File Sharing in Canada IS a Copyright Violation

[phongn]

Earlier, Rob Dalton posted an article claiming that under Canada's Copyright Act, it was legal to use P2P networks to get music. The legal term the author claims is that "private copying" is safe harbor.

I was searching GrepLaw the other day and came across an interesting article article that argues under Section 80 Subsection 2, it is in fact a copyright violation to do so.

Specifically:

(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."

Emphasis mine.

[Dalton]

Huh? This seems to be about distribution, not ripping a CD for your iPod.

[kojikun]

But the thing, phong, is that in Canada, ALLOWING someone to download is not distributing, which is defined as actively giving. Its a small loophole, but it makes all the difference.

[phongn]

But the thing, phong, is that in Canada, ALLOWING someone to download is not distributing, which is defined as actively giving. Its a small loophole, but it makes all the difference.

Arguably it is distribution of music, for the whole point of setting up a P2P application and enabling the server component is distribution. It is also communicating to the general public by telecommunications. You could not possibly argue that you were not distributing copywrited music in court.

The article that Rob posted argued that it helps P2P, hence this article in response. I quite understood the part about copying for private (i.e. personal) use.

[Alyeska]

But the thing, phong, is that in Canada, ALLOWING someone to download is not distributing, which is defined as actively giving. Its a small loophole, but it makes all the difference.

Arguably it is distribution of music, for the whole point of setting up a P2P application and enabling the server component is distribution. It is also communicating to the general public by telecommunications. You could not possibly argue that you were not distributing copywrited music in court.

The article that Rob posted argued that it helps P2P, hence this article in response. I quite understood the part about copying for private (i.e. personal) use.

Just because you announce your pressence to the world doesn't mean you are actively making copies for other people. The technicality of the law can be very important. As long as you are not actively copying and given to a friend, you are very much legal. Sure its a technicality, but that is how the law works. While the RIAA might try and argue it violates the spirit of the law, tough fucking shit. Their own actions violate the spirit of the law.

[phongn]

Just because you announce your pressence to the world doesn't mean you are actively making copies for other people. The technicality of the law can be very important. As long as you are not actively copying and given to a friend, you are very much legal. Sure its a technicality, but that is how the law works.

Ah, but your computer is sending out copies of it, not just announcing that you have some stuff to send out. Indeed, since you're announcing it to all other P2P users on an inherently public system, could you not argue that offering these files means that they are public copies and no longer private ones?

While the RIAA might try and argue it violates the spirit of the law, tough fucking shit. Their own actions violate the spirit of the law.

Whether the RIAA's actions violate the spirit of the law is not in question and is a red herring. The argument in question pertains to the file server [person] in question and whether he may legally do so. Based on the GrepLaw article's interpretation - of which I agree with - it appears that no, you cannot share files in Canada without being in violation of copyright.

[Drooling Iguana]

Looks like it'll all come down to who has the better lawyer.