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 hope it won't be overruled by others who might qualify the infrastructure they provide as a medium, like the CDR which are taxed in France and other countries.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I had always wondered what Canada is up to...they seemed to be a very neutral and uneventful country to me for a long time. I later found out that they make a lot of modem hardware for one, but more importantly, it looks like Canada is good at preserving certain rights. Like the one in this article -- internet privacy, essentially...not to mention bud is basically legal there! Go Canada!
Two freaks, no foes. It takes absolutely nothing to make some people angry.
... the same folks who are responsible for us Canadians paying a levy on every CD-R, cassette, MP3 player, and (if they have their way) every friggen hard drive we buy! Glad to see they lost this battle.
It's a lobby for the Canadian recording artists. They are supposed to be compensated for illegal copying, in exchange for a much more lenient definition of "legal" copying in our laws than in the USA.
Of course, like all Canadian programs, it ends up creating a huge government-paid organization to police this whole subsidy. Can't really say if this is better or worse than clogging up the courts, as is the case in the States.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Just like gun manufacturers provide the means for killing but are not liable for what people do.
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.
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information. Maybe it's because it's not law enforcement requesting the information, but deep-pocketed private parties seeking it.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Because (in the US at least) ISP are not defined by the law to be Common Carriers.
A Common Carrier is required to carry whatever content is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such). But because they have to carry it (even if it may be illegal) they can't be held responsible for doing so.
This ruling could be read as a move toward common carrier-like status for ISP's. That could be good for people who want to pass MP3's around, bad for people who want SPAMers to not be able to fill their inbox with crud.
However, if the ruling had gone the other way, we might well have seen ISP's get a certified right to block SPAM, MP3's, and anything else they didn't like, including HTTP requests to competing search engines, and VoIP packets where the ISP isn't getting a cut of the call toll.
It's an interesting ruling, but the roulette wheel is still spinning, and the ball is still bouncing.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
So, when I save up enough and close up the loose ends in my life here in California and decide to move to Canada, should I move to Toronto or Montreal?
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
A Common Carrier is required to carry whatever content is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such). But because they have to carry it (even if it may be illegal) they can't be held responsible for doing so.
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?
Now if the Supreme Court did say, "sure, charge a tariff on the ISPs", would this have meant that we, as Canadians, would not only have the right to make copies of CDs or download them on to our iPaqs, but that we would also then gain the right to upload and download them from the Internet?? All music, all the time, no music industry to bother us!
That, too, would have been an interesting situation.
Either way, the Supreme Court of Canada rocks my world. They actually have clue.
It's good news on the eve of Canada Day.
We had an incident where a customer called our support staff asking us to block pr0n for them, and blamed us for not doing so earlier. Apparently her son got a glimpse of some nasty popups while he was browsing. We had to go through a tough time explaining to her that it is the customers responsibilty to install parental control software to prevent such unwanted trouble. It shock us to hear from her that, 'even cable TV operators block ugly shows!'. Imagine!
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
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?
You could argue that the government shouldn't tax gas to pay for the roads, because then they're unfairly taxing people who have gas lawn mowers, snowmobiles, jet ski's etc.
However, both of these methods of taxation are based on the idea that your privacy is more important than 100% fair taxation. For instance, I heard that in some northern U.S. state they were discussing installing GPS tracking units in vehicles to charge people based on how far they drive their vehicles, because that was a fairer way to charge a usage tax. But, who wants the government tracking their movements?
Similarly, the idea with the CD levy is to allow copying for personal use, but charge a fee to copiers of copyrighted work, and use that to pay the artists. To fairly implement this tax, it would mean you'd have to track each person and what they're copying. You run into the same issue - privacy. There is obviously a tradeoff, and I'm glad that the Canadian government seems to continually place privacy as a higher priority. I'm willing to pay a price to keep my privacy.
The other alternative is to ban all copying, even for personal use, remove the levy, and try to get the police to enforce an unenforceable law. That doesn't look to sweet either.
If you're going to complain about the levy, then at least come up with a workable alternative that doesn't screw somebody else.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
America is shifting from a country to a big company. we no longer do what is right, but rather what is more profitable for "America" (the governemnt). I.E. Open source does not draw in as much money as large corprations do, thus there is a highr lobby to keep coprarations working verses working on new and better technology to inprove mandkind. What we need is to take a tip from our neighbor to the north, people are happier and have access to better tech because Candada isn't appeasing coprations that are hellbent on sucking out ever last dime from consumers (well with the music industry: EX-Consumers) that they can.
I think I'll use that box to do all my bittorrent downloads from here on out. Not sure if the privacy laws in the great white north will protect an expat like myself, but I figure my odds are somewhat better to NOT get sued up there.
slashsearch.org - slashdot search. powered by google.
This is relevant: http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.php
If we start accusing people of crimes for aiding the ability for another to perform a crime, we might as well throw everyone on the planet in jail. How many people does a terrorist interact with in his/her life? Is the father at fault for teaching the kid about money, whereupon the kid learns knowledge about how to abuse the system to become rich? How can possibly prove that the father had "intent" to teach the son how to do something illegal? You can't. That's why the person is the one who is blamed for their own action in breaking the law (as well as any obvious people who contributed directly to the act.)
Further, what is blamed of a person is the action they take, not anything which leads up to the action (even the person's own thinking.) Recall the lesson to be learned by the movie/book Minority Report: though a person may show all the signs which establish intent to perform a crime, that does not mean they are guilty until they actually perform a crime. I may walk down the street and think about having sex with a woman I see walking next to me, but it's not rape until I actually go up and try to rape her.
The problem here is that the Internet is designed for free speach, not for law or copywrite enforcement. ISPs are being targeted becuase they have a means to enforce laws. But enforcing law is not the responsiblity of an ISP. ISPs neither have the physical means to enforce copywrite nor the mandate to do so. Let the FBI create a Net Force division a la Tom Clancy, and do their own copywrite enforcement. Attacking ISPs (or universities, or any other group other then a law enforcement group) is not the answer.
At the end of this dispute 3000 lay dead, a man was exiled and a saint was borne.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I would also expect the ISPs to include other ISPs amongst their customers, so they could get those to opt-in to bulk filtering of email being passed on to them and vice-versa opt-in to receiving filtered mail from other ISPs
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
This is like saying "despite the fact that air provides the means for shouting an obscenity"
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Quebec language laws vary between emotional reaction to finally not being treated as second class citizens by other Quebeckers, and an attempt to keep the culture looking strong. Most language protection in Quebec has been of the foot-shooting variety (translated movies trash the local industry now that translation is mandated, French speakers can no longer have their kids learn English or other languages at school, while the provincial premirer sends his kids to boarding school in England), but some of it (requiring French instruction manuals, street signs, even store signs) makes a lot of sense.
Quebecers were a persecuted minority for a few centuries (some think they still are, I would disagree) and you have to expect payback to go a little far. Compared to most colonized areas (India, South and Central America, Africa, Caribean etc.) Quebec is doing just fine. I was happy to live their as an English-speaker (though I speak reasonable French) and I expect to go back soon. It takes a few generations (at least) to get over being mistreated by another culture (not to mention the catholic church which has dropped way down in Quebec priorities).
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
I have to admit, I saw this coming. The RIAA and others may be able to extort money by writing scary letters, but when it finally comes down to a courtroom there's no way this would hold up. Making ISPs liable for network traffic would be like making FedEx and UPS liable for the content of the boxes they ship. It's a ridiculous idea. I personally think attorneys who cooperate in filing suits with such obvious lack of merit should be prosecuted themselves for wasting the public's money, and should risk losing their license to practice law.
The decision was 9-0 on whether ISPs should pay royalties for (C) music they transfer, but was 8-1 on an interesting issue regarding when a communication originates in Canada. The majority decides that a communication that originates outside of Canada can be considered to be made "in Canada". Justice LeBel's dissent focusses on the privacy implications of this decision. If an American server has to pay Canadian royalties for serving Canadian music to Canadians, it probably can't be anonymous (at the very least it would have to use some sort of geographic location algorithm). This means that the operator is effectively forced to collect your personal information. The alternative rule, that all and only servers in Canada with music on them are liable for royalties, for all of its other flaws, is much better for consumer privacy.
Just goes to show that Canadian big-business lobby groups don't have as much money as their American counterparts.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The Heritage Committee, in their report just last month, outlined their plans for ratifying WIPO and wants to change the laws governing ISP responsibility.
On a happy note at least the Heritage Minister so anxious to sell the average Canadian out (Helene Scherrer) is out of a job (courtesy of the Bloc Quebecois and a recent election -- who says two wrongs can't make a right?). I'm sure the one-sided laws will get pushed through anyway, but at least Canadians have this much satisfaction.
If You could set up an ISP with an pay-per-download, and reach a court-mandated agreement with the local group representing all copyright holders, then - voila! Manadatory licensing.
Consider that SOCAN wanted the ruling enforced world-wide. The converse suggestion would be then that if someone anywhere in the world downloaded from your source, then they now have a legal copy - royalties all neatly paid.
I wonder how much per song SOCAN wanted? $1 Can. = 74cents US. Could probably wipe ITunes and the rest off the map.
Having worked with some of these people, I can tell you this:
1)The Heritage Minister's staffers rarely contribute much time to things outside of their queen bee's schedule. I'm suprised you got that much, even if it was passing the buck. Deputy Minister level is where people get listened to.
2)If you send correspondence from outside of an MP's own riding, I *guarantee* most of it will end up in the circular file. They routinely get snail-spammed from every nut job in the country, and simply cannot deal with everyone else's mail. (Seriously, the things that come across a staffer's desk are un-freaking-believeable) If it looks like spam, it's tossed at the peon level. Same for e-mails.
3) The record lobbyists have been making regular visits to the Hill for years now. Greasing a few palms with sweet backstage tickets of your choice can change an opinion faster than 10 years worth of letter writing to a starstruck turnip farmer/M.P. from Cape Breton.
4) Jaffer? Handwritten? Please. Look at HIS party's radical right-wing history. If Dubya has an inbred, racist, bible-thumping cousin in Canada, he's in Jaffer's party. As for the scripting, handwritten notes are polite ways of advertising computer illiteracy in Canada. And free music - for as long as that will last under wanna-b Republicans - is not much of a trade off for scrapping the Constitution.
You want to get some attention? Call your MP, at home or in Ottawa, and BOOK some face time with them in the form of a courtesy call. It's free, and you just might reache them.
From an article written earlier today:
Digital Copyright Canada forum
For those of you who decided to speak before becoming informed ...
... They do not support pirating, it just happens that the files get transferred through their pipes.
... and even if you want to side with the music industry just a little bit, the government already decided that sharing mp3's is not copyright infringement in Canada.
the music industry wanted to impose a fee on ISP's because they felt the ISP's were a part of the pirating problem. The music industry would have received money from every single internet subscriber whether or not the user was pirating music.
The ISP's argued that they are the conduit for internet traffic, and do not / can not / should not control what their customers are doing with their bandwidth.
The case was a blatant money grab scam by the music industry.
For them to be in the right, you would also have to argue that:
-- the phone company controls what people say to each other on phone lines.
-- The post office controls what people write in letters to each other.
-- the paper boy controls what stories are in the newspaper you read.
-- and on and on and on.
It was such a scam! The music industry deserves to be punished for such a blatant mis-interpretation of reality.
It was nothing less than the music industry trying to create a stream of income from something that has absolutely nothing to do with how they make and sell music, and it would have had people paying them even if they never downloaded a song.
Thanks to scummy actions like this, I vow to never spend a dime ever again on music where that dime would go to the record companies. I may by used CD's, I may pursue the legal downloads, but I won't buy a new CD again.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"