Murky canadian laws

« Murky laws make piracy suits less likely in Canada than U.S.  » says the Globe and Mail.

Basically: we have privacy legislation that prevents the fishing expeditions for data at ISP’s and the private copying exception has never been tested.

The privacy issue, or the absence of a shortcut through the due process route, is a fact. But those rules don’t prevent a lawsuit, and if actual damages were actually incurred to the amounts stated in the US lawsuits, the procedure should be no terrible burden. After all, thousands of lawsuits involving defendants that were initially unknown have successfully been conducted using these rules.

The other issue stems from the fact that the private copying exception does not require the person doing the copy to own the rights to the music. Indeed, taping a song off the radio is meant to be legal; placing the burden of assessing the rights of the person broadcasting, or otherwise communicating the work, on the shoulders of the listener would be ridiculous. I think this is sound policy…

All things considered, I don’t see how any of this prevents a lawsuit against anyone offering files to the public (Canadian or otherwise) on a p2p network in Canada though. Our laws are perfectly adequate to catch people « trading in stolen goods » as the representative from CMRRA is quoted saying, although I would object to the use of the term « stolen goods »…

Fair enough, our laws don’t hold the hands of the rights owners and make the process of enforcement a new and improved express e-procedure in 5 easy steps with bonus suspension of the due process at no extra cost and all the good taste of racketeering with only 2 grams of pork. You have to file a regular lawsuit under rules that are deemed good enough for everyone. But then again, since the (US) right to fair use does not include the right to make a copy by the most convenient means, why would the most convenient enforcement means be in return provided to rights owners?

The article ends suggesting we update our laws to be in line with international norms. Exercise left to the reader (hint): Find date on which Canada signed the Berne convention (and I think we might have been covered under the UK accession before that date). Find date on which the US signed Berne. You can also check out the coalition of the willing who have signed the WCT.

[via Furdlog]

Cerf on VoIP

To keep going with my VoIP thread of the week, CNet has a interview with Vint Cerf.

I like the way he sees VoIP:

[…] VoIP starts the natural progression of another modality that the Internet can support. It also changes the whole of the telephony world substantially, so (VoIP) is hard to ignore.

And wouldn’t that be nice:

Q:You view VoIP as just one of several next-generation services. What are some of the other services?
A:There are several already showing up. You can show up at a hotel and register your normal telephone number–as long as you can plug in your PC to an Internet service. What that means is your visibility in the communications world is now portable. Wherever you are, your communications are (there also). You can control where things go. If someone’s trying to send a fax, you can vector that to your e-mail as an attachment or vector it to a different fax machine. There’s an incredible amount of interaction over what had been completely separate services.

Hello Sooty

« I’m sure a lot of men will be looking at Sooty with envy »

Source unknown….

I wish there was a way to have precise karmic aim and be able to choose in what form I want to reincarnate. What would you choose?

Update: How could I assume this was just a random old thing forwarded since the beginning of times? It’s fresh, and even the BBC is talking about it.