Slashdot Mirror
Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy?
Techdirt is reporting that Canada may be considering a "three strikes" policy which could see users internet access privileges revoked for file sharing violations. "Given how secretive the industry and the government have been about new copyright laws, perhaps this isn't too surprising. We do know that the industry was pushing for greater ISP liability as part of copyright law changes a few months back, so it wouldn't be surprising if ISPs were negotiating a "three strikes" type rule to avoid the liability issues. Of course, they probably want to keep it secret, as publicity (and resulting anger) about these types of laws in Europe has at least some politicians moving away from them. However, as the entertainment industry does keep succeeding in getting these types of laws to move forward, how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"
My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
I'll just switch to filing my taxes electronically...
crazy dynamite monkey
I mean, whats that all aboot, eh?
I'd suggest that this law not be so one sided.
:-D
How about a three strikes provision against the *IAA (or equivalent) as well. This way, if they accuse falsely three times, they get tossed. Seems only fair to me.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Can the government really strip you of your right to speak for breaking a civil statute? Or is copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense in Canada as well as the US?
Dear Everyone,
Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power.
Thanks
There is a war going on for your mind.
Kent Brockman: Professor, would you say it's time for our viewers to panic?
Professor: Yes Kent, I would.
Follow-up question: Given that our neighbors to the north "may be considering" an internet policy, isn't it only a matter of time before we enact the same policy?
For all we know the moon may be as conscious as a poet or a realtor, and extremely weary of its monotonous round. - HLM
Maybe we can get one of those Canadian politicians to jump off a bridge?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I'm canadian, and every time something controversial is proposed, the american media jumps all over it and says 'Canada is going to [insert crazy idea here]'.
The way laws are passed here makes it very difficult for something controversial to pass, unless it is a human rights case. AND, even in the event that the federal government does pass a law, each province can ignore it by using the 'not-withstanding clause'.
It sure is a horrible idea, but it would go against so many of our other laws that it would be struck down as soon as it was challenged even if it did get through the 3 readings and the senate and house of commons.
I'd have to say that this sort of law would be much more likely in a place like the USA, where the government has already revoked so many of the rights of the citizens in the name of national security. I wonder how much pressure it would take to claim that piracy is a matter of national economic security...
File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!
That's it! I declare that the world has gone insane. Driven by corporate greed and stupidity!
Well, first off that would be illegal considering we already pay a levy to compensate for THEORETICAL copyright violations whenever we buy blank media. It is against the law to tax people for nothing at all (you at least have to have a "reason" even if it is not followed through on) so for this to happen they would have to repeal it. I don't see that as likely since not a cent AFAIK has gone to actually compensate artists - it's going straight into the government's pockets like a sin tax, and they're far too greedy to give up such easy money for doing nothing.
Will they then repeal the media tax?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Just a thought, but what about doing this for zombie machines? I think an idea like that has been brought up here on Slashdot before, like if your machine is not up to date patch-wise you get booted or restricted to say Windows Updates. But what about actively going after people who fail to maintain their computer to the point that it harms others?
Well, truthfully I guess it wouldn't be right in either case. It could still be abused. But given the choice I would rather have a rule that would hopefully cut down on the size of the botnets.
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
Let's see if we can put this in more "Canadian" terms...
Good day, eh! We just thought that if you were like, you know, to get a hat trick of internet offenses, then we say good for you, eh, and ask you not to play anymore 'cause you're like too good, eh.
Or maybe try this one...if you had one Molsen for every time you get caught file sharing, then by the time you've had three beers, then we'll have to like cut you off, eh.
Or if that doesn't work...look, hoser, if we catch you sharing files as many times as Brian Boitano spins when he does his lutz, you're like done, eh.
*sniff* *sniff*
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
Will there be DUE process or will anyone be able to make came and get you kicked off?
I nominate Stephane Dion. Oh, wait, I WANT him to self-destruct the Liberal party even more than he already has. I don't want him to jump off (yet).
Layton would work though. His mutant moustache would be stopped from taking over the country then!
...and the wealthy get really upset whenever something valuable is also abundant. The creation of artificial supply limitations, as a means of maintaining wealth and power, is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
You cannot escape this by relocating. Stand and fight. Hold your ground. It is the only way to get what you want.
On a small scale they could assign an officer to follow you around and make sure you don't borrow someone's cell phone or use a public kiosk to check your mail, but keeping track of everyone who's downloaded more than three mp3s or unlicensed videos would require some sort of national ID system... perhaps they could put all of Canada on a proxy server?
I think the most worrying thing about this is not the law itself. It's the fact that someone will quickly realize that in order to implement the law it will be necessary for anyone accessing the Internet to be reliably identified. We really could be only a few years away from needing a "RealID" card to log on to a public wireless terminal in a coffee shop.
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
It started in schools, and quickly moved to the US Justice system. "Three Strikes And You're Out!". It sounds both reasonable, and incredibly American at the same time. If you've been in jail 2 times already and then steal a loaf of bread... "You're Out". By which they mean out of society for good. It's worked out so well, why not try it with the Internet?
Here's the problem. In baseball, if you get three strikes - you're out for that particular try at batting. You're not out for the inning, you're not out for the game, and you're certainly not banned from ever playing baseball again for life.
So, if we're going to base public policy on sports rules, could we at least restrict that to sports rules we actually understand? Seriously, that'd be a great start. Later we work on basing them on common sense or something.
This is not possible. From a legal standpoint, if the government goes through the right loopholes to get these laws passed, it's possible, but the consequences it would create would cause nothing but trouble. Almost 50% of the Internet users in Canada would most likely get their first "strike" in just one week because they probably consider anyone using file-sharing "pirates", regardless of the legality of what their downloading. From there, I would predict that about 20% would abide by the warning and stop file-sharing, but 30% would continue regardless of the system until they're eventually taken offline, which would have substantial effects on the economy and e-commerce (not as many people buying things online, for instance).
Unfortunately, this still wouldn't do much if anything to prevent movie or song piracy. Have they forgotten that pirating music is as easy as purchasing a CD or DRM-free song and simply burning a CD and giving it to a friend? At best this just stops a few poeple from having an Internet connection, but when they could easilly haul a 500 GB external HD over to a friends house and load up all on manner of content, there's no way that it will curb the overall level of piracy to any extent. Hell, even if you were cut off, internet is only an unsecure access point or location with free internet away.
There are always going to be a certain subset of people who feel that prices are too high and will seek alternative methods of acquiring songs, movies, or any other similar form of media. They could probably reduce the price to reduce the amount of people who resort to such methods, but the current price might be the one that maximizes revenue for all I know.
Personally, I think the ideal solution is for the bands, songwriters, et al. to ditch the **AA (or equivalent in their countries) and use a model similar to what Radiohead or Trent Reznor used. Even when they offered their music for free, some people still donated money. Hell, if they were independent and sold tracks through Amazon, iTunes, or some other music store they'd get to keep everything that Amazon, Apple, etc. doesn't keep to cover distribution costs. That'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of $.75 or more per song sold. How much more likely would the poeple who either don't buy music now or refuse to pay the currents rates be to donate money to a band for purchasing their album if they knew that most of it wasn't going to a middleman that has a history of acting hostile towards its customers or that they would only need to offer up a few dollars, if anything?
Uh, why don't we get bush jr. to jump?
I don't think this is even close to a sure thing (along with much of the potential legislation) because the playing field is far too confusing right now to try and pass anything so restrictive. There are a lot of trial balloons being floated right now, and I think the government is watching to see which ones catch the most flak. That said, it's probably best to make noise about this all the same, just in case.
Relatedly: I'm hosting a discussion about Canadian copyright (specifically in relation to WIPO) in a forum that avoids loud rhetoric and flamewars. If you're at all interested in the topic, check it out at http://calmcopyright.ca/
The world's only surviving livewriter.
Three strikes of actually being found guilty in a court of law, or three strikes of wild accusations thrown around by anybody with content to protect (and very little, if any, proof)?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
"Three strikes and you're out!" makes a lovely catchphrase but is ridiculous is actual use.
:P
How about 2, 5 or 10 minutes in the penatly box?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
because it seems that no matter how intelligent, competent, and caring they are, once they get in office power corrupts them
Suddenly they are the MOST intelligent people they know, they are far more competent than before, and they care so much because they give away so much money.
politicians should be allowed in at most six years, after that they seem to feel entitled and thats when it goes wrong
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
wtf?
Since when do we have a president of canada.
seriously, go to school or something.
Dear everyone,
Please actually read the article that is linked. The French are reporting that apparently the Canadians are considering implementing this policy. That's second hand hearsay at best. And the quote included in the Slashdot article is from whomever made the original post on Techdirt.
Given the theme on slashdot today, I would say we are living through episode 5 right now.
I'm sure that the People's Republic of Canada won't dare apply this policy against any "protected" group. That would violate both Political Correctness and Mulitculturism, as well as make them look meaner than that bad old USA on their southern border.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
... that Rick Mercer managed to get to congratulate Canada on getting their first university.
Or maybe one of the people who signed the petition to revoke Canada's 100-year-old treaty meaning only the aboriginal people of Canada are allowed to hunt the Great Canadian Rhinoceros.
And since the Conservative party is in power in Canada, what the USA does, Canada does a year later.
You can't take the sky from me...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
What would you prefer to live in, a country that taxes you for data in light of the unavoidable piracy that the internet brings
OR
a country that allows recording companies to sue their customers for substantially more per CD indiscriminately without attention to proper due process to extort money out of people who can't afford lawyers?
One seems the lesser of two evils. I'm happy with the one I'm given.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Actually it means you're so stupid that after two trips to jail already you still can't learn how to be an acceptable member of society. Removing you for a long time after that is much to society's benefit.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Feel free to start up a campaign donation for me, because I doubt that myself or any of those who actually give a damn are going to be able to run for election.
Proposed legislation like this is based on an out-of-date mindset that internet access is some sort of above-and-beyond privilege to be closely regulated.
To people who have worked in the paper-laden chambers of legislative bodies for many years and have their assistants print out their e-mails for them to read, perhaps it still looks this way to them. But it is not.
Enough daily tasks, both personal and public, now require access to the internet such that I think it's time for internet access to be considered a civil right, to be suspended only for those genuinely too dangerous to remain at large.
Denying internet access isn't like a sentence of probation anymore; it's more akin to house arrest and should only be applied when the punishment fits the crime.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Actually, I believe that in there have already been cases where people in sexual predator or identity-theft cases have been banned from using the 'net.
This is after a real trial which ascertains guilt though, as opposed to the whim of an ISP/label.
The data tariff covers hard drives too, which I'm assuming is where you're downloading your p2p network fodder to.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Exactly - we should stick with hockey metaphors in Canada. A two year minor penalty for downloading, a five year major for uploading a terabyte of movies, and a permanent suspension for jumping on someone's head with your skate.
Dammit, I already commented, otherwise I'd mod you up. This is one of the most insightful comments on the entire "three strikes" approach. The problem I see is that this would take research on the part of the voting public. As far as I can tell, the majority of any voting public anywhere is only interested in how much money it is promised during the election cycle.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Isn't this akin to banning someone from reading or having access to photocopiers if they xerox a page out of a book and give a copy of that page to thre or four of their friends? Yes they are both questionable under copyright laws, but banning?
the assholes in the american government operate on the assumption that if they waterboard someone, they are still better than the terrorists they are fighting. but when you engage in the same tactics as your enemy, you have become your enemy. what makes people think they are better than someone else, even when they do the same thing, is nationalistic or tribal or religious bigotry and blind pride
the proper response, as an american, to something like waterboarding, is to reject it as evil outright, not blame it on somebody else. if i said to you: "yeah but we waterboard because of what the terrorists did!" thats a cop out, right?
so, for you, the proper response to this fascist canadian proposal is to reject it, not blame someone else. because here you are, venting about america's evil, under a story that points out a canadian evil. take responsibility for what comes from your country: if canada is better than the usa for any reason, it is because of what canadians do, not for just being canadian. but you seem to have such a big chip on your shoulder about how evil the usa is, that when someone points out something canada does wrong, you're quick to foam at the mouth about the usa
how does that work?
well, lets put it this way: if you ever wanted to know how the assholes in washington dc think, who approve of waterboarding, then just look into yourself, because you have the same seed of blind nationalist pride in you that they do
so cleanse yourself of your blind ethnocentric pride... it doesn't reflect very well on canada, eh?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
make a fuss about such stuff BEFORE they are even conceived. blow your representative's ears off with calls before they even hear of such a proposal or see it on their desk. do it now.
Read radical news here
Thats right. Just stop buying their products. Don't pirate them either. I think its high time we move away from the so-called entertainment drivel that the industry produces. That way you won't get in trouble with what ever draconian laws that they implement and your IQ will improve as well. I have never bought a music CD since 1997 and I borrow from my local library any movies that I want to watch. Sure, the library have a limited selection but I think this is actually good since it filters out most of the crappy ones. I haven't gone to the cinemas since 2000 either since my home TV is loud enough for me. Alternatively, go and support your local indie bands.
Can we also throw in a "three spam botnet drone infections and yer out" clause?
...only the internet will have outlaws. Or is that outlaws have internets? If they ban marriage, only outlaws will have in-laws. No, wait. Forget it.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
There goes canada's consumer ISP market....
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Let me just take this opportunity to say that I am sick and tired of articles about some law that might be getting proposed for initial review in some obscure corner of a legislature somewhere. It reminds me of that one time everyone jumped down the Pope's throat for something that an editorialist speculated he'd be commenting on in his next encyclical. It's idle speculation. It's not even vaporware; we haven't heard anyone in the government say two bits about it, either for or against!
C'mon, editors. I'm told you used to be more selective than to post this kind of nonsense. :/
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
where'd the world would be if the inventor of baseball had choosen a different arbitrary number of times you can miss hitting a ball with a stick.
I RTFA. Nowhere does it even mention the word "privilege", let alone mention any claims that internet access is a privilege. Whose side are you on, ScuttleMonkey?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
I talked to a gentleman yesterday who could only get dialup access where he lived, so he never used the internet (too slow). For 5 years this person never got on the net, he didn't even know what google was (try explaining every aspect and function of Google to somebody with no background.)
MOST people use the net daily, but older folks really don't depend on it.
Yes, I said the more serious offender. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that originators are protected against the abuses of others. Music labels are forever being sued for contract violations, although only artists who are rich enough can afford to do so. The number of poor artists who cannot sue is unknown. Given that price increases in the stores have generally not translated into royalty increases for artists, it can be assumed that the number of poor artists being stiffed by the music industry is substantial. (Most sane artists start their own label as soon as they can afford to, because running such monsterous overheads is still more profitable than continued servitude to the major operators. That should say something, given the promotional muscle of a giant and the benefits of scale efficiency.) Copyright violations, say of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" or the Bannana Boat Song, hit the headlines, but didn't hit any studio's wallet or lead to Internet access being withdrawn. Why not? Artists in Africa probably ARE starving. If artists are who matters, then why the Scrooge impersonations?
Major music and film corporations are reputed to have links with organized crime, are quoted by foreign artists and foreign directors (in the case of the movie industry) of supplying drugs and prostitutes to people considered key, and other sordid stuff. It's one thing to have liberal leanings (which I don't believe Hollywood has), it's another to be considered by outsiders as racketeers who'd supply a kid with cocaine if it meant they could earn more money.
Those accusations may be true, they might not be, but I don't expect to be seeing the FBI plough much in the way of resources there.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I would be in favor of three strikes as long as the first two strikes are always correct.
If the third strike is automatic, and worse, probably unappealable, then I simply don't trust anyone NOT to railroad the poor schmuck who was genuinely innocent on one of the first two strikes, but simply didn't have the resources to fight the charges.
Bringing a gigantic lawfirm into the picture to grind you down into submission is one thing. Using that "surrender" as an excuse to give someone the hangman's noose later is another.
Anyone else read this and think there should be a one strike and your out of the government policy? You sell out your constituents in some provable way and you get kicked from your government seat.
Dear Congress, In the spirit of passing laws and changing domestic policy because everyone else is doing it, could we perhaps get some socialized health care? From America
No
and No.
Good luck next time. Try again when you're no longer bound to your slaver.
I'm going to make my own internet protocol based network! With Black Jack and hookers! In fact, forget the network!
Three strikes, zero tolerance etc., has always been stupid. What it does is not reduce crime, it increases the number of people penalized. It makes the legal system and whatnot appear more effective, while the problem is still there.
Punishment, as a crime deterrent has a pretty low saturation level. Once you reach that level, you can increase the punishments all you like, except maybe going medieval and quartering people, there's not going to be a significant decrease in the crime rate.
But unfortunately, all too often politicians grab the opportunity to appear (note the word) to do something about the rampant crime by increasing punishments, when what they should be doing is to focus on the cause of the crimes instead.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Everyone please take note that this article is incorrect. Please see the link below for the story explaining that this is not true.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9477/French+RIAA+Announces+Deadline+to+Ban+File-Sharers+from+the+Internet/
This quote is from the link above:
"The idea that Canada is considering a three strike policy is an outright lie. In all the years Canada has had copyright debates, a "three strike" policy was never even brought up as a serious law change consideration (the closest thing was 'notice-and-notice'/'notice-and-takedown' regimes which is a far cry from a three strike policy). To our knowledge, it has yet to even be brought up in any of the debates overall. At worst, there was anti-circumvention, anti-camcording, and making file-sharing an illegal act as of Bill C-60, but considering outright banishment from the internet is simply untrue at this point in time. In the United States on the other hand, there were talks of P2P filtering, there were incidences of arresting alleged copyright infringers where a rare punishment in a court judgment was being barred from using computers, but there has yet to be laws put in place that simply bans file-sharers from the internet altogether. It seems as though the courts were the last thing on these people's minds though."
You know... this isn't even worth thinking about until there's a little bit more proof than "Some people in France said it was so!"
Signed,
A Canadian
with such a law that others in this discussion have pointed out, the Harper government is in a minority position and considering they have been unable to get any traction towards a majority position, they are not apt to bother with such legislation, especially if it pisses people off in the least.
We are considering the law from the government standpoint means, "thanks for the bribes lobbyists, we'll think about what you said".
What about for public terminals? Are they going to require special login or biometric securities. If this actually comes to pass, the probability of identity theft will probably increase. Then, what if someone is using your identity to violate copyrights? Are you then banned from the internet? This proposal just seems too short-sighted and stupid to work.
I used to be the sysadmin for a high school, and most schools in my district had a policy of disabling students' domain accounts after multiple instances of violating our acceptable use policy--namely, looking at porn in a computer lab or sharing passwords. In the world of employment, such offenses can get you reprimanded or fired.
:-)
So after three strikes, does Comcast disable my cable modem?
What nonsense. The Charter of Rights also does not delineate a right to poop, or read books, or sleep or throw a frisbee either but those rights exist none the less. The Charter is not exhaustive as it was never the intent to list every single right and freedom that could possibly exist and is instead a barrier to government action.
I think this makes it fairly clear that the Charter is not intended to restrict our rights and freedoms to those listed in the Charter:
OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
Besides, the Supreme Court of Canada has made significant rulings on our right to freedom of expression as it pertains to the Internet on numerous occasions (to wit, "other media of communication"). Apparently they think we have a right to express ourselves on the Internet, but you do not.
In the US, you can go to jail for the same thing. Which one's more restrictive?
They are considering this for file sharing and not for child molesters? And the priorities of government are where? With the citizens or with big businesses?
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/struggles-frances-three-strikes-law
Canada is mentioned at the bottom
Jonathan
Just like net neutrality this is simply the infrastructure monopolies trying yet again to press against the chains of their regulators so that they may squeeze the populace for more money for their greedy corporations. Whew.
/rant
Basically as I see it you have Bell Canada who own (think they own) all the phone lines in Canada, and Rogers Communications that own (think they own) all the cable in Canada. To my knowlege A) most of that infrastructure was built with taxpayer money, thus actually owned by taxpayers and B) is so important to the Country that they can cry and bitch and whine all they like but when push comes to shove the Government isn't about to allow any corporation (no matter how deep they are into their pockets) to have that kind of power over them. It would be like the power company saying well, we propose a law that some people can't have power. Not going to happen.
I think at this point the Government should reconsider the leeway they give the two giants and seriously think about rather than regulating two obsolete giants, they take the power back, take all their privilages away, and open the market up to independent ISPs and communication companies on equal footing backed by state run infrastructure. Its too important for decisions by corporations who by definition owe their loyalty to their shareholders and not the people of Canada.
OK I feel a bit communist right now, but I hate Bell and Rogers sooooo much!
If you can restrict where people can assemble, then so much for freedom of assembly.
Look at the extremes the governments go to in repressive regimes like russia or china or america to control the internet.
Making it trivial to ban someone from the most democratic communication tool since the soap box seems a poor road to follow.
Should we deny telephone usage to telemarket scammers and car use for those guilty of speeding 3 or more times?
Most people that have their pcs p0wned dont know they do, and the only way this would work is if they were to get a letter in the REAL mail not email, stating they have a virus or malware etc...
Seeing as most botnets have progs that track all emails sent, they could filter out anything that would let someone know they are infected...and keep sending till the end spam.
Yeah unless you're caught doing steroids then you're banned for life!
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
At the risk of losing karma, I dare to speak the truth.
Does anyone feel that this actually might be a "good" thing in a sense that this could be a wake up call to force encryption on every single packet being sent online so that the government/ISPs/average Joe cop doesn't see what you're doing every day?
Imagine a world where you actually spoke to just 1 other computer...
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Wow, what a truly convincing counter-argument. Where can I sign-up to receiver your newsletter full of more insightful counter-arguments?
So, if someone spams 3 times, can we have them cut off? Or at least cut off the net?
I think that this is probably a fair way to deal with many problems on the internet. If someone, or someone else on his network, is caught doing something they shouldn't then he is given a warning. This would allow that person, if it is not actaully him, a chance to investigate who might be using his network and stop the illegal activity. It it happens again, he is given another warning as a last chance. And if it happens a third time, he is suspended for say 30 days, then 90 days for the forth time and so on.
Obviously this would not prevent me for going out an accessing the internet in some other way, but it would probably cause me some aggravation and would get me to consider my behavior in the first place. It would also give ISPs some leverage in showing that they are doing something to combat piracy.
Sure, there may be some flaws in the implementations, but I personally like the idea.
vive le Quebec libre!
I joke, but as an anglophone living in la belle province, I find myself more and more out of touch with politics in the rest of the country.
The claims are false. No argument. The utility of your comment is even less.
It is also a system which has led to America having 1% of it's population currently incarcerated. 1 in 100 people are currently in jail, the highest incarceration rate in the world (and that's ahead of China and any number of corrupt regimes worldwide).
Mod this anonymous fellow up.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
The ability to contract for Internet access is not a "privilege", it's a right.
The purpose of the recording industry is to create and market quality recordings of audio performances[1]. If you haven't made a few hits already you probably won't have $20k worth of musical equipment in your acoustically shielded basement, and you're probably not going to make a hit in your garage with a room mic plugged into your soundcard. The recording industry solves that chicken-and-egg problem quite efficiently, albeit on terms only slightly less repugnant than the payday advance industry.
That said, I've heard some really great stuff coming from two poverty-class guys with about $1000 in old gear, two K6^2-400 PCs, and two living rooms containing "active" young children. Production quality was clean and good, roughly equivalent to what you might hear in made-for-cable movies. They aren't making money off of it, but they're both dedicated to poverty, for various reasons. I've also had a few well-to-do BBS friends form a rock band; they sounded great live but at the time they didn't have what it took on either side of the window to make consistently listenable (thus saleable) tracks. Too bad too.
[1] Much like Kraft Foods, the cheese is only there to sell you the package.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
This is an excellent idea! But this needs to be expanded to solve the problem of spam. Send out the typical spam messages. But when some id10t responds to the spam message they are tracked down and their Internet access is suspended.
If this is done then spam will go away. Right now there must be enough id10ts out there that actually respond and buy stuff that it makes sending out spam worth the effort. If you take away enough of the idiots out there that spend money based on spam then the monetary reason for sending spam will go away and the problem will finally be solved.
The headline sounded great until I read the body of the article. If three strikes meant "three times being lame about your personal cyber-hygiene and getting infected by a spambot" then I'd be all for it. But alas, they got it wrong again.
I read a report a few weeks ago that stated that more people buy who download then who don't.. so maybe its actually an advance, I mean i would rather preview something then buy it if i like it.. if not why waste my money.
As for this deep scanning. Is there no privacy left anymore? How can one consider a society free or democratic when every move is captured and data logged into a giant database.
People need to stand up for their right to privacy. If you look at Brittan and their Biometric ID cards,do we really want that to happen to us? Having our and and rental scans imprinted on a rfid chip.
A) how easy is it to walk around with a rfid reader in your pocket stealing peoples identity, we are just making it easer for thiefs!
B) Who in their right minds would want to be tracked every wakening moment of their life..
I think all this "Deep Packet Scanning" Is just a step closer to a mindless society who is under fear of constant observation.
I dont know about you, but the whole panopticon thing just doesn't do it for me.
Just to be specific, and because I expect many don't know what levy you're talking about, here's the actual law that allows private copying in Canada:
That is, as long as you aren't profiting off of the recording. So, since we pay about 22cents per blank CD, we have the right, nay, duty, to get our money's worth. I download about one album per 50 stack of CDR's, which is a pretty good deal for the industry.
Damn those pesky terrorists
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html
I remember a time when the gnu.ai.mit.edu machines had accounts with no password. The password was not the empty string, /etc/passwd had "rms::" for example.
/etc/passwd, who might be logging in from anywhere and using those systems to potentially break various laws in some places.
/etc/passwd writable only by root. Then you restrict su to root to only the wheel group. Before you know it you're banning people from the Internet and censoring speech left and right.
The heads of the FSF, RMS included but by far not the only one who felt this way, would argue that no one should be banned from the Internet for his actions, no matter how outrageous. At the time, this was in reference to deleting accounts that were added to the world-writable
The position of RMS and the other crazies (I forget who else took his side, but more than 50% of the people involved, and some people with significant weight in the FSF) was that no one should be banned from the Internet, no matter what he has done, that it is a human right like air.
They felt it was a slippery slope. First you put a password on your account. Then you make
They had to step down that slippery slope. More than a decade after Reflections On Trusting Trust, perhaps the compiler maintainers realized that something serious was at risk. Or perhaps the hassle of degenerated Internet that started in the late 90's actually came to take more time than real life.
Well, they took one step, by putting passwords on their accounts. Now governments are banning people from the Internet. It's insidious in a whole different way than banning people from libraries for public urination.
Maybe we slid down two slippery slopes and had a whole gigantic orgy of a crash.
See my post above quoting the Act itself. It doesn't care where you get the musical recording from, just so long as you don't broadcast it or profit in any way. As long as it's casual copying, that is, you haven't made a copy for the purpose of distribution or money [the uploading part of P2P is a controversial grey area in this respect], then you're abiding by the law as it stands. So, let your friend copy your copy, they paid the levy too. Just don't set up a vending machine.
Note that this covers music, not other art forms such as movies. But we'll see about that, eh?
Damn those pesky terrorists
The Internet is a privilege,not a necessity. Don't pay your bills and see if they don't shut off your utilities,repo your car,repo your home. Why should the Internet be any different. missbehave get booted off,makes since to me
Jack of all trades,master of none
Damn those pesky terrorists
Because of that, you can't pirate music even if you wanted to, since it's legal. Your only real option (if you're a canuck) is political agitation.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Damn those pesky terrorists
I saw that heading and thought the only logical possibility is that someone finally decided to block bots by taking them offline until their machines can be cleaned.
I never imagined they were actually proposing something THAT stupid.
I just don't have the imagination I used to.
Look, this is a democracy (at least in theory) right? In the constitution we GIVE them copyright to their creation for a LIMITED time, ONLY so that it spurs innovation and gets more "IP" into the public domain for us all, right?
Well, I'm done with this shit. I say we vote to eliminate copyright protection all-together, across the board. Let them deal with that. If they want to stop making music because of it, I'll live. I'd prefer to have my music made by people who would make it regardless of if they got paid or not.
If every single lab suddenly decides they can't make medicine any more because it's too expensive, others will pop up with better, less expensive techniques. Foundations will still do a lot of the research anyway (how much do we donate to cancer research each year? When they come up with something--who will reap the benefits of the medicine developed?)
Let's get rid of it! Maybe we can experiment with that for couple decades and see how it goes--if it fails, I'm totally up for trying something else.
Of Course, Canada is not a "free" country--they are socialist, and after all, stores need to get government approval before they can even have a sale! Note: All liberals please move to Canada ASAP, as of course it takes a village to raise a child--and they'll raise you children for you!
About an hour ago I searched for a restaurant using the yellowpages.com distance search.
Cow Cube
You can't take the sky from me...
Stop going to movies, stop buying movies, and stop buying music. In six months the entertainment industry will go tits-up and we can begin anew without the money grubbing middlemen.
They can shackle us with draconian legislation, but they cannot force us to buy the product.
Well of course it's higher than China and any number of corrupt regimes worldwide- you don't have to stick people you've shot dead in jail.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
In other words, get as much as you can until strike 2 then stop.
So we have this drug war - instead of there being buyers and sellers, the 'war on drugs' forces drugs underground. Pot dealers get rich, cartels form, there is serious 'drug money' because of laundering and there is death involved. And to get these horrible side effects created by the drug war, we have to pay billions upon billions of taxpayer (borrowed, printed) money. So what would the three strikes law do? Pirating of course wouldn't go away, it would just shift a little away from the internet - to the streets. That means the poor and (actually) hard-working man can now get arrested. Once again cities would be the biggest place for enforcement, you'd have more people getting fines or going to jail, you'd possibly need more policing to cope with this new surge of real pirates that would emerge.
And to make it worse, the only people that would ever be caught buying one would be someone who has already had his internet taken away. What a stupid idea for a law. In my opinion that's because of our politicians, who like the wining and dining they get from corporations, and forget to have any regard for their own job - representing people from their own districts or states. That much government cooperation with business enterprise is really fascism (the main differences are that we (as in us americans) aren't threatened by invading armies and we didn't set up multiple camps that have the sole purpose of killing Jews). If the state can do THAT to you because you downloaded songs a few times!??? If the general population was informed they'd probably never let that happen. (And you know we're on the lookout for turrists over there.)
Like, for example, most jobs.
But is counterfeiting still morally wrong if all you do is hang the copied bills on your walls as decoration?
Agent Smith: Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me.
Neo: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my jury trial.
Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a jury trial... if you're unable to use the internet to obtain proof of your online activities to establish your innocence?
Neo: Mmmphhgghh!!!!
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
On average, honest people violate copyright over 12 times each day (ever forwarded an e-Mail, for example?). So why don't you just go to jail if you can't be honest, huh?
Downloading a bunch of MP3s (and even if the downloader bought these files, that would equal to at most a few thousand bucks of money for Sony and friends) == You can't ever work again in any kind of job other than as Bob the Builder; you can't use any cell phone with Internet connection ever again; you can only contact your friends by calling them or writing a letter; and so on.
to Cuba or Saudi Arabia et al.
This is really amazing. Does the government regulate library books? How about ordering books from Amazon? If I abuse the information obtained will they forbid me to read? If I abuse (by government definitions) my intelligence will they demand I take drugs to lower it? No, these are absurd?
How then is it not absurd and utterly abhorrent to deny any 21st human being access to the fully extended intelligence and capabilities inherent in the internet? Also increasingly much will only be doable by using the internet.
This story and the concurrent story that the US military may stage attacks on civilian networks have really riled me up. The underlying message is that we are mere peons that think, live, communicate and compute only at the pleasure of the government.
Take control of the network NOW. If the current network is too easy for the governments to control then we need to work diligently to create a network they cannot control. The very future of human development may depend on it.
There are a couple things I'm wondering, but this may be far better than it sounds:
1. Will the ISP look at what you're downloading on a p2p network? Because a significant portion of filesharing is legal. If they don't infringe upon my privacy any more than they already are, I'm fine with it.
2. Is all p2p traffic banned? Because that's just wrong.
3. Are you turned over to the authorities for violations? Because if you weren't, it would be nice to have a buffer between you and the record companies. The ISPs can say, thanks RIAA, but no thanks, we're already taking action.
It sounds like there is an implementation of this that could be extremely sane.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
"The Charter of Rights also does not delineate a right to poop, or read books, or sleep or throw a frisbee either but those rights exist none the less."
Thank goodness!! I've been holding it for so long!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Instead of giving you 3 strikes they could just implement a process of instantly banning you from internet usage, throwing you in jail, confiscating your house and material possessions, and having your family disown you type of scenario. Just be glad you are given 3 chances to change your ways. The grass isnt always brighter on the other side.
Erm.. I may be a fool for asking this but... wouldn't such a law be a HUGE violation of one's privacy? I mean, I've always thought that copyright laws are pretty hard to enforce in this day and age without sticking cameras in everybody's living rooms. It would appear that that's exactly what Big Media is proposing here with such a law. The idea that ISPs are going to have to watch everything their customers do is much more troubling to me than the rest of it. The right to privacy is one of the tenets of a free society. I hate to invoke Orwell but, to me, watching what everyone does on the internet is practically the same as forcing everyone to have a telescreen. I hope to god they don't do something this stupid; my right to privacy is more important than the **AA's obscene profits. Let's not even get into how open to abuse such a system would be...
Ever used Google Book search? Quite possibly a violation of the publisher's copyright. Visited flickr and saved a picture to your disk? Copyright infringement. Received an e-Mail and forwarded it? You could be sued.
Bob Barr, Candidate for President in 2008, will have something to say about problems like these. www.bobbarr2008.com
Following this line of thinking, would it not be reasonable to deny someone the right to read books or go to the library if they perform 3 acts of plagiarism...
loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
Certainly several petty thefts do greater damage to the society than large scale business failures.
You wouldn't be a shoplifter, you'd be considered like a terrorist.