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."
Isn't music swapping legal in Canada since the courts struck down the law making it illegal? What's going on here?
No-one uploads.
File sharers simply advertise their willingness to participate with anyone in manufacturing a new copy of a file on the requestor's machine.
This act has never been tested in court as a copyright infringement.
But, hey, who can afford to take things that far?
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
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?
The MIT student newspaper publish the RIAA complaint today . They listed the IP numbers, dorm address, song titles, but not students names.
Don't subscribe to Videotron, because they don't give a shit about my rights.
;)
No kidding! That's why I switched to DSL. One of their silly "can't do that" rules: You can't use a router at home. Woops. That means I can't use Airport? Screw them, I said
I know, you can still plug in a router and they wouldn't notice, but it's a pain when you have to call support and they tell you to do this and that on your computer, etc when you're just calling to say their service is down. Actually, at one point in time, I had a desktop and laptop, and would swap the ethernet cable from one to another, no router. Got a call. "Hey you can't do that!" Apparently you're only licensed to plug the modem to ONE computer.
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]
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
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
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.
If you are caught selling or "making available" copyrighted works (bootlegs) then you are liable to be arrested by the police. There is absolutely no requirement for the police to actual see an act of sale take place.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
The government CAN tax an illegal activity. For example, under the Income Tax Act any income needs to be reported, even if it is illegal.
An instructor in my tax course told us that he has clients who are hookers who declare their earnings. They don't mind being arrested for soliciting but tax evasion is another story.