Canadian Recording Industry Goes After P2P Users

Txiasaeia writes "Taking its cue from its American counterpart, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has begun the hunt for music file swappers. Unlike the RIAA, the CRIA are trying to find 29 (!) swappers only who use either Shaw, Telus, Rogers Cable, Bell Sympatico or Quebec's Videotron. Some companies like Shaw are openly opposing the request, whereas others, like Videotron, are pretty much planning on rolling over once the paperwork is done. Videotron customers beware: they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.' Arguments in the case begin on Monday in Toronto."

Comments

But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[LostCluster]

Article sez:
For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player. But the practice is illegal in the U.S.

Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Deliveranc3]

Looks like you slept throught the DMCA. Um I dunno what to tell you, American's got screwed? Know your rights? Don't live under an evil oppresive government? Words fail me.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

CD Ripping does not violate the DMCA (most of the time) as there is no encryption to circumvent.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[garcia]

the longer something is reported incorrectly the more people believe it to be true.

Just ask the Slashbots.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Loki_1929]

"Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?"

It's more of a grey area in the US, especially since the DMCA. While it has historically been viewed as 'fair use' to create a backup copy of a copyrighted work, circumvention of a copy protection scheme (no matter how pathetic and ineffective it may be) was made illegal by the DMCA. Also, many CDs ship with a EULA of some sort, which often prohibits creating even a single copy of the works contained within.

Essentially, it's something for which arguments could be made either way based on previous rulings and copyright laws, but it's something which would probably never actually be prosecuted.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player. But the practice is illegal in the U.S.


Hmm, I thought this was covered on ./ before. IANAL, but you are allowed to make copies of CD's for personal use in the US.

The difference in Canada is that anyone can make a copy from an original CD for personal use. For example, I could buy a new CD and lend it to all my friends, they could each make their own copy, and that would be perfectly legal. But if they lent that copied CD to one of their friends, and that person made a copy from the copy, that would be a problem.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[503]

As far as I know, making a personal copy of your own CD is still legal in the US. In Canada, however, you are allowed to make a personal copy of an album that you don't own.

In other words, I can borrow a friend's new CD and make a copy with no laws being broken.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[NanoGator]

"Uh. Did I miss something? Did MP3 ripping from CD get banned in the USA while we weren't looking?"

Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation. Stupid, iddnt it?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[operagost]

There is no bypassing of encryption or other protections here (unless you count the idiot bit that's ignored by everything), so the DMCA doesn't apply. Also, ANALOG and digital copies to DAT (perhaps also MD, not sure) are explicity permitted by the home recording act.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Yo Grark]

Poorly written article.

Guys, they are only going after people who DISTRIBUTE files.

And so they should.

Leaving the "occasional" offenders alone, and those who are obeying our laws and downloading only.

Call me a leech, and I'll say it's the law up here.

The people coulnd't have asked for a better law.

Yo Grark

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Vaevictis666]

Just remember, though, that your friend cannot make a copy, and give the copy to you. If you want the copy, you need to be the one making it.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Dr. Evil]

Does anyone have a reference? This always sounded like an urban legend to me.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[fishbowl]

Since when is CDDA copy-protected?

The place where I draw the line on this whole copyright question is here: when some party (or the State) decides on my behalf that it is not acceptable to distribute *MY* copyrighted work, that I expressly *WANT* distributed.

I get very tired of hearing how it is "illegal" to distribute copyrighted works. What that is saying to the artist is, you must surrender your copyrights entirely if you want to distribute your work.

But certain corporations are not required to surrender THEIR copyrights if they want to use THEIR chosen distribution method. Foul! Utterly unacceptable abridgement of my rights of equal protection of the law, and other fundamental rights.

Copying of Copyrighted work is NOT automatically illegal, and it is a violation of your rights as a content producer when someone tells you that it is.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, isn't it legal in canada to "pirate" media?

I thought everyone had to pay high taxes on all blank CD's, DVD's, cassette tapes and all otehr recordable media and that this tax went to the entertainment industries? Doesn't that imply that you are paying a tax for the right to trade copyrighted material? If not, then why are you having to pay tax for blank media to compensate artists and businesses for copying copyrighted material to that blank media, if you're not allowed to copy copyrighted material to that blank media in the first place?

Am I missing something?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Zork the Almighty]

Here is the act. Search for "Copying for Private Use".

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[dreadnougat]

I got this from google.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-3377 6

"Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

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."

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Loki_1929]

"Utterly unacceptable abridgement of my rights of equal protection of the law"

Equal protection? Assuming you're in the US, you've fallen into the very trap some have been setting up for quite some time. For Christ sakes, a company/corporation/conglomerate/etc is NOT, I repeat NOT a person. It is NOT a human being. It does NOT have a 'right to live'. It is nothing more than a business venture - albeit a large one. The moment you allow large companies to have 'rights', especially rights that equal those of the average citizen, is the day you surrender yourself to them.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[glucose]

Here's a link to the The "Blank CD-R Tax" FAQ, which is a pretty complete FAQ on copyright with regards to CDs in Canada. The short answer is, there's a levy on all media (like CD-Rs, mp3 players, etc), but a provision the law that enacts the levy allows you to make a copy from the original for personal use.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

Actually CDs in the US actually say not for resale on them now. If you purchase a CD, you're not allowed to sell it or transfer it. That goes against any Constitution I can think of.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Proaxiom]

It's not an urban legend, it's actually the law. The Copyright Act was amended with the change in 1998. You can copy any music you want, as long as you don't give the copy away (or sell it).

It's also the reason we have the retarded levy on blank media (CDs, tapes, etc.). It's a misconception that the extra fee is supposed to cover losses due to piracy, it's actually supposed to cover losses due to legal copying.

It wouldn't be such a bad thing except for the stupidity of taxing media that are used for things other than music. Why system administrators should have to pay a levy to the music industry in order to archive data to CD is a bit hazy.

It's also a tad mysterious as to why this law applies exclusively to music, and no other copyrighted works.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

Unfortunately, you're right. For example, in a survey last year, 70% of Americans thought there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

you really are clueless. if no one were to be distributing then you would have no one to leech from

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[pla]

Sort of. Some CDs have a form of copy restriction on them. Bypassing them == automatic DMCA violation.

Copy restriction?

Ooooooooh! You mean "broken"! I get it now.

No, you see, you've misunderstood... Phillips owns the IP rights to the concept of a "Compact Disc". By a company claiming that they have produced such an object, they provide a certain basic level of guarantee that they have complied with Phillips' specifications. How can we can "circumvent" an access control mechanism on a CD, when no such mechanism exists in the spec?

Why, if these "broken" CDs deliberately violated the spec, well, that would count as outright fraud to still call it a CD. So they must simply have broken. Does the DMCA also say that "in the event a product breaks, you may not repair it"?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[ooby]

Last time I checked, copyright law left the enforcement of copyrights up to the holder. For instance, if you wanted to distribute your work, but didn't want anyone else to, as a copyright holder, you could pursue legal action against the violator of your copyrights. A great example is fanfiction. It is against copyright law to create a derivative work without permission, yet there are plenty of people creating fanfiction. It just so happens that the owners of the original works caught the first syllable of fanfiction and said, "Hey! Somebody likes us!"

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[ooby]

I have never bought a music CD shipped with a EULA. Furthermore, on the music CDs I've bought, I haven't encountered copy protection.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Tim Doran]

IANAL, but my understanding is that the US treats corporations as de facto people, with rights to free speech, etc.

Can anyone provide more detail?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

For Christ sakes, a company/corporation/conglomerate/etc is NOT, I repeat NOT a person. It is NOT a human being.

Tell that to the supreme court.

The moment you allow large companies to have 'rights', especially rights that equal those of the average citizen, is the day you surrender yourself to them.

You're about 100 years too late

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Call me a leech, and I'll say it's the law up here."

as long as they arent targetting soulseek, im fine. you HAVE to upload on that network, same with bittorent. Your a horrible person. When i take my 5000+ mp3s offline, who looses? you. becuase your the one that wants them.

ill just go back to private ftp ratio sites.

oh and if i ever do get sued, im a broke out of work lamer. I would fight dem back. Settling is for americans.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Syberghost]

For example, in a survey last year, 70% of Americans thought there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Can you prove there wasn't?

I mean, I don't think there was either, but can you prove there wasn't?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[onyxruby]

That's why the no longer say "CD" or "Compact Disc", they also no longer carry the old "CD" label. It's an attempt to sell something that people will think is a cd without actually selling them a CD. Pretty weasely, but they just don't claim to sell CD's anymore.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[greed]

For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use

The article is misleading. It is legal to make all the copies you want for personal use. Your friends can copy your disks too; as long as you receive nothing in return (no trade, no dinner, no money).

The law does not say "only one copy".

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

for fucks sake, the dude was eating Mars bars... If he had something to do w/that day then he would have had a lot more money and better surroundings...

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[debrain]

It wouldn't be such a bad thing except for the stupidity of taxing media that are used for things other than music. Why system administrators should have to pay a levy to the music industry in order to archive data to CD is a bit hazy.

This is currently being reviewed by the federal court, from the 2003/2004 Media Levy decision. In the media levy, the Copyright Board of Canada nixed a zero-rating scheme that would have exempt certain organizations, potentially including certain qualified system administrators, from the media levy. In its absence, the dissent (who was pro-zero rating scheme) indicated that the whole levy scheme would now be at an impasse, and would need to be wholly revamped.

Incidentally, in Australia, an equivalent levy was struck down in 1993 for being a "tax" improperly Constitutionally implemented. The CSMA and Retailers of Canada, official objectors to the media levy, are applying for judicial review of the Copyright Board's decision on the grounds that it is, similarly, an unconstitutional tax.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Deliveranc3]

Watching you techies trying to understand the dichonomy between the practice and intent of law is like watching a Lawyer try and install GenToo
:)

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[kwandar]

*cough*

.....what exactly constitutes sharing files for the purpose of distribution.?

In my view (IANAL) the people they are planning to attack aren't sharing files for the purpose of distribution.

In the meantime join the boycott of Quebecor by not purchasing the Sun papers in your neighbourhood.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[BrendonJWilson]

I believe the author is referring a slight difference between Canadian and American copyright law. Someone explained it to me like this:

I can come over to your house, give you a CD, tell you how to put my CD in your drive, rip it, and burn your own copy. That's legal, in part due to the levies on recordable media in Canada (which go to the artists, though none of that money has ever been distributed; that's another story).

I can't, however, make a copy for you. Weird, but true, from my understanding.

So - the question in Canada is: under which of these two scenarios does P2P filesharing fall? Apparently, the downloading is not illegal, but the sharing is illegal.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[skahshah]

Not only 70% of Americans thought there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but 98% now think it is normal to ask to prove a negative (rarely possible).

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[TheSpoom]

So, theoretically, I can go into a record store, open up some CDs, copy them with a portable CD burner, and then put them back?

And if this law is in effect that I can copy someone else's CD, how is that law limited by the medium it is on?

And if it's not, can I declare everyone on Kazaa my friend?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your purchase is a CONTRACT. What makes you think that your understanding of the terms of the bargain does not matter, and that the only one who has any rights in the matter is the CD seller? Stand up for yourself and your rights. Who cares if it says "Not for Resale" on it? When I buy a CD, I don't agree to those terms, in any way, shape, or form. My act of purchasing does not indicate my agreement to those terms unless I say so.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, I don't think there was either, but can you prove there wasn't?

Generally the person making the positive claim is the one with the onus of proof. It's harder to prove a negative.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[mindstrm]

That quote is even more inaccurate. Legal to make a single copy for personal use?

It's specifically legal to make as MANY copies as you like for non-commercial purposes.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[mindstrm]

Yes, you could, but it becomes debatable as to who is making the copy.

In any online music exchange, there is a downloader and an uploader. Canadian law makes it out that the uploader is breaking the law, the downloader is not.

So you would be liable for every song you allowed to be sent to your friends.. adn they would be liable for everything they sent to you.

You cannot distribute unauthorized copies... but you can make them for your own personal use.

You can rip it to your computer. You cannot then share that file with others.

You can take the original media over to your friends, and let him copy it.

The law is self-limiting.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Doctor7]

No, you see, you've misunderstood... Phillips owns the IP rights to the concept of a "Compact Disc". By a company claiming that they have produced such an object, they provide a certain basic level of guarantee that they have complied with Phillips' specifications.

Unfortunately, Philips seem to have gone over to the dark side. Their response to copy-protected CDs not working in car CD players in the UK was basically along the lines of 'well, that's progress, it's only natural that other people have enhanced the format since we wrote the specification'.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Doctor7]

Mod parent down, I misread the quote. Just to confuse the issue, the British Phonographic Industry has a spokesman called Phillips :/

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh yeah? Prove it.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[fishbowl]

My point is, the real reason for these attacks is an attempt to abolish the *distribution medium*, and that does not begin and end with the internet.

It never has been about copyright control. Copyright is the tool being used to eliminate low-overhead independent distribution.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[ooby]

I totally agree. I like to think about copyright laws based on why I think they were conieved, to prevent others from stealing your credit.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, pardon this AC's ignorance and cynicism, but have any artists ever received even one single penny out of this levy that's supposed to recover losses from music not sold? (Though I think I can guess the answer)

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[iantri]

Hi there.. sorry to intrude on your conversation, but...

Can you prove I'm not God? Well? Can you?

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[MadChicken]

For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player. But the practice is illegal in the U.S.

Observe your quote above. There is a subtle lack of the words "....that you own" after "copy of a recording". It's easy to miss, but legally significant.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Yo Grark]

As long as no CANADIANS distribute all is good.

We leave the sharing to you American and Europeans. :)

Oh and the nigerians who share their spam :(

Yo Grark

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Yo Grark]

I'm a horrible person?

I'll just take my 200 gigs offline and let the IRC scene suffer.

I'm just underground baby!

(j/k about th200 gigs officers)

Seriously though, you just admitted that you are one of hte people that SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN, amassing that much of a collection is personally unethical.

Who was the horrible person again?

Me who doesn't have a massive collection and doesn't share, or you who has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stolen music?

Flame on!

Yo Grark

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Pantheraleo2k3]

About those EULAs. It is well known that a contract agreed to by a minor is NULL and VOID. Which means that when my 18th birthday comes, it will suck. But it also means the EULAs for the four dozen or so programs I have don't count.

Just get a minor to agree to the EULA for you and it is null & void

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

in another poll 90% of muslims think the US did.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Dalcius]

IANAL, but as far as I know, a EULA cannot circumvent law. A EULA is considered a contract and I don't believe a contract can take away a right that the government has written in law.

However, the fact that the DMCA was passed after the digital extention to the Fair Use Act might be troubling. Since it came afterwards, I've heard the argument that it overrides Fair Use.

Any lawyers around? :)

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

Yet another example of what I'm talking about.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[uncoveror]

Judging by all the FUD spread by the recording industry, you might be tempted to believe that music didn't exist before Edison invented the phonograph. In truth, it has been around since early hominids first banged rocks and stick together, and doesn't depend on the recording industry for its survival. The recording industry is not the source of music, but a bunch of leeches and hangers-on exploiting music, and the artists who create it. Read more at dontbuycds.org.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, it is legal to make copies of recordings which you legally possess. You don't have to actually own it, you can rent it. Anybody who says, oh no, that's wrong, has been buying into propaganda and not the actual state of the law.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[IchBinDasWalross]

God would have a single digit UID.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll install gentoo for you if you will be my lawyer. Ill make it run real good too.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly because Bush is positive that there is a link between Hussein and 9/11, and has lead everyone to believe that there is, and that that is why he needed to attack Iraq..

He might call the link Terrorism, but there are other words for it.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to make a copy of a copy in Canada.. You just can't copy it for someone, that person has to be the atual copier.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[ottawanker]

In the meantime join the boycott of Quebecor by not purchasing the Sun papers in your neighbourhood.

Why? Just for the hell of it? And miss out on the Sunshine girl? Not when I can get the paper for free with my McDonald's breakfast in the morning.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[kwandar]

Please note, I said "by not purchasing", so if you get a free copy at McD or getting it second hand at Timmy's, by all means go for it!

As for the sunshine girls, I personally prefer to spend my time with the real thing! Happy Valentines Day! ;)

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another interesting difference is the "media levy" which is applied to the sale of most blank CD-Rs...the CRIA is already being compensated for "illegal copies" whether or not the media is used for that, making them the only party to actually profit from the situation...makes you wonder if they can sue people for piracy, when those people are paying compensation to them...for piracy :P

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[iantri]

Err.. uh.. well, I've been rather busy and all, and just started reading Slashdot lately.. -- God

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[big_groo]

Well, I hope you're not an English professor...

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Anonymous Coward]

And in yet another study, 78% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Syberghost]

Generally the person making the positive claim is the one with the onus of proof. It's harder to prove a negative.

However, it's very easy to say "there is no evidence that there is a link" instead of intimating that anybody who thinks there is a link must be stupid.

Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?!

[Giltron]

But you fail to see the logic....

You would not be able to download unless someone was sharing Hence the term file-sharing

You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such popular Canadian albums as "Nothing But Rush: A History of Canadian Popular Music".

Re:You might remember me

[doktor-hladnjak]

"Nothing But Rush: A History of Canadian Popular Music"

Hey, don't forget Anne Murray, Alanis Morissette, and Celine Dion.

Actually, the world would probably be a better place, if we all could forget them...

Re:You might remember me

[gowen]

To be fair, they also gave us most of "The Band", Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, the Barenaked Ladies, the utterly fantastic Be Good Tanyas and, erm, William Shatner's "Transformed Man".

Re:You might remember me

[cygnus]

also The Cowboy Junkies, The Tragicly Hip, Godspeed You Black Emperor!, A Silver Mount Zion, Broken Social Scene, etc. etc. some good stuff.

Re:You might remember me

[kernelfoobar]

FYI, some of the most popular Canadian artists: (from www.maplemusic.com):

Bryan Adams
Randy Bachman/Guess Who
Big Sugar
Big Wreck
Blue Rodeo
Buck 65
Cowboy Junkies
Crash Test Dummies
Danko Jones
Melanie Doane
Edwin & The Pressure
54-40
Nelly Furtado
Gob
Matthew Good
Headstones
I Mother Earth
Sass Jordan
Diana Krall
Chantal Kreviazuk
Avril Lavigne
Lighthouse
Amanda Marshall
Sarah McLachlan
Holly McNarland
Moist (defunct), see David Husher
Alanis Morissette
Bif Naked
Not By Choice
Our Lady Peace
Sam Roberts
RUSH
Sloan
Sum 41
Three Days Grace
The Tragically Hip
Treble Charger
Shania Twain
Wide Mouth Mason
Neil Young

At least check out: Rush, Tragically Hip, Neil Young (you know), Sam Roberts, Sum 41 (for the kids)...

Re:You might remember me

[chef_raekwon]

dont forget "The Guess Who" from Winnepeg....

Re:You might remember me

[Deliveranc3]

Don't do that American's stop buying the albumns after they know.

Re:You might remember me

[Al-Hala]

I was just thinking the same about a lot of American bands this morning :)

Re:You might remember me

[3terrabyte]

And Great Big Sea

Re:You might remember me

[goates]

If only this came were made yesterday when I had mod points!

goates

Re:You might remember me

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

Not to mention Celine Dion and Anne Murray.

Re:You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Creed of the North aka Nickelback

Re:You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, take a look at the second entry on the list...

Re:You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

whoops....jumped the gun on that one...

Re:You might remember me

[kernelfoobar]

they where previously mentioned, but your right tho.

Re:You might remember me

[kernelfoobar]

you're right, that's another quite popular. I'm sure I missed other POPULAR bands too. They are tons of other less popular bands too...

Re:You might remember me

[cayenne8]

A bit off topic, but, the other night I watched a friend's copy of the DVD Rush In Rio...MAN, was that ever good!!

I was so happy to see that Rush finally got a live performance of theirs recorded in good quality!! I've always liked their performances live, but, the sound quality in the past was woefully pathetic...it appears on this one they got sound and video right!!! Good for them!! I'm gonna buy that one for myself...

Re:You might remember me

[what the dumple is]

An okay list.. Here's some dead fscking brilliant bands including recommended songs.

Cuff the Duke Ballad of a Lonely Construction Worker

Julie Doiron Gone Gone, The Longest Winter

Eric's Trip Anytime You Want, Behind the Garage, Frame, Follow, Girlfriend, My Chest is Empty, Spring, Viewmaster

The Flashing Lights A Day Like That, Friends You Learn to Hate, High School, Keep It To Yourself, Where do the Days Go?

Jale Not Happy, Over You

Joel Plaskett Come On Teacher, Mystery and Crime, True Patriot Love, Unconditional Love

The New Pornographers Letter From an Occupant, The Body Says No

The Salteens Let Go of Your Bad Days, Kelly Nicoll, Nice Day, The Best Thought

Sloan Autobiography, C'mon C'mon, Coax Me, G Turns To D, Gimmie That, I Hate My Generation, On The Horizon, People of the Sky, Take Good Care of the Poor Boy, The Good in Everyone, The Line You Amend, The Rest of My Life

Thrush Hermit At My Expense, Before You Leave, Darling Don't Worry, From the Back of the Film, Songs for the Gang, The Day We Hit The Coast

Weakerthans Leash, Watermark

Young and Sexy Ella, The City You Live in is Ugly

Zumpano Behind the Beehive, The Party Rages On

Re:You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of 15 of those artists to one degree or another and only like two, including Neil Young.

God, canada gives us crap. First their shitty useless masqaurading currency that fudges up our vending machines and then all this crappy music and terrible movie stars.

Notice how they all flee canada as soon as they can and move to America? Name a world-wide uber-famous Canadian that still lives in Canada.

Re:You might remember me

[Anonymous Coward]

Celine Dion? bahahaa. Well, she's famous at least. I can't believe we let her say she's from Canada though.

It's not so bad

[sdcharle]

Turns out they're only prosecuting if less than 80% of your pirated mp3s are not by Canadian artists.

Oh wait a minute, that is pretty bad.

Re:It's not so bad

[euxneks]

You see, the thing is, most artists that are worth buying the CDs from are all Canadians anyway. You name an american artist and I'll tell you a Canadian artist who is much better. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, but usually the Canadians are the ones with the talent. =)

So I would be pretty surprised if more than 20% of the mp3s I have are not by Canadian artists.

Re:It's not so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The Grateful Dead.

Re:It's not so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

To really understand to parent it is nice to know that something Canadians hate is that many radio stations are forced to play a 20% Canadian content. You have to do this to access tax breaks and various government programs.

example:
The CBC radio [government own/controlled] networks are required, as a condition of licence, to ensure that at least 50 percent of content category 2 music and at least 20 percent of category 3 music broadcast each week is "Canadian"
(source)

This is why there is no "true rock" or "real disco" radio station. To fill Canadian content a "pop" stations have no choice but to add Rush and Celine Dion to it's program. Yaaaawn!

Re:It's not so bad

[elsilver]

To fill Canadian content a "pop" stations have no choice but to add Rush and Celine Dion to it's program.

First off, it's not tax breaks -- CanCon is a condition of their broadcast license. Secondly, the CBC is a poor example since a large part of its mandate as the government public broadcaster is to support Canadian culture.

Finally... Come on, get serious for a second. There is more to Canadian music than Rush and Celine Dion.

A Canadian "true rock" station can also choose to fill it's CanCon with Barenaked Ladies, Nelly Furtado, Avril Lavigne, Big Sugar, Wide Mouth Mason, Matthew Good, Nickelback, Our Lady Peace, Great Big Sea, Sarah McLachlan, Sloan, Tal Bachman (and father Randy of BTO), Tea Party, Tragically Hip, Alanis Morissette, Bif Naked and more. And that's without having to go back into the "oldies" catalogue.

And plenty of time is still left for to generic American trash like Brittany - ooh, ooh, ooh, if only we didn't have CanCon rules, we could listen to even more of her, Christina, and NSync.

On the othe hand, I would like to apologize for all Canadians for foisting Anne Murray onto an unsuspecting world.

E.

Re:It's not so bad

[algf2004]

...especially if you're a really poor Canadian. You can download and share all the files you want. They can't sue me for what I don't got. $30,000? Go fish!

Re:It's not so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it 33% CanCon? And it has to support at least is it 2 or 3 of the 4 sections of the little guide..

What are they again?
Artist
Recording Location
Production
Writer

Something like that..

the last laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I will have the last laugh when my leeching brother with his damn bittorrents gets busted ! Finally I will get greater than 5Ks on my DSL link :-)

Oh happy, happy days :p

Re:the last laugh

[wo1verin3]

Until you find out that the internet connection is in your name and you're getting your ass dragged in to court.

Re:the last laugh

[Dashing Leech]

Actually, that's quite ironic. Leeching is pretty much the only legal way to do it in Canada. You can download from P2P legally, but not distribute (share).

(If anybody is going to contest this, at least do a search first on previous Slashdot stories. This has been covered many times and even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that downloading is legal, but distributing is not.)

You have to laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

when you see an industry suing their customers, i can't wait till this spreads to other industries

if this is the direction for capitalism then i give society another 20years max before very bad things start to happen

Re:You have to laugh

[tundog]

when you see an industry suing their customers, i can't wait till this spreads to other industries

You must be new here. You can pay your $699 on your way out.

Re:You have to laugh

[i_r_sensitive]

No, you have to laugh when people continue to support that industry by buying from companies which support those industry bodies.

Coongratulations! you are supporting the legal effort against you.

And if you're buying Pepsi....

20 years? Are you kidding? Capitalism has survived at least twice that and this pattern repeats itself, over and over again.

Lenin was almost right. The consumer pays for the rope that business is going to hang them with.

Re:You have to laugh

[shark72]

"when you see an industry suing their customers, i can't wait till this spreads to other industries."

It's already worse than that: if you shoplift from a store, you're liable to be fined or even thrown in jail, even if you're a regular customer of that store. You may have spent $500 in that store in the past year, but you help yourself to one item of clothing or one can of tuna without paying for it, and all of a sudden they forget that you're a customer. Maybe you were going to recommend that pair of pants or that can of tuna to your friends, and generate more sales for the store. Or maybe you were going to go back to the store and give them money if it turned out you liked them. There's just no benefit of the doubt nowadays.

It happens in the world of software, too. Google on "criminal copyright infringement" and you'll find links to cases where people have been indicted and even thrown in jail for copying software. Who's to say that they weren't also customers? After all, if I'm going to run a counterfeit Microsoft software copying ring, I've got to start with at least one legally bought copy of the software. Likewise, if I put 1,000 songs in my Kazaa share directory for download and let pretty much anybody help themselves to them without paying for them, I might be sued -- even though there's the chance that I might have bought one of those CDs, thus making me a customer.

It appears that the "this person may have bought from us in the past, thus we should look the other way when applying the law" rationale is already a dead concept.

"if this is the direction for capitalism then i give society another 20years max before very bad things start to happen."

It would appear that bad things are already happening.

Re:You have to laugh

[StuWho]

In the UK we have Vodka companies launching advertising campaigns telling people to practice responsible drinking, it's only a matter of time before they start sueing us.

Perhaps when I'm lying on the ground in a puddle of my own piss, they'll sue me for "unauthorised distribution of our product".

As for the music companies, God help any hacker who contributes code to Linux while listening to a Metallica cd. I wouldn't put it past the Lizard Scum RIAA to take advice from SCO and sue... And if the RIAA don't get them the Bad Taste Police will!

Re:You have to laugh

[SoSueMe]

You may have spent $500 in that store in the past year, but you help yourself to one item of clothing or one can of tuna without paying for it, and all of a sudden they forget that you're a customer.

WTF?

So, you're stating, that it is OK to steal a physical item and, thereby, depriving the proprietor of the establishment the return on their investment (they paid for the item) of their option to persue you as a criminal, simply because you legitimaty purchased there perviously?

Man, I'd hate to live in your neighbourhood.

Re:You have to laugh

[shark72]

"So, you're stating, that it is OK to steal a physical item and, thereby, depriving the proprietor of the establishment the return on their investment (they paid for the item) of their option to persue you as a criminal, simply because you legitimaty purchased there perviously?"

My post was a reply to an earlier one in which the poster was fearful that the recording industry's "sue your customers" outlook may spread to other industries. In my post, I pointed out that it already has.

The attitude of the recording industry, the software industry, grocery stores, and department stores appears to be "we don't care if you're a customer. If we think you're breaking the law and causing us harm, we're liable to go after you. We're not going to look the other way because you may have bought from us in the past."

Whether or not this is a good attitude to have is left to the reader.

Vertical integration sucks...

[LostCluster]

Article sez:
Videotron is in a unique position because its parent company, Quebecor, also sells music, Videotron says it is concerned about copyright protection and considers file sharing to be "theft."

Well, there we have it. ISP attitudes on copyright and privacy issues are completely tied to how much content the ISP's parent company owns. Road Runner customers beware, and Comcast customers better hope the Disney deal doesn't go through.

Re:Vertical integration sucks...

[Loki_1929]

"Well, there we have it. ISP attitudes on copyright and privacy issues are completely tied to how much content the ISP's parent company owns. Road Runner customers beware, and Comcast customers better hope the Disney deal doesn't go through."

Just working our way towards the reality of the 'Alien' series of films. What The Corporation wants, The Corporation gets. Human beings are expendable - profits are not.

Re:Vertical integration sucks...

[aron_wallaker]

All the major Canadian high-speed ISP's are part of vertically-integrated corporations to some degree :

Videotron is owned by Quebecor, who publish newspapers, sell music, run an online 'portal', etc. Videotron also owns the Quebec equivalent of 'American Idol' and thus now has a hand in artist development.

Rogers Cable is part of a huge company that owns magazines, radio stations, video rental stores, a large cellular phone network and the Toronto Blue Jays.

Sympatico is part of Bell, which also owns part of a national newspaper (Globe & Mail), national TV networks (CTV & TSN), a digital satellite dish service, a national cell phone network, etc.

I don't know as much about Shaw, but I do know they also own radio stations and, I believe, a couple of TV cable channels.

So, to put it politely, there's no one in that list that I trust to stand up for their users.

Re:Vertical integration sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is already true though. Look at Hackers. The guy who wrote the Melissa virus which DID NO DAMAGE TO ANYONE (it just replicated itself over protocol and did not do actual damage) gets three years in prison, but child molestors, drunk drivers, and the guys who run Enron, etc go totally free or server almost no time. Punishment fit the crime much?

In America (and Canada, increasingly), laws are merely tools for corporations to send a message to the public. Time Warner doesn't want people copying their shit? They use the government to make laws in its favor and then punish the fuck out of people who infringe it, including hard time in pound me in the ass federal prison for doing somethign that didn't physically harm or endanger ANYONE and didn't even necessarily economically harm anyone, either.

Re:Vertical integration sucks...

[kwandar]

Quebecor also sells newspapers - and prints them. Lots of them. All of the Sun chain.

Boycott the Sun in your in your neighbourhood too!

Re:Videotron

[cgranade]

Yes, and the Americans have set a stellar example in this case, haven't they?

Levies already!

[morcheeba]

This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)

Re:Levies already!

[Midnight Thunder]

This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)

I am confused. Am I getting fined in advance, so that I can download or does the industry want it all ways?

Re:Levies already!

[Neurotoxic666]

Indeed, we've all already paid our due (in theory) for copying music (whether we do it or not) when we buy blank medias. Can this argument reach the courts or is it just plain stupid to think that you've been judged and fined without any lawsuit when you are forced to pay levies?

Re:Levies already!

[PunchMonkey]

I am confused. Am I getting fined in advance, so that I can download or does the industry want it all ways?

Guess what! The "Music Industry" isn't a single entity, there's plenty of different players each with their own viewpoint, everyone from the Artists to the Labels to the Publishers to the Retailers have their own views and opinions.

Re:Levies already!

[Loki_1929]

"This is the country that already has some pretty high media levies based on the assumption that illegal copies are being made. It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD), but there are proposed increases, including an $840 levy on each 40GB iPod! ($0.021/MB)"

The beauty of this levy is that it doesn't matter whether you're backing up Quickbooks or sending grandma some jpegs of your trip to Disneyworld - you're paying the music industry money for each CD-r. That's one of the best laws the entertainment industry ever bought.

Re:Levies already!

[Damn_Canuck]

Bear in mind that this "hunt" by the "industry" is only for those who are uploading the music. They have to hold true to the fact that us Canadians may legally download files for our own personal use, but it is the distribution of the copyrighted materials in the first place that is causing the uproar. So, fellow Canadians, download until your heart's content. Just be warned that if you upload, you may be in for it in the future (depending on this ruling).

Re:Levies already!

[Pxtl]

As I easily use hundreds of CD's for legal uses, I wonder where I sign up to get my $50 back? Oh, wait, I can't? Who's a thief?

Re:Levies already!

[Dashing Leech]

That's one of the best laws the entertainment industry ever bought.

Except that the trade-off is that it made P2P downloading legal in Canada. I don't mind paying the levy as long as I can legally download from P2P. Distributing, on the other hand, is illegal.

Re:Levies already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if that's Canadian dollars, don't get so bent out of shape. $840 Canadian is what, $3.42 American?

Re:Levies already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a barter system is in order. Trade iPods for perscription meds.

Re:Levies already!

[JudgeFurious]

PunchMonkey is right in his reply to your post. They aren't a single entity at all but let's forget about that for a moment and for the sake of argument lump them all together and call them one. Having done that then the answer is indeed "Yes, the want it all ways".

They've always wanted it all or rather both ways. That's what they do. That's how they've always done it.

"The Recording Industry" is based on a business model that can be summed up neatly as "Fuck everyone above and below you as hard and as often as you can" and it's been an accepted way of doing business for so long that they'll fight to the death to continue doing it.

I don't doubt for a moment that they see absolutely nothing wrong with how they go about their business.

Re:Levies already!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian, I used to only ever make personal backup copies of music I owned. However, after they introduced the levies, I took that to mean that I was free to copy whatever I wanted, because I had in fact now paid for that right. If they remove the levies, I have no problem going back to the way things were.

Re:Levies already!

[Loki_1929]

"Except that the trade-off is that it made P2P downloading legal in Canada. I don't mind paying the levy as long as I can legally download from P2P. Distributing, on the other hand, is illegal."

And do you believe it's right for those who never use P2P to be forced into subsidizing your downloading? Or should Billy be able to send those pictures to grandma without paying money to the music industry?

How about this - when you purchase a CD at full price, you're paying a substantial amount of money (relative to actual costs) for that CD. Now, the recording industry is not going to provide you with substitute media should something happen to your CD. Thus, it is up to you to make a backup copy of your CD to provide for such an occurrence. Now, should you have to pay (again) money to the recording industry, simply to ensure you have access to music for which you've already paid? If your answer is yes, then it should also be yes to the question of whether you should have to pay a small amount of money each time you want to listen to a song. After all, the entertainment industry is entitled to your (and everyone else's) money, right?

Re:Levies already!

[g0at]

The music player levy has been in effect for a couple of months now. There is a $25 surcharge on all iPods, for example. See Apple store Canada and note the red text.

-ben

Re:Levies already!

[j-turkey]

Guess what! The "Music Industry" isn't a single entity

Yeah, but they sure have a face and a voice...in more than one country (RIAA, CRIA, ARIA, etc). These are the people responsible for the lobbying. I think that these are the organizations that people are referring to.

Re:Levies already!

[jimsum]

It is legal to make a copy, so there can't be any fine for that. The levy is considered compensation for unpaid copyright payments.

They really do try to be fair when they calculate the levy. They calculate how often a medium is used to record music and multiply that by the copyright rate (you know, the 8 cents per song). The iPod rate sounds kind of high, but how many songs will it hold? If each song on the iPod is 4MB, the rate is maybe reasonable. At any rate, I think they will end up charging something feasible, maybe by realizing that most people will not fill their iPods.

However, if they are going to start charging serious money, they really should refund the levy when the medium is discarded. I think I ought to get my money back when I throw out (or ruin) a record-only medium or my iPod for that matter.

Re:Levies already!

[Dashing Leech]

And do you believe it's right for those who never use P2P to be forced into subsidizing your downloading?

That's the nature of any shared-cost system. It's the same with healthcare. If I never go to the doctor or hospital, should I be forced to subsidize some hypochondriac who drops in 10 times a week? What about roadways? If I don't drive, should I be forced to pay for the roadways for all those people that do? The list of this type can go on forever. The answer is typically that a shared-cost system is best overall, depending on how it is implemented. There are, of course, valid arguements for user-paid systems. It's an interesting debate, but seems to be a case-by-case argument.

Re:Levies already!

[Ice_Balrog]

It's currently $0.21 (data CD) and $0.77 (audio CD)

Huh? A data CD and a audio CD are exactly the same thing, except for the format of the data on the disk (ISO-9660 for data CDs, and Redbook for audio). How exactly is the distinction made?

Re:Levies already!

[evilad]

Yes, you _can_ download all you want. They're going after the people who _upload_ files.

This hardly seems reasonable: if you're uploading, for all you know, your downloaders are legitimate users who have damaged their own copy of the CD. Only the downloader knows whether they are infringing copyright.

Re:Levies already!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Huh? A data CD and a audio CD are exactly the same thing, except for the format of the data on the disk (ISO-9660 for data CDs, and Redbook for audio).

Wrong. There's data CD-R/Ws (which you can use to make audio CDs if you have a computer), and there's Audio CD-R/Ws. Audio equipment that can record audio CDs won't work with regular data CDs, since the audio CDs have some special track (or something) written to them by the company (so they can be identified as "audio CD").

http://www.maxellcanada.com/computer_prod/menu/c at leaf.asp?cat1=Computer+Products

http://www.maxellcanada.com/computer_prod/menu/c at leaf.asp?cat1=Consumer+Audio&cat2=CD%2DR+and+CD%2D RW+Music&cat3=

Re:Levies already!

[jqs]

The levies that are being placed on blank media goes to an organization (can't remember the name right now) that represents the artists themseleves. Not the recording industry in Canada, just the artists.
So, this is the action being put forth by the record companies because they missed out on the levies (or didn't want ot get money that way, or are dipsh1ts, or don't know what they are doin' anyways...) when they were first put into place years ago.

Re:Levies already!

[mindstrm]

You miss the point.

In any sharing of a file, there is an uploader and a downloader.

I do not need "legal" use to download a file off kazaa.. I don't have to have the original , or have lost it. Personal copying is permitted.

You, however, are NOT permitted to share that file with me in the first place. Distribution of copyrighted works without license is illegal.

Whether or not I am entitled to a copy does not mean it is legal for you to distribute that copy to me. If you are not a licensed distributor, you are not a licensed distributor.

Re:Levies already!

[Loki_1929]

"If I never go to the doctor or hospital, should I be forced to subsidize some hypochondriac who drops in 10 times a week? What about roadways? If I don't drive, should I be forced to pay for the roadways for all those people that do? The list of this type can go on forever."

Sure it can, but everything you've listed can be summed up as 'government programs for the betterment of society at large'. Can the same be said of P2P?

I've got another one for you: should I be forced to subsidize T-Mobile if I don't even own a cell phone? How about if every time I bought a screwdriver, I had to pay a levy on it to every citizen and company in the nation because it's possible that it could be used to break into someone's house or take apart consumer products to steal secret intellectual property? How about if every time I buy oil for my car, I have to pay a levy to every car manufacturer, because I might use the opportunity to learn about the engine and steal auto manufacturer IP?

Re:Levies already!

[DataSquid]

Hmm, Apple seems to think it's only $25, and is already in place. And they're right. The fees proposed weren't even close to what was adopted in practice, a couple months ago IIRC.

Re:Levies already!

[Midnight Thunder]

But when I listen to music on my iPod, I am listening to music that I have bought. I can't be listening to my CDs AND my iPod at the same time (I could but I wouldn't want to), so what am I taking away from the artist?

Re:Levies already!

[jeffasselin]

Ridiculous, the levy on iPods and similar portable media players is 20$, there are no more proposed increases for the time being (at least not in 2004).

And note that the money doesn't go to the "Music Industry" but to the actual artists (wow, what a novelty idea).

Re:Levies already!

[ottawanker]

So when I pay $35 for a spindle of 100 CDRs, I'm really only paying $14 for the CDs, and $21 for the levy? That's a sweet deal. If I'm buying them outside of Canada, do I still have to pay the levy, or is it like taxes and it can be removed?

Re:Levies already!

[Dashing Leech]

Hmm, you don't think that free access to music would be a "betterment of society at large"? Interesting. I'm not saying your wrong, that's definitely a matter of opinion.

You're missing the other side of the equation. What do you get back as a result of the contributions to T-mobile, screwdriver companies, and car manufacturer. If it means free cellphones, free tools, and free cars, then I'd be willing to pay them. It's a tradeoff. On some items you may be paying a small amount for things you never use, but you will also have access to free (or cheaper) things that you do use.

In the end, when deciding whether it is something you or I would wan, it's a matter of which way costs you more, which isn't easy to answer. Depending on how shared-cost is implemented, it can result in a better quality of life for everyone.

By the way, you probably are partially subsidizing T-Mobile and car manufacturers through some of the infrastructure paid for through your taxes.

Re:Levies already!

[evilad]

This is a rephrased repost, the slashtrolls seem to have eaten my first attempt.

Imagine you want to make a personal copy of something from my collection. "OK," say I, "take it off the CD rack over there."

This is legal and correct.

You're trying to tell me that it magically becomes different in principle if my entire collection is in a compressed format on my hard drive?

How about if my entire collection is in it's original format, but in my net-accessible SCSI jukebox?

Perhaps you feel that I have to have that access password-protected? How difficult does the password have to be?

I'm just trying to establish that there seems to be a very arbitrary and ill-defined line between what's OK and what's not.

Re:Levies already!

[mindstrm]

No, I feel that the current laws are not specific enough, because the current digital copying ideas don't fit neatly into ANY of the previous laws.

Again.. it is about who is making the copies. At it's heart, if I take the CD off your shelf, I am clearly making the copy.

If I am instructing your computer to do it remotely... it gets fuzzy. Am I responsible, as you, as the computer is yours, and hence, your responsibility.

If you took your CD rack downtown, put it up in the street, and said "Free copies" , provided the copy machines, but never actually touched any yourself, you are still clearly engaged in distribution.

If, privately, we swap a file, between friends, morally that is the same as me borrowing your CD to make a copy.

If you fire up kazaa to share with a million other people, it's not morally the same thing at all.. it's more like taking your collection down to the football stadium.

Where do you draw the line? Who knows.. but at some point people mostly agree that wide-scale distribution of others copyrighted works without permission is still wrong, even if we all like grabbing music off kazaa.

Good.

[ProtonMotiveForce]

I don't understand why nerds get so up in arms when people defend their intellectual property.

If people are breaking the law and sharing music then they deserve what happens. Yeah yeah yeah, they should make sure the person they're suing is the right one and they should be reasonable about the penalties. But they certainly don't have to just stand by and bend themselves over a barrel.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

um, the law might be wrong.

just because something is a law, doesnt mean its wrong to break the law.

Re:Good.

[fair_n_hite_451]

Canadians can damn well get upset about this .... if it turns out they are going after people who are only engaged in "leeching", which has been ruled legal in Canada.

Personally, as a SHAW customer, I say "bring it on". Since I can honestly say I've never shared one bit of mp3, but have downloaded many, I almost hope that I get one. Of course, legal fees would break me, but I'm pretty sure I can find a lawyer looking to make a name for himself to work pro bono

Re:Good.

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Agreed in the abstract.

This law, however, is right. Here in these non-communist..well, I guess that doesn't apply to Canada. But still - when an artist and a studio puts time and effort into making art, they are the ones who decide what happens to it.

Damn moochers.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. It is irrelevant whether or not you think CDs cost too much--if you pirate music, you're breaking the law, and it doesn't matter whether or not you knew that. Ignorance isn't an excuse. If you break the law, don't get pissed if you get caught.

Re:Good.

[ProtonMotiveForce]

I'd be interested to see how exactly Canada has defied international copyright conventions.

Please refer me to this mythical "leeching" ruling.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

Why would it be wrong to want to protect something into which you've invested a lot of money, in the case of the label, and in the case of the artist, emotion, hard work, and time?

Re:Good.

[garcia]

the problem isn't with the people protecting their interests... The problem is that large conglomorates own portions of everything and have a direct influence on the business practices and politics involved.

That's called a monopoly and is generally frowned upon...

Re:Good.

[DashEvil]

I don't have a link, but you should look it up. We pay a leeve on almost any medium that could HOLD music, and that all goes to the music industry. So yes, it is legal. No, seriously, it is.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

they can want to protect it all they want.

i can want to protect my property too.

doesnt mean i have the right to defend it ANY way i please.

i cant shoot the teens that cut through the back yard with a sniper rifle.

it might be time to accept that copyrights are not "right"

Re:Good.

[asuffield]

Not everybody agrees that "Intellectual Property" is a good thing.

The only thing being defended here is a profit margin.

Re:Good.

[ProtonMotiveForce]

This sentiment I can actually agree with. It irritates me to no end when e.g. cable companies pay off some politician to make cable theft a felony, or when music companies unduly influence laws.

I do think, however, that the companies are justified in defending their property even if they are big evil corporations representing talentless pop pansies.

The real issue is that the government needs to reign in maximum penalties and stop selling out.

Re:Good.

[Neurotoxic666]

I don't understand why nerds get so up in arms when people defend their intellectual property

And I certainly don't understand why people should be glad that their privacy on the internet will stop to exist because some companie think it's ok to spy on you and analyse what files you share.

The CRIA is not the Secret Services. It is okay for them to protect their IP, but knowing that Videotron is so inclined to associate people's indentity with their IP adress is kinda scary. If there's a lawsuit filed against me for doing something criminal, then fine, they must have reasons to think that I'm doing something wrong. But if they start looking at what ports you use to upload you files, and then suspect you of sharing music, and then give your personal info to some private corporation without your consent, and then, they sue you -- that's just plain wrong.

Re:Good.

[Loki_1929]

"they should make sure the person they're suing is the right one and they should be reasonable about the penalties. But they certainly don't have to just stand by and bend themselves over a barrel."

This is certainly reasonable, but it does not make for a sustainable business model. What would you have the recording industry do once it has alienated so many customers that it starts bleeding money profusely? Shall we subsidize the entertainment industry like we subsidize the airline industry? Or shall we let the old companies with failing business models die out and be replaced by newer, smarter companies willing to sell a product that consumers like, packaged how they want, and at a price they can afford?

Re:Good.

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Yep - I stand corrected. http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

Doesn't help the people sharing the music, though.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

That's the most blatant straw-man argument I've ever seen. They aren't defending it ANY way they please. If they were, why wouldn't they just shoot the people sharing music with a sniper rifle? Because that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They are acting within their legal system. If you're right, and copyrights are "wrong" then they'll lose. If not, deal with it, or move to a Communist country. Frankly, I think piracy is the worst thing to happen to computing. Ever. I'm all for fair use, but piracy isn't fair use. If it weren't for piracy, the US Government wouldn't be trying to put DRM on every computer created. Go ahead, CRIA. Sue away. Get some of the crap music off the Internet. One less bratty 16 year old sharing Britney Spears. I know piracy will never end, and that it will be the first true test of every new medium--it always is--but it still sucks, and it's ruining it for the law-abiding citizens out there.

Re:Good.

[fair_n_hite_451]

See here
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/11/ 0015247&mode=thread&tid=141

Re:Good.

[John Courtland]

If the law is retarded, like this one, then there is reason to get pissed. As has been mentioned, Canada levies a fee on all recordable media being sold, for the specific purpose of recompensating the recording industry for pirated materials. So this means they pay a fine then can't copy anyway. That is stealing, plain and simple.

Re:Good.

[Dashing Leech]

That's a strawman argument. Most people don't see a problem with reasonable protection of one's creations for a limited time. The problem is the way the industry is run. Recording companies essentially provide artists with high-risk loans, but decide how they spend it and how much by selling them their own services of recording, marketing, and distribution. The artist has little control over where money goes or even over their own music, and in the end they don't even own their own creations. As a result of the companies' self-interests in spending on their own services, prices for recordings are artificially high and the artist doesn't get much of it.

When it comes down to the protection of creative works, it's the corporations that are interested in protecting their self-interests, not the artists interested in protecting their work.

In short, the system is screwed up. Both the artists and consumers are getting screwed and it's the recording companies that are doing the screwing to both. That has got to change.

Re:Good.

[Yartrebo]

Cable theft can be serious business, but I thought it was quite rare in the USA. If you bring down the phone or electricity for a down because you stole some cables, I think it should be a felony, at least for a second or third offense.

A lot of cables were stolen in Iraq after Saddam's regime fell, and it complicated the rebuilding process quite a bit. Cables have a decent resale value as they contain quite a bit of valuable copper.

Then again, I never knew that there was a specific law against swiping cables. I figured that it would be covered under some more general theft laws.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

This shouldn't be listed as flamebait. It sounds like a reasonable differing point of view.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

Call me an idealist here, but that's why you have elected officials (you do have elected officials in Canada, right?) If you're so upset about the tax, write your elected official and work to have the taxes repealed.

You can say that it doesn't matter, that the industry holds too much sway, but if you're pissed about something, take action. Don't just whine about it.

Re:Good.

[starm_]

"I do think, however, that the companies are justified in defending their property even if they are big evil corporations representing talentless pop pansies."

You see that's what the problem is. The reason we are irritated at companies defending their property is that these companies are trying to force "talentless pop pansies" onto the public not quality artistic music. I beleive if corporations were trying to protect something of quality, something people think is worth the money we would not be upset.

It is a problem that companies use marketing techniques that include psychological manipulation so that unoriginal music that have no real value become popular. This music has no value because basic musician could make it on their home computer. It's the marketing that makes it popular. That is, these companie are getting insane amounts of money on marketing only.

There are exeptions. If the music is really good. That it be a real original work of art, a lot of people want to own the original CD. A little bit like jewelry, people don't like cheap imitations of quality products. They want to have the packaging artwork that comes with it. They want to be able to read the credits and song lyrics. They even want to support the artists.

So in a way the fact that music is freely distributed on the internet SOLVES a problem which there was no solution before. It stops the companies at being able to manipulate the public through marketing at buying low quality products. Only products which demonstrates real value can make money now.

Re:Good.

[chef_raekwon]

You can say that it doesn't matter, that the industry holds too much sway

infact, ianal- or a politican, but I believe, as do many Canadians, that the RIAA does not have sway or power like it does in the US - -

ofcourse, your intentions were different in your post - but, in all reality, as someone else has posted -- we do not fear these organizations, like Americans fear them.

most of us have no problem going to court, paying through the nose to defend our civil liberties. such as, keeping our personal information private -- and keeping large foolish companies out of our browsing/downloading/uploading habits.

Re:Good.

[Al-Hala]

I'm curious if you apply this same logic to other sensitive issues as well. Since it's not really a "Geek" argument, more of a social one.

Abortion, Speeding Tickets, Red Light Cameras, Turning Right on a Red Light (where applicable), etc. There are several things that are technically against the law, but you won't see it enforced.

No baiting intended, I just wonder when I see blanket statements made like you have...

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You see that's what the problem is. The reason we are irritated at companies defending their property is that these companies are trying to force "talentless pop pansies" onto the public not quality artistic music. I beleive if corporations were trying to protect something of quality, something people think is worth the money we would not be upset.

What?

Who is forcing you do watch/listen to anything you don't want to unless you're undergoing some Clockwork Orange "Therapy".

I'm always amused when I read articles on here discussing the RIAA and lawsuits. Every time once comes up, there is always a post about the RIAA or whatever company forcing talentless hacks on the public and how they prefer to listen to .

So what's the problem? You don't listen to Britney, Christina, whoever. Fine. Nobody is forcing you to either. If anything the public could be sued for bad taste. The pop stars sell and that's what matters in a capitalistic country. Hell...I wish I had a hand in some of the money people get from the singers I mentioned above. I'd love it...and you would too.

Is the music industry more of a factory now? Yep. Do you still manage to find bands (local or national acts) that you like, support through the legal purchase of CDs/DVDs/whatever? Yep.

So again...what's the problem with the music industry trying to collect their money from people who download their music for free? The way I see it: Nothing.

(yeah...this pretty much pertains to the U.S. and not Canada as there seems to be a 'leeching' law there. whatever. that loophole should be closed up.)

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

I totally agree with you, and it causes me no small amount of internal strife when I must balance the belief of the right to privacy and the right for copyright owners to protect those copyrights. They're obviously not mutually exclusive, even if under our current system, enforcing them might be.

In that case, I'll always fight for privacy.

Re:Good.

[3terrabyte]

It's hardly a straw-man argument.

You don't think that $150,000 per song and jail time is excessive? That is the amount the RIAA threatened to sue for against file sharers last year to force settlements.

Pirates are not trying to put DRM on every computer created. The media industry is, and they're buying their laws any way they can.

Piracy is not the worst thing to happen to computing. It's the worst thing to happen to the Music Industry. (Which is only an excuse due to the recession. Our company got hit by the recession and we had to fire 100 people. Too bad we couldn't blame it on pirates)

You are siding with the same people who fought tooth and nail to outlaw the VCR. The Xerox Machine. The Printing Press.

Read up on some outrageous fines.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

Well, at least where I am, abortion isn't illegal. But yes, I speed. I turn right on red, sometimes illegally. I don't run red lights, so the cameras don't bother me. I know you weren't looking for specific issues, but I wanted to make the point that I'm not some golden boy.

In all those cases, and in any case like that, if I get stopped and ticketed, or whatever the punishment is, I don't fight it unless I know I'm innocent. I know I messed up, and I have to deal with the consequences.

As for your questioning my blanket statement, I understand that. I do my best to choose my words carefully so that I don't come across as a hypocrite. If I make a blanket statement, there's a good chance that I mean exactly what I say.

Re:Good.

[paulrmartin]

Sure ok, I agree. But how are we who use the Videotron cable service for our internet to be sure they don't start peeking into our mailboxes? Music files are transfered through email too, right? If they go through with this agreement, I hope that apply just as stringent laws on our providers to protect our rightful privacy.

Re:Good.

[starm_]

Yes but we do not choose what is on TV, we do not choose what is on the radio. That is the loophole the industry exploit. They give money to the media so that their factory produced artist have all the media coverage. Sure you can change the channel. But still, everywhere you go there will be a radio station playing or a TV that you don't own or control. The reason they can so easily exploit these loopholes is that it is very difficult to prove in court that they are just manipulating the public since music quality is so subjective.

I think that free downloads is a way to reverse that competition crushing effect that the media loopholes have created. People will tend to purshase the good quality stuff a lot more than the factory produced crap. Real good CD's have more value than mp3's or copied CDs. The industry should have to rely on quality products to make profit, not media loopholes.

And that's what downloading does. It forces the industry to make quality products.

Re:Good.

[kwandar]

"If you break the law, don't get pissed if you get caught."

Great now tell me, exactly what is the law?

Perhaps when the courts define "for the purpose of distribution" I won't get quite as pissed.

Re:Good.

[macdaddy357]

There I was completely wasted, out of work, and down.
All inside its so frustrating its a trip from town to town
Feel as though nobody cares if i live or die
So I might as well begin to put some action in my life.

Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!

So much for the golden future. I can't even start
I've had every promise broken. There's anger in my heart.
You don't know what it's like. You don't have a clue.
If you did, you'd find yourself doing the same thing too!

Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!

You don't know what it's like!

Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!
Breaking the law! Breaking the law!

Re:Good.

[shark72]

"Recording companies essentially provide artists with high-risk loans, but decide how they spend it and how much by selling them their own services of recording, marketing, and distribution."

High risk for the record company. It's the record company's money that's on the hook if a CD fails.

"The artist has little control over where money goes or even over their own music, and in the end they don't even own their own creations."

The recording, for which the record company covered the costs of production, typically ends up being the property of the label. Not the lyrics and the music. That's an important distinction.

Record companies typically get exclusive rights to distribute a recording in exchange for funding the recording. This is understandable, as it must sell the recording to cover the expenses. This model would not work very well if a record company paid for $25K of studio time but did not have exclusive rights; there'd be nothing preventing you from putting the music on Kazaa yourself. If you want to own your recordings, pay for the studio time yourself, and distribute it yourself in any manner you see fit. This is entirely your choice. If you don't happen to have the money to make your own recordings, this is certainly unfortunate, but it's probably not some evil record company's fault.

"As a result of the companies' self-interests in spending on their own services, prices for recordings are artificially high and the artist doesn't get much of it."

This is typical of the lack of control you get when you spend other people's money. If you're an Internet startup and you get VC money, the VCs are going to want to tell you what to do. Such is the priveledge of people who have money.

As an artist you always have the option of producing, distributing, marketing and selling your work on your own. Doing it yourself, rather than leaving it to professionals who have resources much greater than yours, may not ultimately garner the same financial reward, and you take all the financial risk (rather than the record company) and you must come up with the funds (rather than the record company), but at least you'll get the satisfaction of doing it yourself and ultimately be responsible for your own success or failure.

It is because each artist has this choice that we should not be tempted to use "record companies are unfair to artists" as a mantra for rationalizing piracy. The inequity between those who have money and those who don't is present in just about every business.

Re:Good.

[jghiloni]

Marvelous! 3.78 Gold Stars for you.

Not surprised by Videotron

[Tester]

I'm not surprised at all that Videotron would support that. They are owned by Quebec's biggest (only big) media conglomerate, Quebecor.. Which is also the world's largest printer (Quebecor World), but that's pretty separate from Quebecor Media...

So Quebecor media also owns, appart from Videotron (cable), the biggest TV network (TVA), the most read newspapers (Le journal de Montreal and Le journal de Quebec), quite a few magasines and more importantly in this case, Musicor.. a record label.. They are not well known outside Quebec though, because all of their media are in French... but they are THE dominant player in Quebec...

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[LostCluster]

This is a bit scary for a province that values its independence in culture and language so much to have just one major media owner.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[FiDooDa]

you forgot to add that they also own Archambault Musique (Music store retailer). Archambault recently opened their online music store too.

/me looking for a new isp

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[tundog]

Have you been to Quebec lately? The pro-seperatists are all about restriciting views that aren't in line with the separitist mantra. It's therefore not surprising that they only have one media giant. Do a Google search on Esther Delisle to see what happens when you speak the truth about facts that are unpopular to the separetists.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[just fiddling around]

I should point out that Conrad Black's Hollinger was until really recently the biggest media owner in Canada. This inludes in PQ The Gazette, Le Soleil, and other (smaller) papers like Le Nouvelliste. Those are mostly now properties of CanWest Global.

On the electronic media front, there is the ubiquitous Astral Media, which owns almost all specialty channels(Canal Z, D, Historia, Super Ecran, etc) and a huge radio network which includes the "Radio Energie" group. I would not discount the national television network, Radio-Canada, which is an evenly matched competitor to TVA (yes, the national network is a big player here!)

Their label Musicor is largely unknown because BMG Musique (division of the international BMG label) and Sony have the lion's share of the successful artists here. Musicor is promised for a better tomorrow because of "Star Academie", an "American Idol"-style artist boot camp/publicity campaign.

All this to say that Quebecor is the most widely recognized media "giant", but there are other huge players.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[holstein]

Hrm, I won't argue about the "pro-seperatists [...] restriciting views that aren't in line with the separitist mantra" since it is true for too much "pro-seperatist" that don't like the idea of sane public debate (and the same could be said about the other side).

But please, don't bring E.Delisle in the discussion. I know people who studied at the same department, and her work was so bad that the university didn't want at first to grant her her diploma... And no, not because of her point of view, but purely because of her bad research method...

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[mike_1138]

I have to agree with you. I was, for 3 years, a Videotron subscriber, and I have to say that it was a miracle they were in business. They have absolutely the worst service levels I've ever encountered, and they are such a non-customer focused organization that it's not surprising at all that they're going to give in and try to save some face within their own special circles.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Etyenne]

I'm an independantist*, and I don't have problems with Esther Delisle's view. Actually, like most Quebec's sovereignist I know, it's quite the opposite : I'd like more debate, as the current state of total political void in Canada is hurting our option. But, he, don't tell that too loud, it might get in the way of the FUD campaign led against Quebec's independantist.

Quebec does not have a monopoly on political correctness. On anti-semitism either, for that matter.

[*] I am not a separatist, because separation is just a step toward independance, not the goal itself. The semantic game played by federalist is getting quite pathetic.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that they also own the Archambault record stores in Quebec.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Etyenne]

Hrm, I won't argue about the "pro-seperatists [...] restriciting views that aren't in line with the separitist mantra" since it is true for too much "pro-seperatist" that don't like the idea of sane public debate (and the same could be said about the other side).

I personnally think a sane public on the Canadian *cough*federation*cough* would benefit the independantist movement, as the sole option the ROC is interested in is the status quo. If "separatist" are so anti-debate, how come the federalist constantly claim they don't want to discuss about "Constitution" (actually, they mean "face this federation's deficiencies") ? Because people don't want to hear about it ? How convenient ... but actually, federalist prefer to avoid the debate because they have nothing to propose, period.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

It also does not surprise me because Videotron domains are from where I get the most spam, and multiple complaints to them have had little effect (e.g., the site that a spammer's messages points to, also hosted on a videotron-controlled domain, does not get pulled). They are either incompetant or do not care much about being spammer-friendly. Deciding in favour of where the money is (e.g., hosting spammer's sites) appears to be Videotron preference in other things, so why not this?

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[paulrmartin]

It's the logical follow-up to their"Please buy music" add campaign. Quebecor also owns the chain of music stores Archambault who just launched their online music store. The only problem I have is that most music that is shared-downloaded is disposable anyway. I mean how may "artists" last more than a couple of years, especially the teenage girls once they've turned, say, 24-25? sad......

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[MKalus]

Being in Canada now for four years I have to admit I am fascinated by the whole Quebec thing.

For once the current issues where the liberals apparantly gave tons of money to Quebec to play nice, then the fact that Quebec within Canada is actually rather independent already.

Looking at all of this I have to conclude that Quebec already got the cake and is eating large parts of it too.

What exactly it is that Quebec hopes to gain by seperating from the rest of Canada is somewhat beyond me.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Sepper]

The gouvernement wanted to kept french publications into local hands.... look where it got us...

But Quebecor is NOT the only player... they are simply the biggest... kinda like IBM in the IT world

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[pwarda]

This is a stupid ignorant comment.

Can you say BCE anyone in Canada. Come on...

Comcast and Disney. Time and AOL. Come on...

I hate reading stupid comments on a cultural issue from people who know jack-all.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[alph0ns3]

"What exactly it is that Quebec hopes to gain by seperating from the rest of Canada is somewhat beyond me."

It's not only about the money you know...

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Scrameustache]

This is a bit scary for a province that values its independence in culture and language so much to have just one major media owner.

There is one MAJOR media owner,and many smaller ones.
In fact, there are 4 french-networks on TV (not counting cable channels and english channels). One is owned by Quebecor, the other is owned by another canadian megacorp, and the remaining 2 are government owned. One federal, the other provincial.

So the quebecor-owned network is kinda like ABC, CBS or NBC (province not big enough to support more than one), the other is like Fox (in fact a lot of its programming is Fox shows), one of the government-owned ones is like PBS, and the other is like a ABC-CBS-NBC mixed with big-budget PBS.

There is diversity, but you are right: media convergence is scary.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Quebec would gain a lot from being independant. The obvious reason is the language. The recognition of a distinct french society. French is slowly disapearing over the years here in Quebec, in fact we are surronded by the North (Engligh speaking amerindians), the South (USA), the East(Nova scotia, New brunswick, PEI, the newfies... all english speaking) and the West (Ontario, the rest of Canada).

Yes, I know there are a lot of french speaking people in small comunities in all these places I mentioned but the majority is in Quebec.

I am a native french speaking quebecois, I lived in Ottawa for a while and really noticed that the Quebec Outaouais region's french(a river separate Ontario and Quebec over there) is in big trouble. I have no doubt that it will be the first region that the french will be completely assimilated by the english language.

Resistance is NOT futile!

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

the sole option the ROC is interested in is the status quo.

The Republic of China (on Taiwan)?

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Etyenne]

For once the current issues where the liberals apparantly gave tons of money to Quebec to play nice, then the fact that Quebec within Canada is actually rather independent already.

It's a persistent myth that Quebec is receiving "tons of money" from the federal, but it's unfortunately untrue. I would certainly like it to be true, but where's the money exactly ? Certainly not in federal trasnfert, which have been cut drastically in early 90s, and certainly not in federal spending either (where Quebec constantly received a smaller share of military spending, agriculture subsidies, etc).

Also, keep in mind that the level of independance we currently enjoy in the federation (which is no more than any other province enjoy, actually) is under constant erosion. The federal is getting his foot in many juridiction, if not against the word of the Constitution then definitely against its meaning. The ROC basically don't care because they see their provincial administration as just another level of governement (comparable to the municipal level), where Quebecois see their provinvcial governement as their national body of governance. This is where, IMHO, the biggest dichotomy about the vision of how this country is structured happen between Quebec vs. the ROC..

Looking at all of this I have to conclude that Quebec already got the cake and is eating large parts of it too.

It depend on which cake you are talking about. We pay federal taxes too, you know.

What exactly it is that Quebec hopes to gain by seperating from the rest of Canada is somewhat beyond me.

First and foremost, a country we can call our own. I am not a Canadian, never felt like one and probably never will. Not that Canadian are bad peoples[*], they are just not my people (not anymore than, say, French or American).

Second, a country where the influence of my people is not diluted by the rest of the federation. It is well-known fact that Quebecois tend to be more social-democrat than the rest of the country for example (this is one of the reason why the Refor^WCanadian Alliance never gained ground here). By getting control of 100% of our political institution, we have the possibility to have a governement closer to our view (of course, assuming a democracy that work, which is not the case right now and I don't see independance changing that).

Third, eliminating a wasteful level of governance. Most of the spending (education, healthcare, welfare) happen at the provincial level. Why the fsck do we need to be taxed at the federal level when most of the spending happen the provincial one ? The current system of federal transfert is totally ackward; it should be the other way, ie provincial governement collect all taxes then transfert money to pay for federal-level service (military, foreign relation, etc). But this is never going to change in the current federation, as the ROC is totally apathic to this absurdity.

There are more reasons, but I don't feel like spending my whole afternoon explaining them. Learn a little French and read Quebec francophone media. You will get the other side of the story. A side where there is actually a debate on the subject instead of the systematic evil portrayal of the independantist movement being done in Anglo-Canadian media.

This is, I think, the worst part of the story. Outside of Quebec's (francophone) media, the only things you can read about Quebec independance movement is bullshit, bigotry and propaganda. And since that's basically the only side of the story that foreigners come in contact with, independantist keep getting viewed as fascist, foam-at-the-mouth zealots when most are actually progressive, liberal and intellectual. Ho well!

*: this is a common misconception to be believe that Quebecois want to separate because they hate Anglo-Canadian. This is not true. I don't hate Anglo-Canadian any more than I hate French or American. Actually, from my trip across Canada (I've done coast-to-coast) I think they are mostly nice, generous and well-pondered people. It's just that I don't feel any tie to them (at least not anymore than to, say, American).

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Etyenne]

The Rest Of Canada. Sorry for the assumption.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

If "separatist" are so anti-debate, how come the federalist constantly claim they don't want to discuss about "Constitution" (actually, they mean "face this federation's deficiencies") ?

I can't speak for all Canadians, but just about everybody I know (English or French non-separatists) are more concerned about health care, education, quality of life, and jobs than politics.

While some people who live in Quebec (or would like to move to Quebec) are concerned about the Constitution, more people are probably affected by Quebec not signing a health-care reciprocity agreement than anything else.

Because people don't want to hear about it ? How convenient ...

Convenient, yeah, because except for politicians, political pundits, civics teachers and students, etc., most Canadians don't care about it. Think about it:

Choice: Constitution or jobs? Everybody I know care about jobs first. They want a job if they don't have one; they want a better job if they do.
Choice: Constitution or health care? I'm sorry, but it takes forever to see a specialist in most of this country, so screw putting energy into the Constitution and do something about that.
Choice: Constitution or cost of post-secondary education? Who cares more about the Constitution than running up tens of thousands of dollars in student debt?
Choice: Constitution or quality of life? Yeah, OK, we change the Constitution and what happens? We'll all be eating grapes fed to us by heavenly virgins.

OK, a bit sarcastic, and I'll admit being a little tainted from having watched the Meech Lake Accord suck huge amounts of energy from people who should have been figuring out ways to help Canada get out of a recession.

The fact is, for the majority of Canadians, jobs, health care, education, quality of life matter a lot more than the Constitution. That's not to say that the Constitution doesn't matter, just that the big things like human rights, equality, etc. are all there. (And the "notwithstanding clause" which is the greatest threat to those biggies has only been used by Quebec so far, if I'm not mistaken, though Alberta threatens to use it on a regular basis, but that's a whole other issue.)

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Etyenne]

This is the typical strawman argument carried over by federalist. Discussing the Constitution (or more precisely, the status of this *cough*federation*cough*) does not preclude discussing job, healthcare or education. Actually, as soon as you discuss the financing of one of these issues, you actually discuss about the "Constitution" because you have to sort out juridiction. We could do without this bullshit by accessing to our independance and having a single layer of governement.

As I said in another post, this federation is totally ackward. Provincial governements (who does most of the spending anyway) should be collecting all the taxes, then make transfert to the federal to pay for military, foreign relation, perequation, etc. Instead we are stuck with inadequate financing of social programs in part because the federal is more interested in peppering candy around. But no change will ever happen to this federation because "people don't want to talk about the federation" ...

If we want anything to move, the only way is out. That's all. The alternative is the status quo (or more precisely, slow assimilation of all form of governance by the federal governement) because the ROC is totally apathic to how this *cough*federation*cough* is being runned and don't want to talk about way to improve it.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Third, eliminating a wasteful level of governance. Most of the spending (education, healthcare, welfare) happen at the provincial level. Why the fsck do we need to be taxed at the federal level when most of the spending happen the provincial one ? The current system of federal transfert is totally ackward; it should be the other way, ie provincial governement collect all taxes then transfert money to pay for federal-level service (military, foreign relation, etc). But this is never going to change in the current federation, as the ROC is totally apathic to this absurdity.

I'm confused because as near as I can tell, every other province has a problem with this as well. Don't think Federal Government = ROC. It doesn't. I have seen no indication from Alberta or British Columbia that they love this arrangement. Ontario may not care one way or the other, but is certainly seen as contributing more than it's getting back money-wise. Both poorer provinces like Newfoundland that have a lot of resources currently under federal control and richer provinces would benefit from the arrangement you discuss.

Quebec doesn't need to separate to change this. What needs to happen is for every province to get together (including Quebec which often doesn't care to go along with the other provinces) and demand that it be changed. They're doing it now to some extent but the Federal Government can still ignore the whole thing. However, if *all* the provinces came to their own fair and equitable agreement, got the electorate behind them, eventually it could change, as soon as it plays a role the dynamics of federal elections. There is currently no nation-wide party that cares to change things in favor of the provinces. Indeed, the threat of these more self-serving regional parties has polarized things at a time when things could have moved forward. (Think exclusive vs. inclusive.)

While Quebec may have been able to draw attention to its own agenda to a certain extent with the Bloc, and the west to some extent with the Reform/CA, these are regional parties who only helped to fragment the vote, allowing a traditional federalist party to retain power.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is the same in the English Canada too. The owner of the huge media is the father in law or the ex Prime Minister Jean Chretien (left his post last December). You could feel the weight of the press conglomerate at each of the last 3 elections he won very easily. It's like Bush and the petrol industry; Canada had Chretien and the media industry.

I saw first hand these huge media conglomerate form in Canada. I have been in the US for several years now and I can tell you the same thing is slowly happening here. More and more, only one side gets on TV, only a few rare shows canceled after a season or two dare to take another point of views.

When I saw the way people against the war where treated I was appalled. I was all for the war, but when I saw how the opposition was smeared I stop voicing my opinion.

People in the US better watch out, it's not like you can buy a printer and create another voice anymore. Today huge conglomerate controlling large portion of the media easily stir public opinion. They cannot suddenly make the government cut taxes, but combined with powerful lobby they can make laws like the DMCA adopted with nothing more than a big "who cares" from the population, or worst a "it must be good if they voted it".

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[SilverJets]

I'm not surprised either. They probably were face masks on their hockey helmets. :)

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[/dev/trash]

Didn't you get the memo? They want independence so they are the ONLY culture in Canada.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a persistent myth that Quebec is receiving "tons of money" from the federal, but it's unfortunately untrue. I would certainly like it to be true, but where's the money exactly ?"

It isn't untrue, but has been proven truth time and time again: Quebec is perpetually treated as a "have-not" province, and is given billions more in transfers than it pays in Federal taxes. Quebec is a welfare case of Canada, and it's pure hilarity seeing separatists using the current Quebec ad funding scandal to blast federalism -- when this was really yet another payola into the coffers of Quebecers.

Of course the reason is that Quebec has traditionally been a sort of third-world within North America, with an economy that suffers because the business of the world doesn't look favourably on the unstable dreaming of separatists and malcontents.

First and foremost, a country we can call our own. I am not a Canadian, never felt like one and probably never will. Not that Canadian are bad peoples[*], they are just not my people (not anymore than, say, French or American).

Perhaps I'm not politically correct saying this, but I truly believe that the fundamental personality trait of most separatists is the same personality trait that drives facists and extreme racists -- it is a fear, and repulsion, of anything that is different (and many are idled by unemployment or what have you, so time is plentiful). Separatists imagine that by closing the borders and pretending it's a country they can huddle in the basement and live a glorious life of the great Quebecer, just as the segregationists in the South felt they could achieve by blaming all of their misery on the "colored". You proved the point further claiming that one of the goals of separation would be to have a country you could call your own : What about the English Quebecors (of which there are millions)? What about the "ethnic vote"? Would you then `allow' most of them to split off? Can the apartment block full of the recent Chinese immigrants secede from Quebec so that they can have a country of their "own people" that isn't "diluted" by separatist federalism? The hypocrisy of most separatists' arguments is overwhelming.

most are actually progressive, liberal and intellectual

I've never heard a separatist argument that at its core wasn't hollow racism. It's amazing how Canada exists so harmoniously with lifestyles across this great nation that differ by staggering margins -- from Indian sects in BC to fishing villages in the East, to loggers to mountaineers, etc. Lifestyles that are unbelievably different, yet harmoniously blending. Yet here comes the isolated, bigoted French Canadians, who otherwise share more similarities with others in Canada, that can't see past the sound of their own language. Get the fuck over it. I was lucky to have been born English so perhaps I'm biased saying this, but it just happens to be a sort of international standard - don't fight with such futility against something that nations completely the opposite of most of us have accepted whole heartedly.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the Outaouais region is in trouble? I find that there are WAY more french speaking people here than in Montreal, which has become a very diverse city. In the Outaouais, french seems to be at the top of most of the signs, and first when you dial the phone.

I grew up in the Eastern Townships. There's a place that is in trouble when it comes to keeping the language pure.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[alph0ns3]

I find it funny that you call Separatists racist, while your post is obviously.

"I was lucky to have been born English"
And who is racist again?

"and many are idled by unemployment"
Yeah because 8-9% is way worse than 7-8%!

"when this was really yet another payola into the coffers of Quebecers."
Yeah, corporate owner Quebecers. I'm sure I never saw any benefit of this whole mess.

"I truly believe that the fundamental personality trait of most separatists is the same personality trait that drives facists and extreme racists"
And the American revolution was driven by extreme racists too?

"What about the English Quebecors (of which there are millions)"
They can join us, or leave, it's simple no?

"What about the "ethnic vote""
They don't all vote liberal; it mostly depends if they live in an english or french neighbor. And they can also join, leave, or complain, whatever.

You seem to think that all Quebecers are thinking that the white french man is the only true man and that we should build a nation on top of it: but heh, if you think so, I guess *you* are racist, thinking with stereotypes and shit. A sorveign Quebec will not kick out all that aren't white french!

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the typical strawman argument carried over by federalist.

No, it's not necessarily. While I agree the Consitution can be discussed along with those other things (and indeed in some cases need to be if the feds are to respect provincial jurisdiction), I very clearly remember the late 80s and early 90s and how so much time and energy was wasted on just the Constitution to the neglect of everything else that matters more in day-to-day life. I think most Canadians would prefer to deal with those issues and if it were necessary, fine, we discuss the Constitution in that context, in theory. In practice, the problem with the Constitution in Canada is once you open it up for discussion in any way, it becomes open for discussion in every way.

Things are finally settling a little here the past few years: the polarization within Canada has started to dissipate; anti-Quebec sentiment in English Canada is at its lowest since the Meech Lake accord; the transition from Reform to CA to Conservative has limited, to some extent, the influence of anti-Quebec politicians at the federal level.

But hey, if you want to go back to 1990, have a referendum on Quebec City separation and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the typical strawman argument carried over by federalist.

Federalist arguments against discussing the Constitution is not necessarily related to whether or not people want to discuss it, and in my experience, I have met almost nobody outside Quebec who wants to re-open Constitutional talks at this time.

Re:Not surprised by Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is racist again?

The whole foundation of the "uniqueness" that separatists base their campaign on is language (because they feel that they're steadily losing the war against English). My stunningly-obvious point was that while I may be biased, having been born into an English family, how about just shut up and relax and let market forces operate -- it's just a bloody language. The Quebec campaign is like a furious, defensive campaign by 802.11a users, isolated and feeling alone, furious that the kids are picking up laptops with 802.11g. Move on.

Yeah because 8-9% is way worse than 7-8%!

Separatism kicks off during recessions when idled hands have nothing better to do.

They can join us, or leave, it's simple no?

Oh, it's that simple is it? Well how about this Mr. Separatist -- how about you just leave? We won't block the door. Again, the hypocrisy of separatist campaign is so stunning. No, my friend, their options aren't to join you or to leave, but to have the same rights as Quebec if such a notion were to ever come true (though note that separatism is an absolutely dead campaign).

You seem to think that all Quebecers are thinking that the white french man is the only true man and that we should build a nation on top of it: but heh, if you think so, I guess *you* are racist, thinking with stereotypes and shit. A sorveign Quebec will not kick out all that aren't white french!

Oh, gee, how nice of you. However the point, proven by your idiotic comments and the explicit statements of Etyenne, is that the whole reason that separatists want to have their own country is to be amongst their "own kind". What an absurd throw-back to the world of yesteryear when old men complained about all of those damn immigrants.

Separatists are, in general, unbelievable idiots. Overwhelmingly they are kids or the elderly who have nothing better to do, so they align themselves with an idealistic, jingoistic cause (and if it wasn't this, it'd be the Nazi party). Separatists like to imagine that they're worldly, speaking French and all, but in reality they're the most insulated, non-worldly (they're more likely to have never been anywhere -- it's a big scary world out there). I have never spoken to a separatists that wasn't so stunningly ignorant and racist, and with such WEAK foundations of their arguments (such as your stunningly ignorant "they can join us or leave" -- apply that to yourself) that it boggles the mind. Separatists in general are defensive little puppies that put on a veil of superiority to mask their extreme inferiority complex.

Of course I'm sure you'll imagine this as a big French versus English campaign, as Separatists always like to imagine. It couldn't be further from the truth -- in fact my daughter is in French immersion, I support official bilingualism, and I have never stereotyped or not supported a politician on the basis of them being from Quebec. Separatists actually make up a small, but like a yappy little dog -- vocal beyond its size, puppy dog, amongst a province of much more sober individuals who basically want to leverage as much out of federalism as they can.

P2P prosecution worldwide

[Jotaigna]

this reminds me of an article posted on slashdot not a while ago, regarding Free trade between US and Australia, involving Australia with the same copyright laws the US has. Supposedly each country that faces this (Chile is on the verge of Free trade with the US) will begin the "hunt". I wonder if legal rulings on countries that "hunt" some p2p company will serve as a precedent in other trials to other countries.

International Pileup

[erick99]

I don't know why, but I am surprised that other countries are doing what the RIAA has done. I thought that perhaps Australia and Canada would have a more laisse fair (spelling?) approach to this or a more measured response. And, the Canadian approach may,indeed, be a bit softer though I am not sure. I still do not understand how the recording folks seemingly blow right past the option to price their products more reasonably. Would they really lose money at $10 - $13 per CD? If so, then I don't know what options remain. However, I do believe that there is an economic max/min equation that would show that there is some point at which a lower price brings in enough of an increase in sales to maintain profitability. Then, perhaps, everybody wins.

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:International Pileup

[Anonymous Coward]

Spelling is "laisser faire".

Re:International Pileup

[Neurotoxic666]

Canada would have a more laisse fair

Yes, we do have more laisser-aller or laisse-faire. Socialy anyway. But when it comes to large corporations' money, then Canada has that frustrating tendency to bow to the US and surrender anything.

We import most of your stuff here, and many trade agreements depend on good relations between the two countries. So if the media don't feel happy about something, they've got so much influence here that we will do what they ask.

I am not surprised at all. I was just wondering when it would happen.

Re:International Pileup

[Erick the Red]

laisse fair (spelling?)

"laissez-faire"

Just FYI.

Re:International Pileup

[pommiekiwifruit]

Dubya: What's the French for laissez faire?

Re:International Pileup

[shark72]

"Would they really lose money at $10 - $13 per CD?"

FWIW, the average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US.

Most record companies operate on margins that are low compared to many other industries. The record company sees only about $8 of the $13.50 you pay, as that's the price at which they sell into distribution. Net margin on CDs is typically below 30%. Many folks who make the "but it costs less than a buck to press!" argument aren't taking into account all the costs of producing, promoting and selling a CD.

Additionally, the record industry is a speculative one. One huge hit can pay your bills for a year, and cover the losses you incur on all the other releases that don't recoup their expenses. But if you go long enough without a hit, your label may go the way of Geffen Records.

"However, I do believe that there is an economic max/min equation that would show that there is some point at which a lower price brings in enough of an increase in sales to maintain profitability."

Not to be a smartass here, but I mean it absolutely literally when I say that this is Economics 1A. It is called the supply/demand curve. The music industry understands this, which is why music prices have been more or less constant for the past 40 years. If anything, they've gone down -- back in the early 80's, $9.99 was a bargain for an LP; that's $17.30 in today's dollars.

Naturally the explosion in piracy over the past few years is having a major effect on the supply/demand curve. Say what you like about the recording industry, but you can be absolutely sure that the accountants for each record company are putting on the green eye shades and working out scenarios for new pricing strategies and tactics in a world where piracy is a dominant force.

Why I love Canada

[GoofyBoy]

>For example, it has been legal in Canada since 1998 to make a single copy of a recording for personal use, such as copying a CD onto your hard drive or MP3 player.

>But under the Copyright Act, it remains illegal to give or sell a CD copy to a friend, since it's not for personal use. In the same vein, distributing copies to friends online is prohibited.

I have a solid legal footing why I am a Kazza-leach.

Huh?

[andih8u]

How is this unlike the RIAA? They started off small, hitting users of the major US ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, etc. I don't know all of the Canadian ISPs, but those sound like all of the big ones to me.

Only a matter of time ....

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things? It would be nice to have our government to take a stand against the oppressive RIAA and stop this litigation before it gets going too far. The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things?

We didn't invade Iraq... ;) Well... we couldn't, because our Army of one is stationed in Afghanistan.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Loki_1929]

" Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things?"

Because we tend to do very well economically, despite our mammoth military. Thus, the Canadian government apparently believes that imitating most of the US's policies will magically grant it prosperity.

"It would be nice to have our government to take a stand against the oppressive RIAA and stop this litigation before it gets going too far."

Your government is turning Corporatist just as quickly as ours' (the US).

"The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S."

Neither do people here in the US, but until you see rioting in the streets, I doubt much will come of it. There are only so many things you can make into election issues before you start looking for the 'perfect candidate', who simply does not exist.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Neurotoxic666]

The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S.

No, but we certainly appreciate when the US is buying our meat, our wood, our cereals, our fish, our oil and Celine Dion....

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Pionar]

No, but we certainly appreciate when the US is buying our meat, our wood, our cereals, our fish, our oil and Celine Dion....

No matter how much you try, you guys can't pawn her off on us! Besides, nobody in the US "buys" Celine Dion. We just buy stuff her music advertises, like movies and Plymouths.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Anonymous Coward]

If Canada would do such a thing the US would just close the border or "Libirate" Canada.

The Canadian Government have have no balls for anything. They were told to legallize pot by a committee but the US freaked-out and now they might not bother at all.

And Canadians don't give a damn about big brother or anything that their Government does until it really affect them. (They handed out $250 million to their friends for doing nothing and no-Joe Canadian cares, only the media does.)

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[jimsum]

Umm ... politically-connected companies are making out like bandits in Iraq, or at least that's what I understand from the stories I read. There is no Canadian monopoly on politicians favouring companies that are generous and useful at election time.

Canadian and U.S. citizens are alike in many ways. In both countries, citizens are ignoring obvious corruption and lies from their governments. In both cases, the current crooks are given free rein because every one is scared that the opposition is worse. In both countries, I think the majority is wrong and anyone would be better than the current clowns.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[fishbowl]

"Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things?"

They don't have to, they choose to.

"The Canadian people do not want Big Brother "

Both the Canadian and the American governments operate with the affirmed consent of the governed; systems which enjoy the adamant support of the people in the respective nations.

You can make the argument that the people *DO* want Big Brother.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Shark]

With Paul Martin in the driver seat, it seems to me like business is the only priority. I'm not worried about the economy with Martin in power, but I don't expect anyone but the corporate world to win with his strategies. It is worse here in quebec since the liberal party is following the exact same lead.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Scrameustache]

Why does Canada have to imitate the U.S. in all things?

Don't vote Liberal or Conservative then. I suggest NPD, or the BLoc Pot, they sure as hell don't follow U.S. dogma.

The problem is people who are concerned with the economy will always imitate the U.S. because since they are Canada's biggest economic partner, doing as they dictate is what's best for buisness.
It is not what's best for the country, but when politicians say they want a "strong economy" that's doubletalk for "I want my buisnesses to make more profit".
Do some research and don't vote for anyone connected to Power Corp if you don't want to elect someone who'll make sure Canada is the U.S.'s bitch.

Re:Only a matter of time ....

[Zork the Almighty]

She's doing shows in Vegas right now, suckers! Shania Twain is next!

Re:Videotron

[jmv]

Actually, Bell Canada, while not Quebec only is still very present here. I think I'll consider to switch...

CANADA

[Killjoy_NL]

I guess in this case you CAN really blame canada :)

I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't.
Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

If cds were cheap here, I would say "all power to them" but right now they cost about $30,- each.
What is the approx. price of cd's in the US? a somewhat empty mind wants to know.

Re:CANADA

[leerpm]

I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't. Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

According to some interpretations, the law is the same here in Canada too. Downloading is apparently legal, while uploading is not. That's why if you read the article you will see they are seeking uploaders only.

Re:CANADA

[Anonymous Coward]

Approximately $18. Still highway robbery, but not as bad as you have it.

Re:CANADA

[kannibal_klown]

It varies between $12 and $20. However, I don't know the exchange rates, so I don't know if that is in fact more or less what you pay.

Lately, I turn to iTunes for my music needs. I rarely download music anymore anyway. But every now and then there is a song I have an itch to listen to.

To me, Kazaa was an outlet to download TV episodes like "Dead Like Me" or "Stargate SG-1" (while it was owned by Showtime).

Re:CANADA

[JaredOfEuropa]

Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.

Actually they weren't that specific, they just wanted their interests looked after, and saw downloading and CD swapping as a threat.

But it's the right direction to take: go ahead and make downloading and distribution of copyrighted material illegal... but don't ban P2P, don't mandate DRM, and don't take away our rights in the process, the rights to make backups, to convert digital content to the medium of our choice (Ripping Cd's for playing on an Ipod for example), and don't mess with our privacy either. The goal does not justify the means.

Re:CANADA

[PunchMonkey]

I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't. .... you mean just like it is in Canada? RTFA :-)

Re:CANADA

[Anonymous Coward]

from what i gather, it's the same in Canada!
D/L ok, U/L bad.

Re:CANADA

[Killjoy_NL]

Read the article?? isn't that very unslashdottian??

unslashdottian, cool word ;)

Re:CANADA

[doktor-hladnjak]

I'm glad this crap isn't taking place in the Netherlands. For now downloading is legal here, uploading isn't.

I'm afraid, it's likely just a matter of time before this really starts to happen in Europe (I live in Germany).

What is the approx. price of cd's in the US?

It varies a bit from CD to CD, but list price for new stuff on major labels tends to be around 17-19 USD. Older music and CDs from non-major labels are often as low as 12 USD. All of that is without sales taxes/VAT of course. Prices are similar in Canada, but in CDN$ (so, a bit cheaper). Looking on amazon.de, prices in euros seem to be roughly comparable (but because of the exchange rate, more expensive). It seems like stuff is usually more expensive in the Netherlands than Germany though.

Re:CANADA

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as dutch artists don't get those laws, they will never amount to anything. If they can't make money, they can't market it to the world.

Re:CANADA

[PunchMonkey]

lol, I like it! ... waiting 15 seconds to pass....

Re:CANADA

[cybergrue]

Read the Article. Downloading and personal copies are legal in Canada, distribution (uploading) without permission is not.

Some other issues. The new Canadian fedral privacy law will mean that the ISP's have to be carefull when handing over personal data, meaning, CRIA will probably need court orders. Canadian courts don't rubber stamp search warrents like the American courts do, so resonable proof will have to be given. Also, Candian courts have tended not to like hypothetical or greatly inflated damages. (you lost how much for an album that is out of print and that you no longer have in stock?)
This looks like a trial attempt to see if they can repete what the RIAA is doing, but in Canada. They will probably have much less success. If anyone reading this gets served with one of these notices, get a lawyer.

PS. last time I was in the states, CDs sold for $10 - $15 US and currently sell for about $15-20 Canadian. Check some of the on-line sellers like Amazon.com or bestbuy.com for more up to date American prices.

Re:CANADA

[Al-Hala]

A good source of exchange rates is www.xe.com

OH NO!!!

[serfx]

i'd a bit more scared buit 29 people and all of them are sharing the same crap i hear on canadian radio.. wheee, if they get them, or me for that matter (not that i use a p2p program *nudge wink*).
will it mean less nickleback and crap such as that being distributed to the rest of the world?

Re:OH NO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

With the US being 18 times more populated, this is liek 522 in the US. So their is a similarity. I beleive the RIAA went after ~600 sharers?

Videotron

[addie]

Not entirely on-topic, but I'd like this to be heard...

I've never had more trouble with any internet/TV company in my life. Horrible customer service, no explanations for outages, outrageous rates. I had to hire a lawyer to get out of a $900 cable TV bill. Not only did I never sign up for cable TV, I don't even own a TV!

But with the way the market works here in Canada (I don't know about the states or elsewhere) there is only one cable provider in each of the major urban centers. So, so much for healthy competition. I'm not at all surprised that Videotron will simply hand over IPs/names to the CRIA, it saves them paperwork and hassles, and fits in with their total disregard for customer service and respect that they've made themselves known for in Montreal.

Re:Videotron

[Tester]

Why doesn't it surprise me that videotron is willing to roll over? Videotron is a Quebec based company.

Typical French, "We surrender!"/

Maybe its because they are owned by a huge media conglomerate that's also has music label?

*Yawn*

[SuperBanana]

Taking its cue from its American counterpart, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has begun the hunt for music file swappers.

Next up: Sun rises, sun sets.

Anyone else getting really tired of reading about *IAA? We're all well aware of the issues involved, I don't really see the need for this to be front page material nearly every day.

Let's have some priorities, please. Like our daily SCO story...siiigh. It's times like these that I wish we had voting rights like Kuro5hin, because every morning I load slashdot, I have trouble telling whether it's actually new news, or the same 2-3 topics over and over.

Re:*Yawn*

[GoofyBoy]

>the same 2-3 topics over and over.

Chances are, they are the same dupicated stories.

Re:*Yawn*

[Darken_Everseek]

"Anyone else getting really tired of reading about *IAA?"

That's only part of the problem; there's the MPAA too. I think '??AA' ought to cover it pretty well. Cheers.

Re:*Yawn*

[wintermute740]

"Let's have some priorities, please. Like our daily SCO story."

Yes. Let's definately make our daily SCO story a higher priority than our daily *IAA story. I'll start suffering withdrawal symptoms if I don't get my dailly SCO fix soon, dammit.

29 Canadians

[laurent420]

"Working on behalf of major record labels, the CRIA is reportedly hunting for 29 Canadian customers from at least five different ISPs"

Damn! they're on to me and my 28 cohorts!

Re:29 Canadians

[serfx]

shhhhh, no one said that there was 28 of us, its just 28 systems....

Re:29 Canadians

[Zapraki]

Ya, there used to be 30 of us until one guy decided to move to California where a big American secret-music-downloading company offered to pay him twice as much in US$ and all the Twinkies he could eat. Damn the brain drain!

Re:29 Canadians

[khendron]

You admitted it! Now the CRIA is going to go after /. to get your identity...

ISPs are in a sticky position

[Spyder]

Peer to peer sucks bandwidth, a direct cost to any service provider. The only reason any ISP is going to stick up for users is for the PR, Fact-o'-life.

Re:ISPs are in a sticky position

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP == Internet service provider

ISP != HTTP service provider

I pay my ISP for bandwidth. If I go over the limit, I pay more. Get over it.

Re:ISPs are in a sticky position

[Nimloth]

If you knew Videotron you would also know that they have the power (and money) to do pretty much anything they want here in Quebec. They are the only real High-Speed provider in 90% of the territory (there's Bell which offers DSL, but it's sucky and way too slow... (I know I work for them)). They also have the monopoly over cable TV. PR? Screw it. I don't like them but I'm stuck with them, and so is everyone else here.

Re:ISPs are in a sticky position

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer to peer sucks bandwidth, a direct cost to any service provider.

Yeah, like most businesses if they could just get rid of all their customers they could save a fortune.

Honestly, they might not be charging enough to certain users but that's just a reason to fix their business model. Discouraging people from wanting the thing you're selling is just stupid. Telling them it's so great that they should be happy to pay $x per megabyte over a certain limit, now that would make sense.

Re:ISPs are in a sticky position

[Rank_Tyro]

I was always under the impression that bandwidth was paid for by the customers. If you pay for it, it should not matter how you use it.

Re:ISPs are in a sticky position

[455]

This is entirely untrue. The main reason people pay for broadband is for P2P. There's really no other use for it on a home computer. So, if people can't use P2P, and can't download anything, why would they be paying >$40/month when they could get the internet for free? It's entirely in the best interests of the service provider to remain neutral or even support the P2P society.

Re:Videotron

[DRUNK_BEAR]

correction : we want to keep on making money...

Videotron is in a unique position because its parent company, Quebecor, also sells music, Videotron says it is concerned about copyright protection and considers file sharing to be "theft."

mp3 levy backed off

[morcheeba]

Whoops. They backed off the MP3 levy down to $25/40GB, but I didn't see that in the main chart. I'm not Canadian, so I haven't followed this too closely.

Re:huh?

[cozziewozzie]

Seems like they're trying to 'protect' Canadian artists. I don't know much about Canadian record labels, but there are some big music names coming from Canada, like Bryan Adams, Shania Twain, Alanis Morisette, Nelly Furtado, Celine Dion...

It's not all bad though, they also have some good bands, like Godspeed You Black Emperor! :-)

What exactly is illegal?

[jvervloet]

I am asking myself what exactly about music file swapping is illegal. Is it downloading the music, posessing the music, listening to the music or sharing the music?

Suppose my computer has a ram-disk, and I download music onto this ram-disk. Suppose also that I don't allow uploading these music files. If I am only downloading and listening to the music (I'm not keeping it on my hard disk), is this illegal?

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[fair_n_hite_451]

In Canada, the answer is "no".

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[CaptIronfist]

In Canada downloading music from the net is legal. Owning music on your hard drive for which you do not have the original CD is also legal.

What is illegal is uploading (sharing) songs which you do not have distribution permission from the copyright holder to the general public. For example, if i open a private FTP site and i prove that only my friends have access to it, then it falls neatly under 'fair use' clause. More concretly if i go to my friends house and rip all my music on his computer, this falls under 'fair use' also.

The Canadian copyright act is also a reason why the CRIA gets a levy on blank medias and hard drives and can't sue file swappers as efficiently as the RIAA. Hence the 29(!). lol.

Don't take this as a legal advice though i could be wrong, or it could cost you a lot to defend this position. ;-)

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[AttillaTheNun]

Ok, I retract my previous post. Once the CRIA throws these 29 guys in prison, can I then get my CD-R levy rebate? :)

Presumably, I would then have no source of shared CRIA content in which to burn to CD-Rs other than my own, which I shouldn't have to pay a levy for as it falls under fair use.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Your comment reminds me of the bullshit court ruling several years ago that loading a computer program into memory was, "effectively making a copy". Thus denying people their right to make an archival backup copy of software.

The corporations will squeeze and squeeze, until they have all the money and power, and the people will have nothing. The only way to fight this is to vote with your wallet. Don't support abusive monopolies by giving them your money, even if their products are hip, cool, or trendy.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[cybergrue]

For example, if i open a private FTP site and i prove that only my friends have access to it, then it falls neatly under 'fair use' clause.
No. This would be an example of distribution, the same as if you made a copy of a CD and gave it to a friend. Both cases are not allowed.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>For example, if i open a private FTP site and i prove that only my friends have access to it, then it falls neatly under 'fair use' clause.
>No. This would be an example of distribution, the same as if you made a copy of a CD and gave it to a friend. Both cases are not allowed.

I don't think so. Having a private FTP site is like inviting your friends over to your CD collection. You're not giving the music to them, you're giving access to it.

They won't end up with the music if they don't log in/download the files.

IMO (but IANAL), that would still be allowed under the same fair use laws. Of course I guess you'd have to prove every one of these friends is Canadian.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[satterth]

In Canada downloading music from the net is legal. Owning music on your hard drive for which you do not have the original CD is also legal.

Umm, no, actually its not. The Media Levy allows you to make copies onto the media the the levy has been paid upon. The law in your instance is kinda grey. The levy allows you to make personal use copies from borrowed original media not copies from the internet.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[srw]

WRONG. Go read sections 79-82 of the Canada Copyright Act. It allows me to make a copy onto an "audio recording medium." "audio recording medium" is defined:

"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;

So, if individual consumers ordinarily put mp3s on their hard drives, a hard drive becomes an "audio recording medium" under section 79.

Refer to: Copyright Act (Canada)

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[satterth]

Opps... My bad. I should have re-read that post.

I still think copying the file from internet still falls into a grey area since it's not the original comercial medium.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[srw]

Once again... read the Act. Perhaps it's an oversight and they'll fix it in the next version, but there is no indication that the media you copy it _from_ must be a legal copy. It very simply says that it is not an infringement of the copyright act for me to make a private copy of a recording of a musical work for my personal use. You could argue that this does NOT cover my personal taping of a live show. However, it technically _would_ allow me to make a copy of _your_ recording of that live show. In that case it's you, not me, breaking the law. The prosecution may have a chance by arguing about the "spirit" of the law. What I'm arguing here is the "letter." There are times when the spirit can take precedence over the letter. I know, because I'm involved in a fight including this aspect right now.

Of course, IANAL. (but I have paid way too many thousands of dollars to lawyers in the past year.)

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[satterth]

I must not understand this correctly, but when i read section 80.(2) i see there there are limitations base from subsection 1. I interpret this as not being able to copy for personal use if it falls into the limitations. This to me means i am not supposed to copy from rented media, internet, radio, and public shows.

Re:What exactly is illegal?

[srw]

Okay, I'm actually trying to think this through logically while typing it...

Section 80.(2):

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

Let's start by reducing "the things..." Those things are, in simple english, three ways of saying "a recording of a song."

I would also like to reduce (2)a-d to "distribution in any form" to make this argument simpler. I will keep in the back of my mind that, for our purposes, "distribution" includes "public performance" and "playing it over the telephone, radio or tv." (which I would also consider "public performance")

And "Subsection (1) does not apply..." == "You are not allowed to make a personal copy..."

so...

You are not allowed to make a personal copy if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to "a recording of a song.": "distribution in any form"
(Yes, that is awkward. I'll fix it later.)

Does that "recording of a song" refer to either the source media or the destination media, or to the musical content of the recording irregardless of what media it is on?

1. If it refers to the source media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing the original. While at first read, that statement seems to make some sense, it is not really logical. The act of making a personal copy is not connected with distributing the original. (Aside from the fact that you may _wish_ to make a copy before you sell your CD to someone else. The two actions are not interdependant.)

2. If it refers to the destination media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing that copy. Simply put, I can't make a "personal copy" and then sell it on the street corner. I can't make a "personal copy" and then _give_ it to my best friend. In fact, to take that two steps farther, if I happen to be a DJ and I dutifully pay my royalties to SOCAN to allow me to play my CDs at dances, I am still not allowed to use my "personal copies" due to (2)d. (2d makes no sense outside of this interpretation, as it is illegal anyways for me to publicly play even my _bought_ CDs without paying additional "public performance" royalties to SOCAN.)

3. It is impossible to distribute a song unless it is either on a media or you publicly perform it. This section of the Copyright Act does not address making a sound recording of a public performance, and we have already discussed the two "media" possibilities above.

So, I would argue that my interpretation 2 makes the most sense. To reword my previous rewording of 80.(2):

You are not allowed to make a personal copy of a recording of a song if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of "distributing in any form" "a recording of a song."

Please let me know if you see any logical errors in my interpretation.

Once again, I am a computer programmer, not a Lawyer. I have to think logically and precisely every day, but I don't usually have to convince a judge or jury that I am right... just the compiler. :-)

p.s. after re-reading all of this and section 80, you may have a point. 80.(1)(a)to(c) sound like they could be referring to the source media. (i.e. you "reproduce" the "source", not the "destination") I still stand by my statement that making a copy and distributing the original are independant of each other. Also, my interpretation 1 would possibly open up your legal options of what you can do with your _copy_. I'm sure that's not what they intended when they wrote this law.

My only concern

[xNoLaNx]

Is that they stay within their boundry of control. I'm not really concerned with prosecution over the mp3s with Canadian-bound ownership which I don't have.

Re:Videotron

[Loki_1929]

" correction : we want to keep on making money...

Videotron is in a unique position because its parent company, Quebecor, also sells music, Videotron says it is concerned about copyright protection and considers file sharing to be "theft." "

It may consider file sharing theft, robbery, murder, rape, or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated if it likes - it doesn't make it so. The day that it does, the CIA's world factbook needs to change the type of government in Canada to "Corporatist".

And guess who's selling digital music downloads?

[vicparedes]

Fellow Quebecor (Videotron's parent company) sibling Archambault has recently opened a digital music download service predictably-named Archambaultzik.com.

Celine Dion

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I'll get in trouble for my MP3's from that Celine album "Four Typos in My File" or whatever it is called?

Re:Videotron

[leerpm]

Actually quite the opposite. Here in Canada, Quebec is famous for refusing to go along with anything that the Federal government or other provincial governments want to do. Unless it somehow results in them getting more money or more rights. Subject of course to them being able to use the funds however they wish.

Bandwidth hogs beware!

[Anonymous Coward]

Videotron secretly wants your hides, so sure they're going to give them the information they want, because right now you're costing them more money.

At least that's their excuse.

Wonderful !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hats down to Shaw Cable, I just know Rog(u)ers is going to rat out on their customers, since their policies were never to protect customers, even if the privacy law was on the customer side. As any corporate bottom dwelling scum sucking algae, the spinless machinery at Rog(u)ers will probably even offer the CRIA direct access to their networks, records and what not, in hope to cash on it even more (as if cutting the bandwidth of all users and doubling the price wasn't enough).

Sadly, if we didn't have a spineless government up here that wasn't puppeteered from down there by large corporations, our government might actually tell the CRIA to f-off because they are violating privacy laws and dismiss their case. But that happens only in democractic republics where laws are obeyed by all sides (and not just the citizenry like it's the case in the Corporate North America) and where governments work for the people's interest not against it...

Media Levies

[AttillaTheNun]

Does this mean the CRIA is going to rebate or cancel the levies I pay on every CD-R I buy so that I can presumably burn CRIA content?

Re:Media Levies

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading is okay. You just can't upload "distribute". So they have to prove you distributed; having the stuff is legal.

Re:huh?

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Thought you guys apologized aboot Bryan Adams?

here we go again...

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

Something tells me we'll be hearing from Canadian music-swappers about how "the record companies only put one or two good songs on a CD...". If they, and all their U.S. counterparts, vote with their money (i.e. don't buy CD's, or iTunes songs, etc) and stop downloading music, the *IAA will have nothing to explain away lost profits, and the record companies will be forced to produce decent music to survive.

Re:here we go again...

[N0decam]

How to explain away lost profits in this scenario:

"The thieves are stealing instead of buying."

They've been saying this for years even though their numbers weren't necessarily down.

Another article

[AndroidCat]

In the Toronto Star CRIA, what a perfect acronym: CRY EH!

Re:Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding the trolls but here goes anyway...

It as nothing to do with being french-speaking.... and actually a lot of french-canadian fought in WWII to help the real "French from France" pussies...

Videotron is happy to roll over for 2 simple facts... it's a totally unethical company... always has been... but also.. if those heavy bandwidth using MP3 traders aren't there anymore: more money for videotron.. more "email checkers and light browsing" users and less so called "hogs"

videotron delighted

[sewagemaster]

Videotron customers beware: they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.

they're delighted because that would reduce users bandwidth usage. in videotron's POV, they only care about the company saving money. i dont think they really care about the "non-ethical" aspects of music sharing. they're one of the first ISPs in quebec (quebequeers) that started the monthly download quota limit. and of course by saying they're delighted, it just makes themselves look "ethical".

i used to use bell canada, and all of a sudden in a month they charged me $100 because of going over the bandwidth download limit. i didnt get any sort of notification. about 12 months later, many people started to complain and they took off the cap. it's all about ISPs making and saving money.

Time for the slashdot two-step

[mumblestheclown]

Scenario 1A: Copyright holder uses police to go after copyright infringers.

Slashdot Response: "Why do the police have to do the **AA's dirtywork! This is blah blah blah corporate shills blah blah blah."

Scenario 1B: Copyright holder privately goes after copyright infringers.

Slashdot response: "Can you believe the nerve of these people. This is what the police are for! blah blah blah nazi stormtroopers blah blah blah."

Scenario 2A: New, obviously-designed-primarily-for-warez-pr0n-and-mp 3z-technology emerges.

Slashdot Response: "Technology is blameless! Go after the infringers, but leave technology alone!"

Scenario 2B: Infringers gone after.

Slashdot Response: "Can you believe the nerve of those people shaking down college students!"

Scenario 3A: Copyright is used to protect somebody else's intellectual property

Slashdot Response: Copyright has outlived its usefulness! Viva la revolucion!

Scenario 3B: the GPL is violated.

Slashdot Response: Hang em high!

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot isn't a homogenous mass. Just because different people on slashdot hold opposite views it doesn't mean that there's any hypocrisy involved.

But you already knew that -- you're just trolling.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Neurotoxic666]

Scenario 1A: Copyright holder uses police to go after copyright infringers.

How do they know who to send the police after? They got my real name from my IP address?...

Scenario 1B: Copyright holder privately goes after copyright infringers.

No matter what, this is NOT their job and they have no right whatsoever to even think about doing this. And again, how did they know it was me?

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Wehesheit]

Scenario 4a: Media Conglomerates in sued for price fixing but nothing changes at all and media conglomerate blames low sales on piracy instead of high prices and shitty music.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot isn't a homogenous mass. Just because different people on slashdot hold opposite views it doesn't mean that there's any hypocrisy involved.

Right. That's why only responses to one side of the issue ever get modded up? Yes, there are a few dissenters who actually think for themselves, but disregarding the statistically insignificant few, slashdot is filled up with mindless ditto heads.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[fishbowl]

You enumerate some valid points. But you miss mine:
The Collateral Damage aspect.

It has become cemented into general mindset, by propaganda, that it is always illegal to copy or distribute any creative work that is copyrighted.

The problem is, this attitude does not take into consideration any copyrighted work whose author *wants* distribution. Should the author be expected to surrender his copyright entirely? Or should there be only a finite number of tightly controlled distribution methods available? Or is it the author's choice?

When the music industry clamps down under the umbrella of "copyright protection", what they are *Really* doing is trying to eliminate a competing distribution method, and they are also laying the groundwork for a fundamentally different sort of copyright than what has historically existed.

You should be able to copyright *and* distribute your work. You should NOT be forced to choose between keeping your copyright and distribution. But I believe that is going to be the net effect of the current trends. Write all the songs you want, but you need to either put them in the public domain or else sign the rights over to "Us" if you want them distributed.

I realize that publishing companies have a right, even a duty to protect their interests, but their right to do so ends abruptly when, in order to make the effort to protect their rights, they abridge MY rights. I am on SOLID legal ground to insist that their rights end where mine begin.

I'm just waiting for the day that a distribution medium is shut down on the basis of copyright infringement, even though the copyright holders had approved of the distribution. I'd think of it as winning the lottery if someone presses charges against me for copying my own music, that I wrote, produced, performed and recorded, that I hold the copyright to, and whose distribution is MY business, and not anyone elses.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

Scenario 1B: Copyright holder privately goes after copyright infringers... No matter what, this is NOT their job and they have no right whatsoever to even think about doing this.

How's that work again? If I own the copyright to something, and you violate that copyright, then I have no right enforcing it? You might want to look into reading some laws.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

Scenario one is not disingenuous, however, you forgot an important step in 1A... Corporate Interests, not the original Authors themselves, pay for a law that allows them to sidestep the courts and effectively use the police to prosecute/confiscate *without the need for a search warrant* and on suspicion (not proof, not probable cause) of infringing activity.

Scenario 1a - calling in the police when you have found an infringer - is the right and moral thing to do. The methods used to FIND those infringers are unethical (requiring only suspicion, not even reasonable suspicion or probably cause) and unconstitutional (undue ability to execute search & seizure because of lack of judicial review). NEXT!

Scenario 2: Technology *is* blameless. It is a tool. The infringers are not, and should be gone after, however, the penalties ($250,000 per file shared) are so far in excess of the crime that it is not unreasonable to call this unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment." Next scenario, please...

Scenario 3A: Copyright is used to protect somebody else's intellectual property

Slashdot Response: Copyright has outlived its usefulness! Viva la revolucion!

Scenario 3B: the GPL is violated.
Slashdot Response: Hang em high!

Scenario 3 is actually a fairly thought-provoking one, but easily taken care of when you see the real issue behind it... "Information wants to be free!" Let's look at 3a and 3b in light of this...

3a: Copyright is too draconian because it caters entirely to "immortal" corporations - it needs to be removed BECAUSE information wants to be free and since a corporation's natural lifespan is infinity, corporations will want to push the lifespan of copyright to infinity, thus imprisoning forever information.

3b: The GPL is a device, which, at its essence, is designed to "force" corporations to free their information should they decide to use GPL software. The GPL is basically "turning the enemy's weapon against him" by saying, "okay, if you want draconian copyright restrictions, here's a document that forces you to play by our rules and free your information. You can use ours if we get to use yours." Corporations then violate the GPL, in effect saying, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine." Slashdotters get upset due to the blatant double-standard employed here... let's reverse 3a from the corporation's point of view...

3A: Copyright is used to protect "my" (corporate) intellectual property

Copyright is a good thing! It allows me to continue making money for no additional work!

3B: If I want to use someone else's IP, I can do so at no monetary cost, BUT the GPL forces me to "open up" some of my intellectual property for use.

Agh! The GPL is evil! I should be able to keep my own IP *and* use someone else's! It's not fair that they expect me to share with them like they shared with me! Let's violate it and continue to cater to our own interests!

When you look at 3A/3B as an "information wants to be free" and "if you don't think so, we'll just use your own weapon against you" it becomes very clear that the double standard actually belongs to corporate interests, not slashdotters... because they want "mine is mine and yours is also mine" to apply.

This is a natural function/desire of corporations (in fact, the ONLY natural function/desire of corporations) - to hoard the largest amount of resources possible. This is because corporations are run by humans, whose desire is - wait for it... to hoard the largest amount of resources possible. The problem is that corporations, being artificial constructs, never die, so the resources they hoard never return to circulation (unlike the resources individual humans hoard, which DO return to circulation - albeit sometimes in a limited manner if their offspring are greedy and well-off - upon their death).

Recognizing that Information Scarcity is an Artificial Scarcity, and with the enlight

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Neurotoxic666]

If I own the copyright to something, and you violate that copyright, then I have no right enforcing it? You might want to look into reading some laws.

No, that's not what I meant. You have the entire right to sue me if you think I violate your copyrights.

What is not acceptable is the investigation and the personal data a private corporation can gather juste because they think something's not right.

Last time I checked, neither my personnal addy nor my full name were written or encoded in my IP address, and I see no way, other than spying on me in some way or my ISP giving away my information to another private corporation without my consent, that the CRIA could manage to prove it was me sharing their music. That's what bugs me.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[shark72]

"It has become cemented into general mindset, by propaganda, that it is always illegal to copy or distribute any creative work that is copyrighted."

I only wish that this were true. Perhaps people would have been scared away from downloading the new Unreal demo the other day and I might have actually been able to get my copy.

Seriously, though, I've never heard anybody expressing concern over downloading the Acrobat Reader from the Adobe site, or a Windows XP patch, or viewing a movie trailer online, because it's copyrighted. download.com and the shareware sites seem to be as popular as ever. Have you any anecdotal evidence of this happening?

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[ChaosDiscord]

Or my favorite:

Scenario 4: One of the largest geek web sites in the world with tens of thousands of visitors allows those visitors to post their individual opionions and thoughts. As a result you get a broad spectrum of thoughts on any given issue.

Clueless Monkey Response: Slashdot is hypocritical! Clearly everyone on Slashdot shares a hivemind so multiple points of view on a single topic indicates a state of hypocracy. It certainly couldn't mean that the thousands of visitors actually have differing points of view. I know, I'll post about that hypocracy in a attempt to be funny and get Karma.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

So? All this shows is that /.'ers are like most of humanity. If your just waking up to the fact that people can be hypocritical selfish pricks, you need to get off the net.

Re:Time for the slashdot two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

good troll, but nobody could possibly be as dumb to believe what you just wrote.

...because Canadian music needs saving (snicker)

[fingerfarm]

Hasn't the CRIA hurt us enough with CanCon?

personal freedom?

[kyshtock]

Now, what if they find out that the 29 users' mean age is 13, with a wide distribution?

Will they settle for about 15000$? And, for /.'s sake, 29 sharers? Do they profile? How? How much of your privacy is lost during profiling?

I know that this is /. and filesharing is not necesarily considered a crime... However, morality problems aside, does profiling erode personal privacy? I just wonder... when will your IP be logged just because you fired up Kazaa/eDonkey/BitTorrent? When will that be acceptable proof that you were going to do something illegal?

Well, show must go on... Did I just say that???

> rm /share/Queen/* -R

Life in a mirror

[Srividya]

In India, Bollywood makes P2P servers for us.
In America, Hollywood attacks P2P servers for you.

I have doubts.

Re:Videotron

[democracy]

Don't start saying "We love you Quebec!" because we're different. Are you Don Cherry's brother?

Re:huh?

[cozziewozzie]

There are some evils for which no apology is adequate :-)

Arghh! No more Strange Brew?

[scumbucket]

Damn! This means I can't download the movie Strange Brew along with Bryan Adams songs anymore!

Cable in the US

[nurb432]

Its a 'area monopoly' here too..

Your choices are the local cable company, or you go dish.. ( or rabbit ears )

At least with the phone company you can choose to use the local carrier, or have a 3rd party use the local carriers line for a reduced rate ( due to that stupid ATT breakup ) and get your phone service from them.

Re:Cable in the US

[Sangui5]

Some areas in the states are serviced by two companies, but not many. I read a study (which I cannot find again) which showed that said areas tended to have bother lower prices and better service than the rest of the country.

Only P2P? How about Google and FTP?

[axxackall]

They go only for P2P users, right? So if I use Google to give me a list of FTP sites in which directories there are files with MP3 in the name, and then I donwload those files (without knowing what's inside the file), then I am supposingly OK and did not violate any Canadian laws, right?

Thanks God, today you can download tons of various (good and bad) music files using just Google. I don't even know, why people use P2P? Using a simple script you can have easily few gigabytes of music just in few days.

But is it safe?

Re:White flag

[democracy]

Are you Don Cherry's sister? From la belle province.

Re:aw crap

[Deliveranc3]

Despite all the arguements I think this whole thing is pretty increadible. The Canadian government has been taxing media and using the funds gathered to pay artists. Now they are allowing the RIAA to pursue a legal recourse (albeit through nominally Canadian channels). It appears Paul Martin is Bushs .

Canada has a pretty decent history of not prosecuting laws that are still being debated (While weed legalization was being discussed police stopped small scale arrests,[Still busted some big grows]) I don't think there are any (Canadian, American's are stupid) politicians who don't have doubts about enforcing the ridiculous American IP laws.

My only conclusion is that this issue has been sacrificed as part of a deal. I'm enough of a realist to know that deals of this nature need to be struck. I don't think that whoever allowed this to happen realizes the consequences.

First we are bowing to the American's in such a way as to forever compromise Canada's reputation as an honest unbiased power (Lester B. Pearson, etc.), second we are an example to other countries. If we fold IP law will remain restrictive and useless until society once again returns to a sane level of socialism or another technological breakthrough on the order of magnitude of the internet takes place causing people to reconsider intellectual property. (Trying to think of something that fits this description leads me to a short list.) Either way you are condemning people in the third world to ignorance and poverty for another hundred years, the death toll is on your head. Depending on how seriously you think knowledge = power = life, Paul Martin might be worse than Hitler.

Simple form: Paul, if you are willing to negotiate our intellectual freedom we may decide to negotiate for it back, is one life too much to pay?

not news.

[oyenstikker]

Someone did something illegal. The victim went after them. *Yawn*

Intimidation campaign

[meanfriend]

From the article:
But under the Copyright Act, it remains illegal to give or sell a CD copy to a friend, since it's not for personal use. In the same vein, distributing copies to friends online is prohibited.

and a related article:

Canada deems P2P downloading legal

I'm in Canada and I've sampled a number of songs from the binary newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.* as the law allows me to (for now)

That's not a P2P service, obviously, but from the ISPs own newservers. So wouldnt the ISP make a better target? After all, arent they distributing content to 900,000+ subscribers (according to the article)?? Think of the damages one could claim against an ISP if they were found guilty of copyright infringement on that scale.

Why pick out 29 individuals to pursue legal recourse? Because it's about fear and publicity. These 29 people are not likely to have the inclination, resources, or will to fight an expensive legal battle. Like the RIAA cases, they will settle for a couple thousand $ and a press conference where they tearfully apologize for thier wrongdoings. Fellow canadians who do not follow the legal aspect of such issues closely will simply hear 'file sharers get sued' and freak out and think the downloading music is wrong: mission accomplished. Will the press make the point that personal copying in Canada is LEGAL when reporting these stories? Possibly, but I'm not betting on it.

Re:Intimidation campaign

[iso]

That's not a P2P service, obviously, but from the ISPs own newservers. So wouldnt the ISP make a better target?

I've always wondered about Usenet and ISPs. On a related note: anybody who has casually surfed the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy know there's a ton of porn on there. There simply has to be child porn in there somewhere, you'd think. Is the ISP not considered responsible (legally) for this content, or is it just obscure enough that it's never been dragged through the courts?

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[symbolic]

The CD itself probably costs less than $0.21 to manufacture. What it boils down to is this: the music industry (and all of its lined pockets) want, pure and simple, a welfare program that's tailored specifically to them. And they have it. Hope all these CEOs feel good about being on the public dole.

If this happens in the US, it will be a blatant violation of due process, as such a tax implicitly accuses, tries, convicts, and sentences someone without ANY indication that they've even so much as THOUGHT about copying something.

Fraud

[nuggz]

If you never signed up for cable, you likely aren't liable.
If/when it goes to collections they have to prove you owe the money.
You should check your credit report, and make sure there aren't any claims from them. (equifax.ca, and it's FREE!!!)

coincidentially

[Richthofen80]

isn't 29 the number of people in Canada who can actually get broadband?

Re:coincidentially

[jbr439]

Not that I don't find this humourous (yes, I did laugh), but for the record, I believe that Canada has a higher broadband penetration rate, on a per-capita basis, than the US.

Re:coincidentially

[CastrTroy]

I believe the number of broadband users, at least on a per capita basis is way higher than in the US. I don't think i know anyone who still uses dialup in canada. And they certainly don't advertise it anymore like they do in the states

Re:coincidentially

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Canada is one of the most connected countires in the world. It certinally has a lot more bandwidth per person than the states and has more broadband connections per person than the U.S. Only South Korea has a higher ratio of Broadband connections.

The average U.S. Citizen does not even have home internet access - and the minority that does have it has 6 times out of 10 a dial up connection.

Re:coincidentially

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't 29 the number of people in Canada who can actually get broadband?

Umm, no. Canada has very cheap, widely available broadband from multiple competitors.

$40 Cdn or less per month, which is about US$30.

If you want broadband (and cheap long distance) Canada is a much better place than most of the USA.

Re:coincidentially

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't 29 the number of people in Canada who can actually get broadband?

In other words: Hi, I'm an American. I'm an idiot.

Re:coincidentially

[holstein]

Broadband Canada outperforms broadband US

Ok, the text is old, but anyway.. ;oP

Re:coincidentially

[fatwreckfan]

Not only do we have a higher ratio of broadband users, but there are no restrictive service contracts, etc here. I remember back when I played Q3A online a lot, some of my friends down south were forced into 1 year contracts to be able to get DSL at home. I have cable, and I can cancel it any time I want, and it only costs about $45CDN/month, which is think is a pretty good deal.

I just can't wait for Rogers to follow Sympatico and up our upload caps by 50%!

Re:coincidentially

[m0nkyman]

Sure, If you multiply by a million....in a country of just over thirty million.
Canada has one of the highest ratios of people on broadband.

Re:coincidentially

[euxneks]

Actually, the percentage of people in Canada who have broadband is about twice that in the U.S.

Kiss my faster-than-thou-ass oh striped ones!

Re:coincidentially

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 29 is the number of people in the USA who can find Canada on a map.

Oh, yeah. btw, Canadians have higher broadband penetration rate, on a per-capita basis than the USA or some crap like that.

Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Videotron already charges outrageous overage fees on file swappers. Now they say they don't want the business..

"In terms of protecting the identity of our subscribers, we're doing everything we can, but if there's a court order we certainly won't fight it," [Videotron's parent company, Quebecor Inc.] executive vice-president Luc Lavoie told The Globe and Mail. "We're actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing."

Why don't you call Luc Lavoie yourself and tell him how delighted you are to be one of his customers?

Luc Lavoie
executive vice-president - Corporate Affairs
Quebecor inc.
Office : (514) 380- 1974
Mobile : (514) 236- 8742
lavoie.luc@quebecor.com

Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain

[frogie]

Why don't you call Luc Lavoie yourself and tell him how delighted you are to be one of his customers?

Luc Lavoie
executive vice-president - Corporate Affairs
Quebecor inc.
Office : (514) 380- 1974
Mobile : (514) 236- 8742
lavoie.luc@quebecor.com

The number seems to be valid.

Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain

[TheTomcat]

Luc Lavoie
executive vice-president - Corporate Affairs
Quebecor inc.
Office : (514) 380- 1974
Mobile : (514) 236- 8742
lavoie.luc@quebecor.com


Yeah, this is the actual contact info, see the end of this page..

S

Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have been filling all my ennemies email into
http://www.unsub.us/ this morning.

Fore info see CNN FTC: "Do Not E-mail" site a scam

Just added our friend into it ...

Re:huh?

[kchoboter]

Don't forget bands like Nickelback, The Barenaked Ladies & Simple Plan

Re:White flag

[DR SoB]

Your aka is "democracy" and your from "la belle province" huh? If that isn't irony I don't know what is!!

Re:What exactly is illegal? Do not mod informative

[PunchMonkey]

For example, if i open a private FTP site and i prove that only my friends have access to it, then it falls neatly under 'fair use' clause

No it doesn't, this is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials and is not covered by fair use. your other examples seem to stand well though.

/not a lawyer either

MOD PARENT DOWN! Flamebait...

[Neurotoxic666]

(quebequeers)

Oh. I guess THAT was the insightful part?

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! Flamebait...

[Anonymous Coward]

haha dude, we all know french canadians are total idiots!!

"Do you speak french?"
"Why don't you speak french?"
"You suck because you don't speak french"
"I shove use shit out of my ass as poutine curds"
"You should speak french because you're in a french place, but we're in canada and that doesn't count as an english place!"
"I play hockey with my dick and puck fuck my luck with politics!"

In other news

[jsrlepage]

Quebecor's cable division, known as Videotron and once held by a generous and employee-centered team of directors, the Chagnon Family, announce that they are moving their backbones to WindowsEmbedded-powered backbones, their DNS with IIS-based servers, [...you know where it's getting...]

...even later...

Videotron Broadband Internet Access files for bankruptcy. The apparent cause, denied by Quebecor Holdings but confirmed by the Chagnon family, is that their servers crash each day, resulting in a disconnection for thousands of broadband videotron clients.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: this is NOT informative or insightful, it's meant to be funny.

not so bad for me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it on you litigous canadian bastards! you're pathetic attempts to stop my file sharing will never work! HAHAHA I'm an American Citi... oh fuck..

NOOO! The effect is wearing off...

[Zapraki]

Well thanks alot! The intended-memory-loss drugs were working just fine till now.

There's just something about our country and second-rate female vocalists. Acutally, we have more than our fair share of second-rate male vocalists too.

Hurrah for Matt Good, one of the few good things to come out the Great White North (musically speaking, of course.)

Frowned upon by certain "people"

[gearheadsmp]

MP3's are frowned upon by certain "people". In fact, these "people" have setup a web site for consumers who are "confused" about file sharing. They even have a message board, which I strongly encourage you to post there about your opinion of the RIAA. This was orignally mentioned in orthogonal's journal.

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[danielsfca2]

This is awesome.
From that site, Stacie Orrico's quote about file sharing (emphasis added):

"Well, I do realize how much the picture of artists is skewed when I get questions all the time like, 'Oh, so what kind of car do you drive? How big is your house?' It's like, 'No you don't understand, like I'm just trying to pay for my gas. I don't drive a nice car and I'm just trying to pay the bills and trying to have enough to buy groceries.' People just assume that the second you have a song on the charts," [i.e. you've earned millions of dollars of revenue for record labels] "you're a millionaire and truth is I've been in the industry for six years and still working towards the financial benefit. You put so much financial support into building an album. Between the clothes, and the sets, and the recording, and all the other people who are involved taking little bits of your money as you go along. So, especially if there is an artist that you really like and you're really enjoying, support them, support them with your $10 bucks." [out of which they'll see about 50 cents.] "Show you're a true fan, I think it's important."

Who wants to bet that not a single RIAA/CRIA exec has any problem paying their bills? Perhaps without traditional record labels, an artist like Orrico could record her music herself with a few thousand dollars of studio time (credit card), then sell just 50,000 copies of the single on the iTMS, and actually come out way ahead!

What's that I hear? Oh, it's the moans of agony coming from the RIAA headquarters. The past called. They want their distribution model back.

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[StuWho]

This site reminds me of South Park 709 - Christian Hard Rock. "Lars Ulrich's crying because he can't afford a new diamond encrusted limo for his wife."

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[SoSueMe]

Lars Ulrich of Metallica is a long way fron Christian Hard Rock

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[StuWho]

It's a long story. In the episode Cartman starts a christian rock band. Parallell to this the rest of the kids use kazaa to download some MP3's - they are shown the "error" of their ways by the RIAA, and that's where the quote comes from.

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[Anonymous Coward]

"support them with your $10 bucks"

What world does this chick live in that CDs are only $10? For a USED CD maybe . . .

In my world, it's hard to find a full release CD that isn't between $17 and $21. And you know what? If you sell a million albums at $20/ea and out of that $20,000,000, the artist ends up with zero after their expenses - that isn't MY problem. That's between them, their label and their lawyer and agent.

Re:Frowned upon by certain "people"

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, a normal full length music CD usually costs $10-15, maybe a little more, depending on where you're buying (I always buy at the small indy record stores). If its a less popular CD, or a double, you're looking at $15-25.

One problem...

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

Voting with your money is a good approach; I've advocated it many times. However, the problem is that many people will mindlessly buy company X's "New, Hip, Super-Awesome, Must-Have" product anyway, thus giving that company an effective monopoly.

Not a problem, unless Company X happens to be, say, a major motherboard maker. Now that they control the entire market, if you want a new Mobo, you're forced to buy from them, at whatever terms they feel like. And, if the example set by most governments these days is followed, little to nothing will be done.

And you can't just keep you're old board forever. Eventually, it will break, or you'll need to upgrade something, etc.

Thus, the people get screwed by The Man. Gotta love the world these days...

Rogers Cable

[WormholeFiend]

Rogers Cable is my ISP. The other day I got snail-mail spam from them, promoting their Digital Video Recorder and a movie-on-demand service.

I suspect they might crackdown on bittorrent movie downloads pretty soon... considering they have no monthly download cap.

Hopefully they upgraded their cable infrastructure to support the additional load for the set-top movie boxes, otherwise I'll be one unhappy high-speed cable customer.

And for those who dont know, Rogers also offers TV cable, Cellphone services, and operates a video rental store chain.

Re:Rogers Cable

[jo42]

...and the biggest HDTV channel line of almost any North American city...

> no monthly download cap

Not quite true - see their AUP.

Official levies

[Ian_Bailey]

can be found in this FAQ.

- Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 each
- CD-R and CD-RW: 21 each
- CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 each
- For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data.

Only one think to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

TABAKNAK !

MOD INFORMATIVE

[Zork the Almighty]

As well, the whole proposal (by the copyright industry) of levying flash memory and dvd-r was thrown completely out the window.

Videotron?

[shepd]

No surprise there.

They've been active in ensuring anybody gets in trouble no matter what.

The company that owns them (Quebecor) is particularly horrid as well, banning Religious & Ethnic Satellite Television (FTA) advertising from their newspapers.

Might want to stay the hell away from them...

I like my odds

[Zapraki]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

2001 Census, population of Canada: 31,050,700

2000 CyberTrends report, percent of Canadians using the net: 54%

Number of Canucks the dark ones are looking for to sacrifice at the evil altar of Music Industry Ineptitude: 29

So, 0.54 x 31,050,700 = 16,767,378

29 / 16,767,378 x 100% = 0.000173% chance of them getting to me

I like those odds.

As Eastwood so elegantly asked "Do you feel lucky?"

Re:I like my odds

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe 1/3 of 54% have filesharing programs installed and actually share.

CRIA

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they dont claim to be an artists association in the name.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

" [Videotron] they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.' "

Well that's no surprise. Videotron is owned by Quebecor which owns a big part of the music market in Quebec. They own the music, the artists, their careers, musicstores ...

They are totally opposed to music sharing. Since a couple of months, they are leading a big campaign against file swapping. They also owns television channels and newspapers, so we are constantly reminded that getting music for free is illegal and bad.

You can see a couple of the ads they have on their website, one of the most "important" Quebec website, here.

They translates to " swapping harms the music artisans ... buy music " and they are accompanied by some of the "commercials" artists of Quebecor.

Quebecor is evil.

In related news...

[JLSigman]

...the number of people applying for Canadian citizenship suddenly dropped once this report became wide-spread.

Re:Only a matter of time .... The Canadian People

[Nom du Keyboard]

The Canadian people do not want Big Brother to be accusing and convicting the 12 year old swappers like the U.S.

If the Canadian people don't want this, then they can stop it.

Re:huh?

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

What are you talking aboot?

Re:Videotron

[Hillman]

that sucks. Don't associate us with Frenchs. We kicked ass in WWII and way before americans did so.

Need something New

[dalek_killer]

The problem is that the internet is now too corporate, we need something that isn't corp.

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[jimsum]

I'm sorry to say this already happened in the U.S., and even earlier than in Canada (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). At least we Canadians can legally make copies as partial compensation for this rip-off, you Americans just get to pay.

It's nice to be appreciated.

[Txiasaeia]

I liked my original title better:

2004-02-13 15:32:16 CRIA Seeks All 29 File Swappers in Canada (articles,music) (rejected)

It had a sense of irony and humour, y'know? Anyway, I really can't wait until they start handing out subpoenas. If I get busted (highly unlikely), I am *so* taking this to the courts! First of all, it's civil and not criminal so I won't go to jail, and second, we've got some fairly intelligent judges up here who would definitely be able to make a fair ruling on this case.

My defense: as soon as I heard that the CRIA was going to be following in the footsteps of their older American brother, I decided to never buy another CD and never download another MP3. This also includes refusing to buy music-related merchandise as well as concert tickets. I'm in my early 20's, so I've got many, many years of not purchasing music ahead of me.

Besides, if it's legal to download, then why shouldn't it be legal to upload? I mean, come on! The ONLY WAY you *can* download is if somebody sends you the file! Either prosecute both or neither!

Re:It's nice to be appreciated.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of that is a bit counter-productive - a large portion of concert ticket sales and non-CD merchandise does go directly to the bands, not to the record companies (in most cases).

Re:It's nice to be appreciated.

[CKW]

I'm with you.

In October I was trying to find a decent concert to take a girl to here in Toronto. Noticed the name 54-40 but couldn't remember what their music was like, so downloaded a few to see if I could stand them. Ended up taking a girl to the concert. Liked the performance a lot, ended up buying a couple CD's for her *AND* discovering that I really loved the two opening acts, one from Ontario the other from the UK, bought their CDs too.

If they sue me, I am *so* taking this to court. I was probably sharing mostly old mp3.com trance and obtained-freely-direct-from-the-artists music, very little "CRIA" music, but certainly the 54-40 files sat in my download directory for a few days and were uploaded to some other people.

More than that, I'll personally spend a few grand on some big-ass full page ads in the papers and try my hardest to get on CBC's Journal and W5, etc - explain the difference between "copyright violation" for profit and "intellectual property" dogma, radio stacking, percent of CD sales that artists get, etc etc - and personally show them my file-timestamps, ticket stubs, and CDs. Try and humiliate them into the ground.

I know of *NO-ONE* who is buying any less than they otherwise would have *just* because of p2p.

Re:It's nice to be appreciated.

[log0]

Besides, if it's legal to download, then why shouldn't it be legal to upload? I mean, come on! The ONLY WAY you *can* download is if somebody sends you the file! Either prosecute both or neither!

If anything it's the downloader who makes the copy. The three step to copying anything are reading the original, transfering it, and writing the copy. Step three happens at the downloader's end. (I'll admit FTP and email create a bit of a grey area with this logic)

Another way of looking at it is the computer you download from gives you the file because you told it to. If you initiate the transfer you are responsible for it and you are responsible for what happens to it when it arrives at your end.

Re:It's nice to be appreciated.

[xilmaril]

fun fact, that the canadians of /. already knew. its currently legal to own small ammounts of pot. its still illegal to sell the stuff, tho. whatever the reason, this is nothing rare.

Re:It's nice to be appreciated.

[GnarlyNome]

Im buying more (you know how hard itis to get Slim Dusty music as a mp3?)

Re:Just try reasonable pricing

[jimsum]

I have to agree with you 100%. I recently visited Vancouver, where they had excellent used CD stores and A&B Sound had some really good prices. My wife and I bought 23 CDs because we averaged about $10 each (Canadian!).

I won't buy copy protected CDs and I won't pay more than $15, unless it is very special. Why can't the record companies give me what I want? I own more than 1000 CDs (and no MP3), I would have thought I was a good customer.

Re:Videotron

[Nimloth]

Hey I have a question for you:
When was the last time your remember Quebec surrendered?

Stop searching I have the answer: never.
You may think we speak french (in truth you can't really say it's french, it's really "quebecois"), but that doesn't mean we venerate Shirak and De Gaulles.
Get your flamebaits straight at least.

laisse faire

[Anonymous Coward]

"laisse faire" like in "never mind, don't do anything about it"
"laisse tomber" like in "never mind, drop it"
"laisser aller" like in "loose behavior"

gvt too busy to care?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the ruling Liberal party in Canada is a bit busy at the moment with public corporation scandals and an internal witch-hunt?

Re:Videotron

[Quebec]

That's not insightful, it's Flamebait

it is illegal

[circletimessquare]

but legality/ illegality is often askew of right/ wrong

with p2p, legality has not caught up with present circumstances

entrenched big business is trying to protect a dying distribution medium by fighting the new medium with laws that are only right when the new medium didn't exist

get it? got it? good

Re:Leeching

[kwandar]

Actually the Copyright Act provides an exemption for copying, except where it is done for purposes of distribution,/i>.

It may well be that leaving a p2p share open is not "distribution". IANAL, but IMHO distribution requires an active role on the part of the person distributing. Leaving a shared drive open, does not seem to meet the real world meaning of distribution.

There is also the question as to whether leaving a shared drive open is for the "purposes" of distribution. Both tests need to be met.

The CRIA may very well lose this case if they attack a subscriber with the resources to take this to court - or better yet, a lawyer!

As for the stupid comments from Quebecor/Videotron, I can only hope that Videotron loses all of their subscribers - I'm boycotting the Toronto Sun, and for those who want to join a boycott, here is a list of their subsidiaries, that includes newspapers such as the London Free Press, Ottawa Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Calgary Sun and the Edmonton Sun. Lets see how they feel about a drop in newspaper subscription revenues (and as a result, advertising revenues)!,/p>

Flamebait? You damn ignorant american idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

How could that have been modded "flamebait"? "Off-topic", I'd agree, but this is no flamebait at all.

If you think french-speaking people in Quebec are anything like the people in France, you really need to check your facts.

Diabolus777 is right when he says "It's like telling an American that he's British..." because that's exactly the same thing. Americans and British both speak english, so they're the same kind of people... That'd be pretty stupid to think like that.

He's also right about the Royal 22ieme Regiment of Quebec, Val-Cartier. Those guys were the nightmare of Nazi soldiers (unlike the USA or even Canadian soldiers).

In short, stop *insulting* us and associating us with "The French" (from France).

Re:Videotron

[Etyenne]

Typical French, "We surrender!"

Typical anglo-saxon bigotry.

Vive Quebec!

[bobobobo]

For me to poop on!

Anyone catch Conan last night?

Re:aw crap

[Anonymous Coward]

American's are stupid

No comeback is necessary.

Used to work for Videotron

[EulerX07]

Videotron was the brainchild of Claude Chagnon, a very successful businessman in Quebec, who had a lot of interest in medias. Videotron had interactive TV in the late eighties, and invested a lot of money into bringing out cable internet to cover the most customers possible.

All changed when he decided to merge with Rogers Cable. Quebecor saw this as an opportunity and used nationalistic rantings and political influence to get the "Caisse et Placement du Quebec" to invest with Quebecor and avoid having a Quebec company join up with one from out west. I couldn't believe people actually believed all that BS but it worked. Instead of winding up with a coast-to-coast network with tons of users, a media giant wound up getting the biggest cable and high-speed internet provider in Quebec.

I was a tech support monkey when that happenend, and I couldn't believe it. We quickly saw where it was gonna go. Pierre K. Peladeau (that's french for Darl McBride, he's the a-hole son of one of the richest man ever in quebec, who passed away in the nineties) started complaining that the management of Videotron was one of the worst one he ever saw. He proceeded to turn almost all of the cable installation/service call work to sub-contractor, to get rid of the highly payed and qualified techs. He also wanted to lower the salary of the tech support people (making barely 15 bucks an hour on average), and transferring some of the load to his 8 bucks an hour slave call centers. The techs went on strike for a year (I was gone at that point), but Quebecor had the infrastructure to make it work without them (with the help of scabs).

Of interest is that our IP telephony project was in highly advanced stages before the buy-out, with techs using it at home for beta testing. That was quickly thrown out the window after Quebecor stepped in, along with many interesting R&D projects. That could have been big in a few years, but thank to the short sightedness of greedy PK Peladeau, Videotron will miss the boat. PKP managed to suck the soul out of the company to make it the most profitable for his short-sighted, greedy, spoiled kid mind.

I don't know if you can tell, but I don't like him too much either.

Re:Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

But the email checkers and those who do light browsing are probably all on dialup, whereas all the hogs are prolly on broadband, which is more expensive.

Well of course

[cheide]

We have to have something to do while we're stuck in our homes half the year, avoiding polar bears...

It's probably just a result of our high urbanization rate. With most people congregated in fewer, larger cities, it makes rolling out services like broadband a lot easier.

(getting even further offtopic...)

Re:aw crap

[jqs]

It appears Paul Martin is Bushs .

I disagree: Paul Martin is not a Bush... He jsut has a nice hole and is getting ready to bend over in case Bush decides he needs to use it...

Why not just sell MP3s?

[EraseEraseMe]

TELUS has recently started this. In co-operation with PureTracks, you can purchase songs from a large assortment of albums for 99 cents a song, legally. I don't really know the details for it as I just use P2P to download songs illegally but it seems to be fairly popular as they've sold 1,000,000 songs already in the 4 months it has been operating. If you can't stop people from doing something, at least make money off of it

That's crap, we allread pay $ rec tax on media hr

[Anonymous Coward]

So it looks like recording industry want's it BOTH ways....pay the RIAA tax on all recordable media AND expect to be raided.....it really shows that the only thing these guys are interested in is money....they rip off the consumers and the artists and everyone else they can......

Re:Videotron

[AliasF97]

Why is one insult scored (-1) while the other is scored a (2)? Both are equally ignorant, offensive, stereotypical, and completely off-topic. I'm so tired of seeing the same crap on every single topic I read about here. It all turns into a nationalistic cock size contenst, usually ending up with rabble that sounds like, "We hate Bush!" "Oh yeah? Screw you, America rules!" Jesus, we can have a story here about an earthquake on Venus (or would that be a venusquake?), and the conversation will still end up at either pro vs anti American garbage, or ridiculous insults that get modded up to (2) for some reason. Sorry, didn't mean to explode like that, it's just all getting very old very fast. Debating is one thing, but there are people here who just keep walking into the wall no matter how many times you show them the door.

Legal to copy album you don't own in US

[wurp]

At least in the US, you absolutely have fair use rights, which include parody, archiving, and excerpts for exemplary or non-commercial purposes. You can see the law here.

What's more, you have every right to get together with friends and make tape copies or digital copies of music on digital audio recording equipment.

I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this per The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

DSLAM problems, and online music retailer "sharing

[Paulocular]

Two items of interest: 1) This summer, through a fluke, I found that at least 3 unique IPS can run over TELUS' ADSL service. Technically, the DSLAMs are supposed to only allocate 2 IPs. This potentially destroys any basis for TELUS to claim unique identification of users by IP address. 2) It is possible, by looking at the HTML code for a Canadian online music retailer, to figure out how to get their entire music library to stream in high quality wma. The retailer appeared unconcerned when notified of this and deemed its exploit unlikely. Nonetheless, they've essentially made the copyrighted material "freely" and knowingly available on the web. Does anyone have feedback or thoughts on whether their actions constitute illegal file sharing per Canadian law?

Northern Pikes

[srw]

You missed the Northern Pikes. USians might remember the song "She Ain't Pretty" although they had a few more hits up here. BTW, they're back together and making new music.

Re:Northern Pikes

[cebe]

wooo. thats some good news. i guess that makes up for the watchmen calling it quits, who were also left off that list; and to tell you the truth, it might as well not even BE a list without the Barenaked Ladies! Aren't the pikes a sketchywan band? she aint pretty is on the uniquely candianly titled cd, "snow in june." incidently, thats the one with "girl with a problem." perhaps their #1 in my books.
now there's some music i'll pay for. :)

Re:Northern Pikes

[srw]

Yes, the Pikes are a "sketchywan" band. I don't know if I could actually pick a favorite, but I could narrow it down to three or four songs on their last two albums. Yes, that's right, I'll take their newest album over the old stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love the old stuff too. Ross Nikyforuk, who played keyboards with them a bit back in the 80s, has a recording studio in the same building that my office is in. They recorded their newest album, "It's a Good Life", there and did the post-production on their new video at another business in the same building. Go buy it. You won't be disappointed. It's kinda funny, but the band hates "She Ain't Pretty." In fact, I think at least three of the guys would say it's the song that broke them up. The last song on their new album is called "Blame the Song." You'll love it.

Their official site is www.thepikes.com

Re:Videotron

[Desert Raven]

Videotron has been a cess-pit from the day I first heard of them. They have the distinction of being one of the first entries in my private mail server spam block list. I've only had one customer request in five years to unblock them, which I did for 24 hours. After that, the customer requested that I place them back in the block list. They decided any possible gain from being able to communicate with Videotron's customers wasn't worth the flood of spam that comes from them.

The fact that they're continuing to screw their customers is certainly no surpise to me.

Re:huh?

[Walker2323]

The above comments do NOT reflect the opinions of all Canadians. Some of us are embarrased by BNL, Nickelback, etc...

Not quite.

[Inoshiro]

"Why system administrators should have to pay a levy to the music industry in order to archive data to CD is a bit hazy."

Audio-blanks are a lot more expensive than Data-blanks because they have the legit copying levy + pirating levy on them. Data-blanks only have the pirating levy on them, since it's assumed that audio blanks are used for audio, and data blanks for PCs and pirating.

Not quite accurate, naturally, but not as uneven as you seem to think.

Re:Not quite.

[mindstrm]

Not exactly.

IT's more like "We KNOW that "audio cd-r" are specifically for copying audio, so we can tax that at the going rate.. but standard cd-r is not all for audio.. so we won't be able to get away with charging as high a levy on it.. so we'll just charge a tiny one for everyone, and it will work out".

I don't believe it is actually any seperate levy for pirating or legit copying.... it's just considered a different form of media with a different market.
Which it is.
In the music industry's twisted world.

Re:Videotron

[kwandar]

Speaking as an anglo-saxon, I'd unfortunately have to agree with your assessment of that comment

Re:Videotron

[Scrameustache]

Here in Canada, Quebec is famous for refusing to go along with anything that the Federal government or other provincial governments want to do. Unless it somehow results in them getting more money or more rights. Subject of course to them being able to use the funds however they wish.

As opposed to being drained of money and refused rights, wich is what the federal goverment and the other provinces are famous for going along with.

Those inferior second class citizens should really learn their place in life and accept their domination quietly huh?

Canadian Privacy Laws

[rir]

The Globe and Mail also reported this story in today's paper. I think it is interesting that Shaw is attempting to use new privacy laws to protect the people in question. If the courts rule in favour of the ISPs, it will set a good precedent.

Re:aw crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple form: Paul, if you are willing to negotiate our intellectual freedom we may decide to negotiate for it back, is one life too much to pay?

Lots of Americans think the same way, but only for religious matters. If its an abortion clinic, they will die to stop them. But when it comes to ones personal freedom, people just sit back and let it happen. Another good example, Gay Marriages. It's a purely religious matter, and people will degrade a portion of the population due to religious beliefs.

It's sad, Americans have to give up personal freedoms due to Religious groups and Corporations special interests.

And your only recourse is to vote, even if its tempting to fight the system with violence, and your votes go uncounted.

Not Really

[Run4yourlives]

What it tells the bands is that you won't be doing business with them if they continue to do business with their respective labels.

Not a bad idea IMO

The downloader is still doing the copying w/ P2P

[tentimestwenty]

It seems like there's some grey area in terms of who's actually doing the copying. If I leave all my CDs out on the street and someone borrows one of them and copies it, then the law wouldn't be broken. Leaving all your CDs out on the net and having someone copy them seems to be the equivalent for P2P. Doesn't someone's computer technically have to "ask" to borrow the bits before they can be sent?

not quite

[thatguywhoiam]

Canada Leads US in Broadband Usage

It's early, and doesn't mean much (yet).

[gordguide]

Certainly newsworthy, if only because it's somewhat related to one of the biggest US stories of the last few years, so It's appropriate that /. posts it.

But, this is very early. It will take a while to play out, and there will be more news to come.

Before any of this can even get off the ground, there's Privacy Legislation to consider. Not a one of these ISPs can comply with the demand for names (even if they are suspected of wanting to, such as some have said about Videotron) unless they vet the order with whole bunch of lawyers.

Chances are the lawyers will nix it right there; the penalties for complying if it violates the Privacy Act are very serious, and will be assessed on the ISPs themselves.

Certainly CIRA is not a law-enforcement agency, and John Law won't be investigating any part of a civil complaint. So, a court order will have to compel the ISPs to provide any information before any of this can start.

Canadian courts can consider judgments from any jurisdiction, so although it won't be a legal precedent that must be followed, the recent US cases denying the names to the RIAA will almost certainly be part of the ISPs arguments against complying.

Then there's the matter of violations of the Copyright Act. It's quite clear that uploading music is against the law (there are quite a few paragraphs in the legislation that spells out a wide variety of specific examples), so not much problem there.

Finally, there's the matter of penalties. This is where it gets kind of strange. CIRA can't hope to get much money from anyone it successfully sues; there's no statutory penalty scheme as in the US and even if there were, Canadian law requires penalties to fit the level of harm.

The penalty phase would be pure speculation, but as food for thought I expect the courts are going to value the cost of uploading a song in mp3 format as worth perhaps 99 cents if they base it on market value (PressPlay online music store in Canada). That's 99 cents once. Next song, next 99 cents.

I would be shocked if they value it higher without any financial gain from the defendant; cases of "true piracy" (1) don't extend much beyond confiscation and a fine loosely based on the value of goods duplicated.

Certainly I could be wrong, but I don't see anyone getting dinged for anything even remotely approaching the statutory penalty for a single instance of infringement in the US.

CIRA can hope to get some favorable rulings, and wave that around as a warning to others. But the cost of each prosecution is going to vastly exceed the value of a judgment, although they might be awarded costs as well.

And there's great danger in a precedent that doesn't advance CIRA's position (starting with the Privacy Law obstacle). It's risky for them to start this stuff up, but since they have, we can assume they're willing to accept the risk.

(1) I've used the definition of Piracy used by IFPA, the umbrella organization for such national agencies as CIRA and the RIAA. They define Piracy as commercial copying and sales of CDs; essentially what legislatures refer to as Counterfeit duplication. By their own definiton, sharing music is not Piracy, which is why I used the phrase "true piracy" here.

I'm well aware that the term Piracy itself is somewhat controversial, but I take the position that English is a living language and definitions are as much about use as references in dictionaries.

Re:White flag

[democracy]

Irony!? 50%+1 IS democracy!

Incorrect.

[mindstrm]

The levy is based on the fact that personal copying is LEGAL, and detracts from their potential income.

Not because of piracy.. it's because of what you are already legally permitted to do.. it was a concession to the recording industry when we took away their right to prevent us from making home copies.

Sorry, the CD-R tax is Canadian alone.

[VT_hawkeye]

I don't pay a cent to the RIAA when I buy CD-Rs here in Virginia. You'd better find someone else to blame for that bad policy -- America isn't responsible for this one, you guys came up with it on your own.

Besides, people keep telling me that it's wrong to label other nations as evil, but for some reason that doesn't apply when they get to talking about America.

Re:Sorry, the CD-R tax is Canadian alone.

[Deliveranc3]

I'm not sure if I was clear. I don't have a problem with paying the tax. $.50 a dvd is well within the range where someone could purchase more media than they could ever consume even on our social security.

I don't lie to myself that information is being stolen, of course I don't lie to myself that good artists are getting screwed either. The Cadian solution solves both problems, now I can pirate music and money goes to starving Canadian artists not useles American executives.

Because you can't tell what you are downloading.

[thatguywhoiam]

Besides, if it's legal to download, then why shouldn't it be legal to upload? I mean, come on! The ONLY WAY you *can* download is if somebody sends you the file! Either prosecute both or neither!

The reasoning behind this, as I recall, was that a filename is hardly bona fide proof of the actual content of the file. For a really simple example, someone could rename a copyrighted file with the name of a file in the public domain. You would not know until it landed on your drive and you played it back; therefore it is not fair to hold you culpable for infringing on the copyright as you were duped.

Since there's no real way to tell a copyrighted file from anything else (at a distance, so to speak)... downloading is legal, since it could have completely legitimate purposes.

Uploading copyrighted work is not legal and pretty straightforward although I'm sure much will be made of the fact that many P2P applications share by default... which I'm not sure a lot of people know...

Copyright infringement is wrong EH?

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:Videotron

[oldwolf13]

and the french are not know for predjudism and bias at all I suppose?

Face it, both sides have their faults in this department.

.sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many posts hit +4. Decrease the number of moderators

Better solution: 0->1 takes 1 mod, 1->2 takes 2, 2->3 takes 3 etcetera. Even if you give people compensating mod points (15 instead of 5), they won't want to "waste" them on already well-modded posts.

~Morosoph

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[Anonymous Coward]

But we don't have to pay a levy on DATA CDs.

There is a levy on MUSIC CDs, which pratically nobody uses, except for those dumb enough to have bought into a CDR deck for their audio system(s), which REQUIRE "music" CDRs.

Of course, anyone with half a brain had already figured out you can do more faster and with just as much or better quality on a PC, for much cheaper (especially if you already owned one, but didn't use it for this purpose). Thus, the so called music CDRs are used by practically nobody.

Re:Different types of media???

[cayenne8]

Pardon my ignorance on this...there are different types of CDr's???

Maybe I'm just not noticing, but, I've only seen regular CDR's with no distinction as to what you can record on them? I usually just get spindles of 50 or 100 when they go on sale 'free with rebate'....they usually put the slim line cases on sale same way..so, for the price of a couple of stamps and sales tax..I get all the media I want. I've put data and music on them just fine.

So, what am I missing here?

Best way to avoid a lawsuit:

[Killswitch1968]

Don't upload RIAA music. They don't care how much independent stuff you have, just music under their copyright protection, which is largely garbage anyway.

If you uploaded 50-cent you deserve to be sued, not because of copyright infringement but simply for having bad taste.

Band merchandise only helps SOCAN

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to look up SOCAN members, who supported this media taxing fiasco. They're 70000 "artists" (scam artists more like) who would love to increase these taxes and extend them to as many media and devices as possible.

Before you think about supporting an artist through CDs/merchandise/concerts, do some research, and don't just look for the *AA members.

Translation

[kentrel]

" Videotron customers beware: they say that they're 'actually delighted that the CRIA is doing what it's doing.'"

translates to

"Warning to fellow thieves and criminals: The Fuzz are coming! Watch out"

That's not troll baiting... that's a simple sad fact.. why are you so pro piracy?

Re:Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example of Videotron stupidity:

I used to live in Hull, Quebec, and I had cable internet with Videotron.

Then I find an affordable appartment in Ottawa, Ontario, where incidentally, income tax is lower. So I advise all my utility providers I'm moving, etc. etc.

I had a special pricing for internet cable for getting a yearly contract, but I had been on that contract for about 1.5 year. Videotron sends me the "final" bill, and I'm relieved to see they didnt apply penalties for cancelling the contract mid-year.

A few weeks after I moved, I get another bill from Videotron for those penalties.

I call the consumer protection bureau, and they're basically laughing at Videotron, and tell me to give them the finger.

So I did. And I was never bothered by them again.

As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Run4yourlives]

Not that I'd want to take part in a massive flamefest with you here, but I've never actually talked directly to a seperatist before, and you raise some interesting points.

Some background: I've lived all over the country, from Vancouver to Calgary to Toronto. I've never lived in Quebec, although I've spent a good amount of time there, both in Montreal and Quebec City.

I wonder though, exactly how much the average Quebecois really knows about the rest of the country - especially those that do not speak English.

It depend on which cake you are talking about. We pay federal taxes too, you know.

Yes you do, but in case you haven't noticed, a much larger percentage of senior federal politicians, civil servant, military generals and such are all from Quebec. The fact is, the last non-Quebecois to be PM for more than 12 months was Lester B. Peason - in 1968!

So who is it that you as a Quebecois have an issue with? The Federal Gov't is more a tool of Quebec than it is of english Canada.

Second, a country where the influence of my people is not diluted by the rest of the federation.

I point you again to my previous point. What dilution, exactly?

The seperatist viewpoint stems largly from ignorance of the "rest of Canada". Such ignorance fails to take into acount that for instance, socially BC is far closer to Quebec than to Alberta. The "rest of Canada" doesn't exist outside of Quebec. It's a shame that seperatists like yourself fail to see this.

Keep in mind that the only thing that has prevented Quebec from becoming either primarily anglophone or completely irrelavent is the fact that is is part of a greater institution called Canada. Unfortunate, but true nonetheless.

Now, this does not negate the fact that within Canada, Quebec has a unique place - it's own laws, institutions and language - but make no mistake, Quebecois (as those from any area of the country) are best served by a strong union, regardless of our differences, than by any other method of government.

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Etyenne]

Yes you do, but in case you haven't noticed, a much larger percentage of senior federal politicians, civil servant, military generals and such are all from Quebec. The fact is, the last non-Quebecois to be PM for more than 12 months was Lester B. Peason - in 1968!

There's a reason for that. Quebec represent a significant chunk of Canada's riding (25%). This 25% won't vote for someone whom they can't understand. Francophone PM candidate speak english fluently (exception: Chretien, but he does'nt speak french very well either). Anglophone PM candidate most of the time barely speak French and can't make themselves understood. When you can't communicate with 25% of your electorate, you start with a hell of an handicap.

I'd like to see where you get the idea that a majority of senior civil servant and military general are French Canadian. Actually, particuliarly in the military, it's quite the opposite. I'd love to be proven wrong though, so feel free to dig statistic that would support your point, if such a thing exist.

The seperatist viewpoint stems largly from ignorance of the "rest of Canada". Such ignorance fails to take into acount that for instance, socially BC is far closer to Quebec than to Alberta. The "rest of Canada" doesn't exist outside of Quebec. It's a shame that seperatists like yourself fail to see this.

Indeed, people in Quebec don't know much about the ROC, just as they don't don't know much about the US, or Europe, or the Middle-East, or just as Anglo-Canadian don't know much about us either.

Keep in mind that the only thing that has prevented Quebec from becoming either primarily anglophone or completely irrelavent is the fact that is is part of a greater institution called Canada. Unfortunate, but true nonetheless.

How ? Why ?

What prevented Quebec from becoming primarly anglophone is the fact that, in spite of being a minority in the federation, we are a majority in our own "province" and act as such. Outside of Quebec (and New-Brunswick), francophone have been or are in way of being totally assimilated, the grater institution called Canada notwhitstanding.

Actually, we are irrevelant to anybody except us.

Now, this does not negate the fact that within Canada, Quebec has a unique place - it's own laws, institutions and language - but make no mistake, Quebecois (as those from any area of the country) are best served by a strong union, regardless of our differences, than by any other method of government.

Again, I ask : How ? Why ? The little autonomy and institution we have, we constantly have to fight to keep. There is nothing the federal governement would like more than to make us "just another province" ...

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason for that. Quebec represent a significant chunk of Canada's riding (25%). This 25% won't vote for someone whom they can't understand.

A large percentage of Quebec residents have English as their first official spoken language (only marginally less than the French population, in fact), so white-washing (a term more appropriate than one might first think) the whole province as French-only seems absurd.

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you're saying that we should've just kicked the french out when we had the chance right? I'm with you all the way!

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

What prevented Quebec from becoming primarly anglophone is the fact that..

The fact that we didn't kill you all during the war or ship you all to Newfoundland like we should have? Then we could have really made fun of the Newfies, because they'd be Newfies and french.

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

A large percentage of Quebec residents have English as their first official spoken language (only marginally less than the French population, in fact), so white-washing (a term more appropriate than one might first think) the whole province as French-only seems absurd.

Very funny.

The actual numbers are:

82% have french as their first language.
8% have english as their first language (mostly concentrated in the western districts of Montreal btw)
10% have neither french or english as their first language

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

>What prevented Quebec from becoming primarly anglophone is the fact that..

The fact that we didn't kill you all during the war or ship you all to Newfoundland like we should have? Then we could have really made fun of the Newfies, because they'd be Newfies and french.

Thank you for your opinion. I will keep that in mind when you come in Montreal to beg us to stay in the next referendum.

Re:As a Canadian, I feel I should respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will keep that in mind when you come in Montreal to beg us to stay in the next referendum.

Your mind was long ago made up and you're a lost cause, so eat shit moron.

As far as "begging to stay", realize that more Quebecers than not wanted to stay in Canada (even when applied to a completely vague and fuzzy question as that that the PQ criminally tried to fool the voters with). The "begging" was the "federalist" Quebecers who have fought wars for Canada, and who have a more worldly view, letting their voice be heard (about their own province), rather than letting the yelping seperatists hog the mic for themselves, which was the case.

Funny thing is...

[Run4yourlives]

The only english speakers on the planet that even care about french language rights are those that reside in Canada.

How could you, as a Quebecois think that Quebec as a nation would fair better without the protection of a G8 country standing between it and the economic and "cultural" behemoth that is the USA?

The only reason you speak french at all is because of Canada. Don't believe me? I have one word for you: Louisiana.

You forgot Subsection 2 though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your citation was not complete. The proper URL to Section 80 (Copying for Private Use) is: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770


(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.


So basically, because the file sharer's are using (2)(c), ie they are communicating to the public by telecommunication, they are not subject to the exclusion of infringement in 80 (1).


It's important to read _all_ of the subsections, even if they are a gordian knot of exclusions and exceptions.

What's really screwy is that I can let someone copy my entire 90 gigabyte self-ripped MP3 collection, but if I make the copy FOR them, I'm infringing.

Re:The downloader is still doing the copying w/ P2

[Yo Grark]

Definition arises when you don't get hte same bit back.

Essentially you are standing on the corner with a sign that says "Free copied CD's" Take your pick

Which is distributing, and illegal.

Yo Grark

As a Videotron customer

[Cyclone66]

I find this marvelous!
First they raise my rates $5/month, now they will help their customers get sued!!

Very interesting

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Interesting. I imagine that the Canadian RIAA is targeting users with massive song collections, whom they consider the "kingpins" of the network. This is probably the right approach- as many analyses of the subject have shown, a disproportionately small group of users serves up most of the filespace available on any such network.

I'm more interested in small-worlds sort of stuff- it's less actionable (while there is likely to be a relative "kingpin" in each small sphere as well, he represents less influence) and probably better targeted (no one I know likes Britney or will ever have her stuff offered- so it is less obvious in general.)

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[Chris-Mouse]

Just to give you an idea of how bad that levy is, retail prices of CD-Rs here in the Toronto area is about $35cdn for a spindle of 100 CDs, or about $0.35 cents each. Of that retail price, 21 cents goes straight to the music industry. The remaining 14 cents covers the retailer's profits, manufacturer's profits, and the costs of manufacturing and distributing the CD-Rs.
In short, the music industry is sitting back and taking 2/3 of the money from all CD-R sales in Canada, and then claiming that using those CD-Rs to make copies of music is theft. I think that somone needs to review their definition of theft.

so....

[neuraloverload]

cross border shopping does us in again....

lol.

[Run4yourlives]

Anglophone PM candidate most of the time barely speak French and can't make themselves understood.

Considering your atrocious use of english language in this thread, of which I up until this point have not mentioned, perhaps it's the arrogance of the listener, and not the speaker than causes the lack of understanding. But I digress.

I'd like to see where you get the idea that a majority of senior civil servant and military general are French Canadian.

I didn't say Quebecois are the majority, only that they were over represented. As for numbers: in 1997, 29.5% of the civil service was from Quebec, even tough in 2001 Quebec's population was on 21% of Canada's total population.

Indeed, people in Quebec don't know much about the ROC,

Well, ignorance, even admitted ignorance is not an excuse. I would start by saying that the entity known as ROC doesn't exist outside of a seperatist's head.

What prevented Quebec from becoming primarly anglophone is the fact that, in spite of being a minority in the federation, we are a majority in our own "province" and act as such.

You wouldn't be a provice without Canada, and as francophones you'd be the minority in North America... like I said elsewhere, Quebec's story without Canada would be similar to Louisiana's.

Once again though, your ignorance of Canada preceeds you. Many communities in Manitoba are exclusivly french (so much so that I, and other soldiers had difficulty communicating during the Manitoba flood of 1997.), and the province of New Brunswick is actively bilingual. They're not irrelevant in the least.

The little autonomy and institution we have, we constantly have to fight to keep

Funny, I don't remember the federal government trying to change your civil code, language laws (even though they violate the constitution) or social programs... can you?

There is nothing the federal governement would like more than to make us "just another province"

And where prey tell, did you get the idea that you are somehow entitled to be anything more?

You have every right to want you own country. But keep in mind that I have every right to keep mine from being destroyed. That's a lose lose situation, and not one that I'd like to see happen to Canada (including Quebec). We've both got it good. The grass isn't any greener on the other side... ask an Irishman if you think otherwise.

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

May I intervene on this thread...

... You wouldn't be a provice without Canada, and as francophones you'd be the minority in North America... like I said elsewhere, Quebec's story without Canada would be similar to Louisiana's.

Not true. Quebec and Louisiana have vastly different history and geography. Quebec was protected mostly by geography and climate. This had vastly more impact than any political system. The english minority controlled Quebec economically from Montreal, but the canadiens occupied the land. Americans or English occupiers would have made no difference. Why try to establish in a hard and cold land when you could go to a fertile wasp country ? So the colonizers went elsewhere, leaving only the english merchants in Montreal.

Once again though, your ignorance of Canada preceeds you. Many communities in Manitoba are exclusivly french (so much so that I, and other soldiers had difficulty communicating during the Manitoba flood of 1997.), and the province of New Brunswick is actively bilingual. They're not irrelevant in the least.

Geez, you must give me the name of that village! You must have met ghosts!
Funny, I was born in St-Boniface. Worried about my french education, my parents emigrated to Quebec. Good decision. I know for a fact that most of my "franco-manitobains" cousins have difficulties expressing themselves in french. Guess which language their children use ?

>The little autonomy and institution we have, we constantly have to fight to keep
Funny, I don't remember the federal government trying to change your civil code, language laws (even though they violate the constitution) or social programs... can you?

From the top of my head:
- Clarity bill.
- Constant intrusions in provincial jurisdictions,
- Breaking Quebec election law during the referendum
- Imposition of a constitution against Quebec will an then trying to break Quebec language laws on the basis of that constitution.
(Must be a kind of english sense of humor)

>There is nothing the federal governement would >like more than to make us "just another province"

And where prey tell, did you get the idea that you are somehow entitled to be anything more?

The Quebecois are a people, and Quebec is our state. We have all the attribute of a Nation except political independence. That is what the canadians don't get, or don't want to know.

You have every right to want you own country. But keep in mind that I have every right to keep mine from being destroyed. That's a lose lose situation, and not one that I'd like to see happen to Canada (including Quebec). We've both got it good. The grass isn't any greener on the other side... ask an Irishman if you think otherwise.

Well I have the right to my country and you have the right to yours. I'm no war-mongering guy, but if you insist on keeping what's ours when my people decide to go, you'll get what you deserve...

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you insist on keeping what's ours when my people decide to go, you'll get what you deserve...

You mean like Montreal, the Eastern Townships, and the North where all your precious power stations are?

Really, if anyone were to take over Quebec and become there own country, I would expect that the Native Americans would get the most support.

I hope you're not surprised when these sections of Quebec want to seperate and become part of Canada.. But I'm sure that there will instantly be some sort of law repressing this people and preventing them from being part of 'Their own country'.

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you insist on keeping what's ours when my people decide to go, you'll get what you deserve...
>br> You mean like Montreal, the Eastern Townships, and the North where all your precious power stations are? Really, if anyone were to take over Quebec and become there own country, I would expect that the Native Americans would get the most support. I hope you're not surprised when these sections of Quebec want to seperate and become part of Canada.. But I'm sure that there will instantly be some sort of law repressing this people and preventing them from being part of 'Their own country'.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll remember your imperialist and manipulating mindset when I'll vote in the next referendum.

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking Quebec election law during the referendum

I plead ignorance, please explain.

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Quebecois are a people, and Quebec is our state. We have all the attribute of a Nation except political independence.

Then have an unbiased referendum with an unambiguous, clear question where voters know they're voting for separation, and if the majority votes for it, then go.

Just remember your attitude when the natives and English Quebecers decide they are a people and their land is a state and have their own referendum.

Re:lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm sure you're really undecided on the fence, aren't you?

It's interesting that separatism is a laudable goal, but separatism inside Quebec is "imperialist and manipulating". Go fuck yourself you traitorous bitch -- thankfully most Quebecers are far more intelligent that idiots like yourself.

Innocent until proven guilty

[Namarrgon]

I guess it only applies to US citizens these days. Unless they wear turbans...

CRIA, RIAA and other acronyms

[Namarrgon]

Does anyone else think the Recording Industry Association of America missed an obvious acronym when they failed to name themselves the American Recording Industry Association?

Too late, Australia's got it now :-)

Or maybe these guys just beat them to it...

Re:Videotron

[RollingThunder]

Well, you know what they say - the victor writes the history books. ;)

look out! forum full of *twisted* execs

[real_smiff]

under a thread titled "It's Girly to Download":

My room is decorated with pink drapes and posters of unicorns crouching beneath rainbows. I only wear dresses and frilly skirts, always with white lacy slips underneath. But nothing makes me feel more like a girl than when I'm downloading MP3s for free using Kazaa Lite (which contains no adware or spyware - look for it in Google). I only download the latest music from my favorite top-40 artists, and I only download MP3s (WMP sucks!). Since this music is on the radio all the time anyway, it doesn't seem like I'm hurting anyone by downloading it to my computer. And it makes me feel like such a girl! I'm going to go take a hot bath now.

uhu.. those industry executives (alias in this case 'littlejenny' with 1 post) *are* getting desperate! i couldn't make this s**t up if i tried - though, clearly, they can, and they are! thanks for the heads up. if i ever feel like i need to go mad i know where i can visit. 100% surreal site.

KANADA isn't part of the US

[Anonymous Coward]

KANADA isn't part of the US

(K) is a snyde joke.

NEIL PEART IS ON TEH SPOKE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Videotron is Quebecor

[Aliencow]

Quebecor is Archambaut
Archambault is Archambaultzik.ca .
Of course they're delighted, they even threatened their own customers already.

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[symbolic]

That's criminal.

Re:Different types of media???

[Nogami_Saeko]

Yup. There are CDs made especially for audio recording - they have a special "audio header" on them that identifies them as made for audio recording.

Old CD audio recorders used to require this type of media, they wouldn't work with normal CD-R media. The idea being that if you restricted the burners to audio-only CD-Rs, you could tax those more (usually 4-8x more) and leave the data CDs alone.

Of course, everyone screamed bloody murder and worked out hacks to enable recording on regular CDs. Manufacturers who made machines that worked on regular CDs got all the business and manufacturers who made the "crippled" units hardly sold anything.

Little wonder that you never see them anymore.

Re:Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

The past has shown the French nation to be of the submissive and surrendering nature. It is not bigotry, but the true facts of history.

Re:Videotron

[xilmaril]

canada: the largest french population that never surrendered to anyone, ever.

so neener neener.

Why do you think

[GnarlyNome]

it's called America Off Line

havent i been paying all along?

[johntheother]

In Canada, every time i purchase blank media, i pay a tax which goes directly to the CRIA to defray their supposed lost revenue due to filesharing. Since i burn backups of all my customer's websites, all the software generated by my development company, my personal files, etc. I end up forking out a lot of bread to an industry who are (IMO) practicing government sanctioned profiteering.

My legitimate use of writeable media does not exempt me from this levy.

Now they're going to hunt for music swappers are they? How cute.

I Suggest, to every other Canadian who may read this, and who burns their own files to CDR that they begin to loudly and belligerently refuse to pay the blank media levy.

I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of file sharing, but if we're paying for it already (and we are) the music industry cant have it both ways.

For anyone unfamiliar with the Canadian blank media levy, you can read about it here
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

Re:Freaking CRAZY

[peter]

No, there's a levy on both kinds of CDs. It's even higher on "music" CDRs and CDRWs, but there is absolutely a levy on data CDs.

From a govt. web site, the current rates:
- Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 each
- CD-R and CD-RW: 21 each
- CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 each
- For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data.

Clarification/FYI

[Dolemite_the_Wiz]

Just so that everyone is clear. It's LEGAL to download music on the internet in Canada. However, it's illegal to upload Music to the internet in Canada.

Dolemite
_________________________

Re:And guess who's selling digital music downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. That's a lame name.

Re:Videotron

[Anonymous Coward]

God Damn It! Here in Alberta French jokes are a staple of everyday life, so don't start messing with them!

Re:aw crap

[windside]

I'm reading this comment and envisioning an ankle-biting 12-year old who just finished Social Studies 9 and is itching to dive into politics. Sorry kiddo, but Paul Martin has nothing to do with these lawsuits.

Canada has had its own intellectual property laws for a long time and they are generally quite similar to those enforced in the US. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, as amended in 1998, the RCIA has every right to pursue legal action against individuals who provide access to content for which they do not own distribution rights.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as upset about the RCIA as you are (and I'm no fan of Mr. Martin), but I think you need to hit the books a little harder before you start blindly hurling allegations. For one thing, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the US have very different jobs - they are in charge of different branches of government. There are plenty of reasons to accuse the Canadian PM of "fascism" (i.e. Ottawa's lack of accountability), but this isn't one of them.

(One more thing, Canuck to Canuck: if you want to be taken seriously, you should really learn how to use your apostrophes, especially when you're calling our neighbours to the South "stupid". They tend to carpet bomb in response to attacks like that.)

OT (Re:Life in a mirror)

[Sanga]

Bollywood -- it is not Hollywood. Please call it by its name "Mumbai film industry". Please do not have to use the white-man's crutch to typify yourself. Hollywood is not a good thing to aspire for.

That said, the Mumbai industry is a different bag of trash.