Slashdot Mirror


Piracy Case Could Change Canadian Web Landscape

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.'"

16 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Not quite... by TheSHAD0W · · 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 · · 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 TubeSteak · · 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!
    3. Re:Not quite... by MadnessASAP · · 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.
    4. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · · 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
    5. Re:Not quite... by penguinstorm · · 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
    6. Re:Not quite... by damiangerous · · 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

  2. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by KillerBob · · 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:Laws and stuff by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)

  4. Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? by snowraver1 · · 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.
  5. Re:purely legal by mariushm · · 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?

  6. Re:Not surprising. by Vu1turEMaN · · 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.

  7. Re:purely legal by mariushm · · 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?

  8. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by grcumb · · 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.
  9. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by commodore64_love · · 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
  10. Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. by mariushm · · 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.