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?"
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.
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.
This is actually a very good point, in my opinion.
Seriously, with the importance of the Internet in everyday life, is there a case that this actually infringes on a person's civil rights, or at least on their basic rights?
Yes, I know Internet usage is not a civil right per se. However, in the USA and Canada, it's becoming extremely difficult to carry out certain basic functions off line. When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?
Banning someone from internet access for something so trivial would severely restrict their life, IMHO.
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
Dear Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People,
Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.
Thanks
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
...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.
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.
Dear linuxpyro,
When given more options than shills, shysters, and despots, please make sure that said shills, shysters, and despots don't end up with 99.5% of the vote anyway.
Thanks,
Intelligent, Competent, and Caring Person
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?
We would but no one gives us campagin money.
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.
Dear linuxpyro,
Where would we get the money needed for an election campaign? They only seem to be handing it out to shills, shysters and despots these days.
Thanks,
Association of Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People
My blog
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.
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...
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
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
Free Speech is a right everywhere. Governments do not grant rights.
Canadians have the right of free speech, however they allow their government to deny them the ability to exercise their natural right.
It's easy to generate campaign money. All you have to do is become a shill, shyster, or despot and the money comes rolling in.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, but in the vast majority of cases, people don't just stick their illegal files on their hard-drives for decoration (there are far more legal ways to decorate your file-system!) They do the equivalent of spending it, which is to listen to it and to gain pleasure from it.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.