adamberti said:
But this mostly means the existing laws will be re-examined, and hopefully cleaned up a bit to appreciate these changing times.
Actually, the decision specifically held that the current levies on blank media are not unconsitutional. That is, they are not a tax. As such, it's not likely that the laws will be reconsidered for a fair amount of time. Moreover, blank media manufacturers don't suffer the same sort of losses that hardware manufacturers might. A $0.10 levy on a CD is not major, but a $25 levy is quite considerable. Moreover, because the levy on digital music players was a scaling levy, it put manufacturers of high capacity players an unfair disadvantage. The players would cost more inherently, but also had a larger levy imposed. As such, larger players lost market share.
Bear in mind, however, this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, and as such, it's a bit too early to be holding our breath, hoping for Canadian iPod prices to drop.
As for the statement that the levy justifies "stealing music", you seem to be missing the point. The rulings regarding the downloading/sharing of music are entirely different from those governing the "personal use" of acquired music, and data generally. That is, the levy imposed on blank media allows Canadians to make copies of all such data, and use them for personal purposes. That is, music CDs, games, etc. can be copied, and given to friends and associates, or used as backups, so long as they are not sold. The same applies to VHS tapes, audio cassettes, etc. The rulings regarding online filesharing held this to be an extension of the personal use rulings, to an extent. Despite the fact that legitimately obtained files were being shared for personal use, the Canadian courts have not ruled out entirely the possibility for liability to be imposed for the uploading of music. However, it has been barred by two procedural problems. First, it was held that most online filesharing is blind, and akin to putting a photocopier in a library. That is, it is not an intentional breach of copyright, but rather, the creation of a situation which will most likely lead to such a breach. This would normally be illegal. However, due to Canadian copyright legislation which allows personal use copies from library texts, without the payment of a levy, such online sharing is valid. The second roablock is that due to privacy legislation, Canadian courts will not force an ISP to hand over information about customer on mere suspicion of copyright breach. There must be proof on a balance of probabilities that the named individual has breached copyright law.
In short, the sharing of music online is permissible whether or not levies have been paid on blank media. In that light, it's not so much that one is trying to justify his actions by claiming that the artists are being compensated by these levies, so much as it is the truth. That is, the artists are being compensated, though minimally, where they need not be. I, personally, have no problems downloading and uploading "illegal" music, because it's already been put into the public domain via radio. Moreover, since the music industry needs desperately to alter their business model, I've no problem nudging them into it. If only there was something I could do to solve the problem of decadence in major league sports.
