Comments on: Judge: File sharing legal in Canada
A judge rules that making copyrighted music available for sharing on a computer network is not illegal in Canada.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- In new ad, AT&T, Luke Wilson say Verizon is slow
December 5, 2009 4:54 PM PST
- @Uh-oh: Twoddler lets toddlers send tweets
December 5, 2009 2:35 PM PST
- DARPA's giant red balloons officially at large
December 5, 2009 1:11 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
http://www.cria.ca/news/cria_31mar04.htm
I am concerned that the US approach, now in committee, which makes it illegal to merely have copyrighted works in a shared directory punishable goes too far. I can image corporations with MS Office on a server somewhere in a "shared directory" getting snagged by this proposed law.
The police merely want to make their job easier, where they would no longer have to prove that any criminal activity actually occurred, but simply that it has the potential to occur. In contrast, Canada is following the right path.
Furthermore, if the music industry is already collecting a "fee" for every CD, tape, etc. sold, whether or not that CD is actually used to make an illegal copy of music, they should be satisfied with that. However, I find it amazing that an industry has been allowed to collect "fines" based merely upon the presumption that a product "might" be used for illegal duplication. I would like to see someone challenge this "fee" in court, since the underlyind basis is the presumption of illegal use, whether or not that actually occurs. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
Also, it seems that the Canadian people have already paid for use and copying of the music when the bought the CD, tape, etc.
mark d.
don't they relies that file sharing is the future.
Did you ever see protestors stopping the atomic bomb or radio revolting against television
I say deal with it and change
REMEMBER VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR NOT THE OTHER WAY ABOUT
I battled myself over whether it was proper to do so. Finally, after much thought I decided to do a little on a need only basis, not on a trying to fill my hard drive up and own the world.
What I mean is the following:
With respect to copyrights, profits for the artists/designers and personal use, I believe the artists and software designer are entitled to make money and even a great deal of it for their work, but I shouldn't feel like a criminal if I want to make a duplicate copy of something for my car or second computer. I believe that when we buy something, WE BUY IT. The computer doesn't own it, nor does my DVD or CD player. I own it. Artists and software designer or their producers should allow for this in their profits and losses. And if my Mom or Dad wants a copy I will give them a copy. I am not pirating the stuff and distributing to endless people and more importantly I am not making any money off of it. Therefore, no profit, no reason for being considered a criminal unless mass distributing, perhaps. Yes, the artist/software designer may not ever sell a copy to these people, but who?s to say they ever would have. On the other hand some people want original copies of items for customer support or pride. And future works by these artists/designers may be bought directly by the people who received a free copy.
With respect to File Sharing, on the principle that a consumer does buy and support these hard workers and buys legitimate copies of certain items they should be able to share them to others via P2P file sharing. If everyone who shared files owned the same number of programs, movies etc. that they shared out, in my opinion, it makes sense that the owners of the copy written material are winning. I know that this won't always happen and there will always be abusers and people who rationalize unlimited downloading with the mind set that it is legal and God put everything on the planet so who really own it, but, someone has to be paid to make money.
So, support your favourite artist of software developer and share from others. This is a win-win scenario.
Finally, to end the rhetoric of feeling like a criminal when duplicating a copy of Windows or Adobe and having to call hotlines for additional activation codes etc. let's have the authorities start putting their foot down on real PIRATERS of products. If someone is downloading anything, burning it and selling it for profit they are a thief and should be tried criminally. Same if they are sneaking a digital video in the movie theater. If the government had minimum nonnegotiable fines and mandatory probation for even the smallest of offences, this would reduce the REAL problem the industries face. Start handing out $10,000.00 minimum fines and one year of probation for a 1st offence and much larger if convicted of piracy on a larger scale.
If this was done, we wouldn't have such a concern with P2P file sharing or burning a copy of something for personal uses.
What a long winded reply, but I feel better and maybe there are others who agree, in whole or part, with my feelings on this serious issue.
Thankfully,
Todd
He seems to think its ok for him to make copies or for his house, one for his car etc of any music or software.
I suggest that he tries this logic in the supermarket, go an ask for a pint/liter of milk and say can i pay for one and get two, one for home and one for my office. Some how i dont think they will do it.
He also seems unaware of the law, that some software is not bought but licenced.
Its just like a lease on his car, you know you dont own that car, you just have the right to drive it. I dont hear people complaining about that.
I think the problem is that people like him and others dont appriciate how much work goes into making software, and they just see it a a free thing. And steling it does not really hurt anyone.
His and others attitudes, will cause the end of a lot of smaller software companies, then his only choice WILL be microsoft, and that will be HIS fault.
It would be an interesting exercise if his boss at work, said to him, one month, oh we dont feel like paying you, for the work you've done, I would what his response would be.
If your making copies of software that you did not pay for, then its simple, your stealing it. You dont seem to realise that there are people who make their living making software, and you know would also like to eat too.
In the US, copyright law has a provision for "Fair Use", which means that you have the right to copy media for personal use (IANAL, though). This means I can make photocopies of magazine articles, books, etc, for personal use (read: non-distribution). I can make copies of my CDs. It also means I can also make copies of my purchased proprietary software applications.
Copyright infringment only happens when the media is distributed in an unauthorized manner. And that is a breach of the license of the copyright holder. Sometimes, distribution is encouraged (take, for example, the GPL or Creative Commons licenses). It all depends on how the copyright holder views it. So, this is a tort matter, *not* a criminal matter, and it is decidely *not* theft.
So your analogy breaks down. When you go to the supermarket and pay for one thing, you can take that one thing away. A physical object has passed from one person to the next. If you don't pay for something, that is theft.
You don't have that with things that fall under copyright--there is no object that changes hands. The RIAA/MPAA has used misinformation to rile up everyone, mislabelling unauthorized distribution "piracy." But the simple fact remains, unauthorized distribution of media is not theft, pure and simple, and must be dealt with in a civil court (at least in the US).
lets try this again
PeerIt.com
I completely agree with what the Government of Canada has decided: file-sharing is LEGAL.
File sharing has always been my way of getting the music I want. My main use for free music is LimeWire. I am a sole user of this community and always will be. I haven't read on anything negatively about LimeWire or its producers... I see how the CRIA and RIAA are wanting people to fork over thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars for illegal file-sharing. But they are proving that people are ILLEGALLY file-sharing music is over the Internet and is completely ILLEGAL. I think LimeWire cannot be used in a BAD WAY. I mean, the music on their is legal, people have already bought the CD and uploaded the music to the database of LimeWire, thus giving the users complete accessibility: 24/7. The reason that still puzzles me is why are the Americans making such a BIG DEAL about this? You SHARE the music you have, and I guess the RIAA wants EVERYONE to pay for the music they listen to... For "select" content, like EXACT videos searches may come up dry, which is probably one of the "down sides" of LimeWire. But overall, it gives you the best possible music searches! Videos, music, w.e.
Also, I like getting music for free, and who wouldn't?
I just don't understand why producers are wanting to get money out of people who just want to use the music for their personal use? Seriously, what is the harm in that?! You are not maiking hundreds of thousands of copies of rare Ray Charles songs and shipping them to China... Or selling them without written consent. I don't see the harm in downloading music that is available and is legal. Canada is a country which strives to give the people a great place to live. Whoever that "judge" who ruled the case DENIED is an awesome person! (In my books) I think seeing that people who do not mass-distribute the music is not a criminal or committing a crime whatsoever.
1) If you download music for a CD for your car (which is what my friends do) THAT IS LEGAL!
2) If you want to send your friend some music on a CD, THAT IS LEGAL!
3) If your iPod needs some new rap music or country music, and you use LimeWire for your personal use, THAT IS LEGAL!
4) If your friend needs a song for a wedding and you can download it from LimeWire, THAT IS LEGAL!
You see, every situation here is LEGAL. But it just seems the RIAA is always cracking down on some people that are doing it legally, but they "assume" they have done it illegally. They need to see the real problem and track people that ACTUALLY share music, videos, w.e. and never pay for it and share it with people who never have to pay for it. It just doesn't get the producers the money they want to be compensated for for they lost...
I LOVE LIMEWIRE AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE TO SHARE THE MUSIC THAT WE LOVE (DOESN'T MATTER WHAT GENRE) AND STILL HAVE IT FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE. AFTERALL, SHARING IS NOT STEALING!
Keeping it real in Victoria, BC, Canada...
Nebster66
- by AMusiciansPointofView December 5, 2009 12:39 PM PST
- There's one point no one has addressed yet, and that's about the Musician that created the song in the first place. So here's a couple of points:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)The recording industry is claiming this is costing them lost income. Lets look at that statement. When a record company puts out a band's CD, they claim they are due the money because they spent the time and money on recording that artist's music. They have spent (for an easy number) $50,000 on recording, production, artwork, and packaging that product, and can only get that back if the CD sells tons of copies. The fact is, if a CD sells for, say, $20, the artist is lucky to get $1 out of that $20. (That's a 5% cut, with the label getting the other 95%) Unless you're a superstar, that's all you get.
Now...what a lot of people don't realize, is that the $50K spent by the label is called "recoverable" costs. In other words, if artist X is getting $1/CD sold, they have to sell 50,001 CD's before they see $1. The label takes every penny from the artist until they have "recovered" every penny spent on the making of the CD. So you see, on top of the $950,000 that they've earned in sales (50,000 copies x $19/ea. = $950,000) they've also taken the $50,000 that the artist has earned, to pay back the cost of making the CD. On top of all this, they get money from the industry and government, as mentioned, from the sale of blank CD's, tapes, MP3 players, etc.
So the industry is nothing more, in this sense, than a loan shark!
AS A MUSICIAN...I'm all for the sharing of music. In my humble opinion, if the record companies got off their collective duffs, and started making a decent product, people would BUY it. And by decent product, I'm not talking about the music here. I'm talking about the packaging. Make it a 8 1/2 x 11 book, perhaps include the artist's thoughts on what each song means, if they want, pictures, live shots, etc., not an insert that I need a magnifying glass to read the liner notes and lyrics (if they even have lyric sheets in some cases)...add a DVD with some live videos, or studio footage, or interviews, etc...add a cheap t-shirt with the band's logo (total cost, less than a dollar, btw)...include a nice-sized colour poster that I can pin on my wall...In other words, make it a package that I'd like to own, instead of a tiny plastic case with fonts I can't read.