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'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.
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.
...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.
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?
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 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...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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
...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
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.