Slashdot Mirror

For those interested here's the CIPPIC information.

No he's just got the loudest mouth. We have CIPPIC, Openmedia and there's also JF Mezei

Actually, it has been decided in court. http://www.cippic.ca/file-sharing-lawsuits/

The ruling was that merely downloading and making available are not enough to infringe copyright. This is probably limited to music; the personal copy provision is explicit in that only music is covered (not even audio books).

The decision was appealed, and stood.

Making available on a folder on the hard disk was important. The personal copy provision allows for downloading. But the Copyright Act has a "no telecommunication" provision. That part of the ruling was put aside (too bad), and is still open.

But merely downloading is not enough to infringe copyright in Canada.

I would guess pressure had something to do with it:
http://www.cippic.ca/en/news/documents/Judgement.pdf

Someone made a request to Accusearch for information on Canada's privacy commissioner, and they got it. The case made it to the Canadian court system. And if you wonder why affairs in Canada would affect the US;

Canada now has a "do not fly list" ("Passenger protect") -- yet they don't want one
Canada is now starting a war against drugs -- yet they don't want one

Until a week ago I thought that truth was an absolute defence to libel. Not always so. Although the law differs by jurisdiction, what you say may have to be in the public interest. If a politician sleeps around with married people and then tries to outlaw adultery, that's in the public interest to report; if your neighbour sleeps around with married people, that's not in the public interest (unless the married person or that person's spouse is a public figure). People are entitled to their privacy, and if the public would not care about Joe Blow and you defame his character, you're going to get in trouble.

Also, on the jurisdictional issue, this site lists a few places where truth is not an absolute defence (including "some US states"). And you should note that if you publish something online, then since people can read it in jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defence, you may be able to be sued in those jurisdictions, even if you and the person you're talking about have never been to that jurisdiction. And lastly, the burden of truth (not just belief in truth of the statements, but actual truth) is on the person making the statements.

CIPPIC filed a complaint a month ago with the federal privacy commissioner a month ago, in regards to the transfer of canada.com. (and the personal information contained there) to US soil. There are several complaints with the commissioner on information being moved to US soil, it will be interesting to see what precedence is set with the results of her findings.

This was not just an academic study, this was funded by the federal privacy commissioner , and CIPPIC is a group of lawyers who submitted their findings to the commissioner. The PIPEDA violations will now be investigated by the privacy commissioner.
I'm not sure why, but the original submitted left out the link to the actual report .

This was not just an academic study, this was funded by the federal privacy commissioner , and CIPPIC is a group of lawyers who submitted their findings to the commissioner. The PIPEDA violations will now be investigated by the privacy commissioner.
I'm not sure why, but the original submitted left out the link to the actual report .

http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/CIPPIC_Report_DRM_and_Privacy.pdf

In Canada, we have PIPEDA http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e .asp, as well as provincial and industry related privacy legislation that is useful. If you have a violation, you can submit it to the privacy commissioner, as well as http://www.cippic.ca./

Go read the damn bill C-416

Hence the Slashdot submission mentioning the "no warrant" part.

wholesale, warrantless monitoring of all electronic communications -- which is what this bill actually permits

* Will these proposals mean that my online communications can be monitored at will by the police, without judicial authorization?

No.

* Will it be easier for the police to get search warrants under these proposals?

The proposals would not change the test for obtaining search warrants under Criminal Code.

Perhaps a better question to ask is why the mod's didn't immediately flag the original post as flamebait?

* Will these proposals mean that my online communications can be monitored at will by the police, without judicial authorization?

No.

It would require telecom service providers to offer much greater surveillance capacity to law enforcement agencies, and would allow police to obtain subscriber name and address information from service providers upon request, without a warrant.

Currently, TSPs are permitted to disclose data on their subscribers to law enforcement agencies without a warrant or court order, but they are not required to do so. These proposals would require them to provide limited "subscriber data" to LEAs upon request.

Bill C-74 also requires TSPs to have the technical capability for interception built in to their networks, so that police are not prevented from exercising their lawful interception powers because of operational barriers.

• * Will these proposals mean that my online communications can be monitored at will by the police, without judicial authorization?
  
  No.

  
  
  

• * Do the proposals require that ISPs retain all data about their subscribers for a certain period of time?
  
  No.

  
  
  

• * Will it be easier for the police to get search warrants under these proposals?
  
  The proposals would not change the test for obtaining search warrants under Criminal Code.

  
  
  

• * Will it be easier for the police to intercept private communications under these proposals?
  
  Yes. One of the main purposes of the lawful access proposals is to make it easier for police to intercept communications when they have judicial authorization to do so.

  
  

It would require telecom service providers to offer much greater surveillance capacity to law enforcement agencies, and would allow police to obtain subscriber name and address information from service providers upon request, without a warrant.

Currently, TSPs are permitted to disclose data on their subscribers to law enforcement agencies without a warrant or court order, but they are not required to do so. These proposals would require them to provide limited "subscriber data" to LEAs upon request.

Bill C-74 also requires TSPs to have the technical capability for interception built in to their networks, so that police are not prevented from exercising their lawful interception powers because of operational barriers.

• * Will these proposals mean that my online communications can be monitored at will by the police, without judicial authorization?
  
  No.

  
  
  

• * Do the proposals require that ISPs retain all data about their subscribers for a certain period of time?
  
  No.

  
  
  

• * Will it be easier for the police to get search warrants under these proposals?
  
  The proposals would not change the test for obtaining search warrants under Criminal Code.

  
  
  

• * Will it be easier for the police to intercept private communications under these proposals?
  
  Yes. One of the main purposes of the lawful access proposals is to make it easier for police to intercept communications when they have judicial authorization to do so.

  
  

Not only does each province have a privacy commissioner, there is a federal privacy commissioner in Canada, as well as consumer rights groups.

http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/digital-rig hts-management/

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/370? page=14

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1383/125/

I just came back from a film, in Montreal. At theatres it's common to have staff check your bags (especially at downtown theatres) for camcorders etc, and of course there are warnings everywhere about how it's a crime to film a movie in the theatre (even if it isn't). These measure I support - hey, it's their theatre - but the big studios coming out with this FUD just as the government seeks to change the Copyright Act is way over the top. And so are their statistics. Unfortunately, these obvious tactics have been know to work, let's make sure this time it doesn't: Inform yourself and don't just sign a petition, but sign up and write your MP. Visit the CPPIC for more.

As far as the threat to delay movie releases, please do! It may give the small domestic film industry a little opportunity when some moviegoers arriving at the theatre choose to see a Canadian film, instead of the delayed American crud that they thought was out.

Here's a link to some relevant info, by the way.

Early court rulings suggest CRIA lawsuits may be nothing to worry about in Canada. I'm more concerned about the RIAA suing visitors to the U.S. much like the american government arrests visiting foreigners for DMCA violations. As long as I don't own property in the U.S. can they force me to pay up?

Its strange that the RIAA would bother sending a letter to a Canadian company.

Music is quite legal (until the government changes the law) to download in Canada. It is most likely legal to have it available for download too, provided that you are not "distributing", which seems to require active promotion.

I would think software developers would be one step further removed from that. Good luck to the RIAA pressing their case in Canada under the current law. CRIA was already stupid enough to take it to the Federal Court http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/file-sharin g-lawsuits/ and lose.

Some notes for y'all:

- The bill is C-60: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-60/C-60_1/90191bE.html
- The blank media levy info is here: http://www.sycorp.com/levy/
- How each political party stood on this in the '04 election: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/election-20 04/

If you check out this article by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.

Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against

Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.

The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:

Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys

With much at stake, there's little debate

MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES

With the federal election now just one week away, millions of voters are sizing up the national parties' positions on a wide range of issues. For those interested in technology law and policy issues -- including copyright, spam, and privacy -- the election campaign has been a disappointment as technology policy has barely registered on the election-issue radar.

While it may be understandable for technology policy to take a back seat to health care, national defence, and tax policy, an election campaign would be an ideal time to generate discussion and learn about positions on issues that typically stir debate throughout the year.

In recent weeks several groups have tried to capture the attention of the national parties and local candidates by posing questions on technology law policy and posting the responses online. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, online at http://www.cippic.ca/ distributed a questionnaire to each national party covering key copyright policies issues including positions on music file sharing and Internet service provider liability as well as on spam, the use of open source software, and national ID cards (in the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that I am a faculty adviser to CIPPIC).

Similarly, Digital-Copyright Canada, a user and creator group, posed similar copyright questions (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ to each local candidate across the country, while the Canadian Teachers' Federation asked each party for their views on copyright issues of concern to the education community.

With responses in hand from four of the five major political parties, different visions of Canadian technology law policy have begun to emerge.

The Liberal party sits squarely in the middle on these issues. Although the party's response speaks predominantly in generalities on copyright matters, it is revealing as much for what it says as what it does not.

First, the party pointed to the controversial blank-media levy as evidence it has worked to ensure Canada's copyright policy is modern and progressive, a surprising illustration given the opposition to the levy from a broad range of stakeholders.

Second, while the party noted the ongoing copyright reform process, it tellingly made no mention of the recent Canadian Heritage committee copyright report, perhaps seeking to distance itself from the report's recommendations. The committee, chaired by Toronto-area Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, has drawn the ire of educators, Internet service providers, and copyright experts for adopting a one-sided perspective that fails to account for the interests of all copyright stakeholders.

Ms. Bulte herself offered a spirited endorsement of her committee's recommendations just days before the election call, concluding that the exceptions proposed by groups such as the Canadian education community to facilitate the use of the Internet within our schools was the wrong approach, characterizing such exceptions as leading to "freebies." Given the Liberal emphasis on education, its move away from Ms. Bulte's position may foreshadow a reconsideration of the recommendations should it form the new government.

The Liberal party also responde

And well you should find out where the parties stand on these issues before you vote later this year or early next. Check out detailed official party positions as of Election 2004 (they haven't changed much since) or read a Toronto Star summary on their stances.

Your local MP will soon be campaigning for your vote or seeking a nomination in your riding. Grill them on their position on Copyright, Open Source Software, and User Rights issues. This is an issue that has been virtually ignored, the fact is that most candidates know little about it and may alarmingly vote on complex IP legislation merely along party lines. Write them.

In case no one has mentioned it, take a look at the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. Information, action items and petitions on copyright reform.

In any case, no matter what Liz Frulla is saying to appease the lobby groups, if the legislation sticks to the proposed plan there should be no problem.

And what the article summary appears to have missed is that one of the things in the plan is to close the loophole that probably makes unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music legal in Canada.

This should go hand-in-hand with repealing the blank media levy, since it is supposed to be linked to the legalization of 'private copying', but no word on that yet.

Not that I'd expect it, though, the government has never met a tax dollar it didn't like.

"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."

Does that percentage include traffic to Canadian computers, where such downloads are legal?

Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?

Does that percetage account for people who tried to download a song but got a RIAA-hijacked song instead?

What a waste of resources. They are playing at a very losing game. Before Napster there was always IRC, usenet, and FTP -- those are still there. After Napster came Morpheus/Grokster, which may/may not be left alive. But already the file sharing community has moved past into DirectConnect hubs, bit torrent, private WASTE networks, etc. Why do they even bother anymore?

Here is a site that tries to give more information on our favorable laws
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic

Move.

So because the US is considering instituting what amounts to a national ID card, you're going to move to Canada? That's about dumb.

We look forward to commentary on the NDP and the Bloc Québécois (Google Translation).

Missing at this point from the major parties is the reply from the Conservative party.

I am the webmaster of Digital Copyright Canada and have been working closely with the CIPPIC and PIAC before and during this campaign.

Helping to run this information campaign has been an eye opener for me. I had thought that each of the parties were similar as far as having local candidates in each constituency able to run their own local campaigns.

The centralization is quite high: A number of NDP and Liberals have responded saying that party headquarters will be answering, with some NDP candidates indicating that it was against NDP policy for candidates to answer questionnaires.

As I wrote in the article " Candidates blindly endorsing party position", this is not an area of policy where there is consensus in any of the parties. For this reason the responses of candidates are more important than party responses, and yet some of the centralizing parties like the NDP and the Liberals discourage candidate responses.

Do you want a candidate who will be able to be informed and represent your views, or only one that will tow the party line?

The Digital Copyright Canada forum and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) are working to make Internet, Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) and digital copyright issues during the current election.

In 2001, with the help of the EFF, we were able to generate approximately 650 of the 700 written replies that the government received to their consultation. Our replies all opposed the DMCA being brought into Canada. Unfortunately parliament is not listening to us, and recent reports from parliamentary committees have directed government to immediately ratify the WIPO treaties that were implemented as the DMCA in the USA.

Rather than reacting, Canadians should be proactive and ensure that their candidates know where they stand on these issues. Both CIPPIC and the Digital Copyright Canada forum have questions for Candidates which can help you find out where they stand.

If you are one of those 40% of Canadians that don't vote, please consider protecting the Internet and FLOSS from bad government policy to be an important reason to get involved.

the customer who's IP was "24.84.179.98" (see page 11 of the court order).

"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."

Does that percentage include traffic to Canadian computers, where such downloads are legal?

Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?

Does that percetage account for people who tried to download a song but got a RIAA-hijacked song instead?

What a waste of resources. They are playing at a very losing game. Before Napster there was always IRC, usenet, and FTP -- those are still there. After Napster came Morpheus/Grokster, which may/may not be left alive. But already the file sharing community has moved past into DirectConnect hubs, bit torrent, private WASTE networks, etc. Why do they even bother anymore?