What is the legal status of file sharing in Canada?

[PocketRockets]

(Ethical issues aside) I am under the impression that it is NOT illegal to download movies (via bittorrent or other clients) in Canada. Am I correct in believing this? A friend of mine received an email stating that Paramount knows that he downloaded a movie using Bittorrent, and they emailed Rogers complaining, what are the possible consequences, if any?

[Rehan]

(Ethical issues aside) I am under the impression that it is NOT illegal to download movies (via bittorrent or other clients) in Canada. Am I correct in believing this? No.
You can make private copies of sound recordings of musical works only. That doesn't include audio books or movies or other stuff like that. Those things are technically illegal.

[PocketRockets]

No.
You can make private copies of sound recordings of musical works only. That doesn't include audio books or movies or other stuff like that.

Where can I find the law relating to this? What are the consequences? I download movies sometimes, I want to know what can happen.

[Chuck Garabedian]

If you are going to post a "yes it's legal" or "no it's illegal" then please post an link to a current news article or a link to the actual law.

There is a lot of hearsay going on about whether it is legal in Canada or not. I'm looking on the net for something official but can't find anything at this point.

[Chuck Garabedian]

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

and also check out the references and external link page.

As I thought - downloading for personal use in Canada is 100% legal - uploading those files though is 100% illegal.

[gman]

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

and also check out the references and external link page.

As I thought - downloading for personal use in Canada is 100% legal - uploading those files though is 100% illegal.

Only downloading music is legal because of the private copy section of copyright law in Canada. That information has been posted here for so many times.

This is the link (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/230711.html). It is for music only.

[Rehan]

If you are going to post a "yes it's legal" or "no it's illegal" then please post an link to a current news article or a link to the actual law.

There is a lot of hearsay going on about whether it is legal in Canada or not. I'm looking on the net for something official but can't find anything at this point. The only thing that allows copying of music in Canada is the Private Copying (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/230711.html) section of the Copyright Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html). There's no such section for movies, so copying movies is illegal.

If people didn't spread misinformation about it, then there would be less confusion on the issue. :)


Ooops...too slow to post. gman beat me to it. :razz:

[Asun]

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

and also check out the references and external link page.

As I thought - downloading for personal use in Canada is 100% legal - uploading those files though is 100% illegal.

"Sharing" music is legal in Canada and has been proven in court. Downloading has always been legal. As for movies, noone has tested that out in court yet, so we can't say whether it's legal or illegal.

[dasaylay]

It should be illegal. I got an email from Rogers on behalf of NBC stating that I downloaded a movie which was copyrighted. They had everything - the movie, time of download, source of download (BitTorrent).

[d_jedi]

It is legal to download music for personal use, because of the private copying levy. Everything else, it is not (unless you are the copyright holder, or have the permission of the copyright holder). Plain and simple, black and white.

Only gray areas (at least, as far as I know) are making music available in a "shared folder", or downloading music via a bittorrent-like system which requires you to distribute the file as well. They may very well be ruled legal - but personally, I'm not willing to risk being sued for doing it.

[Sprite_TM]

its because u were uploading inthe process of downloading
its okay to download but not okay to upload


It should be illegal. I got an email from Rogers on behalf of NBC stating that I downloaded a movie which was copyrighted. They had everything - the movie, time of download, source of download (BitTorrent).

[whampoa]

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

and also check out the references and external link page.

As I thought - downloading for personal use in Canada is 100% legal - uploading those files though is 100% illegal.

That mean, if you are caught downloading music with BT, you have 50/50 chance of a conviction or go scot free.

Since BT is about sharing (download/upload) in real time.

[d_jedi]

its because u were uploading inthe process of downloading
its okay to download but not okay to upload
No. It's because he was downloading a movie. Downloading any copyrighted work that is not music is absolutely illegal.

I dunno how much more clear it can be than that.. geez.

[etrywesd]

Actually, the 2003 copyright board ruled that downloading anything via file sharing is legal irrespective of the source of that material. This is based on the copyright act, which says that copying for personal use is legal.

However, they said that uploading files is illegal, regardless of the file.

In 2004, the CRIA attempted to sue 29 people suspected of file sharing. This case did not get very far, and the CRIA had limited evidence. After many appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that uploading copyrighted music is legal under the fare use clause. They said that just because you put music online on a file sharing program did not mean that you intended on sharing it, because you did not directly encourage people to download from you.

So downloading is legal, and uploading music is legal, as long as you are not selling it, or advertising it. Of course, it could be extended to movies, games, and software in the future.

As for being threatened, see my other post about what to do. Someone else had the problem of getting a letter from his ISP, but I think it had to do with games. Paramount does not know your friend's identity, just his IP address at the time of download. If they catch your friend again, they will forward the details of the action to the ISP, and the ISP will link it to their customer, and send him another notice/terminate his account, maybe. I suggest that if you are above the ethical issues, use another type of file sharing, and don't upload, then they can't catch you. The only way for them to find out about your IP address is for them to DOWNLOAD from you. Then their computer has established a connection with yours.

But don't try to contact Paramount, because then they will have your personal information, and then they can sue you (although they will lose). Right now, there is nothing they can do, because a US court can't issue an order against a Canadian ISP, and a Canadian court never will.

[etrywesd]

See the federal court ruling BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...2004fc488.html

Note that the "users have each downloaded more than 1000 songs", a fairly signficant quantity.

In this case, Rogers was affected, but would not hand over information. The music companies only knew the IP addresses, and wanted the court to issue an order to get the ISP's to hand over personal information. The court refused to grant such a request.

The plaintiffs had the IP addresses and Kazaa user names, but to quote the court:

i) There is no evidence of connection between the pseudonyms and the IP addresses.


[20] As discussed above, the plaintiffs would like the ISPs to furnish the names of the account holders of certain IP addresses at certain times. However, neither the affidavits nor the cross-examination of Mr. Millin provide clear and comprehensive evidence as to how the pseudonyms of the KaZaA or iMesh users were linked to the IP addresses identified by MediaSentry. For example, with regards to one of the 29 pseudonyms, Mr. Millin stated in his affidavit:

MediaSentry also determined that Geekboy@KaZaA's IP at the time of its investigation was 24.84.179.98. The American Registry for Internet Numbers ("ARIN"), a non-profit organization that assigns IP addresses to Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"), maintains a public database of IP addresses at www.arin.net. This database indicates that ARIN has assigned IP address 24.84.179.98 to Shaw Communications Inc.....

(Affidavit of Mr. Millin in Motion Materials Related to Shaw, para. 24)

There is no evidence explaining how the pseudonym "Geekboy@KaZaA" was linked to IP address 24.84.179.98 in the first place. Without any evidence at all as to how IP address 24.84.179.98 has been traced to Geekboy@KaZaA, and without being satisfied that such evidence is reliable, it would be irresponsible for the Court to order the disclosure of the name of the account holder of IP address 24.84.179.98 and expose this individual to a law suit by the plaintiffs."


Also noted:

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,

...
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.

25] Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board of Canada, Private Copying 2003-2004 decision, 12 December 2003 at page 20.

[26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service.


[27] As far as authorization is concerned, the case of CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 SCC 13, established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but the element of authorization is missing. As Chief Justice McLachlin said in CCH, supra:

[Rehan]

Actually, the 2003 copyright board ruled that downloading anything via file sharing is legal irrespective of the source of that material. That's wrong, because the ruling was about music recordings only.
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/copying-e.html

[d_jedi]

Actually, the 2003 copyright board ruled that downloading anything via file sharing is legal irrespective of the source of that material. This is based on the copyright act, which says that copying for personal use is legal.
Source?

In 2004, the CRIA attempted to sue 29 people suspected of file sharing. This case did not get very far, and the CRIA had limited evidence. After many appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that uploading copyrighted music is legal under the fare use clause. They said that just because you put music online on a file sharing program did not mean that you intended on sharing it, because you did not directly encourage people to download from you.
For one, there is no such thing as a "fare(sic) use clause" in Canadian law. Secondly, the court (and it was not the Supreme court) said that placing music in a shared folder itself did not constitute distribution, and therefore was not illegal.. however uploading music is still absolutely illegal. In the words of Judge Finckenstein:
The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying

which is a far cry from saying "uploading music is legal".

Right now, there is nothing they can do, because a US court can't issue an order against a Canadian ISP, and a Canadian court never will.
Not quite. See my (upcoming) reply to your other post.

[d_jedi]

See the federal court ruling BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...2004fc488.html

Note that the "users have each downloaded more than 1000 songs", a fairly signficant quantity.

In this case, Rogers was affected, but would not hand over information. The music companies only knew the IP addresses, and wanted the court to issue an order to get the ISP's to hand over personal information. The court refused to grant such a request.

The plaintiffs had the IP addresses and Kazaa user names, but to quote the court:

i) There is no evidence of connection between the pseudonyms and the IP addresses.


[20] As discussed above, the plaintiffs would like the ISPs to furnish the names of the account holders of certain IP addresses at certain times. However, neither the affidavits nor the cross-examination of Mr. Millin provide clear and comprehensive evidence as to how the pseudonyms of the KaZaA or iMesh users were linked to the IP addresses identified by MediaSentry. For example, with regards to one of the 29 pseudonyms, Mr. Millin stated in his affidavit:

MediaSentry also determined that Geekboy@KaZaA's IP at the time of its investigation was 24.84.179.98. The American Registry for Internet Numbers ("ARIN"), a non-profit organization that assigns IP addresses to Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"), maintains a public database of IP addresses at www.arin.net. This database indicates that ARIN has assigned IP address 24.84.179.98 to Shaw Communications Inc.....

(Affidavit of Mr. Millin in Motion Materials Related to Shaw, para. 24)

There is no evidence explaining how the pseudonym "Geekboy@KaZaA" was linked to IP address 24.84.179.98 in the first place. Without any evidence at all as to how IP address 24.84.179.98 has been traced to Geekboy@KaZaA, and without being satisfied that such evidence is reliable, it would be irresponsible for the Court to order the disclosure of the name of the account holder of IP address 24.84.179.98 and expose this individual to a law suit by the plaintiffs."


Also noted:

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,

...
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.

25] Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board of Canada, Private Copying 2003-2004 decision, 12 December 2003 at page 20.

[26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service.


[27] As far as authorization is concerned, the case of CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 SCC 13, established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but the element of authorization is missing. As Chief Justice McLachlin said in CCH, supra:
The reason there was "no evidence" linking the pseudonames and IP addresses is because the people who actually collected the information were not available to appear in court. MediaSentry's CEO (I believe) appeared in their place - but it was ruled parts of his testimony were invalid because it was hearsay.

[Junk Food Junkie]

CBC News
Regarding downloading of music, is not illegal.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html

[gman]

Actually, the 2003 copyright board ruled that downloading anything via file sharing is legal irrespective of the source of that material. This is based on the copyright act, which says that copying for personal use is legal.


Did you read what you quoted in this thread? Everything you quoted were about music and music only. The private copy section of copyright act is about MUSIC and MUSIC only. Again, did you read what you quoted?