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'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.
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!
Dear Jasyn,
We would if anybody but shills, shysters and despots were running.
Thanks,
Everyone
My blog
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.
You might want to consider posting that anywhere but here.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
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.
"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.
...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
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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?
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.