Slashdot Log In
Canada Immune From RIAA?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:51 AM
from the is-everything-better-in-canada dept.
from the is-everything-better-in-canada dept.
Nick McKay writes "Tech Central Station is carrying a story on how Canadians are legally allowed to copy music not only in the home environment, but also on P2P networks such as Kazaa."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Canada Immune From RIAA?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1130 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://spamvortex.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 19 2003, @12:20AM)
I have a feeling that emigration to Canada will become increasingly more common if it gets to the point where if you have a file on your computer that may have possibly originated from a P2P network or other illegal source, you could pay hefty fines and jail terms. Will Canada border-hopping now include underage drinking and underage stealing? You decide. So, now if you want to escape the U.S. Justice system
The only problem with this method is that companies cannot track who owes them how much, and which companies get the bigger share of the chunk of taxes. Why not have it so that, people report how many songs they downloaded and what they are, and that determines their tax (or refund, if they haven't downloaded anything). Then, the companies can easily divvy out the money to one another (but some companies will like the equal-split method better * wink wink *)
Welcome! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.getfirefox.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 05 2005, @08:47PM)
Wait a sec, I am Canadian. Never mind.
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @05:12PM)
Just a warning. =P
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 11 2004, @05:39AM)
Arguably more potent, since it was enacted in 1982. People have had over two centuries to erode the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Here is a link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca]. Slashdot readers will be particularily interested in the following clauses : 2, 7, 8 & 9.
I would like to draw special attention to clauses 15 and 26.
15. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.unrandom.com/)
Or is it simply affordable because Canada doesn't have an FDA? The same drugs in Canada are cheaper than in the USA.
Ummm.... the idea that we "don't have an FDA" (though, we do have equivalent organizations of different names, I do believe) really has nothing to do with the lower prices of drugs. They're cheaper because we recognize that drug companies sell at inflated prices, and thus have caps on pharmaceutical costs.
There are still areas of the USA (way far away from the inner city) where people still don't lock their doors. Also, Canada's population density is a [fraction] of that of the US.
First of all: of course places far from the city can be like that! The point is, you can go to places like Toronto (urban centre; high population density) and people still don't lock their doors nearly as much as in the States. And population density is really irrelevent: most Canadians live clustered in areas (see: Southern Ontario) and thus the overall population density, which includes the vastly underpopulated north, does not really reflect the population density of more settled areas. Southern Ontario's population density is comparable to that of the States, I am sure.
How about this question, because I'm generally ignorant of these things
And that about covers it. Honestly, if you admit you don't really know what you're talking about, it becomes pointless to discuss anything.Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.brynmosher.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @10:15PM)
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lp.org/)
Do you prefer the more recent scheme of going around and smacking everyone else in the head?
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also of note is that during WWI, 3/10ths of the adult male Canadian population served in the war, and 56,500 were killed, 149,700 wounded. Hell, at Vimy Ridge we had 10,000 casualties and deaths in one day, out of 100,000 men there. We've always shouldered our share.
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Insightful)
We were right beside the US until the US decided "fuck the UN". That's where we draw the line.
Unfortunately, you're too blinded to see the truth, and amusingly call our clearer vision "navel gazing" - which is what I suspect you meant, as staring at ships isn't related to nihilism.
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://carewolf.com/)
What does that have to do with anything?
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lp.org/)
Holy shit. Human casualty numbers from a totally insane global war are not a basis for any pissing contest. Please, let's put this one aside.
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://stewart.snerk.org/)
Had you considered that Canadians just make better soldiers?
{duck}
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Informative)
I guess it'll give more mileage to South Park's "Blame Canada!" song...
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Informative)
Are you nuts? Bell (I assume you mean Bell Canada, not Bell Helicopter) is a Canadian-owned company and must be by law. Many people don't like the ownership restrictions on Canadian telecom companies, (Rogers and AT&T in particular)
The big Schedule I banks (CIBC, Royal, TD, BMO, Scotia) have similar ownership limits.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jsyncmanager.org/ | Last Journal: Friday September 21, @03:50AM)
While we're on the subject of correcting misconceptions about Canada...
"Pot" is NOT legal in Canada. The federal government is simply de-criminalizing posession; that is, changing the rules so that if you're caught posessing some, you won't be thrown in jail, and won't wind up with a criminal record.
You can, however, still be fined. Cannibis is still a controlled substance in Canada, and not legal for sale. The penalties for illegal grow operations are still quite stiff (there are, of course, a few legal grow operations to service the needs of the experimental "medical marijuana" system).
Thus, "pot" isn't legal here in Canada -- they've just removed the criminal aspect of simple posession.
Yaz.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
After all, it really is discriminatory that I can enjoy a beer, but someone else is "breaking the law" when they toke up.
Don't get me wrong - I would like to see smoking anything being banned (can't stand the stench) - but until we make tobacco illegal, we're just being hypocrites in allowing some mood-altering substances (alcohol, chocolate, caffeine, sugar-loaded pop) and not others.
Actually discussed this whole issue this w/e at a party, and the general concensus is that, even now, it's almost impossible to get busted for possession. So, while it might be illegal "de jure", de facto it's all over the place, and the cops aren't going to go after your granny and her stash.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Actually you are wrong [cannabisculture.com].
The legislation you are referring to has yet to be introduced in the
house and looking at the current time table for the fall session, it is
highly unlikely to be introduced until spring (if at all).
The interesting bit is that last year the Ontario Court of [ontariocourts.on.ca]
Appeal deemed that the portion of the criminal code dealing with
pot is unconstitutional and gave the Feds 1 year to change the law or
the current pot laws would be declared void. This was the reason the
new law was drafted: the Feds had little choice in the matter. Well, 1
year has been up for quite a while now which means that all laws
concerning pot in Ontario (and only Ontario) are now void. The courts
have instructed that the police not to arrest people in possession or
even selling of pot (since all the laws are now void) because the they
will not be heard in court. The courts have also instructed the police
not to even seize pot from people because they are not allow to seize
private property and could be sued for doing so.
--PCB
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.getfirefox.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 05 2005, @08:47PM)
Canada != Cuba. There is an extradition treaty between the USA and Canada so if you commit a crime in the USA and then run across the border you could still legally be extradited.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://forechecker.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 07, @08:16PM)
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://vigilamusprote.blogspot.com/)
/* DISCLAIMER
This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a flaming idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.
DISCLAIMER */
Arrite, now that that's outta the way . . .
File sharing IS a crime under the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [usdoj.gov] if the material infringed has a retail value of greater than $1,000. Read it - if you're convicted, the court will order your computer destroyed AND order you trotted off to chokey.
The poster is correct that Canada and the US have an extradition treaty. However, as evidenced by the recent abortion killer case [courttv.com], extradition treaties are not absolute. France only agreed to give him up on the condition that the US would not seek the death penalty against him.
For me, a hometown example of this is a contemptible piece of human garbage named Martin Pang [nwsource.com]. This guy torched his family's frozen food warehouse so he could collect the insurance money, resulting in the deaths of four firefighters. Brazil refused to extradite him unless we agreed to not charge him with murder. (Under Washington's felony murder rule, if someone gets killed during the course of a felony, you go down for murder one.)
Bum deal, huh? Well, not always. Especially during the Cold War, the US and other civilized countries regularly refused to extradite people back to their communist shitpiles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H countries who were wanted for political "crimes" on the grounds that those were not extraditable offenses. So, it works both ways.
The point is, I'm sure that if someone were charged with a file-trading related crime in America and fled to Canada, the latter would take the position that file trading-related "crimes" are not extraditable offenses. They did so with the Vietnam war draft dodgers - Canada took the position that crimes related to avoidance of military service were not extraditable. In fact, if it's not a crime in Canada, the odds are that they would not extradite.
Hope this clears up any confusion. But read the disclaimer above carefully before you do anything. Plus, I haven't read the extradition treaty, so I could be wrong and it could be an extraditable offense.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:43PM)
As for thought crime, he's probably talking about an overly restrictive law on child pornography, which prohibited even personal drawings and writings that had child-pornographic content. The law has since been struck down.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Hmmm, but how can a country like the U.S., whose president is considering changing the constitution to specifically remove equality for gays, really be considered free?
Look, I'm neither for or against the idea of gay marriage, but I do know this: in a society based on freedom, any act that doesn't harm others or their property should be legal. That's the essence of social libertarianism, and that's also why the U.S. has forgotten what freedom means. Just because the majority doesn't like to do X, doesn't mean X should be illegal.
As far as Canada's situation goes, I've read section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it's quite clear that the law restricting the right of "marriage" to only straights is a clear violation of section 15, subsection 1 (given past precendents set by the supreme court of Canada). The law will be struck down. Either the courts will do it, or the government can amend the law first. I prefer that an elected government create the laws, rather than the courts. The only other option is for the government to change the definition of Canadian Citizen to not include homosexuals. I can see something like that happening in the U.S., but not in Canada.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://del.icio.us/Abcd1234/)
Pfft... you have no "right to maintain the cultural meaning of" anything. That isn't a *right*, any more than the prohibitionists had the right to enforce their values on the rest of American society. Or supporters of slavery could enforce their values on blacks. Or the Catholic Church has the right to enforce their values regarding contraceptives on the rest of the American public.
The fact is, the government should not exist to impose the moral/religious values of one set of people (heteros who want to "preserve the institution of marriage") on another (gays and lesbians). Frankly, the state shouldn't even perceive the concept of a marriage as a religious institution, as that assumes that there is only one definition of "marriage" which is defined by a certain religion or religions which are chosen by the state. The state's roll in marriage should simply be to sanction a contract between two individuals which grants the certain additional privileges (tax breaks, etc).
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't marry another woman because you already married one. You entered a contract in which you both ceded control to each other. Now if you go marry another woman, you've unilaterally decreased the worth of your first wife in the relationship.
Even if you all get married simultaneously, it's not a fair arrangement. Look at this situation, hypothetically. You and another guy both marry a woman. It works out OK for awhile, but now you're not getting any sex and your wife and the other guy spend all their time together. You're out of the loop. Now, if it was just your wife ignoring you, you could divorce her, and it'd hurt/help the both of you equally. But since there's three of you, divorce hurts you much more than either of them. You're now essentially an indentured servant. You're in a contract in which you've given up some of your freedom, and the other sides of the contract haven't given up as much.
No matter how you work it out, it's not going to be fair. 2 guys, 2 girls, they could have a nice polygamous relationship and cut you out. If you set it up so you can bring someone else in, then they could do the same thing until your share of the power in the marriage is insignificant.
Cats can't consent to either marriage or sex. Fucking your cat is rape.
This is why that senator guy that was talking about "man-dog action" or whatever is an idiot. If you make that kind of argument, it's because you just don't understand the difference between marriage and slavery, or the concept of consent.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.flipforit.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 06 2006, @07:48AM)
That's exactly what the US did in 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act. The music cartels were inflamed about digital audio tape (DAT) and successfully levied a tax against that medium and serial copy protection into DAT recorders. Being "out of sight, out of mind" only a handful of technologists and audiophiles were affected, and the issue remained largely invisible. It basically killed DAT as a populist format, which suited the recording industry fine. Of course, independents were screwed because they had to buy crippled equipment and pay a levy to RIAA et al for the privilege of mastering their own music!
Hear hear. I am also glad that the current contraversy is playing out so boldly. It's time that the public at large realizes who's turning the screws on their culture and technology...
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.brynmosher.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @10:15PM)
The Canadians on-upped us by including copying rights into their legislation though. We just pay "compensation" taxes for the possibility of infringement by others. Damn clever Canadians...
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Now stop calling us fascist or we'll stop letting you buy our beer!
Corperate Oligarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.sirsonic.com/)
Neither system is perfect, but I really do think that the US is basically like Canada; only corperations are the benifactors of government-supported welfare (for things like entering foreign markets risk-free or controlling the market by 'purchasing' policy/law makers) instead of people.
With that said, it should be a free world. I don't think either system is 'right', but I'd rather be in Canada, and know what I'm paying upfront and what I'm getting for it, rather than fighting tooth and nail every day, everytime a corperate interest decides it wants the rules changed.
I see higher taxes as a form of insurance against corperate oligarchies, and I'm all too happy to pay as long as I believe it's working to a reasonable degree.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://groogs.com/)
Would you rather have the taxes in the US rise to absorb the problem, which the RIAA still gets paid? That's extremely "out of sight, out of mind".
So should it be free? Remember, there are people at the other end of this - artists. While I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, and the entire way the operate, I don't disagree there should be some kind of organization.
The record companies themselves are somewhat of a necessary evil. You can't walk into a bank and get a $1-millon loan to produce a record, that you may or may not be able to pay back. Record companies do this all the time, and a large percentage of bands can't actually pay back the advance. They basically bank on the fact that a small percentage is making a ton of money, giving them the ability to spend a few hundred thousand on a band that doesn't 'make it', and not care.
As far as this P2P stuff, the RIAA screwed themselves by not embracing it when it first started, and making it a profitable business. Think if Napster had charged a monthly access fee to use it (which I think was one of their original intentions). The RIAA could have used that to pay for royalties, and still would have been able to keep track of statistics for both royalty payment and popularity purposes*.
Instead, they ignored it, and litigated against it. And are now litigating against their customers (though, their argument is they aren't customers). I'm pretty sure that anyone who's just been forced to pay $12,000 to the RIAA is not going to be paying another $20 for a CD anytime soon.
As a Canadian, I really don't have a problem paying this 'CD tax' if it means it's legal for me to download the music I want without having to buy a CD full of stuff I don't. It's really not the best way to do it since it both affects people that are using CD's for other purposes, and misses the people that don't put music on CD's (and just store them as MP3's).
* They could get direct-from-consumer information about what people are listening to. Right now, the closest they can get is by looking at things like request shows - though that's only counting votes from people willing to call a 1-900 number. That's some seriously valuable information.
My little Rant (Score:5, Interesting)
I want the government watching out for me. It's the only thing big enough to stand against corporations like the RIAA. If I go up against the RIAA, I'll get crushed. Just like those 261 poor bastards that're about to have their lives ruined. Simply put, it's in my best interests to have the goverment do something like this (and please dont' start arguing this isn't in my best intrests. It may not be, but letting the RIAA run rampant certainly isn't).
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm tired of seeing people get behind policies that screw them over in the name of a free market that doesn't really exist anyways.
Weed! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://ninenine.com/)
Canada seems to be a lot better in other ways too. Just watch "Bowling for Columbine"...
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://vic.gedris.org/)
As a Canadian I definitely disagree with that statement. I don't want to pay $0.77 extra for every CDR that I buy. This almost quadruples the price I would pay for CDRs! My CDRs are mainly used to burn my own digital pictures, make Linux CDs (currently burning about 100 Knoppix CDs for my LUG), and other completely non-Pirate activities. Why should I have to pay a levy to the recording/movie/proprietary-software industries if I'm not doing anything wrong? The assumption of guilt bothers me.
Besides, I don't want to copy any of the RIAA's music. I spend enough of my own money on independent artists. So I have a pretty decent record and CD collection that is not pirated.
Cheers,
Vic
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
As another Canadian, I wholeheartedly agree. It's not quite, but almost as stupid as that espresso tax they're talking about in Seattle. How can you say that espresso drinkers are by-and-large also parents who use pre-Kindergarten? It's the same with CDR's - if 99% of CDRs were used to copy copyrighted music, then I'd say it's pretty fair, but that's simply not the case.
I understand taxing gas to pay for the roads, and even taxing cigarettes to fund cancer research, but this tax is wrong. Also, the money from the tax doesn't necessarily go to the artist whose song I'm copying - it's a bad system all around.
My feeling is this: until the music industry provides a reasonable service for downloading music over the internet, and allows me to use that copy anywhere (my home stereo, car, computer, etc.), then there should be no restrictions on this new technology. The recording industry shouldn't be allowed to sue you unless you made a profit off of selling copyrighted music.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Informative)
CD-Rs and CD-RWs: 5.2 cents per unit
A substantially lower levy applies to these digital media due to, among other reasons, the fact that only a relatively small portion of sales of these media are to individual consumers and they are used for a wide variety of uses other than copying sound recordings (e.g., computer data storage).
On your stack of 100 Knoppix CDs, you actually paid $5 worth of tax. Unless you're only paying about 2 cents per disc, that's not really "quadrupling" your costs.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.welsh-buck.org/jbuck/)
Well, what if, when you use a CDR to make a Debian CD, your $0.77 CDN were divided between the Free Software Foundation, SPI (the nonprofit that handles donations to Debian), Linux International, etc. instead of going to the RIAA?
The idea would be that random surveys are done once in a while to figure out how CDRs are being used. If a lot of them are being used to copy free software, then some of the tax would go to the copyright holders.
To divide up the money, there would be a rating system that would include not only music but software and data. Copying proprietary software (other than making a backup copy, which is blessed in the US as well as in some other countries) would remain illegal.
This was actually one of the ideas that Stallman proposed back in the 80s as one alternative to fund software development if all software is to be free.
I know, I know, you want free beer. But if a tax on digital media will stop the copyright cartels from destroying the net, I'll take it.
Re:Canada-Runs! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://frymaster.ca/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:58AM)
from the copyright faq:
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
Canada != US (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.grub.net/blog/index.html | Last Journal: Wednesday June 27, @08:48AM)
"Canada Immune From RIAA?"
Being that the last letter in RIAA stands for "America", I would hope that all nations outside of the US are immune..
Re:Canada != US (Score:5, Funny)
Right, just like Iraq is immune from American military forces.
Re:Canada != US (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.getfirefox.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 05 2005, @08:47PM)
And the last letter of MPAA stands for "America" but try telling that to Jon Johansen [slashdot.org].
Business Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Then when the RIAA asked them for the user of the IP that is 'stealing' their music...they could tell them to take a flying leap.
Any bets as to how long it will take some enterprising Canadian to come up with this business model?
Or as to how long before the RIAA starts buying off memebers of Canada's parliment, the way that they buy our Senators and Representatives?
Re:Business Opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
Our Senate is appointed, not elected, so campaign funding on that front isn't really viable. Although out-and-out bribery could still be a possibility.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, not a separately elected individual, and therefore controls how the party votes.
The ethics minister (theoretically) is a watchdog to prevent abuses of power or introducing bills based on the needs of special interest.
Add into this that each MP has limited power, based on the fact that their ridings are relatively small compared to US electoral areas (population-wise, I'm sure many of the geographical areas are quite large), and it would take a very concentrated effort to garner enough support through bribery and financing to make a dent.
Of course, this is all from the deep recesses of my high school social science memories, so I could be a bit off.
Re:Business Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/)
Furthermore, Canada's Head of State is H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, who is notorious for the huge cache of files she hosts on the Buckingham Palace server farm. She also has off-site backup facilities at Windsor Castle, Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House.
Unfortunately, all the music is by Handel or Walton, and the porn is by Rubens.
Not so fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.stern.ca/)
To quote Jay Currie (emphasis mine):
Audio recording media is defined as "Analog Audio Casette Tapes," "MiniDisc, CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio" and "CD-R and CD-RW." [2] This does not include hard drives (I recall discussion of extending the levy to hard drives), so therefore your hard drive is not "audio recording media" and thus the Act does not legalize file sharing.
This being said, it would be harder to argue if you immediately burned the downloaded songs to an audio CD, promptly deleting the copy on your hard drive.
So Fast (Score:5, Informative)
(http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @02:45PM)
Re:And in other astounding news... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.macetech.com/ | Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @01:44PM)
I love my country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love my country... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Lax marijuana laws? Check.
Can marry another man if for some reason I was feeling saucey? Check.
and now freedom to share music?
Are they accepting applications??
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 09 2004, @12:36PM)
Yes.
Immigrating to Canada as a Skilled Worker [cic.gc.ca]
I don't know how diffiacult it is or about their acceptaince ratios, but if you got an education it should not be that hard.
Kind of strange that there are so few from US that emmigrate to Canada given that Canada is objectively a better place to live.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Judging from your mastery of English, I'd say you have an uphill battle.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 01 2004, @02:40PM)
Universal health care? Check.
9 00-1999.html [sleeman.com] ).
;).
Lax marijuana laws? Check.
Can marry another man if for some reason I was feeling saucey? Check.
and now freedom to share music?
Canada has always been very free, for example Canada (BC, Quebec) did away with prohibition years (1921 vs. 1933), with the rest of the provinces following soon after, before America ( http://www.sleeman.com/en/heritage/crafthistory-1
The problem with Americans saying that they are the freest country is that they tend to believe it even if it isnt necessarily so. Self denial and delusion prevents the problem being resolved; ask alcoholics anonymous and why the first step is admitting there is a problem
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://watson-wilson.ca/)
You forgot.... (Score:5, Funny)
- Toronto (much like NYC I think) allows women to walk around topless (not that any do, but the possibility is there)
- Casinos popping up all over the place
- An increasingly larger separation of Church and State (hence the allowed gay marriages)
- Better beer
- Cheaper CDs, DVDs, computer hardware, software, and just about any other form of entertainment
- Cheaper medicine
Of course, a lot of this is paid for with much higher taxes, user fees, levies, and the fact we all live in igloos and have to hunt baby seals once the snow starts in August.
Article is soooooo wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Looks the same as fair use in the U.S.A. Moreover, the author of this article says that the DMCA is what makes file sharing illegal in the U.S.A. This isn't true, and probably hints at the level of understanding the author has of the situation. Unfortunately, people are going to start believing this. The author could be sued.
Re:Article is soooooo wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday April 04 2003, @12:49AM)
But, you're right. It's the NETAct which makes sharing a crime. However, that was only be a late amendment that redefined the term "commercial" to mean any exchange of value.
This is such an absurd abuse of logic, that I doubt that either the NETAct, or the DMCA will be around for the long haul. It's too easy to make good arguments against bad logic.
Sing it with me now! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.livejournal.com/~pxtl)
Our home and native land!!!!
w00t!
Re:Sing it with me now! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.kamilkisiel.net/)
"Glorious and free....ph33r 0ur m4d p2p skillz!"
a penny a megabyte? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday December 09 2002, @03:05PM)
Does this guy know how many megabytes are on a typical CD-R? or on a new hard drive? Let's see, the tax on a new 120Gig drive would be, what, $1200?
UK - a different story (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore even if you own the CD, you have absolutely no right to transfer it to a different format. With your CD, you purchase a right to listen to that music on that medium only. You do not have any rights to transfer it to any other medium. There is no provision in law to allow you to do so.
Having said that, MP3 players are sold and the BPI (our equivilant of the RIAA) have stated that they have "no plans" at the moment to go chasing people who do download and transfer music from CD's to other mediums.
I know Slashdot isn't a hot-bed of legal eagles, but does anyone know of anything different? This somewhat spooks me a little that the CD I purchased cannot be legally transfered to my mp3 player for the gym.
Son of a.. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://blog.phpdoc.info/)
This was one of our best kept secrets..
Thanks for waving the proverbial red cape in front of the raging bull (RIAA).
S
Canada's not all its cracked up to be (Score:5, Insightful)
So that means every time you buy a CD to backup your Word documents, or photos, or home movies etc you pay a $0.77 tax which ends up going to the music industry.
They give it with one hand and take it with the other.
Re:Canada's not all its cracked up to be (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 22 2003, @11:21PM)
Funny... I'm Canadian, I just bought a spindle of 100 CD-R for 29.99$CAD...
been like that for the past year.
Dunno where you get your numbers but they are wrong.
Re:Canada's not all its cracked up to be (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit I hated the blank media tax when it was introduced, but...
Over time it's come to sound like a sensible solution to a difficult problem. Note that the tax isn't $5 (or whatever you think it might take to compensate the label fully for the lost sale), it's much less. I assume the rate is calculated to take into account the fact that a lot of media isn't used for music.
Anyway, I'm not arguing it's the perfect solution, but it sounds like one of the least evil ways to address the problem. A typically Canadian compromise.
Actual levy amounts (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday July 11 2003, @05:17PM)
CD-R or CD-RW: 21 cents
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77 cents
So the actual levy on CD-R/RW is 21 cents, not 77 cents.
I believe the Copyright Board is considering a proposed increase in the levy on CD-R/RW to 59 cents per CD and applying the levy to hard drives, blank DVDs and memory cards. No decision has been made and I honestly believe the Copyright board will back down from the proposed levy on hard drives and other computer related media since industry outcry has been substantial. The obvious benefit to the levy is I can legally borrow and make a copy of a friend's CD for my own personal use and know that I am not committing a crime.
Many people in Canada are also not aware that you can apply for an exemption from the levy if your primary use of the levied media falls under certain categories. So companies such as the one I work for have an exemption from the levy since we only use blank CDs for in-house software.
I believe this is incorrect (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I can borrow a friend's CD and copy that CD onto a blank.
There's nothing about P2P networks, and until the levies come in on hard drives (in the works) I don't see how any copying involving hard drives can be considered covered.
From the article:
"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.
Note the bolded text -- "CD". P2P files are not CDs! Even if they come from a CD, they aren't on a CD when you copy them, and so you're not covered by the levy.
Comments?
The Problem With Levies (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep your right to copy! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 13 2003, @04:12PM)
I don't want free music, I want cheaper recordable media! I'm not sure about this $0.77 per CD though - I'm sure i've bought CD's for $0.50 before on spindles.
This levy is utter B.S. I mean why not compensate SOFTWARE publishers as well as musicians? I wonder what the ratio is of pirated music vs. pirated software - especially if you take the MSRP of software - i mean it takes a lot of music CD's to equal the cost of one copy of 3ds MAX or Photoshop.
Download:OK Upload: not OK (Score:3)
This means, that you can copy any music/video for yourself, so downloading them off the internet is OK.
However, distribution of these is still considered to be copyright infringement, so uploading stuff for which you do not the rights to publish to P2P networks is still not OK and you can be sued for it.
As I understand, things work the same way in the USA, too.
Would someone please mod the article -1, Troll?
Not Totally Accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Specifically, 80.2(c) -- Subsection (1) [the private copying exception] does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following : (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication;
In order for file sharing as we know it to be legal, you would have to make the argument that putting something up on Kazaa is NOT communicating to the public by telecommunications.
I'm not saying it can't be done (indeed, I don't belive any of this has ever actually been tested in court), but good fucking luck.
Something like dc++ with a private hub between friends would be a much less challenging scenario to argue, as the general public isn't involved.
Note that the intent of this law was that people would be able to share music (note that this ONLY applies to MUSICAL AUDIO RECORDINGS -- spoken word recordings, or even sound effect recordings (and certainly not video) aren't covered by this) with thier family and friends without it being illegal. Basically, they looked at the fact that most people would be considered criminals under the current laws, and decided that there's really no point in that, and used the situation as an excuse to find another way for the goverenment to get money out of people. But since you're Canadian, you're used to that by now.
Kazaa and such are not for that purpose -- they are intended to share music with the anonymous internet in exchange for getting music you want back from the anonymous interent. If you ever wind up in court, and try and defend yourself with this exception, the intent of the law is going to be taken into account by the judge.
Indifferent?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Says who?!?? There's plenty of people that are opposing this, not just manufacturers: here [sycorp.com] and and here [ccfda.ca], there's plenty more. Plus I've sent letters to whatever MP I could contact.
It's had some effect, since the 'new' rates were supposed to be introduced in Jan 2003.
I'm hardly 'indifferent' about it!
Citizenship Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday May 01 2004, @04:37AM)
Governments are starting to realize that the future health of their nations depend on encouraging immigration (in the case of coountries with ageing populations) and discouraging emmigration (in the case of countries losing their citizens).
A large part of the USA's economic and political strength comes from its attractiveness to migrants, especially skilled migrants. Compare the USA's Green Card programme with the immigration programmes offered by EU countries...
Now, Canada is to many migrants as attractive as the US, just slightly colder, maybe. It certainly has a reputation as being more hospitable for political refugees than most EU countries.
P2P is just one of many civil liberties, but if one takes the value of migration to a logical extreme, won't we see future governments actively competing for skilled migrants, offering better legal systems, more civil liberties, easier integration, etc. etc.
It's an optimistic viewpoint, but perhaps globalization will bring competition into governance in a way never seen before. Living in a country is, after all, a vote and an investment.
CRIA does not agree... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/I'myourman | Last Journal: Monday May 26 2003, @05:34PM)
If anyone is interested in reading the message text I could post it, just ask.
Thick Headed (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday July 14 2003, @02:14PM)
Much of the World (especially Europe) has the same attitude. People will do what people will do. Let them. Get over it. Find a way to compensate or accept it.
Instead, in the US the prevailing notion is to resolve by bullying and brute force. How young and inexperienced a country the US is. As strong as it is, it still hasn't learned how to play nice with others.
Lemme clear up a few misconceptions. . . . (Score:3, Informative)
(http://administra.tion.ca/)
Next -- this law may legalize downloading from P2P, but does NOT legalize making your copy publicly available on P2P systems, which is all the recording industry cares about anyhow. That would be a "public performance" or "publishing" or "distribution" -- none of which are legal.
Oh, and just for the record, pot isn't legal here. You just get a ticket now instead of a court date. This means that the cops will no longer be ignoring pot because of the paperwork burden, and the likelihood of potsmokers getting busted has gone UP.
Grain of salt (Score:3, Informative)
One man's misunderstanding coudl quickly become another's admission into the prison queen hall of fame. Personally I think Mr. Currie misunderstands the meaning behind where the original files can come from. I think you'll find that even Canada will eventually rule that you can only make copies from the original CD if and only if you own it. Canada is part of the WIPO and as such all members will eventually have to standardize their copyright laws. Why do you think the US extended its copyright terms to life of author plus 70 years? Disney might get the blame but in reality it was to bring the European and US terms into balance. Disney simply went along.
You mean the RIAAA (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry)
A penny a megabyte!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday January 23 2004, @03:25PM)
That's about $7 per CD-R, and $40 per DVD-R?!!! BOVINE SCAT!!!
RIAA can't subpoena Canadian ISPs either (Score:5, Interesting)
The CPCC levy isn't the only reason why private copying via P2P networks is not a legal problem in Canada. There are privacy laws (about which the US has already complained [spywareinfo.com] are a hinderance to their terrorist investigations) that prevent the RIAA from issuing subpoenas to Canadian ISPs demanding their logs and subscribers.
This doesn't mean that your file-sharing information is not inaccessible. If you're sharing music, you'll be fine--you're not in violation of Canadian law and practice. If you're sharing kiddy porn or hate literature, the Canadian police can get the data because you're involved in another crime.
The CBC has a brief article and opinion [artscanada.cbc.ca] about this.
If the RIAA was to follow the lead of Canadian direct broadcast satellite providers, they'd make an appeal to morality to address their problem, since the laws here won't help them.
Music sharing may be legal in US too! 17 USC 1008 (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm)
I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.
IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL :) Apologies for a
US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in
all other common-law countries with different details. There's an
excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell [cornell.edu].
Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA .
Particularly interesting is:
Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!
The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?
The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case [gigalaw.com] is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?
not $0.77 for cdrs (Score:3, Insightful)
Audio cassettes 40 minutes or more in length: $.29 each
Audio cassettes less than 40 minutes long: $0
CD-Rs and CD-RWs (100 megabytes or more in capacity): $.21 each
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: $.77 each
Removable electronic memory card, removable flash memory storage medium of any type, or removable micro-hard drive: not covered
DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM or any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD: not covered
Non-removable electronic memory card or non-removable flash memory storage medium of any type incorporated into an MP3 player: not covered
Non-removable hard drive incorporated into an MP3 player or similar device ... primarily to record and play music.: not covered
Microcassettes (commonly used in dictating machines): $0
Digital audio tapes (DATs): $0
As you can see, the 77 cents people keep mentioning in their posts only applies to those CD-R specifically designated for recording audio, which nobody uses anyway (although there are some standalone audio CD recording units which require them).
What I find insulting is that I run a recording studio, and every single cd I buy for my own or my clients' music puts a little money into the pockets of people like Celine Dion and Avril Lavigne... although I recently discovered that, if you import CDs for your own use (i.e. buy them online from outside canada) the levy doesn't apply.
Author's interpretation not necessarily correct (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
I disagree. The uploader's computer, is the one making the copy and sending it to the downloader. So it sounds like p2p sharing of copyrighted material is illegal in Canada.
Legal fight ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 11 2004, @05:39AM)
At the same time, I don't expect the CPCC (~RIAA) to adopt the RIAA's tactics anytime soon. People here have a much more lassiez-faire attitude towards these things, and as long as they don't get totally out of control (ie : people still buy the odd cd they really want), the copyright holders probably won't try to fight an unwinnable war.
Bigger Levy Suggested? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 13 2004, @10:23PM)
Not particularly. Who here would pay $7 extra per CD-R (I can get them for less than a buck in Canada)? Or an extra $48 on DVD-R media? Americans would be outraged, and would import en-masse from outside of the country, probably from Canada.
Oh, wait, I get it now... Why didn't I think of that?
--Dan
This is bogus (Score:4, Informative)
(http://en.wikipedia....yngeal_fricative.ogg | Last Journal: Sunday January 08 2006, @09:42PM)
You are allowed to make a personal copy from an original, meaning you can borrow an original from a friend or the library and burn or rip all you want ([Canadians] pay for it when we buy blank CD-Rs).
From what I understand, you CANNOT copy the copy. See this [neil.eton.ca] for some details.
So if that follows, you can legally download from P2P *only if* it's an original. Since you typically have to rip it, it's already one generation away from the original.
In addition: this [flora.ca] seems to indicate the resulting copy *has to* be on a medium for which you have paid the levy. To quote:
IANAL, and when it gets this complicated, I'm kinda glad for that...
Interestingly, the levy only applies to BLANK media. To sell a hard drive MP3 player, prerecord a little "welcome" tune on there, and you're off the hook.
flawed argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Currie writes: 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.
He is correct to state that the copy he made from his own CD to his hard drive is covered under Canada's Copyright Act. He is wrong to state that downloading a copy from somebody else's P2P application is covered -- it is not "private copying" because the person offering that copy is already in violation.
The Copyright Act states in section 80, subsection 2 that it is not "private copying" if done for any of the following purposes (my emphasis):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
Did this guy even read the Copyright Act? Whomever he is downloading this file from is communicating to the public by telecommunication and thus that copy is illegal.
Some useful info (Score:5, Informative)
Some comments on the discussion so far:
The Recording Industry Association of America represents US record companies. They don't now, and never have, anything to do with Canada or any other country.
The RIAA is a member of the IFPI [ifpi.org], which represents the recording industry worldwide. Their website has a great link called "Anti-Piracy" and a defintion under What is Piracy? [ifpi.org] Please note the definition has not a word about dowloading, or copying a buddy's CD, but instead refers to what the RIAA tends to call Counterfeiting.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CIRA) is the body which represents the industry in Canada. They are the equivalent to the RIAA in that country and if anyone was suing anybody in Canada, they would be doing it, not the RIAA. Ever.
Uploading music is completely illegal in Canada, as is allowing it to be shared. CIRA can and probably will sue anyone who does it, and they will win. Damages, on the other hand, won't be even close to the numbers the US courts give out, which probably explains why they're not hiring a floorful of lawyers about it, so far.
What the Copyright Act allows, is the copying, for personal use, of music from any source. So, downloading is fine, as is borrowing the CD from the public library (most Canadian libraries have extensive music collections available) or a buddy, or any other source you can imagine. There are no restricitons, of any kind, on the source of the music you use to create a copy.
Steal a disk and copy it; the crime remains the theft of a $20 disk, not the copying of that "illegal" disk.
The restriction is only the person making the copy has any right to use it. You cannot lend, give away, or otherwise distribute a Personal Copy made under authorization of Section 80.
Thus, allowing your mp3s to be available to others via a shared drive or network is against the law in Canada, as is making a disk and giving it to Grandma for Christmas. Granny has to run her own burner. And moving to Canada would not protect any of those who the RIAA has sued recently; what they do is still against the law north of 49.
The US media, especially the RIAA, has done a great job of marketing their message worldwide, not just in their jurisdiction. Thus, almost every Canadian (and absolutely every journalist; lazy no check-facting idiots that they are) is completely unaware of the Act, or how it applies to copying. They all think it's illegal to burn CDs in Canada.
Re:Thomas Jefferson Quote (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 27, @01:43PM)
See, that's funny, because Canada (is possibly the only country to?) already fought off an American invasion of conquest.