Piracy Case Could Change Canadian Web Landscape

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Piracy Case Could Change Canadian Web Landscape

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday March 20, 2009 @08:49AM from the embrace-file-sharing-already dept.

meatheadmike writes to tell us that a recent Canadian court case brought against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc, could drastically change the web landscape in Canada. "The question before the British Columbia Supreme Court is if a site such as isoHunt allows people to find a pirated copy of movies such as Watchmen or The Dark Knight, is it breaching Canadian copyright law? 'It's a huge can of worms," said David Fewer, acting director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa. 'I am surprised that this litigation has gone under the radar as much as it has. I do think this is the most important copyright litigation going on right now.'"

156 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bad news by MrEricSir · 2009-03-20 08:53 · Score: 3, Funny

If you can download their movie for free, Terrance and Phillip are going to go bankrupt.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Bad news by palegray.net · 2009-03-20 08:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I just downloaded myself 500 times! HAHAHAHAHA!
  
  Oh my God, you killed profit!
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
2. Re:Bad news by smoker2 · 2009-03-20 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  FYFAUF !
Different jurisdiction, same story. by palegray.net · 2009-03-20 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

So this is like the Pirate Bay case, only the issues are being examined in Canada. Hope there's enough people making noise about this up north to have an impact.

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
1. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Quantos · 2009-03-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't see anything in the article for supporters.
  Do any of you have any ideas how a fellow Canadian can show support for ISOHunt?
  Other than just e-mailing them I mean.
  
  --
  Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
2. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by KillerBob · 2009-03-20 09:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is Canada. We don't make noise. We write letters. And only if it's about something that's really really annoying.
  It's also not really something we need to worry about in Canadian copyright law... all the ISOHunt people need to show is that they are not actually making the files available themselves. In Canadian copyright law, it's ok to copy/share materials as long as it's not for material gain, and you're not distributing on a large scale.
  
  --
  If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
3. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by CarpetShark · 2009-03-20 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Different jurisdiction, same story.
  Yep, it's called divide and conquer. Of course, the governments and big media are quite globally united, with things like copyright treaties, sadly.
4. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by arbiter1 · 2009-03-20 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Its the voice of the public vs the $$$$ of like mpaa. you know which side will win this.
5. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Define "large scale" please, because if it well over a million then isohunt is done but i really hope they aren't...
6. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by grcumb · 2009-03-20 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is Canada. We don't make noise. We write letters. And only if it's about something that's really really annoying.
  Yeah, things like the invasion of Poland, or when someone (ahem!) burnt down the city of York. Of course, we deliver those letters personally, and staple the envelope to the forehead of the recipient. Repeatedly.
  ...And politely.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
7. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by commodore64_love · 2009-03-20 11:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >>>So this is like the Pirate Bay case, only the issues are being examined in Canada.
  I don't know why you were labeled insightful", because you're flat wrong. Piratebay provides the tracker server which enables piracy. Isohunt does not. Isohunt is like google, a search engine, which means technically they are doing absolutely nothing wrong.
  The fact that google links to all websites, where isohunt only links to torrent sites, is the basis of this case and has implications for ALL search engines, as it may require them to stop linking to torrent sites too.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
8. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by mariushm · 2009-03-20 11:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Pirate Bay (TPB) offers an "optional" tracker that can be used for either legal or illegal purposes.
  You can however post a torrent on TPB without any of the Pirate Bay trackers, so in this case TPB will act just like IsoHunt.
9. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 13:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As for the latter, that was the British. I realize this is a matter of some national pride for Canadians, but history does not bear it out. The commander was Irish born and the regiments were all various British units who had recently been freed up by the end of the Napoleonic War. No Canadian raised units (which were primarily militias) participated. The razing of the White House was strictly a British affair and did not involve the predecessors of modern Canadians.
  Battle of Bladensburg.
10. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Jesse_vd · 2009-03-20 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is my local newspaper, basically, and i heard about it on Slashdot.
11. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  Invasion of Poland? Canada was in that war two years before the yanks got out from behind their momma's skirts.
12. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by hairyfeet · 2009-03-20 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not! How COULD they make noise, when they are all huddled around their little igloos trying to stay warm! Poor little Canadians, stuck out in the snow like little orphans. Here we are, down here in the US where it is warm, bitching about global warming, but do we ever think about those poor little Canadians, all stuck in the snow? While we are trying to cut down on emissions they are probably holding up cans of CFCs with their little mittened hands, spraying it desperately into the sky going "WORK DAMMIT!".......poor little Canadians, stuck in the snow.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
13. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by multipartmixed · 2009-03-21 00:55 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Can you conclusively show that none of those British soldiers or their descendants settled in Canada?
  I suspect you can't. Therefore your closing sentence is invalid.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
14. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by commodore64_love · 2009-03-21 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said: "Piratebay provides the tracker... Isohunt does not." The prosecution in the piratebay case argues that the tracker is used to steal copyrighted items, but that same argument does Not apply to isohunt. Therefore the two cases are not the same.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
15. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by kcbanner · 2009-03-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Can you give me a reason why it matters?
  
  --
  Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
16. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by dadragon · 2009-03-21 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yes. The invasion of Poland is largely considered to be the start of the Second World War, beginning 1 Sept 1939. The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on 3 September 1939, and Canada on 10 Sept 1939.
  The Americans think of Pearl Harbour being the start of the Second World War, 7 Dec, 1941, but the fighting in Europe had been going on for two years already.
  
  --
  God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
17. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by sumdumass · 2009-03-21 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Americans think of Pearl Harbour being the start of the Second World War, 7 Dec, 1941, but the fighting in Europe had been going on for two years already.
  
  Well, to our credit, 1941 is when the allies stopped losing the war. It may seem egotistical but us American sort of think the fight just started when we entered.
  Actually, I'm joking a bit. Canada allowed Americans to join their military before America entered the war. One of two fighter air squadrons served under Canadian command and was transferred to American command when we entered the war. Roosevelt signed an executive order allowing American officers to resign their positions/commands with honors to join up with the Canadians. Not counting the Flying tigers in China, I think something along the lines of 15,000 Americans served under Canadian/British authority before the US entered the war.
18. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Jeruvy · 2009-03-22 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what drugs the moderators were using to determine this to be funny, but c'mon...share!! Seriously, tho (since I think you were) since this behavior is already clearly ok in the eyes of the Canadian government thanks to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy Private copying levy tax we currently pay, you are on the money. Contrary to the 'disclaimer' at the beginning of this article, in Canada this begat's 'behavior' hence even 'copyright infringement' under the current definition does not substantiate 'illegal'. Proof wikipedia is not always accurate or truthful.
  
  --
  Jeruvy
19. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by Xest · 2009-03-23 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Any idea where those 15,000 were or what they were doing exactly? Certainly they didn't seem to be pilots as there were only 9 US pilots involved in the Battle of Britain:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain
  And of course, that was the real turning point of the war because it was the first major defeat of Hitler's forces, up until that point he had been advancing without fail. With a combination of RAF/Commonwealth airpower and British/Commonwealth naval power the war had already turned at this point such that the war had been stopped.
  Britain and the Commonwealth could not have gone on to defeat Hitler alone certainly, but they did manage to contain Hitler's advance. The US contribution was important certainly, but not as important as the Russians who gave more lives and took more German lives to defeat Nazi Germany than the West did. Without Western strength though, the Russians would likely have advanced further than they did. At very least though, Britain didn't need the US to make sure it's home soil was safe, only to help liberate the rest of Europe.
  Americans often like to think they were the saviours of Europe and to be fair they definitely helped and deserve a lot of thanks, but similarly the flip side of it is often ignored in that if they hadn't stalled for 2 years, Hitler could've been pushed back quicker, millions of lives could've been saved and even Pearl Harbour may never have happened. Ironically, 9/11 wasn't too dissimilar in that many Americans seemed oblivious to the fact that they had enemies until it happened. Perhaps acceptance and will to deal with a problem before it becomes a tragedy is something that can be avoided next time - for all our sakes.
Can somebody explain what it's all about? by guruevi · 2009-03-20 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't understand. Is the torrent site suing the CRIAA (Canadian Recording Industry Assh*les from America) to see whether non-Canadian content is copyrighted by the CRIAA? I thought those companies were subsidiaries of the recording companies and they just cross-license their stuff.
Legalese is so very confusing.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
1. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by snowraver1 · 2009-03-20 09:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, they are suing becouse this is a grey area in the legal system and isohunt is tired of getting harassed my various right holders. They initiated the lawsuit so that a judge would finally decide if they run an illigal business or not.
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
2. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by hldn · 2009-03-20 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  ILLEGAL
  i'm going to break something if you spell it wrong again.
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
3. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  illigal
4. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by commodore64_love · 2009-03-20 11:26 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  No he was right. "Ill-i-gal" is how they speak in Canada.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
5. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by ubergeek65536 · 2009-03-20 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever been to Canada? Do you even know where Canada is?
6. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by commodore64_love · 2009-03-21 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever heard of a sense of humor? Do you even know what humor is? Apparently not since you don't recognize a joke when you see one.
  Oh and to answer your question I've visited every province except Nunavut.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by biggknifeparty · 2009-03-21 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nunavut is not a province. It's a federated territory with aboriginal self governanc
Laws and stuff by girlintraining · 2009-03-20 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everyone yells and jumps about over copyright. And while in truth yes, it will have an effect on our lives and how we conduct business, the law will never settle the matter. No matter how many judgements, treaties, proclaimations, arrests, convictions, and everything else we throw at it, it cannot change the fact that the internet is global. You can't stop the signal, nobody can. We can't simply dismantle the network, and try as we might to control what goes over it, if a connection can be made someone will figure out a way to get the data through. The internet doesn't care about copyright. It exists to transmit information between people, and nothing will ever deny that power. Not as long as it exists.
We might bear witness to a fifty year war on copyright, pirates, and blah blah blah, but the problem will never go away. The signal will always be there, someone will always have a copy, and eventually the economic drain that will come from fighting this war will bankrupt its supporters. Eventually. It might not happen in five years, or twenty, but it will happen.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Laws and stuff by Rip+Dick · 2009-03-20 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sounds reminiscent of the war on drugs...
2. Re:Laws and stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:09 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Everyone yells and jumps about over copyright. And while in truth yes, it will have an effect on our lives and how we conduct business, the law will never settle the matter. No matter how many judgements, treaties, proclaimations, arrests, convictions, and everything else we throw at it, it cannot change the fact that the internet is global. You can't stop the signal, nobody can. We can't simply dismantle the network, and try as we might to control what goes over it, if a connection can be made someone will figure out a way to get the data through. The internet doesn't care about copyright. It exists to transmit information between people, and nothing will ever deny that power. Not as long as it exists.
  We might bear witness to a fifty year war on copyright, pirates, and blah blah blah, but the problem will never go away. The signal will always be there, someone will always have a copy, and eventually the economic drain that will come from fighting this war will bankrupt its supporters. Eventually. It might not happen in five years, or twenty, but it will happen.
  This post sort of makes me want to hack the Gibson
  HACK THE PLANET!!!!
3. Re:Laws and stuff by girlintraining · 2009-03-20 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sounds reminiscent of the war on drugs...
  The laws are screwy. I can take a 2x4 to your head and be out in six months for aggravated assault, but spend ten years in jail for downloading a song you made. I think we're already there.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:Laws and stuff by CannonballHead · 2009-03-20 09:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)
5. Re:Laws and stuff by GenP · 2009-03-20 09:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)
  You jest, but the day is coming...
6. Re:Laws and stuff by TubeSteak · 2009-03-20 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I can take a 2x4 to your head and be out in six months for aggravated assault, but spend ten years in jail for downloading a song you made.
  [Citation Needed]
  How exactly does a civil judge sentence anyone to jail?
  The only way you can get jail time is for criminal copyright infringement.
  And that's if you can get the FBI to investigate and the DOJ to prosecute.
  Generally, the FBI is only interested in large scale (the scene) non-commercial infringement, commercial infringement (selling bootlegs), cammers, and anyone leaking pre-release material.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
7. Re:Laws and stuff by Joebert · 2009-03-20 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait until someone downloads your song, then, clobber them in the head. You'll probably get off with probation.
  
  --
  Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
8. Re:Laws and stuff by ion.simon.c · 2009-03-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  You can't stop the signal, nobody can.
  My international army of backhoes, fishing trawlers, and Tesla coils disagrees.
9. Re:Laws and stuff by Rip+Dick · 2009-03-20 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  At first I read it as "fap at home" ...too much 4chan
10. Re:Laws and stuff by Xelios · 2009-03-21 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  In the end all this noise making about copyright on the internet will come down to a simple choice; do we change our ideas on copyrights or do we dismantle the internet? The latter is impossible by now, which is why all these lawsuits and lobbying attempts by content holders are futile. Content holders are just going through the stages of change;
  
  1) Shock - This was Napster
  2) Denial - The time between Napster and torrents
  3) Anger - This is where they are now
  4) Passive Acceptance - Not there yet folks
  5) Exploration - Companies will start to surface with new business models that work with file sharing
  6) Challenge - Business models will be refined until everyone settles into a new norm, where our current copyright laws will seem silly
  
  Some artists and companies are already on step 5, but by and large everyone is still suck on step 3. It's my personal hope that they get left there while others start to thrive, the whole content industry could use a reboot. So long as the internet exists people will find a way to distribute whatever data they want. If content holders think this is a problem now just wait until people start encrypting all their internet traffic.
  
  --
  Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
11. Re:Laws and stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-21 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)
  Bend over and I'll illegally upload it!
and your browser runs Google... by thedonger · 2009-03-20 08:58 · Score: 3, Funny

...and your OS runs your browser, and your bios loads your OS, and your hardware is the platform on which your bios runs, and your hardware uses electricity, which is generated by the power company by burning coal, which is mined from the earth. So really, this all the fault of the planet.

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
1. Re:and your browser runs Google... by Bureaucromancer · 2009-03-20 09:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Or maybe this all indicates that the coal mining company is supporting piracy? Sue the power company.
2. Re:and your browser runs Google... by castorvx · 2009-03-20 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's difficult to prove in courts that sites like that are supporting piracy, but it is also disingenuous to suggest the exact opposite.
  
  How much electricity is used for piracy? What portion of isoHunt's traffic is for data that is not copyrighted?
3. Re:and your browser runs Google... by dryeo · 2009-03-20 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Here in BC it is hydro power which is delivered by the crown corp. BC Hydro.
  So really it is the fault of the government for enabling us to download copyrighted material.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Not quite... by TheSHAD0W · 2009-03-20 09:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's different because Canadians have ALREADY paid for the content, in the form of a levy on all storage media. So the media companies want to be paid twice.
1. Re:Not quite... by snowraver1 · 2009-03-20 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I could be misinterpreting this, but this is not about individuals. In Canada, as I understand, it is not illigal to download copyrighted works for personal use. Under Canadian law, commercial infringment is still very much illigal, but infringement for personal use, and no financial gain, is not illigal.
  
  The issue at hand here is whether or not an individual/corporate entity can link to a copyrighted files (or in this case link to a file that has a link to look for a list of people that might have the file you need).
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
2. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Not true. We pay it on cassettes, CDR/W "audio", and minidisc.
  Not on all media. Not DVDR/W, not HD, not printer paper. etc-etc, and oddly enough not on CDR/W "data". Yes, it doesn't make sense one way or the other. You've heard of the Chewbacca Defence? We do Chewbacca Legislation.
3. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  You are absolutely correct. Back in the day of crappy internet and high school there used to be this guy I knew. He was making moolah by selling burned CDs with various software. Eventually he got busted. He got little other than slap on the wrist though.
4. Re:Not quite... by Jurily · 2009-03-20 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's different because Canadians have ALREADY paid for the content, in the form of a levy on all storage media. So the media companies want to be paid twice.
  They want to be paid as many times as they can. Remember DRM?
5. Re:Not quite... by shark72 · 2009-03-20 09:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The article in question is about downloading movies. You're referring to the Canadian levy on blank CDs, which goes to Canadian recording artists and Canadian record labels. If you've bought a blank CD in Canada, odds are that none of it went to the people who worked on The Dark Knight or Watchmen -- both products of the USA.
  Your purchase of blank media might give you a sense of moral justice in pirating, say, Celine Dion or Bryan Adams tracks... if this is ample justification for you, then go about your merry pirating ways and God bless you. But it would be a stretch to apply this moral justice to downloading Watchmen.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
6. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, you have that wrong.
  It's the Americans that only pay on cassettes and audio-cdr.
  http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_amount
  
  Not on all media.
  Correct.
  
  Not DVDR/W
  Correct, for now.
  
  not HD
  Depends on what device the HD is included in. If it's in an ipod, yes you *do* pay.
  
  not printer paper
  Yes, because printer paper is a digitial storage medium, right?
  
  oddly enough not on CDR/W "data".
  Bullshit.
7. Re:Not quite... by TubeSteak · 2009-03-20 09:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The issue at hand here is whether or not an individual/corporate entity can link to a copyrighted files (or in this case link to a file that has a link to look for a list of people that might have the file you need).
  I think this case is great news.
  Either the court sides with isoHunt and the issue is permanently settled...
  OR the court sides with the CRIA and the search engines hire lobbyists to fight it out and get the law changed.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
8. Re:Not quite... by mark-t · 2009-03-20 09:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That levy on storage media is intended to subsidize private use copying. Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
9. Re:Not quite... by MadnessASAP · 2009-03-20 10:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm a Canadian and I download music and movies, I do buy blank media but I don't buy it for moral justice, I buy it because I need somewhere to put the movies and music. I don't NEED to settle my morals because frankly I don't give a shit. I'm around when some of my friends watch those paparazzi shows and if Hollywood can afford those clowns ridiculous lifestyle then it can sure as hell afford my free copy of Watchmen.
  
  --
  I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
10. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  The levy in question is only in regards to sound recordings and goes to the CRIA (our RIAA). The money doesn't really amount to much but since you can't have a levy on illegal activity, copying sound recordings is legal in Canada.
  The article itself is unclear. The CRIA does not have anything to do with movies, only sound recordings.
  I suspect that the CRIA has been harassing isoHunt about its music links despite the current legal situation in Canada for music sharing and isoHunt decided to push back. The movie connection was probably just a reporter who thought downloading movies was more exciting than music.
11. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, we only pay a levy for _music_ to the CRIA, which means that current opinion is that downloading music is legal. Every other type of media if effectively off limits, though the police and judicial system consider personal downloading to be too unimportant to pursue.
12. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 10:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's not /strictly/ true. It's true that "fair use" and "format shifting" are established more firmly here than in the U.S.
  In Canada it's always been legal to make copies for personal use. This means that it's perfectly OK for you to take a line output from your 8 track stereo to your line in on your Mac Pro and create a digtal copy of that Rush 2112 album you bought in 1976.
  Similarly, it's fairly clearly legal for you to rip a copy of the Serenity Special Edition DVD you've bought to watch on your iPhone. You're breaking encryption, but it's probably still legal.
  To extend from that to "it's not illegal to download copyrighted works for personal use" is a stretch. Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs. From there, you can shift your format...you don't need to buy multiple licences (though you obviously can.)
  Whether this justifies the liberation of content gets into muddier waters. If I buy the DVD can I download a copy and say that's my "other format?" Maybe....maybe....the source may be illegal, but technically I do "own it" but I'm not sure that's justification. (Though I may use it as justification also.)
  In the case of over the air TV shows such as "30 Rock" I don't have to "pay" for a licence. It's paid for by advertisers. If I download it without advertisements...different situation. It's not like anybody's lost money, except in the abstract sense that the network could have made _more_ money through advertising revenue with a larger audience...unless of course I watched it live as well.
  In the case of a Compact Disc there's a more direct cause and effect: if I download a liberated copy of the medi, somebody's lost money. Labels aren't going to keep putting out music for no money, and bands aren't going to be able to record if nobody ever buys albums (touring revenue notwithstanding.)
  The media levy muddies the waters a bit, but only a bit.
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
13. Re:Not quite... by mathx314 · 2009-03-20 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Just remember that more people than rich movie stars and directors work on movies.
14. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because printer paper is a digitial storage medium, right?
  Why yes, it is!
  Sounds like you don't know what "digital" means.
15. Re:Not quite... by c1t1z3nk41n3 · 2009-03-20 11:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This while true is besides the point. Hollywood still makes more than enough money and it isn't anyone elses fault that they distribute it to a small minority of the people who make their products.
16. Re:Not quite... by dryeo · 2009-03-20 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  The cheap MP3 players that my wife, son and I bought all came with a song or two. So they were not blank and no levy. Hopefully other MP3 players also do the same.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
17. Re:Not quite... by yayotters · 2009-03-20 11:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why would 'private use' need a tax? What a load...
18. Re:Not quite... by mdielmann · 2009-03-20 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, it's nice to know that I'm not allowed to buy American movies in Canada. After all, how ever would the money find its way back to the creators of those movies? Likewise for American music.
  Now that I think of it, how would they ever sue you for copyright infringement in the first place? I mean, they're all from America (musicians and actors only work in America, right?) and people are pirating all over the world! Maybe they'll make organizations in various countries to represent their interests and collect royalties from copyright users. That's not a bad idea. In fact, they could get together with other major, non-American labels (if such a thing exists) and make organizations in each major legal jurisdiction to do this for them. I wonder what we could call organizations like this?
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
19. Re:Not quite... by ubergeek65536 · 2009-03-20 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Of course bands will still be able to record without the record labels, what they won't be able to do is spend $100K on recording an album. Nirvana recorded Bleach for $600 You're also forgetting that the vast majority of acts make their income from performances not from record deals. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
20. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 13:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't disagree with your assertion, but that's your personal politics of music not the legality at play.
  Neko Case told Paste Magazine that touring payed for her farm in Vermont, not recording. I believe strongly in supporting musicians while they're touring, and detest the face that I'm basically supporting Ticketmaster most of the time anyway.
  Nirvana may have recorded Bleach for $600 but most of those millions of eventual fans didn't go see them because they bought Bleach, and even fewer of them went to see them at Neumo's.
  Most of those fans heard of Nirvana long after they'd been signed by a major label and given a massive promotion and marketing push.
  I'm not saying a similar story /couldn't/ have happened if they'd just toured like crazy, I'm saying the story you're telling happened in the current system and not outside of it.
  I feel similarly about Radiohead's succesful "experiment" with selling In Rainbow's direct, btw. It really wasn't that interesting an experiment...it was a band that had benefited from millions of dollars of earlier promotion leveraging their name recognition. It's much more interesting to see what new bands are doing with the new medium...those bands that aren't signing with major labels (like the aforementioned Divine Ms. Case, who's been asked to do so more than once but values her integrity and independence.)
  It's about the legality, not the politics. In Canada if I've seen an artist live does that give me the right to liberate all of their music? I've asked this myself...I keep going to /see/ Kathleen Edwards but I don't own much of her music. Can I liberate it? I don't think it's legal.
  Followup question: if I borrow a CD from the library and rip it, is it legal for me to keep it?
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
21. Re:Not quite... by damiangerous · 2009-03-20 13:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs.
  Incorrect. Any person can make a copy of any copyrighted musical work for their own personal use. It doesn't mean they can only copy things they already own, it doesn't matter if they've paid anything for it at all. You can come to my house and copy all my CDs, and so can everyone I know. You may also invite anyone to come to your house and make copies of your CDs, including the ones you copied from me. Making any copy of any recording for personal use is not infringement.
  See the "Copying for Private Use" section of the Canadian Copyright Act: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770
22. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas your strategy is to get paid as few times as possible?
  I /think/ I understand your point, but I'm not sure that it's a really valid argument. Not every paying isn't really going to solve the problem either...
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
23. Re:Not quite... by schon · 2009-03-20 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?
  You are conflating "making available" with "copying".
  If I copy something for my own use, I need somewhere to put it. If that "somewhere" happens to be a shared drive, that's a separate legal question.
  If my intent was to copy it to share it out, that's no longer private copying, but if my intent was to make it available so that I can access it regardless of where I am when I travel, then putting it in a shared location is perfectly reasonable.
  If I were to allow everyone in my city (or province, or the entire counrty) to come into my house, and copy my CDs using my computer, that would be perfectly legal (as long as they're copying it for your own personal use.) What's the difference if those CDs are available on the internet or not?
24. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so that's an interesting section. It's interesting that it applies /specifically/ to "musical works." It certainly suggests that my library example is solid: I can borrow and rip without fear of violating copyright.
  It does nothing for the case of movies however....
  There is also the issue of the Harper Government's moves in the field:
  http://media.knet.ca/node/4052
  but I haven't been following them.
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
25. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ah...one other thing. That section states that the "act of reproducing" a musical work doesn't violate copyright.
  Downloaded music from the Internet is not a case "reproducing." I haven't reproduced anything...it's been created from the ether.
  If you have the media in your possession, it seems to make it fairly clear that you can "reproduce it." This is basic fair use doctrine.
  The person who reproduces it can do so only for personal use. Sharing it online is not personal use.
  It *does* seem that the library CD example is still clear though: I borrowed it and reproduced it for personal use, so it seems to be covered by the section.
  Dollhouse is on now. Gotta go.
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
26. Re:Not quite... by corychristison · 2009-03-20 16:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Followup question: if I borrow a CD from the library and rip it, is it legal for me to keep it?
  Absolutely not. You didn't pay anyone the right to even use it (at least that's how I think they might see it in court)
  But if you rent a BlurRay movie from Blockbuster or Rogers Video and are forced to 'rip' it to your Linux PC to play on your 40" TV screen (as you have a BD drive in your PC, but do not own a standalone player) and just happen to *forget* to delete the copy off your hard drive after you return it could be a different story.
  For some reason that seems to happen to me 2, sometimes 3 times a week. ;-)
27. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  OR they could do the smart thing, and make the case that if 99% of your "search engine" contains links to illegal material, you're either grossly negligent and should have your site shut down, or you're doing it on purpose and should have your site shut down.
  But that would just be too clever and wouldn't pidgeon hole into your little black-and-white "ZOMG their innocent!" pleas.
  If you created a search engine which deliberately contains links only to child porn but doesn't host any of the content itself, I would still expect your site to be shut down and you to possibly serve a jail sentence. Especially if you were profiting from the site's advertising and kept moving your servers between countries to avoid criminal charges despite each time proclaiming you're not doing anything wrong or illegal.
28. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 17:12 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs.
  Incorrect. Any person can make a copy of any copyrighted musical work for their own personal use. It doesn't mean they can only copy things they already own, it doesn't matter if they've paid anything for it at all. You can come to my house and copy all my CDs, and so can everyone I know. You may also invite anyone to come to your house and make copies of your CDs, including the ones you copied from me. Making any copy of any recording for personal use is not infringement.
  See the "Copying for Private Use" section of the Canadian Copyright Act:
  http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770
  What I'm curious about is this;
  The blank media levy was supposed to cover things like recoding from the radio. So what then is the functional differnce from me ripping a stream to mp3 and hitting record on the old tape deck?
29. Re:Not quite... by mark-t · 2009-03-20 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Whether or not they initiate the copying, when it transmits that data on the internet, your computer is still broadcasting that content to them. Unauthorized broadcasting of copyrighted content without permission of the copyright holder is _ALWAYS_ copyright infringement. If you never willfully disclose any means of accessing the content of your computer to anybody else, you'd at least have a reasonable argument that the infringement was not deliberate (since accidental infringement is generally forgiven as long as immediate efforts are taken to stop it once the infringement is discovered).
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
30. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  A very valid question, and frankly does anybody record from the radio anymore? Isn't that what podcasting is for? (Check out NPR's All Songs Considered live concerts...some amazing stuff.)
  I basically think they implemented the levy without considering it fully. I don't think it was /started/ as a revenue grab. I think it was started with good intention, though incredibly badly implemented (which is why it was tossed by the courts at one point.) I think it's /become/ a blatant revenue grab since those idealistic early days. I don't think it's supposed to serve any moral purpose anymore.
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
31. Re:Not quite... by mark-t · 2009-03-20 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Whether it "needs" a tax or not is irrelevant. That is the purpose of the levy. While it's quite true that prior to the introduction of the levy, it was something that Canadians enjoyed for free, this is hardly the first time that the powers that be have decided to start taxing something new.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
32. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · 2009-03-20 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, anybody who's got the kind of free time to search out a minidisc these days SHOULD be assessed some kind of levy. That's WAY too much free time.
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
33. Re:Not quite... by SilverJets · 2009-03-20 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  That levy is for music not movies, television shows, software or whatever else you find on torrent sites.
34. Re:Not quite... by impaledsunset · 2009-03-20 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could delete it, and it could miraculously remain on a snapshot of your home file system.
35. Re:Not quite... by easyTree · 2009-03-20 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be missing the point. Isohunt indexes trackers. They have no control over what's on those trackers. Their control is even further removed; it's the end users that decide which torrents to upload to the trackers.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
36. Re:Not quite... by smoker2 · 2009-03-20 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not true at all. Your computer never "broadcasts" anything. All content is requested by a third party. No files are pushed to random unknown users. And to be honest, I've never used a file sharing program that has a "shared folder". Either I publish a torrent and seed it or I don't. There are no files left open for others to browse. If I want to share files at the users whim, I put them on an FTP/http server.
37. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's different because Canadians have ALREADY paid for the content, in the form of a levy on all storage media. So the media companies want to be paid twice.
  We pay a levy on public radio/TV broadcasting, MP3-players, burnable CDs and DVDs, video and music tapes in Sweden. The copyright compensation system of today has been active since the 60's. We almost got a levy on copying machines when they become common in the 70's (not kidding). We almost got a levy on harddisks in the 90's and there are still politicians that propose a "harddisk tax" from time to time. At the moment there is a debate whether broadband should have a levy, it's very likely that it will happen, as we already ha e a levy on public radio broadcasting. Sweden has also a system of public libraries (the most extensive in the world and all research and school libraries are a part of it as well), where a levy is paid (by the library, not the customer, it's a free service) for each book that a customer loanes. This levy finance grants for Swedish writers/illustrators and this part of the copyright compensation system actually kind of works (at least for Swedish writers, who also benefits from the levy on loans on foreign made books). It's also the oldest part, the public library system ha been working pretty much like that since 1835, with roots in the 18th century community libraries and 14th century church libraries.
  The cheapest levy is on CD-R <900 MB which is 0.60 SEK (0.07USD or 0.05EUR) and the most expensive DVD-R/+R Double Layer >8,5GB which is 4.80 SEK (0.59 USD or 0.43 EUR).
  I'm pretty pissed that I have to pay money to companies I don't support, despite that I've never pirated anything. But unsigned/independent musicians/film makers have it worse, they have to pay money to their competitors to spread their creations, without getting any compensation from the system.
38. Re:Not quite... by multipartmixed · 2009-03-21 01:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, it IS legal to rip a library CD, and to keep the copy. That's black-letter law in Canada, and why we pay the blank media levy.
  You can copy and keep anything -- the interesting wording in the law says, IIRC, that the person doing the copying must also be the one doing the keeping.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
39. Re:Not quite... by mark-t · 2009-03-21 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of whether or not the content is requested by a third party, all communication on the internet is _sent_ by its originator, not pulled by the receiver. Sending, I'm afraid, is quite literally broadcasting it... even if it is only in a narrow enough band that only the intended destination will actually receive it. All the receiver actually does is request something and prepare to listen to the response (which could just as easily come in the form of a "request denied" as it could some actual content). And as administrator of your computer, it is quite reasonable for you to be responsible for who any content on your computer gets sent to... after all, according to you, these users are not "random" or "unknown", right? As for putting torrents on your own computer, that's hardly relevant to the example you gave about accessing your own computer remotely, as torrents are only economical if the information is already distributed, which unless the file is freely distributable anyways, is only further endorsing copyright infringement.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
40. Re:Not quite... by supernova_hq · 2009-03-21 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they would most likely leave the site up and use it to find other sites that actually DO host illegal content. If the site had thumbnails, etc of the images available on the linked sites (even cross-linked images), I'm sure they could and would be taken down.
41. Re:Not quite... by supernova_hq · 2009-03-21 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is that why they include 1 or 2 songs? I thought it was so you could "test" it right out of the box.
  I'm not being cynical, I'm actually genuinely curious as to whether or not these devices (with a couple songs) are covered under the tax.
42. Re:Not quite... by dryeo · 2009-03-21 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  The tax is on blank media. When they were talking about implementing the levy on hard drives, mp3 players etc there was talk that this would be a legal workaround. So I've taken it for granted that that is why they put the songs on.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
43. Re:Not quite... by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-21 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't reproduced anything...it's been created from the ether.
  but you have. you have copied a file stored on a bunch of strangers' computers. how is that any different from copying music from a friend's pc? so if you consider one as an act of reproduction, the other must be too.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
44. Re:Not quite... by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-21 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  oddly enough not on CDR/W "data".
  Bullshit.
  why??
  it seems an interesting note, why do you think he is bullshitting you?
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
45. Re:Not quite... by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-21 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of whether or not the content is requested by a third party, all communication on the internet is _sent_ by its originator, not pulled by the receiver.
  
  that's faulty logic. you see even if data has to be "pulled by the receiver" the hard drive of the sender has to spin. the receiver won't come up and physically spin it. so, is the sender's drive "broadcasting" or is the receiver "pulling"?
  what i want to say that in all things computery, a device can only request another device for data, not "pull" it. so how do you differentiate between "pulled" and "broadcast"?
  you can't. and i can't think of any solution. so just consider the initiator of the data transfer the perpetrator of the transfer.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
46. Re:Not quite... by Tuoqui · 2009-03-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you think any of the money from the CRIA or whatever is just funneling money from them to the RIAA and its labels? I havent heard a story of a single Canadian artist labeled or not getting any money out of this so obviously the money is going somewhere because I dont think they have a furnace they're using to burn it.
  I don't condone commercial piracy but damn I'll stand up for anyones right to 'personal piracy' because as it stands the copyright laws are far too slanted towards the producers and it seems like it will only get worse in the future with ACTA and other bullshit coming as a Made in America solution to their own problems they will try to shove down the world's collective throat so big media can continue to make money off 'Oops I did it Again' for another 300 years.
  
  --
  09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
47. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-03 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect!
  You paid a fee to the library to use it's material.Even if it's free you are entitled to use any medium in said library in virtue of the membership you obtained.
  MaxPower1971
  Stupid board wont let me create a username
Not surprising. by Creepy+Crawler · 2009-03-20 09:11 · Score: 1

That question has already been asked here in the USA. Is linking illegal? YES.
Case in point: 2600 magazine linking to DECSS code
Now what this will lead to is more of whats happening over in Australia and China.. We'll have content filters on each country divide monitoring for copyrighted materials and "websites known for trafficking of copyrighted materials". It'll be another WaronDrugs, this time with scatterplots of the whole population being charged with fines randing from 750$ to 35000$, plus federal hard time.
Mark my words: This is just the beginning.
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
1. Re:Not surprising. by dubbreak · 2009-03-20 10:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That question has already been asked here in the USA. Is linking illegal in the US? YES in the US.
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
2. Re:Not surprising. by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-03-20 10:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  +1 cause you're technically right, but seriously, if America thinks its illegal, they'll pressure someone else to think the same thing.
  Only reason why tv-links went down was because of US involvement.
3. Re:Not surprising. by Creepy+Crawler · 2009-03-20 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yep... The USA has no influence over any other country.. except
  ACTA
  Sweden's PirateBay criminal suits
  Iraq's new IP policy
  Canada's New IP policy
  And others Ive missed...
  Yep. The USA is an island all alone.
  --
  
  Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
4. Re:Not surprising. by dubbreak · 2009-03-20 14:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  +1 cause you're technically right, but seriously, if America thinks its illegal, they'll pressure someone else to think the same thing.
  Only reason why tv-links went down was because of US involvement.
  Completely true. The US attempts to push its ideals on other countries (I don't even need to give any examples, as anyone should be able to think of quite a few).
  
  There are many items where Canada has held it's own on standpoints (copyright so far, leniency on marijuana etc). My biggest complaint is that the general viewpoint of "Americans" (as we refer to US citizens even though they aren't the only country in america) is that their viewpoint is the only right on and everyone else should follow suit.
  
  My original post was to clarify that:
  illegal in the US != illegal in other countries
  
  Hardly redundant, and an important point to make as it seems many aren't clear on that.
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
5. Re:Not surprising. by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-03-20 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  well if it helps, you were at +2 insightful when i made my comment :(
6. Re:Not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'm american myself and I have to say that it's not us, the people, who are shouting about copyright laws and 'piracy' -- it's the MPAA and the record companies. Solely they are responsible for the chaos that now plagues the global community.
  Please don't accuse me for the crimes of the corporate giants. I'm not stuffing copyright law down everybody's throats.
  In the words of the leaders of IsoHunt: "When the majority of society has no ethical conviction of wrongdoing when they violate copyright law, it's not society that's wrong, it's the law."
  That is a statement that I take to heart as do all of my friends and family.
digital world by Max_W · 2009-03-20 09:17 · Score: 1

If one does not want that his movies or songs are transmitted via networks just do not put them into a digital format. There will be no these movies and songs in the digital world, but nature does not like an emptiness, there will be other instead.
1. Re:digital world by Urza9814 · 2009-03-20 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's not too tough to convert something from any analog format to a digital format...
  Basically they'd have to just not publish their songs ever. Or perform them ever.
2. Re:digital world by hldn · 2009-03-20 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Basically they'd have to just not publish their songs ever. Or perform them ever.
  hey for most of the stuff they put out, that's not such a bad idea.
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Why this wording? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-03-20 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

if a site such as isoHunt allows people to find a pirated copy of movies such as Watchmen or The Dark Knight, is it breaching Canadian copyright law?
I don't get it.
Are they trying to subtly make a point that only certain movies should be protected?
Or do they really feel that the general public doesn't know what a "movie" is, and could use some examples?
Maybe it's a nitpick, but something about that language just seems gratuitous, yet most news media seems to do just that.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
1. Re:Why this wording? by TuaAmin13 · 2009-03-20 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think they mean obviously commercially copyrighted works.
  
  How would I know if your youtube video that is posted on a torrent site is freely distributed by you or someone else? This is the worst case "it obviously is not free"
2. Re:Why this wording? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  I found it quite helpful. I didn't know what a movie was without those examples. I've also heard there are sites to help find songs to download but I haven't tried them yet because I don't know what a song is. Could someone give me some examples of those too?
3. Re:Why this wording? by TubeSteak · 2009-03-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it's a nitpick, but something about that language just seems gratuitous, yet most news media seems to do just that.
  They're picking movies that are in the public eye so that readers (you) can relate to the issue being described. Even people who don't go to the movies have more than likely heard something about Watchmen or The Dark Knight.
  12 years ago it would have been Titanic and Men In Black.
  It's just a rhetorical trick and a useful one at that.
  At the end of TFA: The Dark Knight became the most pirated movie in history after people found it through a BitTorrent search engine while it was still in theatres.
  /It isn't quite as gratuitous as you make it out to be.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
4. Re:Why this wording? by againjj · 2009-03-20 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  They are pointing out that isoHunt allows people to find movies (1) where the general public obviously has not been given download permission, (2) that would still be copyrighted under any reasonable length of copyright, and (3) are intended to be paid for. This is one extreme of the spectrum of items that can be found, where the other extreme is obviously public-domain works. However, the point is that the former is possible, and does that mean what isoHunt does is illegal?
  It also, of course, puts in some people's minds that isoHunt's sole purpose is to get such movies, but that is just a side benefit to the MPAA and its friends throughout the world.
5. Re:Why this wording? by gslj · 2009-03-20 10:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In Canada, musical recordings and movies leave copyright after fifty years. (Written works leave copyright fifty years after the death of the author). That means that an extensive list of movies is public domain (in Canada) and can be legally downloaded. For example,
  Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
  The Wizard of Oz (1939)
  Fantasia (1940)
  20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
  Lady and the Tramp (1955)
  I used a torrent the other day to get a copy of music that my dad used to have on album, "Yvonne de Carlo Sings." The date: 1957. I'd argue that the torrent search engine and I are in the clear on this one.
  The one proviso: when Disney restores the colour or re-engineers the sound track, the copyright clock starts ticking again ON THE REVISED VERSION, which is why Disney does that so often.
  By the way, if anyone knows where I can get a torrent of the film "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" (1940) or Thurber's "The Male Animal" (1942) please let me know.
  -Gareth
6. Re:Why this wording? by camperdave · 2009-03-20 11:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The one proviso: when Disney restores the colour or re-engineers the sound track, the copyright clock starts ticking again ON THE REVISED VERSION, which is why Disney does that so often.
  
  One could argue, though, that the remastered version is merely a derivative work and covered under the original copyright. Just as changing the font of a novel would not cause it to be a new copyrightable book.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
7. Re:Why this wording? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  The Wheels on the Bus
  B.I.N.G.O.
  I'm a little tea pot
8. Re:Why this wording? by size8 · 2009-03-20 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  *Obviously* this case is only dealing with superhero movies. Maybe because when you are flying at close to the speed of light, relative time progresses much slower - the flying man thinks only 1 hour has gone by, but when he gets home he finds out that 10,000 years have passed. So the copyright on all his favorite movies has expired and he can watch copied disks as much as he likes. Alone. Because the human race has become extinct and he doesn't much like the intelligent cockroaches that have inherited the earth.
9. Re:Why this wording? by Late+Adopter · 2009-03-20 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  A derived work is no less of a work in its own right, under at least American copyright law. Disney can derive from their own works to their hearts content and indeed start the clock again.
  
  The point you bring up is not about derived works, but about how much "creative" content is necessary to qualify for copyright, since copyright only covers works that are creative in nature. An amalgamation of facts, for example, is not copyrightable. Changing of a font to a previous work is probably not copyrightable. Touching up the color and the sound to a previous work probably IS copyrightable (though of course up to a court to decide).
  
  For a good example of how nit-picky this debate can get, see Happy Birthday, which is itself a derivative work of something that is in the public domain. There's a few sites out there that discuss its copyright status, which I have no doubt you can find with a little googling.
  
  Of course none of this matters because regardless of whether or not Disney does this, the original works will still go into the public domain at the same time. I suspect the reason Disney does this is so they can sell new versions of works that people already have.
Bad assumptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:22 · Score: 0

Slashdot, slashdot. Not everything's about money. If someone violates the terms of an OSS license, is that always going to be about money? So why do you think piracy's always about money?
purely legal by salparadyse · 2009-03-20 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative

The intent of the site is that people searching it can find the location of copyrighted materials.

Since the consequences of putting up such "sign posts" is that people will find this material it is therefore arguable that the consequences were foreseen (if disregarded).
This is called inferred intent. The principle comes from UK Criminal Law but is applicable universally because it speak of a basic truth. That to recklessly ignore the natural consequences of your actions, but to carry on with those actions anyway, is tantamount to intending those consequences.
Ergo - the site's purpose is to facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials.
Ergo - they are guilty.
As to whether they are guilty of a moral crime is another matter.
1. Re:purely legal by mariushm · 2009-03-20 09:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sorry, no.
  IsoHunt acts as a search engine and returns torrent files that can be either "legal" or "illegal".
  No search engine can determine with 100% accuracy if something is legal or not, not even Google.
  If I record a movie in my own garden, I can release the video on my website or even on The Pirate Bay with a license saying that only the people in my home town have the right to download the video and the rest don't.
  IsoHunt will index the torrent file nevertheless and from your point of view, IsoHunt indexes an illegal torrent that should be taken down, but from my (the creator) point of view it's perfectly legal.
  It's the USER'S RESPONSIBILITY to read the terms of the license, the description of the torrent file I made and download the movie if he believes he's allowed to.
  So what I'm saying is that a movie or song or any binary data can be copyrighted but also can be legal to download it, it's illegal to distribute/download/upload/whatever something you don't have rights to do that and IsoHunt or any other search engine can't know that.
  You can use Google nowadays for much worse things than copyright infringement, things like how to make a lockpick, how to prepare cocaine, how to steal a car, how to make a gun... but apparently a company's loss is important enough to stop something very useful to a lot of people.
  It's not even worth to start commenting about cases where a company makes a movie making millions in US but doesn't feel it's worth releasing a DVD or a VHS to a small country, because they estimate they'll sell very few copies there and the profits will be smaller than the distribution and fabrication costs.
  When this company retains copyright over something but yet keeps that something locked and unavailable to where I am, is that company really losing any money or suffers any losses if someone copies and gives away that stuff for free in that country? Should that company be allowed to keep copyright for 90 years on that? What was copyright supposed to be for, anyway?
2. Re:purely legal by salparadyse · 2009-03-20 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.
  Re your last paragraph - agreed. As I said, as to whether these sites have committed a moral crime is another matter.
3. Re:purely legal by Urza9814 · 2009-03-20 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  So why are books explaining how to make bombs, how to hack, how to murder, etc all legal? Yes, it's obvious people will use such things for nefarious purposes. Just like it's obvious people will use isohunt to download illegally. But there are also perfectly legal uses of such resources. And there are perfectly legal uses of isohunt.
4. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.
  Google (yahoo search, MSN search, etc) doesn't filter results either.
5. Re:purely legal by mariushm · 2009-03-20 10:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And how would you do that?
  Let's say you have "Madonna.jpg"
  How is IsoHunt supposed to know if it's
  (a) a scan of a Madonna CD artwork (illegal)
  (b) a picture you made with a camera of a Madonna statue
  (c) a picture of your girlfriend you like to nickname "Madonna"
  (d) a picture of the cover of a book that has Madonna in the name.
  Or, if I make a movie of myself and friend at a party, dancing on Prince's music, and I label it "Prince - Purple rain.avi" should IsoHunt remove it because it may be the actual video of the song or should IsoHunt staff be forced to download it and count how many seconds of Purple Rain actually are (if any) so that they can determine if it's fair use (less than 30 seconds of song) or not?
  If it's more than 30 seconds, do they use the Canadian laws where IsoHunt is, or MY laws, which may consider any length of song fair use?
6. Re:purely legal by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-03-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.
  It would be pointless to filter those titles out. As soon as they started doing that, people would start encoding titles so that the filter won't block them and then publishing lists of real titles and their encoded names in some frequently changing location that is easy enough for a person to find, but difficult for a computer to decipher. It already happens frequently on usenet because DMCA takedown notices to the big usenet sites like giganews have so far all been the result of automated title searches of headers and nzb amalgamaters.
  And ultimately it makes the job of copyright owners a heck of a lot easier if the search engines make it obvious where the copyright violations are occuring because those sites can be shutdown with an DMCA notice or whatever the local equivalent is.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
7. Re:purely legal by jonnyt886 · 2009-03-20 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  If I record a movie in my own garden, I can release the video on my website or even on The Pirate Bay with a license saying that only the people in my home town have the right to download the video and the rest don't.
  IsoHunt will index the torrent file nevertheless and from your point of view, IsoHunt indexes an illegal torrent that should be taken down, but from my (the creator) point of view it's perfectly legal.
  It's the USER'S RESPONSIBILITY to read the terms of the license, the description of the torrent file I made and download the movie if he believes he's allowed to.
  Yup, agreed. I don't know how it is phrased in legalese, but if I give someone the opportunity to do something illegal, but they make the final choice about whether to do it or not, I shouldn't be held liable if they break the law. For example, Google presenting me with a link to some ill-gotten MP3. If I click it, that's my act, I should be liable, not Google for presenting me with the link.
  Let's try a car analogy: if I buy a car, take it on the road, crash it and kill someone, the cops don't go back to the showroom claiming the car manufacturer is liable because they provided me with a machine that is capable of breaking the law.
  If I legally buy a gun, that's fine. If I go out and kill someone with it, I've broken the law. It's not the fault of the guy who sold me the gun, it's my fault.
8. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Or, if I make a movie of myself and friend at a party, dancing on Prince's music, and I label it "Prince - Purple rain.avi" should IsoHunt remove it because it may be the actual video of the song or should IsoHunt staff be forced to download it and count how many seconds of Purple Rain actually are (if any) so that they can determine if it's fair use (less than 30 seconds of song) or not?
  They haven't lost the case yet. Isn't it a little early to start handing out such inhumane punishments? Purple rain videos... shudder.
9. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  So why are books explaining how to make bombs, how to hack, how to murder, etc all legal? Yes, it's obvious people will use such things for nefarious purposes. Just like it's obvious people will use isohunt to download illegally. But there are also perfectly legal uses of such resources. And there are perfectly legal uses of isohunt.
  Uhhh they are not. Some people are pushing to make it that way but so far simple knowledge isn't illegal no matter what it is of.
10. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Quit saying "ergo", douche.
11. Re:purely legal by cbiltcliffe · 2009-03-21 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Automobile manufacturers don't specifically filter purchasers that are likely to use their cars to rob banks.
  Are car companies guilty of bank robbery?
  Camera manufacturers don't specifically stop random pervs from taking upskirt shots of women in shops. Does that make the camera manufacturer guilty of sexual exploitation?
  Tools have been used for good and bad purposes for centuries. But somehow, just because it's a search engine, involving a computer, you think it has to be treated completely differently. Slashdotters keep bitching about how invalid, stupid patents are suddenly valid just because the word "computer" shows up in it, but then you go and decide that a tool should be treated differently if it involves a computer.
  Slashdot doesn't specifically filter out idiots from using words like "ergo" to sound smart. Does that mean slashdot is stupid?
  No. Ergo, it just means that you are an idiot.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
12. Re:purely legal by raylu · 2009-03-21 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  Who maintains the list of titles known to be unavailable for free?
  Also, as stated by other posters, titles are insufficient for determining content.
  
  --
  Maurice Wilkes, debugging, 1949
13. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-24 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  These arguments are rather futile. I've been in the tech industries for over 20+ years.
  Realities.
  Reality is that in a perfect world industry would have you purchase everything, if you dont like what you bought what happens? Its opened music or game or software, we wont take it back. Yet if I purchase a pack of Hot Wheels that was not given to my kid at Xmas I can take that back, opened, dont care.
  See... I do not know if it is still "this way" but digital media publishers LOVE to write off "suspected losses" due to piracy. Years back (again I dont kow if this is still the case) the software industry was given grant in the USA to write off a percentile of "suspect losses".
  Reality being what it is, if digital media publishers wish to protect their goods then they should do so through the merchandise. Just like the "Watch 3 times DVD videos". They will argue that any encoding they come up with will be defeated by engineers reverse engineering things. Possibly true, probably true. However, I do not see them screaming at say the US Congress or other governmental entities about the illegitimate replication, resale and subsequent importation into markets of their digital merchandise.
  I can go to Amazon or eBay right now and find pluthers of merchandise that is mass replicated in Asia, Russia and imported to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year. We dont see the RIAA or other entities helping pay for security at ports to check those huge train railway containers for illegit import.
  Instead they want scream about 3000 illegit downloads when in fact BILLIONS OF REAL DOLLARS are spent each year on REAL counterfeits created in those nations and sold into our markets.
  I dont see them filing suits against Amazon or eBay. Yet anyone can go in there and find the stuff. How?
  Pretty simple. Dealer cost on digital merchandise will run 70-80%% retail. So... a $50 PC game lets say will have a dealer cost in the $41 area. So if a new release is sitting at eBay for $25 you might have a private seller, pretty easy to see, they are selling 1, not 101. Yet, they trundle along their way. Why? Because so many do this that the RIAA and varied other entities would need file lots of individual lawsuits, secondly, they dont go after the Point Of Sale (eBay) who has already defeated them numerous times.
  Lastly? Because they would need BUY that pirated material as proofs. Doesnt sound real hard, but they wont do that.
  Lets look back in the past and get even more evil.
  Years and years back there were several major players in office software. Corel w/ Wordperfect Suite, Microsoft with Office, Lotus w/ Smartsuite...
  You could go and buy an pluthers of auction sites MS Office Pro 97 for $25. A $400 item, $25. Microsoft even accepted registrations. Why?
  Here's why. Because in time those illegit sales allowed Microsoft to dominate the Office Suite software market... thats why. Symantec did the same thing with Norton Anti-Virus. If their software is on your machine their competitors software more than likely is not. While that doesnt equate to a sales revenue for those illegit items deemed "OEM Editions (all pirated)" it does the next best thing, it detroys your competitions ability to compete.
  In the music/video technologies its also always been a no wine before its time deal. In other words, we need make sure we fleese every possible dollar we can from consumers... Then when things are ripe we will release the new technology, 1080P, Blue-Ray... Notice the pricing. When this stuff first hits HUGE costs... Effectively making the people who want/can afford it PAY to bring production up, then cost down to the masses. We then fleese them of every plug nickel we can, then release something better and do it all over again. Thats not theft? Thats not Anti-Trust in fair practices to the public? You bet your #ss it is.
  In closing... many issues here. But the bottom line is these industies USE the public and have used the public in many ways. They go after sites such as say
14. Re:purely legal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-24 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  Ooo... Almost forgot one more reality, kinda a cherry atop it all.
  See... We dont want go after Amazon or eBay in scale. Cuz' it'd be a damned greek tragedy if you turned on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NY Times newspaper and saw, "Amazon sued (or lawsuits filed) over thousands of vendors selling illegal music CD's" that might really like... hurt Amazon. Like maybe consumers would go, What?
  Maybe consumers would do chargebacks?
  Maybe their stock would fall faster than a asteroid from orbit. Maybe Amazon might fire back (have to) with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, maybe Amazon might fire back with the realities of the "deals made" behind closed doors showing the anti-trust issues of the RIAA and tactics.
  So we are real concerned over the 3000 copies of xxx music CD downloaded via a torrent place. We are not however so concerned over the 3000 illegit copies sold by 25 different vendors at Amazon where the money leaves for China, Consumers actualyl did get ripped off, intellectual property holders never saw a red cent, they got ripped off. Laws have actually been broken... but, welp... we'll just ignore that, "Doesnt happen". Yet, it does... Many times each and every minute of the day and not just in the USA, in Canada... All over the world.
  ISOHunt is a venue, just like Rapidshare or Fileshare or this on or that one are online storage. How people use it ISOHunt cant defend. What ISOHunt can do is have a VERO process like eBay. For each occurance of a torrent appearing that the RIAA has issue with, please file the appropriate documentation with ISOHunt with appropriate proofs. We take these issues very seriously and will happily deal with them on a per instance basis. Just as other websites such as eBay or Amazon.com have to deal with this scurge we too are taking the responsible position.
  There is no way we can guarantee that any item listed upon our torrent site is acceptable or not and for us to try and do so would impune upon Internet users various civil rights and rights given them via their nationalities.
  Thus we are engaging a new Intellectual Properties Rights program by which the VERIFIED property rights holders upon providing proof to us of an infringing torrent linkage will result in the removal of that linkage on a per item basis.
  Done.
So in Google by howman · 2009-03-20 09:33 · Score: 1

'Watchmen filetype:torrent' makes Google a torrent search engine... Don't see them pulled into court... granted, places like ISO hunt, Torrent reactor and Pirate bay are making their name specifically by only searching for one file type. I wonder how things change if they add more file types and let you sort the results?

--
flinging poop since 1969
1. Re:So in Google by Rex+Stone · 2009-03-20 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  What about the "intitle:"index.of" {file extension} {filename}" search string in Google?
2. Re:So in Google by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-21 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  thanks. i've been looking for good watchmen torrents on piratebay and isohunt and found only cam rips.
  but google found a good one in seconds.
A Pleasant Reversal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:34 · Score: 0

"A recent Canadian court case brought against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc"
In Soviet Canada, Pirates sue YOU.
1. Re:A Pleasant Reversal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  No no no: In Soviet Canada, iso Hunts YOU!
Short answer - too bad by cdrguru · 2009-03-20 09:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

The problem is that people are still trying (and for the most part, failing) to make money from digital works. There are considerable forces in the world that want to make this impossible. And they are winning.
If you spend money for a movie, you are their sworn enemy. If you pay for music, in any form, you are part of the problem and they think they are part of the solution.
The problem is, right now they can win. For the most part "crime" on the Internet can't be effectively punished. Which is why just about anyone with a static IP address is assulted on a daily basis with break-in attempts. It is why your children can't be allowed to use the Internet without supervision - someone will approach them with some unsavory proposal. Anyone doing this "in real life" would either be beaten to death or arrested, depending on who caught up with them first (a parent or the police). On the Internet, I can seduce your children, I can commit fraud, libel and anything else I choose and you can do nothing about it.
This means I can buy movies and post them on the Internet with the specific intent of making sure not another dime is spent on that movie, ever again. Will my purchase be the last? Right now it is changing from a silly question to approaching a 50/50 proposition, depending on where I post information about "my" movie.
You can figure this is going to happen with books, software, music, movies and anything else in digital form. Anything is fair game.
So why is free bad? It sounds really nice, just having everything for free. More money for everything else. Doesn't this just make us all richer? Sure, everyone except the creator. Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid. Well, payday is almost over. And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.
So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.
1. Re:Short answer - too bad by mariushm · 2009-03-20 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  It is why your children can't be allowed to use the Internet without supervision - someone will approach them with some unsavory proposal. Anyone doing this "in real life" would either be beaten to death or arrested, depending on who caught up with them first (a parent or the police). On the Internet, I can seduce your children, I can commit fraud, libel and anything else I choose and you can do nothing about it.
  
  Obviously, you did not have a computer when you were a kid.
  
  Yes, children can be seduced on the Internet but if you would be bothered to sit down with your kids and explain them about these kinds of people and what's appropriate and what's not, you wouldn't even need to supervise them, because they'll learn to recognize what's good and what's bad.
  
  Just like promoting abstinence as birth control for teenagers, hiding children from the dangers of the world and supervising them constantly JUST WON'T WORK. You need to be patient and explain children about all these things and prepare them for life.
  
  My parents were too embarrassed to teach me about sex and about these things and just hoped I would learn at school... well, I just learned about sex way before it came to learn at school by staying and watching softcore erotic movies on TV after parents went to sleep.
  
  By the way, if you really want to protect your precious snowballs you should start burning your books because I can guarantee it your kids will look at your medicine/anatomy/romance books and look at pictures or read them, and they'll find about what you're trying to hide from them either way.
  
  So why is free bad? It sounds really nice, just having everything for free. More money for everything else. Doesn't this just make us all richer? Sure, everyone except the creator. Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid. Well, payday is almost over. And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.
  
  The creator doesn't get paid sh*t anyway. The movie director, the artists in the movie, the band, they're all under a contract and paid a fixed amount of money. The label or movie studio gets their copyrights in return for giving them money in advance and for promoting the movie/records.
  If the movie will be available for free, the poor movie studio will probably only make 100 million dollars from cinemas and associated merchandise instead of 150 million dollars. Maybe if the actors in the movie would not be paid millions of dollars like Angelina Jolie or others are paid, movies would be cheaper to make but I can guarantee you the movie studios will still be upset about losing money, because they're in it for the profit.
2. Re:Short answer - too bad by Microlith · 2009-03-20 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds really nice, just having everything for free.
  Indeed it does. It'd be great if everything in life were free. However, TANSTAAFL. At least, not in this world.
  
  Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid.
  Well, they didn't expect that the public would say "we enjoy your work, but fuck you." and since
  
  payday is almost over
  They'll do whatever anyone else does when they stop getting paid. They'll quit doing it and move on.
  
  So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.
  No, it's my way of encouraging them to create more. You would just as soon rip off an independent group of filmmakers with no major corporate backing as you would a major film studio. You'd do it even if you liked their work. And you expect them to make more of anything, when you make the plain point that you'll fuck 'em over on a whim?
  
  And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.
  Indeed, you'd better like it too when the flow of current NEW works slows to a trickle. Cause no one will waste their time doing something when they're just going to get screwed in the end.
3. Re:Short answer - too bad by Draek · 2009-03-20 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that people are still trying (and for the most part, failing) to make money from digital works. There are considerable forces in the world that want to make this impossible.
  
  Wrong. They are simply trying to stop large companies from lobbying to prevent the free sharing of information. Lobbying to perpetually extend copyright, lobbying to penalize copyright infringement more harshly than rape or murder, lobbying to collect taxes on other companies' products solely because they wish to. And they are winning.
  
  This means I can buy movies and post them on the Internet with the specific intent of making sure not another dime is spent on that movie, ever again.
  Sure, and you can also buy movies and post them on the Internet with the specific intent of becoming a billionaire. Doesn't mean it'll work, though, and given the wide range of opinions of Internet citizens, I wouldn't bet on it either.
  
  So why is free bad? It sounds really nice, just having everything for free. More money for everything else. Doesn't this just make us all richer? Sure, everyone except the creator. Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid. Well, payday is almost over. And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.
  And that wouldn't be a bad thing, or would you relinquish benefits for the whole of society for the sake of a single person?
  
  So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.
  Not really. Well, if you pay for MPAA-sponsored movies and RIAA-distributed music, yes you're making a rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement by supporting those who would take away our freedoms and limit our opportunities to grow as a society solely for their own profit, but if you buy indie there's no sin being commited./p>
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
If It's In Canada... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2009-03-20 09:53 · Score: 0, Troll

I do think this is the most important copyright litigation going on right now.
If it's in Canada, how could that possibly be true? :^)

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
indexing is not copying by RichMan · 2009-03-20 10:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

repeat after me indexing is not copying.
No matter how much the RIAA wants you to think otherwise. Indexing or making other available of where to find something is very different from actually making it available.
Also making it available is not the same as copying it. People who put a movie up on a server are not violating copyright. Digital media must be copied to temporary storage to be played.
Do not listen to the RIAA and their weird interpretation of what is a violation of copyright.
1. Re:indexing is not copying by size8 · 2009-03-20 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  The Pirate Bay case was based on the idea that Pirate Bay was somehow facilitating or aiding and abetting the "crime" of copyright infringement. This is clearly the area of law that this Canadian case is exploring. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that, according to the OP, this case was brought by Isohunt. Not thr RIAA. So I think Isohunt is hoping to clearly point out that in Canada there is no crime of aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
2. Re:indexing is not copying by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-21 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  repeat after me indexing is not copying.
  It's not even illegal to be paid to make that listing.
  Witness the "adult personals - agencies" section of any newspaper. It's pretty much given that they are ads for prostitutes, but the advertising (listing, indexing) of the ads is not illegal, just some of the services themselves. (I'm not making s judgment on whether those activities should be illegal)
On the face of it... by rickb928 · 2009-03-20 10:13 · Score: 1

...it saeems as if this is a case over whether or not a search engine can be held responsible for making it possible to find illegal content.
And doesn't that mean that search engines would then be liable for the content of sites they list?
And doesn't that mean that search engines need to know the nature of the content they index?
And doesn't that mean that Google, for instance, needs to decipher if the results in a 'Watchmen' search are lawful previews, generic fanboi blog noise, press releases about the opening night receipts, or a torrent of the flick?
And doesn't that mean that the torrent sites will just obfuscate their pages to let Google and the others off the hook?
This does have the impact of either criminalizing search results for illegal content, or more likely rehashing the argument over 'offering' and 'providing'.
Which I think we have prcedent in the US that 'offering' is not the same as 'providing' or distribution, and so not infringement.
Didn't we settle this once? Will Canada agree?
Of course, if this were about ch1ldpr0n, we wouldn't be *allowed* to question this - anything is permissible to eradicate ch1ldpr0n.
feh. I'm still appreciating my 70s rock too much to bother buying anything new. And if I want to hear something new, which happens about twice a year, there are plenty of great artists out there giving their stuff away. And the irony? I PAY them! they don't even have to ask!
I just feel a little guilty over stiffing the artists who mistakenly signed on to the Dark Side. Most didn't know better.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
OK - so here - do this by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2009-03-20 10:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

to get fairly quick access to any music title you want.
go to Google and type in:
"bandName" "recordTitle" download inurl:blogspot
just substitute "bandName" with the name of the band you want and "recordTitle" with the title you need from them.
BANG.
the blogs linking to them come up.
sigh. So simple and convenient...
RS

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
JUST so you guys know by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 10:44 · Score: 0

p2pnet won the 1st salvo and as a judge said
linking is not ilegal as its the user that makes the choice of whethar to goto infringing or illegal content.
IF ISO hunt wins this based on that earlier ruling
then it affirms it, if not all it does is cloud the issue for a second case to determine why one is legite and the other isnt , which lends me to beleive its going to go iso hunts way.
AND in other news
in may if BCE gets its way
no more unlimited in canada
and a 200 GB use will cost about 200$ CAD/month
with 60GB CAPS to CAIP 3rd parties while bell offers 95gb and rogers offers 100GB
all these arses are overcharging us to death
we will in may be paying 100 times what americans pay for net use
You know what? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 12:56 · Score: 0

Fuck Canada.
Just a matter of time by nurb432 · 2009-03-20 13:29 · Score: 1

Before ALL content is restricted and you can only post 'approved' items.
"but you can run xyz to get around it!" for now, just wait until TPM/DRM tech is *required* to run. Then your files ( and thus applications ) themselves become subject to approval by the future 'internet content governing body', a wing of the UN.
Enjoy what is left of your freedom while you can. Dark days are coming.
And before you label me as just 'yet another tin foil hatter', if i had told you a decade ago we would even be having this discussion you would have called me paranoid, but guess what, we are. ( which i did predict 15 years ago.. too bad i was right )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They sue over legal things, too... by Xenographic · 2009-03-21 00:56 · Score: 1

> Or, if I make a movie of myself and friend at a party, dancing on Prince's music, and I label it "Prince - Purple rain.avi" should IsoHunt remove it because it may be the actual video of the song or should IsoHunt staff be forced to download it and count how many seconds of Purple Rain actually are (if any) so that they can determine if it's fair use (less than 30 seconds of song) or not?
Thing is, Prince would still go after you for that even if it was clearly fair use. I base that on the fact that the Purple Weirdo who can't spell filed a DMCA Takedown Notice against a woman for a clip on YouTube of her baby dancing to a few seconds of one of his songs...
1. Re:They sue over legal things, too... by mariushm · 2009-03-21 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, well, let him sue me and see how much DCMA applies in Greece or Ukraine or Russia or my country. Maybe he'll learn that DMCA applies only in US.
2. Re:They sue over legal things, too... by Xenographic · 2009-03-21 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  > Yeah, well, let him sue me and see how much DCMA applies in Greece or Ukraine or Russia or my country. Maybe he'll learn that DMCA applies only in US.
  Strangely enough, many non-US providers obey DMCA notices even though they don't necessarily have to. It can be quite annoying at times, actually. But their logic is probably that they DO have copyright treaties with the USA and they don't want any legal trouble.
  That said, there certainly are non-US hosts that ignore DMCA notices. The legal threats section on the Pirate Bay is particularly amusing.
Or... googleHunt by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-21 06:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

1. go to www.google.com
2. type: torrent "Lily Allen" "It's not me It's you"
3. hit enter
4. google = isohunt
This is a BOGUS question by bratwiz · 2009-03-21 08:13 · Score: 1

How is this any different than an encyclopedia telling someone that the Mona Lisa is housed in the Louvre in Paris who then goes to try and steal it? Should encyclopedias be banned too?
just a thought by zakldb · 2009-03-31 04:55 · Score: 1

Referring to the post on http://isohunt.com/ Quote: File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types. A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing. B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased. C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector. D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away. And based on comments here and elsewhere, one I'm reminded I've heard before, I venture to add a 5th case: UPDATED wrote: E. Those who use sharing networks to download what they already bought in another digital form. Aka. format shifting, for various reasons including DRM or for backup purposes. Examples include: End Quote So, group B are also so called pirates because they copy copyrighted material without authorization. However, I doubt any company would complain about such essentially free advertising. Therefore, morally they are not doing anything wrong and nobody would really start a lawsuit against them. The right to sample before buying is important. Many times people buy songs, movies, games that they cannot preview or if they can preview they are not really given the true taste of the product but a false teaser. So they are hustled into paying for something that end of not liking. How much money have you spent on movies you did not like? Even going to cinema does not guarantee a good movie. Sure there are differences in taste but sometimes even cinemas show movies that 99% of the audience will agree are meaningless and provided no pleasure. Why let others con you into giving them your money for making something that is not worth the money? I know many people who first watch a movie and then pay for it. They first play a game and then pay for it. Is this illegal? Most definitely it is, but is it immoral? I would say most defintitely it is NOT because it gives you choice and disables con artists from making something that has no substance, flashing it around with marketing and then conning you into giving them over you hard earnt money so that they can get rich without really having any talents but being tricksters. Group C could really be divided into 2 groups - those who download content that is no longer available for sale and those who download because the purchase cost is too high. Again, if you download