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 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.
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.
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
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,
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.
I download music and movies and (very occasionally) games without fear of reprisal, since the Supreme Court here actually interprets our law correctly, by reading both the letter and the spirit of the law.
One supports the other. If a movie/song is terrible, I delete it. If it's good, I buy it, and often, other movies/songs by the same artists. If you track my spending habits, my downloading is directly linked to my spending. I'm the same way with books, I hit the library and if I read something I know I want to read again, I buy it.
I know this is a rant, but I hope the rest of the world realizes that THIS IS HOW COPYRIGHTS SHOULD WORK!
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.