Slashdot Mirror

Just have to take it to court. To quote the actual law, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.c...

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

        (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

        (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

        (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

        (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Didn't finish my posting, here's the actual law. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... which basically agrees with the above post.

DId you read the link you posted? it is very consistant with what i had posted as well

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

so.. when the OP downloads a TV show, has he deprived the owner of property or a service? Has he exerted control over the property or service?

Here (Canada) the definition is also very consistant

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

theft, by definition centers around depriving someone of somethign (a good or service). even your own state laws clearly specify this.

so.. when did copyright infringmenetn become theft?

continue your marketing campaign, debeers convinced people a rock is worth 2 months salary.. maybe you can redefine "theft" as well.

Here's the one from Canada. The US has something similar.

Protection of persons acting under authority

        25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

                (a) as a private person,

                (b) as a peace officer or public officer,

                (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

                (d) by virtue of his office,

        is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
        Marginal note:Idem

        (2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
        Marginal note:When not protected

        (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that personâ(TM)s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
        Marginal note:When protected

        (4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if

                (a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

                (b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

                (c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

                (d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and

                (e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
        Marginal note:Power in case of escape from penitentiary

        (5) A peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm against an inmate who is escaping from a penitentiary within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if

                (a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace officer or any other person; and

                (b) the escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

It's impossible to create any practical rule governing human behaviour that enumerates every specific bad action. Just look at the law of any country, none of them are very specific.

Really? Can you explain how this law isn't specific(keeping in mind that this is a law used on a regular basis). Remember that in law, you don't have to fulfill each subsection. But you do have to fulfill the specific section for it to apply.

Assault

        265 (1) A person commits an assault when

                (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

                (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

                (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Laws in most western countries are very specific. On top of that, countries who use common law the laws get progressively more specific as time goes on. It can actually become so specific with common law, that the existing law has to be refined because the original scope is no longer correct in the eyes of higher appeals courts.

You are a fucking troll.
Use this phrase
"The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. "

And tell me how that would affect these laws.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

You are a fucking troll.
Use this phrase
"The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. "

And tell me how that would affect these laws.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/ssi-sis-eng.html

under the heading "what to expect" while it doesnt say that they can force you to unlock it, i provide a second piece of evidence:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/6/8162337/iphone-unlock-border-agents-canada

they can detain you for hindering their duties (which is a very general charge and most border agencies have such a law)

Oh and i have personally been requested to unlock my phone. Mine was for tax reasons as they wanted to make sure that i was correctly declaring the value of what i was bringing across the border. Border agencies EVERYWHERE have more power and less rules than the police simply because they are there to protect the border and thus the country which is why this is more prevalent in western countries than other countries. the root of the problem is that law has yet to catch up to technology and given that at the border they already have you in a tough place (you clearly have places to go) they can see what interpretations they can justify from overly broad rules and guidelines.

finally:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/can-us-customs-officers-legally-search-my-phone-when-driving-across-the-border/article34100953/

To quote: "âoeCBSA officers have the legal authority under Section 99 of the Customs Act to examine personal baggage, including personal electronic devices, and conveyances and goods upon arrival into and on departure from Canada,â a CBSA spokesman said in an e-mail."

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-52.6/FullText.html

"Examination of goods

        99 (1) An officer may

                (a) at any time up to the time of release, examine any goods that have been imported and open or cause to be opened any package or container of imported goods and take samples of imported goods in reasonable amounts;

                (b) at any time up to the time of release, examine any mail that has been imported and, subject to this section, open or cause to be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains any goods referred to in the Customs Tariff, or any goods the importation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under any other Act of Parliament, and take samples of anything contained in such mail in reasonable amounts;

                (c) at any time up to the time of exportation, examine any goods that have been reported under section 95 and open or cause to be opened any package or container of such goods and take samples of such goods in reasonable amounts;"

Your phone can easily bee seen as a container of goods, Worst case senario is they say that it had something to do with duties and they will get away with it.
"

Yes, I'm telling you, Canada and the US are the same here. It's still not your data. You control the access, but that's about it. It's "your" data, not your data.

The law is telling you it's not. The privacy act makes that fundamentally clear. So do things like PHIPA and so do things like PIPEDA. "Your" data is yours, PHIPA even goes further allowing patients to "lock box" personal information from ALL parties except those directly disclosed.

Mod this bullshit down. Please.

Here is the actual law:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93

It is nothing like what the disinformation shills would have you believe. It is quite reasonable.

Why not go to the "horse's mouth" instead of some random blog:

From your link:

... people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized.

Actual Criminal Code of Canada
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93

You will note that the actual law is nothing like what your random blogger thinks it is.

It is really quite reasonable. The law basically states that you cannot publicly incite hatred against any identifiable group. You can express such thoughts in private all you like, but when you publish a magazine whose content is "Kill all Hipsters!", then you have a problem.

It is not creepy or tyrannical at all.

Some civil cases can also be tried by judge and jury.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... The Constitution says that the Charter takes priority over all other legislation in Canada because it is part of the “supreme law of Canada.” It applies to all government action, meaning to the provincial legislatures and Parliament, and to everything done under their authority. This means that governments must take the Charter into account in developing all laws and policies. It also means that when an individual goes to court because he or she believes that Parliament or a legislature or a government official has violated rights or fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Charter, the court may declare the law invalid if it conflicts with the Charter or provide any other “appropriate and just”

I think you're talking about the Criminal code of Canada, not the "Bill of Rights".

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-40.html#h-61

Details are important if you're not going to cite references and are going to tell a "Yank" to go Google something about Canadian law.

I would love to know what "Supreme Court" ruling you're referring to, but I'm guessing it doesn't exist.

The Bill of Rights has nothing about privacy: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/FullText.html

The privacy commissioner herself had her cellphone records sold to a reporter because there were no such protections in law.

https://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/372_20070709_e.asp

It's my understanding that postal services and landlines have protections in law, but there is no such thing for "new" mediums. I.e., you need a warrant to open mail or wiretap a landline, but before the privacy act, you could sell somebody's cellphone records to whomever you wanted without telling them.

You're probably also talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the Bill of Rights. But neither contain anything about privacy other than protections against search and seizure.

Details on the current state of privacy law in Canada can be found on the Privacy Commissioner's website... https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/02_05_d_15_e.asp

Please., please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to see this Supreme Court decision.

Tobias was charged with violating the Statistics Act, but eventually acquitted.

- so that's the actual problem, that there is such a thing as a 'Statistics Act'. Government has usurped the power over the people and is punishing them for not complying with the demand to be counted for whatever purposes are listed there.

AFAIC Canadian people are not Free People and the Canadian government is an oppressive regime.

As to this new idea of demanding that the federal data is kept within national borders, that's just another way to usurp power by the government and to create more controls and to steal more money from the private sector.

Wrong! It would be if it were returning money, but it is not returning any money or even anything you can sell, just more credits which you can only use for more games. If you bothered to read what was written you would see that:

Definition of “slot machine”

but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.

I thought this task would help you prove yourself wrong, but you still need to read what is written.

I did read, and guess what - Microsoft Jackpot doesn't dispense "free games" - ever. It dispenses "vending merchandise or services" which affect your chances of winning, fixes one or more "wheels", credits which are used to purchase various goods in game, etc. Nice try though.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... Surprisingly easy to find. Microsoft Jackpot would be considered a slot machine as it produces random results per section 198 (3)(b)(ii).

Wrong! It would be if it were returning money, but it is not returning any money or even anything you can sell, just more credits which you can only use for more games. If you bothered to read what was written you would see that:

Definition of “slot machine”
but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.

I thought this task would help you prove yourself wrong, but you still need to read what is written.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... Surprisingly easy to find. Microsoft Jackpot would be considered a slot machine as it produces random results per section 198 (3)(b)(ii).

Wrong! It would be if it were returning money, but it is not returning any money or even anything you can sell, just more credits which you can only use for more games. If you bothered to read what was written you would see that:

Definition of “slot machine”
but does not include an automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine.

I thought this task would help you prove yourself wrong, but you still need to read what is written.

Because it's a simulation, you cannot win money from it. It's really not that difficult to understand, but if you're right then show me which gambling legislation that game falls under. You don't have to take my word for it, your inability to do that will help you to prove yourself wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... Surprisingly easy to find. Microsoft Jackpot would be considered a slot machine as it produces random results per section 198 (3)(b)(ii).

They may not have a First Amendment of their own, but they get the idea.

Actually, we do have a First Amendment of our own. It's called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and mentions freedom of expression.

This municipal law is mostly gonna get challenged in court.

Not in Canada. At least I can't find an article specific about forgetting a password.

Why can he not? I'd certainly rather return to Dominican Republic, then go to Canadian prison (in winter!).

In Canada, there is a CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, which includes the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Section 6 says:

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

So, once they have determined that he is a Canadian citizen (which doesn't seem to be in dispute), border officials are not allowed to refuse him entry.

Goods accompanying him are different story.

I don't know about the USA,but in Canada there are limits on how many coins and bills you can use to pay debts. See the Currency act.

Coins are legal tender, but only up to a maximum number of coins depending on the denomination. The most you can use in one transaction is 100 (dimes or nickels).

Justin's daddy took Canada from debt free to where we now owe hundreds of billions on our national debt.

That Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre Trudeau who was prime minister of Canada in the 1970s-ish. That's also plain false. World War II and "the Great War" created Canada's national debt, just like nearly every other western country.

He gave government employees the right to strike. Now we are constantly being blackmailed into giving raises far above industry standards.

During Trudeau's tenure as PM, the federal public employees won the fight utilize freedom to association (the basis for forming a union) in federal court. Not given to them by anyone. Unless you think politicians should restrict who is allowed to get together to form a corporation (an association for profit), why should the government have the right to treat its employees any differently than other employees? Save for the exemptions for RCMP officers and Canadian Forces (solders) by the courts.

Given how many facts you have been mistaken about so far, your view doesn't hold much sway with me.

Bollocks regard above industry standards for pay. I make ~20% less than private sector equivalent, get a benefit packages that is worst than the last 50-person company I worked for in the private sector, and I have to listen people constant lie and repeat untruths about my compensation. Go to Treasuary Board Secretariat of Canada's website and look for yourself at my pay and benefits.

He forced an unneeded charter of rights on the population with no plebiscite and with no private property protections in it. Like a good Commie.

Are you some self-delusional totalitarian? Communists government (even the better ones) never granted powers or rights to its people. Only socialist countries gave rights of individuals over the nation state (or monarch).

Private property protection? That has a long and complex history in English common law, dating to at least the 14th century (from memory). The Canadian Charter of Rights grants rights to people not grant either property rights to people or rights to property. It also doesn't mention dolphins.

And forced it on one province which ever since has threatened to secede.

The English-French divide has been a part of the Canadian landscape centuries before Confederation. That was just another piece they latched onto. Like the Meech Lake accord, NAFTA, GST, and hundreds of other things before and since them.

The previous posters reference CBC Canada which is a Liberal lacky and should be abolished.

Why would a Crown corporation have a Liberal (party) bias under how many years now of a Conservative (party). government?

Because frankly if you know any media history you will know that media bias and claims thereof have been around as long as media itself.

I have dealt with them and they always slant the news to the point that I NEVER trust them to report truthfully.

And I have repeatedly found that media in multiple countries, both private and state sponsored all display bias and often make minor to significant mistakes in their reporting. So unless you want to tell me that the Daily Mail (UK) is a balanced political point of view, in which case I would suggest reading World Weekly News.

Obviously all these negative comments are from brainless socialists

Because to disagree with you would require someone not merely differ in opinion or political leanings, but they are clearly mentally impaired? Get over yourself.

and union bosses who bleed the rest of us dry.

Why? Because unions bosses are bad and corporation bosses are good?

Any good boss will try to maximize the benefits to those whom they represent, for-profit or not-for-profit.

Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:

Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.

And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:

You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.

Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:

If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:

agreement, or

court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.

This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!

To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.

Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:

Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.

And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:

You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.

Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:

If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:

agreement, or

court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.

This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!

To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.

Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:

Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.

And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:

You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.

Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:

If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:

agreement, or

court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.

This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!

To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.

Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.

If men could get pregnant the morning-after pill would be available on demand and ship with a six-pack of beer and a large pizza. I was pointing out the difference in attitudes - guys almost always respond to an unwanted pregnancy by saying "I be with you when you need me - to go to the abortion clinic".

And yet guys can just get a vasectomy or use a condom or have oral/anal sex with their partner - problem solved.

... but as you said, you don't want to use a condom ... awww, poor bay-bee. In other words, you are willingly engaging in conduct that you know can result in pregnancy.

Next, you claim

"I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something."

You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.

Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

I've already received a notice and my ISP did exactly that. Here's the full text of the message I received:

Hello,

TekSavvy has received what the Copyright Act calls a "notice of claimed infringement". It listed an IP address and time. Our systems indicate that the IP address listed in the notice was likely assigned to your account at the specified time. We are therefore legally required to forward the notice to you. The notice is reproduced, unaltered, below.

First, though, there are some things you should know:

(a) We haven't told the sender who you are. Your privacy is paramount to us. We don't track, or know, what you do. We do know what IP address we assigned to you within the last 30 days. But we don't provide personal information like that to anyone unless a court orders us to -- and we have not done so here. The notice was simply received by us, and we have forwarded it electronically on to you.

(b) We are an intermediary that is required to forward this notice to you. We do not, and cannot, verify its contents or its sender. However, a private party's notice does not mean there has been any legal ruling. Only a court can do that.

(c) It is good practice to make sure you secure your account. Your wireless router should be password-protected; the password should be changed regularly; and those who have the password should maintain good virus protection. Your MyAccount allows you to check your bandwidth usage: do so regularly, and make sure what is happening and what you think is happening line up.

(d) We retain IP address information for 30 days. If your modem has not been powered off during that period, then we may have IP address information going back to the last time you did. In addition to requiring us to forward this notice, the Copyright Act also requires us to retain the records matching the IP address and time to your account for six months. If the people who sent the notice apply to a court, they can require us to hold it for longer.

We have provided some links below. The notice, which we are required to forward unaltered, follows.

Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

TekSavvy:
http://teksavvy.com/en/why-tek...
https://myaccount.teksavvy.com...

Automated translation (you may need to copy and paste):
https://translate.google.com/?...
http://www.bing.com/translator...

--- Forwarded Notice of Infringement follows:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Notice ID: XX-XXXXXXXXX
Notice Date: 04 Jan 2015 03:52:22 GMT

TekSavvy Solutions, Inc.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Irdeto USA, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Irdeto") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized Irdeto to act as its non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. Irdeto's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the below report.

Irdeto has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of in the below report is not authorized by Paramount, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the below report. The below documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement.

We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others unauthorized Paramount's materials in the future (see, 17 U.

The story fails to provide which parts of the act were changed, the courts in Canada have already ruled against such practice, this too shall not stand.

Here. And no, the courts have not ruled against this, since the law has only been in force for one day.

38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

The problem for individuals is that there can be multiple proceedings from different copyright holders, and they are additive. You download a movie and a song, the movie copyright holder can only proceed against you for the movie, and the song copyright holder can only proceed against you for the song, so they would be different cases, with different plaintiffs.

You're argument is similar to what is listed in: http://legal-dictionary.thefre... as the US legal definition. However, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... shows that the Canadian definition is even more tightly tied to transmission by radio waves than the US definition:

“broadcasting” means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;

OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.

As it stands, to my knowledge, one only has to turn over any physical records / devices.

However, if those records are encrypted, and the password committed to memory, the witness can invoke the 5th amendment, and exercise their right to remain silent, and refuse to disclose the password. Of course, its not settled, and orders to decrypt data have been issued by the courts and are being appealed... for example.

http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-w...

As for Canada - a production order is typically issued to a 3rd party custodian of documents -- e.g. bank records, phone records, etc. And if they are encrypted the 3rd party is required to decrypt them as part of producing them. But the 3rd party isn't the subject of the invetigation, production orders aren't aren't issued against the defendant directly, that I can tell.

That is, the police cannot hand ME an order demanding that I actively produce my own phone records for them. Nor do i think a production order would compel me to disclose the password to my own phone or laptop.

Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so.

There is another article on slashdot today about compelling parolees to wear bracelets that can determine if they fired a gun by using accelerometers and analyzing that information.

I can imagine all manner of prosthesis that might contain accelerometers where analyzing the diagnostic logs could be used to as evidence that you were moving or at rest, what sort of activity you were engaged in (walking, running, shooting, climbing, jumping, whether you got into a fight, or fell into a pool, got knocked down, picked up something heavy, swung it, or threw it...)

once they get a warrant for the password,

One cannot 'get a warrant for the password', at least in civilized countries :)

OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.

Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so. In any case, nothing currently on the market poses this "privacy danger".

I reiterate, the present framework is sufficient in my mind.

Well, Canada has shown time and again that Constitution doesn't matter at all anyway.

Would you agree that a human right cannot be a right if it trumps some other human right? As in: there is no way that something can be called a human right if in order to achieve that goal, another human's right must be violated?

Well, Canadian courts violate human rights on daily basis as they pretend they uphold human rights. How is that possible? It's called Canadian Human Rights Act of 1985 and based on this so called "Human Right Commissions" have been established, for example Ontario Human Right Commission.

With names like that, you would expect these high powered authorities to actually care about what it is they are supposedly presiding over, however the reality is the opposite. The so called "human right" courts in Canada violate actual human rights of minorities on daily basis in order to provide vast majority with many many entitlements at the expense of the minority.

I am of-course speaking of the employers being completely violated in Canada in order to ensure that those in power stay in power by supporting this absolute atrocity of a human right violation. The employees are far and many, the employers are few, and so it pays to violate human rights of employers in order to provide undue entitlements to employees and gain political power.

Based on the false premise and the so called 'common law' no employee in Canada has been forced to pay a retribution to an employer if the employee decides to leave at a moment's notice, however all employers are forced to pay retribution to employees if they want to fire them. This is not the human right violation yet, however once you realize that employers are not allowed to so called 'discriminate' based on age, race, religion, language an actually experience but employees discriminate on daily basis and that courts find that employers are liable but not one court will find an employee liable, you will see the problem.

Of-course there are much greater problems than that, but basically the so called 'human rights' courts in Canada are some of the most egregious examples of human right violators in that country.

Canada is one-party. See Criminal Code, s.184 or this article.

Lets see how this compares to Canada's new anti spam law since EA has offices in Vancouver and Montreal.

you got it for free if you had the promo code so can't really bitch about the DRM in it.

If I have not been (clearly) informed of it's presence and implications by the publisher

10.(3) A person who seeks express consent for the doing of any act described in section 8 must, when requesting consent, also, in addition to setting out any other prescribed information, clearly and simply describe, in general terms, the function and purpose of the computer program that is to be installed if the consent is given.

I certainly can and so should any person that consider themselves the owner of their machine when it is DRM that is known to:

- Generate false positives on authentic discs.

- Create files and reg keys that you cannot access/remove as admin.

- Snoop on your software usage 24/7.

- Conflict with debugging software and in some instances even require debuggers to be un-installed in order for you to play the game.

(5) A function referred to in subsection (4) is any of the following functions that the person who seeks express consent knows and intends will cause the computer system to operate in a manner that is contrary to the reasonable expectations of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system:

(a) collecting personal information stored on the computer system;

(b) interfering with the owner’s or an authorized user’s control of the computer system;

(c) changing or interfering with settings, preferences or commands already installed or stored on the computer system without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

(d) changing or interfering with data that is stored on the computer system in a manner that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with lawful access to or use of that data by the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

- Remain installed after you have un-installed the game.

11 (5) A person who has the express consent of an owner or authorized user to do any act described in section 8 must

(a) for a period of one year after any computer program that performs one or more of the functions described in subsection 10(5) but not referred to in subsection 10(6) is installed under the consent, ensure that the person who gave their consent is provided with an electronic address to which they may, if they believe that the function, purpose or impact of the computer program installed under the consent was not accurately described when consent was requested, send a request to remove or disable that computer program; and

(b) if the consent was based on an inaccurate description of the material elements of the function or functions described in subsection 10(5), on receipt within that one-year period of a request to remove or disable that computer program, without cost to the person who gave consent, assist that person in removing or disabling the computer program as soon as feasible.

20 (4) The maximum penalty for a violation is $1,000,000 in the case of an individual, and $10,000,000 in the case of any other person.

Any Canadians affected by this feel like filing a complaint?

Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.

Not off the top of my head, but I do remember Brazil, and Germany making some changes. Canada is doing something similar via pipeda this as well Where the law doesn't cover it, companies are doing it on their own including avoiding routing through the US. For online in Canada see openmedia's bit. Individual ISP's as well have been replying on what they give/send/comply/refuse to do, this is Teksavvy's response.

"It seems that nobody really knows what it means to be identified as a spammer."

The general definition is UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email. The FAQ gives some pretty good ideas what a "commercial email" is (SMS is also under this definition). Basically, stuff sent blindly, ignoring any kind of consent on the part of the recipient.

>blaming this law for not being able to send out security update emails

It's one of the explicit exceptions to this law:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

(c) provides warranty information, product recall information or safety or security information about a product, goods or a service that the person to whom the message is sent uses, has used or has purchased;

Blaming this law is simply whining.

Microsoft is throwing a temper tantrum. Fuck them.

--
BMO

I read through the actual law and I don't see anywhere that specifies each CEO and officers of a violating company can be fined. The law specifies "individuals" can be fined up to $1million, and "any other person" (presumably corporations-as-people) can be fined up to $10million.

Anyone care to clue me in?

Actual FULL text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

Canada passed a new law regarding spam in electronic messages (in particular, email) starting July 1

the law is here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
faq is here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com5...
the potential fine is $10 million

The companies that are effected are legitimate ones who do business in Canada
The onus on proving you have permission to send an email is on the company sending it.
There has been a flurry of activity wanting permissions recently due to the legislation.
It seems that nobody really knows what it means to be identified as a spammer.

Microsoft is probably thinking - to hell with it; the risk is too high. The RSS is good enough.

Protip: Canada doesn't have freedom like many other western democracies, or even free speech. We have "as much freedom as dictated by law, courts, and government." And those can be restricted at any time, if they can be so justified. In Canada, it's spelled out plainly in s.1 of the charter of rights and freedoms. There's a reason why many don't think the charter will last beyond 2030, not withstanding the Quebec issue.

It does have a somewhat specific legal meaning.

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
        (a) destroys or alters data;
        (b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
        (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
        (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
...
(5) Every one who commits mischief in relation to data
        (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
        (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

I need to ask because dealing with those rules are my day job – how do Canadians avoid constructive sales?

For those who don’t know, in constructive sales one can “economically” sell a security (i.e. stock), extract the money from said sale, but delay the “actual” sell – and the associated taxes – indefinitely.

I would think that the General Anti-Avoidance Rule in section 245 of the Income Tax Act would cover that kind of scheme.

IANAA, etc.

Bill 22 should be against section 2b. I have no idea why it has not been struck down. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

At least have the decency to mention the important thing the Harper government got RIGHT: Limiting the scope of how hard the CRIA can screw the individual downloader. We see HUGE penalties in the USA for poor people getting nailed for "copyright infringement" but at least in Canada Harper has limited that to $5,000CDN for "all infringements involved" so no-one has to lose their house over downloading a few songs to listen to at home. That is a HUGE benefit and protection to the average person here in Canada who just wants to listen to music. It also forces the music labels to leave the music lovers alone and go after the commercial infringers, since they can't exploit individuals as a "cash cow".

Also note that these copyright changes are all REQUIRED under international agreements that Canada is party to, so you can blame Harper all you want but no-one else could have done any different. IMHO, I think he got the best deal possible out of a crappy situation!

See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...