 |
|
 |
|
4.2.2004
Imperial Canada
|
On March 31, a federal court in Canada ruled that Canadian copyright law is not violated when someone who has downloaded a music file makes it generally available for uploading over a P2P network. The link is here, but I cannot make it work, probably because it is overloaded. Summaries of the decision can be found here and here.
Previously, it had been established that Canadian law allows downloading a file for personal use, but the legality of then making it available for uploading had not been determined.
The decision will be appealed, of course. One commenter thinks that it will stand up because of a recent appellate decision holding that a library did not violate copyright law by making a copying machine available, but the logic that this is a precedent for making a file available over a P2P network strikes me as thin. And while liability for contributory infringement can present difficult issues, recently examined by Bill Adkinson of PFF, the uploading case seems pretty clear.
The copyleft is happy, with students bragging about their role. If one protests that unlimited downloading will destroy the commercial music system, they respond that the solution is to levy a tax on blank CDs and/or hardware and then split the money up among creators, possibly by metering downloads. In short, socialized music.
This is an absolutely nutty idea. No socialized system of producing anything has ever worked. And this one is particularly impossible, because it will completely sever the links between revenues, the cost of providing the product, and value to consumers. It will also eliminate differential pricing; a symphony download and the latest gangster rapper would be the same. It would be impossible for a small number of consumers to join together to pay a high price, and everything would become lowest common denominator.
And it is a nutty idea to no purpose. Music is becoming legitimately available online very rapidly. We are on the verge of an explosion of creativity, as long as it is not aborted because of government by juvenile delinquent.
To the argument that there is nothing to be done because the writ of U.S. law does not run in Canada, the answer is, "Oh yes there is." Self-help. If Canadians want to destroy our vibrant market in culture and impose on us some miserable socialized system, then our copyright holders should and will be given the right of self help, and allowed to disrupt the P2P networks.
This is an unpleasant alternative, a continuing war of hackers. But when a legal system ceases to meet its responsibilities, then the productive sectors of society must and will find new ways to protect themselves, and the consumers that depend on them.
posted by James DeLong : 4/2/2004 12:30:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
