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.
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.
There is already a CD-R levy in Canada. It was created when the Copyright Act was rewritten to allow copying of any kind for personal use.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
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,
... 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
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.
It is pretty hard to overrule the SUPREME COURT.
As it usually does, the Canadian Supreme Court has made a sensible ruling here.
Speaking of CDRs, as a Canadian I pay levies (which are forwarded to the record companies) on all blank media that I purchase, so as far as I'm concerned I'm ALREADY paying for my right to copy music, even if it comes from the internet. Its a relief that my ISP won't be forced to contribute to that racket as well.
Don't forget that most of that money winds up going to Bryan Adams and Celine Dion anyway (I'll remind everyone here that the Canadian government has already apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions, so please lets not start that discussion again!)
Not "any kind". Only musical audio recordings (no spoken word is permitted), and only the person doing the copying is permitted to use the recording (so you can copy your friends shit, but he can't copy it and give it to you).
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?
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.
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.
As a Canadian who has lived in both cities:
Move to Toronto if:
1) You have money
2) You enjoy money
3) You like hearing people talk about money
Move to Montreal if:
1) For you, money is secondary to living
2) You speak at least a bit of French
3) You like looking at gorgeous women
4) You enjoy a good party
5) You aren't offended by stripclubs, prostitutes, foul language, or loud noises...
6) You want to see diversity and eccentricity, not conformity and safety
It's pretty obvious which one I'd choose...
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
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.