Canada becomes one of the top 3 copyright violators in the world!

[Sidoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

On 2008-01-11, The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the Copyright Board of Canada's proposed new levy on MP3 players, stating that the board erred in law, ruling that they do not have the regulatory authority to impose such levies.

They used to levy mp3 players, but not anymore and upon reintroduction it was challenged and, apparently, shot down.

I guess I'm missing you're point.  Are you trying to convince someone that this is a useless system?  It certainly seems to be more sensible than what the US has in place. :S

[iago]

At work, we have thousands of CDs in my department alone. I personally have well over 100 laying around, none of which are used for music.

The point is, as long as we're paying for music with every blank media we buy, we have the right to download music, and your laws don't apply here.

So yes, maybe Canada is one of the top violators of your laws here, but really, who cares? I sure don't. I'll continue to download music and to support the bands I like (by seeing them and buying their merchandise/CDs/whatever), as long as they don't get uppity and start filing lawsuits against their fans.

[CrAz3D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

On 2008-01-11, The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the Copyright Board of Canada's proposed new levy on MP3 players, stating that the board erred in law, ruling that they do not have the regulatory authority to impose such levies.

They used to levy mp3 players, but not anymore and upon reintroduction it was challenged and, apparently, shot down.

I guess I'm missing you're point.  Are you trying to convince someone that this is a useless system?  It certainly seems to be more sensible than what the US has in place. :S

So long as the blank-media tax makes up for the millions lost otherwise...then it's ok.

[Sidoh]

So long as the blank-media tax makes up for the millions lost otherwise...then it's ok.

Like I said, I'm sure it's much more effective in paying the artists than what the US has in place ("don't do this or we'll catch you, you naughty boy!").

[iago]

So long as the blank-media tax makes up for the millions lost otherwise...then it's ok.

There is no proof that anybody (except _maybe_ the top-50 artists) has lost any money over it. But that's a much different, and much longer, subject. All their "lost millions" are based on the assumption that every download is a lost sale, which totally isn't true.

[CrAz3D]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

[MyndFyre]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

No, not true.

Example:

I owned a CD.

During a move, the CD broke because a futon was dropped on it.

Isn't it my right to still listen to that music?

[leet_muffin]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

No, not true.

Example:

I owned a CD.

During a move, the CD broke because a futon was dropped on it.

Isn't it my right to still listen to that music?

Sure, if you have the technology to glue the CD back together and all. =).

[CrAz3D]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

No, not true.

Example:

I owned a CD.

During a move, the CD broke because a futon was dropped on it.

Isn't it my right to still listen to that music?

Doesn't the right go along with the media device?  Like Windows ... if you want to use it on another computer at different times you need another copy.

[MyndFyre]

Doesn't the right go along with the media device?  Like Windows ... if you want to use it on another computer at different times you need another copy.

Which media device are we discussing here?  I was talking about a disc, not a player.

Sure, if you have the technology to glue the CD back together and all. =).

That's retarded.

[Joe]

I haven't bought a pack of CDs in ... I don't know, way over a year though.

Holy crap, a counter example.  That's definitely statistically significant.

How often Craz3d buys CD's is pretty subjective, don't you think? :P

[Sidoh]

I haven't bought a pack of CDs in ... I don't know, way over a year though.

Holy crap, a counter example.  That's definitely statistically significant.

How often Craz3d buys CD's is pretty subjective, don't you think? :P

Hahahah

[Hitmen]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

no? I never would have bought most of the shit I download. Since I never would have bought it, how is it a lost sale? This is where the fuzzy math takes over.
(aside from the fact that tons of it is 20+ years old and out of print so I couldn't if I wanted too :( )

[CrAz3D]

Doesn't the right go along with the media device?  Like Windows ... if you want to use it on another computer at different times you need another copy.

Which media device are we discussing here?  I was talking about a disc, not a player.

Sure, if you have the technology to glue the CD back together and all. =).

That's retarded.

I dont know how media rights works ... I guess this thread should end (at least this discussion) until someone comes up with actual laws

[MyndFyre]

Every illegal download IS a lost sale of that song.
If the person wanted two copies of the song they could buy it on iTunes and buy the CD, preventing that loss.

no? I never would have bought most of the shit I download. Since I never would have bought it, how is it a lost sale? This is where the fuzzy math takes over.
(aside from the fact that tons of it is 20+ years old and out of print so I couldn't if I wanted too :( )

That's a somewhat specious argument because there's no way to prove what you would or wouldn't have purchased. It's based on faulty premise.