Slashdot Log In
IsoHunt Petitions Canadian Court For Copyright Blessing
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Sep 07, 2008 06:19 PM
from the petition-to-the-courts-not-petition-online dept.
from the petition-to-the-courts-not-petition-online dept.
A Cow writes "As an act of self-defense, the popular BitTorrent site isoHunt has decided to file a petition to ask the Court of British Columbia to confirm that isoHunt — and sister sites Torrentbox and Podtropolis — do not infringe copyright. isoHunt owner Gary explains to TorrentFreak: 'Our petition summarizes BitTorrent technology, its open nature and a whole ecosystem of websites and operators that has developed around it, that CRIA does not own copyright to all files distributed over BitTorrent or on isoHunt websites, and we seek legal validation that we can continue to innovate within this emerging BitTorrent ecosystem on the Internet.'"
Related Stories
Submission: isoHunt Sues Recording Industry Association by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Canadian DMCA? (Score:2)
We have since tried to come to an understanding, but just as with the MPAA in the US, they ignored our offers of cooperation by the take down of .torrent links to their content files, so long as they provide sufficient identification," Gary Fung [of isoHunt] told TorrentFreak.
Does Canada even have a notice-and-takdown law in effect?
Sickening (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that an intermediary trafficker can be held accountable for the files and data passing through it is disgusting. By this logic why aren't ISP's held accountable by law for child pornography passing through their servers? I hope IsoHunt succeeds in their endeavor and shows that government the flaw in their logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because drug traffickers are people, and it is easy for said people to determine that what they are selling is illegal.
There's not a a special kind of bit with "COPYRIGHTED" written on it that is easy to distinguish from the trillions of others.
I'll also point out that IsoHunt doesn't even _see_ the possibly copyrighted data.
Keeping with your silly argument for a bit...
The drug traffickers are listing themselves in the phone book, and some bright people such as yourself want to sue the publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
Drug traffickers are generally fully aware of what they're carrying and its legality. The illegal stuff being transported is also usually the only/primary material. The idea of a common carrier is that they are transporting so much stuff that it would be reasonably impossible to inspect every package.
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic why are drug traffickers held accountable?
A drug trafficker actually owns and then distributes the drug.
In your analogy, a torrent site would be like you walking up to a guy on the street, asking him "you know where I can buy some weed?" and he tells you "oh.. there's a guy over there I think.. he might not be there anymore... but there's a bunch of these guys around.. umm.. maybe that guy over there possibly." while pointing. He's not moving or selling the drugs, he is referring you to them.
Furthermore, it is the not the explicit intent of these sites to aid in 'finding drugs', but rather to aid in helping people find what they ask for and relaying the information as to where it is.
Get it?
Parent
Re:Sickening (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I walk up to a guy on a street, and I ask him "where does John Smith live, I'm going to shoot him in the head with this gun", it's perfectly ok for him to tell me, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything. Is that right?
While I would tell you that, yes, that man does not have a moral obligation to protect John Smith from you; I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
Parent
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Informative)
There's a flaw in your logic. It's called "common carrier."
and as has been pointed out before, ISP's, at least in the US, were removed from "common carrier" and placed under the category "information service".
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
not if your on Comcast
I know I'm dreaming (Score:4, Interesting)
But I'm hoping that in trying this case, the court takes into account the media levy and clarifies the whole thing, pretty far on the side of the consumer.
Re:I know I'm dreaming (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm hoping that in trying this case, the court takes into account the media levy and clarifies the whole thing, pretty far on the side of the consumer.
Unlikely given their current strategy. They aren't trying to justify Canadians accessing copyrighted content without fee, but rather are essentially saying to CRIA, "Hey, guys, we're on your side. Just point out any torrents pointing to copyrighted material, and we'll take them right down".
But CRIA doesn't want to do that. Perhaps they feel it would be easier to just shut down isoHunt completely, rather than having to monitor it and report every single infraction they find.
isoHunt would win this one in a rational world. They host torrents, not copyrighted material. Not all torrents point to copyrighted material, and they not only stated, but demonstrated, a willingness to remove torrents which do point to copyrighted material.
The only argument CRIA could make is that isoHunt should be responsible for policing the torrents themselves, and have been negligent in this duty.
Parent
Re:I know I'm dreaming (Score:5, Insightful)
IsoHunt has no way of knowing if:
1) the torrent contains what it says on the box
2) if the files in question are protected by copyright
3) if the holders of the copyright object to such distribution.
Only if all 3 of the above is true, the distribution of the files in the torrent might be considered illegal (and only by a court).
IsoHunt has no legal basis to determine any of the above. The copyright holders must monitor the files and notify IsoHunt of any discovered torrents with potentially infringing material.
They need to provide:
1) proof of content (actual content of the files in the torrent)
2) proof of copyright (papers that show that they are the copyright holders or their representatives in this case)
3) takedown notice (in writing)
After that is delivered (on paper, with proper signatures, via snail main), IsoHunt can take down the torrent as soon as possible. Due to limited staff time that might take up to two weeks. :)
Parent
I hope this doesn't cause more damage (Score:5, Interesting)
I noticed they kind of act as though they represent the entire BitTorrent user base. I hope this doesn't cause more harm than good. On installing BitTorrent on a friend's computer, he asked "Is this legal"? My college's anti-getting-their-ass-sued-by-the-RIAA propaganda has already melted the minds of a lot of people around here to thinking that any kind of file sharing, regardless of content, is illegal. I hope this turns out well and doesn't backfire.
Re:I hope this doesn't cause more damage (Score:5, Insightful)
My college's anti-getting-their-ass-sued-by-the-RIAA propaganda has already melted the minds of a lot of people around here to thinking that any kind of file sharing, regardless of content, is illegal.
Agreed. As a new college freshman, I've met plenty of people who had BitTorrent on their computer and deleted it as to avoid any lawsuits. I figure keeping a copy of Transmission on-hand is fine so long as I don't go downloading illegal stuff.
wow, you didn't educate them?
This is how ignorance leads to government license to criminalize things (as in cold hard time)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone in a similar situation, there's only so much I can do. I'm one geek, and because of this, some people assume I'm just swapping files all day.
The school, on the other hand, has really ramped up it's anti file sharing campaign this semester. In the science library, one of the rotating messages on the screen is "ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IN THE LIBRARY - Sharing files illegally is not allowed in the library or anywhere on campus!!". This is only so-so bad by itself. It gets worse though. They now scan a
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that. I did, in fact, educate them.
ah, I stand corrected then.
Re: (Score:2)
Legality has never stopped the record companies before.
Re: (Score:3)
He wanted to try Ubuntu, I didn't want to suck up a donor server's bandwidth.
You're probably trolling but I forgot to clear that up in my original post anyway, so thanks for letting me clarify =)
The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws on all this cyber stuff are totally wrong. It should be stated quite simply in the law that:
If you provide a service, such as a communication service, a file transfer service, a web-based service, or any kind of Internet-based service, and someone else who is using that service is doing something illegal or something they shouldn't be doing, then that someone else should be liable and you should NOT.
Think of it this way. You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone speeding along those roads gets in an accident and kills someone. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
Another example: You are a state. You build roads and freeways. Someone is transporting illegal drugs around in a vehicle, using your roads and freeways to do so. Is it your fault or theirs? Theirs!
So why should a service that is based on the Internet be any different? Why should those providing the infrastructure be liable for bad things people do with that infrastructure? If infrastructure-providers were supposed to be liable because they somehow facilitate something bad, then why don't we go back to being cave-men, because anything and everything that we have in the world can be used for some bad purpose.
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this? You build a road. You brag about how convenient your road is for transporting illegal drugs. You take steps to make it so the police will have trouble catching drug transporters on your road. Shouldn't you bear some of the responsibility for drug transport on your road?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it seems that the drugs bought from the bootlegger come without the extra ingredients that prevent you from enjoying them at your leisure and you thank the owner of the road for bringing you high quality produce without the downsides.
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
How about this? You build a road. You brag about how convenient your road is for transporting illegal drugs. You take steps to make it so the police will have trouble catching drug transporters on your road. Shouldn't you bear some of the responsibility for drug transport on your road?
how about a counterexample to your heavily loaded example:
you build a road, you place a checkpoint every 5 paces at which a dea agent takes the car apart piece by piece searching for drugs, strip searches all occupants regardless of age in full public view, and reserve the right to take your car to the crusher on the mere accusations of anyone on the road (good luck getting away with that obama bumper sticker if it's in georgia).
oh yeah.. that's how the law is today.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for the analogy. Now it's a simple matter of seeing who's is more appropriate for the current situation.
And the winner is... the GP! He correctly identified that the target was not the ISPs, but in fact bittorrent and other P2P sharing software, and the things he mentioned were analogous to real life actions performed by companies behind certain P2P sharing software (e.g. bragging = advertising). All in all, it was a splendid analogy, and was only loaded because, well, some companies decided to load
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
since when does isohunt brag about providing illegal, copyrighted works on it?
try "linux" http://isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=linux [isohunt.com] wow i didn't know a version of linux had had over 10,000 seeders (parsix, linux by name)
okay not a fan of formatting and installing, how about a vmware appliance http://isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=vmware+appliance [isohunt.com]
yeah, isohunt suggests that you get full iso images, but what full iso images? of copyrighted contet? or of gnu linux isos?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go the web site. Look at the list on the right labeled "top searches". At the moment, it reads:
1. axxo
2. fxg
3. spore
4. the dark knight
5. iron man
6. prison break
7. bangkok dangerous
8. psp
9. tropic thunder
10. stargate atlantis
11. pineapple express
12. pc games
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really care what the content industry does. I don't really care who shares what, either. What does bother me is two things. The first is that people try to claim some sort of moral high ground for downloading DVD rips. The second is that they use such shallow, hypocritical, and transparent excuses to justify it.
Content industry's evil? Then why are you making their product more popular? Why not just not spread it at all? Don't like DRM? Why help push it into existence? Want to support indie artists? Why not make more room for them in the torrent search results?
And then come the excuses. "What about people downloading Linux ISOs?". Yeah, I'm sure there are *tons* of people downloading Linux ISOs 24/7/365, because *none* of those distributions have auto-updating package managers. "The tracker search sites don't know what people are downloading!". And since they have no idea, they can't possibly organize the torrents into categories, right? Besides, who would actually, you know, *look* at their own web site? "How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice, and a site full of IT people suggesting ISPs design their networks for 24/7/365 full-throttle illegal usage is laughable. "File-sharing increases sales for content-producers!". Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
File-sharers will argue every technicality to their last breath, but the moment someone else does so, it's pure evil. What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"? Why should you get a say in what happens to those bits? What about Russian crackers stealing credit card numbers? Where are the cries of "that's not stealing, nothing was physically lost"? There's no consistency, no compromise, just selfishness. Anyone who can tell their ass from a hole in the ground can see that this silly file-sharing "movement" is really about getting as much free stuff as possible. I'm sick of hearing about it. Bring back the Slashdot that was really about tech news, not ridiculous crusades and libertarian frippery.
Parent
Re:The law has it all wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
on't like DRM? Why help push it into existence?
That reason is fairly obvious: If DRM never works, there's no point in them using it. And gee golly gosh, now we're seeing music sites dropping it. It's funny what an expression of demand can cause.
And then come the excuses. "What about people downloading Linux ISOs?". Yeah, I'm sure there are *tons* of people downloading Linux ISOs 24/7/365, because *none* of those distributions have auto-updating package managers.
I've seen quite a few legit torrents, Linux and otherwise. It's a great way to send >1 gig files. I just purchased Modo today, for example, and I recieved a BT link to over a gig of training videos for it. When Buck Bunny, the Blender-made movie came out, you could not only download the huge-ass HD video, but you could also download all their content to play with. BT has plenty of legit uses and it's growing.
"How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice, and a site full of IT people suggesting ISPs design their networks for 24/7/365 full-throttle illegal usage is laughable.
So, in other words, they should never have used the word 'unlimited', right? Incidentally, it's not like 'illegal' usage is going to bog the network down more than 'legal' usage. Thanks to streaming video, there's lots of ways to spend lots of bandwidth. Heck, ask anybody with an XBOX 360. They oversold their capacity, that's not the pirates' fault.
"File-sharing increases sales for content-producers!". Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
How do you think iTunes ever got off the ground? Haven't you ever wondered what made the music industry stop and say "Hmm.. maybe we should give this digital music thing a try?" Well, let me put it this way: They looooooooooved selling CDs. Albums, mind you. They loved charging everybody ~$20 for ~10 crappy songs. Then, one day, millions of people are downloading, ripping, and otherwise getting music onto their computers and eventually their MP3 players. But here's the funny thing, they're not really tightwads. $400 for an iPod, fill'er up.
You're asking how long iTunes would have been around when Napster was at 'full strength'. I have a counter-question: How long would it have taken for iTunes to get off the ground if Napster had never been around to show the world that a huge market existed?
"What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"?"
What if I download an MP3 file and it stops a full-scale alien invasion? We can invent lots of scenarios, but let's try to keep it on Earth. My medical records going around can actually do me harm. I'd rather not let my enemies know that I'm allergic to peanuts. ;)
Where are the cries of "that's not stealing, nothing was physically lost"?
I think an emptying of a bank account would classify as 'physically lost'. In the case of music or movie downloads, the worst case scenario is the potential non-sale. The big question is how is that potential really turning out? GTA4 was a VERY highly anticipated game. Everybody was waiting for it. Arguably, a significant chunk of the XBOX 360 and PS3 populace would know how to download a torrent and burn it. The game was leaked a week before release. It made $500 million dollars. Fascinating. The RIAA claimed that a billion songs a month were flying around the internet without authorization, the implication being that a ridiculous amount of people were busy avoiding spending money on music. Profits are up over the years. Weird. Why is that happening?
Anyone who can tell their ass from a hole in the ground can see that this sil
Parent
Sorry, you came close (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor example. The State has a responsibility and a duty to maintain the safety of roads and freeways. If they do not do so (i.e., people rampantly exceeding speeding laws and the State not enforcing said laws), then the State is endangering the lives of its citizens. Anyone who gets hurt as a result of such speeding may, depending on the legal system, sue the State for damages. It is the speeders fault for speeding, but the State also has a duty to monitor and enforce speeding laws. If we were to apply that
Good move isohunt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Subscription (Score:5, Insightful)
I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot, in the long run, by cracking down on Piracy.
Here's what's happened with me-- as I grew up, got to the real world, and started making more money, the cost of buying has been fewer and fewer %points of the amount I make. I feel less and less urge to download. All they'd have to do is offer a direct download service, or pay-for-and-be-reimbursed-some-for-using-bittorrent on their login-requiring tracker, and I'd probably just do that.
Therefor, the real thing they should be fighting for is a larger, more stable middle class of America, so that more people have disposable income, whatever actions on their part that entails. The easy solution would be to give everybody welfare checks, but then we'd become the Romans, and everybody knows how that worked out for them...
Second, for their benefit AND America's, they should focus less on fighting piracy in certain markets-- or risk being left behind when these markets take off (China, India, Russia [if their market ever takes off] and any other lower-income-no-middle-class-countries).
Why? An Italian man I met while in Florence had the absolute best English of almost any foreigners-speaking-English I've met in my [short] life. I asked him how he learned to speak so well, so fluently, and coherently-- he said he eventually stopped watching the English movies with Italian dubbing (terrible voice acting, the English voice acting is so much better he was saying), and went ahead and learned enough of it by watching American Hollywood movies, that he began switching the subtitles off, and simply listened to the dialog and eventually figured it out. What better way for them to increase their market share than let the production quality of their movies (and lets be honest, Hollywood films ARE the best, simply no one else has the capital or skill to pull off mass production of multi-hundred-million dollar movies like Matrix, Transformers, Batman, etc. on the scale that we do) speak for themselves, and once you've got the fish hooked and grown, you can start charging. Until that time though, the spread of American ideals and values (although contrary to the way our government currently operates-- privacy, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to run business and oust a competitor through sheer technical superiority and efficiency of business-- (for instance, doesn't happen in China, you've got to know who to pay off and how much, when, etc. if you want to have a chance at starting a company)) would be far more valuable to them as a multi-national media corporation. (Because people will begin to see that free-market economics, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, are superior to the alternate methods of doing business and running a country; that we would be perpetuating the "great America" idealogy, "I can make my fortune and future there and then bring my family, and all will be well with me and my family", "democracy", as in a country lead by people elected (usually) by the majority of the people, and similar values, which the furthering of in the world would be good for America, would be spread to the nations and we'd have many more allies, and many fewer enemies.)
Potentially more valuable to our government as well. I would argue that the government should pay Hollywood a stipend for
a). them turning a blind eye to piracy external to English speaking countries and
b). a set number of propogandic films proclaiming the wonders of a free society, free economy, free competition, freedom to love who you choose, not who your parents say, and the benefits that brings to the every day citizens (a middle class, the American dream, a house, etc.), on the grounds that it's good for the government and security of western countries to bring them to our side-- from the bottom up. Want a great way to fight militant Islam? Torture isn't quite it, and force like in Iraq (though it definitely will work in the long run) is expensive, difficult to do, and leaves the surrounding countries envious, bitte
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I titled it subscription, but forgot to add that a subscription model would be great-- just by your license or whatever and you could download however much you like. It'd have to be something reasonable, but, unlike music, most people watch a movie and aren't interested in seeing it again. You could still purchase the blockbusters on DVD/Blu-Ray/whatever; but I and I think most people would be happy to have a pay-a-flat-fee-and-see-once-or-twice-service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Subscription (Score:4, Informative)
The easy solution would be to give everybody welfare checks, but then we'd become the Romans, and everybody knows how that worked out for them...
the romans didn't have welfare, and it didn't fall because of welfare.
It fell because they didn't have their own citizens serving in their military, because they expanded beyond the capacities of their social structure and economy to govern their territory, and because of internal corruption resulting from too much consolidated power at the top.
as for the "spread of american ideals and values", I don't know what starry-eyed landscape you're looking at, but i'm here on planet earth where the spread of "american ideals and values", especially in terms of copyright, has plunged the entire western world into an economic tail-spin.
Parent
Re:Subscription (Score:5, Informative)
>the romans didn't have welfare, and it didn't fall because of welfare.
Sorry, but you're way off.
"When Julius Caesar came to power in 48 B.C., he found 320,000 persons on government grain relief. Temporarily slowing the welfare state bandwagon, he ordered the welfare rolls cut to 200,000. Within a half-century, the rolls were back up to well over 300,000.
Government Bread
A real landmark in the course of events came in the year 274 A.D. Emperor Aurelian, wishing to provide cradle-to-grave care for the citizenry, declared the right to relief to be hereditary. Those whose parents received government benefits were entitled as a matter of right to benefits as well. Aurelian gave welfare recipients government-baked bread (instead of the old practice of giving them wheat and letting them bake their own bread) and added free salt, pork, and olive oil. Not surprisingly, the ranks of the unproductive grew fatter, and the ranks of the productive grew thinner.
Surely, many Romans opposed the welfare state and held fast to the old virtues of work, thrift and self-reliance. Just as surely, some of these sturdy people gave in and began to feed at the public trough in the belief that if they didn't get it, somebody else would. That attitude only hastened the slide into bankruptcy..."
From http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3 [mackinac.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN is no different then Fox News
in all fairness this isn't quite true.
CNN is merely amoral.
Fox news was founded on and operates with the express purpose of misinforming the american public and keeping the shrill, corrupt, and incompetent ultra-right in power.
Sad Sad Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright laws have allowed greedy business execs go on witch hunts not seen since the Inquisition.
RIAA, MPAA and ESA go around bullying anyone they can trying to extort money, patent trolls filing lawsuits left right and center. It is truly a depressing age
Sincerly,
IsoHunt user
Levy (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes here in slovenia we have a levy on everything (no exceptions). .. etc etc.. because you just might copy an mp3 on an Canon EOS flash card.
This includes: CD-R,DVD-R,iPOD,Hard Disk, VCR, GSM, GPS (because they can play mp3's), PC's (because they have disk in it), Mac's (because they have disk in it), Printers (because you could have printed some copyrighted lyrics), Photo scanners, fax machines, wrist watches (with disk in it), cameras, photo only cameras, flash cards, USB sticks, routers, Wii, Consoles
I think this is just abuse of money .. why should i pay "SAZAS" (slovenian RIAA) money for a GPS receiver because it "can" play mp3's ? or why should i pay some tax on a DVD-R because i might copy a copyrighted content on it ? or perhaps copy whole album of mp3's to Canon EOS 40D flash card ? ... so it kinda legalizes the right to copy anything and put it on the net .. or private use.
If i pay for this kind of shit i expect something in return - i then have all the rights to copy anything because i payed for it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but you can't help but think that its interesting that the general public thinks that the commercial system for
media distribution sucks ass, and has developed not just one but several ways to illegally distribute content.
Re:paraphrased (Score:5, Informative)
"...and has developed not just one but several ways to illegally distribute content."
what?
It's not the method that's illegal in the case of P2P, it's the content, for certain values of content. There's nothing illegal about Bittorrent itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what he meant by "illegally distribute content" wasn't referring to the means of distribution. What the poster meant might have been illegal in the sense of distributing that specific content without a legal right to do so. There's nothing illegal about a blank CD, but buying that same disc with copied music on it is almost certainly illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, after re-reading that, I think you're right. It was just phrased in a funny way. I thought he meant to imply that any method other than the commercial one was illegal, but that would be a pretty silly thing to say ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
a cd with copied music isn't illegal if its your 1 backup copy of the album which is fair use if you bought the album legally
because we all know you only need one backup copy right?
Re: (Score:2)
(Although I hate reading any post preceded by this acronym...) IANAL, but I was speaking from my understanding of Australian copyright law (since that's where I live). I forgot that "fair use" is much more liberal in most other countries. In Australia, fair use almost predates the record player (I know, I exaggerate a little...). Our copyright law is so antiquated as to probably be completely inapplicable today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Although I hate reading any post preceded by this acronym...) IANAL, but I was speaking from my understanding of Australian copyright law (since that's where I live). I forgot that "fair use" is much more liberal in most other countries. In Australia, fair use almost predates the record player (I know, I exaggerate a little...). Our copyright law is so antiquated as to probably be completely inapplicable today.
no, it's quite "modern", go read the fine print in AUSFTA
Re:paraphrased (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, in Canada there is an extra levy on blank optical media. This levy is basically a "you-might-be-a-pirate" tax. So you can't be caught for copyright infringement if it's for personal use on discs you paid for.
It's more of a gray area than anything, right now in Canada. Bill C61 was going to explicitly legalize backing up(if you back up in a certain way), while also explicitly outlawing many other things (including many forms of backing up that might bypass so-called "digital locks").
Parent
Re:paraphrased (Score:5, Informative)
Fair use Canada? Or fair use USA? And just for the hell of it. Please define the boundaries of this "fair use" so that others may not cross it.
We don't have a clear legal definition of fair use in Canada. In this situation of recorded audio we have "personal use" which is defined in the Copyright Act. It includes things like making a mix CD for the car or loaning a friend a CD so they can copy it (really!). For these privileges we pay a levy on blank media.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. YMMV depending on your country of residence of course, but in general the fact that a protocol obscures either the participants or the payload is in no way illegal. Or at least it wasn't at the time of this posting. Similarly it isn't illegal to use an anonymous remailer if you so chose or to encrypt your email. The content of the email on the other hand might be illegal if you were threatening someone, for in