Featured Articles

After USA Nvidia’s Shield comes elsewhere

After USA Nvidia’s Shield comes elsewhere

Project Shield, which is now called Nvidia Shield, is up for preorder, at least if you’re in North America. For…

More...
Nvidia won most Haswell high-end notebooks

Nvidia won most Haswell high-end notebooks

Our sources in the Far East are claiming that most Haswell notebooks that are coming out in the next few weeks…

More...
Microsoft officially announces the Xbox One

Microsoft officially announces the Xbox One

As announced earlier, Microsoft has now finally unveiled its next-generation console, the Xbox One. Although it did not shed much light…

More...
AMD poaches more Nvidia talent

AMD poaches more Nvidia talent

AMD has apparently managed to grab yet another high-ranking Nvidian, but this time it was no engineer or developer.

More...
HIS iCooler Turbo HD 7790 reviewed

HIS iCooler Turbo HD 7790 reviewed

Today we’ll take a closer look at a factory overclocked HD 7790, courtesy of HIS. The HIS HD 7790 iCooler Turbo…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 13 July 2012 09:51

Court tells Big Content to stop being silly

Written by Nick Farrell

y lawbookhammer

Slaps down silly fee idea

 A top Canadian court has told Big Content that its attempts to screw cash out of schools for photocopying bits of text books or from music sites for previewing songs are illegal.

The Supreme Court of Canada looked at five different cases that touched on tariffs set by the Copyright Board at the request of Big Content. In one of the rulings, the court decided that there should be no fees levied against Internet service providers when their consumers download music.

The court ruled that the downloading of an individual file is not a “public” transmission. But it said that when music is streamed online, it is a “public” transmission and therefore fees can be levied. Which is pretty much common sense.

In another case, the court ruled that Internet providers should also not have to pay fees when music downloaders preview songs. The Copyright Board decided in 2007 that there was nothing wrong with such previews because they were essentially “research.”

Big Content representative SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada appealed that decision to the Supreme Court as it thought it could make a few quid forcing ISPs to pay up. It was a fairly daft move as it would have stopped users from knowing what a song was like before they bought it. The only remedy for this was to pirate it. Which goes to show how clever Big Content is.

The court upheld the view of education ministers and school boards that photocopying material for students does not infringe the Copyright Act. The educators had argued that the practice should be allowed because they fall well within the Copyright Act’s so-called “fair dealing” exemptions. The court agreed and said it was important to consider the intentions of teachers when assessing whether photocopying works for students constituted “fair dealing.”

In another bizarre ruling movie theatres would not have to pay performance fees for music which appeared in a film soundtrack of a flick they were screening. Finally, the court ruled that performance royalties do not need to be collected for music used in downloaded video games.

It all sounds common sense to us, but it seems that Big Content needs to be told what is reasonable as they can't make up their own minds.

More here


Nick Farrell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments