i don't see why you would think that the rationale of the law is compensating someone because their property has been stolen. where do you get that?
the law just says that there's nothing wrong with private copying. and then there's a system to collect money so that the musicians also get paid. i don't see how that has anything to do with "stealing" - it's just a different economic system than direct purchasing, paying for things through taxes. there are lots of examples of that. like taxes on gasoline that pay for highway maintenance. is it immoral to use the roads "for free"?
well a better example is, when bands play in a bar, the bar makes payments to an agency that distributes it to songwriters. nobody thinks it's immoral for a band to play cover tunes in a bar, and certainly the fact that songwriters are being financially compensated for is part of why it's ok. libraries and schools make payments to copyright collectives to compensate authors for photocopying etc.; i don't think anyone thinks that schools making handouts for students is some kind of immoral theft that has to be compensated like some kind of "victims rights".
if someone gets shot to death, no amount of compensation can make up for that. it's immoral. but in this case, i don't see how there is any victim. people listen to music, musicians get paid - what's the problem?
now of course you have a point that there are surely problems with the way that the payments are handed out. but i think there are equally bad problems with the way artists get paid (i.e. screwed) under the record label contracts. i couldn't really say which is worse.
it's signing a contract without reading it (because it hasn't been written yet). doesn't seem smart. another option is just to release under the GPLv2 only, and wait until v3 comes out. If you like it, then you can announce that people can use it at their option.
the effect will be exactly the same as including the "or any future version", because it's always at the users' option. but this way you'd have a veto option if you don't like a new version.
the drawback of course is with derivative works, you'd have to find everyone who contributed and get them to agree, if you didn't put it in the original licence.
so maybe you could put something in like "any future version if approved by the author", and some URL to check, when it comes out. or something like that.
jeez, this is the third time in three days i've posted a joke, only to have some idiot quote the dictionary to me or point out my grammar mistakes.
is slashdot full of nothing but humourless pedants?
ok, so according to the dictionary sodomy could include oral sex, but at least where i'm from that's not the common usage. if you don't believe me just go into your local adult video store and see what the people on the "sodomy" tapes are doing...
Finally, isn't it most sensible to allow GPL version 2 or any later version *at your option*, and let the users decide whether they wish to move to the new version of the GPL when it's announced? If the new version is unreasonable, people will be free to stick with v2.
That's fine for the users, but I think the problem is for the developers. It doesn't seem sensible for me to release code that says you can use it under some future licence that isn't written yet, that I don't have control over. What if they write some future version of the GPL that says, ok, you now have the option of distributing your source changes OR sending money to the FSF? Of course that's not going to happen, but my point is that there could easily be some clause in a future GPL that I disagreed with, and didn't want to distribute my code under, but I would be locked in if I had used the "any later version" clause.
well mister grammar nazi, which of the following is correct:
1. microsoft windows is crappy 2. microsoft windows are crappy
huh?
my dad uses microsoft windows. he insists on paying a lot of money for some guy to come in regularly to clean the viruses and spyware off it (or off them, as you prefer).
i said, dad, you should get a mac, you won't have to worry about viruses. but the window(s)-cleaner guy said that the mac has a lot more security problems these days (haven't you noticed all those security updates for it?), because it's based on linux, and all the hackers are on linux.
i said, actually, the darwin core is a bsd derivitave with a mach microkernel. he kind of snorted and went back to installing dad's new dell.
my dad is a smart guy, but he thinks the hard drive is the big white box that goes under the monitor (the new one's black). he also says "windows" when he means to say "operating system". so the statement "the apple windows is based on linux" seemed perfectly reasonable to him. and, i would hazard a guess, to a large percentage of other windows users.
when i insisted he should rather say "the apple operating system is based on unix", he reacted in much the same way that i do to people who make nitpicking remarks about my grammar. i.e., something along the lines of "that, sir, is just the type of arrant pedantry up with which i will not put!"
i think i saw this on/. the other day: "The problem with defending the purity of the English Language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
But anyways, in the future, since everyone knows the Apple Windows is based on Linux, they will probably move towards really fucking stupid names like Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog. Now there's a catchy/sexy name if I ever heard one.
No, it doesn't make any sense to me. You just keep saying things are illegal and infringing when federal law and the Supreme Court plainly say they are not.
Anyways, since you still won't admit you were wrong about it being illegal to copy CDs even if you don't own the original, I'm just bored with this now.
Basically Microsoft's lawyers intimidated this kid into giving up his domain name. First they demanded he hand it over, and offered him $10 for his troubles. Well he didn't want to give it up.
So he said, no way, it's worth at least ten thousand (ok, not a million). That's how badly he wanted to keep it. Then he gets a 25-page document accusing him of cybersquatting and all kinds of scary things, because he had said ten grand. I don't mean he was busted as in charged/convicted, but just "busted". Just the threats were enough. In the end they took the domain. He didn't get his ten grand.
They tossed him an Xbox and some free Microsoft indoctrination classes, mainly so they wouldn't look like such ogres.
...what the word copyright actually means...an inherent one to what copyright actually is (the exclusive right to copy).
Copyright in Canada is what Bill C-42 says it is, and nothing else. The right granted may be exclusive, but it is not unlimited. It is limited in the case of music recordings, by provisions for "private copying".
nowhere in that section does it state that copying a work which has been lent to you is legal
Nowhere in does it state that it is not legal. Article 80 provides that copying music for private use of the person who makes the copy is not an infringement of copyright. The end. There is no limitation that the person must own the original. The only limitations are on selling, renting, public performance, etc.
Consider that if it were, then it should also be legal to copy for personal use any movies or software which may have been loaned to you and keep such copies after you return them. It isn't.
The provisions for private copying do not apply to movies or software, only to music recordings. There is no right to private copying of movies or software. Under article 30.6, you may make one backup copy of computer software you bought, which must be destroyed if you no longer own the original. There is no provision for making a copy of a movie or book for backup purposes, regardless of whether you own the original or not.
It would seem that if it is legal to do one then it should be legal to do the other. Likewise, if it is illegal to do one, then it should be illegal to do the other.
It might seem that way to you, but my point is that you are mistaken. Movies, software, and music are all treated differently under the act.
In exchange for allowing people to make private copies of music for personal use, even if they don't own the original, a system of taxation is implemented which pays the musicians for this use of their work. If it was only legal to make copies of CDs you own, there would be no monetary loss to musicians, and no grounds for the tax. Furthermore, it would not have been possible for the Supreme Court to rule that downloading music from P2P networks is legal.
There is no similar taxation system for movies or software. So downloading or having copies of them without authorization is illegal. But not with music. Not in Canada.
Believe me yet?
With regards to "sharing": lending or making available for copying is not the same thing as copying. The act says it is legal to make copies for the private use of the person who makes the copy. It's not legal to make copies for someone else's use (although no-one has ever been busted for making tapes as birthday gifts for their friends). I can make a copy of your CD, but you can't make a copy for me - I have to be the one that presses "record". I guess that you are arguing, as the CRIA did, that making your music collection available on a P2P network constitutes making a copy for someone else's use. I can understand that argument, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was the downloader who essentially "pressed record" for his own copy. You can disagree with the decision, but that's the way it is.
Certainly you can lend me your original CD for me to copy and give back. Now you might have a point that me lending that copy to someone else is not "private use" - although the act only mentions selling etc., not lending - i.e. "private" as opposed to "public" or "commercial" use - it says "private" not "personal". But given the Supreme Court decision that private copies being made available on the network for copying by downloaders is legal, I don't think that argument would hold up in court.
Anyways, this is a different issue, the main point was that it is legal to copy music even if you don't own the original. I think I have made that point. If you still don't believe me, do some more research or ask a lawyer.
If he offers it to them, it's blackmail/cybersquatting. On the other hand, if they approach him, it's perfectly legal.
Not necessarily. That's how Microsoft nabbed Mike Rowe of mikerowesoft.com. They approached him and asked how much money it would take to give them the domain, and he (just a kid) said "a million dollars" or something, and they busted him for cybersquatting and took the domain for free.
(if) he would have tried to sell the URL to Microsoft (as the person in this case is alleged to have done), he would be open to have the URL taken from him for that act
Actually, that's what happened. In the course of bullying him to give up the domain, at one point Microsoft said, "ok, how much money would it take?" and he (just a kid) said something like "oh, i don't know, a million dollars..." and they nabbed him under the cybersquatting/fraud law. The bastards.
If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me, by directing me somewhere I did not want to go, then they are violating my rights.
Fraud yes, deceit no. Broadly, you have the right not to be swindled, but you don't have the right not to be lied to. If I tell you Manhattan is in Kansas, and you go looking for it, the joke's on you. If deceit were illegal, everyone would be in jail. As long as this guy wasn't trying to take anyone's money, it was ok.
Sentry21 noted that Canadians can borrow (someone's) original CDs, rip them all to MP3, and then give them back, and as long as it's for personal use"
mark-t disputed this fact, stating: keeping copies of a work after you have returned it is generally considered as willful disrespect for Copyright and will carry similar penalties to actual Copyright infringement if discovered
I countered that no, mark-t is misinformed, and Sentry21 is correct: Canadians are allowed to copy all the music they want, regardless of whether they own the original or not.
mark-t: No(...) It isn't (legal).
me: Yes. It is. Canadians can borrow a CD from a friend or library, copy it for personal use, and return it. Legally.
mark-t: show me anywhere in the Canada Copyright Act (...) where this specific thing is covered (...) the *ONLY* interpretation is that access to personal use copies must be lost when access to the work being copied is lost.
me: Bill C-42 (1985/1997, the Copyright Act) Part VIII, Article 80
mark-t: (changes the subject...)
The point under discussion was that in Canada, if you lend me a CD, I have the right to copy it and return it. I am legally allowed to keep personal use copies/rips of CDs even if I do not own the original. Do you continue to dispute that is the law, or do you concede that you were wrong?
With regards to the secondary subject:
There is not, and has never been, any concept that copyright is an inherent, god-given right, like the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. On the contrary, it has long been established that the public has the right to copy and perform music, plays, books, and so on. Only in the last century or so, has it been deemed beneficial for society and the law to grant limited exclusive copying rights to authors, for the purpose of promoting progress in society.
Canadians are not required to "respect" some abstract idea you may have about what copyright "actually is" or should be, outside of what is defined in Bill C-42. We are required to follow the law, as passed by parliament and interpreted by the courts.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that sharing music on P2P networks is not an infringement of copyright. Therefore, it is simply not an infringement of copyright. Unless the law changes. You may think the law or the court is somehow wrong or disrespectful. Sucks to be you. Fortunately, Canadians don't really go by what Mark from BC thinks.
On the other hand, public opinion and debate is healthy in determining whether laws need to be changed, so by all means, feel free to express your opinion. Just be sure that you know what the law actually is, before you go around telling people that home-taping of music is an illegal infringement of copyright, because it isn't.
I happen to think that home-taping is good for musicians, and that the current law serves Canadians better than an American-style DMCA copyright law would.
Alright, I can stay up later than you, even if you're on the west coast. Don't say i didn't warn you to read the copyright act!
If you can legally borrow something from a library, copy it for yourself, and then return it legally, why can't you legally copy things you *RENT* (movies, for instance). Why won't stores that sell software normally accept the software for refund (ie, exchange for same product only) if the package has been opened?
You're changing the subject, we're not talking about movies or software copying. The thread started by Sentry21 is about copying/ripping other peoples' CDs or MP3s.
The Canadian government charges a levy (tax) in all ridings (um, I don't know what Americans call a riding - a district?) on all blank audio recording media (blank CDs, iPod hard disks, whatever), which is distributed to musicians (more likely to musicians' labels and lawyers) through CRIA (the Canadian franchise of the RIAA). This makes sure that musicians are paid for their work (yeah, right), and makes copying/downloading/sharing of music a happy easy thing for all, and means that ordinary people doing home taping like they have been since, what, the sixties?, don't destroy the music industry. And they don't have to be called "pirates" and go around with a peg-leg and an eye patch saying "arrrr billy, have you ever tasted...."
YET, in spite of these two inalterable facts, the law is still being broken. Why? If you can show me anywhere in the Canada Copyright Act or anywhere else in the Canadian Criminal Code where this specific thing is covered, I'd sure like to know about it.
Well, if you had read the copyright act as I suggested, you would have found that Bill C-42 (1985/1997, the Copyright Act) Part VIII, Article 80, provides that:
"...the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of a musical work embodied in a sound recording... onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording [unless it] is done for the purpose of (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."
N.B.!! This does not say that you must own (or "licence") a copy of the original media - you have the right, as a Canadian, to reproduce music for your own personal use, regardless of where you copy it from, since you pay the levy on the blank media you copy it on to. That pays for the music (that you probably wouldn't have paid for in the record store anyways).
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9796
Because from where I'm standing it seems that the *ONLY* interpretation is that access to personal use copies must be lost when access to the work being copied is lost.
Well now you can stop being a loser, and start sharing all the music like you should:
sharing copies of music does not fall under personal and private use, so you have no right at all to make copies that are going to be shared unless the copyright holder gives you such permission.
As reported by the CBC:
"...on June 30, 2004, the Supreme Count [sic *] of Canada ruled that [...] 'No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service.'
[* although it's amusing to imagine von Finckenstein, the "Supreme Count" of Canada, making the ruling, most likely the CBC is here referring to the Supreme Court justice who pre
No, or else it would be legal to, for example, rent something from a place , copy it for personal use, and return it. It isn't.
No. I mean yes. It is.
Canadians can borrow a CD from a friend or library, copy it for personal use, and return it. Legally.
Want to download MP3s from the net? It's not called "pirating" in Canada (or France either) - it's perfectly legal, so enjoy! Share your files with others on Kazaa? Not a problem! How is this possible? Through the magic of taxes!
Businesses can't rent out CDs, but that's another story. P.S. you might want to read the copyright act before posting further. Or maybe just start sharing music (which is actually good for the music industry) before the RIAA/CRIA thugs slam a Canadian version of the DMCA copy protection-racket through the house of commons.
First, manufacturers are required to implement (at the expense of the consumer) a copy-protection scheme that makes it impossible to copy music.
Then, consumers have to pay a tax on the equipment, plus $2/blank tape, which goes to the RIAA, to make up for lost royalties on copies of music - which is impossible to copy!
the right to copy belongs to society. specific and limited rights are granted to an author by society to promote progress. the rights are limited in their length of time, as well as in their scope. the law is an exception to "fair use", not the other way around.
certain examples of "fair use" are spelled out in the law, but this is one of those "including but not limited to" kind of things. the lawmakers and the courts continue to have the power to make decisions about what is and is not granted to authors.
but when powerful corporate lobbyists like the RIAA/MPAA want to stop something that has clearly been established and retained by society as "fair use", the politicians bend over and pass a law like the DMCA, which skirts the issue by outlawing the circumvention of a technological copy protection scheme, even when the act of making a copy (as acknowledged by the MPAA) would be legal.
you are free to try to copy a CD under "fair use". if you are incapable of doing so for whatever reason, that's your problem. if your photocopier breaks, the bookstore doesn't have to send someone over to fix it.
Canadians are allowed to copy all the music they want, regardless of whether they own the original or not.
The government charges a tax on all blank media, which is distributed to musicians, to make up for their "losses". They can't charge the tax and at the same time say the activity is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't see why you would think that the rationale of the law is compensating someone because their property has been stolen. where do you get that?
the law just says that there's nothing wrong with private copying. and then there's a system to collect money so that the musicians also get paid. i don't see how that has anything to do with "stealing" - it's just a different economic system than direct purchasing, paying for things through taxes. there are lots of examples of that. like taxes on gasoline that pay for highway maintenance. is it immoral to use the roads "for free"?
well a better example is, when bands play in a bar, the bar makes payments to an agency that distributes it to songwriters. nobody thinks it's immoral for a band to play cover tunes in a bar, and certainly the fact that songwriters are being financially compensated for is part of why it's ok. libraries and schools make payments to copyright collectives to compensate authors for photocopying etc.; i don't think anyone thinks that schools making handouts for students is some kind of immoral theft that has to be compensated like some kind of "victims rights".
if someone gets shot to death, no amount of compensation can make up for that. it's immoral. but in this case, i don't see how there is any victim. people listen to music, musicians get paid - what's the problem?
now of course you have a point that there are surely problems with the way that the payments are handed out. but i think there are equally bad problems with the way artists get paid (i.e. screwed) under the record label contracts. i couldn't really say which is worse.
it's signing a contract without reading it (because it hasn't been written yet). doesn't seem smart. another option is just to release under the GPLv2 only, and wait until v3 comes out. If you like it, then you can announce that people can use it at their option.
the effect will be exactly the same as including the "or any future version", because it's always at the users' option. but this way you'd have a veto option if you don't like a new version.
the drawback of course is with derivative works, you'd have to find everyone who contributed and get them to agree, if you didn't put it in the original licence.
so maybe you could put something in like "any future version if approved by the author", and some URL to check, when it comes out. or something like that.
jeez, this is the third time in three days i've posted a joke, only to have some idiot quote the dictionary to me or point out my grammar mistakes.
is slashdot full of nothing but humourless pedants?
ok, so according to the dictionary sodomy could include oral sex, but at least where i'm from that's not the common usage. if you don't believe me just go into your local adult video store and see what the people on the "sodomy" tapes are doing...
That's fine for the users, but I think the problem is for the developers. It doesn't seem sensible for me to release code that says you can use it under some future licence that isn't written yet, that I don't have control over. What if they write some future version of the GPL that says, ok, you now have the option of distributing your source changes OR sending money to the FSF? Of course that's not going to happen, but my point is that there could easily be some clause in a future GPL that I disagreed with, and didn't want to distribute my code under, but I would be locked in if I had used the "any later version" clause.
a blowjob isn't sodomy - i think they've got that ass-backwards...
well mister grammar nazi, which of the following is correct:
/. the other day:
1. microsoft windows is crappy
2. microsoft windows are crappy
huh?
my dad uses microsoft windows. he insists on paying a lot of money for some guy to come in regularly to clean the viruses and spyware off it (or off them, as you prefer).
i said, dad, you should get a mac, you won't have to worry about viruses. but the window(s)-cleaner guy said that the mac has a lot more security problems these days (haven't you noticed all those security updates for it?), because it's based on linux, and all the hackers are on linux.
i said, actually, the darwin core is a bsd derivitave with a mach microkernel. he kind of snorted and went back to installing dad's new dell.
my dad is a smart guy, but he thinks the hard drive is the big white box that goes under the monitor (the new one's black). he also says "windows" when he means to say "operating system". so the statement "the apple windows is based on linux" seemed perfectly reasonable to him. and, i would hazard a guess, to a large percentage of other windows users.
when i insisted he should rather say "the apple operating system is based on unix", he reacted in much the same way that i do to people who make nitpicking remarks about my grammar. i.e., something along the lines of "that, sir, is just the type of arrant pedantry up with which i will not put!"
i think i saw this on
"The problem with defending the purity of the English Language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
what's wrong with my grammar? there's nothing wrong with my grammar.
Try Azureus, it's so much better...
Probably it will be "Tiger".
But anyways, in the future, since everyone knows the Apple Windows is based on Linux, they will probably move towards really fucking stupid names like Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog. Now there's a catchy/sexy name if I ever heard one.
No, it doesn't make any sense to me. You just keep saying things are illegal and infringing when federal law and the Supreme Court plainly say they are not.
Anyways, since you still won't admit you were wrong about it being illegal to copy CDs even if you don't own the original, I'm just bored with this now.
Basically Microsoft's lawyers intimidated this kid into giving up his domain name. First they demanded he hand it over, and offered him $10 for his troubles. Well he didn't want to give it up.
So he said, no way, it's worth at least ten thousand (ok, not a million). That's how badly he wanted to keep it. Then he gets a 25-page document accusing him of cybersquatting and all kinds of scary things, because he had said ten grand. I don't mean he was busted as in charged/convicted, but just "busted". Just the threats were enough. In the end they took the domain. He didn't get his ten grand.
They tossed him an Xbox and some free Microsoft indoctrination classes, mainly so they wouldn't look like such ogres.
Did I miss anything?
Copyright in Canada is what Bill C-42 says it is, and nothing else. The right granted may be exclusive, but it is not unlimited. It is limited in the case of music recordings, by provisions for "private copying".
nowhere in that section does it state that copying a work which has been lent to you is legal
Nowhere in does it state that it is not legal. Article 80 provides that copying music for private use of the person who makes the copy is not an infringement of copyright. The end. There is no limitation that the person must own the original. The only limitations are on selling, renting, public performance, etc.
Consider that if it were, then it should also be legal to copy for personal use any movies or software which may have been loaned to you and keep such copies after you return them. It isn't.
The provisions for private copying do not apply to movies or software, only to music recordings. There is no right to private copying of movies or software. Under article 30.6, you may make one backup copy of computer software you bought, which must be destroyed if you no longer own the original. There is no provision for making a copy of a movie or book for backup purposes, regardless of whether you own the original or not.
It would seem that if it is legal to do one then it should be legal to do the other. Likewise, if it is illegal to do one, then it should be illegal to do the other.
It might seem that way to you, but my point is that you are mistaken. Movies, software, and music are all treated differently under the act.
In exchange for allowing people to make private copies of music for personal use, even if they don't own the original, a system of taxation is implemented which pays the musicians for this use of their work. If it was only legal to make copies of CDs you own, there would be no monetary loss to musicians, and no grounds for the tax. Furthermore, it would not have been possible for the Supreme Court to rule that downloading music from P2P networks is legal.
There is no similar taxation system for movies or software. So downloading or having copies of them without authorization is illegal. But not with music. Not in Canada.
Believe me yet?
With regards to "sharing": lending or making available for copying is not the same thing as copying. The act says it is legal to make copies for the private use of the person who makes the copy. It's not legal to make copies for someone else's use (although no-one has ever been busted for making tapes as birthday gifts for their friends). I can make a copy of your CD, but you can't make a copy for me - I have to be the one that presses "record". I guess that you are arguing, as the CRIA did, that making your music collection available on a P2P network constitutes making a copy for someone else's use. I can understand that argument, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was the downloader who essentially "pressed record" for his own copy. You can disagree with the decision, but that's the way it is.
Certainly you can lend me your original CD for me to copy and give back. Now you might have a point that me lending that copy to someone else is not "private use" - although the act only mentions selling etc., not lending - i.e. "private" as opposed to "public" or "commercial" use - it says "private" not "personal". But given the Supreme Court decision that private copies being made available on the network for copying by downloaders is legal, I don't think that argument would hold up in court.
Anyways, this is a different issue, the main point was that it is legal to copy music even if you don't own the original. I think I have made that point. If you still don't believe me, do some more research or ask a lawyer.
It all depends on what the intention is. If it's just to mess with people's minds, it's free speech. If it's to get their money, it's fraud.
Not necessarily. That's how Microsoft nabbed Mike Rowe of mikerowesoft.com. They approached him and asked how much money it would take to give them the domain, and he (just a kid) said "a million dollars" or something, and they busted him for cybersquatting and took the domain for free.
Actually, that's what happened. In the course of bullying him to give up the domain, at one point Microsoft said, "ok, how much money would it take?" and he (just a kid) said something like "oh, i don't know, a million dollars..." and they nabbed him under the cybersquatting/fraud law. The bastards.
AOL invented Bill Gates? I did not know that.
Fraud yes, deceit no. Broadly, you have the right not to be swindled, but you don't have the right not to be lied to. If I tell you Manhattan is in Kansas, and you go looking for it, the joke's on you. If deceit were illegal, everyone would be in jail. As long as this guy wasn't trying to take anyone's money, it was ok.
Sentry21 noted that Canadians can borrow (someone's) original CDs, rip them all to MP3, and then give them back, and as long as it's for personal use"
mark-t disputed this fact, stating: keeping copies of a work after you have returned it is generally considered as willful disrespect for Copyright and will carry similar penalties to actual Copyright infringement if discovered
I countered that no, mark-t is misinformed, and Sentry21 is correct: Canadians are allowed to copy all the music they want, regardless of whether they own the original or not.
mark-t: No(...) It isn't (legal).
me: Yes. It is. Canadians can borrow a CD from a friend or library, copy it for personal use, and return it. Legally.
mark-t: show me anywhere in the Canada Copyright Act (...) where this specific thing is covered (...) the *ONLY* interpretation is that access to personal use copies must be lost when access to the work being copied is lost.
me: Bill C-42 (1985/1997, the Copyright Act) Part VIII, Article 80
mark-t: (changes the subject...)
The point under discussion was that in Canada, if you lend me a CD, I have the right to copy it and return it. I am legally allowed to keep personal use copies/rips of CDs even if I do not own the original. Do you continue to dispute that is the law, or do you concede that you were wrong?
With regards to the secondary subject:
There is not, and has never been, any concept that copyright is an inherent, god-given right, like the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. On the contrary, it has long been established that the public has the right to copy and perform music, plays, books, and so on. Only in the last century or so, has it been deemed beneficial for society and the law to grant limited exclusive copying rights to authors, for the purpose of promoting progress in society.
Canadians are not required to "respect" some abstract idea you may have about what copyright "actually is" or should be, outside of what is defined in Bill C-42. We are required to follow the law, as passed by parliament and interpreted by the courts.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that sharing music on P2P networks is not an infringement of copyright. Therefore, it is simply not an infringement of copyright. Unless the law changes. You may think the law or the court is somehow wrong or disrespectful. Sucks to be you. Fortunately, Canadians don't really go by what Mark from BC thinks.
On the other hand, public opinion and debate is healthy in determining whether laws need to be changed, so by all means, feel free to express your opinion. Just be sure that you know what the law actually is, before you go around telling people that home-taping of music is an illegal infringement of copyright, because it isn't.
I happen to think that home-taping is good for musicians, and that the current law serves Canadians better than an American-style DMCA copyright law would.
If you can legally borrow something from a library, copy it for yourself, and then return it legally, why can't you legally copy things you *RENT* (movies, for instance). Why won't stores that sell software normally accept the software for refund (ie, exchange for same product only) if the package has been opened?
You're changing the subject, we're not talking about movies or software copying. The thread started by Sentry21 is about copying/ripping other peoples' CDs or MP3s.
The Canadian government charges a levy (tax) in all ridings (um, I don't know what Americans call a riding - a district?) on all blank audio recording media (blank CDs, iPod hard disks, whatever), which is distributed to musicians (more likely to musicians' labels and lawyers) through CRIA (the Canadian franchise of the RIAA). This makes sure that musicians are paid for their work (yeah, right), and makes copying/downloading/sharing of music a happy easy thing for all, and means that ordinary people doing home taping like they have been since, what, the sixties?, don't destroy the music industry. And they don't have to be called "pirates" and go around with a peg-leg and an eye patch saying "arrrr billy, have you ever tasted...."
YET, in spite of these two inalterable facts, the law is still being broken. Why? If you can show me anywhere in the Canada Copyright Act or anywhere else in the Canadian Criminal Code where this specific thing is covered, I'd sure like to know about it.
Well, if you had read the copyright act as I suggested, you would have found that Bill C-42 (1985/1997, the Copyright Act) Part VIII, Article 80, provides that:
N.B.!! This does not say that you must own (or "licence") a copy of the original media - you have the right, as a Canadian, to reproduce music for your own personal use, regardless of where you copy it from, since you pay the levy on the blank media you copy it on to. That pays for the music (that you probably wouldn't have paid for in the record store anyways). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9796
Because from where I'm standing it seems that the *ONLY* interpretation is that access to personal use copies must be lost when access to the work being copied is lost.
Well now you can stop being a loser, and start sharing all the music like you should:
sharing copies of music does not fall under personal and private use, so you have no right at all to make copies that are going to be shared unless the copyright holder gives you such permission.
As reported by the CBC:
"...on June 30, 2004, the Supreme Count [sic *] of Canada ruled that [...] 'No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service.'
[* although it's amusing to imagine von Finckenstein, the "Supreme Count" of Canada, making the ruling, most likely the CBC is here referring to the Supreme Court justice who pre
No. I mean yes. It is.
Canadians can borrow a CD from a friend or library, copy it for personal use, and return it. Legally.
Want to download MP3s from the net? It's not called "pirating" in Canada (or France either) - it's perfectly legal, so enjoy! Share your files with others on Kazaa? Not a problem! How is this possible? Through the magic of taxes!
Businesses can't rent out CDs, but that's another story. P.S. you might want to read the copyright act before posting further. Or maybe just start sharing music (which is actually good for the music industry) before the RIAA/CRIA thugs slam a Canadian version of the DMCA copy protection-racket through the house of commons.
That's a hell of a law!
First, manufacturers are required to implement (at the expense of the consumer) a copy-protection scheme that makes it impossible to copy music.
Then, consumers have to pay a tax on the equipment, plus $2/blank tape, which goes to the RIAA, to make up for lost royalties on copies of music - which is impossible to copy!
certain examples of "fair use" are spelled out in the law, but this is one of those "including but not limited to" kind of things. the lawmakers and the courts continue to have the power to make decisions about what is and is not granted to authors.
but when powerful corporate lobbyists like the RIAA/MPAA want to stop something that has clearly been established and retained by society as "fair use", the politicians bend over and pass a law like the DMCA, which skirts the issue by outlawing the circumvention of a technological copy protection scheme, even when the act of making a copy (as acknowledged by the MPAA) would be legal.
not if you live in the U.S., not anymore.
under the DMCA it is illegal to make an otherwise-legal archive copy if that involves circumventing a copy protection scheme.
you are free to try to copy a CD under "fair use". if you are incapable of doing so for whatever reason, that's your problem. if your photocopier breaks, the bookstore doesn't have to send someone over to fix it.
Uh... not exactly.
Canadians are allowed to copy all the music they want, regardless of whether they own the original or not.
The government charges a tax on all blank media, which is distributed to musicians, to make up for their "losses". They can't charge the tax and at the same time say the activity is illegal.