The Canadian Courts and File Sharing

[acushla]

EXTRA. EXTRA...READ ALL ABOUT IT...

Music industry loses round

TORONTO -- The music industry was dealt another legal setback yesterday in its quest to curb online file sharing when an attempt to smoke out the identities of 29 alleged uploaders was quashed.

But the Federal Court of Appeal offered encouragement in its 27-page ruling by giving the Canadian Recording Industry Association a road map of how to handle future cases.

"I would consider it a complete success," said Richard Pfohl, the music industry's lawyer.

The ruling, he said, sets up parameters for how to present evidence the next time the industry goes to court.

"It provides us with a blueprint to proceed. We know exactly what we need to do," said Pfohl.

For over a year, CRIA has been trying to figure out who's behind pseudonyms such as Geekboy or Jordana on Kazaa.

Finding out the identities from Internet service providers, such as Shaw, Rogers and Bell, is a necessary step in order to launch lawsuits against people who use services like Kazaa and IMesh.

The two are among 29 individuals suspected of collectively making 43,541 songs available to any web surfer for free.

Writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, Justice Edgar Sexton said much of the evidence was hearsay, posing a risk that "innocent persons might have their privacy invaded and also be named as defendant where it is not warranted."

The evidence was gathered by workers at New York-based MediaSentry and presented by the company's president, who had only second-hand knowledge of how it was collected. Dating back to late 2003, it was based on screen grabs showing a list of songs placed in a shared folder.

Yesterday's decision included several strong statements about the importance of protecting copyright in the online world so that music- makers are not "robbed of the fruits of their efforts," suggesting CRIA should return to court when it has met all the necessary criteria.

Sexton went a step further saying that with proper evidence, musicians "have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action."

However, he cautioned that the courts will need to make sure "privacy rights are invaded in the most minimal way."

[Roj]

Bottom line:

I was obviously right when I said ISPs should not give out IPs. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

This shows you why and I have no reservations about saying bluntly:

"I Told You So."

There isn't anything further for me to discuss after that statement.

[Shadowraven]

Still doesn't change what I've said before. It's just a matter of degree, and sharing music could never meet the criteria I set forth on revealing a user's identity. I still stand by what I said before, but only if it can be implemented the way I suggested.

[Roj]

Still doesn't change what I've said before. It's just a matter of degree, and sharing music could never meet the criteria I set forth on revealing a user's identity. I still stand by what I said before, but only if it can be implemented the way I suggested.
What NO ONE seems able to grasp it that it NOT a mattre of degree. You open the door to "X" and you then open the door to "Y". That's the simple and inevitable fact. Examples abound, ranging form the Patriot Act to DMCA. That's why you simply don't open the door - for ANY reason.

[Shadowraven]

Oh, I understand that concept quite well, I assure you. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to give if necessary. It is up to the people themselves to say "This far and no farther." Whether that would actually happen is open to debate.

I see what you are saying, agree with the point, and understand the possible consequences thereof. But I will not sit back and sanction the type of destructive behavior that destroys a person's life, for a principle, when something can be done about it. WE must watch the watchers and stand up collectively for our rights against them. I try to ensure that folks are aware of what's going on, whether they want to know about it or not. Knowledge is power, and that runs both directions.

[acushla]

Bottom line:

I was obviously right when I said ISPs should not give out IPs. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

This shows you why and I have no reservations about saying bluntly:

"I Told You So."

There isn't anything further for me to discuss after that statement.

This is utter drival. How's that for blunt?

One of the constants in the aforementioned post was the idea that rather than there being an absolute...each case would be judged on it's own merits.

In order to save time debating nuances I fast forwarded to a scenerio where there is going to be a nuclear strike and the only way it can be prevented is if the ISP give out the IP.

Whatever position anybody is going to have ends right here:

If you say it is allright for the ISP to give the IP, then you agree it should be on a case by case assessment.

If you say sorry, you'd like to help...but giving the IP is against our right to privacy, then you're an idiot.

Take your pick.

[Shadowraven]

Precisely what I am saying. It must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We just can't deal with absolutes here. I understand perfectly the slippery slope argument. That it is why it is even more imperative that we hold our political leader's toes to the fire. When they make a decision that affects us all negatively, for the doubtful gain of a few people, then they need to be slow roasted for acting in that fashion. But WE must do it. No one else is going to do it for us!!

[Roj]

Oh, I understand that concept quite well, I assure you. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to give if necessary. It is up to the people themselves to say "This far and no farther." Whether that would actually happen is open to debate.

I see what you are saying, agree with the point, and understand the possible consequences thereof. But I will not sit back and sanction the type of destructive behavior that destroys a person's life, for a principle, when something can be done about it. WE must watch the watchers and stand up collectively for our rights against them. I try to ensure that folks are aware of what's going on, whether they want to know about it or not. Knowledge is power, and that runs both directions.
We have a fundamental problem here, you see.

The people generally don't hold their political leaders to task.

The people generally don't draw a line - they don't even bother to find the crayon.

Because of that, legislature such as the two pieces of excrement that I iterated earlier gets passed.

Hence, when you DO get a worthwhile piece of legislature passed that protects individuals, you don't water it down by opening doors for any reason, no matter how laudable.

If you do by even a crack, the vermin finds a way to twist things around so that it can creep in and once again all is lost.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Experience bears me out on this.

[Shadowraven]

We have a fundamental problem here, you see.

The people generally don't hold their political leaders to task.

The people generally don't draw a line - they don't even bother to find the crayon.

Because of that, legislature such as the two pieces of excrement that I iterated earlier gets passed.

Hence, when you DO get a worthwhile piece of legislature passed that protects individuals, you don't water it down by opening doors for any reason, no matter how laudable.

If you do by even a crack, the vermin finds a way to twist things around so that it can creep in and once again all is lost.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Experience bears me out on this.

I agree on all points above, except on not letting this be done on a case-by-case basis. I've seen the same things you have in my life and know what you are saying. But I can't say no to stopping a serious crime from being committed. I've seen the negative results too often to allow it.

[acushla]

If you do by even a crack, the vermin finds a way to twist things around so that it can creep in and once again all is lost.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Experience bears me out on this.

Not to do the right thing in a situation because of a fear of things that might happen is akin to not operating on somebody who has cancer because he might die as a result of the surgery.

[Roj]

Not to do the right thing in a situation because of a fear of things that might happen is akin to not operating on somebody who has cancer because he might die as a result of the surgery.
What happened to those lofty sentiments about the so-called "greater good"? Conveniently tossed aside when a REAL value to individuals is in peril?

Thought so - that's inevitably how all the esoteric crap ends up when the real world collides with it.

[acushla]

What happened to those lofty sentiments about the so-called "greater good"? Conveniently tossed aside when a REAL value to individuals is in peril?

Thought so - that's inevitably how all the esoteric crap ends up when the real world collides with it.

Well...you may not think so...but I would consider the release of an IP by a ISP to avert a nuclear strike to be for the 'greater good.'

I'd be willing to bet most people would.

The ones who wouldn't are idiots.

[Roj]

Well...you may not think so...but I would consider the release of an IP by a ISP to avert a nuclear strike to be for the 'greater good.'

I'd be willing to bet most people would.

The ones who wouldn't are idiots.
The ones who would accept in these more enlightened times that an IP addy release would avert a nuclear strike (whose chances are slim and forget it and Slim has already left town) are living proof that evolution is NOT working.

No metalhead "National Security" drivel please. That's just too "Patriot Act " for me to hear without bursting into hysterical laughter. You do realize that "Wartgames" was a MOVIE, right?

[Shadowraven]

Yes, I'd have to say I'm not going that far. I have more mundane crimes and horror stories in mind.

[acushla]

The ones who would accept in these more enlightened times that an IP addy release would avert a nuclear strike (whose chances are slim and forget it and Slim has already left town) are living proof that evolution is NOT working.

No metalhead "National Security" drivel please. That's just too "Patriot Act " for me to hear without bursting into hysterical laughter. You do realize that "Wartgames" was a MOVIE, right?

As I stated earlier, the fact of whether or not this would ever happen was beside the point.

The point was to show that there were indeed situations where the release of an IP address was warranted.

I stand by my original statement: NEVER should not be used without some thought.

[acushla]

Wed. Jun. 8 2005 11:33 PM ET

Internet user Joey de Villa

Graham Henderson, of the Canadian Recording Industry Association
File-sharing law to be tabled next week: CTV

CTV.ca News Staff

The federal government will introduce new legislation aimed at toughening up copyright laws in the digital world, CTV News has learned. Still, industry stakeholders who say file sharing is stealing say the laws are not stringent enough.

About seven million Canadians download music from the Internet and the Canadian market for music downloads is estimated to be $100 million, according to The Canadian Independent Record Production Association.

"Somebody once described it as the the celestial jukebox, because you can find just about anything out there," Internet user Joey de Villa said.

Copyright holders have long been pushing for the federal government to toughen up laws. While new legislation will be tabled next week, industry stakeholders say the legal action is still not tough enough.

"Not only is it not as tough as we would like. It doesn't provide the adequate legal framework that we would like," Graham Henderson, of the Canadian Recording Industry Association told CTV News.

The new legislation will contain rules that will make it illegal to hack or break into the digital locks often used to prevent the copying of movies and software -- although it will remain perfectly legal in Canada to copy a CD for personal use.

"The digital locks themselves can be used to take away rights that users already have," University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist told CTV News.

The legislation also sets up what is called a notice-and-notice regime to handle complaints of copyright infringement.

Under this system, an Internet service provider will receive a notice from a copyright holder complaining about violations from its provider's customers. The ISP would then send a notice to that customer.

"If a father or mother gets a notice from their ISP that they might be sued because of the activities of their teenaged son or daughter, you could be pretty well assured that that activity is going to change," said Jay Thomson of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.

This puts the onus on a rights holder to prove a violation has occurred.

But that's still not good enough for de Villa.

"I want to be policed by the police, rather than by the record companies," he said.

This legislation likely won't become law until later this year and experts say it may only be the first of several changes to the legal environment on music downloading. They expect entertainment industry heavyweights to continue pushing to banish Internet-based file sharing.

Last month, Canadian record labels were dealt another legal blow in their quest to curtail online music sharing.

In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Canadian Recording Industry Association's appeal to oblige Internet service providers to release the names and addresses of 29 people alleged to be trading music with Net surfers.

As well, the judges refrained from making sweeping conclusions on copyright laws -- specifically about whether downloading or uploading music should be illegal.

[Shadowraven]

Bad news if you Canucks don't stop it now, but like I said before: "Stupid, stupid, stupid".

They ought to pull their heads out of their collective a***es and realize that what they are doing is just having the opposite effect of the one they are looking for. The tighter they try to gripped, the worse they are going to lose. Even if successful, folks will just take it elsewhere. They can't stop it, no matter how hard they try. They're just too stupid, and thick-headed, to have figured that out yet.

As for stopping people from cracking software and movie protection, Good Luck! Ain't gonna happen. That is always going to occur, no matter what they do. You can always get cracking software, or cracked software, from other immune countries. They really need to take off those rose-colored glasses. I'm always going to back-up what I buy. It something happens to the original, I want a copy of it, and THAT'S LEGAL. For now that is. Even if it's not, good luck stopping me from doing it anyway! I spent the money, it's mine to do with as I like!

[Roj]

The new legislation will contain rules that will make it illegal to hack or break into the digital locks often used to prevent the copying of movies and software -- although it will remain perfectly legal in Canada to copy a CD for personal use.

This is unenforceable.

Why?

Because it's a contradiction.

You have to break the copy protection to backup a copy protected CD. End of story.

This is DMCA for Canucks. Toss it out.

[acushla]

The new legislation will contain rules that will make it illegal to hack or break into the digital locks often used to prevent the copying of movies and software -- although it will remain perfectly legal in Canada to copy a CD for personal use.

This is unenforceable.

Why?

Because it's a contradiction.

You have to break the copy protection to backup a copy protected CD. End of story.

This is DMCA for Canucks. Toss it out.

Just to clarify...I think they differentiate between being able to copy a music CD for personal use and copying 'Sin City' or 'PHOTOSHOP CS'.

[Roj]

Just to clarify...I think they differentiate between being able to copy a music CD for personal use and copying 'Sin City' or 'PHOTOSHOP CS'.
Music CDs have copy protection too. Software and movies should have no limits placed on them either. I like France's viewpoint:

DVD copy protection is ILLEGAL there.

[acushla]

Music CDs have copy protection too. Software and movies should have no limits placed on them either. I like France's viewpoint:

DVD copy protection is ILLEGAL there.

I was simply clarifying what the Canadian governments stance was in relation to the differentiation between CD's and DVD Movies and Computer Software.

To suggest software and movies should have no limits placed on them is 'knee jerk'...at best.

No limits would mean setting up factories and copying them by the hundreds of thousands and selling them for $1.67 each.

Wait a minute...that's Bali.

[Roj]

I was simply clarifying what the Canadian governments stance was in relation to the differentiation between CD's and DVD Movies and Computer Software.

To suggest software and movies should have no limits placed on them is 'knee jerk'...at best.

No limits would mean setting up factories and copying them by the hundreds of thousands and selling them for $1.67 each.

Wait a minute...that's Bali.
Like I said, France has passed a law within the last month outlaweing DVD copy protection of any kind.

[acushla]

Like I said, France has passed a law within the last month outlaweing DVD copy protection of any kind.

That might well be true.

I dare you to set up a factory and start producing copies of these and selling them at $1.67 each.

You would very quickly, and in NO uncertain terms, learn about some OTHER laws that France has.

[Roj]

That might well be true.

I dare you to set up a factory and start producing copies of these and selling them at $1.67 each.

You would very quickly, and in NO uncertain terms, learn about some OTHER laws that France has.
EXACTLY.

Which proves my point.

Rights can be protected without silly-assed, useless, always breakable copy protection.

[Shadowraven]

Exactly Roj, you couldn't be more right. Copy protection is silly at best, and a violation of Fair Use otherwise. It doesn't work anyway, so quit wasting your time and mine by trying to implement it.

The industry's problem is that they see all this downloading going on and they get greedy. They think of all the profits they could be making from those downloads if they could stop them. What they don't understand is that most of those downloads do not exactly equate to lost sales of music.

A lot of the music I download can fall into 2 categories. Number one is music that I download to see if the album is worth buying. I do this in the record stores when I listen too, but it's easier to do from home. If I like it, I'll buy it when I can. If I don't, or only like a couple songs on it, I'll never buy it anyway. I almost never buy CD singles. That begins the second category. Most of the music I download I'd NEVER buy anyway. I like one or two songs by an artist, but nothing else. I'm not about to buy anything by them, but I'll download that song.

Has the industry really lost any money on either of these practices? NO! I'd never spend the money anyhow, so please tell me, just exactly what are they losing here? They're too greedy to understand that basic truth. They only see music being DL'd that they could be selling. What a group of greedy morons! If it's good I'll buy it, but not if it's mostly tripe.

This comes to the final question: Is the industry really hurting? From what I've read and seen, no. They seem to still have all the money they need and are able to post profits no worse than before. Have any artists been hurt? Not from what I've read. Actually it's been the reverse. Many artists have gotten a boost from people downloading their music and then buying when they wouldn't otherwise. People can use the interent to try before they buy, so they are more willing to check out new music if they can download it first.

The same can be said of movies. That industry ain't hurtin' either. If they are, they sure have a funny way of showing it. They still spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors on leave. Video hurt the theaters somewhat, but overall it increased profits earned from movies for the producers. Many people wait for movies to come out on video before they see them, or they download it to see if it's worth buying. Even if they don't, it still doesn't seem to truly be hurting the industry any. Despite what THEY say. It certainly doesn't hurt the production people making the movie. Those ridiculous advertisements in theaters that says DL'g hurts the crew is laughable. They are paid union wages when they are making the movie. They don't receive ANY of the profits after the fact. THAT goes to the Producers. Backers, and some Actors.