You hafta love Canada?

[canuck]

I mean check this out!!

Judge: File swapping not illegal

TORONTO (CP) - In what analysts are calling a "stunning" decision, the Federal Court has ruled against a motion which would have allowed the music industry to begin suing individuals who make music available online.

Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled Wednesday that the Canadian Recording Industry Association did not prove there was copyright infringement by 29 so-called music uploaders.

Without the names, CRIA can't begin filing lawsuits against the alleged high-volume music traders, identified only as John and Jane Does.

It also reaffirms what the Copyright Board of Canada has already ruled - downloading music in this country is not illegal.

Von Finckenstein said that downloading a song or making files available in shared directories, like those on Kazaa, does not constitute copyright infringement under the current Canadian law.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," he wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."


He compared the action to a photocopy machine in a library. "I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service," he said.

The ruling sent shock waves through the industry and surprised some copyright analysts.

"It raises questions of the viability of suing individual users in Canada under current Canadian copyright law," said Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa specializing in Internet and e-commerce law and technology counsel with the law firm Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt.

"It is a remarkable decision. He's clearly ruled that (uploading/downloading) activity isn't unlawful."

Calling the decision "stunning," Geist anticipates it will push the industry to increase its lobbying efforts for legislative change to copyright laws.

Last month, the industry association took five Internet service providers to Federal Court, trying to force the companies to hand over the names and addresses of 29 people who allegedly shared hundreds of songs with others over the Internet last November and December.

The alleged infringers are currently identifiable only through a numeric Internet protocol address and user handles like Jordana(at)KaZaA.

Bell Canada, Shaw Communications, Telus Communications and Rogers Cable all fought CRIA's request. Videotron agreed to comply, saying owner Quebecor is also concerned about piracy in other parts of its business, which includes newspapers, television, Internet services and CDs.

Peter Bissonnette, president of Shaw Communications, was delighted with the ruling.

"We are very, very pleased and I'm sure our customers are as well," he said from his Calgary office.

Shaw had argued privacy legislation protects the identities of its clients.

"We have obligations to protect the privacy of our customers. We've always taken that approach," said Bissonnette.

Shaw and the other ISPs also argued the information they'd be forced to collect wouldn't be 100 per cent accurate because of the dynamic nature of IP addresses.

Wednesday's decision combined with a recent Harvard Business School study on CD sales strikes a blow to a worldwide movement to curb music swapping, says Howard Knopf, a lawyer who represented the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

The study, released Tuesday, found that downloading had no impact on sales of CDs in recent years.

"The recording industry can't prove that they have a problem," said Knopf. "This P2P may actually be saving the record industry from worse problems."

Earlier this week the London-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry held a news conference to launch its international campaign against music piracy. It said lawsuits had been launched in Germany, Denmark, Italy and Canada.

The group claims worldwide sales of recorded music fell seven per cent in 2002, and added that it expected figures for 2003 to show sales dipping by at least the same amount.

In the United States, the recording industry has sued 1,977 people since launching its assault against illegal file-sharers last fall. It has reached out-of-court settlements in around 400 cases.

The legal actions target people allegedly involved in large-scale file sharing on systems including Kazaa, DirectConnect, WinMX, eMule and iMesh.

[Tantrum]

Justice Konrad von Finckenstein This judge sounds German.:p


"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service," he said.
This quote is an interesting way of putting it. However, the copy machine isn't there for the copying and wide-spread dissemination of copyrighted material. The P2P network's origins may have been similar to the copy machine, it's well known you can get music for free from these networks, which should make them illegal.

[canuck]

so whaddya have against Germans? Their beer and cars are good?

so those photocopiers in libraries are there so you can bring non-copyrighted material from home and copy it there? Nobody is allowed to take copies from the books?
I think it's well known that people are copying copyrighted material?

as for the MP3 debate, I guess he is saying that the evidence, in these cases, is circumstantial and nobody has proven they intend to spread these files? Not everyone has such an extensive collection of 80's music as yourself you know.

[Tantrum]

so those photocopiers in libraries are there so you can bring non-copyrighted material from home and copy it there? Nobody is allowed to take copies from the books?
I think it's well known that people are copying copyrighted material?
The copy machine is there so you can make copies of copyrighted material for your personal use. It is not intended to make copies of copyrighted material to disseminate to your friends who don't have access to the material.


as for the MP3 debate, I guess he is saying that the evidence, in these cases, is circumstantial and nobody has proven they intend to spread these files?
I think the judge missed the point as the intention is irrelevant. The end result is that people are sharing copyrighted material without the permission of the entity who owns the copyright.


Not everyone has such an extensive collection of 80's music as yourself you know.
You know how they busted those people for illegal file sharing? They put tracking bugs in the music of high-volume artists, such as Madonna, Britney, and Metallica. As I have never downloaded any of those artists, I wasn't charged. See, living in the 80s helped me.:)

[LazyL]

Used CD stores don't have to pay a cent to the artists or record companies, do they? How come that is OK, but downloading songs is not?

Those stores make a profit; the file-sharers do not. Yes, of course, there is the argument that the file-sharers leech business away from the retail selling of music, but how come one is OK, and the other is not?

...off to make a sandwich...

[Coldcat]

Yes, of course, there is the argument that the file-sharers leech business away from the retail selling of music, but how come one is OK, and the other is not?


Probably because the CDs that are being resold, were already paid for the first time around: The profit the music industry expects to get from an album was fulfilled, and what happens to the CD after that, is none of their concern.
Their concern is, that with the internet sharing, their CD's won't even get sold in the normal CD stores, so the profits they'd been hoping to get, prove non existent.

So you see, ultimately, this is not a fight over copyright, it's a fight over sellers' rights. They put it to court over copyright becuase that seems the easiest and most trusted way to do it (as there are no sellers rights in the american and european lands of the brave and the free, where monopolism is prohibited, except for Microsoft of course) but in reality, the copyright is NOT their concern. (As it is not the concern of some artists themselves, who applaud the internet file sharing.)

The Canadian judge should probably have pointed that out: this case cannot be won under copyright law, as the file sharers do not gain profit or pay in any kind.

I guess the music industry should just get creative, finding new ways to sell product.

[Tantrum]

Probably because the CDs that are being resold, were already paid for the first time around: The profit the music industry expects to get from an album was fulfilled, and what happens to the CD after that, is none of their concern.
I would bet most of the music on P2P networks was originally paid for throught he purchase of CDs, albums, and cassettes. Therefore, the music industry was paid the first time around. If this is true, how come they are making such a big fuss over P2P and not used CD stores, as LL pointed out? It seems fishy to me.:(

[Coldcat]

I would bet most of the music on P2P networks was originally paid for throught he purchase of CDs, albums, and cassettes. Therefore, the music industry was paid the first time around. If this is true, how come they are making such a big fuss over P2P and not used CD stores, as LL pointed out? It seems fishy to me.:(

That is exactly the point! If they were going straight with this (is that even an english saying?) they'd sue secondhand CD stores as well. But because those stores will never have the enormous reach the net has they do not.

Besides, second hand stores still charge some money for the CD's. (Damn, isn't that copyright infringment then?)