4 ms·

I do not agree what is deemed copyright infringement in the US is wrong and harmful in all cases. Luckily, the Canadian government agrees with me. A 2005 ruli

by mrtron 18y ago

I do not agree what is deemed copyright infringement in the US is wrong and harmful in all cases. Luckily, the Canadian government agrees with me. A 2005 ruling states "Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.".

wmf 18y ago
Doesn't that virtually eliminate the point of copyright? Almost all music and movies are bought for "personal use", so what if everyone downloaded for free instead of paying?
- mrtron 18y ago
  Canadians pay levies on recordable media (and have since cassette tapes) that goes to the Canadian recording industry. Initially it was deemed legal to tape the radio for personal use. Now that has moved into the digital age. It does not whatsoever eliminate the point of copyright. I can't bootleg albums and sell them on the street. To answer your question, nothing would happen if more people downloaded movies and music for personal use. Lots of Canadians still buy music to support the artists, and still purchase DVDs. Movies still make a killing in theatres, and musicians still make most of their money on tour.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    There are two obvious problems with the Canadian system: (1) It's a tax on everyone that, at least in part, takes money out of reasonable people's pockets and gives it to Miley Cyrus. (2) No equitable mechanism exists to apportion that tax revenue, with an end result that Nielson SoundScan becomes social policy. The problem with copyright isn't copyright. The problem with copyright is that the music distribution channel is controlled by a small, intertwined group of cartels. We should solve the right problem.
    - mrtron 18y ago
      I agree the system has some major flaws. It is better than the alternative system with the RIAA prosecuting people for 10,000$ per song in my opinion. I don't want my money going to poor 'artists' that are just manufactured entities by massive labels. Luckily the recent rulings do not support a levy on digital music players or digital storage devices. Your proposed problem to focus on solving would drastically improve the American system if changed, so I hope it happens. One final point I would like to add: I did not purchase music in university when I could not afford the luxury. Since I have improved my economic situation, I have recently purchased various older albums. I think that is a good example of how the system can potentially be successful.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        Ask 10 people whether they'd rather give $1 to Clay Aiken or see a single mom sued for $2,500 for illicitly distributing a Coldplay album. You're right; they'll all fork over the $1. But they'll all have to think about it for a second.
  - wmf 18y ago
    I forgot about the recordable media taxes, although I think that simply paying for the music you listen to is simpler and fairer.
  - xirium 18y ago
    > Canadians pay levies on recordable media I find this concept very objectionable. If I buy a blank CDROM for the purpose of distributing my own software then music companies receive some of the proceeds of the sale because I could have used the discs to copy their work. That's a bad law because I'm assumed to be guilty and I have no recourse to prove innocence. Furthermore, why is the levy specific to recordable media? If we're going to be fair then we should have similar levies on cars, crowbars and numerous other items which can be used in crimes that deprive people.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      You realize that almost every other public good is funded this way, right? Edit ... not that Miley Cyrus is a public good, but still.
      - mrtron 18y ago
        I also think it is a direct result of the power of the giants. In the US, the RIAA can sue individuals for large sums of money. In Canada, you can't sue for any amount - you have to show damages. So if downloading a song was copyright infringement here, you would only be able to sue for the cost of the song. So, it is in the recording association's to have a levy rather than to pursue individual legal action here.
      - xirium 18y ago
        Taxes may be levied unfairly and they may provide facilities that individuals don't use. However, they are for collective benefit, public ownership and with nominal charge for use, at most. In the case of recordable media levies, the law enriches a private industry to the detriment of the public, distorts a market to the detriment of the public and doesn't exempt us from further fees. Specifically, after you've bought one blank CDROM, you're not exempted from one album sale.

by mrtron 18y ago

wmf 18y ago

Doesn't that virtually eliminate the point of copyright? Almost all music and movies are bought for "personal use", so what if everyone downloaded for free instead of paying?

mrtron 18y ago
Canadians pay levies on recordable media (and have since cassette tapes) that goes to the Canadian recording industry. Initially it was deemed legal to tape the radio for personal use. Now that has moved into the digital age. It does not whatsoever eliminate the point of copyright. I can't bootleg albums and sell them on the street. To answer your question, nothing would happen if more people downloaded movies and music for personal use. Lots of Canadians still buy music to support the artists, and still purchase DVDs. Movies still make a killing in theatres, and musicians still make most of their money on tour.
- tptacek 18y ago
  There are two obvious problems with the Canadian system: (1) It's a tax on everyone that, at least in part, takes money out of reasonable people's pockets and gives it to Miley Cyrus. (2) No equitable mechanism exists to apportion that tax revenue, with an end result that Nielson SoundScan becomes social policy. The problem with copyright isn't copyright. The problem with copyright is that the music distribution channel is controlled by a small, intertwined group of cartels. We should solve the right problem.
  - mrtron 18y ago
    I agree the system has some major flaws. It is better than the alternative system with the RIAA prosecuting people for 10,000$ per song in my opinion. I don't want my money going to poor 'artists' that are just manufactured entities by massive labels. Luckily the recent rulings do not support a levy on digital music players or digital storage devices. Your proposed problem to focus on solving would drastically improve the American system if changed, so I hope it happens. One final point I would like to add: I did not purchase music in university when I could not afford the luxury. Since I have improved my economic situation, I have recently purchased various older albums. I think that is a good example of how the system can potentially be successful.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Ask 10 people whether they'd rather give $1 to Clay Aiken or see a single mom sued for $2,500 for illicitly distributing a Coldplay album. You're right; they'll all fork over the $1. But they'll all have to think about it for a second.
- wmf 18y ago
  I forgot about the recordable media taxes, although I think that simply paying for the music you listen to is simpler and fairer.
- xirium 18y ago
  > Canadians pay levies on recordable media I find this concept very objectionable. If I buy a blank CDROM for the purpose of distributing my own software then music companies receive some of the proceeds of the sale because I could have used the discs to copy their work. That's a bad law because I'm assumed to be guilty and I have no recourse to prove innocence. Furthermore, why is the levy specific to recordable media? If we're going to be fair then we should have similar levies on cars, crowbars and numerous other items which can be used in crimes that deprive people.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    You realize that almost every other public good is funded this way, right? Edit ... not that Miley Cyrus is a public good, but still.
    - mrtron 18y ago
      I also think it is a direct result of the power of the giants. In the US, the RIAA can sue individuals for large sums of money. In Canada, you can't sue for any amount - you have to show damages. So if downloading a song was copyright infringement here, you would only be able to sue for the cost of the song. So, it is in the recording association's to have a levy rather than to pursue individual legal action here.
    - xirium 18y ago
      Taxes may be levied unfairly and they may provide facilities that individuals don't use. However, they are for collective benefit, public ownership and with nominal charge for use, at most. In the case of recordable media levies, the law enriches a private industry to the detriment of the public, distorts a market to the detriment of the public and doesn't exempt us from further fees. Specifically, after you've bought one blank CDROM, you're not exempted from one album sale.