Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Supreme Court To Define ISP Role
Ubergrendle writes "The CBC is reporting that the Canadian Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding copyright royalties and the responsibilities of ISPs both here and abroad. From the article: 'The people who represent Canadian artists say everyone who has a hand in transmitting recorded music is liable. "Creative people should be compensated for the use and exploitation of their music," said Paul Spurgeon, general counsel for the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. "We're obviously in a struggle right now trying to figure out the best techniques to ensure that they are compensated appropriately.'" This follows on the heels of the Canadian music industry asking that this case be heard. Given the trade relations, this case should have consequences far outside of Canada proper.
The people who represent Canadian artists say everyone who has a hand in transmitting recorded music is liable.
That's the person who copies it, whoever writes the software that copies it (whether p2p, ftp, samba, http), the person who pays for net access, the person who owns the phoneline or cable connection, the ISP, the ISPs between ISPs, the receiving ISP, and all those people again on the receiving end.
Wonder if they truly think about this. the RIAA and their equivalents worldwide can't all be so insanely silly and see that their distribution methods are so outdated that fewer and fewer people are using them. Could they?
RST
Look no more.
Now, I'm not 100% sure on this (and I didn't RTFA), but someone posted in a different article a while back (and got modded up) that due to the tax on blank CDRs, people in Canada could download music legally, so isn't this kind of a moot point?
Paul Spurgeon, general counsel for the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
The SCAMP of Canada?
Following SOCAN's logic, I guess we should sue General Motors the next time somebody uses a Chevy to rob a bank.
We're obviously in a struggle right now trying to figure out the best techniques to ensure that they are compensated appropriately.'"
As a Canadian, I already pay a copyright levy on cdrs, am I supposed to pay more to my isp now? Judging by the line above..I'd have to say it isnt completely out of the question.
They remind me of SCO. Try and blame everybody and sue everybody, and see what sticks. Just no integrity left in the business community it seems.
So if two ppl plan a crime using a phone is the phone company partly to blame?? Of cource not.
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada == SCAM Publishers of Canada
Sorry, just found that mildly amusing.
Jason Lotito
It wasn't a comment in response to an article, it was the article itself.
We don't call it 'The Canadian Supreme Court' here. Its proper name is the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is not the United States, and thank fucking god for that.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Occationally in the US there is a court case where the family of someone who's been murdered tries to sue the gun company. They never win. The major problem with this concept that the Canadian music industry is trying to pull a fast one is that if the enabling technology is legal then there is no justification to sue them for doing their job.
So, for example, in the US it is legal to make and sell guns. The gun manufacturing companies, although are creating a dangerous tool, are not breaking any laws. If someone buys that gun and shoots someone else, they are violating the law, but there is no reason why the gun manufacturer should be held liable.
If there is any logic in the Canadian supreme court, they will see that the ISP is just the enabling technology. The ISP is doing nothing illegal. They should not be held accountable. Yeah I know that this cannot be used as a precident in a Canadian court, but I think its more of a logical argument, not a setting of a precident.
I also wonder how they think that they're going to collect from foreign ISPs.
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
"Creative people should be compensated for the use and exploitation of their music,"
what if they aren't? Who wants first hit at Avril Lavigne?
Check out the story over at Access Copyright, a clearinghouse agency for writers and visual artists in Canada that compensates these creators in cases where "their work is copied, whether it's being photocopied, scanned or downloaded." This is done through licensing fees which, in turn, is often collected through levying on photocopying (such as an extra fee slipped into the charges on a university's photocopy machine).
It's not the individual users who log in and pay up each time they photocopy from a library book (though they could). It's the providers that have to do the work. I think, unfortunately, that this precedent will be important when trying to put responsibility on the ISPs.
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
If the worst happens and SOCAN gets their own way, the ISP needs to fight back in any way possible, from charging outrageous fees to SOCAN and any other music body using the internet. If they can't let us have our internet free, then they should be paying a lot for it also...
To think of an ISP as anything other than a carrier opens up such a big can of worms that to do so would be disasterous. Canada has a very distributed population, and the internet is necessary here for communication and business. This stupid SOCAN idea is anti-business. Perhaps businesses should also band together to do anything possible to screw SOCAN and their musicians into the ground. After all, we're paying the stupid CD levy for all the source code we back up.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The rest of the Spurgeon quote seems so reasonable. Why do people have to exaggerate and make things seem so dire? I know,I know. Money. To me it's just dishonest. I get tired of the fact that everyting is an con, or a sell of some sort.
If a musician is being exploited, the publisher is the most likely culprit. Somehow, this is twisted and suddenly it's the people using the internet to download files? Please.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Yep, because you can't get much more creative and original than Britney Spears and her fellow artists. I also notice that the words 'rewarded appropriately' were used instead of 'rewarded fairly.'
Where have you been?
Watch out, Monster Cable!
Money for nothing, pix for free
I AM CANADIAN and I and so f@#$'n tired of these poor starving artists who claim to be suffering so much because people are downloading and/or sharing their music...PLEASE get over yourselves
I have a hard time believing that all but the very best... maybe 10% of Canadian artists are being traded, even moderately.
And this tax the ISP for others is truly Canadian and just as f@#$'n stupid.
Canadians pay more taxes to "protect" Canadian businesses that peddled in international television signals, music distribution and now possibly internet access... talk about a racket!
I credit Teddy Rosevelt. Not surprising that as the people who remember that period die, the more we regress towards it. Something about 'repeating history and DooM....' I don't know, I tend to nod off when people are talking, but not directly to me.
Someone patent the use of computer network to transfert music file to it's end users and require royalties to the music industry for using it's patent. When they say the transfert isn't their doing, send them back to this case and give them a taste of their own medicine.
Whenever I hear these statements, I'm wondering how much of that is "someone rights are not infringed" and how much is "someones business model must be protected".
There is no god-given right to make a living off whatever you choose to be your profession. Circumstances can change, and your business model can become unviable. Facts of life 101. Everybody has to deal with that (cf. type-setters, weavers, ...). Thus any argument similar "those poor XXX, YYY destroys their income, thus YYY must be banned" is IMHO just wrong.
The correct approach is to look whether somebody need legal help to ascertain his right to the fruits of his labor. That he's not wronged in the legal sense of the word. Whether his income would be enough to sustain his life is not the court's business.
If the state decides that it really wants a certain tradecraft to be a viable business, then that's a purely political question (cf. farm subsidies, military spending, art funding) and should not be decided by a court of law.
>>Given the trade relations, this case should have consequences far outside of Canada proper. Canada [i]proper[/i]? I like the sound of Canada [i]im[/i]proper. Where the hell's that?
'The people who represent Canadian artists say everyone who has a hand in transmitting recorded music is liable.
Perhaps it's just me, but wouldn't this fault the recording industry as well? After all, they are the ones who have effectively transmitted the music from the studio to the average Joe listener. The average Joe has then ripped the CD, made it available on the internet, where it has then been downloaded. Hence the recording industry has had a hand in transmitting recorded music.
---
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
We need to know who these people are! I for one wouldn't want to be living next to some weird freak who spends his time downloading fucking Celine Dion and Brian Adams tracks!!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
This is the same supreme court that ruled that Canadians can't get American satellite signals even when willing to pay for them. We are forced to only view Canadian content even when we are willing to go to extremes and set up an american PO box and pay american dollars. This is not a resonably thinking court. Don't think for a second that the right thing will be done here. I wouldn't be surprised if they came down with a ruling that decided that Candaians couldn't download any foreign music and if they did you must pay a levy. They will make a ruling that has no way of being enforced and spend millions trying to enforce it. Rational thinking has nothing to do with it!!!!
Stay tuned for new sig...
ISP must provide communication channel between interested parties. They must not care about actions of their users and content of their hard drives. Damn, nobody sues phone company when two criminals talks over a phone. I do not understand why big telecoms and other orgs do not push for a law which will separate telcos and ISPs from users . ISP must work like a pipe - I hire a pipe of XX GBs and use way I like for my own purposes.
/. to Sealand and launch /. RIAA free satellite of proud Free Sealand ISP
Vote for Internet Service Provider Protection Act
P.S. or may be move
This is like trying to sue the roads because of what type of cars drive on it.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Canadians already pay the music industry for piracy in the form of a tax on CDRs. Reardless of use, the Canadian government has placed a levy on CDRs which is reported to go back to the music industry in an effort to counter piracy. Users of CDRs have apparently already been charged for piracy without a trial and are being fined to use the CDR media which is being used for "piracy". It appears that the music industry would be double dipping if they are allowed to charge ISPs since anything charged to the ISPs would be passed to the consumer (more than likely the purchaser of CDRS) reulting in double payment: double-dipping. Hell, even the government isn't allowed to double-dip, but then again this is the music industry: they probably have a thing or two to tell the government about real power...
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" -- Red Green
Here in Canada we put a relatively large focus on supporting Canadian artists, and culture and media in general. Some of our taxes and levies(like on CD-Rs) help fund arts groups and artists, and this is somewhat in that line, I feel.
Even our big media group, the CBC, recieves government funding. I for one I'm glad for it. Sure, it's socialism. But it's just a touch. And when I dial in the CBC Two late at night there's always the most interesting music on. We pay a bit more in taxes and get a lot back in continuingly interesting art. I think that's a good thing.
Today the RIAA sued the Roman Catholic, United Methodist, and Southern Baptist Churches for copyright violations.
An RIAA spokesperson stated, "We hold God responsible for granting mankind the mental capability to unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted works. These churches, being an earthly representative of the Creator, are responsible for the actions of those He created.
The RIAA spokeperson also stated that all of the world's other major religions can expect similar lawsuits "just to make sure we are suing the the 'real' God."
If RIAA and SOCAN spent the money promoting a positive image and finding talented artist instead of sueing people they would be far better off.
Why do you think people love downloading free music?? it's all about sticking it to the MAN!
People that are downloading that crap wouldn't be buying it, it's sort of like software pirates who have $30 million of stolen software on their system.. the would never buy that software in the first place so it's not a loss, actually most can barely afford to make rent most of the time let alone spend 30 million on software.
one word : stupid.
RIAA/SCAMP and co. should be sued by artists for not protecting their material appropriately, and letting people illegaly copy the CDs by not using any efficient copy protection. That could be fun to see.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
play your crap loud enough, late enough next door to me, and I'll be that guy. Pay back is a bitch.
For the truly depraved, the people that can't be reasoned with, and I've only had to use "The Last Resort" one time, I have a promotional copy of a Milli-Vanillia Blame it on the rain mix cd. Naturally, before unleashing it, I humainly investigated the potential for using nuclear weapons, but the collateral damage was too great. So, I put it in, turned the stereo up to 7 (I'm not a monster) and the speakers towards the wall, then set it to loop, and left for eight hours. Sure I got written up. But I never had a problem with that neighbor ever again. Coincidence? Maybe.
since i believe that taxes are being collected from media and now isps, to fund those copyright holders, then i think it will now be legal for users to share files over the network because they have paid for it already through taxes.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
First of all, the blank media levy is not 'compensating' artists - to this date, not one cent of the levy has been given to record labels, let alone artists. And if/when the money does get handed down to the music companies, what makes anyone think that they will actually pass it along to the artists? It's been awhile since I saw a record contract, but that's never been a line item - it's not a unit sale, so the artists won't see a dime.
Second of all, should this go into effect, why should music companies be compensated, when this affects everyone who makes/produces anything that could be traded? Will there be a separate levy for software companies? Book publishers? Movie studios? Or will these other industries be given part of the existing levy? (You can bet not - like the blank media levy, any law will probably specify music companies only.)
This is so fundamentally flawed it's unbelieveable.
I'm a starting struggling author as well as a software developer. Should I not receive a "payment" for potential software piracy?
I already pay a levy on CD-R material [which I never use to pirate audio] that goes to the music industry.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Stop being stupid. Support the artists? Ha sure as if we don't know where that money goes. In the Middle East and Asia all the records are pirated and yet the artists have no problem bragging about the millions they make. Yes, they do make millions, even though there records are pirated.
If you wanna make money, stop selling crappy music. Heck nowadays there's no music worthy enough for my bandwidth or my 99cents.
If they win there case I'll make sure to create a porn site and sue the ISP's because of potential porn piracy not to mention that lots of people go on the internet for porn. So why shouldn't I get my cut?
This is really quite shortsighted. There are many of us who don't download music. In fact the vast majority of Internet users in this country probably don't.
Being taxed for the theft of others is really quite unfair. More importantly, if a tax were implemented that was ISP specific, that amount would most likely also be taxed further by the GST payable. In this country, a tax on a tax is illegal, or at least illegal by those other than the CCRA.
But the point is, taxing thse of us who don't steal is ridiculous, and patently unfair at the very least. It's times like this that I really wonderg just how much I need my high speed access.
Yes, but I think that (the photocopy levy) is silly for the same reason that the CD-R levy is silly: what if I'm copying my own copyrighted works? Where's my exemption? Can I apply for a rebate? Do I get a cut when other people copy my copyrighted works? The whole idea of recovering money from people using a copying technology or media itself, no matter what is being copied (legitimate or not), is fraught with unfair practices. If copyright holders want to control copying, they need to go after the people using the tool improperly, not taxing everybody who ever uses the tool for anything. What next? A per-MIPS computer tax on hourly CPU usage because some percentage of the processing must be decoding of music files or copyrighted pictures?
The whole "copyright clearance by media/tool" thing has gotten so arbitrarily silly that when I got a paper copied from an obscure journal via interlibrary loan recently, it had a big sheet attached to the front about limitations on the use of the copy and how some of the costs of the service included payment to the copyright clearance centre (blah, blah, blah, etc.). Uh, hello? The original work was printed in the 1860s, the author has been dead for over 100 years -- the copyright is *expired*.
Dingbats.
Here's a deal: for all those things I have copied legitimately but paid a levy/tax on anyway, I'll let the organizations that collect the money keep it to pass on to people who don't deserve it; and in exchange, they will let me occasionally copy copyrighted works without paying, which for me almost always falls under the provisions of "fair use" anyway, and we'll call it even?
These people are also artists, so Canada should enact a tax on rapid transit to replace their diminishing revenue.
-AD
The onus on the Recording Association to prove that the main purpose of the ISP's is to facilitate illegal downloading of music is simply too broad to be logically proven. Most sane people (which I'd hope a Supreme Court judge would be) would conclude that since the music association is already being recompensed they have no legal need to demand this additional tax, if they want a cut of the CDR tax they (the artists) should talk to the industry association (the Canadian version of the RIAA). I believe this has already happened and they were rebuffed in the backroom, thusly they felt this is the only alternative and they needed a new tax.
Just another piece of fluff news ment to try getting people up in arms.
There was a dream that was the Internet. It was so fragile, you could only wisper it.
(adapted from the movie Gladiator, about the dream that was Rome)
Do any of you remember the dream that was the internet? Free speech. Free information. No barriers, no censoring. It was supposed that anybody connected to it could get the information he wants. Anybody could publish what he wants without any censoring. Truly a place of information sharing.
Look at what it is now. It is firstly a marketplace, where only money-making sites survive. Then they claim there are some things that we should not share. And now we should pay extra taxes for the right to have popups, viruses, spy software and maybe (for some people) trade music files.
We need a modern-day gladiator to stop all this madness. I want the good old internet. Slow maybe, but without tons of spam in my email, without the fear of viruses. I want the promised free information network.
Copyright Law takes its origin in the will to protect the revenues of authors / musicians / other artists, so that they have an incentive to create. Right ?
Originally it protected the real authors from the misappropriation by others and ill-profiting from their works. Right ? This particular intent was first turned into a travesty when the middle-men started buying these rights from the authors to enforce it themselves. It even agravated when they launched the infamous "Work for hire" type contracts, where the author is totally deprived of authorship.
Now it goes even further: they are expanding the travestied concept (based on an unnatural compromise between public domain and a need for incentives to create, originally) of copyright to leverage more and more control and extort more money from each side of the industry ?
And, pray-tell, what will happen when the Associated Agents rule almighty on culture and distribution of information, and collect the Tax on Everything Digital ? All this in the name of a parody of an already flimsy concept of "copyright". Sheesh.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
I don't download music. I do listen to Internet radio but I assume that royalties are already paid for since these are well known/popular radios stations.
So if my ISP does pass on the any charges, then I am paying for something that I don't do. (They might not either way if they develop some niffty technology which can tell if I download an mp3 or not (but then I question it since there are many ways of fooling it)).
Why shouldn't I download music? I am paying for it regardless.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
This will legalize P2P sharing just as well as it legalizes CD-copying.
now all someone has to do is figure out the role of tech support, a sys admin, and a programmer, and a lot of programmers doing tech support, support people doing sys admining, and sys admins doing support and programming will be happy!
Pretty Pictures!
There's a lot of music that I'd like to download. So far, I've been restrained in the matter. Now I'm gonna have me some fun.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I would suggest that you don't rely on /. users for legal advices (not even myself, IANAL). Go and read section 80 of the law by yourself at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38215.html#secti on-80
I think it makes it clear that it is not legal to share copyrighted music recording by Internet.
Here's a part of it that I re-edited for you:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), 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.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade, or communicating to the public by telecommunication in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)
If the Gay Nazis for Killing Whales, Barbecuing Unborn Children and Sodomizing the Elderly, wants service and can pay their bill, the common carrier must provide the service.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
.. must be liable too. It's their damn bricks that make the roads that allow trucks with computer equipment to reach the ISP centre where, once installed, music may be travelling through.
Man, this makes me just puke...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Yeah right. The PC police are out in full force and it's only getting worse here. Now, you can actually be locked up or forced to pay damanges if the authorities here don't agree with your point of view. It's scary.
I'm shocked more people aren't aware of what's going on in this country. If this keeps up, I'm moving to the USA.
I am a Canadian that has more or less steered clear on stealing music on the internet, but between paying a media tax (cds, tapes, etc are tax in Canadian with the assumption that you will use the media to copy music) and now potentially paying my isp so they can further compinsate artists I am starting to feel that I should start stealing music - I mean I am paying for it already, x3 in some cases!
Quotes like this "Creative people should be compensated for the use and exploitation of their music" irk me so. Replace music with the word software and I'm more likely to see why authors should get compensated, but oddly it's the music industry that is protected wholeheartedly by the law. In the software industry, if someone pirates your software, it generally is an exact duplicate of the purchaseable item (minus the copy-right protection and adding in some advertising). In the music industry, if someone distributes a lossy version of your song (for the most part, it's the labels song) or recorded off the radio (difference between this and taping shows on your VCR and sending it to others is what?) you have to pay - and not only pay for the indiscretion, but also for the potential indiscretion thanks to CD-r levies.
Where is the equality in that? Why is the music industry so favoured? You haven't seen ISP's fined for the transferral of illegal software; up until two years ago, my ISP used to have a mirror of alt.binaries.warez among its other newsgroups!
For that matter, what constitutes use? How much of the file must be copied to be considered an illegal use? Almost all OS's will copy a file and then delete it to safely move a file from one partition to another - does this situation insinuate 2 copyright violations?
Most of these cases seem to be that of "guilt without evidence". A filename does not an illegal download make, nor a hash value a confirmation.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Look at the Winchester Mystery House. This victorian mansion was built by the heiress of the Winchester (as in the gun manufacturer) family and felt compelled to build a house that was open to all the spirits of all the people killed by her family's rifles. They also routinely hire mediums to figure out the wishes of the spirits, and add onto the house accordingly, giving some very bizzare results.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Being Canadian, if I end up paying the tax, it makes it legal (partly why they want to legalize drugs - tax money!).
So it's legal to distribute music. All I need now is a pay service for KaZaA and other p2p users to simply send their music to me, and I'll send them back, therefore legalizing the music. I paid the tax, turning the formerly illegal music legal. There's a real possibility to make some money offering little more than FTP services to legalize music by paying the tax.
Damn, I should've done the same with CDs. Send me your music, I'll send back a burned CD (with the CD tax paid) with the same songs, but because the tax is paid, is now legit!
(If you paid the fine, might as well do the crime.)
Ok, if this happens ISP's are responsible for tracking and preventing the transmission of music files over their lines?
But, isn't it already illegal to decode that if the connection created is a SECURE connection? Wouldn't that mean they would have to break a law to follow another?
So, which law should the ISP try and break?
sig. "I didn't do it."
At least not according to the doorknobs who decide what "Canadian Content" is, even though he was born about a mile from my office.
Apparently, "Canadian Content" has nothing to do with "Music by Canadians", it has to do with where the album was engineered. Go figure. The CC rule is *supposed* to protect our culture, but in reality, it is just protecting the pocketbooks of SCAMP.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Say what you will, but I would rather have a blatantly biased media than one which *claims* to be "Fair and Balanced" but which is anything but.
If a story is really important, I will watch it on CBC, CNBC, FOX, CNN, CTV Newsnet and the BBC. Average all of them together, and you will arrive at something resembling the truth.
Unless, of course, an Iraqi Blogger is contradicting all of them.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
The last time I was in a Church Choir, we used to sing "Morning has Broken" by Cat Stevens.
I'll bet you a case of beer our church never paid SOCAN a damn dime.
Oh, I so wish SOCAN or the RIAA would sue churches. Now *that* would have the people marching in the streets. I wonder if they would be allowed to sign "Onward Christian Soliders"? Perry Como recorded that once.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Actually, my local library here in Canada has a lovely little cafe in it, has computers, and has a vast collection of original CDs that you can borrow for the small annual fee required for a library card. Needless to say, the library CDs are very, very popular.
It looks like you have some serious competition before even implementing your Copee Shoppe plans.
As a SOCAN member, I was horrified by the news of their lawsuit with the ISP's. It *may* have been relevant three years ago, when people signing up for high-speed internet were likely doing so to get onto Napster 1.0 and other "file sharing" networks. It may have been fair if things did not change as fast as they do. But SOCAN is hopelessly living in the past. here is the full text of the letter i sent them: My name is Sam Blue, owner of independant label Artefakt. I am writing on behalf of myself and Kim Kelly, songwriter for The House of Mary. We would like to make a formal complaint regarding the court case which has recently been publicised between Socan and the Internet Service providers. As SOCAN members, we are strongly opposed to this type of lawsuit, and feel the cost, time, energy, and publicity can only do harm to SOCAN and the interests it represents. I think it would be worthwhile to investigate some of the trends that are now taking place in the online music industry. A lot has changed since your lawsuit began three years ago. The opportunities for artists selling their music online, through legitimate, secure music services are tremendous, especially for independant artists like ourselves. And the popularity of illegal file-swapping networks seems to be in decline. This is mainly because services like Apple's iTunes simply work so well that people can't be bothered with illegal downloads, which ultimately take more time and effort, and are less reliable than the one-click downloads you can get on iTunes and comparable services. In the earlier days of napster [again this was only 3 years ago] we made a point of putting select tracks of our own music on Napster in hopes people would be exposed to it on an international scale. We also made a point of putting half of our CD on our own website [at lo-fi quality] so people would have a previos of the CD. We pressed our CDs on a short run of 500. In three years, we have sold perhaps half of those. After doing our own distribution, promotion in the atlantic area, we concluded that the entire business model of selling CDs in music stores is one whose days are numbered. We look forward to the launch of iTunes in Canada and other countries. We see this as an opportunity to market out music internationally, without having to undertake the cost and effort of "physical" distribution. In short, we believe the future of the music business is entirely online. I personally hope that SOCAN recognizes soon enough that the online market is likely to be their greatest opportunity, not a threat. Suing the internet service providers seems to me like biting the hand that feeds us. There is definitly illegal activity still going on on a mass scale, which can hurt artists, but there is also a lot of promise in the legitimate music businesses that are now emerging. There are a number of things SOCAN could be doing to combat illegal file sharing, AND encouraging more royaltiy revenues online: 1. Secure partnerships with the legitimate online music stores like itunes, e-music, CD Baby, etc... 2. Identify promotional opportunities for driving legitimate online music sales - Radio, TV, Print, so people will flock to paid music services and abandon illegal file swapping. 3. Form a partnership with ISPs [internet service providers] to monitor network activity related to file-swapping. There may be ways for ISPs to "block" file swapping through programs like Limewire by re-configuring their network. 4. Research the growing trend of Internet Radio - radio stations which broadcast live on the internet. Many can be found at shoutcast.com These stations are tapping into an international audience and many are unregulated and have no advertising [and therefore no revenue] but have a growing audience. Some stations are now able to charge a subscription fee, part of which "ought" to be shared with the artists. 5. Investigate ways SOCAN can collect not only more royalties, but more RAW DATA through internet technology. The online music stores have the ability to track each individu
Let's presume for a second that we're ignoring P2P systems, just to focus on this "caching" issue.
Isn't this pretty much the same as copying a file from a CD into RAM to be able to use it? Didn't Sony or someone already sue over this in the video game area (copies of games loaded into RAM, bad bad bad) and lose their case?
From what I recall, it was a US court decision, but really, it's the same damn thing. You're not making a "copy" in the traditional sense, you're just temporarily holding the data to make it more feasible for use.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Fuck Canada!
This is utterly ridiculous. 'Nuff said.
..for their work, the copyright has been properly handled, and now you own a proper copy of any Canadian artist's song you download off the internet.
:)
Put that onto a Canadian CDR disc, and now you have compensated the Artist twice, so now I have an extra copy that I can give away to someone on over the internet.. But wait, if they download it, they are compensating the artist too - Another legal copy.. We will be swamped with legal copies!! The Horor !
$50 a year buffet style vs $0.99 a song..
(Though I don't know if I am going to find 50 good Canadian songs to download)
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
Oh yes, the consequences of Canadian trade relations. I can just see it now. Prime Minister Chretien on behalf of the Canadian people and industries attempts to complain to their neighbor and largest "trading partner".
Chretien: 'allo? 'allo? We needs these monies!
Neighbor: (no response)
Chretien: 'allo? We are angry!
Neighbor: (no reponse)
Chretien: (to the media) We weel take dis to dee highest world trade body posseeble!
World: Oh no, it's Canada again. Quick, hide!
Chretien: 'allo?
Okay, I know it's not entirely accurate. It will likely occur involving soon-to-be-PM Paul Martin in place of Chretien. But then you lose the accent and that would just make the whole exchange even more unbearable.
The RIAA at least is already ensuring that "creative people" are compensated for the "exploitation" of ther music. Compensated poorly for the most part, compensated ridiculously well in some (few) cases.
But what bothers me most about this is that, as usual, the artists are the ones mentioned as losing out on file sharing and the like, where its really the big corporations that are losing the most. And to be fair, if file sharing goes up and revenues drop, that President or CEO or "VP in charge of Procuring" will probably find their salaries cut, perhaps enough (Horrors!) so they can no longer afford (insert favorite absurd luxury item here). Or maybe corporate slush funds will dry up a bit so that those 72 hour orgies (er, um, "corporate retreats") will no longer be an option.
Nope, on second thought, probably not. They'll just find better ways to soak the artists and pass more "Entitlement" laws with themselves as beneficiaries and find ways to generate music without any real creative input.
Making everybody who has a hand in transporting "stolen" music liable would set a precedent making truck drivers, warehousers, retailers and everybody along the way liable for anything illegal that is shipped or stored anywhere. IANAL but this seems like an absolute no-brainer to me.
The irony is that copyright is not even "property," it is a "right" that is granted by a government and temporarily "held," not "owned." Here we have record companies, first conning the public into thinking of copyrights as property, and now thinking they can elevate their mythical property above real property.
First, yes, there is a levy in Canada on blank CD-Rs that is supposed to compensate musical artists for the piracy that is occurring. But no, this does not give anybody the right to make copies. Further, only certain groups are allowed to "opt out" of the levy. In principal, this would at least minimize the expense to groups that have a legitimate right to use CD-Rs, like software companies. However, in practice, most distributors aren't even aware of the "opt-out" rule (assuming they're even aware of the levy), and none have a system in place to allow buyers to exercise it.
The levy is currently under review to see how it will shape up for the next 2-3 years.
There are a few straightforward legal arguments against the levy, that have nothing to do with "those greedy bastards don't deserve the money". The first is that, in Canada, it's against the law to tax an illegal activity. Copying music is illegal, so you shouldn't be able to tax it. However, you'll note that it's called a "levy" not a tax. The second is that, just like the US, Canada has the constitutional premise of "innocent until proven guilty". In effect, this levy assumes the guilt of every CD-R buyer, so (IMO) should be seen as unconstitutional. But that also hasn't stopped it.
For those interested, there's a lot more information about the levy at:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html
http://www.sycorp.com/levy/
... and I am still waiting for my check since the introduction of tax on blank media. Lets just say I won't be holding my breath for a cheque if this absurd business sees the light of day.
Shame on you SOCAN! You take a piece of my royalty pie every month and spend it on THIS? Its bad enough that you spend it on that crap "words and music" magazine I throw out unread each month.
If you are truly working for the artist... you best check with us where your energies are best spent. How about a better international system so that I don't get royalty checks from German spins of my stuff 18 months after the fact. Shees!
I am Canadian. This is just another tax. Much like our tax on CD's. Just anther way for the government creatively tax.
This is how it will work out.
The Supreme Court (Made up of members directly appointed by the prime minister, no real ratification process up here. Just the PM appointing his buddies.) will declare that the ISP's are liable and that they must collect royalties for Illegal downloads.
The ISP's will complain that there is not technical way to track what users are downloading. (true) And that there is no way to prove what downloaded content is illegal.
The government will implement a tax on downloading. It will be taxed at a rate of 10 cents per Megabyte. ISP's will collect this tax and it will be added to your bill.
A brand new branch of government will be created, and will redistribute a portion of the tax.
After much heated debate the tax will be lowered to 1 cent a Megabyte. At this point Canadians will accept the tax since they are now getting a 90% discount.
It's not just that their distribution is outdated. CDs still appear at my local music store and -if I wasn't boycotting them over all this lawsuit bullshit- I could just go buy one and be happy with that method. Except...
A major problem is that most of the shit they sell isn't worth buying and you often can't tell until after you've listened to it. Particularly when it's one of their inexcusably underpromoted and mistreated artists. By the time you find out if it's any good, it's too late. You've aleady spent at least double what CDs should be sold for.
The MP3 method allowed you to do just that, to listen before buying and to find stuff you may not have heard of or couldn't get your hands on. All of these things are the record companies' fault. They weren't doing their jobs properly and were bilking the customer. Too bad for them that MP3's could be passed around for free and as technology advanced, burned onto a CD. Boo-hoo
But these morons think that ending file swapping will turn file swappers into customers again. Wrong. First, most people won't stop doing it. But second, there are just some things you'll take ONLY IF IT'S FREE! Most of the crap they put out falls under that catagory. Even stuff that's ok can fall under that. I like Blink182, but I doubt I'd BUY their music.
And, in order to buy something, you have to be able to pay for. You can download 300,000 ablums for free, but how many can you pay for? That's another thing these rich execs/artists forget. Their customers have limited budgets!
For a start, the Elections Canada farce that's been putting a frenchman in the PMO for the last 40 years has got to go and be replaced by the Provinces doing the counting for all federal elections. Next to go are the protections against competition for the Canadian media establishment, which has become the propaganda wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.
It has always been my opinion that major record labels exist to secure more money for themselves so they can make a killing off the next pop star. Up until about 40 years, musicians did not expect to make large sums of money (if any at all) for the recording and selling of an album. In some ways this was because the people charged with making those albums took the money for themselves (we can see where the practice stems from) but the truth is that most musicians expected to make their money playing live and touring. Afterall, if you enter music for money you should expect to work for it. I am a musician myself and the idea of receiving large sums of money for recording an album that only took perhaps a few months to do is a ridiculous notion to me.
Music should not be a commodity.
32 free tracks, some rights reserved - free to distribute noncommercially
http://gox.nonserviam.net
Since when is the Internet used exclusively for sharing music files? Just who the fuck doesd SOCAN think they are? What about everyone else who uses the Internet for things having nothing to do with sharing music files? SOCAN can suck my cock!
I usually just enjoy it, but maybe it works different fo lawyers ...
I work for a small Canadian ISP, and this ruling would affect us directly. There's actually more to the insanity of this lawsuit than we get from this article.
They also want to grandfather this ruling, so that not only would we pay 10% *after* the ruling, but also 10% of revenues for the past 8 years. This is a massive problem. Not only does it mean we'd have to increase our prices (ISPs work on such small margins that 10% would probably eat up all our profits and then some. In fact, some ISPs like Shaw Cable and Telus are actually operating at an enormous loss, propped up by revenue from their respective monopolies) but this bill would bankrupt a good many of us.
More interesting is that only about 10% (perhaps a bit more) of our customers are even tech savvy enough to know what file sharing is, let alone use it. The vast majority of our customers still use dialup, and the vast majority of those use less than 30 hours a month. While the number of broadband customers is growing, it still doesn't make up for more than a third of our customer base.
So what does this mean for that little tax they intend to impose? It means that they'll be charging us approximately 100% of our revenues generated by the file sharers. So when the average Canadian slashdotter pays their ISP bill, they won't be paying for Internet access, they'll be paying the music industry directly. Is this fair? Moreover, is it fair to tax the other 90% of ISP users who don't even have basic word processing skills, let alone know how and where to pirate music?
That's where the true insanity of their claim lies.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Its not my fault that they come out wiht crap for music that i dont wana buy.
How about coming out wiht cds that are worth buying inseted of one hit wonders?
People are viewing my copyrighted web pages using ISPs, so I want money from them as well! Move over SOCAN!
It could get worse than that -- what about the cache used in your network switches??? (this includes 10/100 'hubs'). It's not like you need to be using switches... All you have to do to avoid SOCAN royalties is go back to a dumb hub.
Same logic would also apply to firewalls... They're not necessary they just make life easier for people using the internet.
This, of course, presumes that SOCAN wins their appeal.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
lovely...
who knows where it could end? Routers? hard drive cache files?
Someone emails an mp3, storing a copy on the exchange server in the process...
Better stop before I give them ideas...
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as meaningless. 'They're going to lose" is more or less what I said to myself.
But, it keeps rearing it's head in the media. I've managed to come up with a few things that didn't occour to me at first.
You have to realise that the Copyright Act in Canada specifically states that private copying of music (only music, by the way) is perfectly legal.
The rationale was that ever since the cassette and before, everybody does it. When everyone does it, then you are supposed to rethink the whole idea, because a Government cannot reasonably consider itself legitimate if it was elected by criminals (ie the majority of the electorate).
So, they enshrined into law the practice of copying music, and looked for ways to compensate artists for a loss in revenue.
The much hated, but in my opinion, reasonable concept of a levy on blank media was proposed and adopted. There just aren't that many ways to pull it off, and this was one (albiet imperfect) method.
Now, it's also important to understand that the levy is part of the same Copyright Act.
And it's also important to realise that the Act states that the means used to copy music is irrelevant. You can't be charged for giving your buddy a legal CD to copy; a library isn't liable for making legal CDs available to users, etc.
But there is a very specific distinction between a store-bought disk and one that has been copied, ever, in any form whatsoever.
It's not a free-for all; once you make a copy you can only use it yourself. You can't give it away, lend it, or upload it. So, downloading from Napster is fine; uploading is a crime.
ISPs are exempt as the law stands; if someone has uploaded a disk then the crime ends with them.
The Supreme Court in Canada cannot, as it can in the US, actually make law. It can only strike down an unfair one. In general, they send it back to lawmakers and say something like "this is unfair, fix it or it's toast. You have one year, whereupon it won't be the law anymore."
This has the effect of preventing further charges or action; lower courts won't convict if the SC says the law is flawed.
Here's the big deal:
By challenging the Copyright Act, which pretty much states specifically that ISPs cannot be held liable for copying, they are challenging the very Act that gives them $40 million a year in levies on blank media.
There is a major regime change in Canada right now (new Prime Minister, Cabinet, political direction) and if the Copyright Act is challenged and that challenge is held up in court, then the Act itself must be changed. I don't see anything that suggests the new Prime Minister is sympathetic to SOCAN.
I am shocked at the level of risk that SOCAN and others are willing to take on this. They've never been particularly good at collecting the royalties due them in the first place. Historically they have just sat back and waited for someone to offer them money.
[If I were a songwriter that would be my major issue with SOCAN; they're lazy and that's my money they're lazy about collecting, even though I pay them to collect it].
Right now about 1/3 of their total revenue is paid by the media levy, and if they win, that money could dry up.
Are they actually trying to tell us that if the Act is changed completely, that they are going to actually do their jobs to make up the missing $40 Million? Now that would be a miracle.
The Act says ISPs are not liable; they want to throw that Act out when they are the principal benificiaries of it's provisions.
Keep in mind that if the Court rules in favor of SOCAN, all the Government has to to is address the Supreme Court's objections in a legal manner by re-writing the Act.
It most certainly does not mean the new law will grant SOCAN anything like what they're asking (remember point about SC not being able to create law). They could just as easily, legally, and within the Constitution, draft a new law t
The point is...if SOCAN wins--and I pray to God That they do--the section of the copyright act you quote will be overturned eventually. The CD-R tax was justified on the basis that you were recording from legal media--your own or someone else's. This levy is aimed directly at P2P. If I am being charged for P2P activity, then it has to be a legal activity, otherwise I should be charged, fined or jailed--not billed!!