislation. So marijuana possession is, officially, still quite illegal here.
But we actually have the funny single-platform Marijuana Party fighting for legalization here in Canada, so who knows... Maybe someday it will be legal.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty, the US was a much more open a free-market society until the last few years. Aside from the absolute hard-right turn taken under the Bush administration, the aggressive nature and consolidation of media companies in the last 5-7 years has really put a chill on the US society IMHO. Note: I realise that this started under Clinton too.
For me, there are a few significant events where the rule of law were circuvmented, or big business exercised a strong influence over the legislative bodies in recent times. These are having profound negative effects on American life and commerce.
1. Microsoft anti-trust. Found guilty, but government backs off on any significant penalty. IBM never got off so lightly, and the results were the PC revolution.
2. Consolidation of media ownership. Especially regarding radio. Less diversity = less room for competing opinions. More big business = more big business attitudes reflected in editorial biases.
3. Abuse of copyright/patent system. Think EOLAS, think SCO, think Mosano, etc. Combined with a culture of litigation, this really makes you wonder if the US is unconciously abandoning its heritage of innovation. The money is compensating for this pull downwards, but will this always be the case?
Unequivocally the US leads the North American economy...Canada has, to a great extent, benefited from this for years. But sometimes we wake up, look in the mirror, and wonder "What the hell are the neighbours doing now???". I think that, lately, our values expressed in our judicial and legislative system are more in line with what Americans expect than their political leadership have provided.
Double dipping attempt.. (Score:5, Informative)
In
Screw 'em
Same in USA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Double dipping attempt.. (Score:3, Informative)
Its sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Well at least intelligent rulings like this are a step in the right direction.
This was brought forward by SOCAN ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lobby for the Canadian recording artists. They are supposed to be compensated for illegal copying, in exchange for a much more lenient definition of "legal" copying in our laws than in the USA.
Of course, like all Canadian programs, it ends up creating a huge government-paid organization to police this whole subsidy. Can't really say if this is better or worse than clogging up the courts, as is the case in the States.
It's so logical (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like gun manufacturers provide the means for killing but are not liable for what people do.
Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer's identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn't seem to fit into my gun analogy.
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information. Maybe it's because it's not law enforcement requesting the information, but deep-pocketed private parties seeking it.
Re:It's so logical (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it does fit. Your prejudice is what prevents you from seeing it immediately. (See below.)
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information.
This is the prejudice. You're assuming that because someone made a file avaliable, that a crime was committed, where in reality, that is not so clear. The judge said as much in the ruling.
It's not the case that the 'gun' was used in the crime, but that the courts weren't convinced that a crime occurred at all. The CRIA said "ISPs are hiding people who are illegally trading our files!", and the court responded with "no, they're protecting the identity of people who are trading files, but it's entirely possible that trading is not illegal - prove that, and then we'll talk."
This is so retarded. (Score:2, Funny)
But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this happen anywhere other than Canada?
Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
You could argue that the government shouldn't tax gas to pay for the roads, because then they're unfairly taxing people who have gas lawn mowers, snowmobiles, jet ski's etc.
However, both of these methods of taxation are based on the idea that your privacy is more important than 100% fair taxation. For instance, I heard that in some northern U.S. state they were discussing installing GPS tracking units in vehicles to charge people based on how far they drive their vehicles, because that was a fairer way to charge a usage tax. But, who wants the government tracking their movements?
Similarly, the idea with the CD levy is to allow copying for personal use, but charge a fee to copiers of copyrighted work, and use that to pay the artists. To fairly implement this tax, it would mean you'd have to track each person and what they're copying. You run into the same issue - privacy. There is obviously a tradeoff, and I'm glad that the Canadian government seems to continually place privacy as a higher priority. I'm willing to pay a price to keep my privacy.
The other alternative is to ban all copying, even for personal use, remove the levy, and try to get the police to enforce an unenforceable law. That doesn't look to sweet either.
If you're going to complain about the levy, then at least come up with a workable alternative that doesn't screw somebody else.
Al Gore (Score:3, Funny)
Awsome!
I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Common Carrier means non-discriminatory, usually. If some content is restricted, and other content is not restricted, you stop being a common carrier.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also expect the ISPs to include other ISPs amongst their customers, so they could get those to opt-in to bulk filte
Asking your opinion... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Asking your opinion... (Score:3, Informative)
I prefer Montreal for the vibes, but my friends in Toronto were more interesting.
I'm also bilingual, but you don't have to be -- lots of English-only people live in Montreal too.
I've visited the Maritimes; nice people, but unless you love drinking beer, the nightlife is pretty boring.
Vancouver aint too shabby either. But BC is way overtaxed.
Winnipeg is the coldest in winter, and in the summer is the national mosquito capital.
I currently live in Ottawa,
Winnipeg - more than cold and mosquitos (Score:3, Insightful)
True, the winters can be cold. And true, the mosquitos are a pain in the ass. But we have more than enough to make Winnipeg "the best kept secret in Canada".
As a
Re:Asking your opinion... (Score:5, Interesting)
Move to Toronto if:
1) You have money
2) You enjoy money
3) You like hearing people talk about money
Move to Montreal if:
1) For you, money is secondary to living
2) You speak at least a bit of French
3) You like looking at gorgeous women
4) You enjoy a good party
5) You aren't offended by stripclubs, prostitutes, foul language, or loud noises...
6) You want to see diversity and eccentricity, not conformity and safety
It's pretty obvious which one I'd choose...
Re:Asking your opinion... (Score:3, Informative)
Have to pipe in on this one. If you're thinking of going to Montreal, then for sure, go to montreal. But if you're thinking of toronto, there are other places that might be more palatable. Vancouver springs to mind right away, but if you're wanting to live somewhere that's a bit cheaper, I recommend Calgary.
Perhaps I'm biased having lived my whole life here, but Calgary's a growing city, has been growing like mad for years, and will be continuing to do so for a while. There's beautiful mountains near
Re:Asking your opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
My opinions ... yours may vary ...
Toronto is a sprawling metropolis ... I prefer to live somewhere where the countryside or the cottage isn't a 3+ hour drive though congested traffic.
Montreal has the cultural variety, but you have to live in Quebec and put up with the bullshit laws protecting "Quebec culture" and the sepratists. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there.
Vancouver is also a beautiful city, but you have to put up with the left-wing provinicial and city politics, which means getti
Big Glass of STFU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Glass of STFU (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes customers do not understand (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm glad I co-locate in CA (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I'll use that box to do all my bittorrent downloads from here on out. Not sure if the privacy laws in the great white north will protect an expat like myself, but I figure my odds are somewhat better to NOT get sued up there.
Intent (Score:5, Interesting)
If we start accusing people of crimes for aiding the ability for another to perform a crime, we might as well throw everyone on the planet in jail. How many people does a terrorist interact with in his/her life? Is the father at fault for teaching the kid about money, whereupon the kid learns knowledge about how to abuse the system to become rich? How can possibly prove that the father had "intent" to teach the son how to do something illegal? You can't. That's why the person is the one who is blamed for their own action in breaking the law (as well as any obvious people who contributed directly to the act.)
Further, what is blamed of a person is the action they take, not anything which leads up to the action (even the person's own thinking.) Recall the lesson to be learned by the movie/book Minority Report: though a person may show all the signs which establish intent to perform a crime, that does not mean they are guilty until they actually perform a crime. I may walk down the street and think about having sex with a woman I see walking next to me, but it's not rape until I actually go up and try to rape her.
The problem here is that the Internet is designed for free speach, not for law or copywrite enforcement. ISPs are being targeted becuase they have a means to enforce laws. But enforcing law is not the responsiblity of an ISP. ISPs neither have the physical means to enforce copywrite nor the mandate to do so. Let the FBI create a Net Force division a la Tom Clancy, and do their own copywrite enforcement. Attacking ISPs (or universities, or any other group other then a law enforcement group) is not the answer.
Copyright violation never hurt anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Good news for now (Score:5, Informative)
Now parliament is out, an election was just held, and the same Liberal party is back in power (minority) with a loose coalition with the NDP party -- who quite strongly supports ratifying WIPO. So I fear that we're going to see Canadian government ratify WIPO, bringing in DMCA-like legislation into Canada. Check out the Digital Copyright Canada forums [digital-copyright.ca] and get involved if these privacy rights concern you. There is also a national petition for user's rights [digital-copyright.ca] that you can sign if you are concerned about all these 'special laws' for digital media. Remember that we live in a digital world, but the general public does not realize this. Placing strange restrictions on digital information is just hurting ourselves, and our own industries.
Told ya so (Score:4, Interesting)
On levies and changes to the Copyright Act (Score:4, Informative)
Honourable Ms. Scherrer;
I have heard your recent comments about seeking to change the Copyright Act.
I would urge you to consider very carefully what steps are taken in any changes to this act. As the act stands, Canadians pay a levy on
recordable media, money from which specifically goes to the music industry in compensation for supposed lost revenues.
As such if the law is changed, I would also expect any media levies to be immediately lifted, as the proper method for handling any cases
of copyright infringement would then fall to the music industry and the legal system of Canada, and not to a discriminatory levy applied
to the majority of law-abiding citizens.
Beyond this, the issue of whether revenues are lost at all is entirely debatable, as you can see in this story from the Washington Post
citing a study done by two university researchers specializing in economics:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story
This issue of copyright is a very important one to me because those countries that address the issue properly stand to be at the
fore-front of the information economy. Limiting information flow to prop up business models that simply are no longer feasible is not the
way to go about this.
Thank you for your time.
Me
Response received
On behalf of Ms. Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, Minister of Canadian
Heritage, thank you for your correspondence regarding potential changes to
the Copyright Act and expressing your views regarding the private copying
levy on blank audio recording media.
Ms. Chalifour Scherrer appreciates your advising her of your views
and has noted your comments with respect to these matters. Policy
developments abroad encouraged the establishment of private copying levies
for the benefit of authors, performers and producers of sound recordings
long before Canada decided to establish such mechanisms. The private
copying levy has been promoted as the only efficient mechanism to offset
increasing reproduction capacity made available through developments in
consumer electronics.
The levy on blank audio recording media was developed to apply
generally on all media ordinarily used by consumers to copy music for their
private use. Accordingly, the law governing the levy was drafted to give
the Copyright Board of Canada, a specialized tribunal, the authority and
discretion necessary to accurately evaluate the appropriate portion of
music copied onto some of the media used by consumers for any digital data.
It should be noted that the Government is not involved in the
collection, administration or distribution of the levy; these tasks are
carried out by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC). Detailed
information on the levy is outlined on the CPCC Web site at
http://cpcc.ca/english/about.htm and the Copyright Board Web site at
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/index.html.
Information and updates on the copyright reform process, including
issues on file sharing and the private copying levy, are available on the
Department of Canadian Heritage Web site at
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cp
I trust that this information is useful. Please accept our best
wishes.
So, essentially, go ask THOSE people..
Lobbies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Got news for you - the entertainment industry already knows that. That's why they're filing these lawsuits.
The music industry had a stranglehold on music distribution, which gave them the ability to abuse artists as much as they want ("You don't want to sign this contract? Fine, you'll never be able to make money from your music.")
The internet changed all that. It's now becoming possible for an independent band to market their music to a worldwide audience.. and so now the music industry has competition, and they're desperately trying to extend the life of their business model as long as possible.