P2P downloading legal in Canada

By on December 13, 2003, 10:16 PM
Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said in a ruling released Friday.

In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank CDs. The money collected from levies on "recording mediums" goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenues lost from consumers' personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.

Read more: [URL=http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html?tag=nefd_lede]CNet News[/URL].




User Comments: 40

Got something to say? Post a comment
StormBringer said:
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.
---agissi--- said:
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
werty316 said:
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:confused:
agrav8r said:
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?:confused:
Per Hansson said:
Only site admins; Julio, Thomas Phamtasm66 CrazyAce and I have access to posting new threads here...But anyone can comment on the news and also post their own in the forum above called "News & Interesting links"
agrav8r said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by Per Hansson [/i]Only site admins; Julio, Thomas Phamtasm66 CrazyAce and I have access to posting new threads here...But anyone can comment on the news and also post their own in the forum above called "News & Interesting links" [/quote] That is what I said I did, I scooped this story asnd placed it into the said forum undr wacky canadians.:D
poertner_1274 said:
Canada is kind of crazy, it is legal to download music, and smoke and posess marijuana. I think there is something wrong with this picture, it seems Canada is going the wrong direction.
khosw said:
No U-turns! ;)
Nodsu said:
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?
MrGaribaldi said:
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"...
zytariuk said:
...and once again, Canadians see the 'big picture'. While the Americans (who think they are 'hot shit' and know it all) are confused as hell. Sad.
MrGaribaldi said:
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... :)
zytariuk said:
lol. Iv'e actually been visiting 3dspotlight.com for a couple years now...just never took the time to register on the board.
StormBringer said:
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)
MrGaribaldi said:
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 :/)
MoRulez said:
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.[quote]Canada is kind of crazy, it is legal to download music, and smoke and posess marijuana. I think there is something wrong with this picture, it seems Canada is going the wrong direction.[/quote] 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."([url]http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2958.htm
[/url])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.
SNGX1275 said:
Perhaps MoRulez you got your upload and download terms switched in 3 of your last 4 paragraphs.
MoRulez said:
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.
StormBringer said:
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.
werty316 said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by poertner_1274 [/i]Canada is kind of crazy, it is legal to download music, and smoke and posess marijuana. I think there is something wrong with this picture, it seems Canada is going the wrong direction. [/quote] I live in Canada and it is not legal to smoke or posess marijuana In Canada. You would get charged with posession of contraband with possible intend on reditributing or just possession of contraband. It all depends if you are a drug dealer or not. Why don't I see pot heads smoking pot on public streets where I live? You don't because it is illegal. If a cop sees you then you are screwed.
MoRulez said:
Oops, I mistook it, since it was the opposite way around. Anyways that makes much more sense. Downloading can't be as bad as uploading, since I bet there's only a tiny percentage of the total internet user base that uploads copyrighted material, illegally. Now back to wondering why I understood the decision the opposite way...
poertner_1274 said:
Well last time I was in Canada I was told by locals that it was ok to posess if it was a small enough amount, being that it would be worthless to sell or distribute. But that was a few years ago and things might have changed since then. I'm sorry for the misleading facts. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Adron said:
Downloading is currently legal here in Sweden as well, while uploading ("publishing") is not. It's an application of old rules which say that you are allowed to produce copies for your own personal use (as you would previously have borrowed a CD from a friend and copied it), but you're not allowed to publish those copies for everyone else to use/copy without authorization (as if you'd previously have transmitted them on a radio station, or given out/sold copies at the market).
{{clewless}} said:
I was just wondering.....If some of your hops travel thru Canada, then you're at least partially legal downloading from anywhere.Here's another point to ponder...Here in Michigan, it's legal to sell fireworks (those that leave the ground and those that make big booms. The fun kind. :>) ) and it's legal to buy those same fireworks, but, it's illegal to use them. I wonder if the same doesn't apply to music. Legal to upload, legal to download, but illegal to play??I'm sure if the government could tax said transactions, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop the process...A small transaction tax , on a per byte basis, might solve a lot of problems. I can see it now: WORLDWIDEGOV ONLINE serviceNo monthly preset costFree T3 connectionJust a wee transaction taxProviding: Hush money for the singers, actors, and software vendors and a little left over taxing authorities. Too costly for the spammers Too costly for the Kiddie crackers I'm sure if you had free access, a modest $50 tax for 50Gigs per month wouldn't be too outrageous. Let's tax the transactions and forget about the filters. Besides, what's one more tax among the numerous others?Personally, I always vote against taxes. But hey, when did my vote ever decide anything. But in the arena of TAX vs. JAIL, I'd rather pay the tax directly than pay for some sap's 3 square, a cot and a crib. As for JAIL: I pay tax to defend him ( or her :}), I pay tax to convict him, then I pay more tax to feed him, clothe him, medicate him, educate him, and raise his family while he's away. If I'm gonna pay either way, I might vote for some kind of internet tarriff.Who knows where all this will lead. I thought, at one time, that 300 baud was really FAST, and who would have thought that my local BBS would become AOL. My how times change.Hopefully this isn't too far off topic; sometimes the mind wanders with age :}.
poertner_1274 said:
That is a very good point, but what makes it so messed up is that like you pointed out, you can buy and sell them, just not use them. The laws are so messed up sometimes.I don't think an internet tax or tarrif would be the best solutoin. I know this would create quite a problem amongst companies and just about everyone else.
StormBringer said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by poertner_1274 [/i]I don't think an internet tax or tarrif would be the best solutoin. I know this would create quite a problem amongst companies and just about everyone else. [/quote] I agree Poert, it also creates a situation where people who don't download anything that is being covered by the tax are helping to pay for the stuff the others are downloading. I don't personally think that is fair to the casual web surfer. It also creates another area for Government regulations, not exactly my idea of an ideal solution.
Nodsu said:
ANother problem: tax money goes to artists and not record companies. RIAA won't have it that way..Laws are weird.. Over here it is illegal to produce, sell and use pirated software but it is not illegal to own it. So if I have a rack of pirated CDs (which I don't :p ) but none of the stuff is on my comp I am clean.
poertner_1274 said:
All the strange laws that make the world interesting. Gotta love it.
{{clewless}} said:
From StormBringer:[COLOR=blue]I agree Poert, it also creates a situation where people who don't download anything that is being covered by the tax are helping to pay for the stuff the others are downloading. I don't personally think that is fair to the casual web surfer.[/COLOR] The premise that I postulated supposed free access supported by a tax or tarriff. Casual users do indeed download pages, pictures, and files, upload email, and conduct internet transactions that use a combination of up and down traffic . Their cost would be significantly less that the dedicated downloaders and the large ad campaigns. At the rate of $1/Gig, the casual user would probably come out better than the current pricing scheme where the casual user pays the same as someone who downloads 24/7 at 100Mbs or so.
poertner_1274 said:
I still think this is a horrible idea, we are already paying to use the service as it is, if the companies don't like the way it is working, then I think they need to do something about it, not the government. The people who download a lot aren't ruining it for anyone else, the way I look at it the ones who aren't downloading that much are missing out on their opportunity. It's freely available to them, and they are choosing not to use it.
StormBringer said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by {{clewless}} [/i]The premise that I postulated supposed free access supported by a tax or tarriff. Casual users do indeed download pages, pictures, and files, upload email, and conduct internet transactions that use a combination of up and down traffic . Their cost would be significantly less that the dedicated downloaders and the large ad campaigns. At the rate of $1/Gig, the casual user would probably come out better than the current pricing scheme where the casual user pays the same as someone who downloads 24/7 at 100Mbs or so. [/quote] So you are essentially saying to make internet access free, then tax all bandwidth usage and make piracy legal. There are just so many things wrong with that idea. One being the control the government would have over regulating it.Its also not fair to consumers nor to copyright holders.
{{clewless}} said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by StormBringer [/i]So you are essentially saying to make internet access free, then tax all bandwidth usage and make piracy legal. There are just so many things wrong with that idea. One being the control the government would have over regulating it.Its also not fair to consumers nor to copyright holders. [/quote] I'd like to take this in two parts. Piracy is legal because the cost of piracy is so small. At a buck a Gig, it would still be cost effective to download illegal wares. But what about the uploader? If he's being charged a buck a Gig too, then access to those illegal wares would be harder to come by. Presently anyone with an account and enough storage can D/L to his hearts content. I have a feeling that if it costs the uploader to provide those files, he's gonna wanna be reimbursed for his time and money. Thereby you create a situation where a money trail between downloader and uploaded can be established. Most ppl believe (wrongly) that their transactions are anonymous. If they are charged per transaction, I'm sure the casual pirate will fall by the wayside and only the die-hards will remain. This will make enforcement of the copyright laws easier (in my opinion, which is definately not infallable.).The second point being... The government is already in control covertly. Anything that they wish to track, can be tracked. Most things they wish to decrypt, they can decrypt. They already have more control than a majority of casual users know. What is better for the people? Covert control or overt control? The latter surely.
StormBringer said:
That's all just a bit too "big brother" for my taste, I also don't think that software companies, RIAA, or MPAA would go for it either. They like making big profits and I don't see them going for something like that, sounds to me like they would stand to do themselves more harm than good.
agrav8r said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by {{clewless}} [/i]I'd like to take this in two parts. Piracy is legal because the cost of piracy is so small. At a buck a Gig, it would still be cost effective to download illegal wares. But what about the uploader? If he's being charged a buck a Gig too, then access to those illegal wares would be harder to come by. Presently anyone with an account and enough storage can D/L to his hearts content. I have a feeling that if it costs the uploader to provide those files, he's gonna wanna be reimbursed for his time and money. Thereby you create a situation where a money trail between downloader and uploaded can be established. Most ppl believe (wrongly) that their transactions are anonymous. If they are charged per transaction, I'm sure the casual pirate will fall by the wayside and only the die-hards will remain. This will make enforcement of the copyright laws easier (in my opinion, which is definately not infallable.).The second point being... The government is already in control covertly. Anything that they wish to track, can be tracked. Most things they wish to decrypt, they can decrypt. They already have more control than a majority of casual users know. What is better for the people? Covert control or overt control? The latter surely. [/quote] This Ideal fails to take into account off shore websites in international waters, Countries that are generally hostile to "our " ways of life, and third world countries that do not havethe means nor the funds to go after hackers.Also with priracy "legal" the funds fail to make it to the game developer , who then straves to death and cannot make half life 3.Really the best way is to place near unbreakable encryption on the software, and charge an extra fee for those who wish to make "copies" for there system so that they don't "mess" their CD. If each of the copiable Cd's has a unique code placed in a vital spot, the copies could be traced to the unique buyer and that indivdual could be charged. While there are some bugs with this scheme, it is better that than saying every thing is legal if you have enough money.
{{clewless}} said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by agrav8r [/i]Also with priracy "legal" the funds fail to make it to the game developer , who then straves to death and cannot make half life 3.Really the best way is to place near unbreakable encryption on the software, and charge an extra fee for those who wish to make "copies" for there system so that they don't "mess" their CD[/quote] Perhaps there is a misconception here. I don't want piracy to be legal, I just want it to be more costly than buying the product would be. By default, only the true hacks would have the interest to rip apart the code and brag about it and trade it to their peers. Everyone else would simply buy the original and download any enhancements that make it more playable.As for anticopy schemes, software companies are already adding programs subversively (Gator and their ilk.) to their products and amending the bootsectors of harddrives with their own private 'cookies' (Such as Turbotax last year.). They already make you agree that you don't own the program. They would be happy if you were only allowed a single install. The ability to make archival copies is one of the few things the consumer has going for him; most of the advantages are with the developer and distributor.Furthermore, this is just a fanciful discussion about a broken system that I surely can't fix. Politicians and experts will make all the calls and I'll sit by idle and hope for the best.
agrav8r said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by {{clewless}} [/i]Perhaps there is a misconception here. I don't want piracy to be legal, I just want it to be more costly than buying the product would be. By default, only the true hacks would have the interest to rip apart the code and brag about it and trade it to their peers. Everyone else would simply buy the original and download any enhancements that make it more playable.As for anticopy schemes, software companies are already adding programs subversively (Gator and their ilk.) to their products and amending the bootsectors of harddrives with their own private 'cookies' (Such as Turbotax last year.). They already make you agree that you don't own the program. They would be happy if you were only allowed a single install. The ability to make archival copies is one of the few things the consumer has going for him; most of the advantages are with the developer and distributor.Furthermore, this is just a fanciful discussion about a broken system that I surely can't fix. Politicians and experts will make all the calls and I'll sit by idle and hope for the best. [/quote] Sorry I misunderstoodHowever, by taxing downloads, would you not eliminate shareware, freeware, and patches? This scheme would have us paying for a game which is unplayable due to bugs, than paying again to dsownload the proceeding patches, perhaps 10 or more times as they catch more and more problems. Really i wasn't looking for a program to install to hard drive, i was looking at encrypting the data on the cd to make sections near impossable to read/copy unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.Some companies ( and if they are wise all) give a replacement CD if yours becomes scratched- just send it in and they send you the new one. the arguement for making legitamite copies than goes away.
StormBringer said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by agrav8r [/i] by taxing downloads, would you not eliminate shareware, freeware, and patches? This scheme would have us paying for a game which is unplayable due to bugs, than paying again to dsownload the proceeding patches, perhaps 10 or more times as they catch more and more problems.[/quote] I completely agree with that, that goes along with what I'd said earlier about this.[quote][i]Originally posted by agrav8r [/i]I was looking at encrypting the data on the cd to make sections near impossable to read/copy unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.[/quote]I have problems with this, first off, even "near impossible" encryption is not a feasible solution, for one thing it isn't possible to make something that isn't crackable. If the machine can read it, then its only a matter of time(usually a week or less) before someone cracks it or finds a way around it. Second, it violates "fair consumer use" in at least a few countries. The copieable version also bothers me a bit. I doubt that it would go over well, as it would then tie a person to a piece of software, you'd have to destroy the disc one you no longer had use for it, if it were stolen, you'd be responsible for the possible copies made and distributed. This line of discussion was already a dead horse before it was ever brought up in this thread. I don't think there is any miracle fix for piracy. As for the problem with RIAA, I think that they have hurt themselves more since they started this nonsense than anything else. Before they started shouting so loud about everyone stealing from them, not many people knew that RIAA made so much off album sales and the artist so little. I think this has been a factor in the reason for some people continuing to pirate music. Maybe if RIAA would increase the artist's cut, it might motivate people to support their favorite band rather than steal those few cents(along with the huge by comparison, RIAA profit) No, I don't think thats a cure, but I think it might help the problem, which is all you can do. just my $0.02
poertner_1274 said:
Taxing the internet is just a horrible thing to even consider. It will only make the world worse off than it is. Especially to businesses who have to run websites like TechSpot, and get quite a bit of upload a week. Also it will put the average person under because they will have to pay extra money to use the internet, and just surf the web. Not something that people will go for.
{{clewless}} said:
[quote][i]Originally posted by agrav8r [/i]unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.[/quote] [COLOR=red]THEN WE WOULD NOW (KNOW) WHO YOU ARE[/COLOR] I chose to remain as anonymous as possible. I never return product registrations or fill out questionaires. Think me paranoid if you wish, I think I'm just private. If that was the only conditions upon which to buy software, I would surely look elsewhere for versions stripped of this requirement.
{{clewless}} said:
I would like to deep six this part of the thread because it seems to be moving further and further off topic, although I do enjoy the discourse. Also, like most of the replies I've had, I too realize that taxation isn't the way to go. Most of the parallels that I have drawn are already in use. Most websites already pay a fee (tax) based on the amount of web traffic they incur (The more disk space your pages use the higher the price. The more traffic, usually measured in Gigbytes, the more you are charged.). This is found further down the line with the endusers (us). A modem connection is free (if you can stomach all the ads) or at most twenty something a month, while a cable or dsl connection costs substantially more. This is an indirect feeGigabyte. The faster your connection the more you can D/L per month. I'll still play devil's advocate if there continues to be interest in this part of the thread.Meanwhile back at the ranch :>}.I seem to hear a lot about the COMPANIES should do something about it rather than the government. Most companies will do nothing unless it increases profit or prevents getting fined. Altruism is a distinctly individual thing and companies are seldom individual.
Load all comments...

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.