Slashdot Mirror
Canadian High Court Says ISPs Don't Owe Royalties
canwaf writes "According to the CBC, and the other guys: In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. They continue in their decision that Internet access providers are not bound by federal copyright legislation. Coupled with an earlier story on Slashdot, this is a very good thing." Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail's article, too.
I am glad that this ruling came so quickly after the ruling that ISP's are not required by law to produce the names of people on their networks who are suspected filesharers.
I just don't see why this needed to be decided on. Telcos aren't responsible for people who discuss illegal activities. How would an ISP?
ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that.
On the other hand, if prosecuting copyright violations becomes too difficult to be worth it maybe a better system will ensue?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Could it be the deep pockets of the defendants: Bell, AOL, and Sprint are the reason for the good news? The plaintif was SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) a relatively small, poor group of artists. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good decision, but I'm just saying it helps to have billionnaire multinational corporations fighting for your rights. Or are they really fighting for their right to charge you $50/mo so you can download stuff for "free"?
Well, this may sound like a troll, but it's basically true: Here in the US, most laws and court cases involving business are not decided on logic and right and wrong, they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?
Does this happen anywhere other than Canada?
You forgot
0) Real Beer
Regards,
--
*Art
Dude, have you _been_ to Montreal in the summer? Learn to speak some French, it's worth it for the ladies :)
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I think its worth taking note this wasn't any kind of split decision on the court's part. No decension among the ranks, 9-0 is a strong decision.
Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer's identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn't seem to fit into my gun analogy.
No, it does fit. Your prejudice is what prevents you from seeing it immediately. (See below.)
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information.
This is the prejudice. You're assuming that because someone made a file avaliable, that a crime was committed, where in reality, that is not so clear. The judge said as much in the ruling.
It's not the case that the 'gun' was used in the crime, but that the courts weren't convinced that a crime occurred at all. The CRIA said "ISPs are hiding people who are illegally trading our files!", and the court responded with "no, they're protecting the identity of people who are trading files, but it's entirely possible that trading is not illegal - prove that, and then we'll talk."
Maybe this will compel the record industry to take a long, hard look at their current business model and realize it's no longer compatible with today's entertainment market.
Got news for you - the entertainment industry already knows that. That's why they're filing these lawsuits.
The music industry had a stranglehold on music distribution, which gave them the ability to abuse artists as much as they want ("You don't want to sign this contract? Fine, you'll never be able to make money from your music.")
The internet changed all that. It's now becoming possible for an independent band to market their music to a worldwide audience.. and so now the music industry has competition, and they're desperately trying to extend the life of their business model as long as possible.
As a proud Canadian I'm the first to trumpet our successes to whoever will listen. But...
In all honesty, the US was a much more open a free-market society until the last few years. Aside from the absolute hard-right turn taken under the Bush administration, the aggressive nature and consolidation of media companies in the last 5-7 years has really put a chill on the US society IMHO. Note: I realise that this started under Clinton too.
For me, there are a few significant events where the rule of law were circuvmented, or big business exercised a strong influence over the legislative bodies in recent times. These are having profound negative effects on American life and commerce.
1. Microsoft anti-trust. Found guilty, but government backs off on any significant penalty. IBM never got off so lightly, and the results were the PC revolution.
2. Consolidation of media ownership. Especially regarding radio. Less diversity = less room for competing opinions. More big business = more big business attitudes reflected in editorial biases.
3. Abuse of copyright/patent system. Think EOLAS, think SCO, think Mosano, etc. Combined with a culture of litigation, this really makes you wonder if the US is unconciously abandoning its heritage of innovation. The money is compensating for this pull downwards, but will this always be the case?
Unequivocally the US leads the North American economy...Canada has, to a great extent, benefited from this for years. But sometimes we wake up, look in the mirror, and wonder "What the hell are the neighbours doing now???". I think that, lately, our values expressed in our judicial and legislative system are more in line with what Americans expect than their political leadership have provided.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
But unlike telcos, ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS. Using your logic, I could see that an ISP, as a common carrier, would have to carry the spam, but as a service provider could then very well not deliver it. It's mildly similar to call-blocking features sold by the telcos. Sound reasonable?
It actually is simpler than that.
Define ISPs as common carriers (after all, in 99.999% of the cases that is effectively what they are, and any other course leads to a madhouse of government regulation and oversight).
Define SPAM to be illegal, just as SPAM faxes are illegal, and just as obscene and threatening phone calls are illegal.
Then, place enforcement where it belongs, with the authorities (who can require cooperation from ISPs), not the ISPs themselves, who should be in the business of providing connectivity and services, not enforcing the law.
Those services, as you correctly point out, would (and already do) logically include mail filtering software of varying quality.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy