Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you are so totally clueless it unbelieveable
you should be ashamed to be a canadian you have so little knowledge about your home country
the ruling was so widely publized that it appeared on american news sites like cnet/zdnet msn home page.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html |
hilights from your link - 'news' article circa.2004 about a case and 1 Judge
Quote:
... appeared to be legal in Canada ...
downloading songs from a peer-to-peer network for personal use--but not necessarily uploading--appeared to be legal
In his ruling Wednesday, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein rejected that request on several grounds. In part, he said the recording industry had not presented evidence linking the alleged file swapping to the ISP subscribers that was strong enough to warrant breaking through critical privacy protections
...appeared to be legal...
However, the Canadian government has recently indicated that a WIPO implementation bill could be introduced and passed by the end of this year.
|
So... one judges ruling does not 'make it legal' (and doesn't address the Tax issue)
This whole article uses the word 'appeared' quite often
From a legal expert
Philip B. Kerr is a Canadian lawyer, patent and trademark agent, and a partner in the firm of Kerr & Nadeau, whose law practice is restricted to patent, trademark, copyright and computer law. He was called to the bar in 1986.
http://users.trytel.com/~pbkerr/copyright.html
From Canadian Law
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...50&lengt h=50
pay close attention to this section
Quote:
Communication to the public by telecommunication
2.4 (1) For the purposes of communication to the public by telecommunication,
(a) persons who occupy apartments, hotel rooms or dwelling units situated in the same building are part of the public, and a communication intended to be received exclusively by such persons is a communication to the public;
(b) a person whose only act in respect of the communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public consists of providing the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate the work or other subject-matter does not communicate that work or other subject-matter to the public; and
(c) where a person, as part of
(i) a network, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act, whose operations result in the communication of works or other subject-matter to the public, or
(ii) any programming undertaking whose operations result in the communication of works or other subject-matter to the public,
transmits by telecommunication a work or other subject-matter that is communicated to the public by another person who is not a retransmitter of a signal within the meaning of subsection 31(1), the transmission and communication of that work or other subject-matter by those persons constitute a single communication to the public for which those persons are jointly and severally liable.
|
E-Z version from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law
there is nowhere in the LAW that states filesharing is legal (not even 'apparently')
make NO mistake - the judge disallowed the 'attempt to get ISP personal info on suspected infringers' because of PRIVACY issues - not on the merit of the attempt, or lack of merit, and privacy laws in canada are tough to get around.
the judge did NOT make filesharing 'apparently' legal - it stopped an attempt to get personal information
when it finally comes down to 'The Law' after personal identifying info is given up, the bastard theives will go down in flames
and yes... I have read every single bit of what I have linked
and I'll take my interpretations from places OTHER than cNet
I think maybe you should be a little ashamed at YOUR lack of Canadian knowledge
(
... cNet.com ...
)
tell me again how clueless "I" am...