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."
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]
Class action suit, anyone?
It wasn't necessarily proven as legal. First, possessing a personal copy I believe is what was considered acceptable -- but not widespread distribution. Second, CRIA (our RIAA equivalent) hasn't given up the fight...they're collecting evidence and will take another run at this in court. These subpoeanas are merely an element of their next strategy... in the end they only need one ISP (looks like Videotron) to roll over, then they can proceed with their casework. I'm sure they're hoping to set new precedents. Damn this english common law tradition :/
However, we're protected quite a bit through the levy on media that exists here, considered financial compensation for our 'fair use' rights.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Indeed. But what I can't figure out is how they are getting away with this at all. I thought that PIPEDA protected us from this sort of nonsense. A business can't divulge personal information about employees or customers without REALLY GOOD reason, or they risk rather steep fines.
Only downloaders are protected. Uploading is at best a grey area, but it's likely that someone could be successfully sued for uploading vast amounts of copyrighted material.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
... 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.
Also note that they have Bandwidth Limits in their their Internet Access Plans!
"Monthly use of 20 GB download and 10 GB upload**
**$7.95 per additional gigabyte, up to a maximum of $30 per month."
Daemon
Something interesting to know is that Videotron belongs to Canada's largest media conglomerate: Quebecor Media. They own a huge part of the media and... they also own Archambault (www.archambault.ca) which sells music, some of that music even comes from artists they created on one of their show they bought from France, Star Academy.
They are totally against piracy because it cuts their profits on their music business.
It's clear to me that using FUD, Quebecor (using Videotron) wants to raise up the profits in its music division.
My 0.02$.
If you paid a $25 levy on your iPod, you should look into getting it back. The levy was thrown out.
You do, however, continue to pay a $0.21 levy (or so) on each blank CD.
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
As I understand it, Canadians pay a surcharge on recordable media (DVD-R, CD-R, etc., and tapes, both audio and video), with this surcharge purportedly to be paid out to copyright holders. If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid? So if you transferred the music file from someone else's computer to a CD-RW in your machine, it would be protected, but not if you transferred the file to the hard drive on your machine?
Of course, you could burn the file to CD-RW, being protected through having paid the surcharge, and then copy the file back to your hard drive, which would be protected under fair use. But you'd have to be able to produce a copy of the file on CD/DVD/tape if you were charged...
There are countless reasons not to subscribe to Videotron. Though slightly off topic, here are my experiences:
1) On and off internet service for 6 months. The service rep came to my apartment three times, found no issues, and said that it was probably just a temporary issue. He also said that it could be related to the strike of service people that had been going on.
2) Charged for cable television. The first day I got my bill for cable internet, I got a separate bill for cable TV. After 9 months of writing letters, the bill continued to arrive and reached almost $1k, though my net bill was paid on time each month. They only stopped bothering me once I explained the situation to the collection agency they hired.
3) Inefficient administration. When I requested a copy of the contract they claimed I signed regarding cable TV, they said that they didn't have one, and it was my responsibility to keep my copy.
4) Horrific customer service. When trying to solve that problem with the TV bills, I spent a total of 8 hours on the telephone over two days and not once got a satisfactory response or was treated like a human being. I was transferred from department to department, and often told that it was impossible for me to be receiving a bill for a service I didn't request.
I realize that the same complaints could be made about many different service providers, but I have never had the problems that I did with Videotron. I am now a Bell Sympatico subscriber, and entirely satisfied. This is just yet another example of Videotron taking the easy way out, and not standing up for their customers.
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
As I see it, the tax is just a compensation for the fair use right.
It's not that illogical, because it would be naive to think nobody would abuse, however IMHO the tax is too high here in France, but you then have the right to copy a media you've rent.
That's why we have media marked "not for rent" (don't know if you've the same in the US ?)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
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.
I use Shaw. My roommate and I are both students and we use our fair share of their bandwidth on bittorrent. Some months we use 120+ gigs, which I am sometimes ashamed to say is outrageous. Occasionally we get a phone call letting us know that we haven't just passed the line, but destroyed it. I say "Fuck, it must be spyware or something" and thats the end of it. They are a good company in my opinion, and not because they are naive and let me rip off songs. They know what is going on, and it seems they just want to preserve the value of their small business accounts (which are allotted 50 gigs) relative to my dirt cheap home internet bundle.
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.
Slow connection, nowhere near the speed of Videotron for one. They haven't been able to offer me a stable connexion in my area which is pretty urban. They can't provide to many resident's either who are stuck in a monopoly with videotron as a result.
I stopped using sympatico the day that they decided to cap the download limit to 5 gigs (which at the time was less then Videotron) and increased the price. I know they came back on that policy but not before losing a huge amount of customers and I'm still not ready to forgive them for it.
Lately, Bell has had numerous reports of billing errors across they're entire business and that's just scaring people from signing on and driving customers away as well.
Don't know if they still do it, but I for one have no interest in paying a 10$ a month fee for renting they're DSL modems. Can't understand why they didn't have an option to buy the modem or use one that I might have owned myself.
That's all I can think of right now but I'm sure other reasons exist.
I duuno bout u dude.. but I've been using Shaw for a while now and I am very happy no complains at all.
I used to use Telus DSL but that was just horrible. At first I was getting a decent speed, about 600 Kb/s on a bandwidth test, after a while I kept on getting super slow speeds 200 Kb/s when I did a bandwidth test. I called their tech support like a number of times and they dispatched their ppl almost immideatedly and each one kept on giving me different answers.
1 Person would tell me that its cause I am far away from their main station. Another tells me cause my wiring is bad (my house was 5 yrs old at the time). And then they used to go down a lot too. Then I asked to speak to customer service and the guy was telling me its cause of 9/11. In my head I'm like yeah right, altough the server I'm trying to access is about 15 miles away from me, all the electrons decided to slow down cause of 9/11. I asked to speak to a manager, the guy said no.
So I switched to Shaw. Shaw has been excellet, almost negligeble downtime, super speeds, and they inform u if they do some servicing and their stuff is going to be down.
The same ruling mentions that permitted private copies don't actually need to be made onto levied media. (DVD-R, BTW, is not a levied medium.)
"Section 80" is section 80 of the Copyright Act, which says:
(Link to Copyright Act, Section 80)
Another tidbit that may or may not be relevant: Private Copying under Canada's Copyright Act specifically applies to sound recordings. Nothing is said about video. (We just assume that time-shifting and the like is OK, so we do it.)
Also, there's no such thing as "Fair Use" in Canada. We have "Fair Dealing", which is similar, only different. Most of what's spelled out regarding fair dealing pertains to educational institutions, libraries, and researchers, not individuals. Though "private study" may be mentioned.
IANAL.
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.
Its very simple - when they sent out your cable modem to you, they registered the mac address on it with your account. Any time you get a new modem that can't clone the old mac address, you have to register the address with them.
That is how they do access control - if you dont have a registered and authorized mac address, you can't gain access to the network to get an IP address.
Take a look at the box your cable modem came in - it probably has the mac address on it, or failing that, on the modem itself.
Brielle
Well, here's the thing. Suppose Videotron does release the information of the customer's that CRIA is looking for. CIRA will proceed to sue or press charges against the individuals involved. Any decent lawyer will have the information thrown out since it was obtained in violation of PIPEDA. (There is is nothing in PIPEDA about releasing information because you think someone is doing something illegal - that's what warrants are for). CRIA would be much better off getting the warrant in the first place. ISPs are under no obligation to provide the identities behind the IPs, in fact, they are under obligation NOT to.
"As I understand it, Canadians pay a surcharge on recordable media (DVD-R, CD-R, etc., and tapes, both audio and video), with this surcharge purportedly to be paid out to copyright holders. If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid? So if you transferred the music file from someone else's computer to a CD-RW in your machine, it would be protected, but not if you transferred the file to the hard drive on your machine?"
They also charge that on hard drives. If you ever buy a DAP with a hard drive in Canada or bring one in to the country through customs (Like I did with my Rio Karma.) they will charge you a certain amount based on storage capacity. Therefore transfering to the hard drive in your computer should be protected the same as making a copy of a CD to blank media. If it isn't, then why do we have to pay the same charge when we buy them [hard drives]?
"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.