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."
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.
..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)?
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.
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
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.
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
NPD is great and all, really, but let's not burry our head in the sand and ignore the fact that the ONLY federal political party actually working for the citizen, doing it's job as an opposition party and having a real record of total and uncompromising integrity is the separatist Bloc Québecois party... food for your thought...
The NPD is merely a drop in the Canadian political pond, I voted for them but their message just don't get accross because they seem more busy playing whore with the liberal party, I lost confidence in their ability to lead and in their integrity...