Fair enough.
We don’t have the IPod download in Canada.
I suppose we have IPods, but I live in an area where I’d have to order one. I’ve seen mp3 players that I can transfer music onto. If I could afford that kind of toy I don’t think I’m at a stage in life where I’d purchase one because I don’t need it.

As a Canadian Christian I agree with you. I’m going to do all I can to understand economic justice. Right now this ruling is telling the CIAA that they cannot force the ISP’s to provide the 29 names without justification.
If you come to Canada and download a song for your personal use, you have not broken Canadian copyright or distribution law. If that download was an issue of conscience for you I would fully respect that, for conscience knows no borders.

I’m not familiar with the Canadian law but it seems odd that a tax on hardware would really suffice. If you use recordable tapes or CD you have a limited amount of space and and have to keep purchasing (and keep paying the tax) if you want to add more songs. But with a device such as an IPod you could pay for the product one time and download literally thousands of songs. I’m not sure how the artists could be adequately compensated under that system.

As Christians I think we also have a duty to economic justice (even when it benefits rich musicians) and so I personally have a hard time justifying downloading.

Canadian copyright laws are different than the more familar one from the US.

If I like a song I’ll purchase it.
But since I have low disposable income, that amounts to one CD over the past two years. I have to really like it! Again I pay a tax.

Since I’m already taxed, I’m not breaking the law or cheating the record industry if I download it.
It is no different than if I taped a song off the radio for my own use, or borrowed a CD from you to listen to.
One of the major issues in Canada is whether the record industry is putting the artist tax back into the hands of the artist. Another issue is how much the industry says it has ‘lost’ because of p2p.
I prefer the federal court rule on the consumer side.
As other countries look at the Canadian case and upcoming appeals, we can hope will aid the industry to assess ‘business as usual’ differently.
I don’t want my ISP capitulating because the recording industry demands it. Nor do I want protectionist laws in favour of a cartel.

That having been said, if I step foot into the US and chose to download, it is my understanding I have broken their law.

That being said, here is an industry that takes advantage of millions and we still go and support them by buying their media products. If we really wanted to strike back, we should be boycotting both file sharing and purchasing from them until they mend their ways.

I have a problem when a 79 year old man who doesn’t own a computer is targeted etc.

If any downloader in Canada is doing so for profit, then present reasonable proof and have at them. In the meantime, those of us who aren’t, are glad the federal court ruled in favour of our privacy.

On the RSS front, My Yahoo! now offers a module to read up to 25 blogs.

We pay a tax on the hardware also.
Personal copying of a song for personal use has never been illegal in Canada.
If I download or transfer to another personal device it not theft.
I don’t recall the tax on the hardware at the moment.

I know this subject is contentious, and this is the first country to tell the record industry it cannot violate individual or corporate privacy unless it is able to reasonably show that the music being downloaded is being used for profit.
Here is some background…http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html

I’ve written about Canadian law previously, but to put it in a nutshell we consumers pay a tax on all blank recording devices - tapes and R-CW.

The problem is that with Internet downloading a person can completely circumvent this “tax.” Once you download a song you can play it on your computer or other device (i.e., an IPod) and the artists receive no compensation. If the rightful copyright owner being compensated, then how does this differ from ordinary theft?