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.

Comments

How broad?

[rebeka thomas]

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the RIAA and their equivalents worldwide can't all be so insanely silly and see that their distribution methods are so outdated that fewer and fewer people are using them.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?

Re:How broad?

[Mr_Silver]

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the RIAA and their equivalents worldwide can't all be so insanely silly and see that their distribution methods are so outdated that fewer and fewer people are using them.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?

Of course they're not silly and yes they know their distribution method is outdated.

But it's easier to try and kill off the alternatives than it is to change what has been your business model for the last 50+ years.

To be honest, even if the price of songs was brought down to a sensible level and if you could bundle and you didn't have DRM - you would still see mass piracy. It happened back in the days when ZX Spectrum games were less than two pounds (3 dollars) and it will continue.

You can't beat free. Even if people waste 2 hours getting something for free, they won't consider that time expended to be worth anything - rather than they saved x pounds/dollars.

in canada?

[selfabuse]

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?

Re:in canada?

[srw]

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.

Re:in canada?

[Stephen Samuel]

As far as I can tell, this story and the CTV story from Friday are the same story. What SOCAN appears to be doing is using a loophole. They're claiming that the ISP's use of (transparent) caches constitutes a copy of the music that should result in royalties. What this ignores is that most of what goes across the net isn't music... They're effectively asking for a backdoor patent on cache technologies.

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.

Re:in canada?

[Dashing Leech]

ITANAL (I Too Am Not A Lawyer)

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.

What's next, sue GM?

[Gryphon]

Following SOCAN's logic, I guess we should sue General Motors the next time somebody uses a Chevy to rob a bank.

So...

[hookedup]

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.

SCAM Publishers?

[thenextpresident]

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada == SCAM Publishers of Canada

Sorry, just found that mildly amusing.

similar to gun manufacturer problems in the US

[sbuckhopper]

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.

You had me at "exploitation"

[joebagodonuts]

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.

Far-reaching

[richie2000]

"The people who represent Canadian artists say everyone who has a hand in transmitting recorded music is liable."

Watch out, Monster Cable!

A basic question

[otmar]

"We're obviously in a struggle right now trying to figure out the best techniques to ensure that they are compensated appropriately."

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.

Re:Just FYI, guys...

[I Be Hatin']

We don't call it 'The Canadian Supreme Court' here. Its proper name is the Supreme Court of Canada.

Well, if you want to get all technical aboot it, the people usually refer to it as the Supreme Court of Canada, eh.

Re:Just FYI, guys...

[Snocone]

Its proper name is the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tsk, tsk.

If you're going to be an asshat, at least get your facts straight.

"Supreme Court of Canada" is NOT its "proper" name. It is ONE of its coequal names. The other, of course, being "Cour supreme du Canada". There's that whole official bilingualism thing going on up here, doncha know?

[NB. Dumb-ass /. doesn't want to keep the circonflexe over the 'e' in Supreme when I hit 'Preview'. what-ever.]

Now Wait A Minute

[Jesrad]

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.