Canada Immune From RIAA?

Nick McKay writes "Tech Central Station is carrying a story on how Canadians are legally allowed to copy music not only in the home environment, but also on P2P networks such as Kazaa."

Comments

Canada-Runs!

[JM Apocalypse]

It seems as if Canada has become the land of the free, while the United States has become seemingly less thrilling to live in. I, for one, would be glad to be able to make legal copies of music and other goods, and only having to pay a small tax on media and (possibly) computer products. This would make it much easier to pay the RIAA and similar evil organizations, and would keep P2P infurioratingly legal.

I have a feeling that emigration to Canada will become increasingly more common if it gets to the point where if you have a file on your computer that may have possibly originated from a P2P network or other illegal source, you could pay hefty fines and jail terms. Will Canada border-hopping now include underage drinking and underage stealing? You decide. So, now if you want to escape the U.S. Justice system ... you know where to go. No more 3rd-world country that nobody has every heard of (Hurray!)

The only problem with this method is that companies cannot track who owes them how much, and which companies get the bigger share of the chunk of taxes. Why not have it so that, people report how many songs they downloaded and what they are, and that determines their tax (or refund, if they haven't downloaded anything). Then, the companies can easily divvy out the money to one another (but some companies will like the equal-split method better * wink wink *)

Re:Canada-Runs!

[Vic]

I, for one, would be glad to be able to make legal copies of music and other goods, and only having to pay a small tax on media and (possibly) computer products.

As a Canadian I definitely disagree with that statement. I don't want to pay $0.77 extra for every CDR that I buy. This almost quadruples the price I would pay for CDRs! My CDRs are mainly used to burn my own digital pictures, make Linux CDs (currently burning about 100 Knoppix CDs for my LUG), and other completely non-Pirate activities. Why should I have to pay a levy to the recording/movie/proprietary-software industries if I'm not doing anything wrong? The assumption of guilt bothers me.

Besides, I don't want to copy any of the RIAA's music. I spend enough of my own money on independent artists. So I have a pretty decent record and CD collection that is not pirated.

Cheers,
Vic

Re:Canada-Runs!

[aborchers]

Would you rather have the taxes in the US rise to absorb the problem, which the RIAA still gets paid? That's extremely "out of sight, out of mind".

That's exactly what the US did in 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act. The music cartels were inflamed about digital audio tape (DAT) and successfully levied a tax against that medium and serial copy protection into DAT recorders. Being "out of sight, out of mind" only a handful of technologists and audiophiles were affected, and the issue remained largely invisible. It basically killed DAT as a populist format, which suited the recording industry fine. Of course, independents were screwed because they had to buy crippled equipment and pay a levy to RIAA et al for the privilege of mastering their own music!

I'd rather have the lawsuits and RIAA absurdity kept in plain sight, thanks.

Hear hear. I am also glad that the current contraversy is playing out so boldly. It's time that the public at large realizes who's turning the screws on their culture and technology...

Re:Canada-Runs!

[RobinH]

I don't want to pay $0.77 extra for every CDR that I buy.

As another Canadian, I wholeheartedly agree. It's not quite, but almost as stupid as that espresso tax they're talking about in Seattle. How can you say that espresso drinkers are by-and-large also parents who use pre-Kindergarten? It's the same with CDR's - if 99% of CDRs were used to copy copyrighted music, then I'd say it's pretty fair, but that's simply not the case.

I understand taxing gas to pay for the roads, and even taxing cigarettes to fund cancer research, but this tax is wrong. Also, the money from the tax doesn't necessarily go to the artist whose song I'm copying - it's a bad system all around.

My feeling is this: until the music industry provides a reasonable service for downloading music over the internet, and allows me to use that copy anywhere (my home stereo, car, computer, etc.), then there should be no restrictions on this new technology. The recording industry shouldn't be allowed to sue you unless you made a profit off of selling copyrighted music.

Re:Canada-Runs!

[tomhudson]

And after it's decriminalized, how soon before someone who's dragged into court claims discriminatin under section 2 of the constitution?

After all, it really is discriminatory that I can enjoy a beer, but someone else is "breaking the law" when they toke up.

Don't get me wrong - I would like to see smoking anything being banned (can't stand the stench) - but until we make tobacco illegal, we're just being hypocrites in allowing some mood-altering substances (alcohol, chocolate, caffeine, sugar-loaded pop) and not others.

Actually discussed this whole issue this w/e at a party, and the general concensus is that, even now, it's almost impossible to get busted for possession. So, while it might be illegal "de jure", de facto it's all over the place, and the cops aren't going to go after your granny and her stash.

Business Opportunity

[AllDigital]

Wow....I bet a Canadian company could make a fortune selling high speed Internet access to those in the US, Or possibly just a high speed proxy service.

Then when the RIAA asked them for the user of the IP that is 'stealing' their music...they could tell them to take a flying leap.

Any bets as to how long it will take some enterprising Canadian to come up with this business model?

Or as to how long before the RIAA starts buying off memebers of Canada's parliment, the way that they buy our Senators and Representatives?

UK - a different story

[Mr_Silver]

I'm not a lawyer but I have heard from two sources (lawyer friend and woman in work who is involved in legal content issues) and in the UK you don't have the "fair use" right that is in the US.

Therefore even if you own the CD, you have absolutely no right to transfer it to a different format. With your CD, you purchase a right to listen to that music on that medium only. You do not have any rights to transfer it to any other medium. There is no provision in law to allow you to do so.

Having said that, MP3 players are sold and the BPI (our equivilant of the RIAA) have stated that they have "no plans" at the moment to go chasing people who do download and transfer music from CD's to other mediums.

I know Slashdot isn't a hot-bed of legal eagles, but does anyone know of anything different? This somewhat spooks me a little that the CD I purchased cannot be legally transfered to my mp3 player for the gym.

I believe this is incorrect

[GreenCrackBaby]

The blank CD levy was a tradeoff that gives Canadians very specific rights:


I can borrow a friend's CD and copy that CD onto a blank.


There's nothing about P2P networks, and until the levies come in on hard drives (in the works) I don't see how any copying involving hard drives can be considered covered.

From the article:
"In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.

Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.

Note the bolded text -- "CD". P2P files are not CDs! Even if they come from a CD, they aren't on a CD when you copy them, and so you're not covered by the levy.

Comments?

Re:Canada's not all its cracked up to be

[tcc]

> They have to pay "$0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not."

Funny... I'm Canadian, I just bought a spindle of 100 CD-R for 29.99$CAD...

been like that for the past year.

Dunno where you get your numbers but they are wrong.

Thick Headed

[mobileskimo]

To think that they could make just as much money from levying a tax and spend less time aggrevating their customers seems so foreign to them that it must be a Canadian thing, huh?

Much of the World (especially Europe) has the same attitude. People will do what people will do. Let them. Get over it. Find a way to compensate or accept it.

Instead, in the US the prevailing notion is to resolve by bullying and brute force. How young and inexperienced a country the US is. As strong as it is, it still hasn't learned how to play nice with others.

Actual levy amounts

[Hamster Lover]

Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29 cents
CD-R or CD-RW: 21 cents
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77 cents

So the actual levy on CD-R/RW is 21 cents, not 77 cents.

I believe the Copyright Board is considering a proposed increase in the levy on CD-R/RW to 59 cents per CD and applying the levy to hard drives, blank DVDs and memory cards. No decision has been made and I honestly believe the Copyright board will back down from the proposed levy on hard drives and other computer related media since industry outcry has been substantial. The obvious benefit to the levy is I can legally borrow and make a copy of a friend's CD for my own personal use and know that I am not committing a crime.

Many people in Canada are also not aware that you can apply for an exemption from the levy if your primary use of the levied media falls under certain categories. So companies such as the one I work for have an exemption from the levy since we only use blank CDs for in-house software.

RIAA can't subpoena Canadian ISPs either

[uw_dwarf]

The CPCC levy isn't the only reason why private copying via P2P networks is not a legal problem in Canada. There are privacy laws (about which the US has already complained are a hinderance to their terrorist investigations) that prevent the RIAA from issuing subpoenas to Canadian ISPs demanding their logs and subscribers.

This doesn't mean that your file-sharing information is not inaccessible. If you're sharing music, you'll be fine--you're not in violation of Canadian law and practice. If you're sharing kiddy porn or hate literature, the Canadian police can get the data because you're involved in another crime.

The CBC has a brief article and opinion about this.

If the RIAA was to follow the lead of Canadian direct broadcast satellite providers, they'd make an appeal to morality to address their problem, since the laws here won't help them.

Music sharing may be legal in US too! 17 USC 1008

[redelm]

There is currently alot of controversy around the "sharing" of digital music files over the objections of the copyright holders (RIAA for short). Some users feel guilt (occasionally shown as defiance) over having received something valuable so cheaply.

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL :) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

My little Rant

[rsilvergun]

I'm really tired of this "Freedom and free market crap". Not trying to troll here, so here me out. I think you'll find your Freedom only applies when it's convient for major corporations, and that the free market reigns supreme largely for less affluent Americans. The rich get laws passed in their favor (DMCA comes to mind, so does that little executive order of Bush's that lets oil execs off the hook for any nastiness in Iraq), they get government subsidies and garanteed loans, the get free trade when it's good for them and tarriffs when it isn't. Meanwhile my Brother's job is being sent to India while he tries to avoid sending my niece to an abysmal public school.

I want the government watching out for me. It's the only thing big enough to stand against corporations like the RIAA. If I go up against the RIAA, I'll get crushed. Just like those 261 poor bastards that're about to have their lives ruined. Simply put, it's in my best interests to have the goverment do something like this (and please dont' start arguing this isn't in my best intrests. It may not be, but letting the RIAA run rampant certainly isn't).

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm tired of seeing people get behind policies that screw them over in the name of a free market that doesn't really exist anyways.