Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Music Industry Loses In Canadian Downloading Case

Posted by timothy on from the land-of-the-free-once-removed dept.

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.""

23 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. Canadians Are Evil by monstroyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course Canada, a socialist country harboring terrorists, would have a judge corrupt enough to *not* allow the law to break down the doors (and backs) of pirates. The whole country is a cesspool of leftist anti-american pot smoking jocks. Half their salaries taxed and for what? Medicare, Infrastructure, Social Programs, and Freedom? Give me some good old fashioned blatant class differences based on race any day of the week. We need to buckle down and attack these northern communists ASAP. Axis of evil anyone? Downloading music is the first step to the downfall of America, we must stop them at all costs. I have a gun and i'm on my way!

    A better CAPTCHA solution?
    Sunday March 14, @02:10PM
    Pending

    To CAPTCHA or not to CAPTCHA?
    Saturday March 13, @06:12PM
    Pending

    Why Don't I Have a Girlfriend?
    Saturday February 07, @10:22PM
    Pending

    1. Re:Canadians Are Evil by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh please... we are not *jocks*.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:Canadians Are Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, and those left-wing pinkos have a LIBERAL government! It's right there in the title "Liberal Party of Canada"! They don't even deny it, much less try to hide it, as any sane people should.

      And right on our continent, too! How can we allow this to stand?

  2. Hooray! by Vargasan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hooray for Canada.

    Wait... Which country was the 'Land of the Free' again?

    --
    Putting the romance back into necromancer.
    1. Re:Hooray! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good for Canada! I don't really think it's an ISPs business to get involved in civil matters between outsiders and their clients. If I ran an ISP in this day and age I would keep my radius and/or DHCP logs for 24-48 hours. If RIAA can't subpoena me in that amount of time that's their problem.

      Does anyone know what the outcome of the similar case in the US is? Last time I heard anything the appeals court had reversed the lower court decision -- so RIAA started suing IP addresses (some of which weren't in the US as I recall). Was there any resolution to this or is it still in litigation?

      As an aside I don't really think it's the business of an ISP to hide their customers when they break the law either. I just think RIAA should be held to a higher burden of proof then just giving a judge (or a clerk) an IP address and getting the name of that customer. They should actually have to prove that IP address was engaged in illegal activities. Does anyone here really think they can do that for each and every file sharer? If this was held to a real burden of proof these cases would stop tomorrow.

      I wish somebody would have the backbone to actually fight one of these instead of rolling over and settling. It's basically going to come down to "He said"/"She said". Sure RIAA says I was sharing files -- can they prove it with the testimony of a neutral third party? Somebody they are paying to find people on P2P networks hardly qualifies as neutral.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It goes much farther than reported here. I have just heard the details on TV.

      It seems that what most music downloaders do is perfectly legal here in Canada. The only limitation is that the download must be for the user's own use.

      Futher, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE MUSIC INDUSTRY TO PROVE THAT YOUR INTENTION WAS TO DOWNLOAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL RESALE!!!

      THEY NOT ONLY HAVE TO CATCH YOU DOWNLOADING, THEY HAVE TO CATCH YOU SELLING!!!

      Don't you wish that the USA had civilised laws like that?

    3. Re:Hooray! by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a network admin for an ISP, I can say that SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS REASON I delete logs after 5 days. When the local police or FBI calls asking if we have logs for a certain period of time I happily say "Nope, we delete logs after 5 days" and send 'em packing. I can't afford to have any of my servers taken for evidence. 5 days of logs is just enough to deal with the trivial issues that commonly arise, and just short enough that no government agency will be asking me for them (ain't beaurocracy grand)

      Keeping the anonymity of our clients is one of the few luxuries that an ISP has left. If I began handing out my customers names to ever government agency that demanded them, this ISP would go out of business quickly. Who wants an ISP that will sell them down the river? Word of mouth spreads quickly, and I like my job!

      I figure, it's none of my business what you do with your connection. As long as you don't attack my infrastructure I won't stop you. If you get caught doing something illegal, I didn't help catch you. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

      Until they pass a law requiring me to keep these logs, I'll continue to delete them.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
  3. That's so sad! by neiffer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was hoping to get sued in Canada instead of the States. After the exchange rate, I was hoping to pay about $0.78 per song, beating the iTunes price!! :)

  4. Go after the IP by grafikhugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is to stop them from suing the IP number and using the court case as a means to identify the user? Didn't the RIAA have to take that aproach after losing a similair lawsuit ?

    --
    The Surgeon General says sigs are bad for me.
  5. Error in Title by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not a "downloading" case, it's an "uploading" (distribution) case. Downloading is legal in Canada.

  6. Re:Don't even think it by jemartin · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to the CBC, the Judge ruled that file sharing is within the bounds of Canadian copyright law.

    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."

  7. Favourite qoute from a similar article by oblivionboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a related article from canoe.ca , the judge was qoute as saying,"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service,"

    Doesn't this analogy actually make more sense, than alot of the analogies to "theft" that the record industry has thrown out?

    On the other hand, it may not be that valid, because to actually photocopy an entire book would be prohibatively expensive. Where as with P2P whether you download an entire album or just one song its the same cost. Free.

  8. Other newsfeeds by damian.gerow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Don't celebrate yet. by Liselle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well, I RTFA (someone reply with "You must be new here" for your free +5 Funny), and it doesn't look to be a cause for celebration. It seems as if they didn't present compelling enough evidence to the judge.
    "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies onto shared directories on their computers which were accessible by other computer users via an online download service," the judge wrote.
    I'll wager that once the Canadian recording industry gets its wagons in a circle, they are going to try again. Regrettably, one failure won't stop them.
    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:Don't celebrate yet. by chimpo13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      someone reply with "You must be new here" for your free +5 Funny

      Okay, I'm game. You must be new here.

      I'll turn off my karma bonus (all due to goatse links), and see what happens.

      --
      riding round the world on an old motorcycle
    2. Re:Don't celebrate yet. by JohnWiney · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  10. Judge says "no copyright infringement" by thirty-seven · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Even more significant, in my opinion, is that the judge in this case said the reason why he wouldn't give a court order for the ISPs to release names is that he didn't consider this copyright infringement.

    Specifically, he said:

    "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."

    To me, this sounds like he's saying that standard P2P file sharing is not copyright infringement. It sounds like as long don't actively upload the file to someone else, or personally authorize them to download it from you, then its OK.

    --

    Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

  11. Re:So wait a minute by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Legal access to addictive drugs

    What, you cannot buy cigarettes where you live?

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
  12. How to apply as a skilled worker immigrant by Gord.ca · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada:
    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html
    It seemed relavant :) (Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)

    --
    The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
  13. summary is not really accurate by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you.

    Reading the story, we see that this is indeed the case. The ISPs weren't compelled to release the IDs because the music companies had not shown sufficient evidence that a copyright violation had occured. If they had shown sufficient evidence, the ISPs probably would have had to cough up the names.

  14. Re:In that case... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In that case you might be the one breaking the law. Where I live, any ISP is required by law to keep such logs for at least a month

    Well I worked in the ISP business for three years and we never heard of such a law. Of course we kept our logs for a longer period of time then that but we were never subpoenaed for them.

    I wonder what would happen if you just ignored their initial e-mail subpoena request the way AOL used to ignore their abuse mailbox. By the time they get around to mailing you a certified letter hopefully your logs will have expired and they are SOL.

    Sorry, but as a network admin I have better things to do then research my clients for RIAA when they haven't even won any sort of lasting judgment saying they have the right to this information.

    If law enforcement comes knocking and tells me that one of my clients threatened to kill the President or blow up the school then that's quite another story (somebody's life might be in danger).

    But if RIAA wants me to spend a couple hours digging though my logs then they can pay me my usual consulting rate to do it. And they will agree to indemnify me in the event that they lose their case saying they have the right to this information and my client(s) that I turned over decide to sue me. Otherwise they can go to hell.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  15. Re:Woo! Proxy Time by Br!an+of+Paco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/03/31/downloa d_court040331 Sounds to me like uploading's legal too.

  16. obligatory Rick Mercer apology by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

    On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

    I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

    I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

    I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

    I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

    I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.

    I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna' have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was
    different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

    And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly
    veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

    Thank you.