See? I told you so. (Downloading music)
31-Mar-2004, 03:50 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,255
See? I told you so. (Downloading music)
680 News report click here.....
National News
Door slammed on Cdn music industry's bid to obtain names of file sharers
March 31, 2004 - 12:59
TORONTO (CP) - 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. He 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.
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 using programs like Kazaa last November and December.
The judge denied the recording industry's request, which means high-speed Internet providers won't have to divulge their client list.
Without the names, CRIA can't begin filing lawsuits against 29 John and Jane Does who it alleges are high-volume music traders.
They're currently identifiable only through a numeric Internet protocol address and user handles like Jordana(at)KaZaA.
Now they say they will try and change the law.
I guess these guys don't know when to give up.
National News
Door slammed on Cdn music industry's bid to obtain names of file sharers
March 31, 2004 - 12:59
TORONTO (CP) - 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. He 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.
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 using programs like Kazaa last November and December.
The judge denied the recording industry's request, which means high-speed Internet providers won't have to divulge their client list.
Without the names, CRIA can't begin filing lawsuits against 29 John and Jane Does who it alleges are high-volume music traders.
They're currently identifiable only through a numeric Internet protocol address and user handles like Jordana(at)KaZaA.
Now they say they will try and change the law.
I guess these guys don't know when to give up.
31-Mar-2004, 04:04 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: on a race track
Posts: 17,846
Originally posted by spracingsports
im still gonna do it no matter what
im still gonna do it no matter what
living in the states must suck now ..... you can get sued and go to jail for it .... all while I can go to the refrigerator for a beer while downloading ... long live the pirate haven of Canada! AAARRRRGGGHHHHHH mateys!
31-Mar-2004, 04:12 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mansfield, On
Posts: 257
good for them.... perhaps if the lables released music WORTH buying people would buy. the problem is there is NO GOOD MUSIC availadle. Look at music in the past year- it's ALL shiite. and for the few tracks ppl want they just downloas - why would you pay $20.00 for a crappy CD? - bands now have NO substance(for the most part - there is the exception). How many albums can you say you like EVERY track - last one for me was Pretty Hate Machine-1990!.
31-Mar-2004, 04:13 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,405
i wont ever get sued though cuz they only go for the high traffic users, andi only download like up to 5 songs at once max, its usually like a song a day... and i dont keeep them shared
so for all i care is that Lars from Metallica can kiss my white ***
....... ya thats right, i said it
so for all i care is that Lars from Metallica can kiss my white ***
....... ya thats right, i said it
31-Mar-2004, 04:16 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,405
Originally posted by Lofty
good for them.... perhaps if the lables released music WORTH buying people would buy. the problem is there is NO GOOD MUSIC availadle. Look at music in the past year- it's ALL shiite. and for the few tracks ppl want they just downloas - why would you pay $20.00 for a crappy CD? - bands now have NO substance(for the most part - there is the exception). How many albums can you say you like EVERY track - last one for me was Pretty Hate Machine-1990!.
good for them.... perhaps if the lables released music WORTH buying people would buy. the problem is there is NO GOOD MUSIC availadle. Look at music in the past year- it's ALL shiite. and for the few tracks ppl want they just downloas - why would you pay $20.00 for a crappy CD? - bands now have NO substance(for the most part - there is the exception). How many albums can you say you like EVERY track - last one for me was Pretty Hate Machine-1990!.
that is EXACTLY how i feel..... why buy a cd for 20 bux that only has 1 or 2 good songs on it....
except fro most punk or hardcore cds.... they are usually all goodthose are the only albums i buy
31-Mar-2004, 04:18 PM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,255
Originally posted by Notorious
Apprently it was never illegal to be downloading any type of music in Canada.
Apprently it was never illegal to be downloading any type of music in Canada.
I've always said that since day one.
I can't remember how many times I have posted this article....
A desperate American recording industry is waging a fierce fight
against digital copyright infringement seemingly oblivious to the
fact that, for practical purposes, it lost the digital music sharing
fight over five years ago. In Canada.
"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act
dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying
any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although,
in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment
to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto
audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the
copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made
provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to
compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible
sound recordings being copied for private use."
-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision
The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the
amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media
will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal
for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape,
whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls
who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned
onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy
and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3
players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.
While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent.
Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an
overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada.
A year before Shawn Fanning invented Napster, these amendments to Canada's Copyright Act were passed with earnest lobbying from the music business. The amendments were really about home taping. The rather cumbersome process of ripping a CD and then burning a copy was included as afterthought to deal with this acme of the digital revolution. The drafters and the music industry lobbyists never imagined full-on P2P access.
As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada.
This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.
In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
The premise of the RIAA's litigation is to go after the "supernodes," the people who have thousands, even tens of thousands of songs on their drives and whose big bandwidth allows massive sharing. The music biz has had some success bringing infringement claims under the DMCA. Critically, that success and the success of the current campaign hinges on it being a violation of the law to "share" music. At this point, in the United States, that is a legally contested question and that contest may take several years to fully play out in the Courts.
RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US."
Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand.
The Canada Hole in the RIAA's strategic thinking is not likely to close. While Canadians are not very keen about seeing the copyright levy extended to other media or increased, there is not much political traction in the issue. There is no political interest at all in revisiting the Copyright Act. Any lobbying attempt by the RIAA to change the copyright rules in Canada would be met with a howl of anger from nationalist Canadians who are not willing to further reduce Canada's sovereignty. (These folks are still trying to get over NAFTA.)
Nor are there any plausible technical fixes short of banning any connections from American internet users to servers located in Canada.
As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old.
against digital copyright infringement seemingly oblivious to the
fact that, for practical purposes, it lost the digital music sharing
fight over five years ago. In Canada.
"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act
dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying
any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although,
in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment
to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto
audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the
copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made
provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to
compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible
sound recordings being copied for private use."
-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision
The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the
amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media
will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal
for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape,
whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls
who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned
onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy
and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3
players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.
While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent.
Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an
overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada.
A year before Shawn Fanning invented Napster, these amendments to Canada's Copyright Act were passed with earnest lobbying from the music business. The amendments were really about home taping. The rather cumbersome process of ripping a CD and then burning a copy was included as afterthought to deal with this acme of the digital revolution. The drafters and the music industry lobbyists never imagined full-on P2P access.
As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada.
This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.
In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
The premise of the RIAA's litigation is to go after the "supernodes," the people who have thousands, even tens of thousands of songs on their drives and whose big bandwidth allows massive sharing. The music biz has had some success bringing infringement claims under the DMCA. Critically, that success and the success of the current campaign hinges on it being a violation of the law to "share" music. At this point, in the United States, that is a legally contested question and that contest may take several years to fully play out in the Courts.
RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US."
Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand.
The Canada Hole in the RIAA's strategic thinking is not likely to close. While Canadians are not very keen about seeing the copyright levy extended to other media or increased, there is not much political traction in the issue. There is no political interest at all in revisiting the Copyright Act. Any lobbying attempt by the RIAA to change the copyright rules in Canada would be met with a howl of anger from nationalist Canadians who are not willing to further reduce Canada's sovereignty. (These folks are still trying to get over NAFTA.)
Nor are there any plausible technical fixes short of banning any connections from American internet users to servers located in Canada.
As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old.
I think it's time for me to upgrade to high speed.
31-Mar-2004, 04:23 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,881
I'm a high user, I have soulseek runnin 24/7 sharing all my movies and music...I currently have like 20file downloading or in cue
atleast with a CD for 20bucks u get like 14 songs compared to a record where I get 1 maybe 2 if I'm lucky...and in order to stay on top of the game u gotta download stuff how else would u know about exclusive remixes, bootleg edits, dubplates etc?
long live highspeed and file share clients!
atleast with a CD for 20bucks u get like 14 songs compared to a record where I get 1 maybe 2 if I'm lucky...and in order to stay on top of the game u gotta download stuff how else would u know about exclusive remixes, bootleg edits, dubplates etc?
long live highspeed and file share clients!
31-Mar-2004, 04:29 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,906
Originally posted by Lofty
good for them.... perhaps if the lables released music WORTH buying people would buy. the problem is there is NO GOOD MUSIC availadle. Look at music in the past year- it's ALL shiite. and for the few tracks ppl want they just downloas - why would you pay $20.00 for a crappy CD? - bands now have NO substance(for the most part - there is the exception). How many albums can you say you like EVERY track - last one for me was Pretty Hate Machine-1990!.
good for them.... perhaps if the lables released music WORTH buying people would buy. the problem is there is NO GOOD MUSIC availadle. Look at music in the past year- it's ALL shiite. and for the few tracks ppl want they just downloas - why would you pay $20.00 for a crappy CD? - bands now have NO substance(for the most part - there is the exception). How many albums can you say you like EVERY track - last one for me was Pretty Hate Machine-1990!.
thats why you dont listen to produced pop... i could listen to every song on every cd i own though
31-Mar-2004, 04:34 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mansfield, On
Posts: 257
Originally posted by PULOVR
The very first CD that the Bare Naked Ladies released. I liked every single song on it.
The very first CD that the Bare Naked Ladies released. I liked every single song on it.
oh yeah - 2 summers ago when I was at Center Island we were in line up with the lead singer(whatever his name is), we Just said hi,
. Kind of cool - I've met enough musicians that I dont really think of them as stars....
