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.
are royalties treated different in a monarchy?
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.
The US supreme court found the atmosphere, specifically oxygena and nitrogen responsible for copyright violations since the atmosphere is the medium through which pirated music is heard.
The atmosphere's lawyer, Moria, had no comment, but whooshed out of the courthouse with a whistling sound.
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.
Let's see: Pros
1) Not hated by the world
2) Speak mostly English
3) Hockey
4) Weaker music industry lobby.
5) Lower Crime Rate
6) No Bushes
Cons:
1) Cold
2) Curling
3) French-speaking People
4) French-speaking People
Not much of a decision here.
So, what else can they sue?
CDR/CDRW discs: they facilitate recording pirated music;
Sound Card manufacturers: they facilitate ripping;
Loudspeaker makers: we can hear pirated music through this equipment.
My ears -- yes! sue my ears. They faciliate hearing this music!
Emm, I'm digging now, ehh; why not sew my lips shut too. I can whistle a tune without paying royalties.
See where this is going? DO YOU? DOOO YOU???
- Oisin
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
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. ...this is a very good thing."
Good? This is horrible!
How am I to continue my suit against paper-makers and ink producers on behalf of book publishers?
Oh, wait, I can still do that in the "Land of the Free", the United States.
(It's the land of the free for corporations -- they can get away with anything. It's the land of the fee for taxpayers.)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Please find enclosed all the tapes I made during the 90's of my favourite music, and a handy list of radio stations that I taped them off. You may now sue their asses, as they provided the means for me to infringe upon your copyrights.
The music is watermarked with a primitive technology called a 'jingle' that will help you identify which station it was.
Sincerely
Tod
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
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"?
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.
In
Screw 'em
Trolling is a art,
A decision so obvious as this really needs to be appreciated. Whats next? Are we going to jail FORD execs as accessories because they provided the means for the getaway for some bank robbers?
Well at least intelligent rulings like this are a step in the right direction.
... 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
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?
Awsome!
Common Carrier means non-discriminatory, usually. If some content is restricted, and other content is not restricted, you stop being a common carrier.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
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.
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.
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.
not to mention bud is basically legal there!
If by "basically legal" you mean "in practice," then you're basically right. The police tend not to make much effort to prosecute for marijuana possession in Canada.
This is way off-topic, but I want to dispel a misconception. Conan O'Brien once mentioned on his talk show that "Canada's parliament is considering legalizing marijuana..." This was so inaccurate as to be totally incorrect. In fact, at the time, there was a senate committee report that recommended that parliament consider decriminalizing marijuana.
So it wasn't parliament, by which one typically means the House of Commons (the elected lower house), it was the Senate (the unelected upper house). And it wasn't even the whole Senate, but just a committee. They weren't "considering," it was just a report that made a recommendation. And nobody was talking of legalization, just decriminalization, the difference being that it's still not legal, but you just wouldn't get thrown in jail, nor will you get a criminal record for possession - just a fine, rather like a traffic violation.
Some time later, a decriminalization bill was proposed in the House of Commons, but I believe it was dropped when the election was called about a month ago, so there has been no movement by the government in terms of actual legislation. So marijuana possession is, officially, still quite illegal here.
But we actually have the funny single-platform Marijuana Party fighting for legalization here in Canada, so who knows... Maybe someday it will be legal.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
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
SOCAN isn't poor. SOCAN has LOTS and LOTS of cash.
The reason being that every artist and label in the country pays into them, and they charg for radio play of members' music pretty much everywhere.
In fact, I remember a lawsuit with a local restaurant who was playing CDs over the stereo system and got the stick from SOCAN because he wasn't paying his royalties (not that there was much sympathy in the community for him, since that guy was a raging asshole).
I could be wrong on the details, but I'm sure that SOCAN has a lot of agreements that allow them to pull in the cash. Not on the scale of American record industry groups, granted, but in Canadian terms, they ain't broke.
Here's a link to their "Tariff" system, which details how they charge whom, and where: SOCAN Tariffs
This is like saying "despite the fact that air provides the means for shouting an obscenity"
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
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
This ruling is good news (and in line with the Supreme Court's earlier rulings protecting individual privacy). But the fight is not over, trust me. The Heritage Committee, in their report just last month, outlined their plans for ratifying WIPO and wants to change the laws governing ISP responsibility.
Now parliament is out, an election was just held, and the same Liberal party is back in power (minority) with a loose coalition with the NDP party -- who quite strongly supports ratifying WIPO. So I fear that we're going to see Canadian government ratify WIPO, bringing in DMCA-like legislation into Canada. Check out the Digital Copyright Canada forums and get involved if these privacy rights concern you. There is also a national petition for user's rights that you can sign if you are concerned about all these 'special laws' for digital media. Remember that we live in a digital world, but the general public does not realize this. Placing strange restrictions on digital information is just hurting ourselves, and our own industries.
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.
Email sent to Heritage Minister and Prime Minister:
& u=/washpost/ 20040330/tc_washpost/a34300_2004mar29
b /ind ex_e.cfm.
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
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.
Thank you for your time.
Me
Response received
On behalf of Ms. Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, Minister of Canadian
Heritage, thank you for your correspondence regarding potential changes to
the Copyright Act and expressing your views regarding the private copying
levy on blank audio recording media.
Ms. Chalifour Scherrer appreciates your advising her of your views
and has noted your comments with respect to these matters. Policy
developments abroad encouraged the establishment of private copying levies
for the benefit of authors, performers and producers of sound recordings
long before Canada decided to establish such mechanisms. The private
copying levy has been promoted as the only efficient mechanism to offset
increasing reproduction capacity made available through developments in
consumer electronics.
The levy on blank audio recording media was developed to apply
generally on all media ordinarily used by consumers to copy music for their
private use. Accordingly, the law governing the levy was drafted to give
the Copyright Board of Canada, a specialized tribunal, the authority and
discretion necessary to accurately evaluate the appropriate portion of
music copied onto some of the media used by consumers for any digital data.
It should be noted that the Government is not involved in the
collection, administration or distribution of the levy; these tasks are
carried out by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC). Detailed
information on the levy is outlined on the CPCC Web site at
http://cpcc.ca/english/about.htm and the Copyright Board Web site at
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/index.html.
Information and updates on the copyright reform process, including
issues on file sharing and the private copying levy, are available on the
Department of Canadian Heritage Web site at
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cp
I trust that this information is useful. Please accept our best
wishes.
So, essentially, go ask THOSE people..
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
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....