Slashdot Mirror


Proposed Canadian Laws to Nix P2P Music Sharing

limber writes "During this past weekend's Juno awards (a vapid Canadian music industry shindig) Canadian Heritage Minister Liza Frulla brought up proposed new legislation that would make downloading music on the Internet without paying for it illegal. High (or low) lights of the legislation include: forcing 'ISPs to monitor individual customer Internet connections for suspicious activity,' and giving the music industry and songwriters 'the tools to sue' illegal downloaders. Frulla further noted she 'wanted to persuade children that downloading music for free is wrong.'

18 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Fine by unleashedgamers · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess I'll have to steal from the store! (Its not as bad if i get caught)

  2. Music Levy Repel by 9mm+Censor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, so if its going to become illegal to download music and let the record industy sue people, is the tax on media going to be repeled?

    1. Re:Music Levy Repel by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Informative

      hahaha. That's a good one.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  3. As opposed to the many vapid american shindigs by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When will these groups stop giving awards for bad music to artists that sell out so their fans can't even access their music if the artist wants to let them

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  4. Downloading to yourself by sfcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happens if you are copying music you have bought to yourself (say from home to work), or music that is "opensource" (i.e. smaller bands than encourage mp3 distributions). Does this law allow loopholes for these circumstances? If Canadian politicans are anything like American ones, there will be a script that autosues file traders even if the file is only named after a song (and doesn't actually contain the music, i.e. song lyrics).

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    1. Re:Downloading to yourself by RM6f9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "auto-sues" - Thanks for the laugh. (It's so tragic, it's funny)

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    2. Re:Downloading to yourself by grahammm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The legislators making the laws probably do not even know that 'opensource' music exists. They will have been briefed by the music 'industry' who would rather such freely (as in beer) available music did not exist and who pretend that it does not. They act as though the only legal source of music is through their members. It is the same as when legal downloads are mentioned in the media, the sites and artists offering free music are never mentioned.

    3. Re:Downloading to yourself by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      music industry doesn't want there to be free music. pretty simple.

      but well.. it's not like it would change anything in the long run anyways as people would move to anonymous networks..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  5. stoopid government by BortQ · · Score: 2, Informative
    The liberal government is going to fall pretty soon anyways. There's no way something as invasive as this would pass.

    Not to mention that there's already a fricken levy on CDs and other media to compensate artists for downloading.

    --

    A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
  6. Innovation massivelly stifled by jamienk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    * Connect 2 iPods with a Firewire chord -- iShare

    * IMDB links -- "download now!"

    * On-demand TV, for real, any TV show ever made

    * Level playing field for musical artists -- disincentivize massive investment in ad campaigns, encourage band competition through P2P blogsphere

    * Encourage competition in the following fields:

    - Attribution.com -- tries to authoritatively attribute chain of creative credit for original/derived work...

    - Who can sell "IP" at the lowest price? Can the USA compete with China? 1cent books, anyone?

    - What are TRUE value adds when "IP" is (almost) free? e.g., purchased CD comes with concert tickets; $500 purchase buys you a free Bar Mitzva concert...

    etc... More to come...

  7. Woohoo! by canwaf · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's great! This leglislation will die, because we're probably going to have an election soon.

  8. Sounds like... by breon.halling · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...Juno awards (a vapid Canadian music industry shindig)...

    Sounds like someone didn't get nominated!

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  9. No DMCA, soo... by boingyzain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The DMCA was shot down in Canada so this is just another pathetic attempt to fight fair use. I have no doubt that this bill will fail just like the rest.

    Canada has a lot more liberals than the US, and many less politicians who are swayed by corporate interests. Very little chance Canada will ever have a "real" anti-freedom law like the DMCA or like this one.

    Its a wonder why I still live in the US.

  10. I've said it before... by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...And I'll say it again.

    These laws are almost entirely unenforceable. As an ISP, if any government wanted to force me to monitor individual users' bandwidth, I'd ask them if they were going to provide me with extra staff to help me do it, since there would be no possible way that I could do such a thing myself. Let's also see if they can persuade their usually understaffed, underpaid police forces to do the job, as well...My guess is that that is unlikely.

    Any government that wants to can pass as many laws like this as it wants, and then sit back and watch as the general public completely ignores them. Governments, the RIAA, and WIPO need to get it into their empty heads once and for all:- We *want* to pirate music, we're *going* to pirate music, and apart from a few token lawsuits here and there against the odd big fish, for the most part there is exactly jack shit you can do about it. Get used to it, because it (and we) are not going away.

  11. I gotta admit.. by Kwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..they're wearing me down.

    Each time a story like this comes up, I find the address of the minister responsible (and it seems like it's a different one every time. How much is the music industry paying these people?) and write my letter, CCing it to the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, and my MP.

    It's getting to the point where I'm just getting tired of doing it.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  12. Re:Democracy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When are these asshats going to clue in to the fact that we live in a democracy. If 90% of the population wants free music downloads, then the government and the media industry is in the wrong for trying to stop us.

    If 90% of the population wants to kill every Amerind (Native American, whatever you're calling them now), does that make the government wrong for trying to stop you?

    For that matter, if 90% of the population wants the USA to nuke Toronto (yeah, I was never very impressed with Toronto - just another big, ugly, city), would that mean that the government should just forward the request to Washington?

    Remeber, democracy isn't quite the same thing as "Mob Rule", much as many people would like to make it so.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. Re:Democracy by belmolis · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm well aware of the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. There is no conflict between being a constitutional monarchy and being a democracy. Canada and most other constitutional monarchies are true democracies insofar as the monarch does not, and cannot without provoking a constitutional crisis, exert actual control. The Queen's actual powers are extremely limited. Beyond appointing the governor-general and the lieutenant-governors, she exercises power only in the very rare situations in which she refuses royal assent to legislation or where, no party having a clear majority, she decides who to ask to form the government. The queen does not, in practice, have the power to originate legislation or to act outside the framework of the law.

    Be very careful where and how you claim that the Queen holds no authority over Canada. That notion is quite probably seditious.

    Wrong. It is not sedition to make a correct statement, or even an incorrect statement, about the powers of the sovereign. Sedition requires the intent to change the government by force. This is not merely a general definition; it is the definition given in the Criminal Code of Canada.

  14. Write your MP.. by xtal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're really concerned, write to the opposition party leaders and/or their shadow cabinet representatives as well. I am uncertain how to get this information directly, so I send it to the opposition party leaders.

    http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html

    Your voice DOES MATTER IN CANADA. People will pay attention. Write something.

    --
    ..don't panic