This also means that file sharing (MP3zing) is still illegal.
I'm not at all sure of that, and here's why.
The interpretation offered by the government is that you can lend your copy to someone else, who can then copy it. If that's the case, then putting your collection of MP3s (which you copied legally) up on the net is not illegal, because you are merely giving access to your collection to someone else. (You did rip them for your own use, and not just to distribute them, right?)
Now, the problem is that there is no distinction, in practical terms, between downloading an MP3 or ogg file in order to listen to it, and downloading it in order to copy it. But it seems to me that, in the absence of evidence of bad faith, a court would have to rule that the whole thing was perfectly legal.
I am not, of course, a lawyer. I have asked dozens of people about this, including several lawyers and (mostly) to-be-lawyers, and no-one has yet been willing to commit to an opinion on the matter. (The most notable exception was a Slashdot editor, who, during the Napster controversy, told me he was sure I was wrong, because "the government would never have allowed that". As though carelessly-crafted legislation is totally unheard of. My, ostriches make great pets.) I suspect that the argument is sound, but makes the law absurd; therefore, no-one wants to press it, because the law would undoubtedly be overturned if the result is as I suggest. But since I'm asking again, is there a real Canadian legal mind in the house?
[ Parent ]