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."

39 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 Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    3. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by 503 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by Yo+Grark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    6. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by dreadnougat · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

    8. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by glucose · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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"?

    11. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    12. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by BrendonJWilson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

    13. Re:But the practice is illegal in the U.S.?! by skahshah · · Score: 5, Funny

      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).

  2. It's not so bad by sdcharle · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

  3. Vertical integration sucks... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Levies already! by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

    --
    HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    1. Re:Levies already! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Levies already! by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."
    3. Re:Levies already! by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  5. Not surprised by Videotron by Tester · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Not surprised by Videotron by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. Only a matter of time .... by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  7. *Yawn* by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  8. Re:You have to laugh by tundog · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    All your base are belong to us!
  9. Re:Videotron by leerpm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Media Levies by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. here we go again... by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  12. Time for the slashdot two-step by mumblestheclown · · Score: 5, Funny
    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!

    1. Re:Time for the slashdot two-step by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  13. Re:What exactly is illegal? by CaptIronfist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. ;-)

  14. Re:the last laugh by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.)

  15. 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?

  16. 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.

  17. Frowned upon by certain "people" by gearheadsmp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  18. Official levies by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. Re:You might remember me by kernelfoobar · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)...

    --
    Here we go again!
  20. Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain by frogie · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  21. Re:Call Quebecor's Luc Lavoie to complain by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Informative


    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