Canada’s anti-p2p plan
p2pnet.net News:- Entertainment industry efforts to bring Canada into line with the US, where Hollywood exerts tremendous and unwarranted influence over what people see, hear and do online, will succeed if Canada`s ministers of industry and heritage have their way.
Canadian ISPs would be at the beck and call of the entertainment industry, potentially being forced to list anyone who, in Hollywood`s view, shares copyright music or movies.
A `notice and notice` regime in relation to the hosting and file-sharing activities of an ISP’s subscribers would be provided for, says an anti-p2p copyright proposal, drawn up by Liza Frulla (heritage) and David Emerson (industry).
When an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber, and to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time, say the proposed changes to Canada`s Copyright Act.”
For rights holder read the members of the big four record label and big seven movie studios cartels, none of whom have a significant presence in Canada.
Big Music, which is currently using its RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to sue thousands of people for sharing music with each other, would need a court order before it could pluunder Canadian ISP lists.
The labels are currently appealing a Federal Court ruling which blocked their efforts to force five Canadian ISPs to hand over the names of 29 people they claim were “each illegally distributing hundreds if not thousands of music copyright files to millions of strangers”.
In the meanwhile, none of the close to 10,000 US cases have ever seen the inside of a civil court. The labels always make victims an offer they can’t refuse – Settle, or go up against us with our legions of lawyers and bottomless pockets.
The victims always settle. They can’t do anything else.
In Canada, people can currently download music for their own use and it’s not an offence to have digital files in a directory which could be accessed by someone else. But if the Frulla-Emerson Hollywood Plan is adopted, Canadians would suddenly fall within direct range of a US-style sue ‘em all anti-p2p campaign.
To encourage ISPs to act for Hollywood without fear of repercussions, they’d be, “exempt from copyright liability in relation to their activities as intermediaries.
“This is terrific news,” says Graham Henderson, president of the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America).
He also puts the proposals into their correct context.
“Canada is one step closer to having a copyright law that will reflect the realities of the digital marketplace and allow the music industry a chance to prosper, he says on behalf of Big Four record label cartel members Warner Music (America), Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Japan, Germany) EMI Group Plc (Britain) and the Universal’s Universal Music Group, owned by Vivendi (France).
Canada would also sign the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Performances and Phonograms and Copyright treaties, making it illegal to distribute and trade music online.
“We are pleased to have this opportunity to show Canadians how we intend to build a copyright framework for the 21st century,” says Frulla. “We must strengthen the hand of our creators and cultural industries against the unauthorized use of their works on the Internet.”
“The Internet provides an incredibly powerful new means of communications, research, education, innovation and entertainment,” says Emerson. “A balanced copyright framework will help to support the use of the Internet to foster innovation and learning, while establishing stable and predictable marketplace rules.”
The Frulla-Emerson Hollywood Plan will be introduced in the House of Commons later this spring.
More to come ………….
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Federal Court ruling – Keep on swapping! Cdn file sharers told, p2pnet, March 31, 2004
an offer they can’t refuse – File sharing, p2p criminals, p2pnet, March 12, 2005
March 25th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
The scary part is in the Globe & Mail story:
“In pre-committee meetings the copyright amendments were approved by all political parties.”
Where is the voice of dissent among our paid-off politicians?
March 25th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Slyck beat you weith this and it is not canadain +)
March 25th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I guess now, one will just have to copy music from the radio and movies from blockbuster.
March 25th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
The Globe story is outdated information. The Heritage committee has changed quite a bit, and includes Timmins–James bay MP and musician Charlie Angus who is quite opposed to the CRIAA view of the world.
Timmins–James Bay
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/219
March 25th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
slyck who?
March 25th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Yes copy music from satalite radio. There are many ways to copy music (digital) that unless the internet is shut down they could not stop. If I want to share stuff with my friends it will happen. We still have cassett records and such that they tried to stop us owning. Someone will find away to keep it going and or protect our ID. peace out… Leykis 101 rules
March 26th, 2005 at 12:02 am
You forgot to say, Nah nah nah nah nah : )
Cheers!
March 26th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Finally, a polititician speaking out on an issue that matters to me! I guess only the NDP would include musicians instead of being an all-lawyers club. They’ve got my vote.
March 26th, 2005 at 7:55 am
I would like to say that notice & notice is far better for free speech than notice and takedown.
under notice and takedown hundreds of websites a year in the US are unjustly slashed & burned because of the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA.
Now protecting what is a legal action at the moment is important.. but please be sure to detail that it is not nearly so draconian as it could have been.
March 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
it would be a shame if a piano were to accidently fall from the sky on to certain people’s cars, with certain people in said cars before certain events could culminate into dmca-world policies.
anybody have any spare baby grand pianos laying about?
March 26th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
keep in mind they tried the same thing with owning a direct tv dish, and we all know how many people were sued or arrested for owning one. The police will not waste resources pursuing people over this issue. It will exist soley on paper.
March 26th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
An Easter quote apposite to net thieves everywhere: The laborer is worthy his hire.
March 26th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
You’re right, the police won’t waste any resources. Our American friends are finding out the hard way that Corporations are much more lethal than authorities and have ample resources to boot.
Canadian government feels prostituting itself and its citizens to the likes of RIAA/MPAA will solve trade issues, some tradeoff.
March 27th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Not as draconian?
“Under the reformed law, companies like Bell, Rogers and Shaw would be compelled to “play a role in curbing the misuse of their facilities for copyright infringement.”
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/03/24/Arts/file050324.html
How so? The proposal includes having the ISP’s monitor illicit traffic to the benefit of CRIA. Nice to know that CRIA has convinced the commitee that ISP’s must act as internet police to their customers. That’s pretty damn draconian and one could argue a violation of my privacy. How do they propose to monitor this traffic? Are we to assume that ALL traffic from p2p networks is a violation of ~someones~ copyright? Where does it stop? FTP, newsgroups, html? How do you prove that the data transferred from one user to another violated copyright? You can’t.
Just as you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person paying for the service is the one violating copyright laws. Unless CRIA hires a company that actually downloads every single file that they claim infringes copyright (under copyright law – they must provide proof of copyright infringement by submitting “copyright certificates” to the court – something they failed to do in their test case last year that they lost) they are back at square one. Proof isn’t in: geekboy@kazaa at 12:49AM with 352 files with a IP of 24.x.x.x – proof is in the content of his shared folders. This isn’t amerikaka, what they say isn’t good enough, our courts like evidence and proof before we lynch them.
I’m not sure this will be an easy task for CRIA.
March 27th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Well … I figured that the embarassment of not being able to spell Canadian properly (nor capitalize the first letter) was enough
March 28th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Not if he’s overpriced he’s not.
March 29th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Copyright infringement should be illegal. But guess what? – it already is. What’s out of line are the minimum statutory penalties, where Canadian law is virtually a word-for-word copy of the flawed U.S. law. The applicability of the minimum statutory penalty should be redefined to “per case”, not “per work”, plus an additional penalty based on the estimated illegal profits. That way the big “for profit” counterfeiters would still pay a hefty penalty, but individuals sharing files would face a maximum fine of a few hundred dollars. I think most people would agree that this is much more in line with the seriousness of the offense, and brings reason back into the process. Let’s see how serious the CRIA is about going after individuals for a few hundred dollars at the cost of several thousand dollars in legal expenses (even if they get to assign a percentage of costs). That’s the way the legal system was intended to work to prevent abuse by wealthy corporations wielding teams of lawyers.
The privacy issue also needs work. ISPs should be prevented from gathering or providing any information on subscribers’ use of internet services, including the use of dynamic IP addresses, without a court order alleging a serious offense. I think ISPs should be required to make such a statement to their users.
And politicians should keep the law out of technologicial issues. We have no need for laws addressing issues like p2p software or protection of DRM. The process of creating, implementing, and enforcing new laws is way too slow to keep up with the pace of technological change, leading to unforeseen and harmful consequences. If tools new or old are used to commit an offense, we already have laws covering that.
March 30th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
We don’t need the cartel’s “entertainment” or propaganda (or news as they call it). We don’t need the cartel’s infrastructure either. All we need are the wireless network products, and we can build our own ad-hoc networks and continue trading as WE SEE FIT. I already know that the kids of one apartment comples who are already doing this. If one person rents a movie, all can have a copy within an hour. The speed of a properly build ad-hoc network is much better than that of the cartel owned networks, and it is much more private as well.
As far as copyright is concerned, read this:
Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines. This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them. I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.
Do you consider this stealing? Most people do not. Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing. If someone goes to the local music store and buys a cd, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.
When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act – reproduction. Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writable cd. Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal. However, if i do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.
What makes music different? Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine? Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine. Yet governemnt and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet). I don’t listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a cd or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience. The same goes with movies.
I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal. I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say. However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.
If I copied and sold a piece of work and mistated the origin of the work (by claming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud). The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting. Music or movies are just like the grapevine. I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder. Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting. What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy? THERE IS NONE!!! Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproduceable and transfereable as far as right or wrong is concerned.