Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
Stay tuned for new sig...
CD Ripping does not violate the DMCA (most of the time) as there is no encryption to circumvent.
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?
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.
I'd be interested to see how exactly Canada has defied international copyright conventions.
Please refer me to this mythical "leeching" ruling.
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?
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?
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.
my blog
"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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Hasn't the CRIA hurt us enough with CanCon?
Not everybody agrees that "Intellectual Property" is a good thing.
The only thing being defended here is a profit margin.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
"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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
that sucks. Don't associate us with Frenchs. We kicked ass in WWII and way before americans did so.
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.
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.
Rank Presidents by th
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?
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.
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!"
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?
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.
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.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.