Downloading tariff supreme court ruling

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12-07-12 02:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:

> To summarize... downloading via the internet as part of a 
> transaction is *NOT* subject to a second royalty for "internet 
> streaming".

Technically, there is no difference between "streaming" and
"downloading". The difference lies in the client software used to
receive the bits coming down the pipe, and in some minor sense, the
software used to put those bits on the pipe.

So, those people who can "stream" their music from a "download" site
don't need to pay this royalty, but people who "download" their music
from a "streaming" site do.

I haven't yet read the decision either, but I'm interested in the
definitions the Court applies to "streaming" and "downloading".

And for those citationists among you, here's Cory Doctorow on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/08/music-streaming-cory-doctorow

- --Bob.



On 12-07-12 02:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:47:39PM +0000, Peter wrote
>> Is this ruling good or bad? I understand that it curbs some
>> extra tariffs charged previously for downloading material?
>> 
>> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/supreme-court-rules-no-tariffs-for-downloading-music/
>
>>
>>
>> 
> The headline is a bit misleading.  More info at 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/12/pol-supreme-court-copyright-rulings.html
>
>
>
> 
I see it as a triumph for common sense.  When phone a store and buy a
> CD, or a videogame with music on it, the artists/sonwriters/etc
> are compensated for each copy by the music companies and videogame
>  publishers respectively.  Everybody agrees that should be the 
> case.
> 
> But, nobody seriously argues that the store should pay an 
> additional tariff for the act of delivering the music to you via 
> mail or courier. But the Canadian Copyright Board ruled that
> online stores that deliver the music (or video games containing
> music) should pay *A SECOND ROYALTY* (i.e. streaming) for the act
> of delivery.  That is double-dipping.  This is not like an
> "internet readio" streaming service where the only royalty is for
> the streaming.
> 
> To summarize... downloading via the internet as part of a 
> transaction is *NOT* subject to a second royalty for "internet 
> streaming".  What we need is a shakeup of the Copyright Board. They
> seem to have been doing a lot of money-grabs recently, that have to
> be fought all the way to the Supreme Court.  Since they're 
> government-funded, they don't care about the costs of litigation.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAk//OjgACgkQuRKJsNLM5erz1ACgytWE5kd0huTXOZWGS2aB1lp2
auQAn1fZfsI+1vlITcyM/Tf6J3xhOB9N
=G2ns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists