0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Canadian Federal Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling, ruling the CRIA cannot force ISPs to divulge their customer's personal information. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) a consumer rights organization similar in nature to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), heralded this event as a "landmark privacy decision."
Instead of requiring "prima facie" evidence, Justice Saxon lowered the bar to "bona fide" evidence. This significantly reduces the burden on the CRIA. "Bona fide" reduces the level of evidence to a matter of good faith. In the future when the CRIA intends to bring action against an idividual for copyright infringment, they only have to present the eveidence they have, "and that there is no other improper purpose for seeking the identity of these persons." The RIAA's current lawsuit campaign works virtually identical to the "good faith" philosophy.
The test requires a plaintiff such as CRIA to first demonstrate that it has a "bona fide" claim based on evidence that it has obtained (not merely that it intends to file a lawsuit) and that it has no other improper purposes for seeking the identities of subscribers. CRIA must show that the information cannot be obtained from another source and tender evidence that is admissible, timely, and links the Internet protocol addresses of the subscribers to the alleged infringement.
In the aftermath of last year’s trial decision, the recording industry expressed grave concern about the state of Canadian copyright law and lobbied aggressively for immediate changes. In light of the appellate decision, it is now safe to declare the copyright emergency over. In fact, the fears of a devastating effect never materialized. According to CRIA’s own figures, in the thirteen months of reported sales since the March 2004 decision, both sales and shipments have increased
The federal government will introduce new legislation aimed at toughening up copyright laws in the digital world, CTV News has learned. Still, industry stakeholders who say file sharing is stealing say the laws are not stringent enough.
Peer-to-peer users were put on notice Monday after the Liberal government introduced a bill calling for stricter copyright legislation to crack down on music sharing. Bill C-60 would amend the Copyright Act, bringing it up to speed with today's technologies, namely Internet activities like file-sharing and burning unlimited copies of CDs and movies. The biggest change comes through a "make available" clause which would make it illegal to upload songs into online shared directories, as is the case when using Kazaa or BitTorrent, unless you are the rights holder of the material.
Canada became the first non-European country Friday to sign up to combat "cyberhate," the online dissemination of xenophobic propaganda. Canada signed an additional protocol to the international cybercrime convention, drafted in 2001 by the Council of Europe. Signed by several dozen countries, including Canada, the United States, South Africa and Japan, the convention names four types of cybercrime: confidentiality offences, notably breaking into computers; fraud and forgery; content violations, such as child pornography and racism; and copyright offences. The treaty aims to speed up international co-operation in investigations and extraditions.
A bill before Canada's Parliament could make it illegal for search engines to cache Web pages, critics say, opening the door to unwarranted lawsuits and potentially hindering public access to information. The legislation in question, Bill C-60, is designed to amend Canada's Copyright Act by implementing parts of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, the treaty that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) welcomed today's Supreme Court of Canada decision on private copying as a positive step in clarifying unauthorized file sharing as an illegal activity."For years, those supporting unauthorized file sharing have misleadingly used the existence of the Private Copying Levy to justify illegitimate file sharing," says CRIA President Graham Henderson. "Today, the Supreme Court says 'no such luck.'"By denying leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's December 2004 decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed that digital audio recorders such as Apple iPods are not subject to the private copying levy because the hard drives embedded in them are "devices" rather than audio recording media. This means that unauthorized file sharing to hard drives of any kind - including those on home computers -- is illegal.The decision follows closely on the introduction of federal legislation that updates Canada's copyright law, providing certainty for legitimate digital downloading services and bringing Canadian law in line with today's digital realities."The Supreme Court and federal legislators are aligning themselves with the silent majority of Canadians who view file sharing as an illegal activity," Henderson remarks. "Together, they are bringing certainty to the legal system. With certainty comes trust, and with trust comes investment, laying the groundwork for a robust legal market place. Now, it is just a matter of time."Though the decision means that artists will not receive compensation for music obtained through unauthorized file sharing, Henderson points out that the levy has never properly compensated them for this black market activity anyway. The Private copying levy currently provides rights holders with approximately 2.8 cents per "lost sale" for copies made to blank CDs, and nothing for copies made to personal computers or, following today's decision, to digital audio recorders. At Puretracks or iTunes, rights holders receive 99 cents. Thus a single legal download sale compensates rights holders 50 times as much as the levy would.
Michael Geist has correctly drawn attention to the unintended consquence of last week's Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It places people who legally acquire music and then copy it to their hard drives or portable devices in a legal grey zone. However, on behalf of the Canadian Recording Industry Association and its major label members, I can state that no action will be taken by CRIA against the "good guys." People who legally acquire music are the artists' best friends, and we do not intend to punish them.This statement is certainly welcome news but raises issues. We should be clear that the SCC decision addresses portable devices, not computer hard drives. The issue of copying to computer hard drives remains an open issue.While it is great that CRIA and its members have made this commitment, consumers are still not in the clear. Other rights holders in the same songs have not made a similar pledge and there accordingly remains the potential for liability.
President of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) Graham Henderson who commissioned the polls said, "Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," Graham Henderson added while referring to plagiarism in schools and Universities, "The 'if it's there, it's free' thinking extends far beyond entertainment products and software to ideas themselves."A 2005 survey of 600 UK music fans, reported in the Guardian Online, (July 27, 2005) found that those who illegally share tracks over the internet also spend four and a half times as much on digital music as those who do not. Recent research out of Japan by a Keio University Economics Professor concluded that "Winny", the most popular P2P application in Japan, has had no effect on CD sales in Japan. In fact, the study found that P2P allows consumers to discover new music and so promotes music sales. For more on these studies, see CIPPIC’s FAQs on file-sharing, at the CIPPIC website.Mr. Fewer is also troubled by CRIA’s unexamined claim that ever increasing intellectual property rights support Canadian competitiveness and innovation. “We encourage innovation by giving Canadians the opportunity to do build on existing knowledge, not by frustrating researchers and entrepreneurs with ever-tighter copyright laws. CRIA wants to eliminate essential user rights that enable research into digital security and software inter-operability. If Canadian policy makers are serious about seizing the Internet’s potential to secure future economic growth, we should focus on creating opportunities for Canadian artists and innovators, not choking them off.”
The Canadian recording industry experienced its worst financial performance in six years in 2003 in the wake of bleak sales, declining new releases and a huge drop in profits, says a new study from Statistics Canada. "This overall decline in sales raises questions about factors such as illegal file downloads and swapping song files," says the study. And the Canadian Recording Industry Association replies that it's what they've been saying all along. Canadian record labels reported a little more than $708 million in sales revenue in 2003, down 17.7 per cent from 2000 and 20.5 per cent below 1998's peak. Canadian artists' sales plunged 20 per cent between 2000 and 2003 to just below $110.4 million, although their market share remained stable at about 16 per cent. That's attributable to a decline in sales by foreign artists. Total industry employment also fell, from 3,305 people in 2000 to a little more than 3,000 in '03. Graham Henderson, CRIA president, said all of this is proof that illegal music downloading by young people is causing artists and the recording companies enormous harm.
On November 2nd, the copyright bill was mentioned at the end of the session as having "devastating consequences for both educators and students" The Minister of Canadian Heritage denied that it would even touch the Canadian education system. The website that talks about the bill paints a very interesting picture of the facts of Bill C-60. According to the information provided, "The bill makes it illegal for anyone other than the copyright holder to place a music file in a shared folder on a computer to which other users of a file-sharing program have access. Thus it will be illegal to upload music files onto on-line shared directories, as is the case when using Kazaa or BitTorrent, unless the person uploading the material is the rights holder of that material. Downloading music files for personal, non-commercial use remains legal under Bill C-60." This is, indeed, a very interesting fact considering Graham Henderson, president of the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has been notably saying on many occasions that downloading copyrighted materials is illegal even without Bill C-60. So who is right? Graham Henderson or the people who wrote the report for the official website of the Canadian Parliament? Surely the government of Canada would know about something of this magnitude and wouldn't the job of a president of a large company be far more interested in his or her business, or in this case, the members of the record industry in Canada ?At the bottom of the article in a small 5 line paragraph, there is a little footnote in the conclusion that mentions the CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) who has, largely been known for voicing opposition against these Copyright movements. In the article, the CIPPIC said, “One of the fatal flaws of copyright reform in Canada over the last 20 years is that there’s been a failing to ensure that there is anyone representing ordinary Canadians.”If you haven’t noted this already, this article mentions how it was reported that downloading copyrighted works would still be legal even if Bill C-60 passed as it is. However, Bill C-60 allows a notice and notice regime. This clearly opens the doorway to frivolous lawsuits and scare tactics already seen in the United States.
Since the government voted non-confidence, Paul Martin needs to call an election which disrupts the order of business. Having said that, Bill C-60, the infamous copyright reform bill has yet to make it to the second reading. There is also talk of Bill C-74, which is the Canadian surveillance bill, which seems to have gained less attention in the media. What will happen to these bills? C-60 and C-74 are now history. Both bills have been scrapped. That said, the issues both bills addressed have not gone away. Regardless of the identity of the government elected January 23, we will see more copyright and lawful access legislation. Hopefully, the next government will address the warts of both laws while retaining their sounder elements. Bill C-74, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, would force communications providers to build surveillance back-doors into the hardware that routes our phone calls, Internet traffic, and more. At the same time as increasing surveillance capacity, it would allow law enforcement agencies to obtain certain identifying information about internet and phone subscribers (name, address, telephone number, email address, IP address) without a warrant. Canadians should be concerned because this would increase state surveillance capacity while removing a legal safeguard designed to protect us from unjustified surveillance. See our news release under "CIPPIC News" at the CIPPIC website.The benefits include greater capacity of law enforcement to identify and pursue criminals, while the cons include greater opportunity for law enforcement abuse of their powers (e.g., investigating innocent people).
