Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Minister Promises to Fix Copyright Law

Mashiki writes "In Canada, we can download Mp3's and their assorted goodness without too much of a hassle, recently the CRIA and their friends lost the court case. Well, it would appear that the new Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherre, has spoken and those words were: 'As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law.'"

12 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. CDR Tax by Alternate+Interior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So does that mean the CD-R Tax disappears?

    /not canadian

  2. If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her... by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That a federal election isn't that far off... And slogans like "Helene Scherre wants to put your kids in prison" look great on T-shirts and the news...

    1. Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her... by Ubernurd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's what I just told her:

      Record labels and stores make most of the money from CD sales in stores while most musicians make their money from CD's and merchendise sold at the side of the stage at live events. Attendance is determined by the popularity of the band and without p2p filesharing, many Canadian bands wouldn't be as well known as they are. Canada is a sparsely populated landmass and it's expensive to tour. mp3's are the best way to reach the most people to boost attendance. So are you truly looking out for my best interests (I'm a Canadian musician with 3 Cd's in stores) or are you catering to the labels lobbying for legislation?

      --
      Stack overflow: pid 352258, proc httpd, addr 0x11f7ffff0, pc 0x12000195c Segmentation fault (core dumped)
  3. The battle rages by ites · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Between governments and the people. Already countries have to compete for the best citizens. Eventually they will realize this means making laws people _like_ as well. I'll postpone my departure to Canada until the dust has settled.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  4. Malcolm has the right idea by silvaran · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fair enough. Some people download music, some people don't. But consider his quote:

    "I think it's a challenge for the industry, to try and find a new way to survive."

    This lends creedence to many a /.'ers comment that the music industry is holding onto a failing business. We don't need them anymore. Despite being wrapped up in the industry by being the winner of a [cheap knock-off] American Idol* contest, he sees the Industry's role as "a new way to survive," as opposed to some criminal challenge that they must overcome.

    My hats off to him, especially given his previous quote, "Whether people download or not, as long as they're listening to music."

    * Yes, I'm a Canadian. Paul Martin has yet to earn my respect.

  5. Wow by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canadian Idol winner Ryan Malcolm expressed skepticism, and suggested the Canadian music biz find a way to live with file-sharers.

    "Whether people download or not, as long as they're listening to music," he said.

    "I think it's a challenge for the industry, to try and find a new way to survive."


    Wow I've never heard that from someone outside of slashdot, now we just need american idol singers to say that, and maybe nsync and britney spears, then MAYBE (doubtfull) people would listen.

    What really kills me is that Bill Mahr (I think he's really funny and I love his show on HBO) calls downloading music stealing just like tons and tons of other people. It isn't stealing, you can't steal something by copying it, I wish more people would understand that. It's copyright infringment, not stealing.

  6. WTF???? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting
    FTA:
    Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled that the Canadian Recording Industry Association didn't prove file-sharing constituted copyright violation - and artists and producers have no legal right to sue those who swap files without paying.
    Okay... copyright means that the author has the absolutely exclusive _rights_ to copy the work and others can only obtain _permission_ to copy the work by authorization from the copyright holder. Fair use, btw, is granted permission by the copyright act and the copyright holder has no choice but to implicitly grant that permission.

    So in what world is putting a file that you do _NOT_ own the copyright on, and have not actually obtained permission from the copyright holder to copy for purposes beyond fair use, in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?

    Downloading copyrighted materials may be perfectly legal in Canada (albeit unethical IMO, since one is aiding another in violating copyright), but it makes no sense to even _BEGIN_ to tolerate uploading whenever and wherever you can positively ascertain that it is occurring.

    1. Re:WTF???? by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So in what world is putting a file ... in a publicly shared folder for others to obtain _not_ a violation of the copyright act?

      The actual ruling read more like an extreme interpretation of "plausible deniability". Basically, while we geeks might laugh at the idea of "accidentally" leaving files in a shared directory, the masses of computer users often really don't understand the difference between what makes the choice of where to keep their music legal or illegal. Additionally, as several of the RIAA's suits showed, some people believe that paying for Kazaa means they have paid for access to the music.

      Sounds stupid? Sure, to us. But if the majority of people doing this honestly do not understand whether or not they have broken the law, the law becomes essentially unenforceable. As one possible Devil's Advocate situation, I can imagine someone installing Kazaa for some random legal purpose, then deciding to store all their own legally ripped music in the directory Kazaa conveniently made for them.


      Downloading copyrighted materials may be perfectly legal in Canada (albeit unethical

      Actually, I'd disagree about the "unethical". Canada has really quite high taxes on all blank recording media, a sort of "we assume you'll copy our stuff, so get your money in the blanks" approach to piracy. Thus, since the punishment comes built-in to the media itself (whether or not they use it to pirate music doesn't change the "tax"), you could reasonably call it perfectly moral to go ahead and commit a crime already paid for.

  7. Sharing's legal, distribution ain't... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The key part of the Canadian ruling was that sharing files is perfectly legal. They didn't say distributing was.

    Basically, if you leave a copy machine in a room full of copyrighted books, no copyright violation has been comitted. Now, that copy machine could certainly be used in infriging ways, and it can also be used in a few ways that are okay under fair use. But if the machine just sits there and nobody uses it at all... then there's no way there's any infinging use could have happened.

    Translated to the digital world, a server that is offering files up for download can't infringe any copyright until somebody actually accesses the files to make an illegal copy. And this brings up a Catch 22 for the "copyright police"... see, in order to actually prove that there was a download they either have to either intercept a download in progress (good luck doing that...) or they have to initiate a download themselves, but whoops... if the copyright owner tries to download their own work, they can't possibly infringe on themselves!

    So, basically, there's a problem in the law that's driving the "copyright police" crazy... short of the copyright pirate confessing, how are they gonna prove that an actual violation took place?

  8. Re:No power. by janbjurstrom · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The bottom line is that we pay levies now to download music, and the music industry shouldn't be able to make us pay levies and buy music.

    This is very bizarre, isn't it. In my country, alcohol is treated in this way: artificially high taxes (meant, in this case, to keep consumption down - for national health reasons, they say), and laws against making your own (for the same reasons, manage consumption).

    Ok, the analogy might not be perfect - but shall we treat music as a barely legal drug?

    --
    668.5
  9. Re:Gee... by Phekko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Haven't you ever heard of price fixing? This should be something along the same lines ;)

    From the beginning of CD times, the price to manufacture a CD record has gone down all the time. Yet I haven't witnessed a single price drop in CD prices. Somehow the laws of supply and demand don't work in the record industry and I fail to see how this is not a monopoly/cartel. Think about it: Same companies all over the world. About the same price levels everywhere, regardless of record company or country.

    Yes, I do believe politicians are indeed "fixing" things for the record industry. What else is new? Recording industry is just too powerful. The real question is what to do about it. My ignorant answer is that bands should become independent entreprenours and forget about the record companies altogether. 100% is a lot more than 5% or 10% even if you lower your prices a bit. I don't know what the current percentage of profits for the bands is but I do believe some the OSS principles could be applied to the music industry and the rest would be pretty simple to work out with common sense. Or then I'm puffing on the wrong ciggie again.

    --

    Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
  10. My Letter to Ms. Scherrer by Kwil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Her email address: Scherrer.H@parl.gc.ca
    Paul Martin's email: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

    Honourable Ms. Scherrer;

    I have heard your recent comments about seeking to change the Copyright Act.
    I would urge you to consider very carefully what steps are taken in any changes to this act. As the act stands, Canadians pay a levy on
    recordable media, money from which specifically goes to the music industry in compensation for supposed lost revenues.

    As such if the law is changed, I would also expect any media levies to be immediately lifted, as the proper method for handling any cases
    of copyright infringement would then fall to the music industry and the legal system of Canada, and not to a discriminatory levy applied
    to the majority of law-abiding citizens.

    Beyond this, the issue of whether revenues are lost at all is entirely debatable, as you can see in this story from the Washington Post
    citing a study done by two university researchers specializing in economics:
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story& u=/washpost/ 20040330/tc_washpost/a34300_2004mar29

    I realize that I am not of your riding, but I have been a Liberal voter for many years now, even though I live in Calgary, Alberta. I
    am probably one of the few Liberal voters here.

    However, this issue of copyright is a very important one to me because those countries that address the issue properly stand to be at the
    fore-front of the information economy. Limiting information flow to prop up business models that simply are no longer feasible is not the
    way to go about this. While I do not support the policies of the Conservatives, your actions on this issue will certainly be enough to
    determine whether I decide to place my vote in a party other than the Liberals in the coming election.

    I do not feel that I am alone.

    Thank you for your time.

    Name & Address Stuff

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze