Earlier this week, I noted that CRIA has submitted its brief in the iPod levy case and that it appeared to ignore the judge's ruling that it limit its argument to the core issue before the court. Apparently, I was not the only one to notice the similarity between CRIA's initial request to intervene and this most recent brief. The CPCC has wasted no time in submitting its own motion to the Federal Court of Appeal asking it to strike out the entire brief. According to the CPCC:
"An examination of CRIA's Memorandum shows that it is nothing more than a condensed version of the representations contained in its motion to intervene. By addressing the seven issues identified in its motion CRIA has blatantly disregarded the ruling of this Court, which ordered that 'CRIA shall address only the three major issues before this Court…"
The CPCC is also furious that CRIA raised issues about the impact of P2P downloading and compliance with the Berne Convention, when there is no evidence on those issues before the court.
Indeed, in an affidavit that accompanied the motion, CPCC Executive Director Anna Bucci states that the CPCC will need to adduce new evidence to challenge CRIA's claims, including the recent Industry Canada P2P study, the use of private copying levies in many other countries, and the fact that many online music sellers are discontinuing the use of copy-controls on the sale of music. The CPCC concludes with a fairly accurate description of CRIA's strategy:
"In short, through its improperly-filed Memorandum CRIA is attempting to convert this judicial review of the Copyright Board's decision on narrow legal questions into a full-fledged inquiry into the possible economic and legal consequences flowing from the legalization of downloading onto personal computers. This judicial proceeding is not the proper forum for such an investigation."
Before you criticize
Before we jump to criticize the CRIA in this case, let’s not forget all the good things they’ve done to both the Canadian music and copyright fields!
We can critisize
The CRIA has done absolutely NOTHING for inde musician’s and even went as far to tell me that I didn’t have the rights to my own music, because I didn’t belong to a society.
Indie
Indie music is garbage anyway. If they were good, they’d be on a big label. It’s easy to be all about giving away your music when no one wants it. 99% of “indie” artists would jump at the chance to be promoted by a CRIA label, and happily sign away their mothers’ moral rights while doing it.
Maybe SOCAN’s not giving you any royalties because no one is copying your music.
Malcolm is an industry shill
Every comment I read on this site so far with the name Malcolm immediately comes off as written by a CRIA industry shill.
Obviously Ben, if I don’t share the opinions of illegal music downloaders and academia (the latter of whom I nevertheless have great respect for), someone must have paid me for my opinions.
Or maybe I just hold the outrageous view that, at the end of the day, p2p leads to less revenues for artists and the industry that supports them. This in turn creates a disinsentive for new works to be created.
If you’re so smart, how come you don’t know what happened to CPCC’s motion today?
Yeah, CRIA definitely was over-reaching on that one and CPCC called them on it. But there’s no way the court will green-light the iPod levy after the result of the 2004 CPCC v. CSMA case.
See paragraphs 153, 163 and 164 of [ link ]
Tell Us The Whole Story
Since you have neglected to finish this story (perhaps because it does not have the ending you had hoped for) I will do so for you. I understand from reading the recorded entries for the Federal Court of Appeal that CRIA re-filed its written argument (with the same two arguments), CPCC and RCC again tried to have it struck out, and this time the Federal Court of Appeal refused to do so.
It seems that the Court is more than just a bit interested in hearing what CRIA has to say.