Slashdot Mirror

Try www.canlii.org to go to the website.

"Just like the CRIA shutting down Demonoid, despite the fact that due to the levies we pay up here on media and players, it's been ruled multiples times by the courts that downloading for personal usage is legal. Also that uploading is legal, as obviously to download, someone has to upload."

Okay, let me correct this misunderstanding of the Copyright Act. If you look at Part VIII (Private Copying) and in particular Section 80, you will see that this only applies to sound recordings.

I don't want people to be under the misapprehension that they can download and upload whatever they like in Canada, legally. They can't. In fact, if uploading is "distribution" (that has yet to be categorically decided) you can't upload, and there are arguments that you can't even download due to technicalities (although I don't agree with that, but then again IANAL)

"Just like the CRIA shutting down Demonoid, despite the fact that due to the levies we pay up here on media and players, it's been ruled multiples times by the courts that downloading for personal usage is legal. Also that uploading is legal, as obviously to download, someone has to upload."

Okay, let me correct this misunderstanding of the Copyright Act. If you look at Part VIII (Private Copying) and in particular Section 80, you will see that this only applies to sound recordings.

I don't want people to be under the misapprehension that they can download and upload whatever they like in Canada, legally. They can't. In fact, if uploading is "distribution" (that has yet to be categorically decided) you can't upload, and there are arguments that you can't even download due to technicalities (although I don't agree with that, but then again IANAL)

Actually, Canadian users should file a complaint about Rogers misleading advertising with the Competition Bureau (not advising purchasers of their high speed service in their advertising that they will lower the speed of P2P apps). I have, and so have others. It really is a question or priorities and complaint volume though, and at present the number of complaints has been very few.

For anyone interested, the Competition Act and there are numerous sections dealing with misleading advertising. By not advising they public they are actually reducing the speed of P2P apps, they are knowingly making a material misrepresentation to the public (Parts VI and VII.1).

You can file complaints with the Canadian Competition Bureau about Rogers, here.

Here's the relevant legislation.

"Police psychics" won't work in jurisdictions where its illegal to engage in fortune telling, etc. There's a guy who was conning one of my aunts, claiming he had worked as a psychic for the Toronto Police Department. I pointed out to her that it was illegal, and he was a liar:

False Pretences

Pretending to practise witchcraft, etc.

365. Every one who fraudulently

(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,

(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

(c)pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In Canada even if you act suspicious and have a previous record of shoplifting you can refuse a search. http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22fals e+imprisonment%22+receipt&language=en&searchTitle= Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/sk/skqb/doc/2 005/2005skqb79/2005skqb79.html

I'll ignore all the personal remarks, and get to the nitty gritty. Firstly - the rules that apply to me, as a professional:

http://www.apegga.org/pdf/Guidelines/02.pdf

Specifically Rule #1 "1 Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public and have regard for the environment."

And the law that governs Engineers etc in this province, the "Alberta Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act"

http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/e-11/20041004/wh ole.html

42 In this Part,
(a) "conduct" includes an act or omission;
(b) "investigated person" means a professional member,
licensee, permit holder, certificate holder or
member-in-training with respect to whose conduct an
investigation is held under this Part;
(c) "practice of the profession" means practice of
engineering, practice of geology or practice of geophysics,
as the case may be.
44(1) Any conduct of a professional member, licensee, permit
holder, certificate holder or member-in-training that in the opinion
of the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Board
(a) is detrimental to the best interests of the public,
(b) contravenes a code of ethics of the profession as
established under the regulations,
(c) harms or tends to harm the standing of the profession
generally,
(d) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or
judgment in the practice of the profession, or
(e) displays a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or
judgment in the carrying out of any duty or obligation
undertaken in the practice of the profession,
whether or not that conduct is disgraceful or dishonourable,
constitutes either unskilled practice of the profession or
unprofessional conduct, whichever the Discipline Committee or the
Appeal Board finds.

This is studied as a required course in order to become a Professional Engineer. In exquisite detail we use the 'bridge' example. Reporting it to your superiors is not enough, if you know the bridge design is defective and can compromise public safety. It is not good enough to simply tell your bosses. By law in this province, you must go over his head, and their head, until you run out of bosses. If you know there has been a spill of highly radioactive substances - should you not call the EPA if you 'run it up the chain of command' and they do nothing?

Now, go back to my original reply. By act, or omission, this guy (according to the article) did not do everything in his power to make the public safer. He reported it to his superiors (who did nothing) and let it be, as far as I can tell. Silence is the same as representing the public is safe, when indeed it is not.

So, all this over the fact you can read what I write.

Second, your silence can only be applied as misleading if you had the ability to say something and did not.

There was nothing wrong or what would be considered a lie in this guy based on anything he didn't say.

As I originally stated, a lie is an act, or omission. This guy, by all standards of professional conduct I know of - lied.

Now, as for such adjectives as you have used to describe me, like 'ignorant', 'liar', 'half-wit' (I'll correct that one for free); please print this thread out, fold till it's all sharp corners, and shove it up your tight little ass. *kisses!*

Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.

In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional. No one is claiming accidental contamination.

no, the supreme court has found that uploading is legal as well.

Well according to various federal courts of Canada (including rulings by the Supreme Court) it is legal to download music and it is also to make your shared music folder available over the internet. Sounds to me like sharing is legal though purposely sending music to someone would still be illegal.
See for example http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/may30200 5.html or for the text of the Supreme Court decision http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc45 /2004scc45.html

In Canada, the police need a warrant (CanLII link) to get a dialled-number recorder placed on someone's phone (though apparently such a warrant is easier to get than a wire-tapping warrant), so extending this to the Internet wouldn't really be all that scary.

I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here.

Unless you are a director or officer of a Canadian corporation then it's not likely that you have violated the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (United States) Order.

The act was passed as a reminder that the Canadian government likes to think that they have some kind of exclusive right to pass laws that affect Canadians living inside Canada, although the USA seems to disagree.

Canada has this coin restriction too. (http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-52/sec8.html)

Actually used this once because my condo corp. is absolutely insane (long story), so I decided to pay them in change one time. They were not pleased. On the other hand, they do have the right to refuse to take cash in Canada anyway (http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/banknotes/law .html - on the right).

>Your buddy comes in to your house, sits down on the couch, and starts watching your TV. The cops drive by, see this guy, they know he's not you, so they come and arrest him on the crime of trespassing.

Which is a mistake, since he is not trespassing, unless he was forewarned. There are but a few cases in which a police officer can lay a trespassing charge without the potential criminal having been told directly that he is not to be in that space.

For example, where I live (Ontario), the law explains the following as prohibited:

3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,

(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or

(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier's intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).

I am assuming that just like WiFi, we're talking the door not just unlocked, but actually having been removed from the hinges, and not just temporarily, but relatively permanently. 3 (a) clearly doesn't apply to a building. 3 (b) looks like it applies, but read it closely:

that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier's intention to keep persons off the premises

As there is no door, we have no intention to keep people off the premises, therefore it is not prohibited. Even with a door, since it is always unlocked, it is debatable as to whether this constitutes an intention to keep people off the property or not. I expect if the defendant in a court case were to prove the "victim" had always left their home unlocked and regularly had random people in there (like a coffee shop would) that they would easily win the case. Even without such evidence, I expect if the victim suffered no damages, and the action was not particularly unusual (and heck, even if it was!), the judge would require only a peace bond (An agreement that for a set period of time you will not commit any crimes. If you keep to the agreement, the court's decision is removed from all records, if you don't, it becomes a permanent record that you broke the law, and you may be liable for further charges for having broken a peace bond).

>To me, it's a similar concept.

It is to me, too. Trespass law CLEARLY requires an intention to keep people off your property. In the physical world, this is called a "lock". In the computer world, this is called the "lock icon". You usually get a lock icon by applying WEP, indicating the intention of those designing wireless systems that WEP be considered a lock system. Hence, by trespass law, WEP security means "No Trespassing". No WEP security means no lock, which means no 3 (b) for you.

But it gets better:

3 (2) There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (2).

So joining even a WEP locked device (but without the correct WEP key) would be legal by trespass law.

And better:

5. (1) A notice under this Act may be given,

(a) orally or in writing;

(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or

(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (1).

Which, applied to this coffee shop, means they didn't follow the rules if trespass law applied to access points, since they didn't orally or in writing ask him to stop before

It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see

Wrong on two counts.

In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.

In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.

What's so hard to understand? The two are not mutually exclusive. Tougher gun laws doesn't necessarily translate into fewer firearms - just safer ones. It also means proportionately many fewer handguns and more rifles and shotguns. You can slip a handgun into a pocket - a rifle is a lot harder to conceal, and that means fewer people walking around with concealed weapons.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/as/1995/c39/sec139.html

Also, a mandatory minimum sentence for any crime committed with a firearm, imposed consecutively (not concurrently). Rob a convenience store, and your partner, who is driving the car and never went into the store, has a gun - you BOTH get an additional 3 to 14 years for a crime committed with a firearm - even if its only an imitation gun!

The smarter crooks go out of their way NOT to carry a gun (and keep their partners in crime from doing the same) because the penalties are a lot harsher.

Just pointing a firearm (real or fake) at someone is good for up to 5 years.

Ditto for carrying around ammunition without a license.

Knowingly possessing (not just "on your person" - it may be stashed at home) a prhibited firearm or ammunition without having a license is good for up to 10 years in jail.

Anyone knowingly sitting the the same car as someone with a prohibited firearm or ammunition is liable for up to 10 years in jail ...

Crossbows are also regulated.

Find a firearm and not report it? 5 years. Lose a firearm and not report it? Ditto. No serial number or an altered serial number? Ditto.

Also, commit a crime with a weapon, - you're prohibited from owning a weapon for 10 years. Second offence - you may never own a weapon again.

• Seven current, round Canadian pennies made one-half ounce.
  
• Six older 1982-1994 polygonal Canadian pennies made one-half ounce.
• Five old 1961-1976 round cents made one-half ounce.
  
  Ah - the legal standard says there are three current compositions:
  
  • ... bronze (copper, tin and zinc); 2.5 grams
    
  • CPZ (copper plated zinc); 2.25 grams
    
  • CPS (copper plated steel); 2.35 grams
    
  
  At 154/lb the US cent is nearly three grams - 30% more metal. Seems to match the older Canadian coins.
  
  A magnet test found one each 2004 and 2006 CPS cent - my other 2004 and 2006 were either bronze or CPZ. I think I'm going to convince someone I have a "special magnet" that picks up copper :-)
  
  

16. (1) If the traveller chooses to answer any question that is asked by a preclearance officer for preclearance purposes, the traveller must answer truthfully.
(2) If the traveller refuses to answer any question asked for preclearance purposes, the preclearance officer may order the traveller to leave the preclearance area.
(3) The refusal by a traveller to answer any question asked by a preclearance officer does not in and of itself constitute reasonable grounds for the officer to suspect that a search of the traveller is necessary for the purposes of this Act or that an offence has been committed under section 33 or 34.

25. (1) A preclearance officer may examine any goods that are submitted for preclearance, and may open or cause to be opened any package or container and take samples of the goods in reasonable amounts.

Ah, plasmacutter.

After spending a week reading things of substance, I view you as the dessert - an article without substance, but a little sweet... ahh...

This is an "after the fact" call, and all crimes regardless of severity are investigated and when possible the perpetrators are brought to justice. This is also NOT the argument you were making in your earlier post.

Your earlier post said it was perfectly "ok" to shred the bill of rights and the constitutional provisions against overstep of government power if it prevented crimes before they happened.

I'll say this again: "Minority report anyone?"

As usual, this is just too rich, my boy.

Perhaps you were unaware that plotting murder is, in itself, a crime? Would you suggest that the police shouldn't attempt to stop those plotting a murder? Or do you prefer Steven Spielberg to set your political ideas?

They don't do this with speeding, they don't even do it with murder, but I guess it's ok whenever they shriek "national security" at the top of their ultrafascist lungs.

They don't arrest people for planning murder? Are you sure about that?

In Canada, it's punishable by life in prison. In the U.S., laws vary from state to state, but generally the penalty is quite severe.

Are these laws "shredding the bill of rights"? Are they punishing people for thought? Do people have the right to plot murder? At what point should we take action to prevent an act of murder, as the knife is pulled, as the finger moves to the trigger, as the plane approaches a building?

A "wait and see" approach is absurd, stupid, and unsurprisingly what you advocate. People don't have the right to plot murder, no more than they have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (unless, of course, there is a fire).

people who are arrogant enough to wander around calling other people stupid to their face are usually the ones who need to expand their wisdom, I advise you to do so.

Ah, this is my favorite part. Coming right after the "ultrafascist" bit.

Why don't you "expand [your] wisdom" by not arguing that every thing that doesn't reinforce your truly idiotic view of the world is part of a vast, extreme right wing conspiracy and that, perhaps, things might go a little beyond the class warfare you so earnestly love.

I call you stupid because you ignore the facts and the world around you. I call you stupid because you compare a Steven Spielberg flick to actual crime. I call you stupid because you believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is an extreme right organization. I call you stupid for a variety of reasons, and you richly deserve the title.

Now keep on slash stalking away, my good boy. You'll give me entertainment for weeks to come.

Good grief, in what fascist hellhole do you live?

Canada.

In the United States the police can arrest you without a warrant only if they have very good reason to believe you have just committed, or or about to commit, a crime. Here and here and here are some legal references. "Very good reason" in this context means a reason that will convince a judge not only that you should have been arrested, but also that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on it first.

No, you're exaggerating the requirements. The links that you referred to say nothing about a requirement "that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on [an arrest] first". This one makes it abuntandly clear (emphasized and annotated):

A police officer may arrest you if he has an arrest warrant. An officer may not arrest you without a warrant unless it is reasonable for him to believe that a crime has been committed and that you are the person who committed it. [FULL STOP] This reasonable belief is called probable cause. Probable cause cannot be based on a hunch, a surmise, or a guess. Probable cause exists only if the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that you committed it.

If you are in your home, you have an additional layer of constitutional protection. Probable cause alone is not enough to allow a police officer to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. The general rule is that an officer needs a warrant to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. But there are important exceptions to that rule which are too complicated to discuss on this tape.

If the police establish resonable grounds to believe (not just suspect) that you murdered your neighbour, they can arrest you without a warrant at the grocery store, a conference, or any other place except your home. Even then, I suspect (based on the wording used above) that they can arrest you in your home, if you voluntarily allow them to enter your home (for example, if your wife calls the police because you're beating her).

It's mostly the same in Canadian Law (using the canlii.org link because the government site is down). I'll let you read that link on your own, but here are a few pointers for readers from the U.S.:

• "Indictable offences" are similar to felonies (although you don't lose the right to vote in Canada if you're convicted of an indictable offence.)
• "Summary offences", or more formally, "offences punishable on summary conviction" are similar to misdemeanors.
• Police officers are "peace officers".
• "Criminal offences", I think, are offences listed in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I haven't checked this.
• Section 553 of the Criminal Code lists a bunch of offences for which the provincial courts have absolute jurisdiction.

One thing to note about the Canadian law, however, is this clause, which might have applied to this particular case if it were in Canada:

2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant
...
in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that,

Good grief, in what fascist hellhole do you live?

Canada.

In the United States the police can arrest you without a warrant only if they have very good reason to believe you have just committed, or or about to commit, a crime. Here and here and here are some legal references. "Very good reason" in this context means a reason that will convince a judge not only that you should have been arrested, but also that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on it first.

No, you're exaggerating the requirements. The links that you referred to say nothing about a requirement "that there wasn't time to get him (the judge) to sign off on [an arrest] first". This one makes it abuntandly clear (emphasized and annotated):

A police officer may arrest you if he has an arrest warrant. An officer may not arrest you without a warrant unless it is reasonable for him to believe that a crime has been committed and that you are the person who committed it. [FULL STOP] This reasonable belief is called probable cause. Probable cause cannot be based on a hunch, a surmise, or a guess. Probable cause exists only if the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that you committed it.

If you are in your home, you have an additional layer of constitutional protection. Probable cause alone is not enough to allow a police officer to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. The general rule is that an officer needs a warrant to enter your home for the purpose of arresting you. But there are important exceptions to that rule which are too complicated to discuss on this tape.

If the police establish resonable grounds to believe (not just suspect) that you murdered your neighbour, they can arrest you without a warrant at the grocery store, a conference, or any other place except your home. Even then, I suspect (based on the wording used above) that they can arrest you in your home, if you voluntarily allow them to enter your home (for example, if your wife calls the police because you're beating her).

It's mostly the same in Canadian Law (using the canlii.org link because the government site is down). I'll let you read that link on your own, but here are a few pointers for readers from the U.S.:

• "Indictable offences" are similar to felonies (although you don't lose the right to vote in Canada if you're convicted of an indictable offence.)
• "Summary offences", or more formally, "offences punishable on summary conviction" are similar to misdemeanors.
• Police officers are "peace officers".
• "Criminal offences", I think, are offences listed in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I haven't checked this.
• Section 553 of the Criminal Code lists a bunch of offences for which the provincial courts have absolute jurisdiction.

One thing to note about the Canadian law, however, is this clause, which might have applied to this particular case if it were in Canada:

2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant
...
in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that,

Miles, if you are studying or practicing law, stop before you get sued.

If you're in the business of suing anonymous posters on Slashdot on the basis of their comments about binding legal decisions in your jurisdiction, perhaps *you* should quit the business of law.

  Distribution is not at issue. The issue is whether the defendant "made" child porn. If he made a warehouse full of it and never distributed or intended to distribute any of it, he still earned 20 years under Michigan law.

You have completely ignored the normative/policy aspect to my introductory comment.

  The defendant inarguably increased the amount of child porn in existence...

This illustrates the perversity of attempting to interpret the provision with no sense for its purpose. It may also illustrate why the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democratic nation. Child pornography can only *possibly* cause harm to the child-victims (and perhaps their personal contacts) and arguably its viewers (cognitive dissonance). *Re*production without distribution by someone already in possession cannot possibly exacerbate the offence. This is a pretty clear signal that "reproduction" should not be read into the definition of "production".

  Horseshit. "Ejusdem generis" means no such thing, particularly when it would yield such absurd results as equating "creation" with "financing" or either term with "arranging for."

Even by your cited defintion, my description of the maxim was accurate. You failed to note I said the shared meaning must *involve* the same subject matter. I didn't *equate* "creation" with "financing".

>the mental element to the offence (mens rea), specified in the end of the provision, may not make any sense in the context of simple media reproduction.

Irrelevant to this case.
 
 
The mental element is a *required* element of the offence. If you believe that the role of appellate courts is to give such a myopic interpretation of a provision that it is entirely dictated by factual concessions by a defendant, you can cheerfully expect dozens of conflicting interpretations of the same provision. There goes the legal certainty associated with your preferred "plain reading".

More horseshit. "Strict construction" is an interpretation based solely on the literal meanings of a statute's words, without regard to externalities such as leglislative intent or words that the legislature did not include.

That's only its exclusive meaning if you get your law from the news. See e.g. R. v. Hasselwander (Supreme Court of Canada) http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1993/1993scc57.ht ml where authorities from both the UK and US are cited.

I don't think it has any bearing on copyright lawsuits. It arises largely as a result of a terribly-worded statutory provision. In Canada, the provisions are much clearer, with separate sentences for each of four crimes: "making" child pornography, "distribution" of child pornography (each max 10-year sentence), "possession" of child pornography and "accessing" child pornography (each max 5-year sentences) (http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec163.1.html). The possession provisions have been subjected to constitutional scrutiny.

As previous posts indicate, this decision is problematic because possession without distribution should certainly not bear the same penalty as creation of child pornography. The Michigan appellate court got itself tied up because there is no reference to "distribution" in the provisions--so the Court decided it couldn't countenance distribution bearing the same penalty as possession.
 
Aside from the obvious policy problems the decision generates, it's also premised upon a very poor statutory construction. First, the court has improperly imported the word "reproduction" from the definitional provision and substituted it for "production" in the offence provision, which runs contrary to principles of statutory interpretation.
 
Second, the Court neglected to consider that the definitional provision applies to both the child pornography "creation" provisions and the "possession" provisions. Obviously, the Legislature intended to criminalize the *possession* of both originals and copies of child pornography, which is why the word "reproduction" appears in the definitional provision.
 
Third, although section MCL 750.145c(2) should really be broken into subsections, there are clearly three types of offences of increasing distance from the true *creation* of child pornography: 1) activities directly with the child ("persuades, induces, entices, coerces, causes, or knowingly allows a child to engage in a child..."); 2) completed crimes of production ("arranges for, produces, makes, or finances"); 3) incomplete crimes of production ("attempts or prepares or conspires to arrange for, produce, make, or finance"). There is the same *underlying* criminal activity to each--*production* (not reproduction) or child pornography, or the person creating it.
 
Fourth, there's a principle called "ejusdem generis" to be applied in interpreting statutes--lists of words are taken to have related meanings. In this case, the verbs "arranges for, produces, makes, or finances" should be given similar meanings. In this case, the shared meaning must reasonably involve *creation* of child pornography.
 
Fifth, the mental element to the offence (mens rea), specified in the end of the provision, may not make any sense in the context of simple media reproduction. If you ask me to simply burn a copy of your CD with child pornography, I could be caught by this offence, without knowing *anything* about the content of the CD, simply because the photos on the CD "includes a child or that the depiction constituting the child sexually abusive material appears to include a child". If one is involved in filming or financing the original creation of the child pornography, that would likely not be the case.
 
Sixth, there's a maxim of "strict construction" applied to criminal statutes, at least in Canada (and I would think all over the Western world): in the case of legislative ambiguity in criminal provisions, they are to be given an interpretation most favourable to the accused.

All in all, this is a somewhat embarrassingly unsophisticated judgment to come from an appellate court. And alas, I have little hope that your Supreme Court, based upon its current composition, would correct these clear errors.

Some of us Canadian techies know about those, as well as Part VI of the Criminal Code of Canada. :P

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec254.html

You're correct. It's called Failure or refusal to provide a sample. On the next page, it is lumped together with all the other charges as far as sentancing goes.

You are flamebait and should be modded down. The Federal Court has already stated that merely downloading and making music files available on one's hard drive does not infringe copyright under current Canadian law.

They are not illegally swapping music.

What the CRIA wants is nothing more than a SLAP suit against individuals who won't have the resources to fight, while generating maximum publicity.

CRIA can think about this if they want - I'll be donating to the first defense fund announced, and I'll be waiting another 2 years before I ever buy music from a label listed on RIAA Radar.

Legally, it is not a tax. Tax measures must be introduced at Parliament by ways and means measures. The Tariff has already been challenged on the grounds that it is a tax but was not so introduced. The attack failed in the Federal Court of Appeal: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca424.h tml

And no, the government doesn't administer the program. Collection and enforcement is directly administered by the private collectives (e.g. http://cpcc.ca/english/collPayment.htm).

This isn't to say the whole thing isn't completely ill-conceived and unjust. But Ottawa isn't getting rich off this.

How is DNA any different?

Who says it is?.

This same argument has been going on in regards of what to do with photographs and fingerprints of people after they are aquitted.

After a person is cleared on the offence there is no additional benefit to society to keep their personal information which outweighs the invasion of privacy that person suffers for having that information be on the "Record".

For an innocent person, having their fingerprints show up in a criminal database is an invasion of privacy. That is their personal data which the state took from them without their consent.

Insofar as the legal system is founded on the principle of presumption of innocence and respect for the rule of law. A person who is aquitted ought to be left alone as much as possible, and free to go about their business as if they were never accused in the first place.

There is no legal status in this society of "innocent, but not really".

As for your contention that EVERYONE gets fingerprinted. That is not necessarily true.

As least in Canada, there is discretion on the police as to whether or not they choose to take fingerprints. They have the authority in certain cases, but they can skip it if they dont see any necessity.

I would be suprised if most jurisdictions had a rule which said police MUST take fingerprints even if they dont want to.

incidentally.. in Canada, the policy of police departments (at least RCMP and Toronto Police) is to destroy or return fingerprints and photos of a person if they are aquitted of all charges upon request.

It is that policy (to destroy on request) which caused the Ontario Supreme Court to rule that the law allowing fingerprint retention on any basis was constitutional. It is likely I think, that if police started refusing to destroy fingerprints on an ad hoc basis, then the Court would rule that they must.

anyway.. this is Canadian law which few of you care about.

Look up R. v. Dore if you care about details.

The case in question is indeed one of civil libel, as are the great majority of libel actions, but there is such a thing as criminal libel. In the United States only a few states have such laws and prosecutions are very rare. Criminal libel exists in Canada (see sections 297-316 of the Criminal Code). Although prosecutions are very rare, the statute has been upheld in recent years by the Supreme Court.

1. The ruling on the case seems to be correct. This was a libel case and the evidence seems to clearly support libel. He was accussed of some nasty things by the Washington Post and an investigation proven them to be baseless. No problem here.

2. As to the jurisdiction, the ruling on the forum clearly shows the reasoning. There are only two potentially relevant forums for this case. There are a variety of considerations for the correct forum. It was in D.C. that the story was actually written and the authour resides. However, it was in Ontario that the damage was done to the plaintiff's reputation. The plaintiff has no reputation in Washington (never lived there, no job, no family, etc.). Furthermore, though written in Washington, the Post is available world-wide and especially through the internet where this set of articles was published. As far as witnesses, they're in several places but no more in Washington than Ontario. Case law states that if no better forum can be found then the plaintiff's choice of forum should be left undisturbed. There was no argument to show that D.C. was better than Ontario, so it was left in Ontario.

While the plaintiff did not permanently live in Ontario at the time of the first posting of this article, he was moving around a lot and spent much of his time in Ontario. Plus the libel continued for years including the time since he's become a permanent resident of Ontario. Put another way, there's no other forum that would be more appropriate for which damage was done to his reputation.

In short, the court made a fairly solid argument for keeping it in Ontario. It also noted, with references, that the chosen forum rarely affects the outcome of the case. Even if this had been heard in D.C. it should have come out with a similar ruling. This all seems well researched, documented, and argued. I'd appreciate it if someone could find a flaw in the reasoning (after reading the whole thing, since Slashdotters are known to make arguments against things they've never actually read). I'm always open to hear good objective debate on these things, so if his reasoning is flawed I'd like to see where.

3. The claim that this is harmful to free speech seems baseless, and almost propaganda. The Washington Post did break the law, whether Canada or the U.S. The result would be the same regardless. Libel isn't free speech and this ruling doesn't affect free speech. There are also many cases prior this where a person breaks the laws of one country from outside its borders. There's a whole field in international law. In fact, the plaintiff had a doctorate in international law. This is not new.

In short, this is blown way out of proportion. The Post did something wrong and got spanked for it. End of story. No new law, no bizarre rulings, despite the wild claims of the media (who have an obvious bias in this case, in additional to their natural tendancy to sensationalize things). Move along, nothing to see here.

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Its been shown time after time and even tested, ISPs will remove/giveup anything if they told.

If nothing else, it shows that when ISPs do take a stand, good things happen. Because of that court decision, the CRIA now has nothing to do but go fuck itself.

You can find it here:

Exceptions for IT Professionals in Ontario

The Supreme Court has recently articulated a view of copyright with an increased recognition of "user's rights" beyond those granted by statute, but this is still an evolving area of law in Canada.

I think we should be proud that we are causing them to notice us during the election. We need to push harder, but we have a good start.

In the 2001 consultations we easily generated 650 of the 700 responses received. I'm hoping to get an even larger number of people involved during the election asking questions during all candidates debates and so-on.

We also have a petition for users rights that we will be presenting to the new parliament. Currently we have between 100 and 200 signatures, and I really want that to be over a 1000! If 650 people will write a letter to government bureaucrats to signify they don't want a DMCA in Canada, we should be able to get over 1000 people telling parliament directly!

Note: The recording industry claims that they asked for the levy as a stop-gap before they got Legal protection for DRM. They also more recently claimed that they lost a court case (BMG CANADA INC. vs. John and Jane doe) claiming that there is a "hole in the copyright act". There is no hole in the copyright act, unless you count the blank media levy and their entire lack of evidence of copyright infringement.

See: The Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network (CanFLI) for more information on that case.

So the onus is on the individual to prove that they have the tools for a legitimate reason. That's pretty difficult to do unless you are a locksmith.

RSS feeds are animal byproducts made according to the Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan (RSS). In the case of websites, mostly it refers to recycled bovine ordure, or "bull logs", often pronounced colloquially as "blogs".

Hope that clears things up.

Per the limitations of the law he can hold a job (PDF), and get married. Looks like he could be considered an adult if he wanted to be, as well.

I forget the specifics, I learned this in a gun safety course years ago. Here's a little something that might help (probably not much): http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-206/whole.html . You have to notify the officer of the time and place of the transport. I'm not sure how target practising is handled :/

It's Legal Information Institute (LII), not "legal law institute".

You'll find that Cornell got the ball rolling for LIIs: CanLII, Austlii, etcLII.

Good places to go to for free legal info. Think of them as the FSF of the legal world.

The real discussions on Slashdot usually only interesting to a few people :)

Cornell LII isn't directly affiliated with AustLII the way, say CanLII (Canadian law) is, but they keep in touch...

CanLII is actually funded by a levy on the practicing certificates of Canadian lawyers, which is a perfect example of law firms doing an end-run around the legal publishing monopolies.

Btw, check out WorldLII, which contains stuff from most of the common law world (minus US) as well as links to stuff from all over. Much better then Findlaw :)

Does anyone know where to get the briefs for this case?

CANLII is a good first place to look. All you need is the court in which he was convicted, and you can browse all court decisions. It also has a list of all courts in Canada. Guide to Ontario Courts would be another good place to look. The Law Society of Upper Canada might be of some help too.

Since Ontario is a backwards province whos justice system doesn't give over court briefs to Canlii, there must be a place in Ontario where one can get them. Maybe the Queen's Printer in Ontario?

It's not dangerous in Canadian law, it's atually quite popular with government.

The judge probably knows that Windows is brain dead, and hard to program, especially if one must buy the commercial developer tools.

No free stuff + no developer tools == no scripts for the kiddy to use.

I don't know how often this sort of judgement is made, but you can check CANLII (www.canlii.org).

Canada does make some stupid judgements, though. I do know of one case that is going to the Supreme Court of Canada soon, in which the convected murderer was convicted of either killing his wife, or paying somebody else to do it for him. That was the actual verdict returned in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench -- "We the jury find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, for either murdering his wife or hiring somebody to do it for him"

They can in Canada, and probably the USA too. In fact, in Canada, provincial governments can sue other provincial governments. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the American states can sue other states.

Two examples:

Chaban v. Olson Provice of Alberta + Chaban v. Olson.

In Saskatchewan, auto insurance is provided by the government. My mother was visiting my sister in Alberta (no government insurance), when her car was hit by a guy with no insurance or licence.

Mum's insurance paid to have her car fixed, and now SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance) has filed suit in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (The highest trial court in Alberta). They're suing him for ~$17000, the cost of the repairs.

If you read the transcripts they would say:

Plaintiff: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan

Defendant: That Guy who hit dadragon's mum