Big Music fights Cdn p2p decision
p2pnet.net News:- Federal Court Judge Konrad von Finckenstein was wrong when he dismissed their attempt to force Canadian ISPs to reveal client names, say the Big Five record labels through their CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association).
On March 15, “We are confident that the court will require internet service providers to disclose the identities of alleged digital music infringers,” said the CRIA’s Richard Pfohl.
Big Music was trying to use the Canadian court system to compel Shaw Communications, Rogers Cable Communications, Bell Canada, Telus Communications and Videotron to reveal the names of 29 people the CRIA said had been sharing music online.
It characterised the 29 as “high-volume” file sharers, which is how the RIAA, its opposite number in the US, started its sue ‘em all campaign, eventually turning its attention to indviduals, including children and elderly people.
Only Quebec’s Videotron, owned by an enthusiastic supporter of the music industry’s campaign, would have willingly complied with the order, had it been issued.
However, Pfohl’s confidence was misplaced. Von Finckenstein initially adjourned the case to mull over the implications and then decided Big Music had failed to make its point.
The labels appealed and in the meanwhile, the Big Five are doing everything they can think of to gain a foothold in Canada, claiming file sharing is “devastating” the multi-billion-dollar music industry.
None of the Big Five – Warner Music (USA) Vivendi Universal’s Universal Music Group (France), Bertelsmann AG’s BMG (Germany), EMI Group’s EMI (UK) and Sony’s Sony Music (Japan) – has a base in Canada, but they can’t allow Canadians to swap music and share with impunity while they’re victimizing Americans and getting away with it.
Von Finckenstein “failed to apply the correct legal tests to the matter before him,” says their appeal argument, according to a Canadian Press story here. He made “a number of sweeping but erroneous conclusions regarding the Copyright Act,” it has the CRIA saying.
In his decision, von Finckenstein ruled that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
“No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorised the reproduction of sound recordings,” he decided. “They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user(s) via a P2P service.”
He also said the labels hadn’t 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;” or “established that the public interest for disclosure outweighs the privacy concerns in light of the age of the data”.
The labels claim the Canadian Copyright Act gives a song owner the sole right to authorize its reproduction, the CP story states. “By putting songs in a shared directory, the computer user is inviting others to copy or burn the tracks,” they say through their CRIA.
Their appeal is, “being bolstered by the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association and a coalition of software developers,” says CP. “The two groups, which claim to have similar property right issues as music makers, have applied to be heard by the court on the appeal.”
The ISPs have 30 days to reply to the appeal and a court date will then be set, says CP, adding:
“Another possible solution available to the industry is to lobby Ottawa to have copyright law clarified in the wake of new technologies such as peer-to-peer networks. Prime Minister Paul Martin himself said at this year’s Juno Awards that he wouldn’t let the music industry be jeopardized by technological advances.”
Deposed heritage minister Hélène Chalifour Scherrer was ready to re-write Canada’s copyright laws to accommodate the Big Five labels and when Martin appeared at a Big Music advertising love-in, he linked the music industry to Canada’s sovereignty.
July 14th, 2004 at 12:35 am
ISP’s, P2Ps and individual users are not nor should they be blame for mistakes that could have been prevented. If technology has advanced so much then Companies that complain they are losing business because of free exchange of information(eg: Music, Software and Video), should have taken extra precautions in protecting this information(eg: Music, Software and Video), the same way they spend the big money it takes to protect their internal networks…. Companies should shut-up figure out a way they could encrypt and protect data that they do not want shared through the internet. Having a Highway(ISP) to free information is great, but having community of users that are willing to exchange knowledge and share information regardless of its orgins makes the internet the best source of information. Taking that freedom away is a form of imprisonment.
This whole thing is about greed. Compaines and there policies really have no shame. If a company or group of companies think they have selling product then why the hell complain your losing money when you invested money into a worthless project that the consumers did not like?
July 14th, 2004 at 12:59 am
How do you appeal a _supreme_ court decision? Where’s the higher court?
July 14th, 2004 at 8:31 am
there is no higher court … just parliament
July 14th, 2004 at 8:40 am
Considering the merits of the case:
The so called “evidence” … remember “geekboy”? (IP xx.xx.xx.xxx @ 12:39AM seen on kazaa sharing 350 files) NO proof that ANY of the files had copyrights on them, in fact the president of media sentry (or the division of it) testified they weren’t hired to download ANY of the files and listen to them to verify they may have a copyright on them.
The lawyers failed to introduce into evidence certificates of copyright – they are required to be submitted in a case involving copyrights.
Then there were the lawyers who were hired at the last minute, their specialty is trademark law NOT copyright law. From my perspective they took american arguments and tried to implement them here in a CANADIAN court. They tried arguing points of law that don’t even exist in Canada, for instance “make available”.
We wont go into the technical aspects of the case involving IP’s – except to say that one IP listed in the court documents didnt even exist!!!
CRIA:
I’m sorry that you had a team of lawyers who screwed your case up for you, I’m sorry that all you can do now is whine about a case that was fairly won by the ISPs and other intervenors like CanFli. I’m sorry that we are not the US of A and you can’t do to us what your “sister” association has done to file sharers in the USA or to other countries like Italy, Germany, UK and elsewhere, I’m sorry you lost your polical puppet (the Minister of Heritage) in the recent election, … I’m sorry I have to witness the pathetic pissings of a industry that can’t get its own way and wants to trample on whats left of a “free” society
… care for a soother?
July 14th, 2004 at 5:47 pm
you have a good point, i think that if the music industry would charge realistic prices for their products, then we consumers would not take the time to download and just buy it as we always did.I bought 50 blank discs today for 29.95, what would the music industry pay for them and how can they justify the prices they charge????It doesnt matter who writes the songs, if we do not buy the product the artists will not become superstars and command exhorbitant prices….the way i see it , it is my pc and i can download anything that happens to be on the web as i pay for the cable hookup and monthly charges. Why do they think they can come into my computor and tell me i am dishonest ? I paid for the right with my monthly charges, maybe they should consider going after the cable company!!!!!
July 14th, 2004 at 6:32 pm
“maybe they should consider going after the cable company!!!!!”
Recent court decision regarding tariff 22 where SOCAN tried to convince the court that ISP’s in Canada should be paying a tariff since music was being transmitted over thier networks and fell under the the copywrite act. SOCAN lost. Court ruled that an intermediary (ISP) can’t be held liable for the actions of it’s customers if all it is is a conduit for the information …
July 14th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
It’s the Same Old Same Old. The major labels have lost the battle and they’re dead. But they’re like Zombies. Their corpses are still walking the earth. hehe And you know what they do to Zombies …….
July 14th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
You’re right. The labels are the WALKING DEAD ! So I poked around and here’s what I found on Zombie Powers —–> http://death.monstrous.com/zombie_powers.htm
“Zombies are highly susceptible to fire, burning these creatures is the most effective way of destroying them. Extreme amounts of electrical current will burn a zombie’s flesh, thus consuming it in flames. Zombies can also be dispatched by causing extreme trauma to their brain. This can be accomplished by driving a bullet, a drill, a long knife, a hammer, or some other blunt object into the creature’s skull.”
heh – That’d do it ; )