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?"

Comments

Just great...

[Aranykai]

My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!

Sounds good

[decipher_saint]

I'll just switch to filing my taxes electronically...

Re:Sounds good

[scipiodog]

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.

Re:Sounds good

[Anonymous Coward]

When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper? When was the last time you searched for a specific product located in your neighborhood online and got results like 'Buy here!' Where here is a town 3 states away.

Re:Sounds good

[SatanicPuppy]

What about free wifi? That's the real issue. I used to live in an apartment building, and all my neighbors sprung for a business-grade internet connection, and we set it up on wifi and went nuts while all the other poor bastards in the building were stuck with the crap cable connection.

If we'd been banned, we'd have just switched the cable to someone elses name. What are they going to do? Search my house weekly to make sure I don't have a wireless card?

Completely pointless.

Re:Sounds good

[mini me]

This is the Canadian government we are talking about. The same government that lets you file your GST returns online, but you may only do so between 9AM and 5PM EST. Maybe some day they will invest in some computers to handle the job instead of having their staff manually process each HTTP request.

Recipricol Three Strikes

[Archangel Michael]

I'd suggest that this law not be so one sided.

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. :-D

Re:Recipricol Three Strikes

[Sique]

Why not simply have the same rules for companies? Every company that has been found guilty in court of copyright, trademark or patent infringment at least three times is banned from the Internet.

Good bye, Sony BMG! Good bye, Microsoft! Good bye about nearly every larger editor or company!

The internet will be again as we knew it in the pre-1990ies.

First they came for the pirates...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Anonymous Coward]

"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

You mean unless you say or write something that offends Muslims, right?

That's not a troll either, it's the truth.

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Kompressor]

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Is it not possible to consider that one "other media of communication" would be communication that occurs online, for example a blog, e-mail, slashdot postings, etc?

As I understand it, denying someone the right to print an article, or to have an article published, would contravene this section of the Charter (discussion about the right for a private party to refuse to publish someone elses article notwithstanding). Thus, I believe that it would be difficult to implement something like this as a law.

Now, I could see an ISP having a list of disenfranchised users, and possibly (although I would be disgusted by it) the ability for ISPs to share the lists of these people between each other. For a similar example that already exists, look at the requirements that many bars in Edmonton and Vancouver have for scanning your drivers license before you are allowed in. This system checks against a shared database that confirms you aren't listed as a "troublemaker" (AKA haven't been blackballed). The logic behind this system might be simple enough to apply to a shared blacklist at ISPs.

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Beardo the Bearded]

The hell it isn't!

We've got a Bill of Rights here, and I quote from it:

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech; (emphasis mine)

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. That is exactly the way a Charter challenge to such a law would work. Even persons convicted of a serious indictable offence and sentenced to (and serving time in) prison are entitled to 3(b) protections with minimal, proportionate restrictions. Even these restrictions are subject to challenge, since section 24(1) applies to anyone.

2. The point is to make the committees in the House of Commons and the Senate see that a Charter challenge is both inevitable and unwinnable, and to simply not proceed with the legislation on that basis. There are still Senators and MPs who feel that Parliament should not be in the business of producing legislation which is known a priori to conflict with the Charter, unless it is tagged by the non obstante clause or an extremely persuasive section 1 limit, both of which are rare and politically awkward.

Also importantly, there is the question of whether society has a compelling interest in the prevention of not-for-profit individual-scale copyright infringement that would justify criminal sanctions that will be expensive to investigate and prosecute.

As a deterrent, are tiny numbers of heavy sentences (i.e., make it an indictable offence) realistic? Or large numbers of small sentences (summary conviction)?

The courts have been in no mood to accept large increases in the number of criminal cases put before them without sufficient resources to cope with them, and this sort of move is liable to provoke another "11(b) work-to-rule" akin to the fallout after Askov v. R., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 in matters involving minor offences, despite R v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771. One of the obvious administrative issues will be the sheer number of people who participate in file sharing now.

On the other hand, the possibility large numbers of people (a percent or more of all Canadians!) waiting for 2 years or more between charge and trial is a risky proposition for a minority government! File sharing makes marijuana use look rare.

One thing to hope for.

[AltGrendel]

how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"

Maybe we can get one of those Canadian politicians to jump off a bridge?

Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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...

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the notwithstanding clause means. It means that the government can ignore (i.e. pass a law that runs counter to) certain parts of the Canadian Charter. It doesn't allow provinces to ignore federal acts of parliament.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I don't think the blank cd tariff is such a bad thing. It basically legalized file sharing. It has made it possible for us to avoid such draconian laws like the DCMA. Besides, without us canadians, you americans wouldn't get any of your pirated movies (according to the MPAA).

File Sharing?!?! WTF?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:File Sharing?!?! WTF?!?

[morgan_greywolf]

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!

Well, pardner, 'round these here parts file sharin' is a hangin' offense.

Thanks,
The MAFIAA

No go

[^_^x]

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.

Good but...

[LWATCDR]

Will they then repeal the media tax?

Re:sigh....

[morgan_greywolf]

Dear Jasyn,

We would if anybody but shills, shysters and despots were running.

Thanks,
Everyone

Re:sigh....

[linuxpyro]

Dear Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People,

Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.

Thanks

The aristocracy is planet-wide...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:sigh....

[inflamed]

You might want to consider posting that anywhere but here.

just a step down the slippery slope

[ducman]

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.

Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thing.

[RexDevious]

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.

Three strikes of what?

[Shagg]

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)?

More like "Sigh..."

[SilverJets]

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.

The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[Scrameustache]

My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled! What the USA has, the right wingers of Canada desire.
And since the Conservative party is in power in Canada, what the USA does, Canada does a year later.

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[Serapth]

Two key differences...

1 - they are a minority goverment
2- in a legal system with a non confidence vote.

In other words, no matter what the Conservatives want to push down our throats, if atleast one of the other parties doesnt support it, it isnt going to happen. Not only that, but it could get the party bounced from power.

Imagine how much different the states would be right now if Bush had to work under similar rules? Then again, in Canada the Prime Minister really isnt near as powerful as the Presidents position (has become ).

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[chdig]

While what you wrote is true, it's also misleading and missing in context.
1 - Though there is a minority government, it's common practice for the parties to barter votes between issues. ie, if the opposition wants bill xx passed, they might agree to the government's copyright bill. True, though, it is more difficult to pass normal votes without a majority.
2 - non-confidence votes are primarily for financial issues (like the annual budget) or highly sensitive issues (like Canada's role in Afghanistan), and a copyright law would be very unlikely to fall under this category.

The irony, however, is that the best way the government can pass something is to make or attach it to a non-confidence vote. The opposition is so scared of an election that they'll pass things they don't agree with, just to avoid an election.

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[ceoyoyo]

On the other hand they keep trying their best to introduce new copyright bills and they keep withdrawing them in the face of public protest.

If the Conservatives actually passed this kind of bill and all the people downloading music got kicked off the net, sued, charged, whatever, the next government would not be a Conservative one.

Around here if you screw up you get voted out.

Slashdot considering a similar policy?

[sootman]

Yes, but does it run... [STRIKE1]
Imagine a beowulf cl... [STRIKE2]
I, for one, welcome ... [STRIKE3]
  --- NO CARRIER ---

An outdated view of technology

[StreetStealth]

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.

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Beardo the Bearded]

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. Indeed.

Now, who gets to say what is "too dangerous" to be allowed Internet access?

Let's say I download (and legally, I might add) several gigs of mp3s. Apparently, this is causing millions of dollars in damages. Therefore, if I continue to have internet access, I am personally costing various industries millions of dollars a day!

I'm a dangerous person. I'm exactly like a professional shoplifter. Except, weirdly enough, those guys still get to buy groceries FROM STORES.

As always, contact your local MP.

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Lijemo]

how about you people just learn to obey the fucking law and stop stealing music and movies? who give a shit what happens to people ho dont give a shit about the content creators.

Ah, so there is no need to make the punishment fit the crime, because you can avoid the punishment by just not doing the crime?

In that case, lets institute a no-appeals death penalty for speeding, jay-walking, minor traffic violations, and late payment of income taxes. After all, who cares what happens to people who break the law?

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Safety Cap]

lets institute a no-appeals death penalty for speeding,
-- Lijemo

Add in "changing lanes without signaling," "cruising in the fast lane," and "not knowing what you want to order by the time you get to the front of the 5-minute-long concessions queue at the ballgame," and you got yourself a deal!

Re:sigh....

[eln]

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.

If they outlaw the internet...

[jollyreaper]

...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.