Tweet
Got to love the Canadians
Copyright Board of Canada OKs P2P downloading...for now
Posted 12/13/2003 @ 12:40 AM, by Fred "zAmboni" Locklear
Unlike the United States, recording industry lobbyists have, so far, failed in their efforts to get DMCA-like legislation enacted by Canadian lawmakers. Instead of ramming such legislation through, the Copyright Board of Canada decided to impose levies on recordable media to compensate musicians and songwriters for lost revenue from personal copying. This fee is paid no matter the ultimate use of the media. Many would argue such levies basically gives the OK to consumers to copy freely, and would allow them to download copyrighted music at their whim. Others would argue the levies are a form of double taxation for people who pay for the music and then have to pay again when buying recordable media to create backups or CD mixes. Of course, the recording industry would say the levies are too low and doesn't cover enough storage devices.
The Copyright Board of Canada introduced the recordable media levies in 1999 on audiocassettes, Minidiscs and other CD recordable media. The Canadian Private Copying Collective, a recording industry association, asked the Copyright Board to increase these levies and also extend them to memory capable music players, blank DVDs, removable memory cards and micro hard drives. The Board denied the proposed increases and expansion of levies, except for music players. Players with capacity up to 1 GB will be charged CDN$2 per device, CDN$15 for 1 to 10 GB, and recorders with a capacity over 10 GB will be levied CDN$25.
In addition to the decision on levies, the Board also addressed the issue of downloading from P2P applications. There has been a general consensus in Canada that uploading and making files available for download is illegal, but there has been a question about the legality of the act of downloading. After a quick read through of the Board's decision (pdf), their main emphasis is on how personal copying is defined by Part VIII of the Copyright Act.
The regime does not address the source of the material copied. There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.
Although the source of the copy does not matter, the destination does. The Board believes that section 80 creates an exemption that applies as long as two conditions are met: the copy must be for the private use of the person making it, and it must be made onto an audio recording medium, as defined in section 79.
Even though a computer hard drive is the audio recording medium when using P2P applications, the Board did not assess a tariff because "the evidence available at this time does not clearly demonstrate that these recording media are ordinarily used by individuals for the purpose of copying music." Of course, contrary to the Board's decision, recording industry representatives still believe downloading is illegal. According to News.com, the final decision may be up to the courts.
"I think it is pretty significant," Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said. "It's not that the issue is resolved...I think that sooner or later, courts will sound off on the issue. But one thing they will take into consideration is the Copyright Board ruling."
I'm sure many readers do not agree with Canada's levy structure, but one can argue it is better than having a Canadian version of the DMCA. That is not to say the current system is without problems. The levy system punishes everyone, whether or not they copy and share music, while giving a short shrift to independent music artists. It also subsidizes the music industry and gives legitimacy to their current business model in a time where music buying and distribution is in a state of flux. Instead of increasing or freezing the levies on recording media, the Board should have been looking at lowering them. With the advent of legitimate online music stores, the cost of music has started to decline, and levies should follow suit. I almost hate to say it, but I think I prefer the scheme Canada has implemented. The scheme addresses personal copying rights, while also compensating the recording industry for lost revenue. It may not be the best solution, but it does seem fairer than life under the DMCA in the U.S.
Posted 12/13/2003 @ 12:40 AM, by Fred "zAmboni" Locklear
Unlike the United States, recording industry lobbyists have, so far, failed in their efforts to get DMCA-like legislation enacted by Canadian lawmakers. Instead of ramming such legislation through, the Copyright Board of Canada decided to impose levies on recordable media to compensate musicians and songwriters for lost revenue from personal copying. This fee is paid no matter the ultimate use of the media. Many would argue such levies basically gives the OK to consumers to copy freely, and would allow them to download copyrighted music at their whim. Others would argue the levies are a form of double taxation for people who pay for the music and then have to pay again when buying recordable media to create backups or CD mixes. Of course, the recording industry would say the levies are too low and doesn't cover enough storage devices.
The Copyright Board of Canada introduced the recordable media levies in 1999 on audiocassettes, Minidiscs and other CD recordable media. The Canadian Private Copying Collective, a recording industry association, asked the Copyright Board to increase these levies and also extend them to memory capable music players, blank DVDs, removable memory cards and micro hard drives. The Board denied the proposed increases and expansion of levies, except for music players. Players with capacity up to 1 GB will be charged CDN$2 per device, CDN$15 for 1 to 10 GB, and recorders with a capacity over 10 GB will be levied CDN$25.
In addition to the decision on levies, the Board also addressed the issue of downloading from P2P applications. There has been a general consensus in Canada that uploading and making files available for download is illegal, but there has been a question about the legality of the act of downloading. After a quick read through of the Board's decision (pdf), their main emphasis is on how personal copying is defined by Part VIII of the Copyright Act.
The regime does not address the source of the material copied. There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.
Although the source of the copy does not matter, the destination does. The Board believes that section 80 creates an exemption that applies as long as two conditions are met: the copy must be for the private use of the person making it, and it must be made onto an audio recording medium, as defined in section 79.
Even though a computer hard drive is the audio recording medium when using P2P applications, the Board did not assess a tariff because "the evidence available at this time does not clearly demonstrate that these recording media are ordinarily used by individuals for the purpose of copying music." Of course, contrary to the Board's decision, recording industry representatives still believe downloading is illegal. According to News.com, the final decision may be up to the courts.
"I think it is pretty significant," Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said. "It's not that the issue is resolved...I think that sooner or later, courts will sound off on the issue. But one thing they will take into consideration is the Copyright Board ruling."
I'm sure many readers do not agree with Canada's levy structure, but one can argue it is better than having a Canadian version of the DMCA. That is not to say the current system is without problems. The levy system punishes everyone, whether or not they copy and share music, while giving a short shrift to independent music artists. It also subsidizes the music industry and gives legitimacy to their current business model in a time where music buying and distribution is in a state of flux. Instead of increasing or freezing the levies on recording media, the Board should have been looking at lowering them. With the advent of legitimate online music stores, the cost of music has started to decline, and levies should follow suit. I almost hate to say it, but I think I prefer the scheme Canada has implemented. The scheme addresses personal copying rights, while also compensating the recording industry for lost revenue. It may not be the best solution, but it does seem fairer than life under the DMCA in the U.S.
I'll change it 
Comment