Canada ruling won't stop music lawsuits

By Julio Franco
Dec 16, 2003
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A ruling in Canada declaring downloading music through peer-to-peer services legal, but uploading illegal, may do little to prevent the music industry from taking its own action against file swappers.

    That's because the country's industry group, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), is in lockstep with its U.S. counterpart's plan to sue individual file swappers. And last week's ruling by Canadian regulators will not pose a formidable barrier for CRIA to begin its own round of litigation, according to a legal analyst.

    Read more: CNet News.
  2. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,266   +218

    The article says that last weeks ruling won't be a barrier for the CRIA, but then towards the end of the article it says how much more difficult it is to subpoena people in Canada than the US. The CRIA seems to be like the kid brother to the RIAA, would like to do the same stuff but isn't strong enough or bold enough to do it (my opinion from what I've read).
    But I must say that this half allowed p2p stuff Canada has said is legal doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and the CRIA is taking a stance that does make sense to me.
  3. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    Like you said sngx, CRIA is like RIAA's little brother, and like them, they seem to not make much sense, also, like RIAA, don't seem to be slowed down by petty things like facts or legalities. Although the article does seem to indicate that they are going after "uploaders", which would not violate the board's ruling.
  4. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,382   +15

    That kind of sucks, I was hoping RIAA would take [atleast] similar action with the downloading stuff being legal.
  5. Curl

    Curl Newcomer, in training

    Besides raking their population over the coals, what good is the tax then? I thought it was supposed to make up for income loss from piracy?
  6. PitbulI

    PitbulI Newcomer, in training

    So downloading is legal in Canada but who would Canadians download from? Isn't that then illegal? Someone is doing something legal yet that same person is making someone else break the law.

    I wonder what's going to break the back either way about this File sharing P2P networks. Almost everyone has used Napster or Kazaa or Bearshare or any other network. It almost seems that Kazaa is helping out the RIAA/CRIA by finding these individuals.

    I just don't want to see the feds at my door and it is scary, making me not want to even download songs anymore. It's only since P2P that CD's are even close to approaching non-stupid prices. You can't charge almost 20 bucks for a CD when you can sell millions and each CD costs about 5 cents. All it takes is one band to make a hit CD and they're set for life, that shouldn't be it. CD's should be less than 10 bucks and make others work for profit too.

    Maybe I'm just on a stupid Rant here or talking nonsence, but that's what I have to say.
  7. Nodsu

    Nodsu Newcomer, in training Posts: 9,431

    There are legit things shared on p2p networks too Pitbull.

    And besides, how does my downloading things from you encourage you to share illegal things? You have to share the mp3 (=break the law) before I can download it from you.

    Artists get only a tiniest fraction from the CD sales. Money they get from a hit album is far from "set for life". Most money artists make comes from merchandise and concert tours.

    Curl: the extra tax money goes to the artists, not the record companies and that is the problem for the CRIA. Companies want profit, not a just reward to the authors.
  8. chuonthis

    chuonthis Newcomer, in training Posts: 38

    I haven't found any additional information in regards to the "ruling" mentioned in the article (mostly because I haven't looked beyond the linked article) so I assume either politicians or a judge/jury made this decision without realizing what the ruling would actually mean. If they had done their research, they would know that by definition in P2P networks, a person downloads a file from another person. It is not possible for someone to download (legal) without someone else having to upload (illegal). They might as well have said P2P networks are illegal altogether.
  9. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    Chuonthis, I believe that Nodsu was pointing out that there are more things to be shared than just copyrighted material(which, from the way I read the article, is all that it says is illegal to upload)
    which means you can still share mp3s from your garage band that is trying to get there name out ther, or movie clips of you dancing around using a curtainrod as a lightsaber)
  10. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,745

    Haha, that poor kid. I don't think he is ever going to live this one down.
  11. chuonthis

    chuonthis Newcomer, in training Posts: 38

    I agree that there are legitimate uses of P2P networks but the article does not say that the ruling is only for copyrighted music. In fact, the word "copyright" is never used in the article. I'm sure it is implied but leaving out a word can have enormous consequences.
  12. Nodsu

    Nodsu Newcomer, in training Posts: 9,431

    I suppose you could understand it as if sharing of any files at all would be illegal. But if you follow the links it bcomes quite clear that the ruling concerns only copyrighted material.

    And the very idea of banning all p2p sharing is ridiculous. That would mean a crackdown on all LANs since a Windows workgroup for example is a peer to peer system where you can share things stored on the hard drives of individual machines and all traffic is p2p without any central control.
  13. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,745

    I agree this is going to be devastating to a corporate environment. They have all of their files stored in a central database usually and everyone just takes them from that, and if P2P was taken away there would be no logical way of continuing the same practices.
     
  14. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    Adding to what you said Nodsu, its spelled out a bit more clearly in this article which explains the ruling in more detail. It also leaves less for you to have to put together in order to figure out exactly what is and is not included in the ruling.
  15. Federelli

    Federelli Newcomer, in training Posts: 382

    I wonder if this sort of laws will ever reach 3rd world countries like mine, there's not one single internet law.
    Well there is, it restricts cybercofees from being inside a 100 meter range from schools, and hte law was not yet passed ;)
  16. Nodsu

    Nodsu Newcomer, in training Posts: 9,431

    Heh. You are lucky to live in a (semi)lawless place (unless you are a software developer of course)
  17. Federelli

    Federelli Newcomer, in training Posts: 382

    well i'd rather things where payable instead of illegal, wouldn't you?
  18. Masque

    Masque TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,212

    I'd have to agree with that. Sure it's nice to get things "free", but I think it works out better all the way around if they are sold at a "reasonable" cost. ;)
  19. Nodsu

    Nodsu Newcomer, in training Posts: 9,431

    Do you think things are sold at "reasonable" prices in places where copyright law is strict and followed to the letter?

    And noone said you have to illegally copy things. It is just that the only true competitior forcing software and music prices down is piracy. The fact that you have the option to steal and get away with it makes companies to keep their prices low.
  20. Masque

    Masque TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,212

    The fact that you have the option to steal is simply a written invitation......with side effects. Don't get me wrong, there's nobody here who disagrees with the RIAA more than I, but there are always other ways. For one, simply don't buy. Boycotting is something that has been around for years, but it HAS to be a concerted effort with everybody involved....not just a select few.
  21. Nodsu

    Nodsu Newcomer, in training Posts: 9,431

    Having options is the very essence of freedom and privacy.

    RIAA boycott is a dream. And with the option of stealing.. You ask me to not to obtain music at all because it is somewhat nobler than obtaining music free of charge and hardly any chance of getting caught? Plus most people have only the vaguest idea what p2p or mp3 is and the only music sources they know are the radio and the CD stand in the local supermarket.

    How many of you people reading this have never made a bootleg copy of or downloaded an illegally copied song?
  22. Masque

    Masque TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,212

    I never said I hadn't. I also never said I wouldn't again. The essence of freedom and privacy is NOT the freedom and privacy to steal. If you can't organize a boycott, it just means you're not trying hard enough. Aren't you willing to go without for a short while to attain your goals? I'm not trying to judge here.....I'm not the sort that should. What I AM trying to do is to open a few eyes here to other potential answers. Maybe if peeps looked for alternatives.....legally......somebody could come up with the one right answer.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.