I am not saying that I down load MP's but if I was going to would it be considered legal or illegal in canada at the moment.

There was a great article in the National post a few months ago that said essentially because of the CD levy tax it was NOT illegal to download and burn MP3's.

It got a lot of press in the US and the US music industry wasn't too happy with Canada.

I am not saying that I down load MP's but if I was going to would it be considered legal or illegal in canada at the moment.



Downloading is legal. Uploading is illegal.

Copyright FAQ (http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml)

Music From the Internet (http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#can_I_share)

A more general answer (http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends)

And if you think about it, 'it takes two to tango' so you can't download unless someone is willing to upload.

I think this MP3 issue is like Pandora's box.

John

Where it now gets confusing is, why is the Canadian Recording Industry trying to get ISPs to hand over the identities of file sharers now? Your right Human (and so is the National Post), the levy is in place because they feel that anyone buying blank CDs or MP3 players in Canada must be steeling music, so they are getting their money (in fact they are getting their money TWICE from anyone who buys legal music).

And if you think about it, 'it takes two to tango' so you can't download unless someone is willing to upload.
This presupposes the uploader resides in Canada and/or a jurisdiction where uploading would be considered illegal. The borderless nature of the Internet allows people to skirt the "accomplice" implications of the downloader-uploader relationship.

The target of the lawsuits (at least in the US and I assume what is planned in Canada) is people with files on there computer who are sharing them, I.E. they are in a shared directory that makes them available for others to download.

If your files are in a non-shared directory, and you download, at this time they are not targeting you.

Where I would be interested to see some clarification would be if it's legal to have files for which you legally own provided for others to download. In which case, I would think that the Canadian Recording industry would have a difficult time determining between legal and illegal file sharing.

The big issue here is that despite the the levy and the Copyright Board's opinion, there really hasn't been any legal precedent set in Canada. I think the Canadian Recording industry is going to see what they can get away with.

This actually raises a really interesting question. I actually had another response written to this but just before I hit submit I started thinking really hard about it.

Having files on your computer available to share should not be illegal. Just like selling a gun is not illegal, despite the fact that there is a really good chance that someone could die from it. It's the purchaser who shoots somebody that is charged. So just because you make a file available, does not mean that you forced someone to download it from your hard drive and use it.

It really makes me wonder how they are getting away with targeting the uploaders rather than the downloaders.

I think that's why the battle for the ISP logs are key in this case. It's not the existence of MP3s on their hard drives that matters as much as the distribution of the files from uploaders to multiple users. The ISP logs may confirm the distribution of copyrighted material from these uploaders and would help to quantify the alleged "damages" to the copyright holders and/or others in the industry. MP3s are not illegal per se; some "sample" MP3s are distributed freely by their copyright owners, including many commercial recordings.

What is legal:

Copying for Private Use

Where no infringement of copyright


80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

What is not:

Limitation


(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

(b) & (c) are where you would run into problems with offering it up for downloading.

It is kind of stupid because I could legally copy a song from a CD onto my computer as an MP3, nothing wrong with that unless my hard drive doesn't count as an audio recording medium but they are subject to the levy so...

At any rate, a friend could come over, take a CDR that I own, stick it in my computer and burn the song for himself and there wouldn't be a problem with that because I am not distributing it.

If I copy the CD onto my computer in a shared folder for a P2P network and my friend copies it from the P2P client the assumption is that this is illegal because by placing it in the shared folder for a P2P network I am doing so for the purpose of distributing it.

In order to get around this you would need to argue, under oath, that you did not copy the song for the purpose of distribution despite the fact it was placed in a shared folder, that you designated that folder as a shared folder for a P2P client and that you ran the client while the MP3's were in it.

Part of the Copyright Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38778.html#rid-38901)

Where it now gets confusing is, why is the Canadian Recording Industry trying to get ISPs to hand over the identities of file sharers now? Your right Human (and so is the National Post), the levy is in place because they feel that anyone buying blank CDs or MP3 players in Canada must be steeling music, so they are getting their money (in fact they are getting their money TWICE from anyone who buys legal music).

No, go read the rationale behind the levy at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c12122003-b.pdf and the fact sheet at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html . The levy is not to compensate for people stealing music, it is to pay for you to have the right to make copies of music you legally own. The copyright owners, strangely enough, have the right to make copies of their material, and so do you by paying for that right with your purchase of a CD-R. If you choose not to exercise that right by putting your own data on that CD-R instead of a copy of your latest Limp Bizkit album, so what.

If I read it right, you are actually in copyright violation if you copy such material to any media that does not have the levy applied to it - like your hard drive.

Also note, I do not personally say that I agree with this rationale, but it is expressly not to compensate for piracy. I feel that we should be purchasing the right to listen to the material we've purchased in any form that is convenient to the end user, and any costs associated with this relinquishing of limited copyright should be absorbed in the original purchase, not on related media. I can only listen to one song at a time, no matter if I have it on a CD, an iPod, my computer, or in my car's MPEG player. If I want to store all my music on my PC and stream it to other devices in the house or over the net to my computer at work, I should be able to do so, and in fact making the music more available to me to listen to where and how I wish is more likely going to make me buy more music, not less.

Jethrogoss, while the law may say it that way, it clearly was written in response to piracy. They worded it that way because if they didn't the law would proably never hold up in court if someone challenged it. I know that in the US (and I had always assumed Canada was the same until now) you are aloud to make as many copies of any legally purchased music or video as long as it is for your own use (this also includes taping anything off the radio or TV).
I am curious, does this levy also apply to VHS tapes? And of course, what about PVRs? Based on this law and the way it is worded, in the future we may have to pay for every show we record on our PVR.

A sales guy at Kromer Radio told me the PVRs are so expensive in Canada because of the levy. :x

A group of law students have launched CanFLI (http://www.canfli.org) as an offensive into providing Canadians hunted down by CRIA with sound legal defense. They are supervised by the ITLS (http://www.itls.ca) and a small donation will go far for them. Legal documents (http://www.canfli.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=5) submitted by CRIA can be downloaded including the infamous list of user names and IPs from various ISP.