Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Law Profs Counter CRIA Propaganda
An anonymous reader writes "The Globe and Mail reports that Canadian law professors have countered the Canadian recording industry's misinformation campaign in a new 600-page book that is being made freely available under a creative commons license. Led by Professor Michael Geist, the book provides full coverage of the possibility of Canada adopting DMCA-like copyright laws." From the article: "The 19 copyright law professors, in a peer-reviewed discussion edited by Ottawa lawyer and Internet columnist Michael Geist, note that revisions to copyright law in the past were largely the result of negotiations among copyright stakeholders; today, however, the broader public is also demanding a seat at the table. 'The public's interest in copyright something inconceivable even a few years ago is the result of the remarkable confluence of computing power, the Internet, and a plethora of new software programs, all of which has not only enabled millions to create their own songs, movies, photos, art, and software but has also allowed them to efficiently distribute their creations electronically without the need for traditional distribution systems,' the book says."
I can't find it on WinMX.
That's the sound of CRIA getting PWNED. Thank goodness us Canucks still got the balls to stand up to big business.
Remember kids, no posting before you've read all 600 pages. =)
All rites reversed 2010
So it is more than never the time to go after your candidates and grill them on the subject. The more public, the better!
Do not count on the private TV networks to expose this to the public; aim the majority of your efforts towars the government owned (but not controlled) CBC.
Canada has it easy. Look at us in Australia, we accepted a free trade agreement with the US complete with the DMCA.
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
Could someone post the content of the book in a comment, the webpage seem's to have been slashdotted.
Some of their numbers don't fly with me... Most of my associates either subscribe to iTunes, RealRhapsody, or Yahoo! Music. The main reason is having to pay for an entire CD (IMHO, overpriced) to get one or two songs.
...just my opinion.
The primary motivation for me spending $7/month for Yahoo! Music is so that I get only the songs I like and can ignore the garbage that these artists had to develop as filler.
I'm also realistic enough to know that the majority are downloading music they've never paid for. Which brings up another question: If I bought a vinyl album 20 years ago, do I have the right to have those songs? I know the answer. I don't like it. I think if I paid $10.99 in 1985 for a Pink Floyd album I purchased a license to have those songs, no matter how I get them.
My ZooLoo
The absolute best way to engage the interest of the buying, voting public...
is a 600-page book
*THUD*
Of course, it would make a handy prop in court...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The author (or at least the summary :P ) hits the nail on the head about the music industry: People being able to distribute their audio or video art BY THEMSELVES, making the Recording Industry redundant, if not obsolete.
Catch TV tune with latest celebrity fad VS 600 page boring book.. CRIA will win this "fight" over and over and over.
If you want to get kids attenction it needs to be quick, easy and flashy. A 600 page book is none of these, where as the R/CIAA's adverts are all of them.
I like muppets.
Coral Cache link here.
Michael Geist is my hero.
Illegitimi non Carborundum.
The 19 copyright law professors, in a peer-reviewed discussion edited by Ottawa lawyer and Internet columnist Michael Geist...
Oh boy! That should be loads of phun to read.
I can hardly wait until this freshly painted wall dries.
I read
..I purchased a license to have a copy of those songs, no matter how I get them.
what if you lose/spoil the CD? so you mean you could download those songs (illegally) because you had bought the license to have those songs, and not in the manner they were provided to you (ie on a CD)?
I'm also realistic enough to know that the majority are downloading music they've never paid for. Which brings up another question: If I bought a vinyl album 20 years ago, do I have the right to have those songs? I know the answer.
In Canada you have the right to copy those songs off the album into whatever form you like, for your own personal use. You probably also have that right in the US, but it's not explicitly in the law, and it hasn't been tested in court, as far as I know.
In Canada you also have the right to copy them from somewhere else (say your album is scratched, or whatever), again for your personal use. In the US you don't.
In fact, in Canada this applies to songs whether you bought the album or not. The CRIA is wrong when it talks about "illegal downloads". As long as you're downloading for your own use, it's not illegal.
As much as I love to bash Canada, this is worthy of applause. Can we borrow you to fight the RIAA when you're done?
I am Spartacus
booklets, brochures, etc. handed to the public can be derived from this book. The point is that the book can now be used as a reference, a cornerstone needed to provide the facts (as opposed to opinions) about copyright.
Think of the book as "The Copyright Bible".
Here's the clinch.
Under fair use, yes. you have the right to the data. In any format you want. Copied in any way you want. Ect.
However, you may not have the right to attain newer, updated versions. This can include the improved quality found in CD. Further, I'm pretty sure something in the DMCA, somewhere, disallows you to get the data you legally own a copy of again. So although its allowed under Fair Use, it may have been shattered by the DMCA.
IANAL, but I've had to study IP law a bit. Take it with a grain of salt.
Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
Bender: "I'm not reading all that crap. Summarize it in one word!"
Leela: "Sabotage."
AC comments get piped to
Are there any parties in Canada who have outright said that they will not support such nonsense, and will actively fight for the rights of individual Canadian citizens?
My nephew said that you have a Green Party over there which may be more open to such ideas. What is their stance on this bill? The Liberals and Conservatives are known for their business ties and corruption. Would they actually stand against this very corporate-friendly bill? Is the NDP even relevant these days? Where do they stand?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
When I attempt to verbalize the name "CRIA", it sounds like "seerrhea", which of course reminds me of "diarrhea".
Indeed, it would seem that they excel at proposing and supporting legislation that is a smelly, yellow, liquidy mess that in the end soils everyone's fun.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"CRIA seems to think that saying that downloading is 'illegal' long enough and loud enough will convince people that it is illegal," said Ottawa copyright lawyer Howard Knopf. "But it isn't illegal -- the main reason being Canada's lucrative levy scheme that CRIA asked for and got eight years ago. The Copyright Board and the Federal Court have said this, and no appeal court has said they were wrong."
..when it's not even illegal?!?
How does Environics come up with: Younger Canadians aged 12-24 comprise just 21 percent of Canada's population but account for 78 percent of illegal downloading
Under fair use, yes. you have the right to the data. In any format you want. Copied in any way you want. Ect.
Which part of fair use gives you this right? This is a serious question, please give details.
As a consumer, I reserve the right to time shift, place shift, playback device shift, media shift, play as often, and make as many backup copies as I deem necessary, of any content that I have purchased. I reserve the right to ignore, bypass or circumvent any mechanism, process or device that prevents or hinders such activities.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Nobody actually "owns" copyright or the copyrighted material itself. There are only copyright "holders" who have specific rights for a limited time, granted and enforced by the government. It's not a divine right, it's a contract between copyright holders and the public. The public agrees not to infringe for a length of time and to pay for the enforcement of the copyright, and in return the material becomes public domain when the copyright expires.
When Congress extends copyright terms on existing material they break this contract with the public. It's as if they decided to turn all 30-year mortgages into 60-year mortgages with the stroke of a pen. Nice if you're a bank, but not if you're the one who has been faithfully making payments for years and years. The Bono Act of 1998 not only extended copyright terms to 95 years, it also retroactively reimposed copyrights on old audio recordings. All recordings made prior to 1979 are now copyrighted until the year 2067. That includes every sound ever recorded, all the way back Edison's wax cylinders made in the 1890s. Isn't that great??!!
Why don't you just learn from them instead? Learn the techniques, and grow some genitalia. Fight for your rights yourself.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
You do have a right to them - feel free to rip the album to $DIGITALFORMATOFCHOICE and enjoy!
Do you think you purchased the right to the music such that 'they' should let you download it as well?
I suggest that is not the case.
From last paragraph:
"CRIA seems to think that saying that downloading is 'illegal' long enough and loud enough will convince people that it is illegal," said Ottawa copyright lawyer Howard Knopf. "But it isn't illegal -- the main reason being Canada's lucrative levy scheme that CRIA asked for and got eight years ago. The Copyright Board and the Federal Court have said this, and no appeal court has said they were wrong."
Coward Knopf is nothing but a shill for CRIA by implying the 'taxation' scheme buying Canadians legal rights to download copyrighted materials. What a lying fool. The entertainment industry doesn't deserve a single penny from this law, and the levy law should not even exist.
Are letters to politicians postage-free in Canada, as in some other nations? Could you realistically, assuming affording the paper was not a problem, mail a copy of this book to each and every parliamentarian?
Perhaps a group of students or professionals could get together and each print up a page or two of the book for each politician. And they could collect the pages together into a single book for each parliamentarian, spreading the printing cost amongst themselves.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Canada is very lucky to have Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party. I was reading an interview with him the other day and he was asked about the music industry's reaction to unauthorized copying. He talked about his experience teaching at university, and how the textbook publishers were predicting their own doom at the hands of widespread photocopier usage. The current textboox photocopying policy? A student may make a copy of up to 10% or one chapter of their text, whichever is shorter. The result? Students get to copy what they need and the textbook publishers are more profitable than ever (and continue to get away with RIAA-esque price gouging).
He reasoned that the music sharing situation would be similar and he still opposes the anti-consumer solutions being supported by the Liberals and Conservatives (such as this DMCA workalike currently being forced through).
The problem? Most of Canada's new sources lean far to the right. The Toronto Star is one of the few papers in the country that will even attempt to give the NDP a fair shot. The Sun (widely read) frequently prints stories from the Canada Free Press, a self-labelled "conservative alternative." The result is that the public almost never hears about things like this DMCA bill, and when the spotlight is on people like Jack Layton, the stories (like his amazing efforts to get wind generators built) are extremely jaded (Canada Free Press describes him as a bird-murdering maniac).
The last mainstream article I read regarding music sharing was in The Sun. It described Kazaa as an "illegal service." I wrote to the editor and explained that a) Kazaa itself is not illegal in Canada and b) downloading music from P2P networks is not illegal in Canada. I received a curt letter stating that perhaps I would probably prefer to share my opinion in their moderated forums. I replied with information backing up these facts but nothing ever came back (and there was certainly no retraction).
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
You gotta FIGHT ........
For your RIGHT
To COOOOOOPY
Actually, I think that it goes something like this under canadian law:
If I burn a copy of a cd I own, and give you the copy, I'm breaking the law.
If I give you a cd I own, you burn a copy, and return the original, no law is broken.
Applying this to the digital world, downloading songs/media/whatever for personal use should be legal, the problem is that most P2P apps also *upload* from your computer, which is in violation of copyright laws (you don't have distribution rights for the media).
Moral of the story? Canadians should use newsgroups for their "illegal" downloads.
Canada, I salute you. You've been a shining light of freedom. Alas, I fear that your government has been watching the self-serving buffoons running the U.S.A. for too long, and will happily trade both their ethics and your freedom for a bit of lucre. If they prove be be built of better stuff, I'll be applying for work over the border. Anyone want to adopt a good Oracle DBA/Linux Sysadmin?
Indeed, someone should collect all the chapters together and put them on the various p2p networks: BitTorrent, ed2k, whatever else. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done by the authors/editors/publishers themselves, though. It would have been a brilliant example.
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Canada will be going into elections within the nest 6-9 months. [emphasis mine]
Does this mean that Canadian politicians are an avian species?
If so, wouldn't they migrate south in the winter and inflict more big media-funded legislation on the United States? Not that Congress needs any help.
...on the other hand, if it's American politicians flying north in 6 months, you guys are screwed. @.~
A "fair use" is one that does not infringe on the copyright holder's ability to exploit their work for gain.
Whether a use is "fair" depends on a number of factors: 1) does the user profit from it at the expense of the copyright holder, 2) is the use educational, 3) is the use a criticism of the work, 4) does the use involve the whole work, or a small portion of it?
An example of a "fair use", is whistling a song you heard on the radio, or playing a purchased tape or CD of it in your car. While others may hear the tune, they are not likely to pay the copyright holder to have someone walk or drive by them just to hear the song.
Now, if you hold a public performance, it gets a bit more dicey: you're competing with authorized performances (since the performance is the production of a copy, however ephemeral or transient). Playing CDs at a party at your house to a small crowd of people is O.K.
In either case, charging admission makes it not O.K., particularly if the reproduction is what induces people to pay the admission price.
The areas that are grey are things like a barber playing a radio in his shop while tending to customers. That's likely O.K. (since people don't go into barber shops to listen to music), but playing the radio to relieve the boredom of customers waiting their turn is probably not O.K.: you're using the work to make your business more attractive than your competition who provides no distractions for waiting customers. Still, it's iffy enough to not be a good idea even in the former case: whether intentional or not, waiting customers have their boredom relieved by the radio they can hear.
In the case of downloading the CD equivalent of an old, scratched album, you have, clearly you're getting something you didn't have before: better quality, so its likely not O.K. Downloading the CD equivalent of the CD you paid for that got scratched beyond playability would seam O.K.: you're not getting anything you didn't already pay for. A poor MP3 dowloaded to replace the scratchy album could be argued to be fine on the basis of comparable quality as well. But, of course, the copyright holder would argue strongly against this position. Do you want to test it in the courts?
You could've hired me.
You always have the right to have those (and any other) songs in Canada. For your own use and as long as you don't redistribute them.
All Canadians have already been tried, found guilty and sentenced for copyright infringement. We've been paying a levy on blank CDs and tapes for years, thanks to CRIA. They've also tried to impose their levy scheme on ISP fees and DVDs and more, but thankfully failed. Anyway, CRIA drew first blood, but we have the right to download as much as we want.
Their latest antics just prove they want to have their cake and eat ours too. Screw em.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml
(pdf) http://www.cpcc.ca/english/pdf/interimDecision2005 .pdf
at least not all of canada! Their are other papers in the country besides the toronto ones, some of them are even good! ;)
The funniest thing about this post, I'm a toronto lover, and Jack Layton (who rocks) is my MP! You're making us look stupid, so stop mmm-kay?
IANAL - that being said, I believe the logic as far as having uploads going on while you are legally downloading material is okay in Canada. The logic being that some|most P2Ps require (or their users do) you to also share what you are downloading. As such, you are not breaking the law as your PRIMARY intent is to download.
Can someone translate it into a picture book for us?
The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
despite the write up here... the intended audience is lawyers, politicans, judges, and government bureaucrats setting policy. Perhaps the occasional enterprising journalist who's looking for some authorititve sources to an article, and undergrads and law students writing essays.
In other words, policy makers and those who may become policy makers. I'm guessing they're particularly interested in writing for judges who, if C-90 is passed, will be looking for all sides of the debate when the inevitable challenge is made in court. They speak with institutional authority, as distinguished academics in the canadian legal field, so their arguments will at least be considered.
Doesn't the CRIA submit that lying PR to the Canadian government? Isn't it a crime to lie to the Canadian government? How about some decent Canadian lawyers filing some complaints with the government about these lying CRIA criminals? From what I gathered living in Canada, some fines and sentences for that kind of disgraceful conduct would at least inhibit some percentage of the weasels. The rest of them will have to be rounded up individually and skinned alive.
--
make install -not war
Hey, if I were being taken to court by the RIAA, I'd swear the oath with my hand on this book.
How so?
(1)
You: I bought this disc/tape/LP and I want to copy some of the tracks off to...
RIAA: You bad, bad person! You don't own the music you paid for, you only have a license to listen to it.
(2)
You: I bought this disc/tape/LP and it's damaged. Since you say that I've paid the necessary license fee to listen to the music, can I get it replaced for, at most, a nominal fee to cover the new media?
RIAA: You bad, bad person! We don't replace media. If yours is damaged, go buy a new one.
You: But I've already paid the license fee...
RIAA: Too bad. Go buy another disc/tape/LP.
You: So I'll own two licenses for the same music? So it'll be OK, then, for me to make a backup...
RIAA: NO! Bad! You are not allowed to copy. You are paying a license fee to listen to the music only from that one disc/tape/LP.
You: But...
RIAA: All your music are belong to us!
Too many comments are dealing with the idea that Canada is somehow superior, because this legislation doesn't suck as badly as some copyright legislation sucks in some other countries.
:-(
:-(
:-( Slashdot isn't working for me. :-(
Don't forget that on the whole, our copyright laws still suck, and this bill will make them suck more. The law professors in this article don't like bill C-60; and neither do I! This isn't a non-issue. Copyright is everywhere!
Between literature, music, arts, crafts, and physical performances, there's very little that *doesn't* fall under copyright in Canada. Martial arts are a physical performance, dancing is a physical performance, blacksmithing is a craft, stained glass is an art, and programming is a form of writing. Mathematics is copyright. Photographs are copyright. Music is copyright. As for me, almost every single creative pasttime I enjoy is affected by copyright; and I think this holds true for many others as well.
And remember, copyright doesn't just protect rights, it also limits them! The first person to record an particular form of expression gets all the rights to that form of expression; and everyone else loses out! Natives are losing their rights to tell their old stories, because someone else is writing them down, and copyright doesn't apply until a work is "fixed" in a tangible format. The same could happen to ancient martial arts and dance forms, now that videocameras are common. If it hasn't been recorded yet, it's first come, first served for the rights to perform those ancient rituals.
In Canada, you don't have the right to read books out loud. In fact, there's a specific exemption for teachers under the Fair Dealing section of the Copyright act that lets them read "portions" of a book to their class. There are also special exemptions for religious worship, which is probably unconstitutional these days. There's the notion of "moral rights"; which forbid you from doing anything with an author's work that might reflect badly on the author. In one famous case, the Eaton Centre had bought an unsafe mobile from an artist, and moved bits of it so they wouldn't fall. The artist successfully sued, because they changed his work of art without his consent.
Me, I think copyrights in Canada were too stiffling to begin with, and they're just getting worse.
But don't just take my word for it. Read Bill-C60, read the current Copyright Act, and do your civic duty by informing your MP of your viewpoint (for or against) this piece of historic legislation.
Hurry, and let your MP know your opinion before it's too late to voice one.
--
AC
P.S. Why can't anonymous users reply to posts anymore?
I am curious: How much of the general public cares very much? A lot of people are quite willing to copy or decrypt things illegally if that's what it takes--presumably it doesn't matter too much to them whether something is legal or not. It matters to me because if it's illegal, then I can't in conscience do it (unless it's a law that it is immoral to obey, or maybe a case of public civil disobedience against an immoral law, etc.) But many people don't mind engaging in illegal copying, illegal circumvention of access controls, etc.
Just wait till they tax the hell out of one of your primary exports and then get owned 3x in court but still refuse to pay back what they owe.. /sorry tripped over a log.
sad that most of the chitty canadians are in the government, the good ones are at universities, and if not good at least the ones that have common sense.
My understanding is that you are allowed to make a copy for your own use. The question, to my mind, is whether or not downloading from someone else is you making a copy, or the uploader making a copy and giving it to you. If they're making a copy and giving it to you then it isn't kosher under Canuck law. That's how I understood anyway, and I'm not nearly wealthy enough for my opinion to count for shit.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
So are lots of people recording from these play whatever you want services, or is it too tricky?
Not Free SF Reader
Just torrent the folder with all the pdf's inside - spare us the stupid zip's or rar's which only means one has to duplicate the content (or one just throws away the torrent version at the earliest opportunity) and which means nothing is readable until 100% download.
Repeat after me: maximum compression isn't always a good thing.
If I burn a copy of a cd I own, and give you the copy, I'm breaking the law.
If I give you a cd I own, you burn a copy, and return the original, no law is broken.
One more (salient) point:
If I come over to your house, burn a copy of your CDs using your computer, your software, and your blanks, then no law is broken either.
If I download music (legally) with a P2P program, then go into a folder so that I can listen to them. If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
According to the professors, the 600-page books will be used to smack the Canadian recording industry's executives senseless until they agree to drop the campaign.
Fabio Aquotte
IANAL - that being said, I believe the logic as far as having uploads going on while you are legally downloading material is okay in Canada. The logic being that some|most P2Ps require (or their users do) you to also share what you are downloading. As such, you are not breaking the law as your PRIMARY intent is to download.
nonsense. you just made that up.
the law doesn't work that way. it makes no difference what your PRIMARY intent is, if a side-effect of your action breaks the law, it's no excuse.
uploading may or may not be legal in canada at the moment, but either way it's not because of the "logic" you give. *if* allowing others to download from your computer is illegal (this has not been tested in court), then the use of these p2p systems that require you to do so is illegal, even if your primary intent is only to download.
If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
during the proceedings where the CRIA was requesting the names of suspected file-sharers to be divulged, the judge gave an opinion basically the same as what you said here. for a while it seemed that this type of "uploading" was legal. unfortunately the appeals court threw out that opinion. they didn't contradict it, just threw it out saying that the judge shouldn't have addressed that question at that time. so basically it still hasn't been tested in court. i believe it has been in the U.S., and the decision was that it *was* illegal copying. but i'm not sure about that, and can't give you a reference at the moment.
soon the question will be moot, since the new canadian copyright law proposes a new idea called "making available". it side-steps the issue of who is making the copy, and just says directly that making available files in your shared folder will be illegal. the law hasn't passed yet, so if you're canadian and disagree with this, you should write to your MP.
Marc Emery's balls are so big he tripped over them. Hey, them's the brakes. But seriously dudes, when she's layin' on the beach with her legs wide open with a joint in her mouth and she's still smokin' she won't care how big your balls are so make marijuana legal. MAKE MARIJUANA LEGAL
http://chrisericson.com MAKE MARIJUANA LEGAL
It took you a while, but that's pretty funny. (but then it's really not funny if you really think about it...) but then...it kinda is.
I would just like to remind Canadians about http://killbillc60.ca/ and specifically the page http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/do_somethi ng.shtml which offers suggestions on what people can do.
It is very important that people speak out, otherwise no matter how many new books are authored the government will listen to the chicken little "sky is falling" crisis manufactured by the recording, motion picture, and "software manufacturing" industries.
Digital Copyright Canada forum