Slashdot Mirror
Canadian ISP to Name Music Swappers
Daemon writes "The Globe and Mail reports that Videotron, a Canadian ISP, will not be fighting the request to turn over the names of music swappers to the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). According to a lawyer for Videotron, producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly that they believe that it is justifiable to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs on-line. The five Internet service providers named in the case -- Shaw Communications, Rogers Cable Communications, Bell Canada, Telus Communications and Videotron -- can't divulge the information without a court order because privacy legislation requires them to keep customer information sealed."
Shaw Cable is the source of a lot of the spam that I see. I think people should just vote with their feet on this one.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Canada is the one place in the world that you're actually shielded from being sued because you use file sharing software. So this is a scare tactic.
Uh-oh, looks like we're not safe in Canada anymore
Don't subscribe to Videotron, because they don't give a shit about my rights.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
Isn't music swapping legal in Canada since the courts struck down the law making it illegal? What's going on here?
Should the rat be held in lower esteem than the perpetrator of the crime?
In a society that values laws, isn't the demonizing of whistleblowers something that should be frowned upon?
I guess that "pirate tax" on all recordable media is redundant and can be removed now? It was there to "protect the artists," but now the lawyers on the hunt trying to "protect the artists."
It is currently not illegal to share music files online in Canada. So I'm wondering why the CRIA is collecting the names of people who do? This seems premature and to infringe on file sharers rights.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
This is part of why I use a small-time isp. Not only am I supporting a local small business but there are so few customers (comparitively) that it wouldn't be worth it for anyone to ask for a list.
Do two wrongs make a right?
:-)
No, but three lefts do.
[..]"Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of intellectual property and cultural products," Mr. Sasseville said Thursday from his office in Montreal. "Nobody gets paid. Not only the big companies but also the creators. It's really important that we protect our culture."
IMHO that file shareing does not harm ones culture. The only thing it realy harms is big business. I am a musician myself and am under the camp that music should be free and people get paied for doing SHOWS.. The music itself should be promotional for the shows. And having almost signed a contract untill i read what i would get the musicians do not much per copy at all. They do make money on merchandizeing and doing shows.
Its a shame how deeply rooted the music industry is and what it can pull off. I just cant see how they are pulling the "culture" flag out of their pocket in this one. How does free music ruin culture? It only enhances culture due to the fact that more people are able to share in this cultural music. Atleast its just one ISP for now that is not protecting your privacy rights. But how long is it till others follow suit?
string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
I figure that if the former Prime Minister of Canada can walk away from a sponsorship scandal unscathed, I should be able to download a few songs without penalty.
Okay okay, I know that nothing has been resolved regarding the sponsorship scandal, but you get my point.
... is that Videotron is owned by Québécor Media, who also owns a healty chunk of the local music industry. In other words, they are highly motivated to fight file-sharing of copyrighted material.
This has a strong Sony feel to it.. the same company owning entities in domains that have conflicting interests, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Baring any hard evidence, which will require warrants and such, at least in the USA. I don't know about Canada, can the mounties burst into your igloo and snatch your PeeCee if the ISPee reports your account? Isn't an open WiFi AP a pretty good defence vis-a-vis, "I don't know who's been eating the cheese".
I name and shame Philip and Terence
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
If nobody mentions at least one quote from Canadian Bacon in reaction to this I think I'm gonna plotz.
"Boomer: There's a time to think, and a time to act. And this, gentlemen, is no time to think. "
Okay, good. Whew. Plotz avoided, carry on Eh?
I have to agree, I just don't see how any of this could and would hold up in Canadian courts considering the protections in place for consumers. But then, that's just my opinion.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
Something interesting to know is that Videotron belongs to Canada's largest media conglomerate: Quebecor Media. They own a huge part of the media and... they also own Archambault (www.archambault.ca) which sells music, some of that music even comes from artists they created on one of their show they bought from France, Star Academy.
They are totally against piracy because it cuts their profits on their music business.
Please please PLEASE tell me that was sarcasm....
Because if not you are comparing people downloaded copyrighted works to pedophiles and kidnappers. And if you're too stupid to realize that such a comparison is crap, please remove your network card and back away from the big glowing box.
Ah, yes. Terrorism and pedophilia.
Two boogeymans to allow any kind of invasion of privacy.
Bot Assisted Blogging
Article:
"It's peculiar, added Mr. Sasseville, that the ISPs are fighting the order so fiercely since many of them own entertainment subsidiaries that produce TV and film content"
I don't think this is peculiar at all. In large a corporation the ISP division would not be responsible for helping the media producing divisions. It's likely that these two areas of the company only share a CEO, with the rest of the corporate structure being completely separate. The ISP has a good argument that turning over their customers' information will result in lost revenue if other customers leave because of it. I would also suspect that the ISP could be sued if the CRIA sues someone who is innocent of copyright infringement.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
One corp (CRIA, aka canuck version of RIAA) is asking another corp (VideoTron) for a list of their customers. In Canada, we have a law call PIPEDA that basically says any business that has client info must protect to info from being leaked out to the public. Here, VideoTron is just giving it out to anybody who asks. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_e.as p
well, clearly neither the tax on blank media nor lawsuits galore are doing a sufficient job of protecting the artists.. I think its time to pull out all the stops:
Encase the artists in a solid block of lucite and store them in a secure warehouse.
Think about it. Lucite offers a good level of protection to recording artists like Bryan Adams, Celine Dion and Avril Levine, shielding them from pirates, pigeons and the corrosive effects of oxygen. Also Lucite is clear which means they can still be viewed and photographed, which I believe is their strongest skillset.
Now there are those that say "how will they record music when they are encased in a solid block of lucite?" Thats the beauty of this plan: They've already recorded their music. More of the same is simply redundant, and the world is spared the 'come-back' album where they croon the greatest hits of Frank Sinatra, but with a moog synth and a drum machine backing track.
I do believe this is the only plan that will really be a 100% effective way to protect the artists.
Starsucks
It's clear to me that using FUD, Quebecor (using Videotron) wants to raise up the profits in its music division.
My 0.02$.
okay? let me get this straight:
I paid a 25$ levy on my iPod because it was assumed that I pirate music. This money was supposedly sent to the artists, to compensate them. My iPod is full of CDs I own and ripped myself.
We have to pay double or even triple the price on our CD/DVD media because it is assumed that we pirate music. Again, this music is sent to the artists. Most of the stuff I burn is my own personal data.
So. The artists get paid, and the music swappers get sued. Where does the money go? With all these 'taxes' you would think it would be legal to download music. If it is not, then can I get my 25$ levy and the difference in recordable media prices back?
mod up^^^
After reading the FA (had to try it), I am still confused.
Is he saying that he from now on will divulge information without a court order?
Or is he merely saying that he will not fight such a court order?
Seems to me that the latter is acceptable. An ISP can not necessarily be expected to use time an money on fighting court orders - though many of us may prefer an ISP who does.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/sourcepuller/?branch _id=57742&release_id=194142
I thought I was allowed to "share large volumes of songs on-line" up here!
I'm switching to DSL tomorrow. Fuck Videotron to hell.
It would be interesting to see how many will leave Videotron after this. It's not that everyone is a file sharer, but I for one would feel uncomfortable knowing that my ISP would hand out my personal details if only the (in their opinion) "right person" asked for it.
Is there really any Canadian music WORTH pirating? Let's be honest here Canada :)
And then there was E
I know all this is about Canada, but how about Germany ?, where btw. DSL seems to be really expensive I couldn't find why. 1 Mbit/s flatrate 40 Euro (when you don't have a phone)
Better delete all my illegal Anne Murray and Paul Anka MP3s.
Videotron is releasing the names of major uploaders...as uploading is still illegal. If they were releasing the names of downloaders it would be a different story, as downloading is "legal" in Canada because of the levy.
The MIT student newspaper publish the RIAA complaint today . They listed the IP numbers, dorm address, song titles, but not students names.
It's all about the amount of proof that exists and where the request is coming from.
Pedophiles are investigated by the feds who watch users on chat rooms, web sites, credit card bills, etc. They can get a court order for a net tap after they have sufficient evidence. Once they do gather this evidence the conviction is a sure thing because they've been thorough.
The CRIA matches Kazaa usernames with IP addresses and wants to know the ISP account holder's name so they can sue that person. They aren't careful enough to figure out who's actually sharing files and they don't download all of the shared files to make sure that they really are copyrighted. Who's to say they aren't mislabled personal tunes?
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Now lets assume that the sharing and downloading of music files is free and legal.
Then lets assume that people continue to go to concerts and bars where musicians play as they have been doing.
What happens to the music industry?
The large record industries go under. What are the impllications of this? The Britanny Spears, Jessica Simpsons, and Clay whatshisnames fall off the music radar, and smaller bands gain more attention.
By making music sharing and download illegal, whose interests are we serving (big record business, or small local bands)? Can small local bands survive without selling cd at HMV?
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
The ruling you are thinking of stated that it was legal to DOWNLOAD files; it was likened by the ruling judged to making a photocopy of some pages in a library book. I am not sure the term "fair use" was actually applied, but it seems that is the way it was being looked at.
Sharing/Uploading is still illegal in Canada, since it is a clear violation of copyright.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
I'm not all that keen on Videotron's capitulation here, but I'm not going to change ISPs over it.
Now, just to clear up some misconceptions....
Back when blank media became a consumer good, the media companies feared losses of revenue to copying. They convinced the federal government to assess a fee on all blank media and recording devices to make up for those losses.
There was a catch, however. The government can't tax an illegal activity. In order to mandate these fees, the government had to legalize the duplication of content for personal use. So we Canadians have been able to tape our albums, record TV shows, etc. within the bounds of the law for the longest time.
Then came the digital revolution.
The entertainment moguls demanded that the same fees be assessed on CD writers, blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc. The government agreed and extended the financial protection - but as a consequence also had to extend the right to make copies on the new media. As a result, downloading content is (still) pefectly legal in Canada.
Uploading copyrighted content, however, is not legal and never has been. It may at first seem odd that we can download but not upload, but it's a consequence of the laws that give us the right to copy, not the right to share.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association went to the Copyright Board to change this right and was Heismaned. The board ruled that they have been collecting the assessed fees and that that money was the industry compensation. Furthermore, the board ruled that such rights extend to downloading files. The board did extend the fee to cover digital music players.
More here: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Let's all get together and sue Videotron instead.
That'll show them which side their bread is buttered on.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
but it's Videotron that is going to cave on this. Shaw is just another ISP being sued along with Videotron. No need even to RTFA on that one.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Although no one would seriously want to be exposed as a 'criminal' by the five corporations that control the world's music recordings, the only good aspect of being on this list is that you will be one of the few people that the music industry will hire to restructure their industry when they (finally) realize that their current business model simply doesn't work anymore.
One thing that the music industry doesn't seem to understand is that the MP3-P2P revolution has changed the way that people think about buying music recordings. In other words, the market is not going to go back to the way that it was ten years ago. If they do manage to stop all the file-sharing, it no longer follows that the file traders are going to restart buying recordings in the way that their older siblings and parents did previously. They will find other areas such as video games to spend their entertainment budgets.
It doesn't matter to the global entertainment corporations where people spend their entertainment budgets, because they own the entire global entertainment industry . They're going to get the money anyway; whether it comes from recordings, movies, concerts, games, whatever. It's just a matter of time before this concept sinks in on the upper management levels of the entertainment corporations and they tell the recording division executives to finally stop harrassing their customers to the point where those customers will make a focused effort to avoid buying any product produced by the company. This is the only real scenario that they have to worry about.
Eventually the copyright situation will change from micropayments from individual recordings (sorry, superstars) to a more cloud-like revenue stream shared by all the musicians of a particular genre. Recordings will be sold in giga-byte chunks with less emphasis placed on individual musician's product and more on 'bulk' collections of recordings of the same type of music. In a manner not unlike today's swapping of hard disks full of MP3 files among music collectors.
The thing that help "understand" Videotron's stance on this issue is that is fully owned by Quebecor Media, who distribute most of the music in Quebec... so they want you to pay for it and let's admit it, they are screwing people all they way they can, as an ISP they always had policies not to let their users run "servers" limit speed of the cable service, unless the other major provider here offered something similar... to the point where it was pointless to be on high speed with them wih transfer limits set pretty low and policies like those... nobody in their right mind would pay for such a "service"...
How about they start releasing the names of the people on the bot nets too.
Given the amount of P2P poisoning going on, the defense is going to have a field day.
'Your honor, my client was attempting to download a copy of $insert_name_of_free_to_donwload_song, but instead kept getting songs from Avril Levigne!'
I do not think it means what you think it means.
You throw the word pirate around without regards, making law abiding citizens look like criminals. It would really help if you understood the law before you rant.
You paid a levy in exchange for the LEGAL RIGHT to make personal copies of music, even if you don't own the source material. Again, LEGAL RIGHT. If you are making a copy for yourself, no matter where it came from, it is not copyright infringement. Period. The catch is, YOU have to make the copy. You have always had the right to make copies of your own CDs for yourself, that isn't part of this discussion.
You didn't pay a levy to give you permission to distribute copyrighted material. That has been, and likely always will be, illegal. So, if you're sharing music files on $P2P network, you are breaking the law, levy or no. If you make a copy of a CD for your friend, that's distribution of copyrighted material. It is illegal. It's "piracy." This is who they are after, and good for them.
I hope this clears things up.
Actively uploading files is still illegal, but the act of leaving a music file in a publicly shared directory is allowed, as long as no positive action is made by the person sharing the file. http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
Taken from:
i en tele/8_3_1.jsp
http://www.videotron.com/services/en/service_cl
--
12.4 Protection of personal information - The personal information supplied by the customer to Vidéotron shall be treated in accordance with Vidéotron's policy on the protection of personal information, which is available upon request at Vidéotron's customer service by telephone or at: serviceclient@videotron.ca
--
I encourage the users to contact the company and ask fom the exact policy. Why is this not on their website? Why do you have to ASK for it?
They're trying to hide. Can we say "class-action lawsuit" ?
It's not the destination that matters, but rather the journey.
Hah, there is a car in the parking lot here at work with a custom license that says videotrn or something. I was wondering what it meant!
7.(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is...
So, if Videotron complies to submit the information by subpoena, PIPEDA doesn't protect you.
Also, if you end up getting sued, PIPEDA won't protect you from the debt collectors either because clause b of that same section states...
PIPEDA is not a law that allows you to hide from the enforcement or administration of any other law.
Essentially, Videotron won't fight the subpoena request because they are owned by Quebecor, a media company that is a CRIA member...
I did vote with my feet - and became a Shaw subscriber. You see, Shaw is the one ISP in Canada that is fighting the hardest against the requests being made by the CRIA. Of the five big players in the ISP market, Videotron sides closest with the CRIA, and Shaw is the farthest. The others (Telus, Bell) are playing a wait-and-see game.
Under Canadian law a child under 12 years old is considered too young to be able to discern right from wrong (hey, I didn't write the law) and is thus not liable for any crimes committed. An under 12 kid could literally murder someone and would only be sent home in the custody of his parents. Additionally, there would be a publication ban on his name.
It should be quite interesting to see what happens in any court cases when it turns out that for some strange reason, it's always the under 12 year old in the household that's responsible for the file sharing.
According to a lawyer for Videotron, producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly that they believe that it is justifiable to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs on-line.
What kind of justification is that? "ISPs get strongarmed into sacrificing customer anonymity all the time, so it's right whenever it happens-" remember way back when people were actually afraid of what people could get away with using the anonymity the internet provides? It'd be one thing if all it took was a lawsuit to get ISPs to release customer data- nowadays it merely takes the implied threat of a suit. I understand that ISPs do not want to be held accountable for the illegal activities of their subscribers, but I think there is a middle ground somewhere between omerta and apparently being the result of a merger between a utility company and the Stasi.
And however you may feel about the issues of illegal music downloading and intellectual property and whatnot, I think you can agree that industry associations have acquired far too much authority- how on earth did we let the RIAA, CRIA, etc. transform from professional organizations into law enforcement? As befits my name, I pronounce that TOTAL CARP.
First they don't want us to buy/sell EQ merch over ebay. Now they want the exclusive contract. TOTAL CARP. -mfh
It is LEGAL to download music off the Internet
It is LEGAL to place music files in a shared folder (a la. Kazaa, and most other file swapping programs).
Programs that require you to upload while downloading (like BT, eDonkey) are not necessarily legal, however.
Why is Videotron turning over private information about what I legally do with my internet connection? I smell a lawsuit coming against Videotron..
(from the article)
"Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of intellectual property and cultural products," Mr. Sasseville said Thursday from his office in Montreal. "Nobody gets paid. Not only the big companies but also the creators. It's really important that we protect our culture."
NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT. That's why we have the right to share music. The recording industry wants to have it both ways. I say, they can have the levy, or they can have music downloading illegal.. pick one. I don't particularily care which.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Seriously, what the hell?.. I subscribe to their 'Extreme High Speed' package which has no cap and has 6.5mbps down and .9mbps up, and they just recently announced a rate hike by $5/mo (bringing it to $65/mo or $75 depending on your setup - I think I'm paying enough). What did they think people would do with a fat pipe? It's almost entrapment. "Sure here's a fat pipe to download with, oh and yeah here's a lawsuit because you used did". Glad I don't d/l RIAA music (mostly because it all sucks), but I'm sure I'm one of the top 50 downloaders from videotron
The courts have ruled that uploading in Canada is legal as the copyright law clearly states that as long as the other person is doing the initiation of the copy from the song owner, it's fine. Which is exactly what happens in a P2P scenario. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/31/file_share rs_not_guilty/
of Inuit, one of Canada's official languages, RIAA will never figure that one out.
I wonder what a long list of John Smith, John Q. Public, I.M. Haxx0r, R.U. Krazy, looks like anyway?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
yeah and the US is the moral light of the world, give me a break...
when in doubt press enter and we'll figure it out later..
Why report this as a new story? It's an old story - Videotron took this position 2 years ago when the case was filed. It was decided against the CRIA last year. The CRIA have recently appealed, but they appear to have few grounds, given the judgement that they had no case on multiple grounds.
instead of uniting their efforts to go after spammers and companies that employ spyware/malware--the people who cause the most traffic congestion and over-stress dns serves, they go after paying customers who are using their services without harming the overall integrity of their networks OR being a menace to other users. yes, it makes plenty of sense.
gee, what's that that putrid stench?
--oh, it's just the putrescence of greed-driven capitalism spreading its rot through the flesh of our society.
Why aren't there any ISPs who just choose not to log IPs with usernames? Is this a legal requirement? I'm thinking especially in the case of broadband access. I'm not sure how my cable internet provider ties the mac address of my cable modem to me anyway.
This is why I constantly encourage users to make the switch to freenet NOW. Freenet is still very slow and immature, but at least it allows you to use it anonymously. Your ISP can not name you if it is impossible to find out who you are...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
All of these levies collected have thus far NOT been distributed to any artists. The funds have been held and continue to be held indefinitely...
Videotron has no problem turning over the data. They claim they turn over data all the time in matters concerning wrongdoing. The issue here is who receives the data and how is the request submitted. In the case of government agencies asking for information with the proper subpoenas, most people would not find much problem with that. In the case of companies asking for data without a subpoena, many people have problems with that especially given the industries non-discriminating and possibly inexact way of identifying alleged infringers. The article does not give the details of how the request is submitted and who asked for the data.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
http://www.videotron.com/services/en/service_clien tele/8_7.jsp
Go there, send letters to videotron, they also have a javascript based online customer support option. I would highly appreciate it if the masses would rise up and say something for once instead of letting their rights be trampled by yet another big company.
File "traders" are a major expense for ISP's. They represent only about 2-4% of the customer base, yet they consume 60% of external bandwidth. They demand levels of service that really are more appropriate for commercial customers paying hundreds of dollars a month, and force network upgrades which cost millions of dollars and a lot of labor.
It's purely a financial decision - it is worth more to get rid of these customers than to keep them. When a competing telco or cable co is undercutting your prices by $5 a month and eating into your customer base, you need to reduce costs to compete.
IANAL, but I have done a significant amount of research about the laws on digital downloading in Canada for a paper I wrote. To make a long story short, in Canada downloading copyrighted material is legal, uploading it is not, though the laws against uploading have not really been tested in the courts.
At the same time, I am also a Videotron subcriber. I can tell you that even though I don't upload copyrighted materials to file sharing services, I think it is firmly wrong that Videotron is breaking our privacy ageements. In making their decision, they just lost a customer.
I'm glad I chose Bell (even if cable is faster...) Although, I think Canadian legislation would protect any canadian filesharer...
Mod parent up, grand-parent down. It's amazing how such a group who describe themselves as well-informed (slashdotters) get this wrong so often. The levy doesn't make any fucking thing legal, LAWS make things legal. Sheesh!
Though admittedly this is a shameless plug (please forgive), I've created a website for just this purpose. BlackListedISP.com is where you can go to see which ISPs are compromising your privacy without a fight. Currently you can just submit ISPs, but soon I'll have a page up with a full list.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Specifically, Telus, Bell, and Shaw:
If I am ever directly impacted by your decision to share my identity, I will never subscribe to any of your services ever again come hell or high water.
You will lose me as a telephone customer, a cell customer, a cable TV customer, and an Internet customer.
It will cost you tens of thousands of dollars over the span of my lifetime.
I will also encourage, and sometimes insist, that my friends and family do the same.
It may cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.
So think twice before you screw me over, because I will have retribution.
aye see here sad
are you talking about free music being poisoned by non-free music or the fact that hearing her is poisoning your clients ears?
At least in the US and Canada customers can sued their ISPs for giving out any identifying or personal information. Who wants to get stalked and murdered by some creep because the ISP gave out identifying information?
Shaw Communications, Rogers Cable Communications, Bell Canada, Telus Communications and Videotron can prepare for some major law suits if they give out any information of their customers. Period.
If they're breaching PIPEDA, they're breaking the law and not just terms of a contract. So there's no need for a class-action suit, call the RCMP and they'll take it from there.
Quebec. And everyone else.
That's it, Quebec gets preferential treatment to ensure that it will remain in confederation, this also applies to corperations who operate within the province. With the on-going corruption scandel hitting the Liberals, this is just the tip of the ice burg.
Om, nomnomnom...
You'd think this could save people from the CRIA/RIAA.
Defendant: It wasn't me your honour, maybe my PC was hijacked and I also use a wireless network
Remember to write your MPs
Yes, I'm sure the CEOs of those three companies are sitting around surfing slashdot, and they're definitely quaking in their boots.
It's been a long time.
I believe Videotron has stepped in it this time.
PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) clearly states that personal information can't be disclosed without a court order. There is little to no grey area here.
Videotron can say goodbye to a large chunk of their customers.
This is important information that needs to be distributed. Please link to my page about it.
Videotron is own by Quebecor, who own most of the labels (or distribution rights) in Quebec.
No surprise they take that stance.
"I think people who get caught illegally swapping deserve it... you people are talking about the invasion of your privacy... as if you have the right to illegally distribute music."
You just don't get it. Real musicians don't care about file swapping; if anything, they encourage it.
Only industry made jerk offs who shouldn't call themselves "musicians", who *aren't* able to make a living as a real musician (i.e. performing live) give a damn about this garbage.
Honestly, if you can't do anything more than tow the RIAA's party line why don't you be quiet?
After all, my livelyhood is on the line, NOT YOURS.
Sincerely,
A working Canadian Musician.
canadians pay a substantial tariff on all media that goes directly to cria to compensate for public filesharing.
they are attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
sum.zero
Videotron was one of the first ISP's (And the only one out of Canada) to fold under the weight of the CRIA. They did that last year when the CRIA asked, so this is only current news because of the latest appeal the CRIA put into Canadian courts this week.
N ew s/1114005667906_9
h**p://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV
You should wonder what Videotron has done in the past year to undermine your privacy rather than be annoyed about it now.
With downloads being legal in Canada, here's my take on the whole uploading thing:
-User has a file available for uploading. As no upload has occurred no infringement has occurred
-Music company (which owns rights to said material) downloads music from an uploader. As they own the rights to the material, uploading machine has not transferred data to anyone who wasn't legally entitled. Likely ditto for anyone they hire to sniff uploaders, they are then RIAA/etc employees
So the law is actually broken when you upload the file to someone else who doesn't have legal rights. The RIAA does have legal rights. Now you might argue that the shills who download for them don't, but that's a fairly fine line... as in some ways they have hired somebody to entrap you into an "illegal" act. Hell, if downloading is illegal in the US, and they have hired somebody else to download from you that is not in Canada.. then they've either sanctioned an illega act or they've legitimized it because they have ownership.
As for the files they don't own, well they can't sue you for somebody else's copyrighted work...
They cannot go after you for having a file "available" online, as they cannot with strong assurance say that the file you are 'sharing' is in fact a copyrighted work and not just something of similar name or attributes...
Going with my previous post, this then assumes they have downloaded the file and verified its legitimacy (or illegitimacy, as it were)
Videotron have not, and will not, give out the information until they get a court order. All they are saying is that they won't oppose the granting of such an order, and will be "delighted" to comply with it - unlike Shaw, Bell, and the rest, who are fighting it in court.
I've purchased over 250 CDs. I admit I've downloaded a few song here and there. If I haven't purchased the album afterwards its only because: 1) it was the only good song 2) the whole CD is too expensive (older ones are sometimes $25) or impossible to find; 3) they weren't listed on iTunes last I looked; 4) I listen to the song so rarely, I'd never buy it anyways. As well, with increasing copy protection on CDs that I've purchased I often find I have to download the album so that I can transfer it to my MP3 player.
But so long as the Martin and Chretien liberals and all their little servants can rip us -the taxpayer- of millions of dollars and most (or all) will never face a jail sentence or have to pay back what they stole then I don't give a damn about the music idustry. There should be one law for everyone.
You can't say "class-action lawsuit", because Videotron hasn't released any info. The title of the article is misleading. Videotron is only saying they will be "delighted" to give out the info *if a court order is granted*.
It doesn't just take an implied threat of a lawsuit, it takes a *court order*. Videotron is not giving out any information - it would be illegal for them to do so - without a court order. CRIA applied for a court order last year, and lost. They're appealing the decision.
Videotron is just saying they would be "delighted" to receive such an order, that it would be "justifiable". Since their parent company owns a lot of the music industry, they're spinning it like "of course we should give out the names of these immoral pirates! and nevermind about privacy, it's not a big deal". They are basically in bed with CRIA, but still legally can't turn over the info without a court order.
Videotron did not "fold under the weight of the CRIA". First, they are totally in bed with CRIA, because their parent company owns a lot of the music industry.
Second, in the news story you cite, they "agreed to comply" with a court order *if one was given*. Which it wasn't. And so they never gave out any information. All they really said was they supported the granting of such a court order, unlike Shaw, Bell, and the rest. The court refused to grant the order. CRIA appealed.
The "news" is that the appeal was just heard the other day, and now the judges will think about it some more. Not very interesting news.
You've done a lovely job destroying your own country.
Please stop trying to destroy mine.
Thank you.