Slashdot Mirror

It's not implied, it's explicit. Copying of music for personal use is entirely 100% legal in Canada

Correct. Citation here (warning, PDF), which states:

Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying a sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized the private copying of sound recordings of musical works

Exactly! Most of the music/DVDs/software/games I buy physical copies of never leave their packaging, as soon as I own them I fire up BitTorrent/Gnutella/Warez forums and download myself a copy. I'm not exactly sure about the legality in the states under the DMCA but here in Canada it's 100% legal under the Private Copying section of the Copyright Act and the Computer Programs section if you want a rock-solid defense for backing up Software/Games to get "copies" by any methods you like as long as you actually own it. Also, even if the House of Commons or the Supreme Court makes it illegal up here, I really don't care. For me morality is more important than legality when it comes to stupid laws, if I've purchased a copy I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that I can't grab myself a DRM-free version (besides, the RCMP hasn't and isn't going to be putting any effort into cracking down on piracy, and the ISPs up here don't seem to be doing anything beyond throttling). The day I give in to DRM is the day Microsoft goes open-source.

Exactly! Most of the music/DVDs/software/games I buy physical copies of never leave their packaging, as soon as I own them I fire up BitTorrent/Gnutella/Warez forums and download myself a copy. I'm not exactly sure about the legality in the states under the DMCA but here in Canada it's 100% legal under the Private Copying section of the Copyright Act and the Computer Programs section if you want a rock-solid defense for backing up Software/Games to get "copies" by any methods you like as long as you actually own it. Also, even if the House of Commons or the Supreme Court makes it illegal up here, I really don't care. For me morality is more important than legality when it comes to stupid laws, if I've purchased a copy I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that I can't grab myself a DRM-free version (besides, the RCMP hasn't and isn't going to be putting any effort into cracking down on piracy, and the ISPs up here don't seem to be doing anything beyond throttling). The day I give in to DRM is the day Microsoft goes open-source.

Just read the copyright act. It's absolutely clear that it's legal to copy onto CDs (for which you've paid a levy, presumably). It's a little ambiguous about whether it's legal to copy onto other media. The source of the copy is irrelevant.

Here's the link for you: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80

The ambiguity comes because of the definition of an "audio recording medium" in that paragraph. Look back a few pages and decide for yourself.

Actually, it's legal for Canadians to download music from the Internet, but not to upload it.

See this section of Canada's Copyright Act : Copying for private use

Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs.

Incorrect. Any person can make a copy of any copyrighted musical work for their own personal use. It doesn't mean they can only copy things they already own, it doesn't matter if they've paid anything for it at all. You can come to my house and copy all my CDs, and so can everyone I know. You may also invite anyone to come to your house and make copies of your CDs, including the ones you copied from me. Making any copy of any recording for personal use is not infringement.

See the "Copying for Private Use" section of the Canadian Copyright Act:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770

What I'm curious about is this;

The blank media levy was supposed to cover things like recoding from the radio. So what then is the functional differnce from me ripping a stream to mp3 and hitting record on the old tape deck?

Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs.

Incorrect. Any person can make a copy of any copyrighted musical work for their own personal use. It doesn't mean they can only copy things they already own, it doesn't matter if they've paid anything for it at all. You can come to my house and copy all my CDs, and so can everyone I know. You may also invite anyone to come to your house and make copies of your CDs, including the ones you copied from me. Making any copy of any recording for personal use is not infringement.

See the "Copying for Private Use" section of the Canadian Copyright Act: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770

No, the law isn't "clear". There is a legal precedent about it. The law didn't change, so if you get sued, your lawyer has to quote a precedent, not the law as written in the books.

The Copyright Act is pretty clear about copying music. Methinks you are thinking about the P2P aspect of downloading, which involves redistribution via uploading. That part isn't clear and AFAIK remains in the grey zone since the 2004 supreme court decision that established "fair dealing" (not fair use!) as a user right, even though it was about photocopying.

However, if I download audio via http or ftp or some other conventional means, or borrow a friend's CD and rip it, that is private copying and is unequivocally NOT infringement. In fact, I pay about $0.21 per blank CD for the privilege.

Here's the relevant section from the Act: in short, copy from your friends' music collection all you want, just don't turn around and use it to make money. Unfortunately, that includes innocuous stuff like background music in a restaurant.

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.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

A copied song--as it was not produced by the authorized agent--could be considered "counterfeit."

The extension to murder implies that copying a music CD is inherently wrong - in the legal world, malum in se. Murder, rape, serious assaults - they cause harm, and are generally agreed to be wrong anywhere you go. I don't think that many people would agree that copying a CD causes direct harm to the copyright holder. If there is any harm at all, it can only be indirect - perhaps due to a loss of revenue. If that revenue loss to the copyright holder is made up by the state by a special tax, wherein is there any harm done at all?

There is actually some convincing evidence that suggests there is no link between music copying and a loss of revenue, even in countries where such copying is illegal and there is no tax. Often such copying is done by people who would never have purchased the "retail" CD anyway, even if they couldn't copy. There is evidence to suggest that copying by those people results in the wider dissemination of music to those who can (and do) then purchase it. If this is indeed the case, then the blank media tax is actually giving the music industry more money than they would have had even if there was no copying done at all.

Whether or not this is the case, the fact is that if someone who would never have purchased a CD copies it, there cannot be said to be any harm done to the copyright holder. The copyright holder has lost nothing. This can only ever be malum prohibitum.

In Canada, rather than empowering our government with more and more draconian measures to stop violations of laws with questionable underpinnings, we simply add a small tax to blank media. This is our way of indicating how much we value music makers, and remunerating them for what they provide us. No DMCA, no court system clogged by the RIAA suing disabled people or single mothers, just a quietly effective system that looks to me to be fair to all.

The sad thing, is that law makers in the United States are putting enormous pressure on our government to adopt a more American system. That would be a tragedy, and I hope that we hold out.

I do apologize for the misinformation about data/audio CDs. I seem to remember this distinction being made at some point, though, so that may be a change in more recent levies. I don't generally use blank CDs much for data nowadays anyway - I use DVD, which has no levy. In fact, I only ever use blank CDs for the occasional audio disc, so the levy works well in my case.

Just to be specific, and because I expect many don't know what levy you're talking about, here's the actual law that allows private copying in Canada:

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.

That is, as long as you aren't profiting off of the recording. So, since we pay about 22cents per blank CD, we have the right, nay, duty, to get our money's worth. I download about one album per 50 stack of CDR's, which is a pretty good deal for the industry.

The link you've given was the French copy, noted by the 'f' in the URL:
act-f.html#80

The English version has an 'e' in it's place

If I borrow a friend's music CD and copy that CD on to media purchased under the levy...

There's no requirement that you copy onto levied media. You can make a personal copy onto any audio recording medium. See the Copyright Act, it's not that hard to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

"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)."

However, this obviously doesnt apply to P2P, and most people dont burn music to CD's anymore, its from PC to MP3 Player, or some FlashMemory device...

So, the answer is "its been partially paid for", or possibly its even been entirely paid for, but the current implimention wont last long...

here in Canada,... you are allowed to make a copy of virtually anything for personal, non-commercial use.

Perhaps you should check with a lawyer. I just skimmed the statue

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33389

and I see no such exception. In fact, the exceptions listed are very similar to the "fair use" examples in US law -- education, criticism, news reporting, and so on -- but there's no blanket "personal use" clause.

Not a lawyer, but Part V, section 42 of the Copyright Act lists criminal remedies as well as civil remedies.

Not a lawyer, but Part V, section 42 of the Copyright Act lists criminal remedies as well as civil remedies.

Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy. In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use.

3. Congratulations. I'm happy for you that file sharing "has been determined to be legal" in your country.

4. Question. Was the "determination" in a "code" or was it a judge's decision interpreting the code?

5. Question. Do you want the judge's decision to be "perpetuated", or would you rather leave it up to other judges to ignore it because it was "misguided"?

6. I am guessing that
-it was a decision by a judge, because the "code" did not specify whether file sharing was legal or not, and

[...]the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of [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.

-you would want other judges to follow that decision, rather than for each new case to be a guessing game as to what the judge's personal opinion will be.

7. People need to know, when they wake up in the morning, how to plan their lives so they don't run afoul of the law. They need to know what the law is, and can't have a random system where each judge's personal opinion is all that counts. And no legislator is so much of a prophet that he can write a code that will cover all eventualities. Sometimes one needs a judge to apply the law to the facts. So you see, the 2 systems are not so dissimilar after all. And you are not so different than the people you are attacking. You too, want good judicial decisions to be followed by future judges.

However, the main advantage of a civil code is that cases are very rarely murky so the outcome can be most often determined early enough to keep down litigation to an acceptable level.

every person who, for the purpose of trade, manufactures a blank audio recording medium in Canada or imports such a medium into Canada is liable to pay a levy on selling or otherwise disposing of that medium in Canada,...

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy rates shall be
(a) 29 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 29 for each CD-R or CD-RW;
(c) 85 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) for removable electronic memory cards in the Secure Digital, MultiMedia, and Memory Stick formats with more than 256 MB of memory, $2 for each card with no more than 1 Gigabyte (GB) of memory,
$5 for each card with more than 1 GB and no more than 4 GB of memory,
and $10 for each card with more than 4 GB of memory;
(e) for digital audio recorders, $5 for each recorder with no more than 1 Gigabyte (GB) of memory,
$25 for each recorder with more than 1 GB and no more than 10 GB of memory,
$50 for each recorder with more than 10 GB and no more than 30 GB of memory,
and $75 for each recorder with more than 30 GB of memory.

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 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 have been why the CRIA lobbyists originally supported this, but that's not part of the law. They got it legalized, so it's no longer copyright infringement. Read the law, or read the Copyright Board summary.

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 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 have been why the CRIA lobbyists originally supported this, but that's not part of the law. They got it legalized, so it's no longer copyright infringement. Read the law, or read the Copyright Board summary.

See http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html for the list from copyright board of Canada.

IANAL, but at least the levy ought to give you the right to copy stuff.

It does. Canadians have a right to copy for private use.

I actually have no clue what point you've been trying to make, aside from acting like a child and making an ass of yourself, but whatever it was, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment with 2 minutes on Google and probably answered whatever questions you had.

Here's the English version of the government website: Canada Copyright Act (Section 80)

This states you're free to make yourself a private copy of a copyrighted work, so long as the intent is not one of: (a) selling/renting it (b) distributing (c) communicating to the public (d) performing to the public.

In idiot-speak: you can borrow your friend's CD and make yourself a copy; your friend can borrow your copy and make himself a copy; his friend can copy that copy -- all so long as the intent isn't distribution.

If the Act itself is not clear/detailed enough for you, and this is a topic you're actually fanatically interested in (as opposed to just being a means satisfying your urge to argue about topics you don't actually care about on Slashdot), then I'd suggest using Canada411 to look up a Canadian intellectual property lawyer who can answer your questions.

The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy.

All "levy" means as a verb (in this case) is "to collect". "Levy" as a noun is whatever is being collected. As the Canadian government is issuing the "levy" on behalf of their versions of the **IA, I wouldn't argue with it being called a tax. Also, from my link to the Copyright Board of Canada website:

The Board concluded in the decision issued today that recordable and rewritable DVDs, removable memory cards (such as SmartMedia, CompactFlash and Secure Digital Memory cards) and removable micro hard drives are not ordinarily used by individuals for the purpose of copying music at this time. Therefore, these media are not subject to a levy.

The act of putting a file in a directory(or uploading to a shred server) where others can get at it is not a crime

The act of downloading it is a different matter entirely.

Again, Canadian rules specifically allow that, on the assumption that people will be pirates, so they've been charged in advance for it. How many other countries have rules like this?

From the Copyright Board of Canada's web site http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html the following forms of blank recording media are subject to the levy:-

Analog Audio Cassette Tapes:

CD-R and CD-RW:

CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio:

MiniDisc:

Non-Removable Memory Permanently Embedded in a Digital Audio Recorder:

All blank CDROMS, CDRWs are covered by the tarif.
Blank regular CDs are levied 29 cents, Audio CDs are levied 77 cents per. See http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html or your above linked Wikipedia page

It's not a fee, it's a tax. It is to compensate those industries hurt by piracy, not to give you a license to pirate.

In Canada, it's a fee. The Copyright Act is quite clear about this. You can read a very clear
description of this on the Copyright Board of Canada's web site. (I know it's hard to believe a bureaucracy like that would write clearly!)

In particular, "The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy. In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c10022007 -b.pdf
Download it, read it, then reply to the address on page 1 why you object to it
"any person who wishes to object to the statement may file written objections with the Board, at the address indicated below, within 60 days of the publication of this notice, that is no later than April 11, 2007"

Not that anyone cares, but here's the poll in question.

Here's the one for the canadian court decision.

And here's the iPod tax.

"What specific forms of blank recording media are subject to the levy? Analog Audio Cassette Tapes:

CD-R and CD-RW:

CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio:

MiniDisc:

Non-Removable Memory Permanently Embedded in a Digital Audio Recorder:

"

So as a Canadian, I believe in getting my money's worth from the Piracy tax.

No, it's Levy paid to CRIA for blank CD's and audio tapes (not HDDs or DVDs), but you can't be sued for downloading music or videos.

I am not a lawyer!

I'm sorry, but I've been pouring through the Canadian Copyright Act, and I cannot find anything which substantiates your claim. This is the only clause I can find which is relevant to this situation, but please tell me if I've missed something. (Edit: now that I am done writing this comment I am no longer as sure as when I started, so please read to the end)

From http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80: (emphasis mine)

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.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Now, the first thing to notice here is that this only applies to musical works, not videos. Next, this only allows copying onto an "audio recording medium," defined as:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#79

"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;

The last sentence seems somewhat badly phrased, those of you who know french may agree that it is worded better on the french version of the page: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-f.html#79

"support audio" Tout support audio habituellement utilisé par les consommateurs pour reproduire des enregistrements sonores, à l'exception toutefois de ceux exclus par règlement.

Now, I don't know if there are recording mediums which are excluded (or "exclus par règlement"), but disregarding that, my (possibly unqualified) judgement suggests to me that HDDs would count as "ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose," especially since many portable music players use them to store music.

Another important insight is that this only covers the case in which you make a copy of a work for your own private use. This leads me to believe that, for example, I could make a copy of my friend's music disk and use it myself, but it would be copyright infringement for him to make the copy and give it to me. Together with paragraphs (2) (b) and (c), this leads me to believe that it is not permitted for you to download music for the purpose of sharing it through the p2p service. Perhaps if the p2p aplication does not permit you to disable uploading you can say it was not your purpose to upload the music? Maybe you can say this in any case? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Now that I've looked at it so closely, however,

No, it's Levy paid to CRIA for blank CD's and audio tapes (not HDDs or DVDs), but you can't be sued for downloading music or videos.

I am not a lawyer!

I'm sorry, but I've been pouring through the Canadian Copyright Act, and I cannot find anything which substantiates your claim. This is the only clause I can find which is relevant to this situation, but please tell me if I've missed something. (Edit: now that I am done writing this comment I am no longer as sure as when I started, so please read to the end)

From http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80: (emphasis mine)

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.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Now, the first thing to notice here is that this only applies to musical works, not videos. Next, this only allows copying onto an "audio recording medium," defined as:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#79

"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;

The last sentence seems somewhat badly phrased, those of you who know french may agree that it is worded better on the french version of the page: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-f.html#79

"support audio" Tout support audio habituellement utilisé par les consommateurs pour reproduire des enregistrements sonores, à l'exception toutefois de ceux exclus par règlement.

Now, I don't know if there are recording mediums which are excluded (or "exclus par règlement"), but disregarding that, my (possibly unqualified) judgement suggests to me that HDDs would count as "ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose," especially since many portable music players use them to store music.

Another important insight is that this only covers the case in which you make a copy of a work for your own private use. This leads me to believe that, for example, I could make a copy of my friend's music disk and use it myself, but it would be copyright infringement for him to make the copy and give it to me. Together with paragraphs (2) (b) and (c), this leads me to believe that it is not permitted for you to download music for the purpose of sharing it through the p2p service. Perhaps if the p2p aplication does not permit you to disable uploading you can say it was not your purpose to upload the music? Maybe you can say this in any case? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Now that I've looked at it so closely, however,

No, it's Levy paid to CRIA for blank CD's and audio tapes (not HDDs or DVDs), but you can't be sued for downloading music or videos.

I am not a lawyer!

I'm sorry, but I've been pouring through the Canadian Copyright Act, and I cannot find anything which substantiates your claim. This is the only clause I can find which is relevant to this situation, but please tell me if I've missed something. (Edit: now that I am done writing this comment I am no longer as sure as when I started, so please read to the end)

From http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80: (emphasis mine)

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.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Now, the first thing to notice here is that this only applies to musical works, not videos. Next, this only allows copying onto an "audio recording medium," defined as:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#79

"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;

The last sentence seems somewhat badly phrased, those of you who know french may agree that it is worded better on the french version of the page: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-f.html#79

"support audio" Tout support audio habituellement utilisé par les consommateurs pour reproduire des enregistrements sonores, à l'exception toutefois de ceux exclus par règlement.

Now, I don't know if there are recording mediums which are excluded (or "exclus par règlement"), but disregarding that, my (possibly unqualified) judgement suggests to me that HDDs would count as "ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose," especially since many portable music players use them to store music.

Another important insight is that this only covers the case in which you make a copy of a work for your own private use. This leads me to believe that, for example, I could make a copy of my friend's music disk and use it myself, but it would be copyright infringement for him to make the copy and give it to me. Together with paragraphs (2) (b) and (c), this leads me to believe that it is not permitted for you to download music for the purpose of sharing it through the p2p service. Perhaps if the p2p aplication does not permit you to disable uploading you can say it was not your purpose to upload the music? Maybe you can say this in any case? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Now that I've looked at it so closely, however,

"Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy."

So it's legal to make personal copies of music in Canada.

"Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of other people's work."

See here, under exceptions to Copyright infringement. That'd be enough to already do anything that anyone would reasonably want under the AC proposal.

Access Copyright adds absolutely nothing to this except possibly wresting control of copyright from ACTUAL copyright holders.

They can be used, does not they must be used. There are so many other uses of CDs that it's pretty much impossible to charge a levy. When you look at audio cassettes, there are very few uses apart from recording audio, so it's easy to argue that a levy should be charged. If there is a levy in Canada, how much is it? Because I can go to the local discount computer store and get 50 CDs for $12. That works out to $0.24 for each CD. The Canadian copyright board states that they levy on CDRs is supposed to be $0.21 per CD ($0.77 for CDR-Audio). I find it highly unlikely that the levy is being charged, and that I'm only paying $0.03 per CD including retail markup, transportation, manufacturing, and all the other costs of delivering CDRs to the end user. Also, to reiterate, there is absolutely no levy on DVD+/-Rs.

"Among teens aged 12 to 17 who were polled, 69 percent said they thought it was legal to copy a CD from a friend who purchased the original."

If those 69% of students live in Canada and the copy is for personal use, they are correct. You can legally make a copy of whatever music you wish, as long as you don't distribute it, publicly perform it, or sell it.

So, lemme get this straight... I'm paying taxes that fund copyright holders' (specifically, SOCAN) efforts to make more money while I'm still paying a blank media tax that already puts money directly into those same copyright holders' (SOCAN) pockets? Sweet deal ;)

Well, as a Canadian, I'm interested in the tax on blank media. So after a couple of minutes on the Copyright Board of Canada's web site at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33760 I've found:-

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.

So copying for private use (no selling or re-broadcasting) is not a copyright infringement in Canada. So I'll keep paying the tax on the blank media and downloading music (for personal use) onto that media.

Take that, Captain Copyright.

Under Canadian Copyright Law, it's perfectly legal to download music without paying for it.

See?

Actively uploading, however, does violate our Copyright Law. This has been brought up here so many times, I'm not going to bother posting links to previous /. articles.

All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service.

I don't see any mention of Canada there, just a vague statement that it's up to you to figure out whether it is legal in your country. In fact, Canadians have a right to make copies for private use. This is what the levy on blank media pays for.

All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service.

I don't see any mention of Canada there, just a vague statement that it's up to you to figure out whether it is legal in your country. In fact, Canadians have a right to make copies for private use. This is what the levy on blank media pays for.