Domain: cippic.ca
Stories and comments across the archive that link to cippic.ca.
Comments · 35
-
Re:Erm, what?
For those interested here's the CIPPIC information.
-
Re:Michael Geist
-
Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....
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.
-
Re:What? This is unheard of!
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 -
Re:Absolute defense.
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. -
Re:Borders
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.
-
Re:Nice thought, but...
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 . -
Re:Nice thought, but...
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 . -
Link to the study.
-
Re:They have altered the deal...Color me naive, but I fail to understand how this move could pressure anyone. I don't think anyone will be storming the Parlement demanding that Harper meet with Bush to discuss the ban on preview movies. The media cartels have been pressuring the governments of the world to adopt the same insane copyright laws they managed to buy for themselves in the U.S.
This is a propaganda campaign designed to spread their FUD so that the public will support the changes to the law. -
Re:More laws are the key ... to EVERYTHING
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./ -
RTFA - still!
Go read the damn bill C-416
Go read the damn links before whining. From TFA:
"Bill C-416 appears to be identical to Bill C-74"Hence the Slashdot submission mentioning the "no warrant" part.
The part of the bill you quoted rather clearly refers to who can make these requests, not how or when they can make them. Moreover, the section you have quoted from is:
"Obligations Concerning Subscriber Information"
i.e., the "IP address from name" queries that I was talking about, and NOT any kind of wiretap.
Why are you so insistent on mischaracterizing what this bill is about? There are valid privacy concerns regarding the "IP address from name" provision without you pretending the bill is something it's not. Indeed, your kind of nonsense just makes people who are concerned about the bill look foolish, and undercuts their efforts. -
You are mistaken - RTFA
wholesale, warrantless monitoring of all electronic communications -- which is what this bill actually permits
You have clearly not read either the bill or the links regarding the bill in the submission. From the FAQ from those links:* 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.
This would be an excellent opportunity for you to RTFA and STFU until you know what you're talking about. (Unless spreading disinformation is your goal, of course.) -
Flamebait + misleading
Perhaps a better question to ask is why the mod's didn't immediately flag the original post as flamebait?
Not only flag it as flamebait, but flag it as incredibly misleading.
Almost everyone here has assumed the law allows warrantless wiretapping, which is not the case. All it does is (a) require ISPs to have a setup that allows for wiretaps with warrants to take place, and (b) provide (without warrant) a mapping between IP address and customer name.
This is made quite clear in the FAQ in one of the article's links:* Will these proposals mean that my online communications can be monitored at will by the police, without judicial authorization?
No. -
Story summary is misleading>>> Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?
They're not even trying to, at least based on the links provided in the story summary.
From here, we read: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.
i.e., what they can do without a warrant is tell that you are the owner of an internet connection, but not what you have been sending down it. From the FAQ regarding the earlier version of this bill: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.
i.e., the ISP needs to be set up such that a warrant can be executed, and needs to provide basic data on a specified individual (name/address/IP address) without a warrant. Most of the concerns raised here are directly addressed by that FAQ:-
* 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.
i.e., the "wiretapping" part is simply if police have a warrant then the ISP must have the ability to allow that warrant to be carried out. This bill does NOT authorize warrantless wiretapping!
Which, of course, is pretty much the opposite of what the story summary implies. One wonders why the author - or editors - felt it necessary to mislead us about a fairly straight-forward privacy story. -
-
Story summary is misleading>>> Why the hell should they be allowed to read my internet packets without a warrant?
They're not even trying to, at least based on the links provided in the story summary.
From here, we read: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.
i.e., what they can do without a warrant is tell that you are the owner of an internet connection, but not what you have been sending down it. From the FAQ regarding the earlier version of this bill: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.
i.e., the ISP needs to be set up such that a warrant can be executed, and needs to provide basic data on a specified individual (name/address/IP address) without a warrant. Most of the concerns raised here are directly addressed by that FAQ:-
* 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.
i.e., the "wiretapping" part is simply if police have a warrant then the ISP must have the ability to allow that warrant to be carried out. This bill does NOT authorize warrantless wiretapping!
Which, of course, is pretty much the opposite of what the story summary implies. One wonders why the author - or editors - felt it necessary to mislead us about a fairly straight-forward privacy story. -
-
Canadian Perspective
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/ -
This is so bogus something must be done
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. -
Re:Canadian levies
-
Re:Canada
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 Still Legal in Canada
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-shari
n g-lawsuits/ and lose. -
Re:So, the obvious next question
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/ -
NDP supports WIPO ratification
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 -
Party Stance on Copyright & IP Reform
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. -
Re:How do we protest?
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.
-
NDP took opposite stand during electionPeter Julian's stand is a little odd consider the NDP supported ratification of the WIPO treaty that mandates a ban on anti-circumvention technology.
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.
-
Where did they get their stats?
"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? -
Canada's Laws favorable...This is kinda of a neat statement without a lot of explanation behind it. We do have entities in place which collect revenue on behalf of the artists from different industries that benifit from the artist work. The big example is the tax on blank cd's. It sucks that I pay extra for a cd that may hold pictures instead of songs, but I'm also not blind, 1/2 of my fiances music cd collection is burned cd's. I'm also paying a fee so a DJ can play music at the wedding to some organization that gives money back to the artists. There are other little quirks and decisions made by the gov't here and courts. In December 2003, the Canadian Copyright Board stated that downloading music was legal. They also went on to say that sharing would still be considered illegal.
Here is a site that tries to give more information on our favorable laws
The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic -
One Word
-
Re:"Land of the Free" - enough is enough
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.
-
NDP and Bloc have repliedWe have received many more responses to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Election 2004 questions.
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.
-
Centralized thinking in parties.
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? -
Canadian Election, WIPO and other Internet policy
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. -
i'm glad i'm not ...
the customer who's IP was "24.84.179.98" (see page 11 of the court order).
-
Where did they get their stats?
"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?