Talk:Canadian Recording Industry Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] copyright police language

who's been putting all the 'citation needed' on definition of torrents and copy levies? It's not NPOV in the slightest, looks like some copypolice clown trying to write this news story in favourable terms - calling into question well known definitions and standards. Anyway, I've tried to change the grammer to be a bit more objective here. Keep on the NPOV lookout on this one! Cheers everyone!-- Rusl (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian law on downloading

I'm pretty sure that the Canada Copyright Board made downloads of music legal much earlier than March 31 2004 -- on that date the courts stated that having music available for download over P2P clients was noninfringing, which equates to uploading (in the context of P2P). — mendel [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 05:14, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. The ruling was by a court, not by the Copyright Board. The court upheld the Copyright Board's decision. RickK | Talk 05:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I did (and updated it). The ruling was about letting other people download from you ("uploading", in RIAA/CRIA terms), and not downloading. See [1]; the CRIA was after the names of people who were providing music, because downloading is unambiguously noninfringing thanks to the blank media levy. I suspect that going after users who only download would be thrown out with prejudice, if it ever saw time in court at all.
Section 25 of the decision talks about downloading, and refers to the earlier CCB ruling. What was new in this case was the findings expressed in section 26:
"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service."
and the continuation in Section 27 comparing that to providing a photocopier in a library. That's why the Globe took the spin they did, as did the Register, in talking about making files available for download.
In any case it's bound to go to the Supreme Court with unpredictable results, since other parts of the decision involved eg. whether or not the means by which the CRIA obtained the alleged infringers' IP addresses was valid. I agree it's sufficiently earthshaking to warrant mention, though. — mendel ☎ 05:29, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

Just wanted to thank whoever added my article on the Wiki regarding CRIA (The Slyck article) Thanks a million!(even though I might be slow on the draw for that)--IceCube2 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

Which companies are still CRIA members? Are there any Canadian companies left, or only multinationals? Their web site is not forthcoming on the subject. —Michael Z. 2006-12-03 22:56 Z

I'd like to know as well, nobody knows ? Lotheric (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent actions

the cria just wrote a letter to the semi-private bittorrent tracker demonoid, "threatening" them with "legal action", resulting in a 4-or-so days downtime and canadian traffic blocks. see www.demonoid.com. 88.76.104.140 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hallodri


[edit] What is this page about?

Is it about file sharing or The Canadian Recording Industry Association-------------

There is way more information on here about file sharing and the law than there is about The Canadian Recording Industry Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.10.139 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

that's because theres not much to write about such a dull subject. everything you'd ever need to know about CRIA is in the introductory paragraph before the table of contents.--KX36 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] demonoid's first shutdown

according to the demonoid wiki, CRIA haven't acknowledged or denied involvement in the first shutdown, this contradicts this CRIA wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by KX36 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] demonoid's second shutdown, maybe final? ;(

i like the page the way it is now: you have to have killed a family pet or friend in order to qualify for the 'board of usurpers' great stuff!. fuck them though, shutting down demonoid. i hope they are able to move their servers somewhere else... Smbgood 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, Demonoid was very uselful, it felt like they closed a dear friend...

Well, I hope that they can open up again, is amazing how laws and institution in other countries can affect you, now other sites have to try hard to achieve the level of quality and diversity that Demonoid had...YOU GUYS WILL BE MISSED...

Ogzapatah 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No Demonoid has not been destroyed completely, it will be back up like they say. RPI 23:00, 12 November (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpeopleinvasion (talk • contribs)

fuck demonoid

[edit] Abuse

I don't think that sentences like "The CRIA also threatened the people renting servers to Demonoid, proving that they are whores." should be left here. Maybe the article should be protected against those kind of vandalism ? YODAfroman 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Registered-user only editing would be good enough.Kylesandell (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse 2

I think that this page must be closed for editing because there is too much vandalism-like editings keep appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchock21 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I second and officially request complete edit blocking from this page. Oddeven2002 (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't do a complete block. You just need to have only registered users be able to edit. Problem solved. Quit over-reacting.Kylesandell (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)