Slashdot Mirror

I really don't think I am the exception. Canadian law professor Michael Geist did an analysis report on a CRIA (Canadian RIAA) study on which demographics "steal" the most music. It turns out that the worst P2P offenders are also the second largest purchasers! This is hardly proof that P2P and sales are related in any way, which is exactly Geist's point.

Incidentally, telus is the company who blocked access to union websites from their network and cut off the internet access of some employees during a strike last year

That's a good argument.

Furthermore, I already went to a DSL ISP that rents pair from the local telco monopoly rather than be subjected to the abuses of network neutrality that Telus has already perpetrated bly blocking Union websites.

When I called Telus to disconnect, the service rep tried to tell me that they were posting content unlawfully (like addresses of Telus execs, blabhlabh). I said "You guys don't bother blocking all the rest of the illegal stuff out there on the net, why the hell are you starting here?" In retrospect, I came up with all sorts of smartass responses about the fact that they fail to filter far nastier crap like my favorite kiddy porn sites (yes, as a joke, stupid). Or "That's great. When I want someone to protect me from the Internet, I'll call you."

Not much of that was necessary, of course. To his credit, the service rep got one whiff of my displeasure and went about our business.

I've been with Uniserve for years, and have had no such shenanigans. Competition works wonders.

Really? Profits in the entertainment industry are going up? That's not what analysts think.

I think this varies from country to country. In the USA, where the RIAA attacks its customers with lawsuits, profits may not be going up. But in Canada, where we have a private copying right (i.e. it is legal for me to copy music for my own use), profits are going up. Here's Michael Geist talking about a study commissioned by the federal government:

In recent years, however, the Canadian copyright industries have outperformed the U.S. with respect to growth rates and contribution to national employment.
[...]
Warning that "these findings should be treated with caution", the study reports that the Canadian sound recording industry grew steadily from 1999 to 2004, with the GDP contribution jumping from $243 million to $387 million.

The authors of the report believed the propaganda from the CRIA, so they didn't trust the objective data that they collected.

Agreed, this is completely untrue, the Globe and Mail likes to act like things are newsworthy, when they are not. See what Michael Geist has to say about this.

Going through the "True or False", section myself, I was quite annoyed at the absolute assumption that all "software" was illegal to copy, and this being beaten into children's minds, amongst other falacies.

Michael Geist (www.michaelgeist.ca) has a great commentary on his legal impressions of the whole thing:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1275/Itemid,85/nsub,/

Seems like the usual suspects fighting on the side of consumer rights again. This isn't the first time the growing artistic community around Nettwerk Music Group has attempted to make an impact, even the Nettwerk CEO saying "Litigation is destructive, it must stop .... as per Nettwerk copyrights, we have never sued anybody and all our music is open source to encourage fans to share it with others and help us promote our Artists. As per those Artists we manage on other labels (Majors), we take issue with those labels claiming that litigating our fans is in our interest, as it clearly is not."

None of the major labels would dare utter sacrilege like this. But to be fair, in Canada even the Recording Industry Association (CRIA) is not as virulent as it's ugly cousin to the south. They moderate their message somewhat with more honesty, for example recently releaseing a study showing:

CRIA's own research now concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services.
(words of Prof. Michael Geist, University of Ottawa)

from what I can gather from the "InterWeb"

http://www.lpco.ca/sambulte/about.aspx
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=1058&Itemid=89&nsub
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/23/hollywoods_mp _loses_.html

she is a former MP for the liberals who got lots of funding from the hollywood, and was in favour of stronger copy right.

she lost her bid for re-election.

http://michaelgeist.ca/ he explains everything in a very coherent manner with tremendous detail.

So why then are researchers worried? Why are security experts like Ed Felten spending a third of their time with lawyers?[1] Clearly it's not as easy as you claim to dismiss frivolous lawsuits; the mere possibility of them is having a negative impact on research.

1. I don't have an internet link to this, but Michael Geist imparted this information to a Hart House audience citing a personal interview with Dr. Felten.

As long a politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, this kind of this is inevidable. Check out the kerfluffle in the Canadian election (just one link of many) which shows pretty is much the same trend as what is going on in the EU.

Spoiler for those who don't want to dive deeper:

The choice Liberal candidate for 'Heritage Minister' is for all intents and purposes *owned* (lock, stock, and barrel) by the content industry. The trail leads back to the same large, US-based, industry interests that pushed this shit on to the American public, and are ultimately behind the laws in the EU.

Of course the 'Heritage Minister' portfolio is the one that seems to have power to modify copyright law as applys to music, movies, yes ... and, somehow, software, in Canada. In fact, the ONLY purpose of the Heritage Minister under the Liberals seems to have been service these corporate interests ... sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Canada only missed having such laws in place (bill C60) because another election was called before the bill got pushed through.

Interestly, the corporate interests in question pretty much managed to buy out the previous two Liberal Heritage ministers as well: Liza Frulla, responsible for bill C-60; and before her, Helene Scherrer -- who inconveniently (for the content industry representatives) lost her seat in the last Canadian election.

And just in case, corporate lobbists are at least contributing to the Conservative candidate most likely to fill this same position (hedging their bets). They are probably kicking themself for not coughing up more cash and promises for the Conservative candidate, since it looks like the Liberals are finally going to lose in Canada (I'd say good riddance to bad rubbish, except corruption seems endemic to the system and nothing will change under the next group ... but I digress).

"Sony BMG and a group of class action lawyers have reached a provisional settlement in the U.S. Sony rootkit class actions. Sony will pay cash compensation and give away free downloads from a choice of music download services including Apple iTunes as part of the deal. The settlement includes a host of restrictions on future Sony DRM use, which Michael Geist argues provides the starting point for a future Digital Rights Management Protection Act."

"Rather than pushing for protection for DRMs, it is apparent that we need protection from DRMs and DRMPA would be a smart step in that direction. Such a statute would be the best legacy of the Sony rootkit fiasco."

Bill C-60: Internet service providers have also done very well. They obtain clear provisions that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. Further, there is the notice and notice system, which obligates ISPs to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain "records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined" but they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee). ISPs that fail to abide by these provisions face only statutory damages of either $5,000 or $10,000.

What is troubling me the most is who is going to watch the ISPs? So much noise is being made about watching and tracking users but no one is watching the ISPs. At least in Canada. I say put QOS and Code of Conduct laws in place first then consider protecting other countries faling business models. I certainly don't trust my personal information in the hands of a small local ISP. Would you?

http://www.talksudbury.com/forums/index.php?showto pic=493&hl=bill+c-60
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60_cover-E.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=100&topics=1003 6

That article was written by Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, who always has interesting things to say about IP law. See his website for more.

An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to facilitate the
lawful interception of information transmitted by means of
those facilities and respecting the provision of telecommunications
subscriber information

With the passing of Bill C-60, this is not quite so cut and dry. We lost a lot of our rights that day. I suggest you read Michael Geist's website to keep abreast of these and other changes. Please see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

right?

Come on folks. As Michael Geist's website says, the major Canadian newspaper's (Globe & Mail, Ottawa Citizen, etc.) aren't even covering the article. Even though a lot of bullshit stories get printed and tossed in your yard, this one is just weighing in too heavy with idiocy.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php has some good comments on the two recent studies from the CRIA, plus some interesting comments on how various groups have been viewing them.

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=951&Itemid=98&nsub=

The following error was encountered:

        * Connection Failed

The system returned:

        (61) Connection refused

The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.

Yep. Very effective.

Hmm, oddly enough I was recruited here, so I'd say you're wrong.

Let's see: What country has spent billions on registering firearms to no utility? CSIS can wiretap without judicial approval. New legislation proposed this fall will allow eavesdropping on cellular telephone calls and monitoring of internet service. (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=conte nt&task=view&id=935)

While the US has remanded people to Guantanamo Bay as part of the war, Canada, a country which is not participating, has its own "Gitmo": read up on Mahmoud Jaballah.

As you say, these items are common knowledge.

Those "strikes" you mention would be murder, carjacking, rape and similar "strikes". Rather than returning to the street to reoffend (cf. violent recidivism in Canada is 13%; Paul Bernardo may apply for parole in 2008), they remain incarcerated after thrice proving that they are unable to rejoin civil society. Convicted burglars serve sentences three times longer in the US than in Canada, on average, 16 months rather than 5.3. Note that these are not actions of the state against law-abiding citizens, but against convicted felons who have constrained sets of rights, so discussions of third strike laws are immaterial to police state discussions. The US and Canada have similar racial distributions in their prison systems (joined by Australia and the UK).

Canada's got a couple of things working against this proposed bill. First off, we're in a minority Government right now, and I can name two political parties which are used to hold the balance on a regular basis who would have nothing to do with such a horrid bill. Also, the bill wouldn't pass the House of Commons for a long while, considering how much stalling would happen in comittee. This is probably how all these horrid bills you see will be forgotten, we're on the verge of a federal election the moment the House of Commons returns from recess, and bills die on the floor if not passed before Parliament disolves.

Also, it would never survive a Charter challenge, especially since aspects of the bill allow police to intercept and read open email without a warrant. Mail in Canada, like in the US, is probably one of the most protected forms of communication. One would argue (I can't wait until Michael Geist (http://michaelgeist.ca/) gets his hands on this), that it clearly is in direct opposition to Canada's Charter of rights and Freedoms. Section 8 of the charter clearly states that "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

In short, boo to the Liberals for proposing such a piece of work, yay for the polical system of Canada working against it.

Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottowa has several informative entries on his blog, including a PDF of the Order issued by the British Columbia Supreme Court against the Harry Potter #6 purchasers.

Memorable quote:

"...the judge that issued this order did indeed consider the consequences of the order and amazingly felt that it was appropriate to limit the freedom to read, freedom of speech, and the freedom of personal property."

Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottowa has several informative entries on his blog, including a PDF of the Order issued by the British Columbia Supreme Court against the Harry Potter #6 purchasers.

Memorable quote:

"...the judge that issued this order did indeed consider the consequences of the order and amazingly felt that it was appropriate to limit the freedom to read, freedom of speech, and the freedom of personal property."

Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottowa has several informative entries on his blog, including a PDF of the Order issued by the British Columbia Supreme Court against the Harry Potter #6 purchasers.

Memorable quote:

"...the judge that issued this order did indeed consider the consequences of the order and amazingly felt that it was appropriate to limit the freedom to read, freedom of speech, and the freedom of personal property."

First, I live in Canada where the courts have ruled it's not illegal to download music from p2p networks (too lazy to dig up a news link).
Only for so long. The new Copyright bill (C-6) which went through it's first hearing yesterday will change that quite quick. I would suggest if you haven't yet, that you contact your MP and voice your opinion on this bill if you want to continue doing it legally. I did.

An interesting read from Michael Geist:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/june2720 05.html

This is hardly the only brain damaged proposals in that bill. Micheal Geist has been writing about various parts of it for some time now. There was one particularly interesting article printed in the Winnipeg Free Press on this. The bill has a large negative effect on educational use (and I mean SCHOOLS) of copyrighted materials, particularly those from the internet. By all reports, the bill is extremely unbalanced in favour of copyright holders.

Canada has normal copyright laws. It lacks abnormal copyright laws like the DMCA. For now at last. Just say no to C-60

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/home.php#418

Michael Geist posted an alternative interpretation, and I think he's right. The fee referred to is not a fee paid by ISP customers to the ISP for provision of services, but a fee paid by the infringement *claimant* to the ISP for forwarding the notice and retaining the data.

Hopefully, this means that an ISP does not have an obligation to retain any customer data BEFORE the claimant sends the notice and pays the fee. The fee is currently at nil, but the government can set the fee later (this is, presumably, a defense against an potential epidemic of bogus claims). So this means (I hope) that one can provide anonymous net access, whether for fee or not, without running afoul of the law, so long as you *never* collect identifying info.

Hello Mr. Siksay,

I am writing you to discuss a great threat to freedom and culture in
our country today. There is legislation being put before the house next
week, see(
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1118271756635_30/?hub=CTVNewsAt11 )
. legislation that if passed, would curtail the rights and freedoms we have
to disseminate culture in a not for profit way. What I am talking about is
File Sharing. File sharing promotes the free exchange of art - in its many
forms - and thus serves to enhance our culture. Art is not meant to be
locked up in a vault with only a privileged few being able to view it. Art
is made to contribute to the social fabric that weaves to and fro and which
binds our country together.

I _urge_ you to vote against this legislation - and any such
legislation to come down the pipe in the future. To not do so would be
furthering the erosion of our collective culture that copyright was put in
place to prevent! The media cartels have twisted the true meaning of
copyright into a creators rights issue. This was not the original intention
of copyright. This is not about protecting the creators rights, this is
about societal betterment. It was meant to encourage social development.

I fear that this poorly written email does not do the cause justice
so I have included several links to people who are more wordy than I. In
closing, I would like you to consider what it would be like to have
masterpieces, say all of Monet's flowers, or Beethoven's moonlight sonata,
owned by a corporation whom you would have to pay for the right to enjoy.
That my friend is where this legislation is meant to take us.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ - Ottawa law professors comments
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___ 1.htm - A short story
that is on topic

Regards,
--Name Ommited--

Chinese government filters political content.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/may22005 .html

That okay too?

The allocation of the collected funds among songwriters, performers, and the labels varies from year to year. For 2004, the Copyright Board determined that 66 per cent of the funds would be distributed to songwriters through their collectives (SOCAN, CMRRA, and SODRAC), 18.9 per cent would be distributed to performers through their collectives (NRCC and SOGEDAM), and 15.1 per cent would be distributed to the labels through the NRCC collective. It is important to note that the funds earmarked for songwriters are distributed worldwide, while the performer and label compensation are available only to Canadians.

Professor Geist's appears to have posted a link a non-registered version of the article with background links documenting the various government policy plans.

If only that were true. The government's plans on lawful access as described in the article, as well as the recommendations on copyright, come from politicians and policy makers, not lobbyists. Geist's website now includes a link to a version of the article with background links on these issues.

And check out this too, if interested in what we think up here.

In a related item, law professor Michael Geist, in his weekly column discusses he financial impact of peer-to-peer music downloading on the Canadian music industry. He says that Canadian artists have not suffered financially, noting that lost royalties from diminished sales have been more than offset by the collection of nearly $120 million in private copying levies. Professor Geist is Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor, has released a two-part study on the financial impact of peer-to-peer music
downloading on the Canadian music industry and on the artists. Part one demonstrated that recording industry loss claims
are greatly exaggerated and that the P2P is only marginally responsible for sales declines with the focus on CRIA's own numbers and many alternate factors behind the moderate sales decline. Part two concludes that Canadian artists have not suffered financially, noting that lost royalties from diminished sales have been more than offset by the collection of nearly $120 million in private copying levies [registration required - use use jimbo@mailinator.com/password to login].