Featured Articles

Apple announces its Apple Watch

Apple announces its Apple Watch

Apple has finally unveiled its eagerly awaited smartwatch and surprisingly it has dropped the "i" from the brand, calling it simply…

More...
Skylake 14nm announced

Skylake 14nm announced

Kirk B. Skaugen, Senior Vice President General Manager, PC Client Group has showcased Skylake, Intel’s second generation 14nm architecture.

More...
Apple officially announces 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus

Apple officially announces 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus

The day has finally come and it appears that most rumors were actually spot on as Apple has now officially unveiled…

More...
CEO: Intel on target for 40m tablets

CEO: Intel on target for 40m tablets

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich just kicked off the IDF 2014 keynote and it started with a phone avatar, some Katy Perry…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

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