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.?!

[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.?!

[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.?!

[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.?!

[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.?!

[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: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?

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: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?

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.