File sharing in Canada:
p2pnet.net News:- News that the corporate music industry has received its second major legal defeat in Canada continues to hold front pages around the world.
In March, Big Music’s hopes of successfully using its CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) to sue Canadians in the same way the RIAA sues Americans were dashed.
It can’t get started without first finding a way to identify people it claims have swapped unauthorised music files. And it can’t do that without a court order compelling Canadian ISPs to reveal client names – and its recent bid to force five Canadian ISPs to do exactly that, failed.
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein decided, “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.”
The ruling is under appeal and in the meanwhile, as we reported on June 30, Canada’s Supreme Court has decided unanimously that ISPs are “intermediaries” who aren’t bound by Canadian copyright legislation.
This second music industry defeat came after Canada’s SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) tried to secure a ruling under which Canadian ISPs would be taxed by up to 10% of their income, “simply because some clients of those ISPs sometimes steal music by downloading”.
United States
The Washington Post pointed out SOCAN’s effort was “closely watched abroad because of the international implications for the computer and music industries,” going on: “The attempt to collect instead from service providers was significant because they provide an easier target for litigation than tracking down a myriad of individual Web sites and customers”.
Australia
The Canadian Cable Television Association, which represents a number of ISPs, applauded the Supreme Court, says Australia’s The Age here. “This decision is a victory for Canadians who have come to rely on the Internet as an increasingly important part of their daily lives,” said Jay Kerr-Wilson, the society’s vice-president for legal affairs. “The Court has recognized that the Internet is one of the great innovations of the information age and that its use should be facilitated rather than discouraged.”
UK
Britain’s Out-Law.com quoted Justice Ian Binnie, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, as saying, “It is clear that Parliament did not want copyright disputes between creators and users to be visited on the heads of the internet intermediaries, whose continued expansion and development is considered vital to national economic growth.” The Court particularly considered the question of caching – where temporary copies of data packets (which combine together to create a completed web page or music file) are kept on a local server for a short time in order to speed up transmission – and whether the storage of this on local servers gave ISPs more responsibility for the data than they would otherwise have had, said Out-Law.com. “But, according to Justice Binnie, ‘caching is dictated by the need to deliver faster and more economic service, and should not, when undertaken only for such technical reasons, attract copyright liability’.”
New Zealand
The New Zealand Herald reported, “Jeff Leiper, editor of Decima Reports – trade newsletters for Canada’s communication industry – said the court realised how putting a tariff on the industry could have affected the affordability of the internet to Canadians. “It would have been a 3.5 per cent take on gross revenues,” he said. “When you’re talking ISPs who have revenues…in the billions, that’s a significant amount of money’.”
Back in Canada, Soulshine has this to say: “The computer age, with internet music file sharing, has brought to the forefront a practice that has been going on since records were first produced. Music has been copied and shared legally and illegally from the time the first recording device appeared. And as long as record companies continue to charge excessive amounts of money for CDs, music fans have no incentive to stop the practice of sharing music.”
Deafeat Number Three?
And Big Music may also have suffered what is, in effect, a third defeat when Paul Martin’s unpopular government was returned, but only just, in the June 28 federal elections.
As a p2pnet reader expressed it here:
“Liberal Heritage Minister Helene Chalifour, had been vocal about trying to get legislation passed to ban filesharing in Canada … Well, in the election, she lost her seat to Roger Clavet of the Bloc Quebecois. Although Prime Minister Martin was also backing banning filesharing, it was Helene Chalifour who really piloted the offense.
“With a new minority government, I can’t even picture the topic of filesharing going anywhere fast. It’s simply not a large political issue. There are more important things, to say the least. Also, they’ll be a lot of political debate before anything is passed.
“Not to mention Jack Layton is pro-filesharing and I don’t see the Bloc Quebecois (a pretty socialist Quebec party) approving big corporations to sue Canadian citizens. Unless the Librals ally with the conservatives on this one (very unlikely!), filesharing’s here to stay in Canada.
“So all in all, YAY for Canada! Keep on Sharing.”
July 3rd, 2004 at 2:29 am
I hope that the u.s. congress has been reading the Canadain Papers and can see which the Wind is Blowing!!!!!
July 3rd, 2004 at 3:16 am
Yeh – YAY, eh?
July 3rd, 2004 at 3:27 am
Conservatives will definatly never support the music industries attempt to stop free file sharing. They are all about the freedom of the person. Thats why u saw all these same musician and music associations fear mongering with their stopharper campaign
July 3rd, 2004 at 4:30 am
Hea,,, forget the music sharing right now .Its great news to hear that our highest courts have steped in the right direction , maybe , probably , or might have , downloaded music is not a solid reason to provide the music industry authority to get info like they want ,, The only thing i will agree with is for isp providers to voluntary passover the information on the sick individuals (PEOTIFILES)who are praying on our childern over the internet and the ones who are offering child porn ,now if someone wants to do any good here well thats what we should be fighting for isn’t it.
the only ones who will speak against this motion are the peotifles themselves.
July 3rd, 2004 at 4:09 pm
Yesterday in Vancouver, I was asked to pay an extra $10.5 for a 50-pcs box of CDs as “levy for the musicians” at London Drugs… Is anyone aware of this levy?
The solution is to buy it w/o the levy at the Chinese-owned computer store, of course.
Rgds.
Andrei
July 3rd, 2004 at 5:26 pm
I’m in Vancouver too, and paid the levy a couple of months ago. A small price to pay though, cause now users can argue we aren’t ripping off artists but are fairly compensating them for the sweat of their brow. The record companies shot their load too soon in pushing for this levy–it may immunize against future extortion attempts.
A correction to the article, the defeated Minister of Heritage was Helene Chalifour Scherrer. She was usually referred to as Ms. Chalifour Scherrer or Ms. Scherrer.
Simon
July 3rd, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Happily Canada’s federal heritage minister Helene Chalifour Scherrer was not r-eelected in the National Election last week.
July 3rd, 2004 at 7:09 pm
it’s peodfile or paedophile (depending on where your from) and that is already covered under criminal law – it’s not a copywrite issue.
I’m in the middle on this debate, I think artists should be compensated for their efforts …
As for any new laws being enacted by November covering copywrite law … lol good luck.
July 3rd, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Good Job Canada. I wish we in the USA still had a free government of the people and by the people but both the Democrates and the Republicans have been bought by the recording industry a long time ago and the RIAA is now collecting its dues from both parties.
July 3rd, 2004 at 10:29 pm
This quote confuses me “simply because some clients of those ISPs sometimes steal music by downloading”.
I was under the impression that current Canadian law states it simply is not illegal to download music over the internet. If that is the case why should we tolerate SOCAN referring to that act as “stealing”?
If it becomes illegal in this country to download music over the internet then I will stop. Only if one downloads music after such a law is written should they be labeled a thief. Until that time nobody is stealing anything and should not be vilified.
I should point out a few things,
1. Prior to music being available on the internet I purchased over 350 LPs, tapes and CDs. Many of the LPs and tapes I bought have since become unplayable, some CDs have skips in them now. I have spent the equivalent of $7000 on various versions of this music, much of which is no longer useable (due to the scratches, stretched tapes etc.). I am not going to spend another $7000 to replace it, I already bought it.
2. I haven’t bought a CD in over 4 years, and have only been downloading for about a month. So don’t suggest the internet is responsible for the drop in CD sales. If it becomes illegal to download music over the internet I will just go back to the radio…free music 24 hours a day.
3. I pay a levy on every CDR I purchase, I have never burned any downloaded music to a CD but I am paying as though I am. It could be better argued that you are in fact “stealing” from me.
Sorry, but the business model you are clinging so desperately to is extinct. Evolve or die out. The entertainment industry has been dragged kicking and screaming into profitable business by the technology sector for decades…just stop kicking…it will be fine and the artists will always be able to make living with their talent.
July 3rd, 2004 at 10:54 pm
they just dont get it.. the music industry versus millions of people, hundreds of thousands of which are hackers. lowering prices seems to be a foreign concept to them and they sure know how to make friends. keep downloading! cheers!
July 3rd, 2004 at 11:34 pm
Quite right – Chalifour Scherrer or Scherrer. But a rose is still a rose, etc, and she’s no longer around to make life easy for the Big Five labels.
July 4th, 2004 at 2:15 am
You call it filesharing, I call it stealing.
July 4th, 2004 at 3:33 am
This is a slippery road as Belgians have been paying such a “copyright levy” for years and has been increased a couple of times since because they always want more…
Besides, how can one be sure that the moneys goes to artists and not to lawyers or other fees (i.e. big records co.)?
Andrei
July 4th, 2004 at 6:13 pm
Actually, in Canada, it is not stealing. That’s the whole point of the article and our laws.
July 4th, 2004 at 6:29 pm
the gready music companies who pay artist little for their work have been ripping off the consumer for so long that they believe that it is their god given right. The nerve to go after every consumer who connects with the internet for a fee wither they are downloading music or pictures of grans birthday. This is one more proof that the Americans believe that everyone in the world must bow down to them and give them what ever they want. I say get stuffed , give the consumer and the artist a good product at a fair price and you would not have this problem. To think yourself so important that you believe (depending on the news release) that up to 50% of all traffic on the internet is someone ripping you off, get a life and get a honest job. Get your hands off my wallet you thiefs, the government does enough of that for all.
July 5th, 2004 at 4:07 pm
Stephen Harper owns an ipod, his wife regulary hooks him up with tunes. he’s big into AC/DC. I even asked my local conservative representative, who just barely won (i voted for her), about this issue, and she said the conservative party has no interest in ratifying any DMCA like treaties. it seems the liberals are on their own in this one.
July 5th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
I am happy that Canadians can stand up and say no to these gangsters in the music industry. It helps difine us as Canadians.
I AM CANADIAN! now lets get ride of those pot laws.