Please go back to that LD and inform them that it is illegal (fraud) for them to charge you that levy, and that you want your money back. According to the law, only importers (for resale) and manufacturers have to pay the levy. Since you are neither, you don't have to pay it. And quite likely, neither does LD. Even if you did, you wouldn't be paying LD the levy, you'd owe it to the gov't / CRIA.
If they turn around and claim that it's not actually the levy, but just their regular price split into two parts, that's still fraud and false advertising.
I'm afraid I do not have evidence of the fact. However, previous to the Private Copying section being introduced, the following acts were illegal: Copying a CD or vinyl record to a cassette tape for use in your car Copying a CD to your iPod Duplicating a CD or tape for backup purposes Creating Mix tapes/CDs etc
I find it incredibly hard to find anyone who has not performed at least one of these actions prior to 1997, and have used that knowledge to make an educated guess that at least 50% of the general populace also have.
It's legal in that Section VIII of our copyright laws explicitly allow us to create copies of music for personal use, as long as it is onto approved media.
Currently, (and intentionally, I'm sure) approved media consists of those types with levies attached.
While a hard drive is not listed as an approved media, our courts have ruled that it is ok to use anyhow. (Not really sure why they decided that, but who am I to complain?)
Uploading is NOT LEGAL. YAY. I knew rooting for you would pay off. "Making available for copying" though is LEGAL in the "held up in court" kind of way. So joining a P2P network and sharing all your songs? Ok. FTPing a song to someone else? Bad. You get a civil suit for that one.
Seriously, if you have questions about how this all works, there's only really two documents to read, and the appropriate sections are only a handful of paragraphs of fairly understandable English. I suggest you go read them.
I don't just think it, I read the law and checked. (Though I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but most of these laws are fairly easy to read and, seemingly, understand.) It is also now legal (since 1997) to copy someone else's media for your own personal use.
We're not talking about other countries, nor am I familiar with their laws, so I'll only address Canada: The levy was added after and because of the Private Copying section of our copyright laws was passed with the purpose of allowing copying of audio recordings you had not "already paid for". So you're only paying twice by choice. No one forced you to buy an original.
I certainly hope I did not come across as "parroting the media cartels' assertion that it is the reason Canadians are allowed to make fair use (fairplay) of their media".
It is in fact, the other way around. The Private Copying section of the copyright law (introduced in 1997) explicitly allowed copying audio works for personal use (onto approved media) and it was also this law that provided an opening for artists to be compensated in other ways.
So without the Private Copying section of copyright law, the levy would be illegal.
Since we're now on the topic, I personally do not listen to music, and don't appreciate having to pay for other people to do so, but I see no reason to go into personal views in any depth when simply trying to describe the current state of Canadian law.
I do however applaud the Canadian government's ability to see that the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law, and actually change the law to rectify this rather than making fines stricter, allowing corporations to more easily sue people over it, or any of the other steps we are seeing taken south of the border.
Mine is not an argument, it's a pretty clear interpretation of the wording of the law itself. And Canada does not, nor ever has, had a concept of "Fair Use". Instead, we have a Fair Dealing section clearly outlined in our copyright laws.
Making mixes, personal copies, and limited copies for friends has been illegal right up until 1997 (and past, in the case of copies for friends) when an additional exemption was entered into Canada's copyright laws: Part VIII, Private Copying. This is entirely separate from the Fair Dealing provisions (sections 29, 29.1 and 29.2) set out in 1985.
Part of the Private Copying law stated that artists were still entitled to compensation, and in 1998, the levy was introduced as a way for them to receive it.
Your ignorance, and the lack of enforcement by the police did not mean that anything you were doing in the past was "allowed".
Note that this means the Canadian copyright laws explicitly allow you to make personal copies. There is no "rationalizing" necessary. The only gotcha is that it needs to be copied onto media listed as approved by the law.
Why try and explain something that's not true?
Unfortunately, you got the concept backwards.
We pay a levy on blank media because it's legal to copy audio to that media for personal use.
Canadians have been in the clear downloading things off of P2P for years (apart from the minor snag of needing to make the copy to an approved, levied, media).
It's funny how many people complain about standard copyright law being broken in an age of infinite supply, but then refuse to acknowledge an attempt to bring the laws up to date.
I don't like the levy the way it's implemented, but the lawmakers were thinking straight when they decided to make an activity performed by a large part of the population (copying audio recordings without permission) legal, and finding new ways to compensate creators where copyright had broken down.
I wish the posts that explained this were modded higher, but since I don't have mod points, I'll try to raise awareness through repetition.
It is legal in Canada to make copies of audio recordings on approved media for personal use. Full stop. No conditions, levies, anything involved. Copying something and giving it to a friend? Illegal. That would be distribution, and not for personal use. Offering a friend the use of your computer while there's a blank CD in one drive, an audio CD in another, a burning application open, and the mouse hovering over the "copy" button? Legal.
As a result of this new reality, the Canadian government felt bad for all the money "lost" by artists, and decided to create a way for them to be compensated without relying on people purchasing their recordings.
That's what this levy is.
Unfortunately, the two laws were conceived of to work together, so the personal copying law is limited to copies made on approved media, and only media covered by the levy are ever listed as approved. So currently, copying a CD to your iPod is not considered a legal personal copy. It may be legal due to format shifting and other fair-dealing clauses in the copyright laws, but not the personal copying law.
Expanding it to cover additional devices is an attempt to expand the legal rights of Canadians, and (much more so, I'm sure) provide additional revenue to the poor deprived artists.
You've got it backwards. The levy was legitimized by the free copying law that was passed. Not the other way around. We have that free copying law regardless of this levy.
I am curious, which version of the book did you read? It appears that they released a movie edition which lacks 99% of the humor (and entertainment) of the originals. I certainly can see why reading that would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but I find it hard to beleive the same would be true of the original.
What kind of ass-backward country do you have to live in to get to where tearing up a contract results in being legally bound by it, and leaving it intact means you refuse it?
If you had an empty room in your house that you only used for guests, it's not open season for anyone to move in and stay out of your way until you have guests.
I like that.. Only one problem. It IS ok, ethically for them to whatever the hell they want in there as long as they don't affect me.
If they snuck in, and lived there for 5 years, I'd still be perfectly happy with it. The instant they got in my way, or otherwise harmed me, I'd be pissed, but as long as they aren't and won't inconveiniencing me in any way, I'd consider it morally reprehensible not to let them stay.
Unfortunately staying that unobtrusive in the offline world is extremely difficult, as even opening a door for a few seconds could adversely affect my heating bill. And given human nature, the "won't" part is impossible for me to beleive to the degree needed to let someone actually attempt it.
In the digital world though, there literally is 0 cost to creators when other people make copies of their creations. The only thing that I feel should be considered un-ethical of copying-without-oportunity-to-pay is literally only the ego hit to the creator, and even then only if that hit will prevent them from creating more in the future. That's not counting how unlikely it is that they even find out about the copy in question.
http://forums.newsbin.com/viewtopic.php?t=7645 Yo u will find HUGE numbers of people in that forum who HATE the fact that WinXP needlessly swaps out 100s of Mb of data, and takes minutes to read it back in when needed.
In this case, disabling swapping hugely improves performance. But then, it's less MS code running, and that always helps.:)
Done. The following was sent, please feel free to use it as inspiration for your own letters, though I ask that you do not copy it directly. Doing so would be an infringment of my copyright on it.:P
Hello Helene Chalifour,
I was quite concerned when I heard that you had pledged to make downloading music illegal, and/or to make it easier for the music industry to sue people they claim are illegally distributing their works.
Neither of these ideas sit well with me. We currently have laws in place that recognize our rights to make personal copies of audio works, and we even already compensate the music industry for that through a blank media levy. What is it that you feel is wrong about these laws, and why would changing them improve the lives of the citizens of Canada?
Also, regarding making it easier to sue people who supposedly distribute music over the Internet, I'm disturbed that you feel the music industry should be immune from actually having to prove that these people have committed a crime before their rights and privacy are trampled upon. Surely Canadian citizens deserve to have their rights protected at least until they've been shown to have performed some wrongdoing.
Allowing the short-circuiting of the legal process just because a large company claims they are confident of their works being infringed can only lead to corporations making use of that without real evidence to stifle competition and creativity, thereby promoting their own company over the good of the general populous. Even if the recording companies you are talking to promise they won't, there are others that will. And if you believe the promises that it will only be used against confirmed distributers, then why is proving this in court before hand so unacceptable to them?
I never have understood this obsession of counting the number of small living creatures around us. Now, count what behaviors/locations are more likely to make us actually sick, and you've got my interest, but it's pretty rare I see a study that actually says something along the lines of "cleaning with anti-bacterials will reduce the likelyhood of you getting sick" (in fact, I've only seen ones that show no difference).
The human body has evolved to be pretty capable of protecting against the things around us people now call "gross", and the rarer diseases that we come in contact with generally aren't stopped by staying "clean" anyhow.
Umm, well I won't name them, but I have a friend who is currently subscribed to the cable ISP out here twice over, and is pulling in ~15mbps of porn pretty much 24/7. (No, I don't know where he gets it all.)
Slashdot Mirror
Please go back to that LD and inform them that it is illegal (fraud) for them to charge you that levy, and that you want your money back. According to the law, only importers (for resale) and manufacturers have to pay the levy.
Since you are neither, you don't have to pay it. And quite likely, neither does LD.
Even if you did, you wouldn't be paying LD the levy, you'd owe it to the gov't / CRIA.
If they turn around and claim that it's not actually the levy, but just their regular price split into two parts, that's still fraud and false advertising.
I'm afraid I do not have evidence of the fact. However, previous to the Private Copying section being introduced, the following acts were illegal:
Copying a CD or vinyl record to a cassette tape for use in your car
Copying a CD to your iPod
Duplicating a CD or tape for backup purposes
Creating Mix tapes/CDs
etc
I find it incredibly hard to find anyone who has not performed at least one of these actions prior to 1997, and have used that knowledge to make an educated guess that at least 50% of the general populace also have.
It's legal in that Section VIII of our copyright laws explicitly allow us to create copies of music for personal use, as long as it is onto approved media.
Currently, (and intentionally, I'm sure) approved media consists of those types with levies attached.
While a hard drive is not listed as an approved media, our courts have ruled that it is ok to use anyhow. (Not really sure why they decided that, but who am I to complain?)
Uploading is NOT LEGAL. YAY. I knew rooting for you would pay off.
"Making available for copying" though is LEGAL in the "held up in court" kind of way. So joining a P2P network and sharing all your songs? Ok. FTPing a song to someone else? Bad. You get a civil suit for that one.
Seriously, if you have questions about how this all works, there's only really two documents to read, and the appropriate sections are only a handful of paragraphs of fairly understandable English. I suggest you go read them.
I don't just think it, I read the law and checked. (Though I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but most of these laws are fairly easy to read and, seemingly, understand.)
It is also now legal (since 1997) to copy someone else's media for your own personal use.
We're not talking about other countries, nor am I familiar with their laws, so I'll only address Canada: The levy was added after and because of the Private Copying section of our copyright laws was passed with the purpose of allowing copying of audio recordings you had not "already paid for". So you're only paying twice by choice. No one forced you to buy an original.
I certainly hope I did not come across as "parroting the media cartels' assertion that it is the reason Canadians are allowed to make fair use (fairplay) of their media".
It is in fact, the other way around.
The Private Copying section of the copyright law (introduced in 1997) explicitly allowed copying audio works for personal use (onto approved media) and it was also this law that provided an opening for artists to be compensated in other ways.
So without the Private Copying section of copyright law, the levy would be illegal.
Since we're now on the topic, I personally do not listen to music, and don't appreciate having to pay for other people to do so, but I see no reason to go into personal views in any depth when simply trying to describe the current state of Canadian law.
I do however applaud the Canadian government's ability to see that the vast majority of Canadians were breaking a law, and actually change the law to rectify this rather than making fines stricter, allowing corporations to more easily sue people over it, or any of the other steps we are seeing taken south of the border.
Mine is not an argument, it's a pretty clear interpretation of the wording of the law itself.
a ling_in_Canada
r ticle-Jan400.html
And Canada does not, nor ever has, had a concept of "Fair Use". Instead, we have a Fair Dealing section clearly outlined in our copyright laws.
This section allows some exemptions for the purposes of study and is strictly limited in scope.
You can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_de
These clauses are still there, and have not been eroded by lobby groups.
Making mixes, personal copies, and limited copies for friends has been illegal right up until 1997 (and past, in the case of copies for friends) when an additional exemption was entered into Canada's copyright laws: Part VIII, Private Copying. This is entirely separate from the Fair Dealing provisions (sections 29, 29.1 and 29.2) set out in 1985.
Part of the Private Copying law stated that artists were still entitled to compensation, and in 1998, the levy was introduced as a way for them to receive it.
Your ignorance, and the lack of enforcement by the police did not mean that anything you were doing in the past was "allowed".
Here's one supporting article I just dug up to collaborate this timeline:
http://www.cata.ca/Advocacy/Copyright_Board/levya
Note that this means the Canadian copyright laws explicitly allow you to make personal copies. There is no "rationalizing" necessary. The only gotcha is that it needs to be copied onto media listed as approved by the law.
Why try and explain something that's not true? Unfortunately, you got the concept backwards. We pay a levy on blank media because it's legal to copy audio to that media for personal use. Canadians have been in the clear downloading things off of P2P for years (apart from the minor snag of needing to make the copy to an approved, levied, media). It's funny how many people complain about standard copyright law being broken in an age of infinite supply, but then refuse to acknowledge an attempt to bring the laws up to date. I don't like the levy the way it's implemented, but the lawmakers were thinking straight when they decided to make an activity performed by a large part of the population (copying audio recordings without permission) legal, and finding new ways to compensate creators where copyright had broken down.
I wish the posts that explained this were modded higher, but since I don't have mod points, I'll try to raise awareness through repetition.
It is legal in Canada to make copies of audio recordings on approved media for personal use. Full stop. No conditions, levies, anything involved. Copying something and giving it to a friend? Illegal. That would be distribution, and not for personal use. Offering a friend the use of your computer while there's a blank CD in one drive, an audio CD in another, a burning application open, and the mouse hovering over the "copy" button? Legal.
As a result of this new reality, the Canadian government felt bad for all the money "lost" by artists, and decided to create a way for them to be compensated without relying on people purchasing their recordings.
That's what this levy is.
Unfortunately, the two laws were conceived of to work together, so the personal copying law is limited to copies made on approved media, and only media covered by the levy are ever listed as approved. So currently, copying a CD to your iPod is not considered a legal personal copy. It may be legal due to format shifting and other fair-dealing clauses in the copyright laws, but not the personal copying law.
Expanding it to cover additional devices is an attempt to expand the legal rights of Canadians, and (much more so, I'm sure) provide additional revenue to the poor deprived artists.
Heh. Now imagine what the stats must be like in countries where P2P music downloading isn't legal.
You've got it backwards.
The levy was legitimized by the free copying law that was passed. Not the other way around.
We have that free copying law regardless of this levy.
Santa's moving to Russia??
Now what will Canada do with our H0H0H0 postal code??!!?
Or perhaps "Oh shit" and "Holy crap"? I suppose those are "above and beyond ordinary" as well.
You mean like this camera?t m
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/nishika/nishika_3d.h
Heck, you can even go the cheap route:
http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/cam-kal.html
$15 camera, $2.50 print, 35mm film. Doesn't get much more inexpensive than that, and the results are damned impressive.
I am curious, which version of the book did you read? It appears that they released a movie edition which lacks 99% of the humor (and entertainment) of the originals. I certainly can see why reading that would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but I find it hard to beleive the same would be true of the original.
What kind of ass-backward country do you have to live in to get to where tearing up a contract results in being legally bound by it, and leaving it intact means you refuse it?
Nope, you've just blown it. You would have been just fine, but you had to go and make me reply. Now I'm pissed.
If you had an empty room in your house that you only used for guests, it's not open season for anyone to move in and stay out of your way until you have guests.
I like that.. Only one problem. It IS ok, ethically for them to whatever the hell they want in there as long as they don't affect me.
If they snuck in, and lived there for 5 years, I'd still be perfectly happy with it. The instant they got in my way, or otherwise harmed me, I'd be pissed, but as long as they aren't and won't inconveiniencing me in any way, I'd consider it morally reprehensible not to let them stay.
Unfortunately staying that unobtrusive in the offline world is extremely difficult, as even opening a door for a few seconds could adversely affect my heating bill. And given human nature, the "won't" part is impossible for me to beleive to the degree needed to let someone actually attempt it.
In the digital world though, there literally is 0 cost to creators when other people make copies of their creations. The only thing that I feel should be considered un-ethical of copying-without-oportunity-to-pay is literally only the ego hit to the creator, and even then only if that hit will prevent them from creating more in the future. That's not counting how unlikely it is that they even find out about the copy in question.
Sorry, you're right, the FAQ doesn't mention that Windows will needlessly swap it out while "idle", I thought it did.
? t=8859
Here's a real example:
http://forums.newsbin.com/viewtopic.php
Searching for freeze or lock will return dozens more.
http://forums.newsbin.com/viewtopic.php?t=7645o u will find HUGE numbers of people in that forum who HATE the fact that WinXP needlessly swaps out 100s of Mb of data, and takes minutes to read it back in when needed.
:)
Y
In this case, disabling swapping hugely improves performance. But then, it's less MS code running, and that always helps.
Done. The following was sent, please feel free to use it as inspiration for your own letters, though I ask that you do not copy it directly. Doing so would be an infringment of my copyright on it. :P
Hello Helene Chalifour,
I was quite concerned when I heard that you had pledged to make downloading music illegal, and/or to make it easier for the music industry to sue people they claim are illegally distributing their works.
Neither of these ideas sit well with me. We currently have laws in place that recognize our rights to make personal copies of audio works, and we even already compensate the music industry for that through a blank media levy. What is it that you feel is wrong about these laws, and why would changing them improve the lives of the citizens of Canada?
Also, regarding making it easier to sue people who supposedly distribute music over the Internet, I'm disturbed that you feel the music industry should be immune from actually having to prove that these people have committed a crime before their rights and privacy are trampled upon. Surely Canadian citizens deserve to have their rights protected at least until they've been shown to have performed some wrongdoing.
Allowing the short-circuiting of the legal process just because a large company claims they are confident of their works being infringed can only lead to corporations making use of that without real evidence to stifle competition and creativity, thereby promoting their own company over the good of the general populous. Even if the recording companies you are talking to promise they won't, there are others that will. And if you believe the promises that it will only be used against confirmed distributers, then why is proving this in court before hand so unacceptable to them?
I never have understood this obsession of counting the number of small living creatures around us. Now, count what behaviors/locations are more likely to make us actually sick, and you've got my interest, but it's pretty rare I see a study that actually says something along the lines of "cleaning with anti-bacterials will reduce the likelyhood of you getting sick" (in fact, I've only seen ones that show no difference).
The human body has evolved to be pretty capable of protecting against the things around us people now call "gross", and the rarer diseases that we come in contact with generally aren't stopped by staying "clean" anyhow.
Umm, well I won't name them, but I have a friend who is currently subscribed to the cable ISP out here twice over, and is pulling in ~15mbps of porn pretty much 24/7. (No, I don't know where he gets it all.)
I really doubt he's 'used' even 1/10th of it.
Original here: http://forums.newsbin.com/viewtopic.php?p=33070#33 070
/. in the same timeframe, though since the search sucks so much, I can't find it.
And, possibly somewhere on
Damn man. My first real +5 post to /. and someone else made it? WTF?
uhhhh. nope, read the law again...