No, in Canada copying music for private use is legal. See the Copyright Act, or the summary on this CPCC page. They distribute the levy according to their estimate of the amount of copying, which they assume is proportional to airplay.
Is copying really proportional to airplay? There's probably some correlation, but I'd guess it's not a very accurate measure. Is there a more accurate measure? I don't know of one.
No, the CRIA is the RIAA's Canadian subsidiary. They get a small portion of the money, but it goes to the copyright collective first. The way they distribute it is described on this CPCC page.
Also, I find it funny how so many people on Slashdot can cry fowl that all blank CD sales in Canada include a tax that goes to the recording industry (on the assumption that someone will illegally copy music onto the media),
I find it funny that people keep repeating the music industry line that such copying is illegal. It's not. Read the Copyright Act, paragraph 80. It's very clear that copying music for private use is legal in Canada. That's the point of the levy.
Presumably to harvest 1% of the wind energy in the upper atmosphere, you'd need to have around 1% of the wind there pass through your turbine. (Probably more, because your turbine isn't going to harvest all the energy in the wind.)
Is it "nearly free" to have 1% of the stratosphere full of turbine kites? That's a lot of kites...
They're slashdotted, losing lots of traffic: so yes, it's ironic. But you can read the article if you want:
Paste the link "http://www.globaltechproducts.com/blog/1734/how-not-to-redesign-your-website-a-marketing-lesson-from-nytimescom/" into Google, you'll find the article in the Google cache.
The (to me questionable) basis for the calculation is that all old International Herald Tribune links are broken. It used to get X million hits per month, which are by a hokey calculation worth $100k.
You can read the "No-nonsense License Statement" here. It came out with TP 3.0 (and I still have an original manual, with the license printed on the inside front cover:-).
Just read the copyright act. It's absolutely clear that it's legal to copy onto CDs (for which you've paid a levy, presumably). It's a little ambiguous about whether it's legal to copy onto other media. The source of the copy is irrelevant.
So basically Manjoo is saying that copyright holders are obligated to make their works available to him in the format and timing he demands, or else he has the right to get them illegally?
No, he calls himself a scofflaw. He's saying that there's a market for works in the format and timing that the customer chooses. Currently it's a black market, and the studios are going to lose a ton of money because they don't offer a legal alternative.
It also presumes guilt on the part of anyone who buys a blank CD, which is also just plain wrong.
Not at all. It presumes that some of those will be *legally* used to make private copies of music.
Now, this is arguably unfair: some people will buy a bunch of CDRs and use them for things that are completely unrelated to music covered by the private copying right. However, it's not as unfair as it used to be: you can use recordable DVDs now instead, and you don't pay a levy on them.
But it doesn't really matter, because the levy is on its last legs. I doubt it will survive the next update to the Copyright Act. The fact is that nowadays very little private copying ends up on levied CDs. Most of it ends up in flash memory or on hard drives. Those have so many unrelated uses that it doesn't make sense to levy them. Since the CRIA no longer likes the private copying right (they've even convinced people like you it doesn't exist, and that private copies are illegal), they'll lobby against it, they'll convince people like you to lobby against it, and we'll lose it.
It's too bad, really. I'll still record music as I always did, but it will soon be illegal when I do it.
I, for example don't ever wish to purchase a top 40 cd. but due to the levy system if i purchased a blank cd in canada my money would be funneled directly to the very people i don't want it to even through i've never downloaded anything that belongs to them.
This is not very accurate. Your money will go to the copyright collective, and be distributed by it. 60% goes to the songwriters and publishers, 23% to Canadian performers, and 17% to Canadian record companies (actually mostly subsidiaries of multinationals). The distribution depends on airplay and sales, so Canadian top 40 artists will get more money than obscure ones, but most of the top 40 performers aren't Canadian, so they'll get none of it. (Whoever owns the rights to their songs will get a share, though.)
The theory is that copying should roughly match sales, so the fact that the popular artists get more just reflects the fact that there are lots of other people downloading them. Those people with bad taste are the ones whose levies go to the top 40 artists. Yours go to whoever you tend to buy and listen to on the radio.
Now, if you never buy music, and the radio never plays music you like, then you won't affect the distribution, but most downloaders do actually purchase music too, so they do tend to have an effect on where the money goes. If you're not one of them, you don't really have much right to complain: you're getting the right to download for 0.29 per CD. Seems like a good deal, even if the money doesn't go to people you like.
Signing the treaty doesn't create the obligation, it's ratifying it that does. Canada signed those treaties, but hasn't ratified them. It's like the US position regarding the Kyoto Protocol, or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: signed, but not ratified, so not bound by the terms of the treaty.
Okay, that makes sense. It's the feds who will keep them honest.
I remember a number of years ago Adobe (head office: San Jose, CA) was collecting provincial sales tax, and I had real doubts whether it would actually get back to the province.
What evidence do you have that New Brunswick actually sees that 13%? It's your responsibility to pay it, so if ncix or newegg doesn't choose to remit it to NB, will anyone even notice?
L1 is about 1% of the distance from the earth to the sun, so at that distance the proportion of sunlight blocked is roughly the same as the square of the ratio of radius of the asteroid to the radius of the earth. If you want to block 1% of incoming sunlight, you need an asteroid of about 600 km radius. Ceres is the only one that's big enough.
You're right -- the rate of burglary in the UK is about 3 times the rate in the US. Of course, the murder rate in the US is about 3 times the rate in the UK, so gun laws aren't all bad.
These Apple vs. Dell competitions never account for the constant sales that Dell has on their products.
Never? Well, hardly ever. This one got a $257 discount on the Dell, a $518 discount on the HP, and $409 off the Lenovo. The only two that weren't discounted were the Mac and the Sony.
The $130 doesn't get you an OS that will run on commodity hardware. First you have to pay the monopoly fee, i.e. the first copy costs $630, the upgrades are $130.
The unpaid developers profit in the same way other users profit: they get software for free that they couldn't develop on their own.
Most of them also profit by being put in contact with like-minded individuals.
Most of them profit by spending time doing things they like.
And best of all, most of these profits are not taxable. For a few, there are also taxable profits: They may enhance their reputation enough to be hired to do something they like.
Venus is quite easy to see during the day if you know where to look and use binoculars. Stand in a shadow, so you don't accidentally look at the sun and fry your eyes.
It's a little tricky with the naked eye, but if you've found it with binoculars first, it's easy. It's actually easier if there are a few clouds nearby. If the sky is clear blue, your eyes don't know what to focus on, so Venus is likely too blurry to see.
When Shoemaker-Levy was landing on Jupiter, I managed to see Jupiter in daylight in a small telescope, but I couldn't see it with binoculars or naked eye.
Actually, I didn't think anyone would assume I meant you'd get payback in half a year, because of all those things you mention. I just meant that 4000 hours is about half a year: the whole posting was about changes of units.
But now that I reread my posting, your interpretation is pretty natural. I'll write more carefully next time.
I think you mean that 1 kWh costs 0.20 euros. Consumers pay for energy, not power.
1 kW can produce 1 kWh in an hour. So if a 1 kW panel costs $1000 (around 800 euros), it will generate enough energy to pay for itself in 4000 hours, i.e. about half a year.
The logs aren't based on trusting the headers in the spam. They're based on which machine tried to deliver the spam.
Re the GP: You could cause mayhem at a university by getting bsdly.net to block all mail from them? I don't think so.
Now, if there was actually any value to this name and shame list it might cause trouble, but there isn't. It's just a bad idea. There are lots more spambots than addresses in that list.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in Canada copying music for private use is legal. See the Copyright Act, or the summary on this CPCC page. They distribute the levy according to their estimate of the amount of copying, which they assume is proportional to airplay.
Is copying really proportional to airplay? There's probably some correlation, but I'd guess it's not a very accurate measure. Is there a more accurate measure? I don't know of one.
No, the CRIA is the RIAA's Canadian subsidiary. They get a small portion of the money, but it goes to the copyright collective first. The way they distribute it is described on this CPCC page.
I think the title is justified by the first four words of the comment, "Break into my device". The rest is just details.
Also, I find it funny how so many people on Slashdot can cry fowl that all blank CD sales in Canada include a tax that goes to the recording industry (on the assumption that someone will illegally copy music onto the media),
I find it funny that people keep repeating the music industry line that such copying is illegal. It's not. Read the Copyright Act, paragraph 80. It's very clear that copying music for private use is legal in Canada. That's the point of the levy.
Not even DRM'd stuff from iTunes can be remotely deleted or disabled, just prevented from being downloaded again.
Didn't you just get that iTunes update? It fixed this problem. (Not really, of course. It'll be the next update that does.)
Presumably to harvest 1% of the wind energy in the upper atmosphere, you'd need to have around 1% of the wind there pass through your turbine. (Probably more, because your turbine isn't going to harvest all the energy in the wind.)
Is it "nearly free" to have 1% of the stratosphere full of turbine kites? That's a lot of kites...
They're slashdotted, losing lots of traffic: so yes, it's ironic. But you can read the article if you want:
Paste the link "http://www.globaltechproducts.com/blog/1734/how-not-to-redesign-your-website-a-marketing-lesson-from-nytimescom/" into Google, you'll find the article in the Google cache.
The (to me questionable) basis for the calculation is that all old International Herald Tribune links are broken. It used to get X million hits per month, which are by a hokey calculation worth $100k.
You can read the "No-nonsense License Statement" here. It came out with TP 3.0 (and I still have an original manual, with the license printed on the inside front cover :-).
Just read the copyright act. It's absolutely clear that it's legal to copy onto CDs (for which you've paid a levy, presumably). It's a little ambiguous about whether it's legal to copy onto other media. The source of the copy is irrelevant.
Here's the link for you: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80
The ambiguity comes because of the definition of an "audio recording medium" in that paragraph. Look back a few pages and decide for yourself.
So basically Manjoo is saying that copyright holders are obligated to make their works available to him in the format and timing he demands, or else he has the right to get them illegally?
No, he calls himself a scofflaw. He's saying that there's a market for works in the format and timing that the customer chooses. Currently it's a black market, and the studios are going to lose a ton of money because they don't offer a legal alternative.
It also presumes guilt on the part of anyone who buys a blank CD, which is also just plain wrong.
Not at all. It presumes that some of those will be *legally* used to make private copies of music.
Now, this is arguably unfair: some people will buy a bunch of CDRs and use them for things that are completely unrelated to music covered by the private copying right. However, it's not as unfair as it used to be: you can use recordable DVDs now instead, and you don't pay a levy on them.
But it doesn't really matter, because the levy is on its last legs. I doubt it will survive the next update to the Copyright Act. The fact is that nowadays very little private copying ends up on levied CDs. Most of it ends up in flash memory or on hard drives. Those have so many unrelated uses that it doesn't make sense to levy them. Since the CRIA no longer likes the private copying right (they've even convinced people like you it doesn't exist, and that private copies are illegal), they'll lobby against it, they'll convince people like you to lobby against it, and we'll lose it.
It's too bad, really. I'll still record music as I always did, but it will soon be illegal when I do it.
I, for example don't ever wish to purchase a top 40 cd. but due to the levy system if i purchased a blank cd in canada my money would be funneled directly to the very people i don't want it to even through i've never downloaded anything that belongs to them.
This is not very accurate. Your money will go to the copyright collective, and be distributed by it. 60% goes to the songwriters and publishers, 23% to Canadian performers, and 17% to Canadian record companies (actually mostly subsidiaries of multinationals). The distribution depends on airplay and sales, so Canadian top 40 artists will get more money than obscure ones, but most of the top 40 performers aren't Canadian, so they'll get none of it. (Whoever owns the rights to their songs will get a share, though.)
The theory is that copying should roughly match sales, so the fact that the popular artists get more just reflects the fact that there are lots of other people downloading them. Those people with bad taste are the ones whose levies go to the top 40 artists. Yours go to whoever you tend to buy and listen to on the radio.
Now, if you never buy music, and the radio never plays music you like, then you won't affect the distribution, but most downloaders do actually purchase music too, so they do tend to have an effect on where the money goes. If you're not one of them, you don't really have much right to complain: you're getting the right to download for 0.29 per CD. Seems like a good deal, even if the money doesn't go to people you like.
Signing the treaty doesn't create the obligation, it's ratifying it that does. Canada signed those treaties, but hasn't ratified them. It's like the US position regarding the Kyoto Protocol, or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: signed, but not ratified, so not bound by the terms of the treaty.
Okay, that makes sense. It's the feds who will keep them honest.
I remember a number of years ago Adobe (head office: San Jose, CA) was collecting provincial sales tax, and I had real doubts whether it would actually get back to the province.
What evidence do you have that New Brunswick actually sees that 13%? It's your responsibility to pay it, so if ncix or newegg doesn't choose to remit it to NB, will anyone even notice?
L1 is about 1% of the distance from the earth to the sun, so at that distance the proportion of sunlight blocked is roughly the same as the square of the ratio of radius of the asteroid to the radius of the earth. If you want to block 1% of incoming sunlight, you need an asteroid of about 600 km radius. Ceres is the only one that's big enough.
You're right -- the rate of burglary in the UK is about 3 times the rate in the US. Of course, the murder rate in the US is about 3 times the rate in the UK, so gun laws aren't all bad.
These Apple vs. Dell competitions never account for the constant sales that Dell has on their products.
Never? Well, hardly ever. This one got a $257 discount on the Dell, a $518 discount on the HP, and $409 off the Lenovo. The only two that weren't discounted were the Mac and the Sony.
The $130 doesn't get you an OS that will run on commodity hardware. First you have to pay the monopoly fee, i.e. the first copy costs $630, the upgrades are $130.
No, you have it wrong.
The unpaid developers profit in the same way other users profit: they get software for free that they couldn't develop on their own.
Most of them also profit by being put in contact with like-minded individuals.
Most of them profit by spending time doing things they like.
And best of all, most of these profits are not taxable. For a few, there are also taxable profits: They may enhance their reputation enough to be hired to do something they like.
That's exactly wrong. Free software is designed so that everybody profits.
Venus is quite easy to see during the day if you know where to look and use binoculars. Stand in a shadow, so you don't accidentally look at the sun and fry your eyes.
It's a little tricky with the naked eye, but if you've found it with binoculars first, it's easy. It's actually easier if there are a few clouds nearby. If the sky is clear blue, your eyes don't know what to focus on, so Venus is likely too blurry to see.
When Shoemaker-Levy was landing on Jupiter, I managed to see Jupiter in daylight in a small telescope, but I couldn't see it with binoculars or naked eye.
But you're forgetting about nighttime.
Actually, I didn't think anyone would assume I meant you'd get payback in half a year, because of all those things you mention. I just meant that 4000 hours is about half a year: the whole posting was about changes of units.
But now that I reread my posting, your interpretation is pretty natural. I'll write more carefully next time.
I think you mean that 1 kWh costs 0.20 euros. Consumers pay for energy, not power.
1 kW can produce 1 kWh in an hour. So if a 1 kW panel costs $1000 (around 800 euros), it will generate enough energy to pay for itself in 4000 hours, i.e. about half a year.
The logs aren't based on trusting the headers in the spam. They're based on which machine tried to deliver the spam.
Re the GP: You could cause mayhem at a university by getting bsdly.net to block all mail from them? I don't think so.
Now, if there was actually any value to this name and shame list it might cause trouble, but there isn't. It's just a bad idea. There are lots more spambots than addresses in that list.