(Canada) Shocker: Judge rules recording industry cannot sue downloaders: Downloading is LEGAL

Canoe.CA ^

[SB00]

TORONTO -- 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.

[SB00]

Actually my title might be misleading: Judge ruled that sharing music online is legal (in Canada)

[MegaSilver]

Oh, my GOSH.

I HOPE the U.S. court doesn't use this as a precedent...

[goldstategop]

Kudos for Canada. It blows a big hole through fascist RIAA and MPAA's attemps to outlaw P2P.

[MegaSilver]

Kudos for Canada. It blows a big hole through fascist RIAA and MPAA's attemps to outlaw P2P.

It also made the word "theft" effectively useless.

[Chinese_American_Patriot]

Im 16 and I'm glad that downloading music from Kaaza & other P2P programs is now legal. I download music from Kaaza because most CDs today only have about 11 songs and some only have 2 or 3 GOOD songs. The RIAA are a bunch of greedy fat cats who sue poor kids for $2000/song. Kaaza is also where I can find good old songs or albums that are unreleased or not sold in Tower Records anymore.

[Integrityrocks]

It will be appealed.

[Damagro]

It also made the word "theft" effectively useless.


Why should the word "theft" apply to music consumers, when the term "price fixing" doesn't apply to music producers?

[tessalu]

I do not think that it should be legal to sue music down loaders either, and the reason is that I believe that music downloads that come into a person's own home is "attractive nuisance". The music is stuck right under a person's nose in his own home, and it is just not the same as stealing a record from a store. The music world needs to look for some other way to peddal their music.

[tessalu]

The music industry is looking for some no cost way to sell their music and a way to make all profit. It is the consumer that pays for his computer and the costs to operate it. I feel that the music industry is trying to use things that it has NOT paid for, and they do not have my sympathy.

[Houmatt]

At least there will always be people like you to prove the phrase, "You don't know what you are talking about" will never go out of style.

[MegaSilver]

At least there will always be people like you to prove the phrase, "You don't know what you are talking about" will never go out of style.

Yes, I mistakenly used the word, "theft" when "copyright violation" was the correct terminology. I have yet to completely break myself of that habit.

[Old Professer]

Why, you got a quarter on the line?

[MegaSilver]

Why should the word "theft" apply to music consumers, when the term "price fixing" doesn't apply to music producers?

No doubt the music industry is a corrupt 500-pound gorilla with a perverse, voracious, insatiable drive to screw everyone it comes across.

(But then, so's our government, at the rate it taxes and spends.)

That said, copyright violations ("theft" was the wrong word to use; old habit) are copyright violations, and the judge's opinion that putting up files on a P2P network amounted to the same thing as installing a photocopier in a library was somewhat appalling. It is perfectly clear to me what the problem is with his argument.

There are many legitimate uses for a photocopier, such as making copies of encyclopedia entries, brief selections of books to be used for research, or single articles from periodicals. There are also illegitimate uses, such as photocopying an entire book. (Of course, few people would photocopy an entire book from the library, because you usually have to pay for the photocopies, but we'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity.)

The same holds true for a peer-to-peer network (though few people use them to distribute anything BUT copyrighted material). However, when you're putting copyrighted music into shared folders, it is reasonable to assume that you are doing so for only one reason: to invite others to download them.

Bottom line: putting a photocopier in a library has potential legitimate and illegitimate uses, just as a VCR has. Putting copyrighted files into a Shared P2P folder, however, can have only one purpose: initiating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Now, we can get into the whole privacy issue and the "Who's looking in my computer??" deal, but that's a separate issue. In this case, as far as I can tell, the court ruled that if you are a knowing party to a particular type of copyright violation, you cannot be held legally accountable for copyright violation, even if the plaintiff/prosecutor/whoever broke no laws or ethical codes in investigating said violation. I see that as a problem.

On the other hand, one could make the case that Canadians are charged exorbitant royalties on blank media to make up the music companies' "losses" from piracy, and that this ruling merely restored a proper balance to the whole issue. But I still think this is a problem, because a) the ruling made an already muddy issue even muddier, and b) a "balance" wouldn't have been necessary if the corrupt industry, backed by a still more corrupt Canadian government, hadn't sought that ridiculous and undue royalty in the first place.

[MegaSilver]

Why, you got a quarter on the line?

No, I just don't see the point of making muddy laws/codes/regulations even muddier than they already are.

[Drago]

MegaSiver sanity/logic Bump! Good Post!

[Guillermo]

First of all, punk, unless you're in Canada, this wouldn't apply to you.

Second of all, punk, you think you have the right to steal anothers property because you think they're "greedy?"

[lawdude]

"It blows a big hole through fascist RIAA and MPAA's attemps to outlaw P2P."

I just retired and am not particularly wealthy. Since you are so friggin free with the resources of others, I am sure you will send your next paycheck to me. OR, baring that, will you drop by and wash my car?

JERK

[MegaSilver]

MegaSiver sanity/logic Bump! Good Post!

Aww, thanks! :) One of my less dim moments.

[Revolting cat!]

Yes indeed, the word "theft" is a wrong one to use and anyone who uses it without knowing what it implies deserves all the flames thrown at him. Be that as it may, you say that photocopiers and VCRs have their "legitimate uses". But that is only because these muddy copyright laws were adjusted, so to speak to accomodate the VCRs and the photocopiers. The copyright violations of yesterday are suddenly "legitimate uses" today or will be tomorrow, thanks to the arbitrary laws, capricious lawmaking, corrupt politicians and technological progress. In this case, technological progress, or simply the reality of how technology is being used, is ahead of lawmaking, and way ahead of the dinosaurs of the RIAA. Automobiles too appeared on the roads and streets before comprehensive traffic laws were passed! There is no stopping this train now.