Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Recording Industry Goes After P2P Users

Posted by michael on from the america-in-miniature dept.

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."

5 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Just ask the Slashbots.

    2. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by Proaxiom · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

  2. Re:aw crap by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  3. Intimidation campaign by meanfriend · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.