PDA

View Full Version : Exactly what does the new Canadian ruling mean?



evilbradpitt
April 28th, 2004, 12:16 AM
I have recently set up a bad blue server of all my music (+4000 songs) available for download via an http url. I have attached this URL as a sig on my emails (ie my name). Now, being Canadian, am I now actually allowed to do this? Was the ruling more about being able to allow people access to files, or was it more about the right of ISP's to maintain user confidentiality. IE, P2P networks aside, could doing what I'm doing get me in shit?

TIA

Siskabush
April 28th, 2004, 01:22 AM
hmm, thats iffy, im pretty sure its illegal if its being hosted, and if it can be accessed anytime. It may be like warez.

Im not too sure.

shawners
April 28th, 2004, 08:29 AM
it means canadians cant be leeching off of us americans no more =)

Siskabush
April 28th, 2004, 12:08 PM
it also means you americans can leach off of us, to avoid lawsuits :)

RACKnRAIL
April 28th, 2004, 12:25 PM
it means canadians cant be leeching off of us americans no more =)
Has the blues got you down...IRS, perhaps?

Jelsoft
April 28th, 2004, 01:01 PM
I believe the judge stated if you're not actively offering the files it is not illegal. Eg. P2P.

The fact that you actively setup a server for people to download, may get you into problems.

shawners
April 28th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Has the blues got you down...IRS, perhaps?

i got 1600 dollars back in march =)

RACKnRAIL
April 28th, 2004, 05:48 PM
i got 1600 dollars back in march =)
Excellent! I got a measly $67 but its better than paying. Oh by the way, that would only be about 40 bucks US.

Gregory_JJ
April 28th, 2004, 06:09 PM
hmm, thats iffy, im pretty sure its illegal if its being hosted, and if it can be accessed anytime. It may be like warez.

Im not too sure.

My understanding of the ruling is much like Siskabush's. I think the Judge's ruling was limited to p2p tech. and newsgroups, but there might be some legal loophole but can't say for sure.

evilbradpitt
April 28th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Geez, talk about confusion. Nobody seems to really know one way or the other. I had a thread closed at hardware central just for discussing the issue.

http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156983

Thanks for the replies. I guess i'll take my chances.

johnsmatrix
April 28th, 2004, 08:59 PM
I would think that the ruling is based under the assumption that you are hosting material on a p2p network where your are indirectly sharing files. By indirect I mean you are not advertising the use or broadcasting its existance.. The program tells other people you have the file and you become part of a chain.. In your case you are purposely and directly advertising the fact that people can download copyrighted material from you.....
God I hope that makes sence................. :finger

shawners
April 28th, 2004, 09:05 PM
tax is on everything, gas tax, tax on electricity, water, property tax, car tax, state inspection/ renewal regestration, federal tax, state tax, sales tax, cable has tax, phone bill,. .It could be very taxing.
If i had kids i could got up to 2100 dollars back, but when we got our house and paid closing cost and everything. we end up getting alot back, i dont know how much next year, but hopefully with property tax figured in.. ill know something good be on the way.

evilbradpitt
April 28th, 2004, 10:20 PM
I would think that the ruling is based under the assumption that you are hosting material on a p2p network where your are indirectly sharing files. By indirect I mean you are not advertising the use or broadcasting its existance.. The program tells other people you have the file and you become part of a chain.. In your case you are purposely and directly advertising the fact that people can download copyrighted material from you.....
God I hope that makes sence................. :finger
Well, simply providing a url to a site that has downloads available to friends isnt any more advertising than having the option to cruise a file list in any given p2p software. I'm not soliciting business of any sort, its merely an appendage to my emails. Its a slippery slope I know, but i fail to see a hard fast difference. The user is merely clicking on a link rather than openning a p2p application. I mean your not "indirectly" sharing files using a p2p app, it is one of only two possible intentions as soon as you execute the application.

johnsmatrix
April 28th, 2004, 11:51 PM
Send me an email sometime buddy