AfterDawn: News

Canada to tighten its copyright law?

Minister of Canadian Heritae, Hélène Scherrer promised on Friday that changes will be made to the Canadian copyright law. The changes would make it illegal to download music for free from the Internet.

Both the federal court and the Copyright Board of Canada have ruled that sharing and downloading files on peer-to-peer networks is not illegal by Canadian law.



The rulings caused an instant turmoil in the Canadian music industry. They felt that the rulings would in effect destroy the industry, and the livelihood of Canadian artists. However the Canadian Idol winner Ryan Malcolm, for example, feels quite differently about the whole P2P issue.

"Whether people download or not, as long as they're listening to music," Malcolm said. "I think it's a challenge for the industry, to try and find a new way to survive."

It remains to be seen what kind of changes, if any, will be made to the law.

Source: Canoe / Edmonton Sun

Written by: Jari Ketola @ 4 Apr 2004 12:40

• Previous article

• PS3 supports the Blu-Ray format?

• Next article

• Microsoft and Time Warner invest in DRM

• 9 comments

• Vular

  Hah! The Federal Court and the Copyright Board of Canada have had there say in this, no way will it change now...hopefully! It's all bullshit that this will destroy the industry, they're just greedy dogs that's all. I have honestly only bought like a few cd's in my life before I started to share on the internet, now since then I've bought a few dozen. Aren't the CRIA and RIAA supposed to be the voice of the music artist, because most I hear are not that worried about filesharing.

  4.4.2004 13:54 #1

• Toiletman

  Okay, here's my comment. Go to hell Hélène Scherrer. May you live long a prosper, Ryan Malcolm. Music ain't about money, and if it is, you're not a real musician.

  4.4.2004 19:42 #2

• GrayArea

  This (sort of) new Canadian PM (Paul Martin) seems to be totally in George Dubya's pocket. The Canadian guvmnt is acting like the USA's kid brother when it comes to passing pro business laws. They even pulled out the tired old RIAA line about "paying the artists".
  
  "Copyrights have a value, and artists and songwriters would like to get paid for the use of their music."
  
  Ask any artist or songwriter that is not regularly in "the charts" what they think of typical royalty payment agreements. I think most would agree that the artist and/or songwriter is not "valued" nearly as much by the labels as the copyright itself... The "owners" (i.e. record labels) make the real money while the artists get the shaft.
  I'm not saying that's a reason for artists/songwriters to not get paid at all. Just dont try and feed us this crap that it's all about the artists. That dawg don't hunt. I call BULL$HIT!! The current system so loved by the RIAA and it's lackeys around the world favors the copyright owner far and away above the artists and songwriters. The system is phukt.

  5.4.2004 11:52 #3

• Golem1

  A few months ago, I phoned the CRIA and left a message for their in-house counsel (lawyer) to contact me about their litigation against ISPs which refused to submit the names and adresses of so-called music file uploaders. I teach a technology and social science course about information technology and wanted to discuss the grounds for their litigation and invite him to the college where I teach to speak to the students about the issues, etc. I would have told him that there were no legal grounds for the litigation being pursued; that the Canadian copyright act is silent about file sharing and that anyone in Canada can make a personal copy of any music they desire. I never did get a return phone call.
  
  The CRIA's lawyers were so incompetent and inept in making a case because there weren't any legal grounds for their case. The lawyers were the biggest winners because they convinced the stupid CRIA to pay them bags of money to pursue a groundless case. Consequently, the CRIA is a sore loser and is now whining for the copyright law to be revised just for them.
  
  The recent court ruling against the CRIA is the correct one. The Federal Court of Canada judge was reading and interpreting the law in accordance with what is actually in the copyright act and in line with the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling regarding the photocopying of legal publications by the Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada. There is nothing in the copyright act which prohibits file sharing of music. As a matter of fact, the recording industry in Canada gave up the enforcement of copyright for a levy applied to all blank recordable CDs and, most recently, the levy has been extended to the memory chip capacity of any device used exclusively for playing music. The greedy recording industry wanted a levy applied to anything capable of storing or copying music but the copyright board refused to allow it. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Great Libray could photocopy copyrighted publications for the use of anyone for research, particularly lawyers, without unreasonably contravening copyright. It was also ruled that providing a photocopier in the Great Library to photocopy copyrighted material was not illegal because the photocopier is also capable of use for legal photocopying and that removing it would be an unreasonable denial of its use for legal use.
  
  Helene Scherrer is whoring for the recording industry if she introduces new legislation to prohibit music and/or any other file sharing. You can bet that the proposed legislation will be so draconian in its copyright restrictions that everyone will be relieved when, after much protest, revisions, and taxpayer expense, it is amended to only further restrict music file sharing. That's the way these things usually work in government and politics.

  7.4.2004 15:09 #4

• Toiletman

  All these sosphicated and excellent replies make me look like a fool! XD
  
  Golem1, you're almost perfectly right, except that: The lawyers working for CRIA weren't really paid that much since they fucked up.... =)

  7.4.2004 19:56 #5

• Golem1

  One thing you can be absolutely sure of is that the lawyers always get paid, and well (unless its contingency)!

  4.5.2004 14:18 #6

• blco32

  Like I've said all along. I'll continue to download music as long as it's still available. The RIAA has no right to dictate what we can and can't download. So the artists lose a few cents. Big deal. I don't really care. Some people can't afford to pay for downloading songs.

  22.11.2004 06:13 #7

• Arianna

  I believe, that some sales may have gone down. On the other hand allowing people to download and share music, often promotes new sales. we already pay artists royalties, when their names are used in advertising. When we play a video, on televsion or movies etc. They recieve more than enough money for doing something they love to do. It is a catch 22 some would say.
  
  It is as sports players. They make millions a year doing something they love. They play a game for money. Artists sing for money. The same thing. thoiugh have we looked at the small people, who make their riches possible. No we overlook them as always. Though without the little people the big people are nothing. we create the nessesities for them to preform. we create fr them the fashions that they wear. The dye that they use to freshen their hair.
  
  So maybe just once they could give back to the little guy. Maybe for once they could recognise, that the little people may not have the money to buy the whole album. If the law wants us to pay to download songs, than they need to create a payment plan that does not have to use credit. Alot of the little guys do not have such credit and are unable to pay the fees.
  This is just the opinion of one liitle person. TTFN
  

  14.11.2005 10:01 #8

• mackdl

  Btw..........If you think these copy protected cds haven't hit Canadian retail stores............think again! They have!

  15.11.2005 06:34 #9