Slashdot Mirror
Canadian High Court Says ISPs Don't Owe Royalties
canwaf writes "According to the CBC, and the other guys: In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. They continue in their decision that Internet access providers are not bound by federal copyright legislation. Coupled with an earlier story on Slashdot, this is a very good thing." Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail's article, too.
Good to hear that at least some people - and this time lawyers - have some reasonable ways of thinking.
I am glad that this ruling came so quickly after the ruling that ISP's are not required by law to produce the names of people on their networks who are suspected filesharers.
I just don't see why this needed to be decided on. Telcos aren't responsible for people who discuss illegal activities. How would an ISP?
ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that.
On the other hand, if prosecuting copyright violations becomes too difficult to be worth it maybe a better system will ensue?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
A decision so obvious as this really needs to be appreciated. Whats next? Are we going to jail FORD execs as accessories because they provided the means for the getaway for some bank robbers?
Well at least intelligent rulings like this are a step in the right direction.
Well, this may sound like a troll, but it's basically true: Here in the US, most laws and court cases involving business are not decided on logic and right and wrong, they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?
Does this happen anywhere other than Canada?
Common Carrier means non-discriminatory, usually. If some content is restricted, and other content is not restricted, you stop being a common carrier.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You forgot
0) Real Beer
Regards,
--
*Art
Dude, have you _been_ to Montreal in the summer? Learn to speak some French, it's worth it for the ladies :)
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Well......First of all, does downloading kill people directly? NO! There's your fundamental difference.
And of course, gun companies, to sell more guns, would likely encourage people to buy guns for "self protection" (ie, kill others before they kill you)...... Have you seen an ISP encouraging people to "illegally" download music to drive business?
-----
"If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
I think its worth taking note this wasn't any kind of split decision on the court's part. No decension among the ranks, 9-0 is a strong decision.
Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer's identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn't seem to fit into my gun analogy.
No, it does fit. Your prejudice is what prevents you from seeing it immediately. (See below.)
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information.
This is the prejudice. You're assuming that because someone made a file avaliable, that a crime was committed, where in reality, that is not so clear. The judge said as much in the ruling.
It's not the case that the 'gun' was used in the crime, but that the courts weren't convinced that a crime occurred at all. The CRIA said "ISPs are hiding people who are illegally trading our files!", and the court responded with "no, they're protecting the identity of people who are trading files, but it's entirely possible that trading is not illegal - prove that, and then we'll talk."
Blah blah blah blah...
Apparently you don't watch the CBC. French bashing and Anglophone bashing is 30% of the humour on our STATE-SPONSORED television network. Canadians don't tolerate racism? Apparently we tolerate people with no sense of humour though. I wonder which is worse.
BTW.. I would appreciate it if in the future you didn't presume to speak on behalf of me.
Forgot three things:
7) Free health care
8) Polite people
9) Chicks can go around topless.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Maybe this will compel the record industry to take a long, hard look at their current business model and realize it's no longer compatible with today's entertainment market.
Got news for you - the entertainment industry already knows that. That's why they're filing these lawsuits.
The music industry had a stranglehold on music distribution, which gave them the ability to abuse artists as much as they want ("You don't want to sign this contract? Fine, you'll never be able to make money from your music.")
The internet changed all that. It's now becoming possible for an independent band to market their music to a worldwide audience.. and so now the music industry has competition, and they're desperately trying to extend the life of their business model as long as possible.
Statements like this bug me.
And finally....
But then I happen to think that identifying one's self with a nation is right up there with identifying one's self with a race... speaking collectively on behalf of your nation is right up there with speaking collectively on behalf of your race... and excluding or condemning people based on their nation, is right up there with excluding or condemning people based on their race.
I'm being far too harsh though... I know, you were probably just making an off-the-cuff comment to defend francophone Canadians and it came out wrong. People use "we" and "them" to describe a nation or race all too casually.
As a proud Canadian I'm the first to trumpet our successes to whoever will listen. But...
In all honesty, the US was a much more open a free-market society until the last few years. Aside from the absolute hard-right turn taken under the Bush administration, the aggressive nature and consolidation of media companies in the last 5-7 years has really put a chill on the US society IMHO. Note: I realise that this started under Clinton too.
For me, there are a few significant events where the rule of law were circuvmented, or big business exercised a strong influence over the legislative bodies in recent times. These are having profound negative effects on American life and commerce.
1. Microsoft anti-trust. Found guilty, but government backs off on any significant penalty. IBM never got off so lightly, and the results were the PC revolution.
2. Consolidation of media ownership. Especially regarding radio. Less diversity = less room for competing opinions. More big business = more big business attitudes reflected in editorial biases.
3. Abuse of copyright/patent system. Think EOLAS, think SCO, think Mosano, etc. Combined with a culture of litigation, this really makes you wonder if the US is unconciously abandoning its heritage of innovation. The money is compensating for this pull downwards, but will this always be the case?
Unequivocally the US leads the North American economy...Canada has, to a great extent, benefited from this for years. But sometimes we wake up, look in the mirror, and wonder "What the hell are the neighbours doing now???". I think that, lately, our values expressed in our judicial and legislative system are more in line with what Americans expect than their political leadership have provided.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
But unlike telcos, ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS. Using your logic, I could see that an ISP, as a common carrier, would have to carry the spam, but as a service provider could then very well not deliver it. It's mildly similar to call-blocking features sold by the telcos. Sound reasonable?
It actually is simpler than that.
Define ISPs as common carriers (after all, in 99.999% of the cases that is effectively what they are, and any other course leads to a madhouse of government regulation and oversight).
Define SPAM to be illegal, just as SPAM faxes are illegal, and just as obscene and threatening phone calls are illegal.
Then, place enforcement where it belongs, with the authorities (who can require cooperation from ISPs), not the ISPs themselves, who should be in the business of providing connectivity and services, not enforcing the law.
Those services, as you correctly point out, would (and already do) logically include mail filtering software of varying quality.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I have to put in my 0.0149346 USD on Winnipeg as a place to live. I've lived or spent time in most of Canada's big cities, and Winnipeg often gets an undeservedly bad rap (see parent for example). I'm not a native Winnipegger (hell, I'm not even a native Canadian, I'm a refugee from down south), but I've lived here off and on for almost 30 years.
;-)
True, the winters can be cold. And true, the mosquitos are a pain in the ass. But we have more than enough to make Winnipeg "the best kept secret in Canada".
As a musician, one of the chief attractions for me is our vibrant music scene. Ditto for other arts, including several world-class dance companies, a great theatre scene, and some truly excellent galleries. The film industry is booming because the city is clean, inexpensive, and rich with talent.
Winnipeg enjoys gorgeous summer weather, more sunshine than most other cities, a high proportion of greenspace and some lovely parks. We arguably boast the world's best per capita selection of restaurants. Fishing, hunting, and other outdoor activities are world-class. We have museums (soon to include the new international human rights museum at The Forks) and a wealth of historic architecture.
Best of all, Winnipeg is a multicultural bonanza, much like Toronto albeit in a more cozy fashion. Perhaps it is the Manitoba tradition of welcoming immigrants that has made this city and province the open, inviting, friendly place it is today. All I know is that people who move here - however much they initially dread it - are soon loath to leave, and those who move away find themselves coming back. Ask them why, and they'll say, "The people."
Now, as a selfish isolationist, I really shouldn't be saying all this, because I don't WANT any more people moving here. But I do think it's sometimes important to reply to people who don't know anything about Winnipeg beyond... cold and mosquitos.
Cheers!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
One of the reasons we are not hated by the world is we are not so intolerant and in fact appreciate different cultures. Partially because we support diverse culture within our country(admittedly officially only two, but there are historical reasons for that and its a start).
I certainly enjoy visiting Quebec and having French friends for a bit of diversity. So with your shallow comments I'd just as soon you stay out of the country.
The whole anti French thing is more than a bit tired and really counter productive.
they're fucking with you.
-Reid
Whoa there.
We don't all "love" the Queen of England. I don't even personally know her, why would I "love" her. In fact I think most people simply tolerate her as a necessary celebrity although there is a sizeable portion of Brits here who still are Monarchists. Something I will NEVER understand. Monarchy by definition is discrimination as it's defined by the idea that there is someone who's "better" than the rest of us simply by birth.
Oh, and you can keep Celine Dion in Las Vegas for all I care.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
That's close enough to free for me. I'd gladly aprove a tax hike here in the US if I could get some health care without some Nazi employer finally deciding I'm worth it, even though I've been working 50 hour weeks for the past year....
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Although, in all fairness, it's only cold during the winter, the summers are glorious. Curling is just like bowling except (gasp) a team sport and more moving. There are even special shoes! And, like everyone else, most of the French speaking people are wonderful and intelligent people. And a lot of them speak English. Often better than most Anglophones speak French.
You forgot "Insane Taxation" from your cons. Small price to pay, IMHO.
My opinions ... yours may vary ...
Toronto is a sprawling metropolis ... I prefer to live somewhere where the countryside or the cottage isn't a 3+ hour drive though congested traffic.
Montreal has the cultural variety, but you have to live in Quebec and put up with the bullshit laws protecting "Quebec culture" and the sepratists. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there.
Vancouver is also a beautiful city, but you have to put up with the left-wing provinicial and city politics, which means getting worked over by the tax man, photo radar, etc. Again a nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there.
I'd live in Calgary without hesitation ... the city isn't so big but it is a growth region and you are close to the mountains.
Lastly I'll plug Ottawa since that is where I live. Only about a million people, but a 2 hour car ride from Montreal and a 4 hour car ride from Toronto if you feel like doing something different on the weekend. Ottawa has some of that big-city feel, but you don't have to drive through 18 layers of suburbia before you get to the country.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
As a Canadian and a (former) beer-making hobbyist, I must say this on-going thing of Americans not having 'real beer' is sill. This whole thing boils down to two main differences:
1) Alcohol by volume (used in Canada) and alcohol by weight (used in the US) make it look like Canadian beer has a higher true alcohol content. Do the conversion and they are the same. 4% ABW is almost the same as 5% ABV.
2) How much hops and how roasted the grains that are used in the beer. Since Budweiser uses a lot of rice as a filler and goes light on the hops, it's a less 'in your face' taste that many North Americans prefer.
Canadian beers are simply using more hops and probably less rice. As you move across the pond to Europe, who have been producing awesome beers for hundreds of years, you'll discover the move is to the folowing:
a) Much more darker roasted barley (with use of rice not being in favour or downright forbidden) leading to a darker more robust flavour
b) Much more liberal use of hops at the various stages of brewing to add bitterness and other elements.
So it's more like the choice between dark-roast coffee or medium-roast coffee here in North America. It boils down to a preference and what you grew up with. Me, I think Starbucks is lousy compared to Tim Horton's.
Admittedly, if you're accustomed to some of these more robust beers an American ale comes across as a little thin, you'll also find not a lot of North Americans can handle really spicy food either since it's alien to them.
Just think of mainstream US beer as "McBeer" and you'll begin to understand why it seems so downplayed. It's marketed to the masses and it sells.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Also, you have a system where a healthy populus is good for the people (less tax money taken out) instead of good for the companies (the threat of being sick or injured allows companies to raise rates).
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Compared to whom? Take a look at what people pay in Western Eupope, and tell me what you think then.
Feh!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?