Napster in Canada
p2pnet.net News:- It’s happened.
Having launched amidst great, and completely unjustified, fanfare in the UK, Napster II has officially gone online in Canada.
It’s up against ArchambaultZik and PureTracks, neither of which is worth a light and both of which are, more or less, vanguards for what will eventually turn into a major US record label invasion which will in turn lead to an unrestrained orgy of sue ‘em all lawsuits of the kind Americans are now experiencing.
If Canada one day decides to make file sharing illegal, that is.
At the moment, putting music into a directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law. Thus, Canadians can – and do – upload and download with impunity and immunity.
Which isn’t to say Canada’s version of the RIAA (the CRIA ; ) isn’t following its orders to the best of its abilities.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association of America (CRIA) been ordered by its owners and masters, the Big Five record labels (none of whom has a Canadian base), to appeal the decision.
It’s using all kinds of tricks to scam Canadians into thinking Big Music is the innocent victim of a bunch of depraved online criminals who are cheating starving artists out of their rightful earnings, and “devastating” the multi-billion-dollar music industry.
And why not? The entertainment industry writes its own ticket in the US and clearly thinks it’ll eventually be able to do the same in Canada.
That’s as may be, however. Canada is on the verge of a federal election and it’s by no means certain that prime minister Paul Martin will survive it.
Thus, Napster II, owned by Roxio, hopes there’ll be a market. And it really needs a market.
It’s crossing the border with Music. Legal, safe and easy as its banner.
Well jeez, guys. It’s already legal, safe and easy. And it’s free too.
However, there may – just may – be a reason for American users to log onto the Canadian Napster.
Unlike in the UK, where it’s trying to rip people off by flogging its music at prices way above those in the US, in Canada it wants $C1.19 for a track, and $C9.95 for an album. That works out to around .86 cents US, compared to the .88 cents the cheapest plastic Big Music store – Wal-Mart – wants.
And an album works out to about $7.26 against the $9.95 it wants in the US. In the UK, it’s after £9.95 ($17.60) per album.
It figures. Or, rather, it doesn’t figure. But that’s Napster.
As far as promos go, Napster II and Canadian brewer Molson announced a multi-year "mutually exclusive strategic marketing alliance".
==============
Revised 8:50 pm Pacific
May 27th, 2004 at 1:47 am
Good job smart writer!
The Canadian Recording Industry Association of America (CRIA)…
May 27th, 2004 at 1:58 am
Hmmm who’s more biased, Zeropaid, Slyck, or p2pnet? I used to think it was Slyck, but now I’m pretty sure p2pnet has Slycktom beat hands down. I only wish GoogleNews wouldn’t consider p2pnet a ‘news’ source.
May 27th, 2004 at 2:28 am
As much as I wish it were, please stop this. It is not legal to share music in Canada. It’s copyright infringement, plain and simple. There have been numerous court decisions, all misinterpreted. This kind of misinterpretation is only going to make judges crack down harder in the future, instead of being reasonable.
The most popular misinterpretation is that the levy on blank media makes it okay. Read the levy. It does not.
Another more recent ruling came when a judge told the CRIA to take a hike after they demanded the names of subscribers who had been caught sharing files. The judge made a reference to a photocopier in a library, and everyone latched onto that and proclaimed file sharing to be as legal as a photocopier in a library. What the judge ACTUALLY said was that “All the CRIA has proven in this case, is that the individuals whose identities are being demanded had the files available for sharing, but no proof that they actually shared them.”
THAT’S where the photocopier metaphor came in. Proof that someone was in a library where there was also a photocopier was NOT proof that copyright infringement had taken place, and in the same way someone having files returned on a search result was NOT proof that any copyright infringement had taken place.
(And before anyone asks: A photocopier is in a library so you can photocopy a paragraph here and there for research and citation. Photocopying the entire book, or portions of it, is also copyright infringement. It may not be enforced very well, but it is the law.)
May 27th, 2004 at 2:35 am
Two words:
FAIR USE
May 27th, 2004 at 3:05 am
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled that putting music into a computer directory that may, or may, not be shared by someone else online doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
He said “… it is obvious in my mind the plaintiffs have not:
“Made out a prima facie case (their affidavit evidence is deficient, they have not: made a causal link between P2P pseudonyms and IP addresses and they have not made out a prima facie case of infringement),
“Established that the ISPs are the only practical source for the identity of the P2P pseudonyms; and
“Established that the public interest for disclosure outweighs the privacy concerns in light of the age of the data.”
Page 14 of the decision refers to Section 80(1) of the Canadian Copyright Act and reads in part:
“Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, onto an audio recordsing 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.
“Thus, dowloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement.
“No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorised the reproduction of sound recordings.
“They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user(s) via a P2P service.”
May 27th, 2004 at 4:50 am
Several countries are imposing draconian laws when it comes to copyright infringement, but if you read the judges ruling in the Canadian case you will quickly realize that he did not misinterpret a thing.
May 27th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
The writer is absolutely correct and if anyone still wonders why Napster has launched a Canadian version, it is only to gain a foothold in country for the lobbying machine to engage. I can see black suit yankee executives with Ottawa offices as we speak trying to shake down government and the Liberals rolling out the red carpet for them…
May 27th, 2004 at 12:38 pm
You silly puppy, thank goodness Google has the common sense to include non megapoly news feeds, that might change once they go public though…
May 27th, 2004 at 6:57 pm
What I don’t understand is the incredible price discrepency between identical music services with identical “product” in different countries. For example, on Napster UK the price is almost $2 per track, while on Napster Canada tracks cost a much more reasonable $0.88. That makes absolutely no sense. The same song should not vary in price by more than 100%.
However, my question is, are individuals required to shop only from their regional music services or can they choose based on the best market price? Are there importation costs involved? There must be some way that the crooked record company conglomerates can try to go after sensible consumers, and I just want to be ready for them.
And FORGET using different Napsters, ALLOFMP3.COM is where it’s at. Forget saving a few cents, the songs only cost a few cents there. And it’s the same “product”. A penny per megabyte! Best of all, if there’s no problem importing digital music purchased over the internet from another country’s service then why not buy where you can get the best value? Furthermore, the record companies don’t see a cent (that’s how it’s so cheap) because a loophole in Russian IP Law entitles songwriters and artists to own the recordings of their songs. So all the royalties go solely to the artists and songwriters. What a wild concept!
May 27th, 2004 at 7:07 pm
Check it out here, too: http://p2pnet.net/story/1321
May 28th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
nice rebuttal….