Come on. Get real. Posts like this are not helping.
I am not suggesting that streaming a TV show from an unauthorized streaming website is not an infringement of copyright in Canada. You assert that it is, others in this thread think it isn’t, and I am not sure whether the issue has been raised in the courts yet. That is what the OP wants answered.
I am perfectly willing to believe that reading or lending a book is legal; but so far neither of you has come up with an actual cite.
Rather the opposite, in fact. From Acsenray’s cite:
“(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.”
This is something that is explicitly covered by copyright. According to this snippet, what libraries do is explicitly illegal.
Here is an actual copyright notice, in full, from a published book:
“No part of this book shall be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by an information or retrieval system, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles and reviews, without the prior written consent of the publisher. The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable by law.”
Read that carefully, and you will find that it is a very broad, all-inclusive statement. Notice the following: “transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical”; and “distribution of this book via. . . any other means.” Both of those clauses cover what libraries do.
I have seen libraries replace damaged or lost books by photocopies, so they are reproducing as well as transmitting the books.
The wording from Ascenray’s cite implies (in my non-professional opinion) that you have made the copy that it refers to distribution of. Note the wording very carefully says “copies of.” The copyright notice also prohibits copying, but doesn’t prohibit what I do with the copy I bought.
The principle at play here is the First Sale Doctrine:
Although the statute does not use the words “lend” or “rent,” I believe that is generally interpreted as allowed.
If I buy a book, I can lend it to anyone I want without violating copyright law, and what a library is doing is no different. Similarly, Netflix can rent out physical DVDs without paying royalties.
It is not against the law in the sense of being a criminal act, although I wonder how they could strongarm tool providers into dropping that feature if there were no credible legal threat of a civil suit.
It is my understanding that it is the distribution and publishing of a work that violates copyright, not the actual viewing of the work. In file sharing cases, I’ve always seen the argument be about the (possibly automatic) uploading of files, not the downloading. The DMCA takedowns always go after the uploaded copy, not the people who download or stream it.
As such, I don’t think that downloading vs. streaming matters. Hence my response in the previous thread about music instead of TV shows. My response will also apply to movies. And ebooks. And software. There is no real need to ask several questions about the same general topic.
Not always. My boss’ son downloaded a movie using BitTorrent and the copyright holder threatened to sue. I’m not sure how they found it, but probably by cooperation with the ISP. They settled out of court for a couple thou.
Torrent clients are generally set up with sharing as the default. That’s the whole point of the technology. Any really popular item will be available not only from the permanently connected, but from anyone currently downloading it, or something else. Did you boss’ son jump through the hoops to be a leech only?
I’m just asking for streaming, not downloading/publishing.