# Editorial: Why do you want the iTMS?



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I was thinking about writing an editorial on this very topic for Inside Apple, but before I do, I'll ask you Canadians: Why do we want the iTunes Music Store so badly in Canada - when downloading music (and P2P) is freely legel? Why pay 99 cents for a song when you can download it off the net for free - and not break any laws in the process? Is it because you want to support the Artist or Record Company? 

Opinions - I want 'em all!


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

I don't care if the iTMS comes to Canada or not as I doubt I'll ever purchase a song from their service.

James


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Because I want high quality recordings of the songs, plus I rather download the songs I want individually, instead of buying the whole album/CD....and yeah, I rather support the artists, then steal from them --legal or not. I feel better about it, but hey, that's just me...I pay for shareware too. 

Tried some of the p2p apps since it became "legal" here and find them a PITA on top of the crappy quality of the downloads. If and when we get the ITMS, I'll be buying...


----------



## davidslegend (Jan 6, 2004)

The internet is a sick place. In the beginning the internet was about ppl & the exchange of ideas. Now it's about anyone including our children having access to horrendously explicit pornography (global explotation of women & children) or a venue for playing extremely violent games in a network fashion. It's a place where people learn to disrespect the hard work & sweat equitity that artists, musicians, movie makers, and yes even record executives put into making wonderful enterntainment. They disconnect from the harm & wrong doing they cause by downloading vasts amounts of music, movies & other media without accountability. 

I grew up poor as a kid & had little access to music commercially. In fact, I had maybe two albums that I purchase as a teenager & maybe 15 cd's in my adult lifetime since I still struggle financially today. Yet, I don't feel compelled to download vast amounts of "free" music. Before I end up a hypocrit I do admit to going to the library & borrowing cd's from there. I do believe that a certain percentage of the population should have access to "free" or cheap music because like myself may not have the resources to buy cd's at their current costly pricepoint. This is where itunes can come into play. I would love to be able to purchase my favorite songs for .99 cents or it's Canadian equivalent! At this price point versus a $20.xx album at least I could take my very favorite songs & reward the artists, technicians, promoters, album artist, record studio's with a modest amount of money! I am not sure if it's a myth but, they say the average artist gets a dollar from the sale of a cd and that's after he/she starts to make money after paying off all the high costs of creating a project. Perhaps by putting a project online some of these high costs of making a cd could be saved. I simple feel that there would be more money generated by allowing downloads just from sheer volume & easy access to the consumer. Itune's has proven it a sound business model!

I love music! I play guitar & have even tried to write my own songs. I know that this process isn't easy! So why would I want to cheat another musician for his/her hard work?!

The one thing I hope is that if Itune's comes to Canada that it strongly markets Canadian Music!  I mention this in another string...I hope we don't get into just cookie cutting the itunes in the State's & leave our unique culture on the back burner. If this is so, I do not plan on being part of the future itune's experience because my love of my national identity comes before my love of the macintosh experience. 


Well, that's some of my opinion...it's getting late! Good luck!

Cheers!


----------



## bl:oke (Sep 15, 2003)

I've used a couple P2P applications on my PC to download songs. All Mp3's i've downloaded using Kazaa have glitches and blips in them. Soulseek is a good alternative, but it usually takes forever to download songs. 

What is attractive about iTMS for me, is the prospect of getting high quality Mp3's and fast downloads without all the fuss. Plus, some artists like Sigur Rós have released exclusive tracks on iTMS which isn't available anywhere else. i also like the idea of being able to download individual songs, opposed to complete albums. 

But if an artist/group that I really like comes out with a new album, i'll probably go out and buy the CD opposed to downloading the whole album. I still like having nice artwork to accompany the music from artists I like.


----------



## rollee (Feb 26, 2003)

ITMS
pros: quality, convenience and freedom
cons: limited choices

P2P i have experienced are a waste of time, either the encoding is bad, volume mismatched, names are wrong or takes forever to find, when you eventually gets there i can never be certain how long it is going take. over years i am only happy with less than a handful of these freebies.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

If there is more than one song that I really like on a CD, I will buy the CD. If there is just the one song, I usually won't. I do without it, and the song gets added to a (long) list in my crowded brain--a list titled "someday." I've never downloaded a song, but I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of iTMS. I see it as the opportunity to catch up on many years of these "one-hit wonders" on my someday list.

I have finally reached a point in my life at which I can afford to do the right thing in terms of copyright. I am buying more software and actually paying for shareware. Even at that, I acknowledge that my past behaviour cannot be justified by my lack of resources. The big difference is that my conscience is happier now.

I've been a Mac user since '86. I have watched friends abandon the platform both in lean times and more recently. In the district in which I teach, all the high schools are PC-rich and Mac-poor. In the face of all this opposition, I see the iTMS as yet another opportunity to proudly support Apple. I am delighted to see non-Mac people being drawn in by the iPod and the American iTMS.

I sense that Apple is morphing into something other than what it has been. Because I am not Steve, I don't claim to know where the train is headed. I do know that I'll gladly pay $0.99 or so many times over, and it will be worth it to be along for the ride.

Who knows? One distant day I may log into iTMS and find "Scorpio" by David George, or "Working Girl" by The Members.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Good question Lars

I (and my wife and teenager) will use iTunes if it comes.

1. We feel it's right to support the artists. Now, I have read arguments that very little of the cash from traditional sales goes to the artists. I agree that record companies have been greedy in the pricing, but the income that does go to musicians is crucial. We have a few musicians in our family, and if they can't make money from recording how do they generate cash? From tours? Are you kidding: you need marketing muscle and upfront cash to run a profitable tour: this you get from the record company.

2. Quality: others have commented on the poor and/or patchy quality of file sharing music, and I agree.

3. Cool integration with iLife: a small, but nice point. Sure there are ways to bring files from other sources into iTunes, but you gotta admit, it's neat.

4. Electronic infections. The free file sharing services are buggy and are a fantastic source of infections and spyware. PC users are more vulnerable, but it can hit us higher beings too. 

5. Value and convenience. CDs have been grossly overpriced for years. US$0.99 or local equiv seems a fair deal, especially since you can choose your songs. Like one other poster, I will probably still buy some CDs to have the stuff that comes with it. But to be able to source large quantities of wonderful music from the comfort of anywhere in my home (PB and Airport), and to do it while paying the artists, is a great, 21st century thing.

My final point would seem to be obvious: many will use ITunes store Canada, and many will not. We will have the opportunity to choose. This is good.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I second Pelao plus there's added convenience, ease of use, album art and correct meta-tags, and it doesn't support WMA!

The downside (true of all downloaded music though) is that you are buying compressed tracks. I prefer having the CD because of that but for albums where I only want a couple of tracks, iTMS will be perfect.

I just wish it was here already.....


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I like what I see on the iTMS, in particular ease of use and price, but how much I would use a Canadian version will depend on what other music it offers. I want to see Canadian bands and I think the selection of jazz, though decent, could definitely be expanded.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

[EDIT - removed unneccessary insult - sorry]

Downloading is NOT freely legal in Canada. There are plenty of people lined up waiting to be sued by CRIA this very moment. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW WHEN YOU DOWNLOAD MUSIC. Stealing is stealing. Would you walk into carbon computing and grab a G5 off of the shelf if you knew no one is looking? Everyone on this board is so self-righteous about stealing software and paying for legitimate os's from filthy rich computer and software developers. Would you rather steal from struggling artists? Artists all seem well off and rich with their bling bling and ho's and bitches - but that is an impression created to make them larger than life. Many of my friends are struggling Canadian artists who you might think are wealthy and truly ARE NOT. Stealing is stealing. Get it through your skull.

As for the iTMS - it is an amazing convenience for the industry I work in, as well as my wife. When you want to audition a track for use in an edit or a commercial - there it is! No trolling around on some **** p2p program in front of a client. It's much more elegant to use itunes. As well, as others mentioned, it's a great way to get one or two tracks off of an album that otherwise isn't to your liking. The convenience is insane and I'm afraid that I'll make myself bankrupt when it arrives. The compatibilty with my ipod is also a huge plus! 

I'm sorry Lars - but because of my job - if I were to steal music, I would be shooting myself in the foot. I really don't appreciate you offering up the impression that stealing music is right. If someone were to offer up the idea that burning and sharing Panther on this board was a great idea - the mayor would put a stop to it right away. I would like to keep my job for as long as I can because I really enjoy what I do.



[ March 09, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: iChard ]


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Umm... I apologize if downloading music in Canada is illegal, but I heard a interview on CBC radio just a few days ago and the guy said downloading music in Canada was legal. And you're the first to disagree with that fact of the 9 replies posted to this thread so far, making me believe you're actually wrong on this subject. 

In the United States, I know for a fact it's illegal, but we're not the U.S.

Regardless, insulting me so aggressivly over my pretty thread really isn't needed.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

Hey Everybody!

It's ok to buy software install it and then sell it on this board because someone told me it is and no one has argued the fact with me yet!! 

For the reord, the above statement is false.

Lars, I have worked at a canadian record label for 5 years and worked with our legal dept. very closely. I am not wrong. I guarantee you. Perhpas you misunderstood him saying that it is difficult to be charged by Canadian law for P2P sharing. I don't mean to insult you so aggressively, but I have seen you aggressively go after certain individuals for trying to sell software (VERY RECENTLY). Don't be a hypocrite and don't post flagrant lies without doing your research first dude.

Piracy is a generic term used to describe the theft of intellectual property, including sound recordings that are protected by Copyright law. Piracy of sound recordings refers to the unauthorized and therefore unlawful reproduction or copying of sound recordings and distribution of unlawfully made copies of sound recordings on a commercial scale. Piracy of sound recordings is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights in its sound recordings and is a violation of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act states that: 

"It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do."

"Infringing means in relation to a sound recording in respect of which copyright subsists, any copy of it made or dealt with in contravention of this Act...".


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

and furthermore, you ASKED for ALL of our opinions - and that's mine.


----------



## mcfadden99 (Nov 1, 2003)

Hey IChard - you go girl!


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

Thanks baby!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

*PIPE DOWN iChard!*

The Copyright Board of Canada deemed downloading (but not uploading) of music to be legal back in December. READ THIS ARTICLE.

The Canadian Copyright Board's decision can be read here:

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/new-e.html

As a composer, I'm not happy about this decision. But, there it is. I'm sure the issue is far from settled, regardless of the tape/CDR/MP3 player levy that is paid out to songwriters to compensate for people downloading music. Regardless, the decision has been made, and you owe Lars an apology, dude.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

iChard, don't go yelling after Lars for asking for peoples opinions. Afterall, the situation in Canada IS confusing. Perhaps you can comment on these two recent articles on News.com and The Register?

I don't think Lars was condoning copying and distributing music but the legal ruling in Canada appears to allow downloading from P2P networks for personal use. The "industry" does collect a substantial levy to that end (on CDRs and mp3 players). How much the artists get of that is anybodys guess.

Artists have every right to a return on use of their art/music but it seems to many people who buy the music that the industry wants it both ways.

Regardless of anyone's position, the current information and ruling from the Copyright Board does appear to support P2P downloads as legal. Given your knowledge of the area, perhaps you can tell people what is and isn't allowed in Canada rather than berate them for stealing music?

[Edit, got distracted and took too long to post - I echo Macaholics post]


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

my approach is a little rusty. i apologize for my rash outburst. i've had this argument with a lot of friends and individuals who believe that theft isn't theft.

macaholic the descision has not been made and this is why:

ok - I'm not a lawyer. But I DO KNOW that these articles, or what the copyright board is saying is NOT LAW. The copyright board is a board. They make suggestions and could possibly try to impose actions, but what they say still has to be proven in a court of law and with parliament. 

The copyright board CAN NOT make law. Only the courts and parliament can pass law.

The cnet article is a perfect example of media hype. Guys, I would like to think that the people who visit this board are smarter than the average joe and would not succumb to media hype and exaggeration.

These articles are reflecting more than they should. What was asked of the copyright board was to make a statement about media levy. They said more than they should.

The best analogy I can come up with would be the canadian coast guard. They can not come to shore and arrest you for breaking a law like a police officer. They could probably try to stop you and turn you in, but in the end, it's the courts who have the final say.

All in all - theft is theft. Canadian LAW - (set by courts and parliament) says that you can make 1 (one) personal copy of a copyright recording that you own. Anything beyond that is breaking the law no matter how you do it. Macaholic, as a composer you should at least be reinforcing this fact with me! You owe me an apology as much as I owe one to Lars (Lars, you're not a dumbass, just misinformed by the media). All that stuff you sent me is for tariff of levies - nothing has been TRULY settled by Parliament and The Courts. 

Why does CRIA have a list of names that they are preparing to sue in the courts if it isn't against the law???

All I can say is STAY TUNED....


----------



## appleninja (Nov 6, 2003)

Back to the main question: Why do I want iTunes?

Simple.

Because the American's have it!

Will I use it alot? Probably not. But the fact that American mac users have something I can't makes my usually gentle Canadian blood boil.

My two cents . . .


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

iChard - I think that the legality of downloading has been set down. The Copyright Board gives the translation of the Copyright Act and such, so although still very grey, they've said downloading is legal. Uploading however is not, and that is who the CIRA is going after. Not downloaders. Only uploaders.

I want iTMS in Canada.







It's just so much fun to use down here, especially when you drink Pepsi anyway.







Maybe by the time I get to come back home? *crosses fingers that iTMS is available in Canada by June*


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

Chealion - I really want to agree with you but still, the copyright board is a board. Like the public health commission deeming restaurants pass or fail here in toronto. They don't make actual LAWS about food, health etc. They make reccomendations and enforce it. If someone wants to fight it - they take it up with the courts. If you download - it doesn't mean that someone still couldn't try to sue you.

It IS extremely grey. I think you would all agree that stealing is still stealing. Whether you do it at HMV or with a computer - doesn't change a thing. I can't prove anything to you here, but I guarantee you - you will see changes to the coypright board statement. For now, their 'statement' stands...

And I too am sooooo hoping it comes by june. And my wife isn't.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

The CRIA is not going after (or attempting to go after) anybody for downloading music. They are trying to go after users that are uploading. 

As far as ITMS, I won't pay for a compressed version of the music. If they let me download the compressed version, then snailmail'd me the PCM version - I'd prolly go for that...


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

would you be willing to pay extra for the tangible version? i quite like that idea...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

iChard, I would LOVE for Apple to bring iTMS to Canada, and i think that the Copyright Baord's decision stinks. It's NOT the right solution at all. I too have fought with people who think they have a moral right to "stick it to the man", that "information should be free", that "the musicians already got paid and should just make money on touring" and all that crap, but the facts are as they are. I hope some clarity and sanity is brought to the situation, soon. After all, it's my theory that Apple's not bothering with an online store up here BECAUSE of the Copyright Board ruling.


----------



## 5c4r7 (Jan 24, 2004)

iChard is correct. *The copyright board does not make laws*! Even though CRIA is not currently filing lawsuits against downloaders, it is still very much illegal to download copyrighted material in Canada. It's sort of a grey area. Apparently (according to a news article I recently read) many companies that use digital media are planning to start using a new finger printing technology that can survive convertions into other formats and when shared on P2P Networks, the file can send a message that transmits the downloaders and the uploaders IP address. It's looking like CRIA has the support from most of the ISP's in Canada as far as giving up their users personal info so, if your still using P2P, you should probably start looking for a new way to steal. 

If everyone becomes a "leech" and no one uploads, then the industries still win because no one is sharing files.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> If everyone becomes a "leech" and no one uploads, then the industries still win because no one is sharing files.


No, you'd simply be "cross-border leaching"


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The Copyright Board administers The Copyright Act which is quite clearly law (and act of Parliament, passed and proclaimed as law).

What the board says goes, because the Copyright Act says so here. Jump to the relevant sections 66.6 and 66.7.

Dowloading is legal and uploading is a crime, because the Copyright Act says so here.

So, there is a perfectly valid law that defines private copying of music, and the Copyright Board decisions have the force of law.

66.7
(2) Any decision of the Board may, for the purposes of its enforcement, be made an order of the Federal Court or of any superior court and is enforceable in the same manner as an order thereof.

Although there was no reason for the Board to make any rulings about private copying in the first place, because it already said so in the Copyright Act quite clearly, it seems that there is so much misinformation and confusion by people who should know better, like journalists, that perhaps they should repeat the private copying ruling ever week for ever, or at least until it finally sinks in.

This is not complicated, folks. Downloading is legal and uploading is illegal, and that's because the law of the land says so. Can't we just move on instead of debating the same damn things every time the subject comes up?


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

Who said reading the copyright act wasn't complicated?

I challenge you to call / write / email CRIA and ask them if they believe downloading is legal.

That aside, if you believe that downloading is legal - do you believe that downloading is right?

And Lars - I think you have plenty to write about now!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> That aside, if you believe that downloading is legal - do you believe that downloading is right?


I think the current solution is the wrong one.

More news on this front, today:

The Montreal Gazette

QUOTE:

_Unfortunately for music fans, the legality of digital music trading and copying in Canada remains murky. The Canadian Recording Industry Association said in February that it will sue file traders for trafficking in copyrighted music. The lawsuits are similar to those launched last year by the Recording Industry Association of America.


The difference in this country is that the Copyright Board of Canada ruled in December that the Copyright Act allows for personal, non-commercial copying of music, which includes downloads from the Internet.


Fans of music downloading also note that Canadians pay a levy on blank media, such as CDs and cassettes, which is meant to compensate record companies for lost revenues from copying.


A Supreme Court of Canada ruling last week could also have an impact on the issue. The court ruled individuals could make a single copy of any material for research purposes without having to pay a licensing fee.


It's clear a revolution is happening in the music industry. Until the revolution is won, let your conscience be your guide when you are downloading music._


Also, hard-disk levy battles in France between Apple and the performance rights organization there:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/business/8151296.htm

Given Apple's apparent stance on the disk (i.e: iPod) levy, (although an accusation on the part of the French body in no way MEANS it is true), and in light of the Copyright Boards current interpretation of the Copyright Act, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the iTMS to open up here, folks.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

Hmmmmm

If we decide that downloading music is legal, then we must assume ALL applications of media including software is legal to download for free. I mean, why only limit it to music when you can download everything legally these days


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

amen urban_legend.

check out this articlefrom the london free press

quote :

Downloading involves taking information from another computer. Uploading is transferring data from one's own computer to another. It is generally accepted that the Copyright Act allows music downloading so long as it is for personal use. Uploading is not so clear. These issues have not yet been decided in courts.

-- _David Canton is a business lawyer with a high-tech/e-business focus at Harrison Pensa LLP, a London law firm._


----------



## 5c4r7 (Jan 24, 2004)

I can guarantee all of you cash money, that just because the copyright board says downloading is legal, does not make it so. I have spoken to people at CRIA directly and they have told me that Downloading copyrighted material is not legal. They also told me that the copyright board does not make laws.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... If we decide that downloading music is legal, then we must assume ALL applications of media including software is legal to download for free. I mean, why only limit it to music when you can download everything legally these days. "

Why don't you just read the damn act? Private copying clearly only refers to music; it states so explicitly. No movies, no software, no books. We don't need to "decide" anything, it's a fact and it's the law. How much clearer must it be?

Other provisions of the act that refer specifically to software also clearly state that you have a right to make a backup copy of any program. Should the software license prohibit this, that section of the license is null and void in Canada while all other parts remain in force.

You can't download software or movies and expect protection from the courts, and the installation of bogus software means you are violating other legal contracts as well.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

i did read the damn act. did you read the damn article i posted? that was a lawyer saying word for word that what you are saying HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. 

gordguide - are you a music industry lawyer?


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

This would not be an issue if:

1. The Copyright Board didn't go to the media and tell over 30 million Canadians that downloading music was legal, but uploading was not legal.

I mean really, who was the dumb ass that told that to the media in the first place? We at ehMac didn't make up this story, so please stop attacking us instead of the problem at hand.

I'm not responsible for what was told to the media and broadcasted all over television news, news papers and internet news sites for the rest of the world to read. Not my problem. 

When someone like the Copyright Board tells me that it is legal to download music hell yeah I'm going to listen, why? As every average Canadian I don't know the difference between them and the CRIA and who is right or wrong. But hey, they told me as a user I can. So, if they want me to stop as a user, then they better go BACK to the media and apologize and set the record straight to the 30 million Canadians. If not, people are going to continue to believe that it is ok to download free music legally because they the Copyright Board told them it was ok in the first place.

The above is an example of what one would believe after hearing , seeing and reading what the Copyright Board told everyone back in December. I myself would rather see Apple ITMS in Canada, and I can't wait as my credit card is ready and willing to go shopping


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

The dumb ass is the copyright board. And believe you me - I'm just as confused with their actions as the next person. Sorry for any personal attacks, but I have had this conversation - with people who I trust very much in the music industry - at great length. Clarification on the copyright boards statements will come soon enough and until then - there's not much any of us can say.

I hear what you are saying - and it's another example in a million of insane media hype. And I know as well as you do that most of us here at ehmac are ready to give itunes a go and try out what is proving to be the best worldwide legal alternative!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... did you read the damn article i posted? ..."

There is nothing in that article that indicates anything is different than what I've said earlier.

" ... The action claims individuals have infringed upon the plaintiffs' copyright by reproducing the plaintiffs' sound recordings -- using peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as Kazaa and iMesh -- and have knowingly distributed this material in a manner that prejudicially affects the owners of the copyrights. ..."

Distributing (uploading) is clearly illegal as per the Copyright Act. Kazza and similar programs are not one-way; everything in the Kazza download folder is automatically available to others. In order to be legal you must insure any song downloaded is removed to another location on your hard drive immediately so that Kazza will not share it to others.

" ... downloading involves taking information from another computer. Uploading is transferring data from one's own computer to another. It is generally accepted that the Copyright Act allows music downloading so long as it is for personal use. Uploading is not so clear. These issues have not yet been decided in courts.

They can and do arrest people for counterfeiting CDs and movies and these arrests have all been upheld in law resulting in convictions. While it is true that the specific case of someone uploading songs to others without monetary gain has not been tested in the courts, It would be truly bizzare if it were not upheld; both CIRA and the law agree on uploading.

CIRA has a strong case and if they can ever identify the uploaders they will win. They are not challenging the law; they are using the law exactly as written to recover damages. In fact the CIRA itself had a large role in crafting the legislation in the first place.

Copyright Act
Section 80
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Note: Subsection (1) in the above refers to Section 80 Subsection (1) which states making copies for personal use from any source is expressly allowed.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

the main point - written by a lawyer was this :

These issues have not yet been decided in courts.

That means what the copyright board said - has to be proven in a court of law. period.

I agree that the copyright act is up for interpretation - and that's exactly what the copyright board did. It's their interpretation.

Anyhow - I call a truce and I say we let the unfolding events take place and they will shed some light on this dark, evil subject.

I still ask - why are you so up and up on your subsections and penal codes?


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ok - so this is just help bring clarification to all of us. Article in the Globe and Mail today says :

Opinions differ on whether downloading music from the Internet to your computer is illegal in Canada. Some, including the Copyright Board, say it's okay. Others say it's not clear. CRIA is among the few that argue that downloading is against the law.

Here is the full article :

A taxing proposal to solve the music download dilemma


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

I'm considerably more willing to believe the Copyright board than the CRIA. The CRIA have a vested interest overturning this.

Since I pay a levy on every blank that I buy, I have no problems downloading music. If I really like any music that I download, I try to buy the CD/DVD, if it's available (if for no other reason than to get the best possible quality).


----------



## trentcanuck (Aug 8, 2003)

This is an interesting discussion, with some members' cases being made more convincingly than others'.

It's interesting (or disappointing?) from a rhetorical perspective as well, and this is rather unfortunate. 
Ehmac is "Canada's Mac COMMUNITY", and when civil discourse breaks down, it undermines the existance of "community".
I wonder how much more convincing iChard's point might be if he/she was willing or able to present them like everyone else did: in a way that was simply substantive, and didn't resort to being beligerent and antagonistic and personally accusatory.

It's great to have convictions, to feel them deeply, and even to argue them forcefully. However, it's counterproductive to one's position when one's arguments come across as a ranting tirade (and it's pretty corrosive to community around here).
Sad...


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

I purchased an album on the iTunes Music Store. Man is that easy... Thanks to a friend State side I got a gift certificate for the album amount.

Downloaded the album, used Playfair to remove the encryption and added to my MP3 player.

How easy is that?

And it doesn't hit record stores here till June.


----------

