But the appeals court judges were wrong to say that the lower judge shouldn't have said anything about file sharing being legal or not. Canadian law very clearly institutes a surcharge on recordable media so that the act of downloading is NOT A CRIME.
yes, downloading seems to be ok, but the act of distribution, or of making copies for someone else's use, is not legal (doesn't mean a "crime", just not legal). the judge gave an opinion about whether uploading was legal or not. he wasn't supposed to do that. he was only supposed to determine whether CRIA had sufficient evidence to show that the people on the other end of the IP numbers were actually the people who shared the files, in order to grant the court order to reveal their identities so that CRIA could sue them.
the appeal court upheld the ruling that the evidence was insufficient. however, they said that with stronger evidence, a court order could be granted, and a lawsuit could go ahead. it would then be up to the judge in *that* case, to decide whether the sharing was illegal or not.
by the time CRIA gets another case together, the law will probably be ammended to specifically say that the "making available" of music via digital networks is illegal (again, not a "crime" like theft, otherwise the police would be laying charges. just illegal, so that CRIA can sue for damages).
Correct if I'm wrong since I don't live in Canada. Don't you pay an extra tax on things like cd-r's, harddrives, etc.
yes, although a "tax" is money that goes to the government, so this is called a "levy" because it goes to the musicians. the government doesn't get any part of it.
that goes to the music industry already because they could be used for copyright infringement.
actually, the canadian law says that private copying of music for personal use is simply *not* a copyright infringement. it is 100% legal. this is also true in france, holland, and many other countries in the world, except the U.S. the idea of the levy is *not* to compensate musicians as victims of "stealing" or "piracy". it is simply a royalty payment for a legitimate use, like radio stations pay for broadcasting.
Of course you're correct in saying copyright violations are criminal
not all copyright violations are "criminal". a "crime" is a serious federal offence, like theft. i.e., you get a criminal record, and you will not be allowed to travel anymore to most countries because of that.
i don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but for example, duplicating a large number of bootleg CDs and selling them for profit would be a crime, while making a copy of a CD you bought and giving it to your sister for christmas would not, even though it is breaking the law.
many illegal things (jaywalking, underage drinking, breaking a contract, parking in a no-parking zone) are not crimes. another reason why the "stealing music" propaganda is wrong - stealing is always a crime. copyright infringement is not. if it were, the police would be going after file-sharers. they're not. this is a civil lawsuit.
The ruling allows companies to withhold information, but does not force them to do so. Some, like Vidéotron, already gave the info to the CRIA, and seemed happy to do it.
sorry, but that is completely incorrect. there are privacy laws that make it illegal for a business, like an isp, to give out personal information without a court order. the other isp's sent lawyers to argue against the granting of the court order that CRIA was seeking. videotron did not.
however, videotron did *not* give out any information, they only said they would be "delighted" to *if* they received a court order.
videotron's parent company owns a number of record label and media interests, and is a supporter of the CRIA.
What? It's completely unambiguous, and there are very clear-cut laws on the books. You Cannot Rip People Off - what haven't we figured out about that?
what *some* people haven't figured out yet, is that U.S. laws like the DMCA don't apply to the rest of the world, and that not all forms of copying equate to "ripping off" artists. there are many indications that personal copying between friends, far from hurting the music industry, actually helps sell more music. the riaa/mpaa's repeated attempts to outlaw anything enabling private copying (eg. the cassette recorder and VCR) seem bizarre in light of the obvious economic growth and profits that they have resulted in.
fortunately, in many countries outside the U.S., the powerful lobbyists haven't yet brainwashed enough voters or bribed enough legislators into thinking that corporations have an entitlement to unlimited control over what people do with music they buy, and thus we haven't yet changed the laws to make it so. right now it's unambiguously legal to share your music with friends and family, and for the most part people think that's just fine. the good news (for the public) is that the arguments of certain zealots trying to justify the application of the term "piracy" to perfectly legal activities (which include the payment of royalty fees to artists via blank-media levies) are too intellectually vapid to endorse, when it is quite clear that these activities are functioning quite well as part of a productive economy.
allowing a self-serving organization like the MPA to sponsor a boy scout merit badge that tries to persuade children to protect their (the MPA's) "intellectual property" is even more sick than allowing all sorts of other organizations like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Mattel, and any other group that has a vested financial interest in influencing the attitudes of children to sponsor similar merit badges. at least those companies are honest in that they're trying to sell something, and not promoting their goods under the banner of "justice".
i think the only argument you could really give me about the existence of a "Creator" would have to be causally related to the existence of "beer".
but seriously - somehow to me there's something about the darwinian theory of evolution that seems too simplistic.
i just don't think it explains things. not that it's wrong per se, but just not deep enough. like the way that newtonian physics pretty much explained things well enough for most people - until einstein came along.
i'm open to considering a more complex theory. on the surface, a phrase like "intelligent design" is interesting. now, i sure as hell don't believe there's some guy in the sky with a long gray beard who designs everything. and both the words "intelligence" and "design" seem to me to be human characteristics that won't really help us understand the true nature of the genesis of life.
but if you start looking at the complexity of dna and how it is coded - just as a starting point - well... i would have to agree that darwinian evolution theory should *not* be taught as an indisputable fact by high-school teachers. i'm *not* saying creationism should be taught in its stead. i'm saying that open-mindedness and the concept that "we're not quite sure" would be the most valuable lesson, particularly for those students who might be excited by pursuing the unknown. i think there is so much more to be learned.
and, for that matter, there is an awful lot to be learned by the study of religion, even if it is not taken literally.
i mean, there are laws against "dumping" right? i mean, if i dump a competing product on the market at a ridiculously low price, i can get in trouble for being "anti-competitive" etc. - you know, the way microsoft got in trouble by giving away internet explorer with windows, which decimated netscape.
no no, that doesn't make any damned sense.
what am i trying to say here?
i mean, if you can just go around giving out free software, that's going to destroy the competition, isn't it? if openoffice is just as good or better than ms office, but it's free - well isn't that a bit anti-competitive? how is ms supposed to compete with that? they can't very well just go and give out ms office for free, i mean, how would they stay in business if someone else is giving away the same thing for free?
what if everyone just switched over to using this free software? seems to me that the whole point of this free software is to undercut american companies like microsoft, and put them out of business by flooding the market with low (or no) cost copies of their products. like how everyone complains about japanese cars and electronics products, or programming jobs being lost to india.
it's not like the free versions are really innovative, i mean openoffice is just a clone of ms office pretty much. firefox is still way off in the distance (market-share wise) to IE. and all these "distros" that want to be the new desktop os, gnome or ubuntu or whatever, they're mostly copying microsoft os products (which copied apple products, which copied xerox parc... ha that's funny, copying xerox!) there are only minor differences, it's still "windows" and "menus" on "desktops" (stupid mixed metaphors) and scroll bars and files-in-folders and word-processors and the same old thing. cheap knockoffs of cheap copies. the software equivalent of fake rolex's and plastic gucci bags, produced by exploited cheap un(der)waged labour.
where would gnu/linux be without AT&T UNIX to copy their original concepts from? where is the innovation, on the scale of "inventing UNIX" in the first place? where are the r&d budgets?
if the best the free software world can do is put microsoft out of business by offering free clones of its products, i guess that says something about the value of software in a market economy.
you know, it's funny that i wrote this because usually i'm kind of a fan of free software. mod me troll or flamebait if you like, but i was just following a train of thought. make of it what you will.
The USA can suck my balls if they want us to adopt the DMCA.... The only way to keep things the way they are is to voice to those in charge that this is the way you like it!
Yup, I'm pretty sure this is the way the majority of Canadians feel on this issue. And RIGHT NOW would be really good time to express those feelings!
Because, the Copyright Act is up for ammendment.
And the government is about to fall.
Because of the scandal involving kickbacks to the Liberal party several years back, the facts of which are just coming out, the Conservative party and the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party) are at this moment planning to team up to defeat the current Liberal government and force another election, even though there was one just about a year ago.
There are two images that come to mind when I think about these parties:
one, prime minister Brian Mulroney (Conservative), singing songs with his good friend Ronald Reagan, and signing away many of Canada's rights as a sovereign nation under the first controversial Free Trade agreement.
two, prime minister Jean Chretien (Liberal) politely but firmly declining to help George Bush invade Iraq, despite immense pressure. I know this might be a sore spot with some Americans, but, it represented the will of the people, most of whom were not convinced about the existence of WMD and so on.
So which of these parties do I trust to have a more fair approach to the new copyright act, without caving in to U.S. pressure? The Liberals have already announced their plans, and although it's not perfect, it's far far better than the DMCA.
But now I'm afraid this version will be thrown away, and the Conservatives will come up with their own DMCA-friendly act instead.
So, Canadians, write your MPs, and sign the petition:
With a ratio of like 680,486 persons to U.S. representatives, candidates are more likely to rely on lobbyists and such for campaign contributions than to do grassroots campaigning.
i agree the U.S. is in dire need of campaign reform.
the ratio in the netherlands (where this ipod royalty levy is proposed) is about 100,000 inhabitants to one representative in the tweede kamer.
it would seem to me that in the U.S., the lobbyists (RIAA) have won. unlike in many other countries, home copying/sharing in the U.S. is simply outlawed altogether. so i think it is a victory against the lobbyists, that it is still allowed in the netherlands.
yes, the lobbyists are getting more of what they want (royalty money) with this levy. but i still think it's a better system than what they *really* want, which is for it to be outlawed in the netherlands too. so far the government has stood up to the lobbyists and refused to take that freedom away from the people.
Consider a student buying an iPod for purposes of recording lectures. Consider that he or she only uses it for that purpose, and not for music period. Let us say it is a 60 gigabyte iPod. That would be about $258 more as the article says. Is that fair?
the amount seems very high, i doubt it will actually be that much in the end. in Canada, the same "ipod tax" is only $20.
how many college students are there who really have ipods with no music on them? three? ok, so it's not fair to them, and i already said, maybe there could be a more fair way of collecting the royalties.
but my whole point was that the concept (in the netherlands) is *not* charging a tax to pay for the crimes of others (which seems wrong to me too), it is charging royalty fees for legitimate and legal use by the person who pays the fee (which seems like a good idea to me). if you don't take advantage of your freedom for home copying, then yes, you are missing out on something you've paid for, and that is not exactly fair i guess.
but as i said, it's better than the lobbyists getting their way and having home copying outlawed altogether.
It's almost like they want people to steal. Since you will feel you have paid for the music if you pay the tax and will steal the music.
you *have* paid for the music if you pay the "tax" (royalties that go to the musicians). and the copying is totally legal. so if it's legal to do, and you're paying the royalties for the music... it's not really "stealing" then is it?
also the same in Canada too. and France, and other countries. it could be the same in the U.S. too, if people would stand up for it, and refuse to allow a stupid law to make half the country (including the president) a criminal for home copying.
what's not so likely is to have a law that says uploading is ok too. (at the moment that is the case in Canada, but it won't last long) so it doesn't really make a free-for-all p2p network a reality, the RIAA is still going to go after uploaders.
the "ipod tax" in Canada is much less, only $25 (about $20US).
and you don't have to buy an ipod. it's the copyright law that gives you the freedom to copy music, not the fact that you pay the levy. if you just copy onto your computer, it's still ok. but then it's nice if you go to your favourite musicians' website and make a donation. and more efficient, since there's no middleman...
"a surcharge at the point of sale for any storage devices that could possibly be used to store pirated works."
Does this mean you can "pirate" all you want as you've already paid? So long as the booty passes through an MP3 player first, of course...
no, that's not what it means.
it's even better than that.
you can "pirate" all you want for your own use, simply because Dutch law says you are free to do so. you don't have to pass it through an mp3 player first.
the law also says that musicians have a right to be paid royalties for this (legal) use of their music, similar to the way radio stations pay royalties for broadcast. the royalties in this case are collected through surcharges on blank media.
if you find a way to copy music without using blank media that has the surcharge on it, you are still free to do so, because the freedom comes from the law, and not as a result of paying the royalties. if you're going to do it though, i think it's only fair to pay the royalties.
the article's characterization of devices "used to store pirated works" misrepresents the facts. if the copying is legal, and royalties on the music are paid for through the levy, it can hardly be called "pirating", can it?
The concept of taxing something to offset the effects of illegal activity. I mean, it hurts those who use it for legit purposes.
but that is not the concept at all, at least in the Netherlands. the concept is to charge royalty payments to people for their legal and legitimate use of music. home copying, including downloading, of music - even if you don't own the original - is a legal activity here. but you don't get this for free, you have to pay royalties. so if the law says it's ok, and you pay money for it, you can't really think of it as stealing or piracy, can you?
no-one says that the royalty fees that radio stations have to pay for broadcasting music are there to compensate the "victims" of "illegal activity". they simply pay musicians for the use of their music.
well this is basically the same idea. and they figured that the best way to collect these royalties from the general public is to charge them on blank media. now, this does mean that some people will pay royalties who don't make home copies. maybe there could be a more fair way of collecting the royalties. but overall, i think the concept of charging royalties for legitimate use is not bad.
But I guess this is what happens when the special interest groups and the lobbyists get their way.
if the special interest groups and lobbyists got their way, you'd be paying fees on top of recording devices and blank media, and home copying would *still* be illegal. that's the way it is in the U.S. - and that, to me, does seem wrong on so many levels.
so i would say that it's a victory against these groups, if home copying remains legal depsite their efforts. Dutch, Canadian, French - tell your government you want to keep it legal. Americans - tell them you want your freedom back - repeal the DMCA and stop pushing the international WIPO treaties.
The last time I checked, the copyright holders' argument over here was that the levy is there because you have the right (by law) to make a limited number of personal backup copies of records you've bought. It doesn't compensate for any copyright infringements per se - it simply compensates for the "losses" induced when they can't force you to buy a new record for a backup instead.
you should check again. the argument is that by law you have the freedom for unlimited home copying of your own *or anyone else's* music. doing so is simply not considered an infringement of copyright.
the levy is collected as royalty payments in respect of this copying. it is not to pay the "victims" of "copyright infringement". it is to pay musicians for the legitimate and legal use of their work, similar to the way radio stations have to pay royalties to musicians for broadcasting.
The general idea is to tax the smalltime infringers and prosecute the people making money with copying.
actually, the Dutch (and Canadian, French, etc.) law says that home copying is simply not an infringement of copyright in the first place. the "tax" on blank media is a royalty payment, for the legitimate use of the music, similar to radio stations paying a royalty for broadcasting.
it's maybe a subtle difference, but it means that home copying is not an "infringement" or in any way illegal or deserving of some kind of punishment or lawsuit, the way it is in the U.S.
If their laws are so "excellent" then why is this tax being proposed?! They must not have any song stealing going on.
first, it isn't a "tax". it's a levy to be distributed to musicians as royalties for the legitimate use of their music. because second, no, there is no song stealing going on. and that's because home copying of music is LEGAL in the Netherlands (and Canada, France, etc.). Think of it this way - radio stations can legally broadcast music. it's not a crime, it's not stealing. they have to pay royalties. citizens can legally copy music at home for their personal use. it's not a crime, it's not stealing. they have to pay royalties, which are collected through a levy on blank media.
yes, it does kind of suck if some people have to pay this even if their media is used for something else. but still i think it's a better system than making home copying illegal.
It's just bullshit. Don't even try to defend it.
well i beg to differ. i think it's a good system. it's not perfect, but it's better than some of the alternatives. like in the U.S., where you pay royalty charges on recording devices and some blank media, yet home copying is still illegal. how do you defend that?
downloading is not a copyright violation
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 1
Also this tax pretty much legitimises copyright violations or in theory should.
yes, it actually does.
well to be more accurate, Dutch law (and Canadian, French, etc.) says that home copying of music is simply not a copyright violation in the first place.
the law also sets up a system for collecting royalties, much in the same way that radio stations pay royalties for broadcasting.
it's not about compensating victims for a crime. it's about paying musicians for the legitimate use of their work.
it's true that some people will pay this charge, who don't do home copying. and that kind of sucks i guess. still, i think it's a better system than making home copying illegal. i for one welcome the new tax overlords, if it stops the RIAA cops from breaking down my door and seizing my computer because i shared some music with my sister.
Seems to me whoever is making these laws definately don't know what ipods are used for...They must think people just steal their music...but with an added 258, now it gives u an excuse to download music.
in the Netherlands you don't need an excuse to download music. it's legal. you are free to do it as much as you like.
the $258 charge is a royalty collection. like what radio stations pay for broadcasting, another legal activity.
so downloading can't be stealing, because it's legal, and because it's paid for by the "tax".
if you don't make use of your freedom for home copying, that's your loss, just like if you don't make use of the library, public pool, or roads that you pay for with your income tax.
$258 is expensive (the "ipod tax" in Canada is only $20) but still i think it's worthwhile if it keeps home copying free (as in speech) and stops the RIAA etc. from breaking down my door.
I pay taxes on gasoline because I use gasoline. If I would have to pay taxes on "stealing" music without actually stealing music, I would start.
it's not a tax on "stealing" music. the Dutch have the legal freedom for home copying. there is no theft, crime or illegal activity involved.
because of this, extra money is collected on blank media and players, to go to musicians to pay them for this legal use of their work. in the same way that radio stations pay royalties for broadcasting music.
so there would really not be a problem if you would start copying music, it's really ok. it's not stealing, because it's legal and it's paid for.
Re:Could $258 be the cost of worldwide backfire?
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 1
Do you think the RIAA might be shooting themselves in the foot with this one? If the Dutch courts have the same theory you just mentioned I forsee a bunch of copyright ignoring websites...
the Dutch courts don't need to have a theory. they have the law, which already says people have the freedom of home copying, including to download, legally.
"distributing" is another matter. i can lend you a CD for you to copy, but i can't put the CD up on a website for the whole world.
p2p networks are in-between. am i just lending you my music to copy, or am i distributing it? in Canada, it was ruled the former. but that ruling will not last very long. in the Netherlands, i think uploading on a public p2p network is probably not allowed.
In Canada, the tax is on all mp3 players. Depends of the capacity. As in germany. Though, we have a 15$ top.
actually the mp3 player "tax" was struck down in court last year. it will probably be back again soon though, they have to change the wording of the law first.
But why has all this money go to the corporate major label? (Socan in Canadan, RIAA and so on) Same with CD-R, DVD-R....
SOCAN isn't a label. it's a royalty-collecting organization. any musican can join and register in order to receive royalty payments. you don't have to be on a corporate label. also, there is no "tax" on DVD-R because it is not considered an audio recording media. the levy (and the freedom to copy) only applies to music.
It's a Slap in the face to every consumer. "We assume your going to steal music so were are going to just charge you up front"
no, it's more like "you have the legal freedom to copy music for your personal use. however, we are going to charge extra on your ipod to help pay musicians for this legal use".
you're telling me i can download what ever i want..
yes. you can legally download, or copy from a friend, whatever you want. that's what the law says.
it's not *stealing* because: 1. it's legal 2. the musicans are *paid for their work* (NOT *compensated for theft*), through the "tax".
so why would anyone pay for music through itunes?
i'm not exactly sure.
i would, if they provided a really good service. that means: - a well-organized and researched site that helps me find the music i like, even if i don't know the filename. - lets me preview full songs (perhaps at a lower bandwidth) before i buy them. - guaranteed and consistent high-quality files. - fast downloads. - not crippled by DRM - i can be sure i will still be able to play my music in twenty years from now when apple has gone out of business. - a reasonable price, relative to the competition of p2p networks and blank-media levies.
i would gladly pay a premium for the convenience of all these things, rather than waste my time wading through annoying crap on p2p networks.
once the music industry wakes up to this, they will have more of my money. if they can't compete or offer a product i want to pay for, they deserve to go out of business.
Does this mean that everyone who buys a hard drive-based MP3 player can pilfer songs off of the internet freely?
no. everyone in the Netherlands, Canada, and many other countries, can "pilfer" songs off the internet freely, regardless of whether they buy and MP3 player or not, because they already have that freedom under the law. only it's not free (financially), because you pay the levy, and yes it goes to the recording industry to compensate them - not as "victims of a crime", but simply as bona-fide payment for the legal use of their work.
It's insane to punish me for a crime I'm not committing.
there are no crimes being committed, and no punishment. there is simply a charge and payment for the legal use of music.
you pay income taxes, which in part pay for public libraries, swimming pools, schools, and roads. if you don't personally make use of any of these, does that mean you don't have to pay income tax?
i mean, it's not exactly the same thing because this is a levy, not a tax. i'm just saying, that if you choose not to make use of your freedom to make home copies, you are losing out on something you're going to pay for anyways. it's not the most ideal or fair system, but i think it's a better system than criminalizing home copying altogether.
actually, the worst system would be where you pay a "tax" on blank media and recording devices, but home copying is still illegal. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that is the system in the U.S.
Now I've paid for music, it's no longer illegal for me to go out and download it.
I know that's not really how it'll work legally,
but that's *exactly* how it works legally. it's *not* illegal for you to go out and download it.
if it's a tax that presumes purchasers of a consumer device are going to use it for illegal ends, and compensate the, erm, "victims" in advance, then you've just created a "Guilty until proven innocent" model.
but it is not such a tax. it's a levy (user fee) that presumes people are going to use it for *legal* ends, and pays musicians for this use of their work. people have the freedom to make home copies, and musicians have the right to be paid for it through the levy. there are no "victims", "crimes", "guilty parties", or breaking of the law involved.
in the Netherlands, i can roll up a big fat joint, open a beer, put on the CD i copied from a friend, and relax - secure in the knowledge that the cops aren't going to be breaking down my door for it. hell, i can even do all of this in a public park.
i really wish people would butt out and stop insisting that repressive U.S. laws make me a criminal. they don't apply to me.
it's not stealing if it's legal and paid for!!
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 1
I hate to pay a "steal" tax. But if I'd pay 258$ steal tax, I'd "steal"....
man, i'm just so amazed how people are brainwashed by the RIAA's "home taping is killing music" and "don't steal music" propaganda, or think that U.S. law applies to the rest of the world.
it is not a "stealing" tax!!!
the law says Canadians, Dutch, and many others can *legally* copy music. the "tax" (a levy, more like a user fee) is to pay musicians for these copies. there is absolutely no concept in the law that the levy is to compensate for "stealing" or any other illegal or wrong activity.
so if you live in Canada, or the Netherlands, just feel free to go ahead and copy all the music you want. you have that freedom!! and don't feel bad about it, it's not stealing, and it's not "free as in beer" because you're paying for it through the levy. and more than that, it's actually *good* for the music industry!!
Slashdot Mirror
But the appeals court judges were wrong to say that the lower judge shouldn't have said anything about file sharing being legal or not. Canadian law very clearly institutes a surcharge on recordable media so that the act of downloading is NOT A CRIME.
yes, downloading seems to be ok, but the act of distribution, or of making copies for someone else's use, is not legal (doesn't mean a "crime", just not legal). the judge gave an opinion about whether uploading was legal or not. he wasn't supposed to do that. he was only supposed to determine whether CRIA had sufficient evidence to show that the people on the other end of the IP numbers were actually the people who shared the files, in order to grant the court order to reveal their identities so that CRIA could sue them.
the appeal court upheld the ruling that the evidence was insufficient. however, they said that with stronger evidence, a court order could be granted, and a lawsuit could go ahead. it would then be up to the judge in *that* case, to decide whether the sharing was illegal or not.
by the time CRIA gets another case together, the law will probably be ammended to specifically say that the "making available" of music via digital networks is illegal (again, not a "crime" like theft, otherwise the police would be laying charges. just illegal, so that CRIA can sue for damages).
Correct if I'm wrong since I don't live in Canada. Don't you pay an extra tax on things like cd-r's, harddrives, etc.
yes, although a "tax" is money that goes to the government, so this is called a "levy" because it goes to the musicians. the government doesn't get any part of it.
that goes to the music industry already because they could be used for copyright infringement.
actually, the canadian law says that private copying of music for personal use is simply *not* a copyright infringement. it is 100% legal. this is also true in france, holland, and many other countries in the world, except the U.S. the idea of the levy is *not* to compensate musicians as victims of "stealing" or "piracy". it is simply a royalty payment for a legitimate use, like radio stations pay for broadcasting.
I say just get what you already paid for then.
yes. that is exactly how it is supposed to work.
good post, except for one thing:
Of course you're correct in saying copyright violations are criminal
not all copyright violations are "criminal". a "crime" is a serious federal offence, like theft. i.e., you get a criminal record, and you will not be allowed to travel anymore to most countries because of that.
i don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but for example, duplicating a large number of bootleg CDs and selling them for profit would be a crime, while making a copy of a CD you bought and giving it to your sister for christmas would not, even though it is breaking the law.
many illegal things (jaywalking, underage drinking, breaking a contract, parking in a no-parking zone) are not crimes. another reason why the "stealing music" propaganda is wrong - stealing is always a crime. copyright infringement is not. if it were, the police would be going after file-sharers. they're not. this is a civil lawsuit.
The ruling allows companies to withhold information, but does not force them to do so. Some, like Vidéotron, already gave the info to the CRIA, and seemed happy to do it.
A rts/swap050421.html
sorry, but that is completely incorrect. there are privacy laws that make it illegal for a business, like an isp, to give out personal information without a court order. the other isp's sent lawyers to argue against the granting of the court order that CRIA was seeking. videotron did not.
however, videotron did *not* give out any information, they only said they would be "delighted" to *if* they received a court order.
videotron's parent company owns a number of record label and media interests, and is a supporter of the CRIA.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/04/21/
What? It's completely unambiguous, and there are very clear-cut laws on the books. You Cannot Rip People Off - what haven't we figured out about that?
what *some* people haven't figured out yet, is that U.S. laws like the DMCA don't apply to the rest of the world, and that not all forms of copying equate to "ripping off" artists. there are many indications that personal copying between friends, far from hurting the music industry, actually helps sell more music. the riaa/mpaa's repeated attempts to outlaw anything enabling private copying (eg. the cassette recorder and VCR) seem bizarre in light of the obvious economic growth and profits that they have resulted in.
fortunately, in many countries outside the U.S., the powerful lobbyists haven't yet brainwashed enough voters or bribed enough legislators into thinking that corporations have an entitlement to unlimited control over what people do with music they buy, and thus we haven't yet changed the laws to make it so. right now it's unambiguously legal to share your music with friends and family, and for the most part people think that's just fine. the good news (for the public) is that the arguments of certain zealots trying to justify the application of the term "piracy" to perfectly legal activities (which include the payment of royalty fees to artists via blank-media levies) are too intellectually vapid to endorse, when it is quite clear that these activities are functioning quite well as part of a productive economy.
allowing a self-serving organization like the MPA to sponsor a boy scout merit badge that tries to persuade children to protect their (the MPA's) "intellectual property" is even more sick than allowing all sorts of other organizations like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Mattel, and any other group that has a vested financial interest in influencing the attitudes of children to sponsor similar merit badges. at least those companies are honest in that they're trying to sell something, and not promoting their goods under the banner of "justice".
i think the only argument you could really give me about the existence of a "Creator" would have to be causally related to the existence of "beer".
but seriously - somehow to me there's something about the darwinian theory of evolution that seems too simplistic.
i just don't think it explains things. not that it's wrong per se, but just not deep enough. like the way that newtonian physics pretty much explained things well enough for most people - until einstein came along.
i'm open to considering a more complex theory. on the surface, a phrase like "intelligent design" is interesting. now, i sure as hell don't believe there's some guy in the sky with a long gray beard who designs everything. and both the words "intelligence" and "design" seem to me to be human characteristics that won't really help us understand the true nature of the genesis of life.
but if you start looking at the complexity of dna and how it is coded - just as a starting point - well... i would have to agree that darwinian evolution theory should *not* be taught as an indisputable fact by high-school teachers. i'm *not* saying creationism should be taught in its stead. i'm saying that open-mindedness and the concept that "we're not quite sure" would be the most valuable lesson, particularly for those students who might be excited by pursuing the unknown. i think there is so much more to be learned.
and, for that matter, there is an awful lot to be learned by the study of religion, even if it is not taken literally.
no really, it really is a price fixing scheme!
i mean, there are laws against "dumping" right? i mean, if i dump a competing product on the market at a ridiculously low price, i can get in trouble for being "anti-competitive" etc. - you know, the way microsoft got in trouble by giving away internet explorer with windows, which decimated netscape.
no no, that doesn't make any damned sense.
what am i trying to say here?
i mean, if you can just go around giving out free software, that's going to destroy the competition, isn't it? if openoffice is just as good or better than ms office, but it's free - well isn't that a bit anti-competitive? how is ms supposed to compete with that? they can't very well just go and give out ms office for free, i mean, how would they stay in business if someone else is giving away the same thing for free?
what if everyone just switched over to using this free software? seems to me that the whole point of this free software is to undercut american companies like microsoft, and put them out of business by flooding the market with low (or no) cost copies of their products. like how everyone complains about japanese cars and electronics products, or programming jobs being lost to india.
it's not like the free versions are really innovative, i mean openoffice is just a clone of ms office pretty much. firefox is still way off in the distance (market-share wise) to IE. and all these "distros" that want to be the new desktop os, gnome or ubuntu or whatever, they're mostly copying microsoft os products (which copied apple products, which copied xerox parc... ha that's funny, copying xerox!) there are only minor differences, it's still "windows" and "menus" on "desktops" (stupid mixed metaphors) and scroll bars and files-in-folders and word-processors and the same old thing. cheap knockoffs of cheap copies. the software equivalent of fake rolex's and plastic gucci bags, produced by exploited cheap un(der)waged labour.
where would gnu/linux be without AT&T UNIX to copy their original concepts from? where is the innovation, on the scale of "inventing UNIX" in the first place? where are the r&d budgets?
if the best the free software world can do is put microsoft out of business by offering free clones of its products, i guess that says something about the value of software in a market economy.
you know, it's funny that i wrote this because usually i'm kind of a fan of free software. mod me troll or flamebait if you like, but i was just following a train of thought. make of it what you will.
The USA can suck my balls if they want us to adopt the DMCA. ... The only way to keep things the way they are is to voice to those in charge that this is the way you like it!
Yup, I'm pretty sure this is the way the majority of Canadians feel on this issue. And RIGHT NOW would be really good time to express those feelings!
Because, the Copyright Act is up for ammendment.
And the government is about to fall.
Because of the scandal involving kickbacks to the Liberal party several years back, the facts of which are just coming out, the Conservative party and the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party) are at this moment planning to team up to defeat the current Liberal government and force another election, even though there was one just about a year ago.
There are two images that come to mind when I think about these parties:
one, prime minister Brian Mulroney (Conservative), singing songs with his good friend Ronald Reagan, and signing away many of Canada's rights as a sovereign nation under the first controversial Free Trade agreement.
two, prime minister Jean Chretien (Liberal) politely but firmly declining to help George Bush invade Iraq, despite immense pressure. I know this might be a sore spot with some Americans, but, it represented the will of the people, most of whom were not convinced about the existence of WMD and so on.
So which of these parties do I trust to have a more fair approach to the new copyright act, without caving in to U.S. pressure? The Liberals have already announced their plans, and although it's not perfect, it's far far better than the DMCA.
But now I'm afraid this version will be thrown away, and the Conservatives will come up with their own DMCA-friendly act instead.
So, Canadians, write your MPs, and sign the petition:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/
With a ratio of like 680,486 persons to U.S. representatives, candidates are more likely to rely on lobbyists and such for campaign contributions than to do grassroots campaigning.
i agree the U.S. is in dire need of campaign reform.
the ratio in the netherlands (where this ipod royalty levy is proposed) is about 100,000 inhabitants to one representative in the tweede kamer.
it would seem to me that in the U.S., the lobbyists (RIAA) have won. unlike in many other countries, home copying/sharing in the U.S. is simply outlawed altogether. so i think it is a victory against the lobbyists, that it is still allowed in the netherlands.
yes, the lobbyists are getting more of what they want (royalty money) with this levy. but i still think it's a better system than what they *really* want, which is for it to be outlawed in the netherlands too. so far the government has stood up to the lobbyists and refused to take that freedom away from the people.
Consider a student buying an iPod for purposes of recording lectures. Consider that he or she only uses it for that purpose, and not for music period. Let us say it is a 60 gigabyte iPod. That would be about $258 more as the article says. Is that fair?
the amount seems very high, i doubt it will actually be that much in the end. in Canada, the same "ipod tax" is only $20.
how many college students are there who really have ipods with no music on them? three? ok, so it's not fair to them, and i already said, maybe there could be a more fair way of collecting the royalties.
but my whole point was that the concept (in the netherlands) is *not* charging a tax to pay for the crimes of others (which seems wrong to me too), it is charging royalty fees for legitimate and legal use by the person who pays the fee (which seems like a good idea to me). if you don't take advantage of your freedom for home copying, then yes, you are missing out on something you've paid for, and that is not exactly fair i guess.
but as i said, it's better than the lobbyists getting their way and having home copying outlawed altogether.
It's almost like they want people to steal. Since you will feel you have paid for the music if you pay the tax and will steal the music.
you *have* paid for the music if you pay the "tax" (royalties that go to the musicians). and the copying is totally legal. so if it's legal to do, and you're paying the royalties for the music... it's not really "stealing" then is it?
also the same in Canada too. and France, and other countries. it could be the same in the U.S. too, if people would stand up for it, and refuse to allow a stupid law to make half the country (including the president) a criminal for home copying.
what's not so likely is to have a law that says uploading is ok too. (at the moment that is the case in Canada, but it won't last long) so it doesn't really make a free-for-all p2p network a reality, the RIAA is still going to go after uploaders.
the "ipod tax" in Canada is much less, only $25 (about $20US).
and you don't have to buy an ipod. it's the copyright law that gives you the freedom to copy music, not the fact that you pay the levy. if you just copy onto your computer, it's still ok. but then it's nice if you go to your favourite musicians' website and make a donation. and more efficient, since there's no middleman...
"a surcharge at the point of sale for any storage devices that could possibly be used to store pirated works."
Does this mean you can "pirate" all you want as you've already paid? So long as the booty passes through an MP3 player first, of course...
no, that's not what it means.
it's even better than that.
you can "pirate" all you want for your own use, simply because Dutch law says you are free to do so. you don't have to pass it through an mp3 player first.
the law also says that musicians have a right to be paid royalties for this (legal) use of their music, similar to the way radio stations pay royalties for broadcast. the royalties in this case are collected through surcharges on blank media.
if you find a way to copy music without using blank media that has the surcharge on it, you are still free to do so, because the freedom comes from the law, and not as a result of paying the royalties. if you're going to do it though, i think it's only fair to pay the royalties.
the article's characterization of devices "used to store pirated works" misrepresents the facts. if the copying is legal, and royalties on the music are paid for through the levy, it can hardly be called "pirating", can it?
The concept of taxing something to offset the effects of illegal activity. I mean, it hurts those who use it for legit purposes.
but that is not the concept at all, at least in the Netherlands. the concept is to charge royalty payments to people for their legal and legitimate use of music. home copying, including downloading, of music - even if you don't own the original - is a legal activity here. but you don't get this for free, you have to pay royalties. so if the law says it's ok, and you pay money for it, you can't really think of it as stealing or piracy, can you?
no-one says that the royalty fees that radio stations have to pay for broadcasting music are there to compensate the "victims" of "illegal activity". they simply pay musicians for the use of their music.
well this is basically the same idea. and they figured that the best way to collect these royalties from the general public is to charge them on blank media. now, this does mean that some people will pay royalties who don't make home copies. maybe there could be a more fair way of collecting the royalties. but overall, i think the concept of charging royalties for legitimate use is not bad.
But I guess this is what happens when the special interest groups and the lobbyists get their way.
if the special interest groups and lobbyists got their way, you'd be paying fees on top of recording devices and blank media, and home copying would *still* be illegal. that's the way it is in the U.S. - and that, to me, does seem wrong on so many levels.
so i would say that it's a victory against these groups, if home copying remains legal depsite their efforts. Dutch, Canadian, French - tell your government you want to keep it legal. Americans - tell them you want your freedom back - repeal the DMCA and stop pushing the international WIPO treaties.
The last time I checked, the copyright holders' argument over here was that the levy is there because you have the right (by law) to make a limited number of personal backup copies of records you've bought. It doesn't compensate for any copyright infringements per se - it simply compensates for the "losses" induced when they can't force you to buy a new record for a backup instead.
you should check again. the argument is that by law you have the freedom for unlimited home copying of your own *or anyone else's* music. doing so is simply not considered an infringement of copyright.
the levy is collected as royalty payments in respect of this copying. it is not to pay the "victims" of "copyright infringement". it is to pay musicians for the legitimate and legal use of their work, similar to the way radio stations have to pay royalties to musicians for broadcasting.
The general idea is to tax the smalltime infringers and prosecute the people making money with copying.
actually, the Dutch (and Canadian, French, etc.) law says that home copying is simply not an infringement of copyright in the first place. the "tax" on blank media is a royalty payment, for the legitimate use of the music, similar to radio stations paying a royalty for broadcasting.
it's maybe a subtle difference, but it means that home copying is not an "infringement" or in any way illegal or deserving of some kind of punishment or lawsuit, the way it is in the U.S.
If their laws are so "excellent" then why is this tax being proposed?! They must not have any song stealing going on.
first, it isn't a "tax". it's a levy to be distributed to musicians as royalties for the legitimate use of their music. because second, no, there is no song stealing going on. and that's because home copying of music is LEGAL in the Netherlands (and Canada, France, etc.). Think of it this way - radio stations can legally broadcast music. it's not a crime, it's not stealing. they have to pay royalties. citizens can legally copy music at home for their personal use. it's not a crime, it's not stealing. they have to pay royalties, which are collected through a levy on blank media.
yes, it does kind of suck if some people have to pay this even if their media is used for something else. but still i think it's a better system than making home copying illegal.
It's just bullshit. Don't even try to defend it.
well i beg to differ. i think it's a good system. it's not perfect, but it's better than some of the alternatives. like in the U.S., where you pay royalty charges on recording devices and some blank media, yet home copying is still illegal. how do you defend that?
Also this tax pretty much legitimises copyright violations or in theory should.
yes, it actually does.
well to be more accurate, Dutch law (and Canadian, French, etc.) says that home copying of music is simply not a copyright violation in the first place.
the law also sets up a system for collecting royalties, much in the same way that radio stations pay royalties for broadcasting.
it's not about compensating victims for a crime. it's about paying musicians for the legitimate use of their work.
it's true that some people will pay this charge, who don't do home copying. and that kind of sucks i guess. still, i think it's a better system than making home copying illegal. i for one welcome the new tax overlords, if it stops the RIAA cops from breaking down my door and seizing my computer because i shared some music with my sister.
Seems to me whoever is making these laws definately don't know what ipods are used for...They must think people just steal their music...but with an added 258, now it gives u an excuse to download music.
in the Netherlands you don't need an excuse to download music. it's legal. you are free to do it as much as you like.
the $258 charge is a royalty collection. like what radio stations pay for broadcasting, another legal activity.
so downloading can't be stealing, because it's legal, and because it's paid for by the "tax".
if you don't make use of your freedom for home copying, that's your loss, just like if you don't make use of the library, public pool, or roads that you pay for with your income tax.
$258 is expensive (the "ipod tax" in Canada is only $20) but still i think it's worthwhile if it keeps home copying free (as in speech) and stops the RIAA etc. from breaking down my door.
I pay taxes on gasoline because I use gasoline. If I would have to pay taxes on "stealing" music without actually stealing music, I would start.
it's not a tax on "stealing" music. the Dutch have the legal freedom for home copying. there is no theft, crime or illegal activity involved.
because of this, extra money is collected on blank media and players, to go to musicians to pay them for this legal use of their work. in the same way that radio stations pay royalties for broadcasting music.
so there would really not be a problem if you would start copying music, it's really ok. it's not stealing, because it's legal and it's paid for.
Do you think the RIAA might be shooting themselves in the foot with this one? If the Dutch courts have the same theory you just mentioned I forsee a bunch of copyright ignoring websites...
the Dutch courts don't need to have a theory. they have the law, which already says people have the freedom of home copying, including to download, legally.
"distributing" is another matter. i can lend you a CD for you to copy, but i can't put the CD up on a website for the whole world.
p2p networks are in-between. am i just lending you my music to copy, or am i distributing it? in Canada, it was ruled the former. but that ruling will not last very long. in the Netherlands, i think uploading on a public p2p network is probably not allowed.
In Canada, the tax is on all mp3 players. Depends of the capacity. As in germany. Though, we have a 15$ top.
actually the mp3 player "tax" was struck down in court last year. it will probably be back again soon though, they have to change the wording of the law first.
But why has all this money go to the corporate major label? (Socan in Canadan, RIAA and so on) Same with CD-R, DVD-R....
SOCAN isn't a label. it's a royalty-collecting organization. any musican can join and register in order to receive royalty payments. you don't have to be on a corporate label. also, there is no "tax" on DVD-R because it is not considered an audio recording media. the levy (and the freedom to copy) only applies to music.
It's a Slap in the face to every consumer. "We assume your going to steal music so were are going to just charge you up front"
no, it's more like "you have the legal freedom to copy music for your personal use. however, we are going to charge extra on your ipod to help pay musicians for this legal use".
you're telling me i can download what ever i want..
yes. you can legally download, or copy from a friend, whatever you want. that's what the law says.
it's not *stealing* because:
1. it's legal
2. the musicans are *paid for their work* (NOT *compensated for theft*), through the "tax".
so why would anyone pay for music through itunes?
i'm not exactly sure.
i would, if they provided a really good service. that means:
- a well-organized and researched site that helps me find the music i like, even if i don't know the filename.
- lets me preview full songs (perhaps at a lower bandwidth) before i buy them.
- guaranteed and consistent high-quality files.
- fast downloads.
- not crippled by DRM - i can be sure i will still be able to play my music in twenty years from now when apple has gone out of business.
- a reasonable price, relative to the competition of p2p networks and blank-media levies.
i would gladly pay a premium for the convenience of all these things, rather than waste my time wading through annoying crap on p2p networks.
once the music industry wakes up to this, they will have more of my money. if they can't compete or offer a product i want to pay for, they deserve to go out of business.
Does this mean that everyone who buys a hard drive-based MP3 player can pilfer songs off of the internet freely?
no. everyone in the Netherlands, Canada, and many other countries, can "pilfer" songs off the internet freely, regardless of whether they buy and MP3 player or not, because they already have that freedom under the law. only it's not free (financially), because you pay the levy, and yes it goes to the recording industry to compensate them - not as "victims of a crime", but simply as bona-fide payment for the legal use of their work.
It's insane to punish me for a crime I'm not committing.
there are no crimes being committed, and no punishment. there is simply a charge and payment for the legal use of music.
you pay income taxes, which in part pay for public libraries, swimming pools, schools, and roads. if you don't personally make use of any of these, does that mean you don't have to pay income tax?
i mean, it's not exactly the same thing because this is a levy, not a tax. i'm just saying, that if you choose not to make use of your freedom to make home copies, you are losing out on something you're going to pay for anyways. it's not the most ideal or fair system, but i think it's a better system than criminalizing home copying altogether.
actually, the worst system would be where you pay a "tax" on blank media and recording devices, but home copying is still illegal. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that is the system in the U.S.
I'd completely go for the iPod tax.
Now I've paid for music, it's no longer illegal for me to go out and download it.
I know that's not really how it'll work legally,
but that's *exactly* how it works legally. it's *not* illegal for you to go out and download it.
if it's a tax that presumes purchasers of a consumer device are going to use it for illegal ends, and compensate the, erm, "victims" in advance, then you've just created a "Guilty until proven innocent" model.
but it is not such a tax. it's a levy (user fee) that presumes people are going to use it for *legal* ends, and pays musicians for this use of their work. people have the freedom to make home copies, and musicians have the right to be paid for it through the levy. there are no "victims", "crimes", "guilty parties", or breaking of the law involved.
in the Netherlands, i can roll up a big fat joint, open a beer, put on the CD i copied from a friend, and relax - secure in the knowledge that the cops aren't going to be breaking down my door for it. hell, i can even do all of this in a public park.
i really wish people would butt out and stop insisting that repressive U.S. laws make me a criminal. they don't apply to me.
I hate to pay a "steal" tax. But if I'd pay 258$ steal tax, I'd "steal"....
man, i'm just so amazed how people are brainwashed by the RIAA's "home taping is killing music" and "don't steal music" propaganda, or think that U.S. law applies to the rest of the world.
it is not a "stealing" tax!!!
the law says Canadians, Dutch, and many others can *legally* copy music. the "tax" (a levy, more like a user fee) is to pay musicians for these copies. there is absolutely no concept in the law that the levy is to compensate for "stealing" or any other illegal or wrong activity.
so if you live in Canada, or the Netherlands, just feel free to go ahead and copy all the music you want. you have that freedom!! and don't feel bad about it, it's not stealing, and it's not "free as in beer" because you're paying for it through the levy. and more than that, it's actually *good* for the music industry!!
so relax and enjoy the music!