Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Loses In Canadian Downloading Case
pref writes "'Canada's music industry can't force Internet service providers to identify online music sharers, a Federal Court judge has ruled.' They wanted the Internet service companies like Sympatico, Rogers and Shaw to give them the real identities of the individuals so they could sue them for copyright infringement. They were seeking a court order requiring the companies to provide the information. But they didn't get it, so the Internet companies don't have to identify their clients and the music companies can't proceed with their lawsuits.""
Another Source
This ruling not only means that the CIRA can't get user information from the ISPs, but that file swapping in Canada does not even infringe on copyright - it's completely legal.
If you're Canadian, that means a big weight off your shoulders, for now.
It's not a "downloading" case, it's an "uploading" (distribution) case. Downloading is legal in Canada.
Specifically, from the Judge's ruling: "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/31/canada/downlo ad_court040331
Contains a few links to older information about the story and whatnot.
~jaraxle
So this is what happens when you have tech-literate judges! Where can we get some from?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The Canadian Press version of the story really slaps it to the record industry. Quite a different focus to it. Have to read all ofthem and boil them down to get the real facts.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Two other newsfeeds are carrying the story as well -- both say essentially the same thing, but CBC has some related stories that may be worth reading: The Toronto Star and CBC
IANAL, but I believe this comes from the quirk in Canadian law that you may make copies of something for yourself quite legally, just not for others. Since the people sharing aren't making the copies, it's legal.
In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada: :)
(Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html
It seemed relavant
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
Yup, it's legal to download, but redistribution is still a no-no. So you have to force your client software into a 'leech-only' setting to remain within the law.
;)
Still, this doesn't mean Canadians will be able to get off scott free when it comes to downloading music and other media. The storage media levies that get put in place may be quite substantial, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a "study" result in a claim that people that use greater than X amount of bandwidth a month are more likely to be pirating and therefore should incur additional levies.
On the plus side, Canadians are less likely to be robbed at gunpoint for their iPod full of tunes.
I've been saying for a while in comments here on /. that leaving an open share (what the CRIA would refer to as uploading) would not necessarily constitute copyright infringement.
According to the Globe and Mail, the judge stated ""The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution"
This is a huge win for the Canadian public if it stands on appeal as Canadians will be legally able to download, and to have music available in shared directories, allowing both uploading and downloading.
This analogy is a direct comparision with another case just a few weeks ago where Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body for Ontario lawyers, had a photocopier in their library...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
How long can Canada do this before they get pressured to follow in their oppressive neighbors' lead?
... who's oppressive now?
I'm sorry
Canadian broadcasting law includes Canadian content restrictions. Fully 35% of all music broadcast on Canadian radio must be CanCon, meaning at least two of the composer, performer, recording venue, and lyric writer must be Canadian. For television the fraction is 50%.
Sounds pretty benign, until you realize that it is therefore illegal for US stations to broacast in Canada, which includes satellite broadcasts. It is illegal to receive US-based satellite signals in Canada, and doing so could result in a visit from the RCMP and confiscation of your satellite equipment. All this for simply watching HBO, MTV, or even the Superbowl commercials (local stations rebroadcasting the Superbowl in Canada substitute their own ads).
In spite of this, Canadian television has yet to produce a domestic hit television series, and virtually all our recording artists flee to the states.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
From the Globe and Mail's version: "The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Justice von Finckenstein said. That means that making it easy to copy isn't the same as copying, and is not copyright violation.
In the globe and mail story, they report that the judge declared that *both* copying and sharing are not copyright violation in Canada ... I've been assuming
it was perfectly alright to download files
in Canada (for personal use); now it appears
to be equally ok to share them
see here where it is stated: "As part of his ruling, the judge found that simply downloading a song or having a file available on peer-to-peer software such as Kazaa doesn't constitute copyright infringement."
What's next in Canada? Free ponies?
i know i'm going to regret this in the morning...
See dear AC, there's this little thing called sarcasm.. I'd look into getting your sarcasm detector fixed
The great-grandparent post is not (only?) an example of sarcasm, it's (mainly?) an example of irony. Irony means saying the opposite of what you mean, whereas sarcasm just means using a cutting tone designed to taunt or hurt. They very often go hand in hand: you'll utter an ironic statement in a sarcastic tone, but knowing and understanding the difference *absoluetely* guarantees you the distinction of most anal pedant in the room (prepending statements with "It's interesting to note that..." also helps).
Damn you Sound and Sense, damn you to hell!
i'll just get my coat now...
#!/usr/bin/english
It was Colin Mochrie who did it.
"Old man yells at systemd"
(2004 FC 488) Decision rendered on March 31, 2004, IN THE MATTER OF BMG Canada Inc. et al v. Jane Doe et al
0 4.pdf
read it here [in pdf]:
http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/T-292-
- Stargate SG1
- Due South
- Degrassi Junior High
- Relic Hunter
- PSI Factor
- Reboot (Be proud!)
- SCTV
- Andromeda
And of course, if you mean "made it past two seasons" as being a domestic hit, there is always:You get the picture. OH wait, maybe a couple of musicicans too then, There are tons of them,but the short list off the top of my head:
There's tons of great Canadian stuff out there. Spend a bit of time on Google before you spew out idiotic comments like that.
Danhm, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but you're quoted in the Toronto Star.
Thestar.com - Court rejects music lawsuit
Enjoy your 15 minutes!