Did he know the name of this person? If not, did he know the name of their friend the player? Most importantly, has this information passed on to the police?
It's neat how the sentence before the one you quoted was:
The police do have the names of the players and teams associated with the actions and we assume that this will reach a quick conclusion.
Wow, you don't think the restrictions on the use of copies for telecommunication to the public is an issue? The internet definitely falls into the definition of telecommunication used in the law, and an earlier copyright infringement section that defines communication to the public by telecomunication seems to cover this sort of thing...
Tip for reading Canadian Law... Each Part of a law tends to begin with definitions of any term that doesn't have a solid legal definition... If you look at the start of Part 8 (The personal copying bit)
"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;
and...
"blank audio recording medium" means
(a) an audio recording medium onto which no sounds have ever been fixed, and
(b) any other prescribed audio recording medium;
The gist of it is that an audio recording medium, in the eyes of this law, is anything that you can record audio on unless they get around to saying that that thing isn't an audio recording medium.
Bleh. It doesn't matter if it's covered in the levy or not. Even if you didn't pay the levy on data CDs, you could still use them to store music. The sections in law about the levy and about personal copying are seperate. One was created as compensation for the other, but one does not need to use levy covered media to legally create a personal copy of music.
Also, I *believe* that the reason data CDs have a lower levy is that the chance that something being sold as an Audio CD is being used to store music is much higher than that of something sold as a Data CD. The levy was set to reflect this.
Because not everyone burns these files to redbook cds, which is what the levies are intended for.
It's what the levies are intended for, but it's not what the law for copying was written to cover... Both items are seperate sections of the Canadian Copyright Act. The levies are compensation for letting people get rights to copy. The section about copying makes no mention of what sort of sources and targets people use, only refering to things like "audio recording media" which is defined in the act as something like "an media upon which audio can be stored" (paraphrasing from memory). So, record companies are trying to get a levy on downloads because they think it's another major source of loss of sales. This sort of makes sense with the logic that was followed to bring in the CD levy...
My problem is that they're aiming for this, as well as levies on things like hard drives. So you'd be paying the levy on the recording media that you use as well as the transmission method, which is just stupid. I think placing a levy on hard drives is stupid, but if you're pushing for both of the above things it's just being an asshole.
That's what I thought too, but I went to check things out, and apparantly, circa Feb. 2003, $6.8 million of the $28 million they'd collected had been distributed... It's still pathetic, but it's better than nothing. The way the percentages for distribution of funds *seem* to work, at least some of that money had to go to artists and/or performers.
I stand corrected... This way is actually better in my view, even though it sends money out of the country, as the Canadian artist only method I thought they used seemed idiotically unfiar.
If our Internet bill helped to fund the music industry, I would suddenly have an attitude that I can copy and download music freely without restriction.
Why wouldn't you be able to? That's pretty much the music industry's point...
We already have legislation that lets us copy pretty much any musical work we want for our personal use. They're looking for compensation, because of this. If this were to go through, Canadians would probably get a clairified law, too, that direcly addresses copying music in the context of the internet.
I mean, correct me if I am out of line here, but doesn't the US version of MTV, which isn't shown on any "legal" cable or satellite provider in Canada get multiple times the number of viewers of the various Canadian music television programs (I.E. Much Music)
Eh, I doubt it... I know all sorts of annoying people that watch muchmusic... I don't think I've seen even a speck of MTV anywhere around here since they stopped including the french version in Vancouver cable subscriptions a half dozen years ago. I, being a normal egotistical person, conclude that my experiences obviously scale up to the rest of the country.
The great part of the existing CD levy is that it only goes to Canadian artists, IIRC.
Of course, since (at least last time I checked, which was quite a while ago) they've never actually gotten around to distributing any money to any artists, the independent artists are getting an equal cut. If it worked properly, I'm pretty sure I've read about provisions that allow any Canadian artist to apply to get their portion of the money.
This post is, like most on Slashdot, mainly coming out of my ass. I haven't actually read up on the money distribution part of this in a couple of years.
To be fair, this doesn't bring in money for the government... It brings in money for the collecting group, which then hordes it and doesn't actually distribute any of it.
Look at the laws. What you're allowed to copy isn't linked in any functional way to what you pay the levy on, in the law. The law also doesn't have anything to say about the source that one copies from.
The Copyright Board has actually found that the source needn't be a legitimately purchased or owned medium for a perfectly legal personal copy to be made. There's no reason downloading music shouldn't be covered by the existing legislation. You run into trouble if you start uploading music, though, as it violates the legal restrictions on usage of a personal copy. It violates, off the top of my head, the prohibitions on transmitting copies across a telecommunications system as well as the prohibition on distributing your personal copies.
The gist of it is, uploading is sure as hell illegal under the current legislation, but downloading is fine unless some magic way to argue against it is found.
To be fair, under the current legislation, downloading music already *seems* to be perfectly legitimate. Being on the sending end, however, is where you're definately in legal trouble.
Except, since American law is so very screwed up, you're taking a risk by even participating. If you go and try to stand up to, say, IBM, because you believe you are in the right, and you lose, then you're in the hole for damages and the price of IBM's lawyers.
I, personally, would be even more afraid of going to court if I were going to get screwed for lawyers fees as well, if the other guy comes up with some idiotic argument that wins. A large company can afford to eat my lawyers' fees. I can't afford to eat theirs.
Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans
Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*
I very much doubt the people in charge of the ACLU sit in a boardroom going:
ACLU 1: Haha! Now we may destroy the rights of the common man in pursuit of the international communist conspiracy!
ACLU 2: I agree! It's a good thing we don't need to think about actual interpretations of anything and only need to determine what a left wing stereotype would do!
ACLU 1: Yes, the world certainly would be difficult if there were more than two political positions!
I think you'll find that, in Canada, the Queen is, in fact, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
This long title is generally abbreviated to "Queen of Canada"
If they're confident enough to arrest you in Vancouver, the next day you probably aren't going to have a license authorizing you to drive your car home.
Slashdot Mirror
share them, but not in a "I'm so desperately in love with you I want to cut off my arm and send it to you for Valentine's day" way.
Yeah, since they might expect you to send them your arm then... and arms are important.
Did he know the name of this person? If not, did he know the name of their friend the player? Most importantly, has this information passed on to the police?
It's neat how the sentence before the one you quoted was:
The police do have the names of the players and teams associated with the actions and we assume that this will reach a quick conclusion.
Wow, you don't think the restrictions on the use of copies for telecommunication to the public is an issue? The internet definitely falls into the definition of telecommunication used in the law, and an earlier copyright infringement section that defines communication to the public by telecomunication seems to cover this sort of thing...
and...
The gist of it is that an audio recording medium, in the eyes of this law, is anything that you can record audio on unless they get around to saying that that thing isn't an audio recording medium.
Bleh. It doesn't matter if it's covered in the levy or not. Even if you didn't pay the levy on data CDs, you could still use them to store music. The sections in law about the levy and about personal copying are seperate. One was created as compensation for the other, but one does not need to use levy covered media to legally create a personal copy of music.
Also, I *believe* that the reason data CDs have a lower levy is that the chance that something being sold as an Audio CD is being used to store music is much higher than that of something sold as a Data CD. The levy was set to reflect this.
Because not everyone burns these files to redbook cds, which is what the levies are intended for.
It's what the levies are intended for, but it's not what the law for copying was written to cover... Both items are seperate sections of the Canadian Copyright Act. The levies are compensation for letting people get rights to copy. The section about copying makes no mention of what sort of sources and targets people use, only refering to things like "audio recording media" which is defined in the act as something like "an media upon which audio can be stored" (paraphrasing from memory). So, record companies are trying to get a levy on downloads because they think it's another major source of loss of sales. This sort of makes sense with the logic that was followed to bring in the CD levy...
My problem is that they're aiming for this, as well as levies on things like hard drives. So you'd be paying the levy on the recording media that you use as well as the transmission method, which is just stupid. I think placing a levy on hard drives is stupid, but if you're pushing for both of the above things it's just being an asshole.
That's what I thought too, but I went to check things out, and apparantly, circa Feb. 2003, $6.8 million of the $28 million they'd collected had been distributed ... It's still pathetic, but it's better than nothing. The way the percentages for distribution of funds *seem* to work, at least some of that money had to go to artists and/or performers.
I stand corrected... This way is actually better in my view, even though it sends money out of the country, as the Canadian artist only method I thought they used seemed idiotically unfiar.
Thanks
Eeew.... Toronto :)
Why wouldn't you be able to? That's pretty much the music industry's point...
We already have legislation that lets us copy pretty much any musical work we want for our personal use. They're looking for compensation, because of this. If this were to go through, Canadians would probably get a clairified law, too, that direcly addresses copying music in the context of the internet.
Eh, I doubt it... I know all sorts of annoying people that watch muchmusic... I don't think I've seen even a speck of MTV anywhere around here since they stopped including the french version in Vancouver cable subscriptions a half dozen years ago. I, being a normal egotistical person, conclude that my experiences obviously scale up to the rest of the country.
The great part of the existing CD levy is that it only goes to Canadian artists, IIRC.
Of course, since (at least last time I checked, which was quite a while ago) they've never actually gotten around to distributing any money to any artists, the independent artists are getting an equal cut. If it worked properly, I'm pretty sure I've read about provisions that allow any Canadian artist to apply to get their portion of the money.
This post is, like most on Slashdot, mainly coming out of my ass. I haven't actually read up on the money distribution part of this in a couple of years.
To be fair, this doesn't bring in money for the government... It brings in money for the collecting group, which then hordes it and doesn't actually distribute any of it.
Look at the laws. What you're allowed to copy isn't linked in any functional way to what you pay the levy on, in the law. The law also doesn't have anything to say about the source that one copies from.
The Copyright Board has actually found that the source needn't be a legitimately purchased or owned medium for a perfectly legal personal copy to be made. There's no reason downloading music shouldn't be covered by the existing legislation. You run into trouble if you start uploading music, though, as it violates the legal restrictions on usage of a personal copy. It violates, off the top of my head, the prohibitions on transmitting copies across a telecommunications system as well as the prohibition on distributing your personal copies.
The gist of it is, uploading is sure as hell illegal under the current legislation, but downloading is fine unless some magic way to argue against it is found.
To be fair, under the current legislation, downloading music already *seems* to be perfectly legitimate. Being on the sending end, however, is where you're definately in legal trouble.
To be fair, you don't need much of an advertising budget to put ads on websites you already own.
Since when is a garage door opener a lock? It's a convenient thing that lets you not get out of your car to open the garage door.
Except, since American law is so very screwed up, you're taking a risk by even participating. If you go and try to stand up to, say, IBM, because you believe you are in the right, and you lose, then you're in the hole for damages and the price of IBM's lawyers.
I, personally, would be even more afraid of going to court if I were going to get screwed for lawyers fees as well, if the other guy comes up with some idiotic argument that wins. A large company can afford to eat my lawyers' fees. I can't afford to eat theirs.
Yes, as giving them computers is obviously the best solution for children who can't read or do math!
Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans
Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*
I very much doubt the people in charge of the ACLU sit in a boardroom going:
ACLU 1: Haha! Now we may destroy the rights of the common man in pursuit of the international communist conspiracy!
ACLU 2: I agree! It's a good thing we don't need to think about actual interpretations of anything and only need to determine what a left wing stereotype would do!
ACLU 1: Yes, the world certainly would be difficult if there were more than two political positions!
I must say that this was one of the best trolls I've read in a hell of a long time... You pushed a bit too much towards the end, but good work.
I don't know about Australia... but we, in Canada, certainly have these things called "sarcasm" and "humour".
I think you'll find that, in Canada, the Queen is, in fact, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
This long title is generally abbreviated to "Queen of Canada"
Anyone here remember Hitler? Stalin?
No.
If they're confident enough to arrest you in Vancouver, the next day you probably aren't going to have a license authorizing you to drive your car home.