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.'"

Comments

CDR Tax

[Alternate Interior]

So does that mean the CD-R Tax disappears?

/not canadian

Re:CDR Tax

[Barbarian]

Of course it won't.

Re:CDR Tax

[epiphani]

Why exactly is this rated +4 Funny? In canada, we pay a levy (not a tax, theres a difference) on our blank media that goes towards those music industries whiners. If they plan on making Copyright law such that Downloading becomes illegal, then fuck me paying extra for the CDs that I use for lagitimate uses.

Re:CDR Tax

[AndroidCat]

Of course there's a difference between a levy and a tax. A tax would go into the same government General Account that all taxes do, but the levy goes to CRIA.

Re:CDR Tax

[guiscard]

Does protecting 'Canadian Heritage' mean just no downloading Bryan Adams and Celine Dion mp3s?

Re:CDR Tax

[Colymbosathon ecplec]

I notice that whenever a government makes a tax or levy on something, bootleggers, smugglers, and others (like cops, lawyers, judges, et. al) profit. Other than ordinary citizen made criminals by laws and regulation, not a damn thing is changed.

Re:CDR Tax

[Canadian1729]

You also pay a levy (not a tax) when you buy tires for you car to pay for its eventual recycling. That money just ends up added to the federal tax coffers and your tires get dumped in a landfill.

The sick thing is the liberals will still win.

Re:CDR Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't go away for a very simple reason:

The levy had nothing to do with the legality of the piracy in the first place.

The chronology was: levy, court ruling, minister's comments.

Now as for the court ruling, it doesn't exactly mean as much as its made out to. Check out the posting from Mike Jenkinson on the subject at http://www.the-newsroom.com (his "anti-blog" doesn't have day-to-day links, so you'll have to scroll).

Regardless, the levy already was in place when there was a "legitimate/illegitimate" discrepancy in the popular version, so it doesn't make a difference. Making a cassette tape of baby's first words for grandma still suffers the same levy as making an MP3-CD of 900 songs.

Re:CDR Tax

[Trepalium]

Don't forget the middlemen. I think the only ones that have benefitted from the CPCC's levy have been the middlemen at the CPCC. Have they sent out those cheques to the artists yet? Or did they need to fly their entire staff back out to France to attend another conference on intellectual property?

Re:CDR Tax

[txviking]

Because democraty is out and feudalism is in. Now it is just time to name the principles of today's feudalitistic system. I would say politicians and Managers of multi-national company are pretty high on the list. The other question ... How will the revolution against this kind of feudalism look like??? I hope it will not get as bloody as the French revolution or the US Independence...

Re:CDR Tax

[Jarnis]

Probably not.

In Finland we pay similar levy, and nobody is talking about removing it even as they propose completely moronic new Copyright law based on the recent EU directive that, for example, makes it illegal to circumvent a copy protection to make a legal backup copy.

They want to have their cake *and* eat it too. And politicians are too clueless to stop it.

Re:CDR Tax

[His Shadow]

It's not a troll. It's a fair comment. There is no way any government will willingly give up any revenue stream. We Canadians now pay a surcharge on the hard drives of devices like the iPod, which, like the CD-R tax, assumes that the average consumer is a copyright criminal and must be fined in advance. Any changes to the copyright law that prevent any copying for personal use will not be used to abolish the surcharges, as the average consumer will still be considered a criminal who should be fined accordingly. Only a class action suit IMO, would get rid of the tax, but no consumer will ever be reimbursed.

Re:CDR Tax

[mcheu]

There is no way any government will willingly give up any revenue stream. We Canadians now pay a surcharge on the hard drives of devices like the iPod, which, like the CD-R tax, assumes that the average consumer is a copyright criminal and must be fined in advance.

Except that the "CD-R Tax" isn't technically a tax. If it were, it might actually be easier to swallow (though not much easier). It's a levy. It's collected by our government "on behalf of the music industry" and while government likely gets a percentage for collecting it, the majority of the money actually goes to the music industry. It's a revenue source, alright, but it's going towards padding the music labels' bottom line, not funding social programs.

Re:CDR Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

" Because democraty is out and feudalism is in. "

It's actually a battle between socialism and libertarianism. Libertarians want to end socialistic practices such as taxing CD-Rs and giving the money to the music industry. However, they also want stronger legislation against copying cds. Socialists prefer things the way they are in Canada.

And this is why voting is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Even for Canadians.

Re:And this is why voting is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how many seats the liberals hold outside of Ontario and Quebec? Not bloody many! There hasn't been a liberal elected in Calgary since Trudeau's NEP, and precious few in Alberta. Trudeau dies and we have to listen to a bunch of eastern bastards moaning about what a saint he was. Those same eastern bastards elected the corrupt twits who are pork barelling their way to another election. Heck, out here we even get the election results before we've had a chance to vote! You have no idea how important your right to vote feels when everything is decided before you get a chance to vote! Don't talk to us about the importance of voting! We'll vote for anyone *but* the liberals yet again, and guess who'll wind up running the show yet again?

Man, I really hope the western separation thing takes off. If you thought keeping Quebec in the country was a tough sell, man you have another thought coming. Sooner or later people out west are going to realize that the benefits of confederation all flow one way, and that's the same way as the transfer payments! Quebec, by comparison, were the ones receiving our money. That's why they stayed.

Re:And this is why voting is important

[BrainInAJar]

Because of people like me who think that there's more to confederation than personal benifit.

Personally, I'm a Canadian first, and the province I came from has nothing to do with anything. If the west seperates I'm on the first plane to Toronto.

Re:And this is why voting is important

[Malc]

And who should I vote for who'll oppose this? The NDP? HAHAHAHAHA. That'd be like cutting off my nose despite my face.

Re:And this is why voting is important

[jbr439]

If the west separates, it will be because of Toronto. :-)

Re:And this is why voting is important

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Alberta is only prosperous for one reason: oil. THat is what seperates you. If oil prices drop, or if oil is replaced with something else, you won't be so rich.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Ah, good.

[trudyscousin]

My faith in human (read: political) nature has been restored!

If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[barc0001]

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...

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Typh]

I think I will remind her, since she is a public official, contact information for her office and her email address were not that difficult to find. I sure hope that this information does not fall into the hands of hoards of Internet users.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Ubernurd]

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?

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Sven The Space Monke]

Or, if you want to let her know what you think personally, you can e-mail her here.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Ubernurd]

Just an ammendment to clarify my views:

While I support p2p, I think there are consequences that people should be aware of. The record companies will lose money as a result of slashing prices to compete. This will lead to them representing fewer acts and those will be only the ones that are safe bets (the heavily produced Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, Enrique Iglesias, etc) and less of the risky (read: interesting) ones. Diversity in record stores will suffer as p2p flourishes. If you want an actual packaged CD of a band that is more intertesting than the aforementioned acts, you're eventually going to have to actually go out to their show and buy it from them yourself. I personally think that's a great thing. Supporting live music, giving more money to musicians and less to distributors is all good in my books. If you're a proponent of p2p filesharing as I am, don't later whine that there's nothing good in the stores.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Canadian1729]

I've already emailed my MP to say just that. You can go here and enter your postal code to get your MP's email address.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Ubernurd]

s it expensive to tour in Canada, or is it just not relatively worth it, because there are only about 8 "major" cities (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Ottawa)..

Don't forget about the mritimes, too. There are a few big cities there and they're VERY receptive to anyone from outside the maritimes who tours there because they're kinda isolated in some ways. But yeah, a "big" city in the maritimes isn't like a "big" city in ON or PQ so I can see how they didn't make your list.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Cyberllama]

The record companies will lose money as a result of slashing prices to compete. This will lead to them representing fewer acts and those will be only the ones that are safe bets (the heavily produced Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, Enrique Iglesias, etc) and less of the risky (read: interesting) ones. Diversity in record stores will suffer as p2p flourishes. If you want an actual packaged CD of a band that is more intertesting than the aforementioned acts, you're eventually going to have to actually go out to their show and buy it from them yourself. I personally think that's a great thing. Supporting live music, giving more money to musicians and less to distributors is all good in my books. If you're a proponent of p2p filesharing as I am, don't later whine that there's nothing good in the stores.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Firstly, since cd sales do not appear to have suffered ANY ill effects in the 5 or so years that mp3s have been available to the public at large through file swapping services, I think its highly unlikely that the music industry will feel compelled to slash prices.

But more to the point, I think that the very bands you mentioned are the ones more likely to suffer as a result of fileswapping. Independant bands and lesser known names get exposure and sell more cds, while the big names who put out overmarketted crap are the ones who are downloaded.

The marketting may have convinced you that you have to have the new Britney spears album, but why ask mommy for the 15 dollars when you can just as easily download it. Meanwhile nearly all the cd's I've bought in the past few years have been of groups I've NEVER heard played on the radio and never would have heard of at all had I not downloaded a song beforehand.

If anything, I think the reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard is not because it hurts cd sales (we already know otherwise) but because it works against their efforts to create those "safe bets" you mentioned. Suddenly using media monopolies to ensure that the latest piece of crap the backstreet boys put out is played constantly on the radio doesn't have the effect it used to . . .

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[microbox]

About 100 new CDs were released in St John's (pop 150,000) in 2003. Almost none of them were supported by major record labels...

ergo

Diversity in record stores will flourish without major record labels.

100 CDs were produced because you can now record a CD on a government grant, and then pay a 3rd party to print it. For about $4000 you can set up your own studio (providing you already have the space). Some local stores happily retail the CDs, with the exception of Walmart and Zellers and similar. The big boyz only deal with other big boyz, and try to keep the independent artist out of the loop.

Try asking Walmart to carry your CD... on the one hand they'll tell you they try to support local industries, but when it comes down to it, they only buy from Handlemans, a major distributor. Handlemans will take their cut, and sell your CD if you meet their requirements, which independent artists invariably can't.

The major players want all the profits for themselves, and are manipulating the media and the rules. Unless you've already made it, a major record label won't do a thing for you unless you sign over all your IP. They then get you in a debt trap, that even TLC couldn't get out of with 10million CD sales world wide. When they learn the truth, most people are horrified by the raw deal that artists get.
Think about exactly why Canadians need record labels. What's the point? All they do is advertise and push products, and screw musicians out of a fair share of the profits.

p2p hurts record labels, well, that's what they say. Personally, I think that the real damage p2p does to record labels is far less than they say, but quantifiable none the less. p2p is good for many artists... most artists make money by having people pay $10 to see them. If 100 people come, then you've made $750 after you pay the sound guy.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[Ubernurd]

Firstly, since cd sales do not appear to have suffered ANY ill effects in the 5 or so years that mp3s have been available to the public at large through file swapping services, I think its highly unlikely that the music industry will feel compelled to slash prices.

Good point. However: WalMart, iTunes, Starbucks.. as these things(*) start to gain momentum and p2p downloading becomes even more popular than it already is, I think we're going to start seeing a very slow erosion of prices in stores and a shift that will put power back in the hands of musicians. I never said it was happening already, nor did I say it would happen overnight. All I said, really, was that downloading will have an effect on the CD sales industry. I believe it's quite a positive one for consumers and for musicians.

The record companies, however, already have a very high markup so they can absorb a bit of a loss pretty easily which will slow the decline in prices as well.

If anything, I think the reason the music industry fights file sharing so hard is not because it hurts cd sales (we already know otherwise) but because it works against their efforts to create those "safe bets" you mentioned.

Another excellent point and I stand corrected. Hopefully, this will cause the record companies to start promoting the bands people are downloading and not the crap they tell us we want to hear. For the record companies to change their ways will take a massive revolution.

(*) Yes, I am aware that these things are paid services, but they will still have an effect on record stores if not record labels.

Re:If you're in Canada (like me) reminder her...

[ArtDent]

Or you could not be totally combative, and maybe then she'll actually listen to your point of view.

I'm currently writing a letter in which I first reassure her of my support of Canadian artists and my desire to see their copyrights respected, then describe my concerns with her statement.

I talk about the potential of p2p as a new medium of communication and distribution and the vested interest of the content industries in having such channels outlawed. I remind her of how these multinational media conglomerates have wielded their considerable power via campaign contributions in the US, and of the bad legislation that has resulted. I contrast that with the much more cautious and considerate approach that has so far been taken in Canada, and urge her continue in that course.

I remind her that copyright law is a balance, and that it his her duty to protect the interests of the public in that balance. I implore her to become informed about both sides of the issue, suggesting she read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" and pointing her to the free download.

Finally, I thank her for her time, and express that this is a very important issue for me, one that will weigh heavily in whom I chose to support in future elections.

The battle rages

[ites]

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.

Re:The battle rages

[killjoe]

Countries don't compete for the best citizens. Most countries worth living in have very strict immigration laws. IT's the other way around. COuntries have to put barriers to keep the unwashed masses out.

Re:The battle rages

[papaZen]

Given that the W won't answer questions without his Papa's puppeteer Cheney beside him I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and left (with my 3 degrees) already... ...but not for Canada :-)

Malcolm has the right idea

[silvaran]

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.

Re:Malcolm has the right idea

[NanoGator]

"This lends creedence to many a /.'ers comment that the music industry is holding onto a failing business. "

This doesn't really negate your point, but I did want to offer a small correction here. The business itself is relatively sound. People want music. The RIAA and similar organizations provide the music. What's in danger is not this business, it's the distribution of it. Selling entire albums at a premium price is dying. That doesn't mean the music industry is going to go with it, though.

If they're smart enough to embrace the change, rapidly, they'd already have the artists, money, and channels to get it off the ground so fast that somebody else wouldn't be able to easily worm their way in.

Again, not trying to negate your point here. I just don't think the RIAA's going to disappear any time soon unless they keep suing their customers.

Re:Malcolm has the right idea

[Kierthos]

If we're talking about someone making just over minimum wage working in a music store, yeah, that's a real job. If we're talking about the sound technicians who do the grunt work in the production of the music, yeah, that's a real job.

If we're talking about the corpulent assholes who sit at the top of the company, who actually make no music, who add nothing to the value of the CD, and who take the vast majority of the artist's record sale income, and yet whine about p2p (and the apparent loss of funds to such that makes them unable to purchase that ruby-encrusted crack pipe), then no, that's not a real job.

Kierthos

Re:Malcolm has the right idea

[Kierthos]

Oh, come on. According to the RIAA shills, p2p software is cutting heavily into their profits. But I don't recall seeing any music execs out begging for loose change. And I daresay most of the sound technicians could probably find similar work doing radio/tv/movie sound production (in fact, some of them probably do this as well). And hey, if the music industry does go south, it means that Britney, Christina, Beyonce, and all the other pop-tarts can do porno movies.

And independent musicians (by this I mean those that are not distributing through the RIAA, whether then have 'made it' or not) will stay around regardless of whether the big music companies go under or not.

Kierthos

Re:Malcolm has the right idea

[top_down]

This is just capitalism at work: a new technology has arisen that is much more efficient that the old one and so many now unproductive jobs disappear. This is a drama for the people involved but the ability to switch to new ways of production despite heavy resistance from vested interests is what makes a capitalist economy special and so succesful.

The real problem is not that jobs disappear, but that few new jobs are created because of the monopoly copyrights give. It makes it hard to start new productive economic activities.

Re:Malcolm has the right idea

[Some Bitch]

Despite being wrapped up in the industry by being the winner of a [cheap knock-off] American Idol* contest

Don't blame the yanks for this one, it's all our (the British) fault.

Gee...

[The Master Control P]

I wonder what she means by "Fix" when talking to the recording industry. I have a feeling that it would coincide perfectly with "break" to everyone else.

The real criminals don't break laws; They write them.

Re:Gee...

[Phekko]

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.

No power.

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

This is just one minister. Whether or not she can pass any bills is up for debate. 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. They can't screw us twice without someone noticing. Recently someone noticed too.

Re:No power.

[saforrest]

This is just one minister. Whether or not she can pass any bills is up for debate.

But Martin can, and I suspect he's in favour of her position, particularly given his appearance to coincide with her statement.

I had to say I expected something like this, but the urgency the government feels towards it does not hake me happy. But the emphatic "we're on it" pronouncements seem to be standard operating procedure for the Martin Liberals.

Of course, it would be even worse under the Conservatives, so what can you do?

Re:No power.

[janbjurstrom]

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?

Re:No power.

[wrenkin]

Canadian ministers are legislators. Ministers must be members of the House of Commons (or Senators, but that's rare nowadays.) The executive branch of government limited to the Governor General, who gives royal assent to bills that have been passed by both chambers (and little else.)

As a member, the minister can certainly introduce a bill for consideration (indeed, in practice only bills introduced by ministers get passed, as there are few free votes in Canada.)

Wow

[Zakabog]

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.

And as citizens of Canada...

[heironymouscoward]

We will, as quickly as possible, remove minister Helene Scherre from office.

(/me dreams of being Canadian just for a while)

Re:And as citizens of Canada...

[dghcasp]

And while we're at it, Bring Back Shelia!

Disclaimer: Actually, I voted for Joe Clark, back before the rednec^h^h^h^h^h^hreform party took over the tories.

Re:And as citizens of Canada...

[PunkPig]

I'd like to ammend your proposal. - Remove the position of Heritage Minister - Take away the CRTC's power to regulate content

WTF????

[mark-t]

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.

Re:WTF????

[Barbarian]

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?


In the same world where a library can place a photocopier in the same room as books without getting sued. In fact, the judge in this case made that analogy and cited as precedent a case several weeks ago where a law library had been sued.

Re:WTF????

[mark-t]

But tell me, in a library where there is a photocopier amidst thousands of copyrighted books, is the library actually _distributing_ any copyrighted content without authorization? While it's arguable that they are enabling such action, are they actually participating in it? No? Good. We're on the same page.

But putting a copyrighted file that you have not received permission to distribute in your shared folder *IS* unauthorized distribution, no matter how you slice it. It becomes illegal the moment you publically share the file, even if nobody has yet downloaded it because you have assumed for yourself a right or permission that can only be granted by the copyright holder.

Re:WTF????

[MJOverkill]

Uploading is perfectly fine. The Judge in this case is clarifying the grey area that existed in Canadian copyright laws with regards to file sharing and the Private Copying extension to the Copyright Act. The Private Copying extension to Part 8 of Canada's Copyright Act allows people to make copies of other people's CDs/Tapes/Whatever for their own personal use. The judge is just clarifying the act by saying that file sharing falls under this law. This happens all the time with other laws as new technologies and ideas become mainstream, technologies and ideas that could not have been considered when the law was written. If file sharing had been prominent in Canada when the extension was written, it may have very well been mentioned as being legal (or illegal for that matter) in the Private Copying extension.

Re:WTF????

[pla]

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.

Re:WTF????

[Frostalicious]

But putting a copyrighted file that you have not received permission to distribute in your shared folder *IS* unauthorized distribution, no matter how you slice it.... even if nobody has yet downloaded it

I don't see a significant difference in the photocopier analogy.

Putting a file in your shared folder enables distribution, but it is not in itself distribution. In fact you point that out yourself in that perhaps "nobody has yet downloaded it". If nobody else has it, then it's not distributed.

Just like putting a photocopier in a library enables distribution.

Re:WTF????

[Thing 1]

Ignorance of the law should never be accepted as an excuse to break it.

It would take you several lifetimes to read all the laws of your country, state, county, and city. You are probably violating one of those laws right now. I agree that there are some things that should be obvious, like following the 15 (crash) 10, 10 commandments, but not knowing that, for instance, radar detectors are illegal when you cross the state line and it's not posted shouldn't result in you having to drive over your "radio" but that's what happens.

The system is set up to keep us ignorant. They want there to be more laws than we can ever keep track of, so they can haul us in whenever they choose. A very apt quote which I've been discussing recently if you check my history:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

From "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

Re:WTF????

[mark-t]

It's legal to download period.

What's not legal is to distribute copies without permission.

Re:WTF????

[Sven The Space Monke]

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?

The world where Canadians have been paying 21 cents per blank CD bought (regardless of intended use) since 1997 for the right to share music with our friends ("non-commercial use"). The music industry faught long and hard to get this levy, and to get it, they gave up the right to bring suit against people who shared their music. Granted, at the time, Napster didn't exist and broadband was something very few had, so music sharing was still swapping CDs. To compensate for the rise in broadband and p2p usage, the levy was recently increased and expanded. Want to buy an iPod in Canada? Get ready to fork over another $25 to the levy. It was also proposed to impose the same levy on any hard drive, not just "permanently embedded non-removable memory".

Re:WTF????

[TC (WC)]

Fair use, btw, is granted permission by the copyright act and the copyright holder has no choice but to implicitly grant that permission.

There's no fair use under Canadian copyright law. The Copyright Act has exceptions provided for what it termed 'fair dealing'. Canadian courts have specifically refused to use examples from American case law with regards to fair use, as the provisions under the two different schemes are different in fundamental ways.

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?

The argument that was used is that placing files in shared folders is passive. Distribution, which is what is prohibited, is active. It seems to be comparable to someone who sends out a list of CDs they have, and then sends out copies to whomever wants them, but with a computer automating these steps on the user's behalf. This finding is contrary to what I assumed the courts would find on the issue, but I can at least understand the argument in this case.

Re:WTF????

[phulshof]

Please realise that at least 95% of the Kazaa users have no idea of what they're doing, and do not realise that by default downloading automatically means making them available. Plausible deniability would work fine for most except computer science majors, because they can claim they thought they were just downloading material (legal in Canada and the Netherlands), and didn't know they were, under the default settings of Kazaa, doing something illegal.

Share and Care

[amigoro]

To share or not to share, that is the question.

There is no doubt that the singers and other supporting personnel do need to make money from their talents. For this to happen, people have to buy their music. But when people share music collections on P2P services, the artistes are, without doubt, robbed of their fruits of labour.

However, at the same time, it must be noted that more c90% of proceedings from CD sales go to the record labels. P2P sharing hits more the big record labels than the actual artistes.

A P2P system where the artistes get paid per song downloaded would be an ideal solution.

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."

The vast majority of artistes vehemently support electronic means of music distribution over the CD method. They have been ripped off by record labels for too long. Sadly, the United States of America, has now become United Corporations of America, and all laws dealing with P2P file sharing has been enacted according to the dictates of the rich record labels and their lobby groups. The wishes of the artistes are hardly ever taken into consideration. It'll be a sad day indeed if the much more socially progressive nation of Canada follows in the footsteps of her corporacratic Southern Neighbour.

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Re:Share and Care

[shark72]

"However, at the same time, it must be noted that more c90% of proceedings from CD sales go to the record labels."

For what it's worth, it's a little different down here in the US. A CD that you see in the store for US$12.50 was sold into distribution for about $8.00 -- so about a third of the price you pay goes to the channel.

You're correct that the record label collects that roughly $8.00 at which the CD is sold into the sales channel, but in most cases, 100% of that $8.00 ends up going to somebody's salary, whether they work at the CD pressing plant or they're the engineer behind the board or they're the graphic artist that did the artwork. When you phrase it in the form "sales go to the record labels" it may give the impression of going into some vault somewhere. The distribution, sales and marketing of hard goods may be inefficient, but inefficiency != evil.

"The vast majority of artistes vehemently support electronic means of music distribution over the CD method."

Interesting, I didn't know somebody'd taken a poll. Do you have a citation for that statistic? Does that count signed as well as unsigned artists? The A&R guys see so many demo CDs -- from more artists than they could possibly sign -- that I just don't see the math working here.

Good call, except...

[meisenst]

The court decision inspired panic in the Canadian music industry; industry spokesmen were predicting the collapse of copyright control would cause severe financial hardship for people making their living from music.

If only the people making their living weren't suffering at the hands of labels and record companies/associations already, I might even agree with the people on this side (the CRIA) of the fence.

We all know that artists who don't make enough drama or news to get endorsements, major deals and huge publicity, already have a difficult time making their money from their music alone.

Sharing's legal, distribution ain't...

[LostCluster]

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?

Re:Sharing's legal, distribution ain't...

[mark-t]

That's not what's happening here...

Remember it isn't the act of obtaining an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work that is copyright infringement, it is the act of making such copies available to other people in the first place (if you didn't make then available to anyone else, then the copying would fall under the jurisdiction of fair use, and you would be fine).

So putting copyrighted files, whether or not someone else actually bothers to download them, is violation of copyright (unless of course permission to distribute in that fashion has been granted, of course) because you are distributing an unauthorized copy of the work.

An analogy might be a bookstore that photocopies a book without authorization, rebinds it, and puts it on the shelf with a price tag on it. Whether or not someone actually buys that book, the store has committed a copyright violation.

Re:Sharing's legal, distribution ain't...

[LostCluster]

An analogy might be a bookstore that photocopies a book without authorization, rebinds it, and puts it on the shelf with a price tag on it. Whether or not someone actually buys that book, the store has committed a copyright violation.

Nope. The fact that they're on sale at a store clearly shows an intent to profit... but they still won't have actually hit any civil damages until there's actually been a sale.

You can't charge somebody with murder unless the victim is dead. "Attempted murder" is defined as a different crime that gets committed when somebody demonstrates an intent on committing murder but doesn't quite make it due to ineptiude or intervention. You don't just get to throw "attempted" in front of any other crime to create a new crime. "Attempted copyright violation" is not a crime on the books anywhere, yet.

Heritage Minister's background:

[Viking5150]

Her experience/resume doesn't seem to indicate that she might be well versed in the intricacies of the legal system regarding this issue:
Helene Scherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Hate to burst your bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA was passed by Clinton

Senator Disney Hollings is Democrat

so is Hollywood Congressman Rick Bermann

please, get out of your partisan bubble and see the light. its not just one side

If you can't win in court

[Gribflex]

Buy off a minister to change the laws for you.

Just proves that..

[dj245]

This just goes to prove that no matter where you go, the lobbiests own the polititians. It doesn't matter where you live or who you think you have control over. It doesn't even matter if your megaphone is really really loud. If a lobbiest organization has more money than your faction has voters, the lobbiest always wins. So what can you do? Buy a congressman. I say we all pitch in and buy a Wyoming senator. They're worth 1/100 of the senate, and the going rate on a senator is about $20,000, based on some of the stories that have been in the news lately of kickbacks senators send to companies who gave them really small amounts of money.

Just think, our very own Senator! Cash value 1/100 of senate...

Hopefully..

[dj245]

She'll probably name it "The No Child left Beaten to a Bloody Pulp on a Sidewalk Act" and it will get rushed through the parliament.

Or hopefully some smart lawmaker will call it "The Lets All Let the Bloodsucking Record Industry Make Laws For Us Enactment" and it will be pidgeonholed.

Watch Out...

[spoonboy42]

You guys are this close to getting voted off the continent. Yeah, I saw Mexico's confessional the other week, and they're just itchin' to cut you Canucks off.

In all seriousness, for as fun as it is to rip on Canadians, being a (United States of) American myself, in the last few years I've come to appreciate Canada a lot more. Despite the fact that we share so much of our culture (Quebec residents excluded), this only serves to highlight some of the differences in our attitudes and our social and political systems. Sure, Americans find a lot of little things about Canada weird (mounties, mooses, and Manitoba, to name a few), but I think Canadians have been a great check on our sanity as of late. A lot of Americans like myself look to those funny guys up north and think, you know, if they go for public health care and sit out aggressive invasions, there's hope for us, too.

Which brings us to copyright law. The recent ruling seemed an inspiring victory, not necessarily for filesharing, but for users' right to privacy on the Internet. I really hope that all you Canadians out there manage to fend off this current threat. Ideally, I'd like to see Larry Lessig's system, wherein musicians are paid directly a share of general royalties collected based on their popularity (a la ASCAP), implemented somewhere (you could even start funding the royalty pool with the levy on blank CDRs). Who knows, if it works out well enough, maybe we'll even steal the idea (a la Lorne Michaels, Dan Akroyd, Mike Myers, etc.). Good luck, my Canadian friends.

(Just a side note: I'm a Michigander, which is about as close to a half-breed as you can get. If any statements seem incongruous, consider them sufficiently explained.)

My Letter to Ms. Scherrer

[Kwil]

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

Very true.

[TheLink]

Yeah, and the irony is stealing is closer to what the Corporates are doing, because they are reducing the public's access to stuff - either by extending copyright periods (retroactively even) and reducing/removing "fair use".

When you copy something the owner still has full access to the original.

But when you extend a copyright on something that would have entered public domain, the public loses what would have been rightful access to it.

So who are the real thieves?

Pity too many people are too ignorant to see that - they have been intentionally brainwashed by the Corporates - with deceptive terms and phrases like Intellectual Property, Piracy, Copying=Theft.

I've written to my local newspaper regarding this, and they did print it (but naturally the industries concerned have a stronger lobby and voice than I do), maybe more people should write in and educate the rest.

Aboriginals

[manitoulinnerd]

You have the idea of the "Band Card" really F*^Ked up. It is not a method of discrimination. It is voluntary AND the only thing it does is provide benefits. With it an aboriginal can vote for their band leader and which gives them and their culture recognition, and exempts them from paying taxes. It is not genocide. There have been initiatives to relieve this "apartheid" in Canada and they have never been well accepted by the exact population that we are accusingly discriminating against. You should really look into this. There may be problems in Canada and yes even in the aboriginal community but the Band Card is not one of them. Hos is that for a /. rant?

Willl she "fix" the parasitic record companies?

[Hamster Lover]

Let's put it all on the table if we're going to deal with this problem seriously and take a good, hard look at how musicians are compensated from both ends -- producers and consumers.

I have a feeling a lot of record companies would tone down the rhetoric or employ frantic hand waving if their business practices were exposed to some scrutiny. I do not understand why artists haven't brought up the issue of royalties before the Internet and I'd wager the total value of royalties "lost" to file sharing pales in comparison to the amount record companies extort.

Personally, I do not download music from Kazaa and the like, but I have used Puretracks. If services like Puretracks or iTunes existed years ago we might not be in the mess we are now.

Canadian Blank Media Levy info

[_Shorty-dammit]

http://cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

Govts really give me the shits!!!

[cheekyboy]

I hate it immensely when governments LOOSE court cases, and then cry poor baby, and then change the laws, like fuck the law, i mean if they loose, they really can 'force' it so they can win. Part of the court ruling should be that the govt cant then go back and 'fix' the laws. Why have laws, lets have a dictatorship since basically the govt does what it wants to a large extent, until they get voted out but the boys already have their big business deals and friends in high places...

It happens everytime btw, not just about (C) crap, but even minor laws or small so called 'loop holes'.

Rise up!! Revolution be cometh 2012.

Re:Govts really give me the shits!!!

[Thomas Miconi]

You miss the point.

What the courts say is "given current laws, you can / can't do that".

If a government does not like the current state of the law, well, of course they change it ! That's part of their job !

Given this, the rest of your comment amounts essentially to "I'm not allowed to get everything I want for free ergo we live under a dictatorship."

Thomas Miconi

Re:Govts really give me the shits!!!

[kwandar]

"If a government does not like the current state of the law, well, of course they change it ! That's part of their job !"

Correct! And part of our job is to convince Ms. Scherrer that she should change her views if she wants to see her party re-elected.

Join www.criawatch.ca

Catch 22: Release 2.0

[LostCluster]

Copyright Goon: Your honor, we want the ISP to turn over the name of the user who has IP adress 14.34.23.29 because they are sharing "Our Song", which is our copyrighted material on the Internet.
Judge: Okay, how do you know that a computer 14.34.23.29 is committing copyright infingement against your copyrighted material.
Copyright Goon: They're offering our material up for sharing over the StealTheirMusic protocol for anybody to download.
Judge: Okay, can you prove that anybody actually downloaded that material?
Copyright Goon: Yes, because we downloaded "Our Song" from that server.
Judge: Uhm... that's not an unauthorized copy being made if you downloaded your own song. You started the download, you authorized the copy being made.
Copyright Goon: Uhm... okay. Can we search the guys computer to see if there's transfer logs that prove he transfered "Our Song" to somebody else?
Judge: No. You've gotta show that there's been an infigement first. You can't go blindly fishing like that.
Copyright Goon: Can you make the ISP let us get a trace on that IP's outbound traffic so we can look for a transfer?
Judge: No. That's still fishing.
Copyright Goon: But we're sure they're stealing "Our Song" out there. Our sales are down!
Judge: Come back when you've got some proof...

Re:Catch 22: Release 2.0

[davew2040]

After reading this post, I was left more sympathetic for the Copyright Goon. Why, pray tell, is the Judge so hell-bent on ignoring the obvious conclusion?

Re:Catch 22: Release 2.0

[AndroidCat]

You get some unauthorized person to click the download while you watch them with cameras rolling. It's been done before.

Re:Catch 22: Release 2.0

[multipartmixed]

> Why, pray tell, is the Judge so hell-bent on ignoring the obvious conclusion?

Maybe it was his IP number?

Re:Catch 22: Release 2.0

[Darth]

Why, pray tell, is the Judge so hell-bent on ignoring the obvious conclusion?

because criminal law doesnt deal in speculation. It deals in proof. In this case, the record company has no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has happened.

do you really think "it seems likely" is the level of proof that should be required to start invading someone's life?

would that be acceptable if they wanted to invade your privacy?

Calling Concerned Canucks

[nfotxn]

Helene Chalifour herself can be contacted at:

407 Confederation Building
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 995-4995
Fax: (613) 996-8292
Email: scherh@parl.gc.ca

The Canadian Heritage National Headquarters can be contacted at:

Canadian Heritage
25 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0M5
Tel.: (819) 997-0055
Toll-free: 1-866-811-0055
TTY/TDD: (819) 997-3123

Write them a letter and tell them that the country's copyright laws should be altered in favour of the rights of Canadian Citizens and not recording industry associations.

People fail to realize it but we pay in the US too

[Anonymous Coward]

There are identical levvies (well, not in dollar amount but in structure) in the US. We pay money to the RIAA for every blank digital tape and CD sold. We also pay for recording devices which write to those types of media.

Music execs are the real pirates.

[rice_burners_suck]

I'd like to see all of the musicians selling through their own private websites, instead of going through the thieving pirating recording industry, which forces them to sign over their copyrights, decides for them what to promote and what not to, promotes garbage music, overcharges, and pays the artists they pretend to protect about five cents for every fifteen dollar album they sell.

The recording industry should not make artists sign over their copyrights. If the music execs purport to protect the poor artists, then they should do business with these artists without requiring that they sign over anything.

The music execs should stop promoting all the garbage music that they promote. This is the real cause of declining music sales. If the music execs would promote quality music instead of this garbage, they would most likely see increased sales. But instead of doing business wisely and increasing profits through smart management and marketing, they prefer to litigate.

The music execs should stop overcharging for CDs. This is probably the second cause of declining music sales. People simply don't want to pay $20 for an album, and one that contains 1 or 2 good songs and 8 filler tracks to take up space. If the music execs would lower music prices instead of raising them and then wondering why sales decline, they would most likely see increased sales. But instead of doing business wisely and increasing profits through smart management and marketing, they prefer to litigate.

The music execs should pay the artists the larger portion of the pie when it comes to music revenue. If the sale of a fifteen dollar album currently earns the artists about two cents, then that is a very sad situation, and it means that the music execs are the ones screwing the artists over, not those downloading MP3 tracks. The music execs should pay roughly 95% of the profits to the artists, and keep the 5% as their fees. Not the other way around. But instead of doing business wisely and increasing profits through smart management and marketing, they prefer to litigate.

In other words, the pirates are the music execs. But they use P2P users as their scapegoat, blaming them for a reduction in music sales, when the evidence is highly questionable at best, and is probably nonexistant.

MUSIC EXECS: *Y*O*U* ARE THE PIRATES!

Yeah, just like the library

[melikamp]

I think that those who compared the sharing with installing a photocopier in the library are on to something. The trick questions is: what is distribution? IMHO, we should re-evaluate what consitutes a "distribution", given that it became so cheap an simple with the advent of the Internet.

Just like people noted before, when I share a file on a p2p network, I'm not really distributing it. Every downloader had to 1. get a computer 2. get an Internet connection 3. get a p2p client 4. find the file 5. initiate the downloading. Understandably, there's an illusion of a distribution here, because a p2p network beats any library by its size, and all of them put together by its content, but I am still willing to argue that downloaders do more for the "distributing" than the sharers.

Sharing was made possible by a technology that could not be envisioned when the copyright law was created, and we won't get far by suing people who engage in it. A legal change is what we desperatly need: a kind of a copyright law that would allow artists to get paid, while all people are able to share the information in an unrestricted manner, for non-commercial purposes. I'm am of opinion that art will survive even if we go all the way and declare information free, but heck, I'll settle for a voluntary collective licensing scheme too.

Having said all that, the minister seems to be moving in just the opposite direction, but after I've seen RIAA, I'm not surprised anymore...

Re:People fail to realize it but we pay in the US

[Alternate Interior]

We only pay for Audio CDs. Data CDs used as audio CDs don't have that cost.

Re:Slashdot

[zcat_NZ]

I respect "copyright" in the original sense; something about promoting the sciences and useful arts, remember?

I do not respect the disgusting perversion of copyright that greatly restricts new art based on the old (How many of Walt's classic movies are an entirely new storyline and NOT based on fairy tales, legends, or other earlier works? Steamboat Bill Jr, anyone?). Most art, and perhaps all science, builds on what has been done before. To quote Einstein; "If I have seen further than other men, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"

I do not respect the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" (Sonny Bono, etc), a 'copyright' extended so far that any work you see created in your lifetime will not enter the public domain until long after you die.

And I do not respect the DMCA, a disgusting perversion of 'copyright' that restricts what has traditionally been 'unregulated' use. Not just fair use, but 'unregulated use' completely unrelated to the act of 'copying' in any traditional sense. Studying and understanding something that I legitimately bought, or even using something that I OWN in unconventional ways.

I know what I believe in. There's no contradiction here.

Copyright Laws

[ap0ch]

Carefull Helene Scherrer! The fact that the recording industry is pulling in record (pun intended) profits this year asks the question; does sharing music really hurt the industry? People will never stop sharing their music with other people, music is simply much to social to hoard to oneself. I do believe in supporting the artists, but am becoming further disenchanted with the recording industry in their bully tactics. This has NOTHING to do with the artists, but EVERYTHING to do with the big recording industry. The recoding industry is so far out of sync with their target audience they are terrified. And they should be. I like the millions of other Canadians will continue to support artists and still enjoy the sharing of music. These two are not exclusive of each other. cheeers

Seems like they're subsidizing the Record Industry

[Propagandhi]

What I still don't understand is why they're subsidizing this antiquated industry. Traditionally when new technology comes along that makes the old way of doing things inferior industry is forced to abandon that old way and adapt to "the new hotness." As capitalists, this is essentially our mantra.

For instance: The method of marketing the recording industry has been using for years is no longer viable. I'm talking about the way they hype and market sole tracks (singles) of an album while filling much of the rest with filler (remixes, reissues, live songs, half-assed songs, etc.)

Capitalist/Traditional Solution: Produce real albums (with direction, emotion, and *gasp* content) that are actually worth $18.00 or do away with the album idea all together and simply release singles in a lossless format (FLAC for instance). Prices for these singles would have to be reasonable. How can you expect someone to pay $1 for what will most likely amount to under 30 minutes of entertainment.

Current "Solution:" Allow the major record companies to sue anyone unwilling to waste their money on filler or buy tracks that are already encrypted in a lossy format for $1/song (which really is not much of an improvement in terms of price point).

Canada and the United States should be more concerned with maintaining an entertainment industry that isn't feared and loathed by the general populace. I think Washington and groups like the CRIA\RIAA have forgotten this is an entertainment industry and have become far too worried about the bottom line.

Another question is why the pop fed record industry is subject to this favorable treatment while industries which actually produce valuable services and technologies are outsourced (IT).

It basicly boils down to this...

[Kjella]

...the copy is made on-demand. Is it made by the sharer, or the downloader?

Sharing a file in itself makes no copies. So, there's no copyright violation until an actual copy is made. And when a copy is made, one of the two parties is making the illegal copy, the question is which one.

Yes, it is made on the sharer's machine. But you may again argue that this is like making it on the library's photocopier. What the court seems to have found is that it is the downloader that is initiating the copy, and thus the downloader that is guilty of copyright infringement.

That, combined with the legality of making a copy for private use, means it looks like Canadians are home free. At the moment, neither sharer nor downloader can be prosecuted for copyright infringement. Something tells me that'll change. Quickly.

Kjella

Sent to Helene Chalifour Scherrer, Minister...

[1337 Battousai]

I thought I'd share what I wrote to the Canadian Heritage Minister.

To: The Honourable Helene Chalifour Scherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Greetings Honourable Minister,

I recently read with great dismay your new initiative to make file sharing of music over the internet illegal. I'm sorry to use such harsh language, but that is the stupidest idea ever. I understand your intent to protect Canadian music, after all that is the very purpose of your office, but what you are proposing will create thousands upon thousands of Canadian criminals overnight.

Your initiative is also something that criminologists call an "unenforceable law." There are potentially more than a million Canadians currently sharing music files on the internet, it would be utterly impossible for any law enforcement agency to ever enforce such a ridiculous and freedom stripping law.

Pierre Trudeau once said that the government has no business being in the bedrooms of the nation. I would take that sentiment further: The government has NO business or right to tell me what I can or cannot do with files that are on my computer.

Your suggested changes to the law would not help protect Canadian heritage or music in any way shape or form; it will simply ensure more profit for huge American record companies. Last time I checked, the name of the ministry you are the head of is "Ministry of Canadian Heritage" not "The Ministry of Protecting American Economic Interests in Canada."

If you persist in attempting to draft such a law I will campaign against you specifically, and your party in general with as much strength as I can muster. I'm quite certain that Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader Paul Martin would not like the campaign slogan "Helene Chalifour Scherrer wants to put your children in prison" plastered everywhere during the upcoming election.

Hoping you give this a sober second thought,

X

liars

[WildBeast]

I was reading a Montreal newspaper a couple of days ago and they have picked up comments from some artists on the decision of the Canadian court to allow file-sharing.

So there's a singer who commented, can't remember his name, and he said that it's bad for the industry. He said that he himself haven't been affected because around here the customers are "loyal" but he's sure that p2p have a dramatic effect on the english part of Canada and on the US.

In short. UK and Australia try to hide record-breaking sales, this singer says that Quebec is not affected and yet the music industry is saying that p2p is a huge disaster that's gonna ruin there industry. Odds are that they are lying. Why? I'm not sure. The industry seems too old and too tired to adapt itself to change.

Re:The bitch got bribed

[kwandar]

Actually, with the Federal election around the corner, the "bitch" was invited to speak at a record industry function and no doubt has high hopes of being bribed (in the political donation sense).

vast majority == wrong

[jcsehak]

Please stop thinking the music industry is this great cash cow. Yes, the artists get (for the most part) a pittance and usually wind up owing the record label money (which the label tends to "forgive" if the record sells well), but the rest of that vast majority does not go to line the pockets of those big execs. Profit margins are slim, anywhere from 0.5 to 15%, depending on the label. You want to talk about corpulent assholes, take a look at cable companies, whose profits are more along the lines of 40%. And they still make me pay for channels I don't want...

No. No. No. Snail Mail!

[Hal The Computer]

Please, take the extra 30 secs, hit Print buy an envelope and send your comments to:

Hon. Helene Scherrer
Member of Parliment
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

(Contact Page)

No postage required. (If your letter prominately states that it is going to an MP, no postage is required)

Reply from an author

[davecb]

The Honourable Ms. Scherrer:

You were quoted as saying " I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our
copyright law", in response to concerns expressed by the Canadian music industry.

As an author, I strongly support strong copyright protection against professional
thieves, but you should be aware that the so-called "sharing" on the internet has
increased the sales of my book and others. Readers go out and buy the printed
version, as it's far more convenient and portable than a computer.

I therefor support having my book available to "share", as it's to my financial
benefit, and that of my publisher.

I see the same thing happening with music. I strongly suspect that playing
music on the internet is financially advantageous to the artists and publishers.

As I'm elderly I don't download music: I listen to the CBC and buy CDs I like.
My younger friends say they listen on-line and then buy CDs. I don't have sales
figures for CDs that I do for my book, but a recent study by two academics who
do have the figures showed that the downloading has not done any detectable
harm.

The study, "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales An Empirical Analysis",
by Felix Oberholzer and Koleman Strumpf concluded "Downloads have an effect
on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero ... and are inconsistent
with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music
sales." That reports is available at
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_M arch 2004.pdf

I would like to see continuing stringent protection for authors, but suspect
that playing music on the internet is about as dangerous to the artists and
their publishers as playing it on the radio.

I suspect this is much like the furor over VCRs and CD burners, and should
be dealt with the same way, with a levy on blank CDs. I would be quite
supportive of levies, including additional levies, on the CD media and
burners I use.

Sincerely, David Collier-Brown

American living in Canada

[darkCanuck]

I've sent my response to Scherrer:

Honourable Helene Chalifour Scherrer,

I moved to Canada from the United States in 1997. For the first few years, my Canadian wife and friends had to occasionally put up with my inherently ignorant American comments and beliefs of (American) superiority and (Canadian) inferiority. It took a few more years before I began to realize how much more forward-thinking, socially responsible and globally respected (through compassion rather than fear) Canada is over our southern neighbour. Now I would never return to the States.

It is, then, with great concern I write to you to complain of your recent comments about file-sharing, or "music pirating." As a user of the Linux operating system, I download and burn many different distributions of Linux, which is 100% legal and encouraged - it's 90% of why Linux is succeeding - but I'm paying a portion of the cost of those blank CDs I purchase to the Recording Industry through the Canadian Copyright Act. Why? Because They think I could be a thief. We are levied on goods for the reason, nay excuse, that an industry has made unsubstantiated claims it is being financially hurt.

In the last few years I have purchased very few music CDs for two reasons: disgust at the industry (certainly for their business model, and artistically as of late) and because I cannot afford to. Instead, I listen to online, independant radio stations that play music I don't hear on the terrible local radio stations (CBC excluded).

Canadians are already taxed so highly (and with the exchange rate) many flock to the United States to have a better (financial) living at the same salary. Many do so with regrets. And as Heritage Minister, you may want to consider what that says about our culture and the future of Canadian heritage, unless there will be a future Heritage Moment called the "Great Exodus of the Canadian People in the Early 21st Century".

There has been absolutely NO proof that file-sharing has hurt the recording industry. In fact, a recent study proved precisely the opposite:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u =/washpost/ 20040330/tc_washpost/a34300_2004mar29

The Australian Recording Industry Association has been attacking the rights of Australians for a few years now over this issue and yet their profit last year was the largest ever, growing steadily:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/ 28/1080412234274.html

Do you want to be known by the people of Canada as the Protector of greedy corporations? Will that be part of your legacy?

I urge you to reconsider your position on this issue. Do more research, do not let your power by wielded by rich lobbyists. Two months ago I applied for my Citizenship, an honour that I've withheld myself this long because my family has always had more pressing things to spend $200 on. But now that I'm a father, and issues of special treatment for big business are becoming more frequent, I feel it necessary to acquire the right to vote, the right to replace representatives who have not done their jobs as protectors of Canadian Citizen's rights. I should have my citizenship and the right to vote by the upcoming election. I am greatly looking forward to using this power of vote to the benefit of my (future) fellow Canadians, what about you?

Exlain to me

[/dev/trash]

How a levy is different from a tax?

Re:Exlain to me

[Feztaa]

With a tax, the money goes to the government, with a levy, the money goes to a private (unelected) company/organisation/etc.

E-mail is just as good

[Yogurt]

I work in a Canadian government office, and an e-mail is treated exactly like a paper letter. In fact, the Heritage Minister's web site says that explicitly.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/contacts/index_e. cf m

Sending an e-mail ensures that the minister will get feedback quickly after her comments, letting her know that there's a fire to put out.

Frankly, I don't see any new law happening before the next election, so the easiest solution is to vote the Liberals out. But be sure to let them know your intent anyway. I sent my e-mail off last night.

Yogurt in British Columbia

Re:E-mail is just as good

[green.vervet]

Sending emails are just as good, agree. Conservatives are somehow going to be any different, disagree.

Average age of downloaders???

[eww]

Does anyone know the average age of the downloaders? Are there any studies out there?

I might be wrong but I think people who make these laws are going to be in for a ruff ride when it comes to enforcement. They might have to put a lot of minors in jail.

First off I know a lot of youth (14-18 years old) and I visit some web forums for various topics. Now what suprises me is the age of a lot of the people on them. There are a lot of youth. They don't have money, but they have time and access to a computer. They spend a great deal of time on MSN (Hardly any of them have heard of ICQ) chatting, web forums and guess what downloading music.

I also propose that these Music exec's who complain about copyright infrigement should check under their own noses. Are their kids or grandkids engaging in this activity? I can almost certianly say so. Who isn't that is under the age of 25-20 and has a net connection?

What is the average age of a music sharer? I propose that a 80% of the file sharing is done by people under the age of 30 and that 40% or more occurs with people who are under 18 years of age. Especially in Canada where broadband has been around for a long time (6 years where I live).

The other problem with these laws and stuff is that music sharing has been going on for a long time. I was in high school when I was first exposed to it all. I remember what the first version of Internet Explorer looks like. Windows 95 had just come out! Whoo! At the time everyone who was in Visual Communications or who knew about comptuers was into downloading music and making MP3's! This was over 7 years ago! It's been going on a long time. It's embeded into our culture all ready. It's almost too late to change the laws now.

Back when this all started my friends where into Warez as well. I don't know what else to call it. But they downloaded software just for the sake of downloading it. A friend of mine had over 200 applications. Some like lightwave, windows, office, and oddles of games. Probably worth MILLIONS OF DOLLARS if bought retail. He probably had over 20 burned CD's at the time (7 years ago). I don't remember how many MP3 CD's he had but I know it was over 11. When your young you have the time to download all sorts of stuff and learn how computers ect. work.

The other problem is ignorance. Parents have no idea what their kids are doing on their computers. If they can hardly run Word and fight with their printers and don't understand email how can they understand what P2P is or how it works? Let alone know enough to enforce any rules. Removing young people from a computer with a net connection can be very challenging.

I hope someone does a study on the age of the average downloader/uploader. I am sure some interesting stats would come out.

And people Wonder

[Microsofts slave]

And people wonder why i'm not a freaking liberal. Just like any politician, its all "We promise X, We promise Y." Post Election.... X and Y never happen.

Our government wonders why the 18-25 voting range has such low turn out: It's because we are young, cynical and have lost faith in the way that our political system is supposed to work. No one wants to vote, because there are no good parties to vote for. (Well, for me, the closest i go for is NDP). Now that Paul has decided to take away our electronic freedoms, i wonder how much longer the liberal party will stay in power. My best bet: Until all the older voters die. Best be pumping money into health care Mr.Martin, because your best voting base is dying.

Paul Martin is a FINK

Re:People fail to realize it but we pay in the US

[dgmartin98]

Not exactly. From my understanding, US Law allows for a 3% royalty payment on digital audio medium, which are such things as DATs and CD-R-Audio... not the regular CD-Rs that can be used for data or audio.

In Canada, we pay a much higher fee, $0.21 on each CD-R and $0.77 on each CD-R-Audio. So, on a 10-pack of CDs for $10, we pay an additional 21% for the levy.

Dave

The Liberals have no moral ground to stand on...

[DaveCBio]

I seriously hope they do not get elected, or get a minority gov't at the most. Martin is promising everything to everyone and like all politicians he will only honor what helps him and his party. This is the same group of people that brought in the media levy that lines the pockets of big selling acts and does nothing for the people it says it's supposed to help.