Open your wallet for file sharing

[Michael OLeary]

You know how your saw those huge fines for file sharing in the US and though "thank God (or whatever specific or non-specific deity or dietary figment you worship) that I live in Canada?  Well, they want to come here next.

Format shifting, low damages put Canada on IP watch list
By Nate Anderson  | Last updated February 18, 2010 7:31 PM

US copyright industries have declared war on Canada, and they want the US government's help in fighting the battles. Today is the last day to file comments as part of the government's annual "Special 301" process, meant to call out the world's worst copyright countries, and the International Intellectual Property Alliance has just dropped a dramatic document on the US Trade Representative (PDF) that slams Canada and demands the country change many of its laws.

The Great White North is "fast gaining a reputation as a haven where technologically sophisticated international piracy organizations can operate with virtual impunity." The country is "virtually alone" in flouting "minimum world standards" for copyright and its rules are "hopelessly outdated." Finally, "no other country is farther behind the curve in combating copyright infringement in cyberspace."

No country is farther behind—not even Belarus, Peru, Ukraine, Vietnam, or Uzbekistan, all of which are suggested for the US government's annual "watch list." But Canada—along with China, Russia, and a few others—must be put on the highest-level "priority watch list," says the IIPA.

Who cares what the IIPA says? The US government, for one. The group is an umbrella organization that represents movies (MPAA), records (RIAA), music publishers (NMPA), video games (ESA), business software (BSA), and publishers (AAP). When it comes to each year's Special 301 list, the group largely gets what it wants.

This year, it wants the US to "press the Canadian government" on the issue of copyright, demanding a host of specific changes in Canadian law. The idea that libraries should be able to format-shift items before they become obsolete? CAN$500 caps on statutory damages for infringement committed for private purposes? The ability to circumvent DRM in order to make legal uses of the content? Ludicrous, all of them, and the IIPA demands action.

And what does Canada think about this? The country didn't bother to file a response this year, though government responses are welcome. Back in 2007, the Department of Foreign Affairs made clear its own position: "In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by US industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our US counterparts."

More at article link.

 

[40below]

Oh, they're so cute. Copying/downloading files for personal use/backup is not a crime in Canada, no matter if the RIAA or the other alphabet soup foreign trade groups think it ought to be. And remember, we have an implicit contract with the owners of copyright in Canada because we pay a tax on all blank recordable media sold in this country to compensate copyright owners for possible loss of income by using those CDs/DVDs/videotapes as they were meant to be used. Americans don't.

To draw a rough analogy, having copyright owners try to sue for a legal behaviour for which consumers have pre-paid a levy would be like General Motors suing you because they sold you a car, but in their opinion, you also need to pay them a per-kilometre surcharge for driving it. I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the pointy end of copyright and good luck with this one.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I don't think any of those huge fines were for people making a private backup copy of something they had purchased or legally saved from an internet, television or cable feed, both of which would be usages covered by that tax on blank media. The issue arises when people share/copy/download/pirate music/movies/software for which they have no legal ownership. I don't think that's covered in the "tax."

The question then becomes, what's a reasonable punishment that fits the crime.

Your analogy to buying a car may be effective in your narrow example, but if you stole the car in order to experience driving it ..... should the fine be thousands of times the value of the car?

Thanks for briefing us on the pointy end, try sticking it in the right target next time.

 

[40below]

I don't think any of those huge fines were for people making a private backup copy of something they had purchased or legally saved from an internet, television or cable feed, both of which would be usages covered by that tax on blank media.

They were. There are dozens of examples of utterly computer illiterate Americans who downloaded top 40 songs using Limewire,  who never shared it on the net  themselves or tried to sell it being hit with multi-million dollar fines per downloaded song. And Americans do not pay a blank media levy. Those ludicrous fines are a subject for appeal and have poisoned the record company's case, but that's a secondary argument over punitive damages.

As far as your analogy of the stolen car, you have also missed the point. Here in Canada, that car (read song, movie whatever) is not stolen. You can argue legally, ethically, morally, hell it's so apparent that only an idiot could fail to see that it's stolen, but legally it isn't. It's not criminal and there's no civil case to be made in Canada. You've already paid for it either in a store and/or with that levy on the blank media. As long as you're not reselling it, using it for public performance or other actions that are already illegal without special permission (notice how the DVDs you borrow from the library are licensed 'for public performance'? That's why) you have committed no crime. You are allowed to make copies for your private enjoyment and have paid a fee for the right to do so and to put whatever material on that blank media as will fit. If the RIAA wants to take issue with that, first they have to change the law, then they have to rescind the federal levy on blank media.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As long as you're not reselling it, using it for public performance or other actions that are already illegal without special permission (notice how the DVDs you borrow from the library are licensed 'for public performance'? That's why) you have committed no crime.

But you are not allowed to make a copy of a complete book borrowed from a public library without contravening copyright, even if you claim is just for "your personal enjoyment".

You are allowed to make copies for your private enjoyment and have paid a fee for the right to do so and to put whatever material on that blank media as will fit.

You keep returning to this point.

Please show how a copy for "your personal enjoyment" includes uploading to the internet and freely sharing with others.  Please show how downloading from a sharing mechanism substantially different than a government sponsored lending library (for books or any type of media) is taking into your possession an item by completely legal means that you can then recopy legally "for your personal enjoyment" under the legal definitions you are espousing above - this refers to those items that YOU HAVE NOT paid a fee for the right to do so.

And then reflect back on my statement above regarding the punishment fitting the crime as being THE POINT.

 

[kratz]

Actually,

Uploading a paid for device (movie/song/book ect...)  could be no different than a corner book store reselling a book, or a back alley record store reselling a hard to find LP in the modern age.

Under current Canadian Law, reselling is not illegal. Personally, once I have paid for an item, I own it. If I chose to gain a small amount back from reselling it, I have already paid a tax on it in my opinion.

Under DRM, I own nothing for what I pay for. I think this is insidious.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Yes, you can resell any item you've purchased. But when you sell a novel or a record to a second hand store, you don't also keep the novel or record.  You also can't give away or resell the novel or record an unlimited number of times.  That distinction makes it a poor comparison.

Under DRM you own exactly what you pay for, and you can resell or give away that item.  Making copies for all your friends, even the ones you've never met is the problem.  The issue, when it contravenes specific legislation, is what is appropriate punishment if convicted.