I'm really impressed! Google knows the difference between "B" and "b". Now if they would just teach it about "hogshead" and allow prefixes (milli, micro, nano) on "fortnight", "rod", etc, my life will be fulfilled.
Right now, if I want to know what one millirod/nanofortnight is in miles per hour I have to ask like this: one (rod/1000) per ( fortnight/1000000000) in miles per hour
> things like the ambiguities in the file system (/bin,/usr/bin,/usr/local/bin, etc...
Oh. You mean things like: are the drivers in C:\windows\, c:\windows\system, c:\windows\system32, c:\windows\system32\drivers ? Oh, shit. This is a win2k system, make that C:\WINNT\...
Computer "Retards" don't care where files are put. If the program's installer does its job, the filesystem is invisible to the end user. Most people don't "use" a filesystem, or even an operating system. Most people just want their apps to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that big-ass tank strapped to the belly of the space shuttle contain LH2 and LOX? It seems to me that if you could reduce the amount of LOX you need (which is 8x as heavy as the LH2) you could significantly reduce the launch weight and therefore the amount of fuel required to get it to altitude. Or are you saying that scramjets are 10% as fuel efficient as the second-stage rockets on the space shuttle therefore you have to carry 10x as much LH2?
Okay, I'm actually trying to think this through logically while typing it...
Section 80.(2):
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
Let's start by reducing "the things..." Those things are, in simple english, three ways of saying "a recording of a song."
I would also like to reduce (2)a-d to "distribution in any form" to make this argument simpler. I will keep in the back of my mind that, for our purposes, "distribution" includes "public performance" and "playing it over the telephone, radio or tv." (which I would also consider "public performance")
And "Subsection (1) does not apply..." == "You are not allowed to make a personal copy..."
so...
You are not allowed to make a personal copy if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to "a recording of a song.": "distribution in any form" (Yes, that is awkward. I'll fix it later.)
Does that "recording of a song" refer to either the source media or the destination media, or to the musical content of the recording irregardless of what media it is on?
1. If it refers to the source media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing the original. While at first read, that statement seems to make some sense, it is not really logical. The act of making a personal copy is not connected with distributing the original. (Aside from the fact that you may _wish_ to make a copy before you sell your CD to someone else. The two actions are not interdependant.)
2. If it refers to the destination media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing that copy. Simply put, I can't make a "personal copy" and then sell it on the street corner. I can't make a "personal copy" and then _give_ it to my best friend. In fact, to take that two steps farther, if I happen to be a DJ and I dutifully pay my royalties to SOCAN to allow me to play my CDs at dances, I am still not allowed to use my "personal copies" due to (2)d. (2d makes no sense outside of this interpretation, as it is illegal anyways for me to publicly play even my _bought_ CDs without paying additional "public performance" royalties to SOCAN.)
3. It is impossible to distribute a song unless it is either on a media or you publicly perform it. This section of the Copyright Act does not address making a sound recording of a public performance, and we have already discussed the two "media" possibilities above.
So, I would argue that my interpretation 2 makes the most sense. To reword my previous rewording of 80.(2):
You are not allowed to make a personal copy of a recording of a song if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of "distributing in any form" "a recording of a song."
Please let me know if you see any logical errors in my interpretation.
Once again, I am a computer programmer, not a Lawyer. I have to think logically and precisely every day, but I don't usually have to convince a judge or jury that I am right... just the compiler.:-)
p.s. after re-reading all of this and section 80, you may have a point. 80.(1)(a)to(c) sound like they could be referring to the source media. (i.e. you "reproduce" the "source", not the "destination") I still stand by my statement that making a copy and distributing the original are independant of each other. Also, my interpretation 1 would possibly open up your legal options of what you can do with your _copy_. I'm sure that's not what they intended when they wrote this law.
Yes, the Pikes are a "sketchywan" band. I don't know if I could actually pick a favorite, but I could narrow it down to three or four songs on their last two albums. Yes, that's right, I'll take their newest album over the old stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love the old stuff too. Ross Nikyforuk, who played keyboards with them a bit back in the 80s, has a recording studio in the same building that my office is in. They recorded their newest album, "It's a Good Life", there and did the post-production on their new video at another business in the same building. Go buy it. You won't be disappointed. It's kinda funny, but the band hates "She Ain't Pretty." In fact, I think at least three of the guys would say it's the song that broke them up. The last song on their new album is called "Blame the Song." You'll love it.
Once again... read the Act. Perhaps it's an oversight and they'll fix it in the next version, but there is no indication that the media you copy it _from_ must be a legal copy. It very simply says that it is not an infringement of the copyright act for me to make a private copy of a recording of a musical work for my personal use. You could argue that this does NOT cover my personal taping of a live show. However, it technically _would_ allow me to make a copy of _your_ recording of that live show. In that case it's you, not me, breaking the law. The prosecution may have a chance by arguing about the "spirit" of the law. What I'm arguing here is the "letter." There are times when the spirit can take precedence over the letter. I know, because I'm involved in a fight including this aspect right now.
Of course, IANAL. (but I have paid way too many thousands of dollars to lawyers in the past year.)
WRONG. Go read sections 79-82 of the Canada Copyright Act. It allows me to make a copy onto an "audio recording medium." "audio recording medium" is defined:
"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;
So, if individual consumers ordinarily put mp3s on their hard drives, a hard drive becomes an "audio recording medium" under section 79.
You missed the Northern Pikes. USians might remember the song "She Ain't Pretty" although they had a few more hits up here. BTW, they're back together and making new music.
The other issue, as i see it, is the delay between sending a command, it happening, and seeing the result. Try controlling a R/C car with a 4 minute delay between moving the lever and seeing what happened to it. If you put a human who can make split-second decisions regarding the landing onboard, I would think you can greatly increase the chance of success. This is why it takes days for the rover to turn 115 degrees and roll off the platform. They want to make sure they know what happened after each move.
> Uh, have you ever tried smoking "one or two" cigarettes a day?
Yes. I've been a "pack or two per month" smoker for years now. Of course, I have never been a "pack a day" smoker. I make sure I can "quit any time" by quitting for a week or so every once in a while. (over christmas holidays this year, for example) Maybe I'm just special (I doubt it), but if I can do it, it can be done.
> This mist however is something that only coffee drinkers experience and is a coffee withdrawal symptom. People who do not drink coffee do not have a mist in their heads to clear up.
Did you read the parent post? It mentions schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, attention deficit disorder and colitis. Three of those four could definitely be described as having a "mist in their heads." As for colitis, doctors aren't sure what aspect of cigarette smoke controls it, but straight nicotine doesn't seem to have the same effect as smoking one or two cigarettes per day. Having had colitis, I can tell you that many people suffering from it would be willing to try anything -- even taking up a 2 cigs per day "habit." I eventually had to have my colon removed, so I don't have an excuse for smoking anymore.;-)
> It's not like MS can't make good software - Office v.X and Flight Simulator come to mind
Bruce Artwick Organization (BAO) wrote "Microsoft" Flight Simulator. Microsoft just branded it and sold it. Somewhere around v6.0 ('95) MS bought BAO and moved the BAO programmers in-house. There has been plenty of look-and-feel work done by MS since then, but I'm convinced that the majority of the simulation code was in place by v5.1.
> In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) > Corrections are invited.
Almost. Section 80 of the Canadian copyright act only applies to musical recordings. It doesn't seem to apply to movies, etc. (Unless there's another section that I haven't discovered.)
> Your friend can legally lend you his original CD.
OK. I'm not sure of that, but I'll agree for the sake of this argument.
> You can legally copy it.
Section 80. Agreed.
> Your friend can legally copy his CD.
Section 80. Agreed.
> You friend can *not* legally give you his copy.
Section 80(2)(b). Agreed.
> You *cannot* legally copy from his copy, if you get hold of it somehow.
Why not? You have made an illogical jump here. If my friend gives me a copy, my friend has distributed it and has broken the law. I have done nothing wrong. Section 80 doesn't say anything about the source of the music being copied. (This is what surprizes most people. Most people think you have to own the original to be allowed to make a copy.)
Remember, Copyright law restricts the rights of duplication and distribution, not possession. Of course, in the MP3 case, it can be argued that I never even possessed my "friend's" copy. Certainly, he distributed it and is guilty of that. I copied it and that is protected under Section 80, CCA and paid for under sections 81 to 88.
Yikes. There are some inaccuracies in that page. CP/M was indeed coded for the Intel 8080 processor by Digital Research. (I'm not sure what that had to do with IBM... did they commission it?) It was a de-facto standard for a while and ran on a variety of machines from different manufacturers with 8080 or Z80 processors. The Apple II had a MOS6502 processor which had NOTHING to do with CP/M. There was, however, a CP/M plugin card made by none other than Microsoft, that had a Z80 (or 8080, I can't recall) processor on it. (I have one of these.) There were plenty of other machines (the entire TRS-80 line, for example. Not the CoCos though.) that natively used the 8080 or Z80 processor. Another point, the Z80 was OPCODE COMPATIBLE with the 8080. It was faster and had ADDITIONAL opcodes as well. (Yes, I programmed both 8080s and Z80s in school.) So, CP/M written for an 8080 would run on a Z80. CP/M with Z80 extensions would not run on an 8080. I believe you could physically pop out the 8080 in a system and replace it with a Z80, but don't quote me on that. (I might be thinking of the V20/8088, V30/8086 which definitely were pin-compatible.)
Also, microsoft sold a license for QDOS to IBM _before_ they aquired the rights from Seattle Computer. Just a nitpicky detail.;-)
> First, yes, there is a levy in Canada on blank CD-Rs that is supposed to compensate musical artists for the piracy that is occurring. But no, this does not give anybody the right to make copies.
Please read sections 80 thru 82 of the Canadian Copyright Act again. You have it both wrong, and backwards. It's not a tax on an illegal activity, it's a specifically allowed activity and subsequent levy to pay for that right. Section 80 details that "reproducing all or any substantial part of" a musical recording "does not constitute an infringement..." subject to a few subsequent rules. (such as I can't share that copy, physically or via P2P) Section 81 explains that even though section 80 allows me to make a personal copy, the artist is still entitled to payment for that copy. Sections 82 to 88 explain the levy on blank recording medium.
So first, no, private copying does "not constitute an infringement" and, second, the tax/levy was applied to reimburse the artist for LEGAL private copying.
I expect the record companies will try to change this law as soon as the population discovers it. Of course, then the levy WOULD be unconstitutional.
> I will point out that in the early eighties, software copy places did exactly that: Took advantage of a fuzzy area of the law ("evaluation copies") to make a buck. They lasted for a year or two until the software companies put pressure on, and then they were raided and royally busted.
The protections in Sections 80 thru 82 of the CCA apply to sound recordings of performances of musical works. Software is not a musical work. Although, I remember some discussion of that before there was specific protection for computer software in Canada. Could I copyright my Vic-20 cassette as a musical recording, or a printout as a literary work? The usual consensus was the printout. In the mid or late 80s, software became specifically protectable under copyright law in Canada. Yes, I know this becuase I wrote and published commercial software for the Vic-20.
But, like my comment before the rabbit-trail... Music (or more specifically, a performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording -- that does limit some applications such as, perhaps, bootlegging a live concert.) is specifically exempted in section 80. I'm not arguing that _sharing_ music via Kazaa is legal... that would violate 80(2)(b).
I suspect that the Copee Shoppe would be shut down due to lending CDs or Public Performance rules. I'm not sure what the legality of lending CDs is, but if you read the warning at the start of most sell-through videos, you will see that lending is prohibited. That's right, I cannot legally lend you that Matrix DVD I bought. Video rental stores cannot go down to walmart, buy a $8.88 video, and rent it out. They need to buy the $100 version that permits rental. (or get a seperate license) Perhaps there is similar legalese regarding CDs.
Certainly 80(2)(b) means I legally need to have sharing turned off in Kazaa. The act of me downloading itself is not a violation. It could probably be argued that it is contributory(?) to the sharors offence.
In particular, though, this section of the CCA seems to permit the borrowing of a legally purchased CD from a friend (or a library?) and then making a personal copy for myself. I can't lend my copy to another person for them to make a copy.
Perhaps it is an offence to lend an original CD to a friend, though. Maybe I need to purchase it, copy it, and sell it back?
Slashdot Mirror
Try using "stewardesses" as your password. Sorry, I don't have one for lefties.
I'm really impressed! Google knows the difference between "B" and "b". Now if they would just teach it about "hogshead" and allow prefixes (milli, micro, nano) on "fortnight", "rod", etc, my life will be fulfilled.
/1000000000) in miles per hour
Right now, if I want to know what one millirod/nanofortnight is in miles per hour I have to ask like this:
one (rod/1000) per ( fortnight
-srw
http://www.wisecroft.com/
Shhh... don't tell Real.
ttyl
srw
> Ascap regularly takes enforcement action against churches for xeroxing sheet music
And Churches have no excuse for breaking copyright laws when a simple and affordable solution exists:
http://www.ccli.com/
> things like the ambiguities in the file system (/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc...
Oh. You mean things like: are the drivers in C:\windows\, c:\windows\system, c:\windows\system32, c:\windows\system32\drivers ? Oh, shit. This is a win2k system, make that C:\WINNT\...
Computer "Retards" don't care where files are put. If the program's installer does its job, the filesystem is invisible to the end user. Most people don't "use" a filesystem, or even an operating system. Most people just want their apps to work.
-srw
You missed one:
It's obviously those damn creationists!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that big-ass tank strapped to the belly of the space shuttle contain LH2 and LOX? It seems to me that if you could reduce the amount of LOX you need (which is 8x as heavy as the LH2) you could significantly reduce the launch weight and therefore the amount of fuel required to get it to altitude. Or are you saying that scramjets are 10% as fuel efficient as the second-stage rockets on the space shuttle therefore you have to carry 10x as much LH2?
Of course, IANARS.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/24/1628214.shtm l m l
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/18/1953203.sht
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/24/1628214.shtm ls htm l
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/18/1953203.
Okay, I'm actually trying to think this through logically while typing it...
:-)
Section 80.(2):
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
Let's start by reducing "the things..." Those things are, in simple english, three ways of saying "a recording of a song."
I would also like to reduce (2)a-d to "distribution in any form" to make this argument simpler. I will keep in the back of my mind that, for our purposes, "distribution" includes "public performance" and "playing it over the telephone, radio or tv." (which I would also consider "public performance")
And "Subsection (1) does not apply..." == "You are not allowed to make a personal copy..."
so...
You are not allowed to make a personal copy if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to "a recording of a song.": "distribution in any form"
(Yes, that is awkward. I'll fix it later.)
Does that "recording of a song" refer to either the source media or the destination media, or to the musical content of the recording irregardless of what media it is on?
1. If it refers to the source media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing the original. While at first read, that statement seems to make some sense, it is not really logical. The act of making a personal copy is not connected with distributing the original. (Aside from the fact that you may _wish_ to make a copy before you sell your CD to someone else. The two actions are not interdependant.)
2. If it refers to the destination media, it means you can't make a personal copy for the purposes of distributing that copy. Simply put, I can't make a "personal copy" and then sell it on the street corner. I can't make a "personal copy" and then _give_ it to my best friend. In fact, to take that two steps farther, if I happen to be a DJ and I dutifully pay my royalties to SOCAN to allow me to play my CDs at dances, I am still not allowed to use my "personal copies" due to (2)d. (2d makes no sense outside of this interpretation, as it is illegal anyways for me to publicly play even my _bought_ CDs without paying additional "public performance" royalties to SOCAN.)
3. It is impossible to distribute a song unless it is either on a media or you publicly perform it. This section of the Copyright Act does not address making a sound recording of a public performance, and we have already discussed the two "media" possibilities above.
So, I would argue that my interpretation 2 makes the most sense. To reword my previous rewording of 80.(2):
You are not allowed to make a personal copy of a recording of a song if the making of that copy is done for the purpose of "distributing in any form" "a recording of a song."
Please let me know if you see any logical errors in my interpretation.
Once again, I am a computer programmer, not a Lawyer. I have to think logically and precisely every day, but I don't usually have to convince a judge or jury that I am right... just the compiler.
p.s. after re-reading all of this and section 80, you may have a point. 80.(1)(a)to(c) sound like they could be referring to the source media. (i.e. you "reproduce" the "source", not the "destination") I still stand by my statement that making a copy and distributing the original are independant of each other. Also, my interpretation 1 would possibly open up your legal options of what you can do with your _copy_. I'm sure that's not what they intended when they wrote this law.
Yes, the Pikes are a "sketchywan" band. I don't know if I could actually pick a favorite, but I could narrow it down to three or four songs on their last two albums. Yes, that's right, I'll take their newest album over the old stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love the old stuff too. Ross Nikyforuk, who played keyboards with them a bit back in the 80s, has a recording studio in the same building that my office is in. They recorded their newest album, "It's a Good Life", there and did the post-production on their new video at another business in the same building. Go buy it. You won't be disappointed. It's kinda funny, but the band hates "She Ain't Pretty." In fact, I think at least three of the guys would say it's the song that broke them up. The last song on their new album is called "Blame the Song." You'll love it.
Their official site is www.thepikes.com
Once again... read the Act. Perhaps it's an oversight and they'll fix it in the next version, but there is no indication that the media you copy it _from_ must be a legal copy. It very simply says that it is not an infringement of the copyright act for me to make a private copy of a recording of a musical work for my personal use. You could argue that this does NOT cover my personal taping of a live show. However, it technically _would_ allow me to make a copy of _your_ recording of that live show. In that case it's you, not me, breaking the law. The prosecution may have a chance by arguing about the "spirit" of the law. What I'm arguing here is the "letter." There are times when the spirit can take precedence over the letter. I know, because I'm involved in a fight including this aspect right now.
Of course, IANAL. (but I have paid way too many thousands of dollars to lawyers in the past year.)
WRONG. Go read sections 79-82 of the Canada Copyright Act. It allows me to make a copy onto an "audio recording medium." "audio recording medium" is defined:
"audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium;
So, if individual consumers ordinarily put mp3s on their hard drives, a hard drive becomes an "audio recording medium" under section 79.
Refer to: Copyright Act (Canada)
You missed the Northern Pikes. USians might remember the song "She Ain't Pretty" although they had a few more hits up here. BTW, they're back together and making new music.
The other issue, as i see it, is the delay between sending a command, it happening, and seeing the result. Try controlling a R/C car with a 4 minute delay between moving the lever and seeing what happened to it. If you put a human who can make split-second decisions regarding the landing onboard, I would think you can greatly increase the chance of success. This is why it takes days for the rover to turn 115 degrees and roll off the platform. They want to make sure they know what happened after each move.
30cm with 1 degree toe-in. Ya, close stuff can hurt a bit to view.
> Uh, have you ever tried smoking "one or two" cigarettes a day?
Yes. I've been a "pack or two per month" smoker for years now. Of course, I have never been a "pack a day" smoker. I make sure I can "quit any time" by quitting for a week or so every once in a while. (over christmas holidays this year, for example) Maybe I'm just special (I doubt it), but if I can do it, it can be done.
ttyl
srw
> This mist however is something that only coffee drinkers experience and is a coffee withdrawal symptom. People who do not drink coffee do not have a mist in their heads to clear up.
;-)
Did you read the parent post? It mentions schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, attention deficit disorder and colitis. Three of those four could definitely be described as having a "mist in their heads." As for colitis, doctors aren't sure what aspect of cigarette smoke controls it, but straight nicotine doesn't seem to have the same effect as smoking one or two cigarettes per day. Having had colitis, I can tell you that many people suffering from it would be willing to try anything -- even taking up a 2 cigs per day "habit." I eventually had to have my colon removed, so I don't have an excuse for smoking anymore.
ttyl
srw
> It's not like MS can't make good software - Office v.X and Flight Simulator come to mind
Bruce Artwick Organization (BAO) wrote "Microsoft" Flight Simulator. Microsoft just branded it and sold it. Somewhere around v6.0 ('95) MS bought BAO and moved the BAO programmers in-house. There has been plenty of look-and-feel work done by MS since then, but I'm convinced that the majority of the simulation code was in place by v5.1.
--
> In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc)
> Corrections are invited.
Almost. Section 80 of the Canadian copyright act only applies to musical recordings. It doesn't seem to apply to movies, etc. (Unless there's another section that I haven't discovered.)
ttyl
srw
> Your friend can legally lend you his original CD.
OK. I'm not sure of that, but I'll agree for the sake of this argument.
> You can legally copy it.
Section 80. Agreed.
> Your friend can legally copy his CD.
Section 80. Agreed.
> You friend can *not* legally give you his copy.
Section 80(2)(b). Agreed.
> You *cannot* legally copy from his copy, if you get hold of it somehow.
Why not? You have made an illogical jump here. If my friend gives me a copy, my friend has distributed it and has broken the law. I have done nothing wrong. Section 80 doesn't say anything about the source of the music being copied. (This is what surprizes most people. Most people think you have to own the original to be allowed to make a copy.)
Remember, Copyright law restricts the rights of duplication and distribution, not possession. Of course, in the MP3 case, it can be argued that I never even possessed my "friend's" copy. Certainly, he distributed it and is guilty of that. I copied it and that is protected under Section 80, CCA and paid for under sections 81 to 88.
> http://www.acad.humberc.on.ca/~frig8279/osessay/do s/history.html
;-)
Yikes. There are some inaccuracies in that page. CP/M was indeed coded for the Intel 8080 processor by Digital Research. (I'm not sure what that had to do with IBM... did they commission it?) It was a de-facto standard for a while and ran on a variety of machines from different manufacturers with 8080 or Z80 processors. The Apple II had a MOS6502 processor which had NOTHING to do with CP/M. There was, however, a CP/M plugin card made by none other than Microsoft, that had a Z80 (or 8080, I can't recall) processor on it. (I have one of these.) There were plenty of other machines (the entire TRS-80 line, for example. Not the CoCos though.) that natively used the 8080 or Z80 processor. Another point, the Z80 was OPCODE COMPATIBLE with the 8080. It was faster and had ADDITIONAL opcodes as well. (Yes, I programmed both 8080s and Z80s in school.) So, CP/M written for an 8080 would run on a Z80. CP/M with Z80 extensions would not run on an 8080. I believe you could physically pop out the 8080 in a system and replace it with a Z80, but don't quote me on that. (I might be thinking of the V20/8088, V30/8086 which definitely were pin-compatible.)
Also, microsoft sold a license for QDOS to IBM _before_ they aquired the rights from Seattle Computer. Just a nitpicky detail.
> First, yes, there is a levy in Canada on blank CD-Rs that is supposed to compensate musical artists for the piracy that is occurring. But no, this does not give anybody the right to make copies.
Please read sections 80 thru 82 of the Canadian Copyright Act again. You have it both wrong, and backwards. It's not a tax on an illegal activity, it's a specifically allowed activity and subsequent levy to pay for that right. Section 80 details that "reproducing all or any substantial part of" a musical recording "does not constitute an infringement..." subject to a few subsequent rules. (such as I can't share that copy, physically or via P2P) Section 81 explains that even though section 80 allows me to make a personal copy, the artist is still entitled to payment for that copy. Sections 82 to 88 explain the levy on blank recording medium.
So first, no, private copying does "not constitute an infringement" and, second, the tax/levy was applied to reimburse the artist for LEGAL private copying.
I expect the record companies will try to change this law as soon as the population discovers it. Of course, then the levy WOULD be unconstitutional.
> I will point out that in the early eighties, software copy places did exactly that: Took advantage of a fuzzy area of the law ("evaluation copies") to make a buck. They lasted for a year or two until the software companies put pressure on, and then they were raided and royally busted.
The protections in Sections 80 thru 82 of the CCA apply to sound recordings of performances of musical works. Software is not a musical work. Although, I remember some discussion of that before there was specific protection for computer software in Canada. Could I copyright my Vic-20 cassette as a musical recording, or a printout as a literary work? The usual consensus was the printout. In the mid or late 80s, software became specifically protectable under copyright law in Canada. Yes, I know this becuase I wrote and published commercial software for the Vic-20.
But, like my comment before the rabbit-trail... Music (or more specifically, a performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording -- that does limit some applications such as, perhaps, bootlegging a live concert.) is specifically exempted in section 80. I'm not arguing that _sharing_ music via Kazaa is legal... that would violate 80(2)(b).
I suspect that the Copee Shoppe would be shut down due to lending CDs or Public Performance rules. I'm not sure what the legality of lending CDs is, but if you read the warning at the start of most sell-through videos, you will see that lending is prohibited. That's right, I cannot legally lend you that Matrix DVD I bought. Video rental stores cannot go down to walmart, buy a $8.88 video, and rent it out. They need to buy the $100 version that permits rental. (or get a seperate license) Perhaps there is similar legalese regarding CDs.
Certainly 80(2)(b) means I legally need to have sharing turned off in Kazaa. The act of me downloading itself is not a violation. It could probably be argued that it is contributory(?) to the sharors offence.
In particular, though, this section of the CCA seems to permit the borrowing of a legally purchased CD from a friend (or a library?) and then making a personal copy for myself. I can't lend my copy to another person for them to make a copy.
Perhaps it is an offence to lend an original CD to a friend, though. Maybe I need to purchase it, copy it, and sell it back?
IANAL Yada,yada,yada.