Slashdot Mirror

Spooks and Cops have tried and failed a couple of times to pass "lawful access" provisions into law in Canada. Strong push-back on what has been euphemistically rebranded "awful access" has so far succeeded in shutting this down. See: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tag...

The weird reasoning is that Netflix, YouTube etc won't give out numbers, making it hard to pay royalties to the content producers, so have a tax to pay the content producers and since no one uses the internet for stuff like analyzing astronomical data, just streaming and low bandwidth stuff like email, tax them (actually probably officially a levy as the money will go to the industry, who promise to share it with the artists).
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

They're still trying, and with the new NAFTA crafted by a reality TV star, they might succeed.
We have the 15 GB tax (only reason a household would use more then 15 GBs a month is due to legally streaming from companies that rip off the artists, so we the people, should pay a tax that in theory would help pay the artists who signed a bad contract) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
Then we have the move to tax or censor HTML links, this link should cover it, but it is currently not loading properly in my old browser, http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRend...
Also at the same link should be info on other shit they want in our revised copyright act.
Unluckily we have an 800LB gorilla behind a lot of this shit.

It's a temporary restraining order against a company that fled BC to, perhaps, France, and is selling stolen networking technology. It's not an attempt to censor someone's opinions, but to hunt down a thief.

There is tons of non-puff-pirce commentary, though:

• Michael Geist, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
• Howard Knopf, http://excesscopyright.blogspo...
• Barry Sookman, http://www.barrysookman.com/20...

and also two dissenting opinions from the judges in the case, available to everyone at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/s... where they question how long it should apply.

I'm also pleased to note that one of the first steps cited by the court, in 2017 scc 34, was an injunction "issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordering D to cease operating or carrying on business through any website."

This is a great improvement, IMHO, over cases in the EU where Google was ordered to cease indexing sites which were not similarly ordered to cease their actions.

--dave

http://www.cantechletter.com/2...

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200...

Every god damn year this report comes out, and it lies like a Sean Spicer press briefing.

The 301 watchlist report is trotted out every year. and every year Canada is one on the great boogy men to chase. Its a bad report that has little objective evidence in it, and is at most an industry ad propaganda briefing. Im sure there will be a detailed analysis out shortly, but here is one of Dr. Geists past looks at this annual right of **AA venting its spleen "because Hollywood is doomed if we don't fix this" http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

Also the caps on penalties are more reasonable here, making the "Pay us 5000, or we'll sue you for 1,000,000" threat ineffective. The max for non-commercial infringement up here is 5k. Since that's the max, in most circumstances, the judge would prove a much lower cost, say 100-200$.

Quoting directly: "(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 copyright trolls haven't been too interested since then.

background if you're interested:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

The TPP was negotiated over a very long time time between governments and large corporate interests. While the public was cut out of knowing what was being negotiated, Large corporate interests were sitting at the table through their lobbiests, which added the worst parts of the agreements. The continued drumbeat of longer copyright rules, thanks to the MPAA, is just one example. If you want to see from a Canadian perspective why this deal is a steaming pile of waste http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ shows 50 reasons. And the great irony here, is most of the shit in this deal comes from the U S of A. I dont want to be part of any more trade deals, if the US is at the table, because your guys are the fkn worst in the room.

I hope when Trump exits the TPP that the rest of the signatories will go back and strip out all the parts the US lobbied to put in that nobody else wanted, like the changes to copyright laws. No need for them to be in there anymore.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

May end up being a much better agreement without the US.

This "one Canadian law professor" is Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, a syndicated on technology law issues in major newspapers and a member of many boards, including the CANARIE Board of Directors, the CanLII Board of Directors, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's Expert Advisory Board, the EFF Advisory Board, as well as the founder of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

If you are a Canadian /. reader, I strongly recommend following his blog.

Here in Canada, there was this law suite, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200... , the kind of thing that would put the average person in prison for a long time. The slap on the wrist, https://torrentfreak.com/recor...
Must be nice to infringe for $6 billion and only have to pay $45 million, one hell of a good profit margin.

The day I'm locked into Canada is the day I exercise the option of canceling and using other free services like Shomi (comes with my Shaw account free).

Since you're paying for your Shaw account, Shomi is not free but "included"; I have Crave TV "included" with MovieNetwork/HBO. The fun part is that both Shomi and Crave are Canadian services, so there is no US counterpart to compare to. Which means you're locked into Canada from the get-go. We don't have Hulu and our localized Amazon Prime is joke.

But it's not just via the Content providers like Netflix that our friends in Hollywood are busy protecting their own entitlements, also the government is being worked on.

how about when they abuse their power and dont pay the artists? Isnt that "copyright infringement"?
How come they didn't pay the billions they owe for violating copyright laws?

Canadian Recording Industry Faces $6 Billion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200...

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200...
and finally
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

From one artist to another

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200...
and finally
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

From one artist to another

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...

Never mind Balsillie. Michael Geist wrote a whole series of very detailed arguments as to why the TPP is an absolutely terrible deal for Canada, with many arguments applying to the rest of the suckers^H^H^H^H^Hpartners who sold out their citizens. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/?s=...

According to Michael Geist, TPP requires implementation of a DMCA-style take-down notice system, while eliminating the good faith belief requirement. Oh please oh please let it pass. YouTube? I'm sorry, it infringes. All of it. Vevo? Infringing. Take it down. Redtube? Infringing. Take it down. If TPP is implemented, it is our duty to see to it that no automated take-down system in any of the 12 countries will work anymore. And it will be legal.

Finally all those spam botnets will have a productive use.

It hasn't been ratified though. There are significant benefits to being an original signatory on any international treaty, and every member country is afraid of being left in the dust if they don't. There are provisions requiring signatories to ratify certain provisions, but it has not been ratified yet, only signed, and there is a big difference.

The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States - unfortunately, at the expense of other countries involved. A number of provisions in it give an unfair advantage to the US, because they have demanded that these provisions be put in.

Michael Geist is doing a very good review of all the problems with the TPP, and has been posting daily about it for about a month now. It's a rather Canadian perspective on it, but a good read nonetheless.

Harper already extended copyright in his last budget.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

In general it's difficult to get excited about Canadian issues, since the news and commentary from our US neighbors tends to be a lot more loud and extreme. However, there are a couple commenters I turn to when I want to catch up on what is happening in my own country:

Michael Geist is an excellent source for tech and intellectual property issues in Canada.

Chantal Hebert is a fantastic political analyst... her columns are regularly insightful and devoid of the partisan screeching that seems to infect a lot of political commentary.

No, the law isn't about hacking. Bill C-51 gives the government power to share information about citizens between departments. It also authorizes heavier surveillance, stronger powers of arrest, while not adding any accountability.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

from the same site.. interesting insight into what really happened... http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

the songs themselves had a longer copyright term than the recordings of them. an enterprising company started selling music that fell in that gap.. songwriters still got paid but the original distributing labels (sony, universal, etc) got left out.. they got mad and did what big companies with governments wrapped around their corporate fingers do.. they got laws changed the way they want.

Earlier this year, a Canadian company called Stargrove Entertainment began selling two Beatles records featuring performances that are in the public domain in Canada. The records were far cheaper than those sold through Universal Music and were picked up by retail giant Walmart, who continues to list the records on their website (Can’t Buy Me Love, Love Me Do). There were additional titles featuring the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and the Beach Boys. Some of the titles are still available for sale through Walmart.

The Stargrove Entertainment records provided Canadian consumers with low-priced alternatives while still ensures that the authors of the songs received the approriate royalties. While the sound recording is in the public domain for these works, the song itself remains subject to copyright. Therefore, the song writers – Lennon and McCartney in the case of the Beatles – were still paid for every record sold. The difference is that Universal Records was not profiting from the sale. Instead, a small Canadian company was succeeding in selling the records at a lower price to Canadian consumers.

The only information I can find saying that the regulations are not enforced is what is in Geist's article. He notes that the regulations are located here and then goes on to say that the government decided to go ahead and implement without these here. The problem is that the second article does NOT say (anywhere that I can find) that it was implemented without regs. It claims that it is the final step in the copyright modernization act which is in fact what the first government document was all about.

Either I'm missing something or Geist is making assumptions about what Canadians actually have based on the action of a US company that is already being sued for their practices. Someone please enlighten me.

ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant.

Actually, no. They need to ask an actual judge for a warrant first.

https://torrentfreak.com/canad...

Granted it's not an SCC ruling, but given the SCC just said even the police need a warrant, I'd say it's pretty solid.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

Here's a takedown of the new law and it's effects by Canadian law professor Michael Geist: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/notice-difference-new-canadian-internet-copyright-rules-isps-set-launch/

Some notes:
The notice-and-notice system "has operated informally for over a decade but will kick in as the law in 2015 ...".

Under this system "copyright owners are entitled to send infringement notices to Internet providers, who are legally required to forward the notifications ..."

ISP's must "retain information on the subscriber for six months (or 12 months if court proceedings are launched)".

"[T]he personal information of subscribers is not disclosed to the copyright owner ... If the copyright owner is unhappy with only sending a notification and wants to proceed with further legal action, they must go to court to obtain an order requiring the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the subscriber".

"Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded".

link

Is Canada still taxing blank media to subsidize the "victims" of "piracy?"

Yes. Is the USA still allowing copyright trolls to financially ruin people in ways that are not legal in Canada?

Enjoy that.

I should add. I don't support the behaviour of the trolls (threats, etc) in this regard. I'm not sure if these people believe the crap they spew out or are truly trolls doing it to get a rise out of people (in that case, I suppose they succeeded), but either way they're fairly vile examples of humanity.

The problem now is that there's been an association between people who simply disagree with Anita's actions/views/etc - and offer constructive criticism - and the vile filthy trolls.

I agree with some of A.S.'s points. Others I don't agree with, and some I think are widely overblown.
Do I care that somebody may be using their personal relationships to garner publicity. Well that's somewhat nasty, and I don't think it's right, but not worth a sh*tstorm. Personally I found it more scary when copyright lobbyist do so in order to sway laws. Maybe if a lot of people and/or myself bought a crap game because of industry shilling reviewers I might care a bit more, but that seems to happen anyhow without the sex.

Seriously, anyone who cares to speak out against A.S's issues are best to do so in a sane manner. But trolls are trolls, and really I'm guessing that a lot of these are just sick people who are looking for attention. They do shit specially to get a rise out of people, so the bigger the reaction the happier. These are the same idiots that do swatting, troll forums with goatse, incite people to suicide and other crap. They're the Westborough Baptist Church of the internet, except you don't know who they actually are. They may be gamers, but chances are just as likely that they're simply attention-seeking sh*tbags. Hopefully some of the more legitimate threats can be tied back to a real identity, in which case games and feminists alike (or gamer-feminists) can celebrate.

... an extremist.

Alas, the bill in question was pushed through despite otherwise unanimous opposition within a few weeks of the conservative party obtaining a majority government in Canada.

Modded Informative?

This guy is informative: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/con...

You'll note that "The law also includes a three-year transition period that ensures that as long as an organization already has implied consent, it has until 2017 to upgrade to an express consent"

behind your Canadian brothers will not leave you behind http://www.michaelgeist.ca/con...

Well I was sharpening my pitch fork last night but my neighbors think that I'm crazy.

To me if you were going to call something "copyright trolling" it would be more like using copyright letters to silence people, aka SLAPP

And that is exactly what is happening here. See here for more details.

Specifically, they are using a scheme called "speculative invoicing", described as:
"sending hundreds or thousands of demand letters alleging copyright infringement and seeking thousands of dollars in compensation. Those cases rarely - if ever - go to court as the intent is simply to scare enough people into settling in order to generate a profit."

Oh, silly me, trying to make sense of all this circus: WTO on a short leash held by US barks at... US? In reality they are doing this because sometimes copyright gets in the way of Deep Pockets Corporations

Hey hey DONT put the Canada word out there. We only have 4 years or so to get out dictator out and hopefully revese some of the "The next state" steps that have been taken by the "Harper Government" Just look at this shit http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6929/125/

Yes.

Until relatively recently, 3 large wireless companies completely dominated the market. there are 3rd party offerings in urban areas that have largely been crippled by regulation favouring the large incumbents. Mobilicity (now telus), Wind, and Public Mobile recently Withdrew from their own lobbying organization claiming they were also in the pocket of the big 3.

“It has been evident for quite some time that, rather than being a true industry association which represents the views of all players regardless of size, the CWTA has instead largely been an advocate for Rogers, TELUS and Bell, and often directly contrary to the interests of new entrant wireless carriers” said Bob Boron, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs for Public Mobile.

The CEOs of the big 3 mobile companies tell their shareholders proudly that they consistently have the highest revenue per customer in the world. This is not in dispute. However, when pressed to justify such high priced plans, they use the same hackneyed mantras of: sparse geographic distribution, threat of netflix and streaming services, and supposed customer satisfaction, which are largely corporate marketing spin repeated year after year until it's true.

Recently, all 3 new entrants in the urban wireless market became up for sale, and Telus is intending to buy Mobilicity, and Rogers is attempting to purchase the spectrum originally allocated by the CRTC to new entrants to increase market competition.

Canadian wireless service has less choice, higher prices, offering fewer services and typically lower bandwidth caps, thanks to collusion from the large telcos. It's a caricature of the US market.

Yes.

Until relatively recently, 3 large wireless companies completely dominated the market. there are 3rd party offerings in urban areas that have largely been crippled by regulation favouring the large incumbents. Mobilicity (now telus), Wind, and Public Mobile recently Withdrew from their own lobbying organization claiming they were also in the pocket of the big 3.

“It has been evident for quite some time that, rather than being a true industry association which represents the views of all players regardless of size, the CWTA has instead largely been an advocate for Rogers, TELUS and Bell, and often directly contrary to the interests of new entrant wireless carriers” said Bob Boron, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs for Public Mobile.

The CEOs of the big 3 mobile companies tell their shareholders proudly that they consistently have the highest revenue per customer in the world. This is not in dispute. However, when pressed to justify such high priced plans, they use the same hackneyed mantras of: sparse geographic distribution, threat of netflix and streaming services, and supposed customer satisfaction, which are largely corporate marketing spin repeated year after year until it's true.

Recently, all 3 new entrants in the urban wireless market became up for sale, and Telus is intending to buy Mobilicity, and Rogers is attempting to purchase the spectrum originally allocated by the CRTC to new entrants to increase market competition.

Canadian wireless service has less choice, higher prices, offering fewer services and typically lower bandwidth caps, thanks to collusion from the large telcos. It's a caricature of the US market.

What about situations like this: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/ The recording industry selling CD's and "compensating" artists at some point in the future. Its odd as when individuals are sued the "fine" for sharing is huge, but when the industry is sued suddenly the cost of distributing music without compensating the artist falls dramatically?

It will be worse when Canada shows it servitude to the US even more by ratifying ACTA, Bill C-56 is just paves the way.

The problem is the First-Past-The-Post election system. If you say that General B'weto received less than 40% of the votes in the Republic of Masuto, but rules with absolute power, this person will be called a dictator. Now look at Canada's latest election results. Yes. The Ruler received just under 40% of the votes. Less than 4-in-10 voters gave their support. But the rule with absolute majority.

Even the senate is a joke: members are appointed by the PM for life. There is no balance there, either.

Canada bows quickly to US patent pressure, so no, Canada wouldn't work.

I believe you're wrong. We don't much fscking care what your USTR may think. We'll happily burn down your Whitehouse anytime. Just give us a call. :-)

Everyone is pirating. Today's copyright laws can't be followed, even by people actively trying to follow them. Someone put a nice essay together to detail how incredibly absurd we are right now. If you walk around in public, singing along to your iPod, you are violating copyright. Current copyright law is so nebulous, that average person will violate it somehow, every day. The only good news is that no one cares about most peoples infractions.

The real problem with copyright law, and increasingly all IP law, is that it is impossible to avoid bankrupting lawsuits by following an obvious set of rules. This is evidenced by the fact the biggest copyright lawsuit in Canada was filed against the music labels. The university library copyright collection agency imploded. The copyright collection agencies have lost many lawsuits at the supreme court.

If the music industry can't follow copyright law, why should anyone else?

And not often mentioned is the role Harper's lot played in getting the Canada on that list.... thanks to Wikileaks we can see the coordination between Harper and the US.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5986/135/

Industry Minister Tony Clementâ(TM)s policy director asked U.S. officials to add Canada to their Special 301 Priority Watch List. See, they have an agenda, they ask Canada to be put on the list, then they can use the presence of Canada on the list as an excuse to enact a lot of nasty IP laws they wanted to do anyway. Cute huh?

It's already started, bill C-11 for example. But there's also Canada's unwavering suppor for ACTA and the TPP...

Hell, Harper/Clement has yet to properly respond to the thing where C-11 increases fair dealing, but disallows breaking digital locks. Given very few media is sold without locks, it basically takes away everything it gives. To which neither have given any response to. Other than "It's good for Canada!"

"The Government is disappointed with the United States' decision to include Canada in its [year here] Special 301 "Watch List." Canada does not recognize the Special 301 process due to its lacking of reliable and objective analysis, and we have raised this issue regularly with the U.S. in our bilateral discussions."

"In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts."

Unless policy has changed, that watch list is largely regarded as being mostly about special interest groups with no good basis.

Sorry, but that is a wish list written by industry of the pony they want to be given. It's all about them getting the most draconian, invasive measures they can find.

It isn't an objective document in any way at all, and only the US pretends it is.

The relevant portion isn't what is illegal or legal, however, but the damages. According to Michael Geist (a leading legal authority on such matters), the new rules from the new law would be in effect for any new lawsuits. I believe this is because the rules cover how the judge would award damages, so when determining damages the judge would have to use the rules as the exist at the time of the ruling.

So it's unlikely that Voltage would manage to secure anything more than the minimum statutory damage of $100.

It is worth noting that It's not the first time that Voltage Pictures tries to fuck with Canadians. Last year they had a run at a few dozen Quebecers over the Hurt Locker that time:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5999/125/

I never new if they ended up with some settlements or not. What I do know by experience is that when I rented the Hurt Locker I ended up not watching it because the DVD was only in French. French is my native language but I hate translations, they are simply un-watchable. The Hurt Locker was distributed here by Maple Pictures and contrary to 99.9% of DVDs and BDs, they made two different versions for Canada, one in French and one in English. The English version was nowhere to be found in Québec. Talk about under using technology...

I can only imagine the poor bastard that actually bought the movie only in French (without knowing it) and ended up downloading a proper original English version and getting a 'pre-settlement' letter in the mail 2 years later...

If the goal is not to curb internet freedom, then why are the foxes the ones at the forefront of the effort to build a henhouse?

It's a bit of rather disingenuous misdirection.

Touré claims that the ITU have no intention of touching anything to do with Internet governance, but this is not entirely honest: The treaty-making process starts with independent submissions from various national institutions and telecoms industry bodies. While none of them have any formal status at this point in time as ITU policy, a significant number of them speak specifically for the perceived need for transit fees for large content providers (e.g. Google). Were they to be taken up as components of the revised ITRs, they would indeed place limits on the growth of the Internet, especially in developing nations. The precedent of 'pay-to-play', for example, favours large incumbents far more than upstart content providers, especially those in the developing world, where cash flow is often limited and incomes small.

Given the rather stark opposition coming from the US and key EU countries, I still doubt whether any of the most contentious proposals will ever achieve the consensus required to become binding. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, significant parts of the last (1988) set of ITRs have been ignored even by some of the ITUs strongest supporters.

As usual, MIchael Geist is the go-to guy to understand exactly what forces are at play here. His contention is that the 'UN takeover' spin conveniently hides a more insidious issue: Who pays for content?

See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/

Why Liability Is Limited: A Primer on New Copyright Damages as File Sharing Lawsuits Head To Canada Wednesday November 28, 2012 Over the past couple of days, there have been multiple reports about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada, with fears that thousands of Canadians could be targeted. While it is possible that many will receive demand letters, it is important to note that recent changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability in non-commercial cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims. In fact, it is likely that a court would award far less - perhaps as little as $100 - if the case went to court as even the government's FAQ on the recent copyright reform bill provided assurances that Canadians "will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement."

I think that all y'all should read through the actual copyright law, or at least, check out Michael Geist's blog .

The max fine is 5000 canukshekels for all infringements prior to the lawsuit, but the minimum fine is $100, and the law contains language advising the courts to consider stuff like the impact of the fine on the defendant, and so on. Mr. Geist suggests that it might not be worthwhile for the MAFIAA and so forth to go to court only to be awarded $100 in damages.

As well, the rulings of that Federal Court in Montreal ordering the ISPs to hand over the names of subscribers (there was another case about 18 months ago in the same court, I believe) have never been appealed; eventually, that will wind up in the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is the disgustingly awful part about C-11, but you missed the upside:

The goverment eventually arrived a trade-off that most Canadians would make: a tougher provision to target sites that facilitate infringement (the law already allows rights holders to do this) in return for a full cap on liability for non-commercial infringement. This applies not only to individuals (likely bringing to an end the prospect of file sharing lawsuits in Canada) but to any non-commercial entity including educational institutions and libraries (who may adopt more aggressive interpretations of the law with less risk of liability).

Emphasis mine, see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/

Michael Geist's descriptiption: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6689/135/

And a law firm's description: http://www.mcinnescooper.com/publications/scc-finds-limited-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-work-computer-but-evidence-still-admissible/