Slashdot Mirror
Canadian ISP to Name Music Swappers
Daemon writes "The Globe and Mail reports that Videotron, a Canadian ISP, will not be fighting the request to turn over the names of music swappers to the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). According to a lawyer for Videotron, producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly that they believe that it is justifiable to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs on-line. The five Internet service providers named in the case -- Shaw Communications, Rogers Cable Communications, Bell Canada, Telus Communications and Videotron -- can't divulge the information without a court order because privacy legislation requires them to keep customer information sealed."
Class action suit, anyone?
It wasn't necessarily proven as legal. First, possessing a personal copy I believe is what was considered acceptable -- but not widespread distribution. Second, CRIA (our RIAA equivalent) hasn't given up the fight...they're collecting evidence and will take another run at this in court. These subpoeanas are merely an element of their next strategy... in the end they only need one ISP (looks like Videotron) to roll over, then they can proceed with their casework. I'm sure they're hoping to set new precedents. Damn this english common law tradition :/
However, we're protected quite a bit through the levy on media that exists here, considered financial compensation for our 'fair use' rights.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Indeed. But what I can't figure out is how they are getting away with this at all. I thought that PIPEDA protected us from this sort of nonsense. A business can't divulge personal information about employees or customers without REALLY GOOD reason, or they risk rather steep fines.
Only downloaders are protected. Uploading is at best a grey area, but it's likely that someone could be successfully sued for uploading vast amounts of copyrighted material.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
... is that Videotron is owned by Québécor Media, who also owns a healty chunk of the local music industry. In other words, they are highly motivated to fight file-sharing of copyrighted material.
This has a strong Sony feel to it.. the same company owning entities in domains that have conflicting interests, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.
It's clear to me that using FUD, Quebecor (using Videotron) wants to raise up the profits in its music division.
My 0.02$.
I'm not all that keen on Videotron's capitulation here, but I'm not going to change ISPs over it.
Now, just to clear up some misconceptions....
Back when blank media became a consumer good, the media companies feared losses of revenue to copying. They convinced the federal government to assess a fee on all blank media and recording devices to make up for those losses.
There was a catch, however. The government can't tax an illegal activity. In order to mandate these fees, the government had to legalize the duplication of content for personal use. So we Canadians have been able to tape our albums, record TV shows, etc. within the bounds of the law for the longest time.
Then came the digital revolution.
The entertainment moguls demanded that the same fees be assessed on CD writers, blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc. The government agreed and extended the financial protection - but as a consequence also had to extend the right to make copies on the new media. As a result, downloading content is (still) pefectly legal in Canada.
Uploading copyrighted content, however, is not legal and never has been. It may at first seem odd that we can download but not upload, but it's a consequence of the laws that give us the right to copy, not the right to share.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association went to the Copyright Board to change this right and was Heismaned. The board ruled that they have been collecting the assessed fees and that that money was the industry compensation. Furthermore, the board ruled that such rights extend to downloading files. The board did extend the fee to cover digital music players.
More here: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
As I understand it, Canadians pay a surcharge on recordable media (DVD-R, CD-R, etc., and tapes, both audio and video), with this surcharge purportedly to be paid out to copyright holders. If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid? So if you transferred the music file from someone else's computer to a CD-RW in your machine, it would be protected, but not if you transferred the file to the hard drive on your machine?
Of course, you could burn the file to CD-RW, being protected through having paid the surcharge, and then copy the file back to your hard drive, which would be protected under fair use. But you'd have to be able to produce a copy of the file on CD/DVD/tape if you were charged...
I did vote with my feet - and became a Shaw subscriber. You see, Shaw is the one ISP in Canada that is fighting the hardest against the requests being made by the CRIA. Of the five big players in the ISP market, Videotron sides closest with the CRIA, and Shaw is the farthest. The others (Telus, Bell) are playing a wait-and-see game.
The same ruling mentions that permitted private copies don't actually need to be made onto levied media. (DVD-R, BTW, is not a levied medium.)
"Section 80" is section 80 of the Copyright Act, which says:
(Link to Copyright Act, Section 80)
Another tidbit that may or may not be relevant: Private Copying under Canada's Copyright Act specifically applies to sound recordings. Nothing is said about video. (We just assume that time-shifting and the like is OK, so we do it.)
Also, there's no such thing as "Fair Use" in Canada. We have "Fair Dealing", which is similar, only different. Most of what's spelled out regarding fair dealing pertains to educational institutions, libraries, and researchers, not individuals. Though "private study" may be mentioned.
IANAL.
Why report this as a new story? It's an old story - Videotron took this position 2 years ago when the case was filed. It was decided against the CRIA last year. The CRIA have recently appealed, but they appear to have few grounds, given the judgement that they had no case on multiple grounds.