A lot of Canadians fail to realise that the implementation of the "makee available" provisions of Article 6 the WIPO treaty could limit their ability to share files (ie. leaving them in a shared folder).
Below is the letter sent to Ms. Scherrer and copied to my Member of Parliament as well:
Dear Ms Scherrer:
An article in the Edmonton Sun quotes you as stating that "As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law", in response to the recent Federal Court ruling that sharing of music was in fact legal. You are also pictured holding up an industry t-shirt for "SaveCanadianMusic.com".
You may have done this to applause from the music industry, but as one of the millions of Canadians who downloads and shares music, you and the Liberal Party are unlikely to win applause from me. We want and will demand fairness.
This is about ownership of culture, and it has been part of the Canadian culture to share our common heritage, beliefs, values, dance, and music. There needs to be fair access, and that doesn't mean that we should be legislating in favour of the current outmoded distribution model.
With respect to that model, I would point out that the limited studies to date suggest that sharing increases music purchases, just as the VCR increased movie sales. The issue is in fact one of control. Will the large monopolistic American music companies and their subsidiaries continue to control distribution, or will other distribution models be allowed to flourish?
The recent Federal Court ruling was in fact "exactly" where I believed that Canadian copyright law should fall. Casual sharing being allowed, with "active" distribution being an infringement of copyright.
I'm "very" concerned that ratification of the WIPO treaties will be used to limit fair access that Canadians presently enjoy and pay for, along with criminalization of deencryption of technological protection measures which have wreaked havoc in the US with their DMCA legislation. In particular this concerns the "making available" provisions of the WIPO treaties.
In implementation of the "making available" right in particular, I would suggest that the "right to make available" be immediately exhausted after a commercial work has been made available commercially, with respect to non-commercial sharing.
This is a serious matter, followed by millions of Canadians. We are watching. We will vote accordingly.
Good point. While I hadn't realized the rule change, I was thinking more in terms of her speaking to an audience comprised of record companies, who potentially would donate.
Actually, with the Federal election around the corner, the "bitch" was invited to speak at a record industry function and no doubt has high hopes of being bribed (in the political donation sense).
You're right! We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?
You're right. We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?
You may also want to provide your online support to www.criawatch.ca.
I'm not sure I'd express it that way, but Ms. Scherrer's contact information is here. Why not drop her a note and tell her who you will not be voting for in the Federal election that is just a few weeks/months away?
There is a Federal election expected in the next 3- 12 months in Canada. Much as this heritage Minister would like to suck up to the music industry, she also needs to listen to those of us who share files.
This is an ideal time to create a lobby group to vote as a block. We need to lay out a position and have the parties respond.
"Uploading (sharing) is illegal here, but now its probably a lot harder to find someone.
"
Wrong!
If the essence of this ruling holds up (being that leaving files in a shared folder is not distribution) uploading can and typically will be perfectly legal.
What is illegal under Section 80 of the Copyright Act, is "distribution". However the judge said that leaving files in a shared folder does not constitute distribution.
Uploading by simply putting files into a shared folder is not copyright infringement, according to this ruling.
With all due respect, you are wrong. It was made for exactly the right reason, being that merely putting a file in a shared folder is not "distribution". The judge ruled, quite correctly IMHO, that distribution requires the distributor to be pro-active, and not merely a bystander.
Think of it as someone walking into your unlocked house and making copies. Does it make sense the merely leaving your house unlocked is distribution, unless you actively advertised the fact?
Hence it was unlikely that "distribution" (being copyright infringement) had even taken place, and the "uploaders" should not therefor have their identities revealed.
This Court case was the test. It set a precedent by defining "distribution" (uploading in CRIA parlance)to be much more than just leaving a shared folder open.
Uploading really isn't that grey now, presuming this case holds up - and I think it should.
"OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you. "
Actually, it works this way because the CRIA failed to establish a liklihood of infringement by the parties they were going after, or that the names would even bind to the IPs.
IF there was real infringement and IF they names were likely to attach to the IP numbers provided by the CRIA, the Court would undoubtedly allow the CRIA to have the names.
What you may not realise however, is that the Court stated that merely having files in a folder available for sharing (or even being shared) is not copyright infringement, and this is where the CRIA's case really fell apart. They'd have to show you "actively" distributing (eg. advertising that you had the files available, or pushing an upload now, button).
I've been saying for a while in comments here on/. that leaving an open share (what the CRIA would refer to as uploading) would not necessarily constitute copyright infringement.
According to the Globe and Mail, the judge stated ""The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution"
This is a huge win for the Canadian public if it stands on appeal as Canadians will be legally able to download, and to have music available in shared directories, allowing both uploading and downloading.
But, they didn't cheat. The croupier turned the wheel and released the ball. All they did was "predict", albiet with the help of some equipment. Isn't that what gambling is about? Predicting?
As the article states, the casino can avoid prediction, by simply spinning the wheel faster.
"We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us."
Bzzzt - wrong answer! I'd suggest you take a look at the Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit for Tat strategies which show that cooperative players outperform.
The rest of the world would like to play nice, because in a cooperative venture all do better, but to suggest that the US doesn't need to play well with others, and that others need to play well with the US would be an invitation to disaster, if actually carried out.
The US relies on others in large degree for its oil, minerals, and manufacturing. Don't think for a second that the US is self-reliant. While the US can win a conventional war hands down, the more likely scenario of a guerilla war, irrespective of US power and might, would be a losing cause if it had the popular suppport of the civilian base. Even Bush agrees that the US needs to play well with others. His administration went hat in hand to beg for support from Britain, Spain, Poland and Australia for the war in Iraq.
The US you propose would be isolationist, which would mean being in the same league as ohhh.... North Korea?!
I was working for the President of a company who seemed to have information about others that left me wondering. So, I ran a program, (I believe it was Spycop), to scan for anything nefarious on my computer. Nothing found, fortunately.
However I shared this program with a colleague and she ran it and found a keylogger that would send emails from her company laptop, to a blind email account. He apparently had a thing for her roomate, a former employee, and was using this to spy.
My colleague was shocked that this would happen, but as it appeared to have been non-functional for a while due to internet login issues, she didn't say anything, and I told her what to delete to kill the program from running.
That way, any deletion of the software could at least appear to be accidental.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you hit the nail on the head - Ontario
They can only go down from where they are. Do you really think they are going to take (in spite of Stephen Harper) every seat this time?
A lot of Canadians fail to realise that the implementation of the "makee available" provisions of Article 6 the WIPO treaty could limit their ability to share files (ie. leaving them in a shared folder).
Below is the letter sent to Ms. Scherrer and copied to my Member of Parliament as well:
Good point. While I hadn't realized the rule change, I was thinking more in terms of her speaking to an audience comprised of record companies, who potentially would donate.
"The actual ruling read more like an extreme interpretation of "plausible deniability".
Actually the ruling read like it should, given that "distribution" by definition, requires active participation.
Plausible deniability, yes. "Extreme interpretation" of plausible deniabilty, no.
Good summation
It was exactly what I thought the Courts would find, given the legal definitions of "distribution", requiring active participation.
"If a government does not like the current state of the law, well, of course they change it ! That's part of their job !"
Correct! And part of our job is to convince Ms. Scherrer that she should change her views if she wants to see her party re-elected.
Join www.criawatch.ca
Actually, with the Federal election around the corner, the "bitch" was invited to speak at a record industry function and no doubt has high hopes of being bribed (in the political donation sense).
Excellent! Why not also write your MP here and let them know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what they has to say?
Also, join the www.criawatch.ca website and maybe we can all lobby together?You're right! We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?
You're right. We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?
You may also want to provide your online support to www.criawatch.ca.
As a Canadian, I have two words for you FUCK YOU.
I'm not sure I'd express it that way, but Ms. Scherrer's contact information is here. Why not drop her a note and tell her who you will not be voting for in the Federal election that is just a few weeks/months away?
There is a Federal election expected in the next 3- 12 months in Canada. Much as this heritage Minister would like to suck up to the music industry, she also needs to listen to those of us who share files.
This is an ideal time to create a lobby group to vote as a block. We need to lay out a position and have the parties respond.
Come on, enough is enough. This one is so bad that I don't even have to look at the references to know its an April Fools joke.
No!!
The personal copying rules which make this legal only apply to music. See Section 80 of the Copyright Act.
"Uploading (sharing) is illegal here, but now its probably a lot harder to find someone. "
Wrong!
If the essence of this ruling holds up (being that leaving files in a shared folder is not distribution) uploading can and typically will be perfectly legal.
What is illegal under Section 80 of the Copyright Act, is "distribution". However the judge said that leaving files in a shared folder does not constitute distribution.
Uploading by simply putting files into a shared folder is not copyright infringement, according to this ruling.
"At least it wasn't for the right reasons. "
With all due respect, you are wrong. It was made for exactly the right reason, being that merely putting a file in a shared folder is not "distribution". The judge ruled, quite correctly IMHO, that distribution requires the distributor to be pro-active, and not merely a bystander.
Think of it as someone walking into your unlocked house and making copies. Does it make sense the merely leaving your house unlocked is distribution, unless you actively advertised the fact?
Hence it was unlikely that "distribution" (being copyright infringement) had even taken place, and the "uploaders" should not therefor have their identities revealed.
This Court case was the test. It set a precedent by defining "distribution" (uploading in CRIA parlance)to be much more than just leaving a shared folder open.
Uploading really isn't that grey now, presuming this case holds up - and I think it should.
The personal copying rules under Section 80 of the Canadian Copyright Act only applies to musical works.
"OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you. "
Actually, it works this way because the CRIA failed to establish a liklihood of infringement by the parties they were going after, or that the names would even bind to the IPs.
IF there was real infringement and IF they names were likely to attach to the IP numbers provided by the CRIA, the Court would undoubtedly allow the CRIA to have the names.
What you may not realise however, is that the Court stated that merely having files in a folder available for sharing (or even being shared) is not copyright infringement, and this is where the CRIA's case really fell apart. They'd have to show you "actively" distributing (eg. advertising that you had the files available, or pushing an upload now, button).
I've been saying for a while in comments here on /. that leaving an open share (what the CRIA would refer to as uploading) would not necessarily constitute copyright infringement.
According to the Globe and Mail, the judge stated ""The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution"
This is a huge win for the Canadian public if it stands on appeal as Canadians will be legally able to download, and to have music available in shared directories, allowing both uploading and downloading.
But, they didn't cheat. The croupier turned the wheel and released the ball. All they did was "predict", albiet with the help of some equipment. Isn't that what gambling is about? Predicting?
As the article states, the casino can avoid prediction, by simply spinning the wheel faster.
Apparently Richard Clarke testified that George Bush's obsession with Iraq, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror.
Perhaps this means we should add George W. Bush to the database?
"We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us."
Bzzzt - wrong answer! I'd suggest you take a look at the Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit for Tat strategies which show that cooperative players outperform.
The rest of the world would like to play nice, because in a cooperative venture all do better, but to suggest that the US doesn't need to play well with others, and that others need to play well with the US would be an invitation to disaster, if actually carried out.
The US relies on others in large degree for its oil, minerals, and manufacturing. Don't think for a second that the US is self-reliant. While the US can win a conventional war hands down, the more likely scenario of a guerilla war, irrespective of US power and might, would be a losing cause if it had the popular suppport of the civilian base. Even Bush agrees that the US needs to play well with others. His administration went hat in hand to beg for support from Britain, Spain, Poland and Australia for the war in Iraq.
The US you propose would be isolationist, which would mean being in the same league as ohhh .... North Korea?!
I was working for the President of a company who seemed to have information about others that left me wondering. So, I ran a program, (I believe it was Spycop), to scan for anything nefarious on my computer. Nothing found, fortunately.
However I shared this program with a colleague and she ran it and found a keylogger that would send emails from her company laptop, to a blind email account. He apparently had a thing for her roomate, a former employee, and was using this to spy.
My colleague was shocked that this would happen, but as it appeared to have been non-functional for a while due to internet login issues, she didn't say anything, and I told her what to delete to kill the program from running.
That way, any deletion of the software could at least appear to be accidental.
In that case I guess, I just don't understand what is blocking them from conducting a proper and leagal investigation now?