Read about this yesterday thanks to SNGX via the IRC channel.
This is basically sending a message that stealing is ok, but fencing stolen goods is not. I just don't see the logic behind this decision.

Me either seems really dumb. Makes no sence, Your allowed to download but not upload!

If there were to be any rule like that I'd think it would be ok to upload but not download :suspiciou

If you can't upload then technically you can't download because if you are downloading then the person you are downloading from is uploading to you. Make sense? Nope

I scooped this in the intresting news and links section of the forum- I wish i could have posted here , but i guessit is mods only on new posts?

That is what I said I did, I scooped this story asnd placed it into the said forum undr wacky canadians.

No U-turns!

I think it is very logical and fair towards the internet users. This is the direction all countries should take.

If you share files, you know if they would be illegal.
But if I download music, there is no way for me to tell if that piece of music is illegal or not. It could be something released to public domain by the author or perhaps an advertising mix for a new album. You download stuff in good faith. (I know none of you reading this download music off the net in good faith but there are plenty of people who do and there is a legal concept called presumption of innocence)

If you buy a CD from a store, you do not ask the owner to show you the shipping papers and the licence to sell you this piece of music just to make sure you don't get arrested after exiting the shop.

Better example:
If you are in a shop (christmas shopping and all) you are listening to the music. But how do you know the storeowner has paid for the right to play you this music. How would you feel if you got arrested for listening to pirated music?

Fully agree with Nodsu!

So Canada has actually seen behind the "obvious truths" the RIAA is talking about, and also made it much harder for RIAA (or RIAC or whatever it's called in Canada) to prosecute those who just download...

So they won't have any trials with 12 y.o. girls being sued for breach of copyright.......!

And I like the touch about mp3 players beeing subject to a 25$ like blank cd's and audio tapes... That way the artists get a "piece of the action"...

...and once again, Canadians see the 'big picture'. While the Americans (who think they are 'hot ****' and know it all) are confused as hell. Sad.

Hehehe...
A point, though maybe it could've been phrased a bit less harsh...

:wave: Hello & Welcome to TechSpot :wave:
Enjoy your stay, but please try not to piss of our american users, just as they'll try not to piss you off....
Though they might have done that allready in this thread...

I'm sure they didn't mean anything negative, but rather tried to be humorous...

lol. Iv'e actually been visiting 3dspotlight.com for a couple years now...just never took the time to register on the board.

Well, my immediate thought on this was that if uploading is illegal(and people actually obeyed the law) then there would be no copyrighted material to download, which would make the whole thing pretty pointless.(presuming that it is illegal to upload copyrighted material everywhere already)

A point, but by doing it this way, you don't criminalize all the users of p2p networks how are downloading music now...

In the USA, it's illegal to download mp3's, and just look at how many downloaders the RIAA is currently suing...

This way, they'll have to think of other ways to go about their business... Yes, they can go after those who upload songs, but they can also see if there are other ways in which users of p2p networks can be swayed from downloading illegal music, to buying it online instead...

Imo, it makes the industry have to think a bit more than they've had to so far, and that can only be a good thing in my book... (Though the result of those thoughts doesn't neccesarily need to be good :/)

From the article:

"This is the opinion of the Copyright Board, but Canadian courts will decide this issue."

This is simply what the board has concluded after doing their own research and the courts will decide what to decide, after all, that is what courts are for, to interprete and decide how the law will be implemented to society and if it is feasible to do so. If there are no clear law, then there will the amendments made.

Poetner, Canada is not legally/illegally allowing downloading or uploading of copyrighted material (that is decided by the courts, not the industry) but I completly agree with you in the direction Canada is going. Hopefully things will be straightened out with Canada's new Prime Minister. But again, you can't smoke any amount of marijuna in any province. Only a couple of provinces allow smoking of marijuana in under a small ounce(not sure what the maximum legal amount is), and one of the provinces is Canada's largest (population-wise), Ontario.
And the federal gov't is appealing the decision anyhow. This is what they decided, since the courts in Canada have more legal power than the politicians:

"Justice Rogin agreed that the federal government had failed in its obligation to change the law to allow for medical use of marijuana, and so the entire law was void."
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2958.html)

So it was more of a legal decision than an ethical one.

But back to the file-sharing discussion, the board is saying that you can share your material (be it a study you created or otherwise) but downloading a file (who's origin can be pretty much anywhere in the world) is not permitted under the law.

So essentially, the board is doing the world RIAx people a favour. They're saying if Canadian citizens want to share their files, go right ahead (just like the U.S. courts decided to make anal intercourse not illegal; the gov't has no business meddling in citizen's affairs.), be it an unprecedented study on the DNA of a cow or otherwise.

But if Canadian citizens download anything off the 'net, then it is not permitted, becuase you are possibly (knowingly or not) downloading copyrighted material, which is not beneficial to th RIAA's cause.

Now this is a perfectly fine decision for artists, since they want the world to hear/see/ smell etc. their stuff. And they don't neccessarially download tons of the latest Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. But in terms of the average p2p user, this leaves us scratching our heads.

Basically unless you're the average p2p user (who just downloads songs and movies or programs), you are fine with this statement from the board. Because if you are a company or organization that releases legit files, you're fine with this decision. Just becuase you use p2p networks, for whatever, doesn't mean you're some kid downloading pornography or downloading mp3s. P2P is used by all sorts of ppl.

I understand that it's kind of a circular way of thinking (sharing files is equal to downloading files, etc...) but that's what the board figured after the research they did. Hopefullt the courts will clear this problem soon.

I still thing you're getting your facts twisted up a bit MoRulez. Maybe you need to read over the article again, as your statements seem backwards from what the article is saying.