Featured Articles

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

British chip designer ARM could cash in on the mobile industry's rush to transition to 64-bit operating systems and hardware.

More...
Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Samsung has lost smartphone market share, ending the quarter on a low note and Xiaomi appears to be the big winner.

More...
Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

It looks like Intel will be showing off its 14nm processors, codenames Broadwell, in a couple of weeks at CES 2015.

More...
Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Today we’ll be taking a closer look at the recently introduced Gainward GTX 980 4GB with the company’s trademark Phantom cooler.

More...
Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac has been in the nettop and mini-PC space for more than four years now and it has managed to carve…

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

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments