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.
thats the case here in sweden.
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)
Read:
Canadian Copyright Act
In particular, sections 80 thru 82 make it clear that we are already paying for the right to make private copies.
Occationally in the US there is a court case where the family of someone who's died of cancer because they smoked cigarettes for 40 years tries to sue a cigarette company. They occasionally win, but AFAIK all of these multi-million dollar awards have been overturned on appeal. Still, that doesn't stop people from "playing the lottery" as it were...
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Your comment is obviously flamebait, but I need to respond to your first sentence. Why not off the internet? Did you read sections 80 thru 82 of the Canadian Copyright Act? Did you notice the limitations listed in section 80? Did it mention WHERE you were permitted to copy from?
I repeat: Section 80 of the Canadian Copyright Act clearly states that we (Canadians) are allowed to make copies of performances of musical works embodied in a sound recording for private use. Check with a Canadian lawyer if you don't believe me. (Actually, check with one BEFORE you believe me, as IANAL. The text is quite clear to the average reader, though.)
I will point out that in the early eighties, software copy places did exactly that: Took advantage of a fuzzy area of the law ("evaluation copies") to make a buck. They lasted for a year or two until the software companies put pressure on, and then they were raided and royally busted.
A CD Copee Shoppe might last a year, but I'd keep all the profits off-shore somewhere like the Grand Caymans.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
More interestingly, they're ignoring the fact that most caches are of web pages, while most music is (AFAIK) transferred by P2P, which is (I believe) rarely, if ever cached.
If the music industry wins this case, ISPs would have the option of turning off their caches or paying a royalty of as high as to 10% of their income.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.
Wow, and I thought I was cynical. For one thing, Ontario's voter turnout was 52%, not 30%. For another thing, the Supreme Court has made decisions that politicians would not want to touch with a 50-foot pole. They've struck down laws to do with marijuana and gay marriage. Very few MPs are in ridings where they could vote one way or another on those issues without pissing off a sizable block of voters.
I have no idea which way they'll rule on this one but their past decisions show me that there's some hope that they're not completely in the pocket of the politicians.
No, but Michael Geist is, and he's also the Canadian research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, and he seems to think there is a good legal argument for saying it is legal.
But more to the point, the parent article here is not about the legality of downloading songs in Canada. It's about payment of royalties. In my own words, as I understand it, other broadcasters (radio, TV, etc.) have to play royalties to artists when they broadcast a copyrighted work. This case is trying to determine if ISPs, or anybody else, can be classified as "broadcasters" with respect to internet file trading for the purposes of collecting royalties.
In a sense, it's the other side of the coin from the downloading question. The Canadian Copyright Act appears to make downloading legal, but it seems quite clear that uploading (distributing) is not legal. While the levy on CD-R's legitimizes downloading in the Copyright Act, making ISPs (or somebody else) pay royalties for "broadcasting" may very well legitimize the distribution end of online sharing. After all, if you charge royalties to an ISP for songs that are distributed through it, you are creating a de facto license for the songs to be distributed through it. Might not be as clear cut as the CD-R levy, but I think it has legal merit.