Slashdot Mirror

Actually you can download mp3's (court ruling I don't have the link)

And you can copy someones CD for personal use (Copyright law)
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770

Please go to the source and get the facts first. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/ For an interesting discussion on how this all works please go here http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

Looking closely at the material, this is still in the proposal stage, and there is time to object to it (I just sent in my objection). The actual proposal and the contact information for writing in to object can be found here: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c25022006 -b.pdf

Speaking as somebody who has dealt with proposals in the public sector before, when you object, make certain that you make a reasoned argument. Point out the flaws in the assumptions behind the levy (such as the fact that not everybody is going to use the media they're taxing for copying music, etc.), and how it makes the levy unfair. Whatever you do, don't make statements about good and evil, or corruption - it's a surefire way to get ignored. Just point out the flaws in the proposal, give concrete examples if you can when you do, and give your name, city, and province/territory.

From Digital Home Canada

quote:
"tax on blank CD-R and CD-RW discs will remain at 21 cents per unit"
"29 cent tax on blank tapes and 77 cent tax on blank CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDiscs"

Copyright Board of Canada Fact Sheet for more info.

If you check the "What's New" page of the Copyright Board of Canada, you'll see that there's a PDF near the bottom called "Private Copying 2007". In it, it states that the levy rates are going to be raised to the following levels:
(a) 29 cents for each cassette over 40 min in length;
(b) 21 cents for each CD-R or CD-RW;
(c) 77 cents for each CD-R audio, CD-RW audio, or MiniDisc.

Of the four storage media you list, only one has the levy applied to it — blank CDs. The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", and according to the way they define that, hard drives, USB sticks and blank DVDs are not affected. At one point, the Copyright Board, who decides what media have the levy applied, applied it to portable digital audio players, but the courts struck that down.

About a year later, they said "Well, we *can* stop online piracy, so we will propose a bill that makes it illegal and we will make additional income from legal bullying and litigation".

My biggest problem with that, is that they "forgot" to remove the levy. So now, file-sharing is basically illegal...

Wait, wait, wait. Lost somewhere in your story is the point at which the bill you refer to (bill C-60, I presume) became law. And bill C-60 has not become law. So I don't know what you're on about.

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

You can read about the Copyright Board's Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision here.

More info on the various Canadian tariffs is available here.

How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?

No to DAT, yes to minidisc.

"Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and micro-cassettes are not typically used by individuals for copying music for private use and, therefore, are not subject to a levy."

"Yes. Both "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs and their "Audio" counterparts can be used to copy music, and both are commonly used for this purpose. In fact, in volume terms, most CDs used to copy music are "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs (subject to a levy of 21), not "Audio" products (subject to a levy of 77)."

That said, was that last section in boldface (copying your friend's tape) part of your current Copyright Law? Yes, it is. From the Copyright Act:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

"The exemption in section 80 applies only when a copy is made for the private use of the person making it. This expressly excludes selling, renting out, exposing for trade or rental, distributing, communicating to the public by telecommunication, or performing in public the copy made. This means that making a copy of a CD of the latest release by the hottest star to give to one's friend is still an infringing action, as it is not a copy for personal use. In the same vein, distributing this same copy to friends online is prohibited." (page 23)

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Limitation

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

[...]

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

[...]

Well, I pretty much exclusively use bittorrent to get my music. And according to the Canadian Federal Court, that isn't much different than what a library does. And in Canada, music downloading from other people is perfectly legal as well for personal use.

So basically, the way I understand it, you are telling me that I'm a copyright infringer, and the Canadian Federal Court is telling me that I'm not.

In addition, even if you ARE right, the CRIA has virtually no power over me, as my ISP is quite militant about protecting their customers (they were one of the ISPs who refused to give customer names when the CRIA came knocking... and promptly got told to leave us alone by the federal court). So yeah, I think I'm pretty safe.

The levy on mp3 players was implemented.

$2 per unit (up to 1 GB)
$15 per unit (1 - 10 GB)
$25 per unit (over 10 GB)

The same info is on page 4 of the legalese mess in this PDF from the Canadian Copyright Board: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/certified/c1312200 3-b.pdf

(a) 66 per cent, to be shared between the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), the Canadian Mechanical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) and the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC), on account of eligible authors;

(b) 18.9 per cent, to be shared between the Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (NRCC) and the Société de gestion des droits des artistes-musiciens (SOGEDAM) on account of eligible performers;

(c) 15.1 per cent to the Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (NRCC) on account of eligible makers.

See http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c10042004 -b.pdf for the details.

• 29 cents for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
• 21 cents for each CD-R or CD-RW;
• 77 cents for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
• for non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder, $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gigabyte (Gb) of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data. (struck down)

Yes, and that ruling suggests it is perfectly legal to "upload" files, which the Copyright Board of Canada previously believed was illegal(see p. 20), but downloading files via P2P has been legal since at least the 1998 update to the Copyright Act. Even the Copyright Board of Canada agreed that to be true.

Yes, and that ruling suggests it is perfectly legal to "upload" files, which the Copyright Board of Canada previously believed was illegal(see p. 20), but downloading files via P2P has been legal since at least the 1998 update to the Copyright Act. Even the Copyright Board of Canada agreed that to be true.

Copyright law does not have any language regarding intent that I'm aware of.

It is an infringement ... that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright (Copyright Act, s. 27)

Intent is codified in at least some statutes in this language or similar through the phrase "knows or should have known". That snippet is from the Canadian Copyright Act.

However, even absent the explicit statutory requirement of intention, in most civilized constutional legal regimes you cannot be imprisoned for absolute liability offences. In other words, if there is a threat of imprisonment, the prosecutor has to show intention. In the least, there is a defence in due diligence. You can't chuck people in jail for transferring something they didn't realize was copyright. The heavy penalties actually seem to work against the regime of copyright enforcement, in this respect.

You are mistaken. From the Board's decision, "There is no requirement [...] that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet."

To clarify things in Canada's case, here's section 80 from the Copyright Act:

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Emphasis mine. What qualifies as an audio recording medium is specified in the Private Copying Certified Tariff:

"blank audio recording medium" means
(a) a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed, including

(i) audio cassettes (1/8 inch tape) of 40 minutes or more in length;
(ii) recordable compact discs (CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio);
(iii) MiniDiscs;
(iv) non-removable memory, including solid state and hard disk, that is permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder; and
(b) any medium prescribed by regulations pursuant to sections 79 and 87 of the Act;

Standard PC hard drives do not qualify, so just ripping your friends' CDs to your own hard drive is not legal. Burning CD copies of them is.

Me, I paid the levy on my iPod, and put all of the music on it myself. Therefore it's all legal.

One more note: The revisions to the levy made last December were accompanied by an opinion handed down by the Copyright Board regarding the legality of P2P downloading. The decision was that the Copyright Act does not address the legality of the source:

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

Of course, the conditions of Section 80 must still be met.

To clarify things in Canada's case, here's section 80 from the Copyright Act:

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Emphasis mine. What qualifies as an audio recording medium is specified in the Private Copying Certified Tariff:

"blank audio recording medium" means
(a) a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed, including

(i) audio cassettes (1/8 inch tape) of 40 minutes or more in length;
(ii) recordable compact discs (CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio);
(iii) MiniDiscs;
(iv) non-removable memory, including solid state and hard disk, that is permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder; and
(b) any medium prescribed by regulations pursuant to sections 79 and 87 of the Act;

Standard PC hard drives do not qualify, so just ripping your friends' CDs to your own hard drive is not legal. Burning CD copies of them is.

Me, I paid the levy on my iPod, and put all of the music on it myself. Therefore it's all legal.

One more note: The revisions to the levy made last December were accompanied by an opinion handed down by the Copyright Board regarding the legality of P2P downloading. The decision was that the Copyright Act does not address the legality of the source:

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

Of course, the conditions of Section 80 must still be met.

<disclaimer class='usual'> IANAL. This is not legal advice. </disclaimer>

Here in Soviet Canuckistan, we have the right to borrow a CD from a friend, make a copy for ourselves, and then return the CD.

Nearly; our Copyright Act, s.80, provides that copying music "for the private use of the person who makes the copy" is not infringement of copyright. It doesn't matter whether it's a CD; what matters is whether it's music and whether your copying is for your personal use.

S.80 is in Part VIII, which also sets up the infamous blank media levy, so it's clear that the policy thinking is "we'll allow this activity, which would normally infringe copyright, and compensate the copyright holders by other means". But s.80 doesn't specify that you may only copy music onto media to which the levy applies; any medium is fine. (Well, I think specific kinds of media could be excluded by regulation, but to my knowledge this hasn't been done.)

Does the same apply with libraries?

Sure. There's no restriction on how you get access to the music you're copying -- from a friend, from a library, from the back of a truck, it's all the same as far as this bit o' law is concerned.

And what about DVDs?

No, but not because they're DVDs instead of CDs; again, the medium doesn't really matter. What matters is the kind of work being copied -- s.80 applies only to sound recordings of musical works, not to films or other classes of copyrightable work that you would usually find on a DVD. Ripping a film from DVD is copyright infringement in Canada, assuming that the film is under copyright in the first place, that the copyright holder hasn't licensed you to do it, and that none of our other copyright exceptions come to your rescue.

If the ripping does infringe copyright, you'd at least be civilly liable, and the act spells out civil remedies for the copyright holder. In some circumstances -- mostly infringement for commercial purposes, but also distribution "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" -- there is criminal liability too.

The Supreme Court has recently articulated a view of copyright with an increased recognition of "user's rights" beyond those granted by statute, but this is still an evolving area of law in Canada.

The Copyright Board of Canada handed down a decision last December that includes their interpretation that the Copyright Act does not address the source of a private copy:

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

(page 20, fifth paragraph)

"The Canadian RIAA shot themselves in the foot with that levy."

I assume you mean the CRIA.

I wouldn't say they shot themselves in the foot, though. The organizations that collect on this levy reap about $24 million between them each year.

The info you want is hard to find but here's what I've found so far.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, CPCC is a non profit umbrella group overseeing distribution of funds.

The CPCC's has handed out $26 million CDN and will hand out a further $28 million CDN.

Depending on the year it has distributed funds as follows
66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, 15.1% to eligible record companies.
and in other years; authors and publishers 75%, recording artists 13.7% and record companies 11.3%.

So the (13.7%, 18.9%) distributed to artist from CPCC to SOCAN is around ($3.5, $5.2) million CDN depending on the year etc.

Now lets see what SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) has to say.

Slightly off topic.. Look at the list of fees they collect (besides the tariff). Specifically "Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music" Damn! No wonder most buskers who sing for their supper don't have a portable stereo accompanying them. SOCAN wants $32.55 per day for the accompanying music!

The moral on the above story is that the $0.21 for CD-Rs and CD-RWs is peanuts, and (in light of the legitimate purpose of backup) is already reduced from $0.77 tariff on CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio. Specifically in this link, grep 'I buy blank CDs regularly to store data from my computer'

Okay so what does SOCAN have to say about distribution of money from the tariff... well nothing. They have forms to fill out, and they give you the option of paying with Visa and MasterCard.. but I can't find a damn thing about outflow of cash.

The closest thing I can find is in their Summer 2004 newsletter 381 Kb pdf. Which is vague at best

On the charts ... British industry .. 10 percent of the artists were Canadian. Nickleback, Avril Lavign, Nelly Furtado, Lynda Lemay and Lara Fabian ... These successes don't happen spontaneously. They are the result of talent ... and an industry infrastructure that supports the development of Canadian creators.

They "develop the artist" and are into advertisement/payolla to get foreigners to buy CDN music.

So my one last search was in the Canadian Copyright Act. Specifically Subsection Subsection 83. (13) (b).

... require a collective society to file with the Board information relating to payments of moneys received by the society ...

So SOCAN has to tell the Copyright Board how it spent the money. Great, two levels of bureaucracy.

I have no intention of filling a FOI request as I don't really care enough. I'll let someone else try that. This is the furthest I can get in "following the money". :(

While you're at the copyright Act site look at subsection 84, which says only collectives/societies can collect the tariff. So, you personally cannot fill out a form and get your $0.21 back. If you want that you'll have to write Sarmite and make a good case for how the Act should be amended and how it would not be abused.

The only exception to the levy is subsection 86 (1) which exempts societies for people with perceptual disabilities. So you if you have a perceptual disability you could ask, say the CNIB, to purchase blank media for you.

FWIW: Upcomming tariffs for 2005., for private copying shows there will be no increase ($0.21, $0.77) and the distri

The info you want is hard to find but here's what I've found so far.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, CPCC is a non profit umbrella group overseeing distribution of funds.

The CPCC's has handed out $26 million CDN and will hand out a further $28 million CDN.

Depending on the year it has distributed funds as follows
66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, 15.1% to eligible record companies.
and in other years; authors and publishers 75%, recording artists 13.7% and record companies 11.3%.

So the (13.7%, 18.9%) distributed to artist from CPCC to SOCAN is around ($3.5, $5.2) million CDN depending on the year etc.

Now lets see what SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) has to say.

Slightly off topic.. Look at the list of fees they collect (besides the tariff). Specifically "Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music" Damn! No wonder most buskers who sing for their supper don't have a portable stereo accompanying them. SOCAN wants $32.55 per day for the accompanying music!

The moral on the above story is that the $0.21 for CD-Rs and CD-RWs is peanuts, and (in light of the legitimate purpose of backup) is already reduced from $0.77 tariff on CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio. Specifically in this link, grep 'I buy blank CDs regularly to store data from my computer'

Okay so what does SOCAN have to say about distribution of money from the tariff... well nothing. They have forms to fill out, and they give you the option of paying with Visa and MasterCard.. but I can't find a damn thing about outflow of cash.

The closest thing I can find is in their Summer 2004 newsletter 381 Kb pdf. Which is vague at best

On the charts ... British industry .. 10 percent of the artists were Canadian. Nickleback, Avril Lavign, Nelly Furtado, Lynda Lemay and Lara Fabian ... These successes don't happen spontaneously. They are the result of talent ... and an industry infrastructure that supports the development of Canadian creators.

They "develop the artist" and are into advertisement/payolla to get foreigners to buy CDN music.

So my one last search was in the Canadian Copyright Act. Specifically Subsection Subsection 83. (13) (b).

... require a collective society to file with the Board information relating to payments of moneys received by the society ...

So SOCAN has to tell the Copyright Board how it spent the money. Great, two levels of bureaucracy.

I have no intention of filling a FOI request as I don't really care enough. I'll let someone else try that. This is the furthest I can get in "following the money". :(

While you're at the copyright Act site look at subsection 84, which says only collectives/societies can collect the tariff. So, you personally cannot fill out a form and get your $0.21 back. If you want that you'll have to write Sarmite and make a good case for how the Act should be amended and how it would not be abused.

The only exception to the levy is subsection 86 (1) which exempts societies for people with perceptual disabilities. So you if you have a perceptual disability you could ask, say the CNIB, to purchase blank media for you.

FWIW: Upcomming tariffs for 2005., for private copying shows there will be no increase ($0.21, $0.77) and the distri

The info you want is hard to find but here's what I've found so far.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, CPCC is a non profit umbrella group overseeing distribution of funds.

The CPCC's has handed out $26 million CDN and will hand out a further $28 million CDN.

Depending on the year it has distributed funds as follows
66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, 15.1% to eligible record companies.
and in other years; authors and publishers 75%, recording artists 13.7% and record companies 11.3%.

So the (13.7%, 18.9%) distributed to artist from CPCC to SOCAN is around ($3.5, $5.2) million CDN depending on the year etc.

Now lets see what SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) has to say.

Slightly off topic.. Look at the list of fees they collect (besides the tariff). Specifically "Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music" Damn! No wonder most buskers who sing for their supper don't have a portable stereo accompanying them. SOCAN wants $32.55 per day for the accompanying music!

The moral on the above story is that the $0.21 for CD-Rs and CD-RWs is peanuts, and (in light of the legitimate purpose of backup) is already reduced from $0.77 tariff on CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio. Specifically in this link, grep 'I buy blank CDs regularly to store data from my computer'

Okay so what does SOCAN have to say about distribution of money from the tariff... well nothing. They have forms to fill out, and they give you the option of paying with Visa and MasterCard.. but I can't find a damn thing about outflow of cash.

The closest thing I can find is in their Summer 2004 newsletter 381 Kb pdf. Which is vague at best

On the charts ... British industry .. 10 percent of the artists were Canadian. Nickleback, Avril Lavign, Nelly Furtado, Lynda Lemay and Lara Fabian ... These successes don't happen spontaneously. They are the result of talent ... and an industry infrastructure that supports the development of Canadian creators.

They "develop the artist" and are into advertisement/payolla to get foreigners to buy CDN music.

So my one last search was in the Canadian Copyright Act. Specifically Subsection Subsection 83. (13) (b).

... require a collective society to file with the Board information relating to payments of moneys received by the society ...

So SOCAN has to tell the Copyright Board how it spent the money. Great, two levels of bureaucracy.

I have no intention of filling a FOI request as I don't really care enough. I'll let someone else try that. This is the furthest I can get in "following the money". :(

While you're at the copyright Act site look at subsection 84, which says only collectives/societies can collect the tariff. So, you personally cannot fill out a form and get your $0.21 back. If you want that you'll have to write Sarmite and make a good case for how the Act should be amended and how it would not be abused.

The only exception to the levy is subsection 86 (1) which exempts societies for people with perceptual disabilities. So you if you have a perceptual disability you could ask, say the CNIB, to purchase blank media for you.

FWIW: Upcomming tariffs for 2005., for private copying shows there will be no increase ($0.21, $0.77) and the distri

There are two separate rulings (although only one was by a judge). Whether both of the rulings stand is still to be determined.

In December 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada issued a decision stating that downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal. This is not a court decision and not surprisingly, the Canadian Recording Industry Association disputes the decision. The board also noted that it believed uploading copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited by law.

Fast forward to April 2004. The CRIA is in court trying to force major Canadian Internet service providers to divulge the names of suspected copyright violators. Not only did federal judge Konrad von Finckenstein deny the request but went on to rule that placing copyrighted works in a shared directory is legal, akin to the photocopiers mentioned above. The CRIA does not agree with Finckenstein and has appealed his ruling.

To buy his argument you have to believe that placing a copyrighted work in shared directory doesn't amount to distribution. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying," Finckenstein wrote.

In response to the ruling, Helene Scherrer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has promised to fix copyright law as quickly as possible. This may also push the government to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. According to the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access, ratifying the treaties may double the levies already imposed on blank digital media.

Part VIII of the Copyright Act would appear to disagree:

Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

I think, however, that uploading would count as distribution.
More information here, for example.

Part VIII of the Copyright Act would appear to disagree:

Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

I think, however, that uploading would count as distribution.
More information here, for example.

... the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of ... a musical work embodied in a sound recording ... onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

"The Copyright Board of Canada stated that the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing version..."

Interpretation of the "Fair-use" clause in Canada allows people to download copyrighted music from P2P but not to share.

Copyright Board Decision...

This is not true. The 1998 ammendment to the Canadian Copyright act specifically covers private copying of sound recordings of musical works. As a result we pay a levy on recordable media like CR-Rs. Here's what the Copyright Board of Canada has to say about it

Your friend's games, dvds, software etc are NOT covered and copying those things for your personal use are illegal. I hope you havent been doing that under the assumption that it's legal...

However, the Internet and disks are still not considered taxable medias. Sueing peoples make no sense. What they should do, it is to trying to convince the Board to include Internet and disks in the list. And the money should go to the artists rather than to the recording industry.

Personnally, I would be willing to pay some amount for the artists, but not for the industry which seems to me always harder to justify. Dinosaurs became extincted because they were simply obsolete given the new living conditions on earth. The recording industry is simply becoming obsolete, not the artists, and I don't see any reason to perpetuate the mascarade...

Are the CRIA making sure to go only after the P2P users who have uploaded?

I ask since...possesing copies of music you dont own, including P2P downloading is TOTALLY LEGAL here in canada. (first link is to the govt site explaining fair use, explaining you can copy any music, even music you dont own, as long as YOU are the one making the copy)

Fair use covers the fact that I can 100% legally borrow my friends cd's and copy them. He, on the other hand, CAN NOT make a copy for me.

So I guess Canada is not totally regressing into the USA :)

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

No, there's a levy on both kinds of CDs. It's even higher on "music" CDRs and CDRWs, but there is absolutely a levy on data CDs.

From a govt. web site, the current rates:
- Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 each
- CD-R and CD-RW: 21 each
- CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 each
- For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data.

Your citation was not complete. The proper URL to Section 80 (Copying for Private Use) is: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770


(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.


So basically, because the file sharer's are using (2)(c), ie they are communicating to the public by telecommunication, they are not subject to the exclusion of infringement in 80 (1).


It's important to read _all_ of the subsections, even if they are a gordian knot of exclusions and exceptions.

What's really screwy is that I can let someone copy my entire 90 gigabyte self-ripped MP3 collection, but if I make the copy FOR them, I'm infringing.

Here is the act. Search for "Copying for Private Use".

can be found in this FAQ.

- Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 each
- CD-R and CD-RW: 21 each
- CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 each
- For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data.

(If anybody is going to contest this, at least do a search first on previous Slashdot stories. This has been covered many times and even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that downloading is legal, but distributing is not.)

Any pay-per download service selling to Canada is counting on Canadians to pay more attention to the US news than to Canadian, which is probably a pretty safe bet.

I wouldn't say just yet that this is bad. Maybe one of the people they try to sue takes it to court. If they do it might be very interresting.

Remember, there is no court ruling in the US that deems P2P file sharing (note, it's called sharing, not stealing) illegal either. People just never had the guts to "go all the way".

There are people who read the law you say you could claim that the upload HAS to happen while you download. If that's the case than it could deemed legal in Canada to share music.

Not all is lost (yet). Plus, it is pretty much legal (French) (Warning, PDF link) to download anyways.

I wouldn't say just yet that this is bad. Maybe one of the people they try to sue takes it to court. If they do it might be very interresting.

Remember, there is no court ruling in the US that deems P2P file sharing (note, it's called sharing, not stealing) illegal either. People just never had the guts to "go all the way".

There are people who read the law you say you could claim that the upload HAS to happen while you download. If that's the case than it could deemed legal in Canada to share music.

Not all is lost (yet). Plus, it is pretty much legal (French) (Warning, PDF link) to download anyways.

You can see how the levies are calculated here and read the actual Certified Tariff documents here