dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7486
share rss forum feed


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to jkoblovsky

Re: If Voltage Take Customers To Court File Sharing Is Legal!

It is sloppy work by the Canadian Gov't to bring out legislation that is unenforceable.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to DanteX

said by DanteX:

Even if we will still get a notice how do you explain the government collecting alevy on blank media yet still leaving people opening to be harassed.

Very simple answer to that would be greed. I'm about to expose a in the next few days, when I take a closer look at the economics in my blog.

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
reply to JGROCKY

@JGROCKY,

o.m.g

Welcome back! Not to overshadow this thread, but man are you a welcome sight for sore eyes.



shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky

You won't be "exposing" anything that hasn't already been stated.


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar:

It is sloppy work by the Canadian Gov't to bring out legislation that is unenforceable.

Not really. If you are constantly threatened to "do something" about copyright by the profession or they will no longer make movies here, the next best thing to ignoring them is to bring out unenforceable legislation.

A big clue is to not require any minimum log retention. Which unfortunately, none of the ISP is taking advantage of.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to jkoblovsky

From Wikipedia

Canada

A blank media levy was introduced in Canada in 1997, by the addition of Part VIII, "Private Copying", to the Canadian Copyright Act. The power to set rates and to set the distribution allocation is vested in the Copyright Board of Canada. The Copyright Board has handed the task of collecting and distributing the funds to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a non-profit private organization.

In Canada:

The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs.
The levy is paid by importers and manufacturers of such media sold within Canada (and typically passed on to the retailer, and passed on to the purchaser).
With the exception of the zero-rating exemption, the levy is collected regardless of the purchaser's end use of the media.
The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan. This methodology has been criticized as favouring major-label artists at the expense of the long-tail. As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed.
In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy.
In 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal overruled a 2003 Copyright Board decision which had applied the blank media levy to MP3 players such as Apple Inc.'s iPod, on the basis that such devices did not qualify as "audio recording medium" as per the Copyright Act definition.[4] Before this, the proposed rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.

On February 12, 2007, CPCC asked the Copyright Board of Canada to reintroduce the levy of $5 to $75, this time onto the memory component of the digital audio recorders (such as MP3 players) in Canada.[1] In addition, CPCC also proposed levies of $2 to $10 for memory cards (since withdrawn), 8 cent increases to CD, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDiscs.[2] Certain parties objected to this tariff based on the 2005 Federal Court of Appeal precedent and brought a preliminary motion before the Copyright Board that would have prevented that part of the tariff application from being considered. The Copyright Board dismissed this preliminary motion in July 2007.
In September 2007, an application for judicial review was brought before the Federal Court of Appeal to appeal the Copyright Board's dismissal. On October 26, 2007, the court granted the Canadian Recording Industry Association's request to intervene in the private copying/iPod levy judicial review.[3] Some argue that CRIA wanted to limit the scope of the private copying levy, given that it legalizes copying for the private use of the person making the copy, possibly regardless of whether the source is non-infringing or not.[4]
In January 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Copyright Board's July 2007 decision, stating that its previous ruling in the 2005 Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance case is dispositive authority for the proposition that "the Copyright Board has no legal authority to certify a tariff on digital audio recorders or on the memory permanently embedded in digital audio recorders."[5][5]

Canada's current private copying levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer), and $0.29 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc.[6] The Pirate Party of Canada, or the PPCA, has recently brought up the idea of scrapping the tax, as there are plenty of non-piracy related uses for CDs and it is unjust to punish Canadians who don't use them for these purposes.

--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

A big clue is to not require any minimum log retention. Which unfortunately, none of the ISP is taking advantage of.

And if that happened, it would be legislated.

Which is worse to you, in your opinion? And why?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to EricV

said by EricV:

The difficulty or impossibility of proving harm in some cases is exactly the conundrum the statutory damages section was intended to resolve - if you can't prove harm, you, at the very least, get $100 as nominal damages for your copyright being infringed.

From what I’ve seen in the case law from just a few years ago the copyright owners have to make an election for statutory damages prior to final judgement and the quantum of statutory damages has been quite low in most cases as will this one.

This whole fiasco can be alleviated by a public education program to warn people that Voltage will not get significant damages awarded so they don't panic and settle.