Slashdot Mirror


Quebec ISP To Terminate Subscribers Over Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "Quebecor, which owns Quebec's biggest ISP, has thrown in with Hollywood interests by arguing for the 'graduated response' approach that would kick off subscribers based on three allegations of infringement. The company told Canada's telecom regulator that net neutrality rules are not needed since content blocking has social benefits, including the potential for a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy."

290 comments

  1. meh by d-r0ck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Videotron. Great network, good speeds, low caps, and terrible customer service.

    1. Re:meh by GerardAtJob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They'll lose tons of client this way... Bell will be happy

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    2. Re:meh by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

      because Bell is so much better...what with their evening/late-night throttling and crazy prices.

      I'm moving to Montreal this summer and I hope I can find something better than these two giant ogres for my internet service.

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
    3. Re:meh by Fulg · · Score: 1

      No other options, sorry. (I'm in Montreal)

      As far as I know, every provider here leases their service from Bell or Videotron.

      Hopefully this won't come to pass just yet, but so far I'm fairly happy with Videotron. Like the GP poster, I get great download speeds (1200Mbit/s actual) and no interference from them, apart from a blocked port 80 (meh).

      The downside is the monthly cap (100GB combined up/down for $79 CDN, so watch your torrents). As long as you don't go over the monthly limit, it's an awesome provider. If you do, they rape your wallet pretty hard; each extra Gig costs $7.50, with no maximum!

      Note that I'm only talking about the network; customer service is a joke (naturally) and prices keep increasing every year for no apparent reason.

      What is scary about this story is that they are talking about mere allegations of copyright violations to suspend service. Surely this will be abused... It's an easy three step program to permanently cut off internet service for anyone you don't like!

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    4. Re:meh by billcopc · · Score: 1

      That sums it up quite nicely. They used to be great, but in the last 3-4 years they've been rather consistently shitting all over their customer base. I jumped ship when they decided the Extreme plan was no longer unlimited.

      Like every other ISP, they will become a boring, frustrating, penny-pinching joke/scam. It's only a matter of time before they start pissing off the people they thought un-pissable.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    5. Re:meh by fugue · · Score: 1

      What is scary about this story is that they are talking about mere allegations of copyright violations to suspend service. Surely this will be abused...

      So... abuse it! Nothing points out the problems with a system faster than breaking it. Is there a punishment for people whose allegations turn out to be incorrect?

      I took some photographs and put them in an archive named "StarWars.zip". This person downloaded and seeded a file by that name on BitTorrent.

      Wait--I thought the blank-media tax made copying legal in Canada?

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    6. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are better alternatives: Colbanet
      25Mbps no caps good customer service.

    7. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      teksavy offers uncapped un throttled DSL acces with a back doo to the backbone, bypassing stupid DPI servers

    8. Re:meh by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

      because Bell is so much better...what with their evening/late-night throttling and crazy prices.

      I'm moving to Montreal this summer and I hope I can find something better than these two giant ogres for my internet service.

      Hang on there .. try these folks out : http://www.radioactif.com/ .
      I've been with them for a few years now. No contract, no download limits and still cheaper than Ma Bell. Dunno if they've got any new shit on copyrighted content but I have'nt seen any kind of notice (so far) in my monthly statement.

      Funny thing with these folks. They're using the Bell DSL network but still offering better rates and service than Bell itself. Dunno how it works out but it works out great for me. Getting 5Mb down, 768k up even though when I started with them it was 3Mb. Nope, I'm not a shill for them, just another lucky customer that hasnt been bitten yet.

    9. Re:meh by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Like the GP poster, I get great download speeds (1200Mbit/s actual)...

      You get 1.2 gigabits/second?

      The downside is the monthly cap (100GB combined up/down for $79 CDN, so watch your torrents).

      So that cap is reached in about 12 minutes.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    10. Re:meh by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Cooptel ftw. Sadly, they don't cover my borough in Montreal >.

    11. Re:meh by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Cooptel/CAM covers only a part of the island since they're primarily a Monteregian ISP IIRC, but they offer comparatively better prices, bandwidth caps and rates than Bell does. And it's a coop (yeah, I know, that didn't make the "we're a bank, but not really" era Desjardins not suck, but still, in general it's a good thing)

    12. Re:meh by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      And... you won't hear anything about this anywhere... they own so many Tv station and radio station + journal... This won't even be talked here in Quebec... That's why a company shouldn't have a monopol on information (sry if badly spelled lol)

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    13. Re:meh by Fulg · · Score: 1

      You get 1.2 gigabits/second?

      Yeah, brain fart, sorry. I meant 12MBit/s :)

      So that cap is reached in about 12 minutes.

      You laugh, but they actually offer a 50Mbit package with a 30GB monthly limit. Better not leave that torrent running overnight :)

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    14. Re:meh by Fulg · · Score: 1

      Cooptel/CAM covers only a part of the island since they're primarily a Monteregian ISP IIRC, but they offer comparatively better prices, bandwidth caps and rates than Bell does.

      The question is, do they use Bell's infrastructure, or their own? If they lease Bell's equipment, then it's all the same, really...

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    15. Re:meh by Bibz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we have the Videotron option wich will ban users or the Bell option that throttles the bandwith... Great choices...

      --
      I didn't found something funny to put here.
    16. Re:meh by Bibz · · Score: 1

      Except that Colbanet is Bell in the background, wich throttles users...

      --
      I didn't found something funny to put here.
    17. Re:meh by Gog · · Score: 1

      I've heard good things from teksavy also but I'm with ElectronicBox myself. I believe they own everything but the dry line from the CO to my house (which I pay 10$/month to bell, dammit)

    18. Re:meh by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Sadly it would seem they're Bell resellers, oh well... *sighs*

    19. Re:meh by gmack · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly true. Cooptel has their own equipment in the bell colocation so they are renting raw fiber pairs from Bell. That goes for the eastern half of the island anyhow or that's what their installers told me two years ago while I was installing equipment for colba.net.

      It's possible that they are reselling for Bell in areas they don't cover yet.

    20. Re:meh by gmack · · Score: 1

      Not everywhere.. Colba rents copper pairs in most of the downtown core.

    21. Re:meh by gmack · · Score: 1

      They sucked for longer than that. I cut with them when they added extra charges and then refused to bill me in english.

      I discovered they were charging me twice what their sales guy said when they consolidated my bills and then they charged me a disconnect fee when I left.

    22. Re:meh by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      You get 1.2 gigabits/second?

      Yeah, brain fart, sorry. I meant 12MBit/s :)

      It happens. Not a smelly one, though.

      So that cap is reached in about 12 minutes.

      You laugh, but they actually offer a 50Mbit package with a 30GB monthly limit. Better not leave that torrent running overnight :)

      Now, that does stink. Talk about raping the customer...
      We have no caps here, and the ISP has 20/2 and 100/10 Mbit services. Our house has 2 adults + 2 kids using 4 home computers and occasionally 1 or 2 work laptops. I doubt if we ever go much over 500GiB in a month, but I suspect we're rarely below 100GiB (no caps, so I don't attempt to keep track).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    23. Re:meh by aqk · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well, I'm a SYMPATICO customer! And it's all I have. so...
      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition!

      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

  2. There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alternatives? Where. Show me. Explain to me.

    There is NO alternatives in Quebec.

    Show me the "competitve market" in Ontario. Please leave the Rogers/hBell wholesalers and resellers, and show me the competition.

    Primus in select area's that is not on Bell equipment? MSNi in Windsor not on Bell equipment?
    nexicom in petorborough not on Bell equipment?

    This competition is in isolated communities that the masses have no access to. Now explain the competition in Quebec to me please. Where should Videotron users move to again?

    Whith whom should they speak to with their wallet?

    I will be very surprised if the french language media even picks up on this.

    Quebec isn't even aware of the copyright fight that went on. A couple of obscure articles that came out a month AFTER the re-election.

    Think they will know about this?

    Quebec will push for its own CRTC saying its good for the people, have no coverage, and not tell the people stuff like this will happen. They have been pushing for their own CRTC for years now.

    There is close to zero awareness of these things in Quebec french media and french population.

    Will Quebecor put out a press release saying what it wants to do in their media? heh

    speak with your wallet? Change telco? Let me know when you found an alternative...

    1. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who modded this troll? Is there Videotron/Québécor agents reading slashdot?!

    2. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm a videotron client. TV/Phone/Cable Internet all from the same provider. What he said is true.

    3. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by urbanriot · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No one is stopping anyone from creating an ISP, the Canadian overbuilding rules were lifted long ago. If creating an ISP that offers its users unlimited bandwidth to P2P is that lucrative, especially now, wouldn't someone have gone ahead and done so?

    4. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know what he said is true. But he had a "troll" mod for a short time. I wasn't saying "who modded this troll [poster]" I was saying "who modded this [as a] troll".

      Kinda confusing now that I read my post again.

    5. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by jsrlepage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1. I'm a Videotron client, and all alternatives either suck (Bell), suck more (Videotron resellers), or have no choice but to suck (TekSavvy uses Bell infrastructures).

      Currently, the only service provider with a good signal, less connection drops, and an overall good stability is Videotron. I will be the first to say that our DSL service with Bell is sometimes worse than accessing cellular internet - I kid you not. But aside from Bell (throttling b1tches), Bell resellers (poor them), Videotron (Quebecor obviously wants to push their own agenda) or Videotron resellers (Cogeco comes to mind, Radioactif too), we don't have much of a choice up here.

      --
      This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
    6. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by causality · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know what he said is true. But he had a "troll" mod for a short time. I wasn't saying "who modded this troll [poster]" I was saying "who modded this [as a] troll".

      Kinda confusing now that I read my post again.

      Glad to see that others have noticed some of the low-quality moderation that goes on and are willing to say something about it. I know that this can't be true, but for a while there I felt like the only one.

      I've never seen a good reason for why the old metamoderation system was abolished.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Probably because you're a bilingual by the Qubec definition - you speak French and English equally badly.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      It may not be as simple as just starting an ISP. The last mile service is the most difficult to achieve. Most ISPs in place already have the last mile infrastructure in place from other offerings or had some government assistance to get access.

      DSL, and it's slow adoption is probably the most obvious example of this issue. For years, the lines were not in a shape or quality that could carry DLS signals. This is true within Canada just as much as the US. When DSL tech came availible, some areas had to wait 5 or more years before lines where upgrades and so on before they could get access to it. What people don't really realize is that ADSL was originally developed back in 1988 or so with it's roots coming from the scientific paper released in 1948 "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". It probably wasn't until 2000 or so until DSL started becoming widely availible and affordable because of all the upgrades that needed to be made. Now this is despite the telecoms already using it as an extension to DS1 services to pipe the bulk of calls outside the local exchange.

      Back in 1999, I was working with a guy and we were going to start a DSL ISP in my local area and even rent bandwidth to some local ISPs (mom and pop shops) so help cover the costs. Now, this was in the US so things might be a little different but to get the tech out to the limits of the existing technology at the time, we were going to have to rewire half of the city before we even thought about putting R-DSLAMS in to extend the ranges. And even though we were replacing wire that the telecoms were already obligated to replace, we had to go through the motions of getting a right of way and all that. In the end, it think we estimated it to take something like 15-25 years to repay the initial investment if we were operating at maximum capacity for that time. In 2000 or 2001, Time Warner started upgrading their lines in my local area and offered roadrunner which started taking some of the T1 internet access accounts away, the telcos then upgraded their lines (without having to fuck with 'right of ways') and offered DSL.

      Now both Time Warner and SBC/ATT will offer fiber access to 90% of the local area if your a commercial customer but all your phones and stuff go over the fiber access too which is significantly pointing to the "other uses" which covers the last mile installation costs. Hell, even Verizon's FIOS services which are sold to private customers do the phone and all too.

      It may be impossible for someone to set up a second network offering the speeds and such and remain competitive in the least. This wouldn't be because there aren't enough file sharers or P2P users, it's because so much of the costs are already offset by other services and those opertunities may not be availible to the people.

    9. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you just wrote "equally badly!" Lolcats and roflcakes! w00t w00t

    10. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by PIBM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Until recently, the best choices where DSL resellers, with a very low price tag and great speed (8mpbs). Sadly, bell got the right to slow down their resellers lines when they detected p2p stuff on it. And if you lived in a good area, the connection quality (uptime) was great too!

      Some where offering contract free service, or services without any logging etc...

      Nowadays, you need to go live further away and get a DSL or cable service from the community, and if you are sawwy enough you could even become the admin of the network itself..

    11. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone was not impressed with the cut and paste from TFA....

    12. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL, but maybe someone who is might chime in:

      Since the "alleging 3rd party" and Quebecor caused damages to you ( loss of internet service ) without showing reasonable proof, I wonder if you could sue them?

      Is it possible to get a class action going if they caused large numbers of people to lose internet access?

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    13. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by mrclevesque · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Montreal and VDN cable or Coop-tel are good options.

    14. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.
      I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.
      I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.

      There, three times. Now what? :D

    15. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Great, now you've summoned one of the Elder Gods, Cop'Yr'Ight and his insatiable horde of lawyers. You've doomed the entire world!
      Hastur's got nothing on this tentacle-faced prick.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    16. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Then the mod should have been "redundant", if anything.

    17. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Cow_woC · · Score: 1

      Join TekSavvy. The more cash you generate for this organization, the more pressure they will be able to apply to Videotron and Bell to stop playing these games.

      Monopolies only win if they are too lazy to support the little guy.

    18. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOSH

    19. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly. I only have 2 choices:
      -videotron cable who doesn't mind changing the TOS at will, disregarding any contract terms, whose prices suck, has the lowest caps I've ever seen, and terrible customer support. I can max out my 10mbit line anytime, but now they can cut you anytime (and I'm sure they will)
      or
      -bell DSL and its resellers, with a 512kbps top speed, *if* the line quality permits, and I'm right in the city! There's not a very big difference in price either.

      It keeps getting worse. I don't need 10mbit if I can't download anything (low caps + 3 strike policy), and 512kbps is so slow (going from ~1250KB/s to ~64 tops? ouch!) it might as well be dialup as far as I'm concerned.

    20. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8mbps is crap from another age. Sorry but I feel ashamed to tell my friends in europe I have only 25/0.75mbps and I can't even host a server because my line will not support hosting a match with VoIP...

      Technologically speaking Quebec is a 3rd world country...

    21. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by hardwarefreak · · Score: 0, Troll

      Alternatives? Where. Show me. Explain to me.

      There is NO alternatives in Quebec.

      Show me the "competitve market" in Ontario. Please leave the Rogers/hBell wholesalers and resellers, and show me the competition.

      Primus in select area's that is not on Bell equipment? MSNi in Windsor not on Bell equipment?
      nexicom in petorborough not on Bell equipment?

      This competition is in isolated communities that the masses have no access to. Now explain the competition in Quebec to me please. Where should Videotron users move to again?

      Whith whom should they speak to with their wallet?

      I will be very surprised if the french language media even picks up on this.

      Quebec isn't even aware of the copyright fight that went on. A couple of obscure articles that came out a month AFTER the re-election.

      Think they will know about this?

      Quebec will push for its own CRTC saying its good for the people, have no coverage, and not tell the people stuff like this will happen. They have been pushing for their own CRTC for years now.

      There is close to zero awareness of these things in Quebec french media and french population.

      Will Quebecor put out a press release saying what it wants to do in their media? heh

      speak with your wallet? Change telco? Let me know when you found an alternative...

      This is what happens under Socialism. I find it fitting that you're now suffering from the same policies you champion so dearly. French ISPs suck, French Canadian ISPs suck. What's the common thread? France is Socialist, Quebec is Socialist. Both are dominated by French culture. Most French speakers (1st or 2nd language) are Socialists.

      Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the French. I think it's every American's duty to liberate some every couple of generations.

    22. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by johnnnyboy · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this!

      --
      "If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"
    23. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of distributing 5 billion dollars to shareholders, Sabia should have had the vision to invest to ftth.

      Monty was a visonnary. Sabia was an accountant. Let's see what Cope is.

    24. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by fbriere · · Score: 1

      Sadly, bell got the right to slow down their resellers lines when they detected p2p stuff on it.

      If you're with TekSavvy, all you need to do is set up a Multilink (also known as Multipath) PPPoE connection, which fools Bell's equipment and defeats their throttle.

      (Obviously, this is a temporary solution, but I doubt that Bell will spend much effort to plug that hole in the near future.)

    25. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Montreal at least, you can go with Colbanet's ADSL2+ service. They've got their own equipment, separate DSLAMs and pipes, and don't rely on Bell for anything.

      A previous roommate worked for them on their ADSL2+ rollout. Turns out it was cheaper for them to move the customers they had on Bell's equipment (where they didn't pay for bandwidth) over to their own (where they did). Pretty crazy.

      If you're in Montreal, give them a call and see if they cover your area. If they do, they might be worth the switch.

    26. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of costs in starting an ISP. Hardware, running the wire, buying politicians... the usual stuff.

    27. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by smtrembl · · Score: 1

      Electronic Box is perhaps the best and the least known of all services providers in Quebec. Based in Sherbrooke, its services and support are out-of-this-world compared to the big three. It also offers custom connections and many tech-savvy options.

    28. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      That sort of duopoly exists in Canada and the US, European countries have a competitive telecom market, think again.

    29. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by jsrlepage · · Score: 0

      I will have to bite that troll and be VERY bitter. GO FSCK YOURSELF. English-speaking people from here can't even tell if i'm a frenchie or not when I speak in english.

      Disclaimer: French first language, but I was raised on ReBoot and the ontario-based YTV (Youth TeleVision).

      --
      This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
    30. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      That sort of duopoly exists in Canada and the US, European countries have a competitive telecom market, think again.

      Really? Name all of the broadband providers in France, and which ones are independently owned and operated. BTW, France != "European countries". I named France, and France only. You retort/defend with all of Europe. Defend France only please.

      I am no expert on broadband in France, but the only broadband providers I do know of are:

      A. France Telecom, aka Orange
      B. Local government/citizen owned providers, what we'd call a "co-op" here in the states, but many of these are also run by Orange.

      If there is an actual competitive broadband market in France, please educate me. Please name the dozens of privately owned and operated broadband providers across France.

    31. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by simonbas · · Score: 1

      This may be perceived troll because of denigration of the people of Quebec.

      This WONT get picked up by the media in quebec not because people dont care or are too dumb, but because Videotron own the media that reach the most and they certainly won't publicize it...

      Alternatives are simple... http://www.radioactif.net/ or http://www.b2b2c.ca/

    32. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a dozens of alternative and cheap providers. Just look around. I'm with Colbanet (but I think they outsource their network to enter-net) and for just 30$ I have the maximum bandwith avail (2mb right now, but at my previous appartmens I had the fulll 5mb, that's dsl for ya) and freaking unlimited bandwith. There *seems* to be an occasional throtling whenever I download like crazy every once in a while, nothing that bothers me.

      And then there's radioactif, cooptel, cam, distributel, teksavyy and a whole lot more that I never heard before googling it right now. Just look around!

    33. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      So not terribly different from most of Canada and the US, which kinda makes your point moot. I wasn't aware Orange ran the local providers as a rule.

    34. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Montreal and VDN cable or Coop-tel are good options.

      Another Bell bitch... http://www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/corp/2005/08/02/72599.html

    35. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by JuicyBrain · · Score: 1

      You are absolutly right. I'm a french speaking client of Videotron myself and I can attest that almost no one here is really aware of what is going on in the copyright world right now. The thing is, probably the most popular newspaper here (Journal de montreal) is also the property of Quebecor as well as canoe.ca and the most popular TV channels TVA and LCN, LCN being a news only channel just like CNN. Quebecor controls the news here... Suffice to say you rarely see (if ever) news that don't show them in a good light.

      Oh we're screwed !

    36. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Yeah, I would be ashamaed, since even in our third world country we have higher upload speed than you.

      I have an 1mpbs upload link, living 10km from the closest town. Are your offering even covering points where there's no other town in 10km ?

    37. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also go with CoopTel... Good rates and it's the only telecommunication cooperative in Quebec. So if they behave in a way you don't like you can even go to the member meeting and call a vote on that. Try this whith a company..

      Their service is available in most area of Quebec. In the Montreal, Valcourt and Sherbrooke area they have separate equipment and don't rely on anything from Bell.

      And if you're lucky enough to live in the St-Christine area they are currently rolling out fiber to the home ;-)

      Disclaimer I work for that company.

    38. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by gmack · · Score: 1

      I wonder how hard it would be to implement encrypted pppoe between the customer and the reseller.

      That would lock bell out for good.

    39. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is for HydroQuebec to be responsible to deploy fiber up to the last mile.

      It's already done in some rich new developments.
      The ISPs (Bell and Videotron) are giving telephone, Internet and digital TV service through this fiber.

      Residents can chose their ISP preference.
      This allows smaller ISPs to compete (if the stat company opens up their conditions enough).

      The only unknown to me is the MTTR for the fiber, from HydroQuebec. They are usually really good for the electrical portion.

      If any of you are unaware, they have the biggest fiber network in Quebec for many years now; bigger than the ISPs, are reaching ALL Quebec, not only some regions like ISPs.

    40. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will be very surprised if the french language media even picks up on this.

      Quebecor is the french language media.

    41. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by aqk · · Score: 0


      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition!

      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

    42. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by aqk · · Score: 0

      Hey! Bell competes! Would you prefer RoadRunner?
      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition!

      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

    43. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by aqk · · Score: 0

      Try suffering trolls when you only have dialup like me!

      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition: WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

    44. Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Cam is actually Coop-tel.

  3. Old news by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Isn't this already common practice? I know my ISP (COX) warned me that 3 complaints would lead to account termination.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Old news by causality · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't this already common practice? I know my ISP (COX) warned me that 3 complaints would lead to account termination.

      I think it's new and maybe it's becoming common, but right now it's still unusual.

      The one thing that bothers me is that it sounds like mere allegations are enough to count towards the "three strikes". I'm hearing about account terminations etc. and I am not hearing much about the burden of proof.

      The summary had one thing right though:

      The company told Canada's telecom regulator that net neutrality rules are not needed since content blocking has social benefits, including the potential for a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy."

      I agree that this will have societal benefits. For one, if this becomes a widespread practice we're going to see encrypted or obfuscated torrent protocols in a hurry. This will start an arms race that the ISPs have no hope of winning, which is appropriate because copyright is a legal issue, not a technical issue or a customer service issue that an ISP should be concerned about. That's the best way I know of to start an arms race -- apply the wrong solution and when it fails, try harder and harder instead of recognizing a failed idea and looking for a different solution.

      The other societal benefit is that more people are going to start questioning whether draconian copyright enforcement measures are in anyone's best interests. It's like places that have arbitrarily low speed limits; the model depends on the idea that most people get away with it most of the time. If there were a way to perfectly catch and fine 100% of people who exceed the speed limit by even one mile per hour, the result would be a severe public backlash that would cause the speed limit to be raised. Once the public gets tired of the copyright interests' insatiable appetite for increasingly punitive measures, those copyright interests are going to wish like hell that they had quit while they are ahead. They and their products are a mere luxury; we do not need them and as soon as we realize that, it will help to restore the balance of power that is sorely missing.

      The general public is exceedingly stupid when it comes to seeing ahead of time that something is headed down the wrong path and is going to be a problem, but once they do, there's not a whole lot that can stop them. This has all the makings of a severe public backlash because what drives the awareness is the Internet and open discussion so the usual mass-media's one-sided approach to everything won't hold this one back.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other societal benefit is that more people are going to start questioning whether draconian copyright enforcement measures are in anyone's best interests. It's like places that have arbitrarily low speed limits; the model depends on the idea that most people get away with it most of the time. If there were a way to perfectly catch and fine 100% of people who exceed the speed limit by even one mile per hour, the result would be a severe public backlash that would cause the speed limit to be raised. Once the public gets tired of the copyright interests' insatiable appetite for increasingly punitive measures, those copyright interests are going to wish like hell that they had quit while they are ahead. They and their products are a mere luxury; we do not need them and as soon as we realize that, it will help to restore the balance of power that is sorely missing.

      Except of course that will never happen. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that if stuff gets slow/blocked enough, people will just outright stop using the internet. Sorry, don't see it happening. Unless it's down to the only things on the internet are advertisements and government/corporate webpages... and even THEN it probably wouldn't be enough... would people even remotely consider not having the internet.

      People are consumers. They will continue to consume no matter what.

    3. Re:Old news by dryeo · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Canada it is questionable whether downloading stuff is even illegal. Especially music, which has a levy on blank media to pay for sharing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Old news by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not questionable at all. Despite what CIRA has been lying about, it's perfectly legal to download music and movies in Canada.

      Uploading is NOT legal.

      Now paging the /. legal team: Your Law and Order training is required below my post.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They're encrypting their traffic? Oh well, assume they're guilty and ban them anyway.

    6. Re:Old news by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I wonder nobody noticed the owner of this ISP (Videotron which is also offering its services Canada-wide and even outside Canada) is Quebecor which is also owner of a major television channel, which is owner of many other entities involved in film, music and media productions.

      So, no wonder it wants its ISP to lead the march to block P2P and do as much harm as possible to anything that can be used to infringe copyright laws. It is somewhat like have the cop, the judge and the claimer in the same person. In short, a conflict of interests.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re:Old news by Jardine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not questionable at all. Despite what CIRA has been lying about, it's perfectly legal to download music and movies in Canada.

      Uploading is NOT legal.

      Now paging the /. legal team: Your Law and Order training is required below my post.

      The private copying rules only apply to music, not movies.

    8. Re:Old news by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The one thing that bothers me is that it sounds like mere allegations are enough to count towards the "three strikes". I'm hearing about account terminations etc. and I am not hearing much about the burden of proof.

      The point of "three strikes" laws is to strike fear to the hearts of people: you could be next. They have the same basic idea than suicide bombing: of course bombers can't cause much actual destruction, but they could strike anywhere, anytime, and get anyone, so they make people scared, even if the statistics show that you have more chances of being struck by lighting.

      In other words, "three strikes" laws are a form of terrorism, and putting burden of proof on the accuser would hinder this purpose.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, thanks for the warning anon

  5. Do they really want that responsibility? by LordZardoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use Videotron for my own internet access. I disagree with their reasoning on this though. What I am more interested in is exactly why they (or any other ISP) would take this position? The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs, which is a win for them for obvious reasons.

    But if they want to have that kind of power, then they would also make themselves at least somewhat liable for what their subscribers are doing over the internet. Do they really want to take on that liability to any degree? Or do they expect to be able to get the ability to throttle bandwidth while still not incurring any liability for user activities?

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints, they kick the infringer. This isn't them monitoring your communications, this is them responding to what they're already getting.

      If anything, it lets them reduce their liability because they can always say "Yeah, we do eventually do something about copyright infringers who don't change their ways" .

    2. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Why? That's easy. Users downloading copyrighted materials typically use more bandwidth than regular users, so it's no loss to them if you stop or they cut justifiably (in their eyes) cut you off. I don't agree with it, I'm just suggesting that its their mentality.

    3. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if you're using P2P for World of Warcraft updates? What if you're using P2P to download Linux distros? What if you use P2P to download music, videos and books that are public domain?

      Will the ISPs really check the validity of the complaints or simple check for any P2P activity from their users?

    4. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Users downloading creative commons or public domain material or Linux ISOs also typically use more bandwidth than regular users.

      Huge bandwidth users != copyright infringement.

    5. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by urbanriot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Cut the shit. You and I both know that the majority of people aren't using P2P to download public domain content, linux distros and occasional WoW patching. Out of everyone I know using P2P, and that's a lot, I'm probably one of the few using it for legitimate needs (and I'm also using it for illegitimate needs). I don't stand behind their decision, but honest users that utilize maximum P2P bandwidth are a really small minority.

    6. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but what I'm afraid of is that ISPs won't care what you do and label you a "thief" for using P2P.

    7. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The basic idea is that the consumers using more bandwidth is more attractive to the the ISprovider, and therefore more attractive to the faceless suits.

      Which we have seen back in December (when NewYorkCountryLawyer was defending an innocent 19-year-old transplant patient against the RIAA) that tangible evidence doesn't really matter as much as it used to.

      Though I could be wrong on how that case ended, I didn't keep up with it.

    8. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      who cares? what's the difference of the sources until it's proven in court.

      This throws that whole "is it legal" argument out the window in favor of screwing anyone the industry doesn't like.

    9. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints

      Valid? I don't think I've seen a "three strikes" law containing that word, let alone a definition of who makes the judgement.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      who cares? what's the difference of the sources until it's proven in court.

      This throws that whole "is it legal" argument out the window in favor of screwing anyone the industry doesn't like.

      You just illustrated the futility of what they are trying so hard to do.

      They aren't actually trying to screw anyone whom the industry doesn't like. That people are also getting screwed is more of a side-effect. They're trying to eliminate a technology that the industry doesn't like. The thing about that, is that the cat is already out of the bag and isn't going back in. That's why this will fail.

      Only one open question remains: how many people are going to suffer in one way or another before it is generally understood that this can't possibly work?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    11. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by perlchild · · Score: 1

      Quebecor, which owns Videotron is a huge media and content owner. Through subsidiaries, they're closer to being the "Time Warner" of Quebec(and they own some stuff west, just not dominating there like they do here) than just about anything else here.

    12. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints...

      Some issues with that:
      1. Nobody said anything about 'valid'. Just 3 complaints.
      2. Regardless of wither they try to make a validity judgment they open themselves to liability over terminating a valid user.
      3. The reason the telcos like neutrality is that they don't end up liable for what you do on the phone. They don't have to sort out who's complaints are valid etc.

      This *could* open up a legal mess for the ISP.

    13. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints, they kick the infringer

      No. There's no requirement that the complaints be valid, or that they even try to verify the complaint. Three unsubstantiated complaints and they can terminate your service. All somebody has to do is complain that you're infringing and you have problems. If they do it three times, you're out, with, AFAIK no recourse and no other provider. I can only guess that this company has either never heard of or doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    14. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by causality · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which we have seen back in December (when NewYorkCountryLawyer was defending an innocent 19-year-old transplant patient against the RIAA) that tangible evidence doesn't really matter as much as it used to.

      That's the scary thing and I don't think most people appreciate it.

      It would be better for us to have every last copyright interest and major media corporation go completely out of business and leave us with little or no music and movies, than it would be to compromise sound standards of evidence in an attempt to "help" those industries. Once you go down that path, you open up a whole world of shit that most people don't believe could ever happen here in the USA. That path leads to nothing less than modern, legally-sanctioned witch-hunts where pissing off the wrong monied interest is all it takes to ruin your life even if you have broken no laws. McCarthyism is a pretty close illustration of what can happen, except this one would be for the general public. We're not far from that point right now when you consider how much money and time it would take for you to have any hope of defending yourself against the army of lawyers that a large media corporation could send after you and the number of years that they could tie you up in court.

      I sure wish people in general would wake up and realize that we can know with 100% certainty where this path leads without ever having to set foot on it. There are things that simply should not ever be compromised for any reason. Whatever we think we're trying to accomplish is not worth what this will cost.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    15. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

      You and I both know that the majority of people aren't using P2P to download public domain content, linux distros and occasional WoW patching.

      I know nothing of the sort. You apparently know even less.

      In the name of Darwin, kindly expire as the result of a conflagration.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely, but the problem is exactly what you say in the last statement, and that is my biggest concern, and this has been happening with an excess of technologies, policies, etc.

      I think the real reason is a bunch of politicians doing a completely shitty jobs in general by being willing to violate their own ethics has translated to businesses doing a shitty job and violating their own ethics, and so forth down the road. I have a feeling every generation has dealt with this, we are not the last, and certainly not the first if history has anything to say about it.

      I don't know what the cure is for that, since there is clearly enough nepotism for people to stretch their political career beyond retirement and beyond death, into their own children etc. I think this has been covered far more than enough already.

      However, on the flip side in favor of being too careful is just as bad as not being careful in that both result in undesired change/errors/mistakes/people thrown to the wayside as innocent victims. There just isn't a balance at all, and this is evident in many cultures worldwide. It's just becoming more apparent because of the internet, or maybe it's just as apparent as it's always been. I don't know.

    17. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by pmarini · · Score: 1

      like content from YouTube, Google talks, TED videos, cnet TV, GameSpot reviews and demos, and the dozens of national TVs that are starting to put their content online like news and series ? not to count plain and simple user uploaded content that is picking up with teenagers in sites like Bebo...
      and probably only 10% of this is in HD at the moment, later it will require an order of bandwidth/traffic more...
      the media world is shifting to the "tubes" medium and the ISPs are simply trying to find a way to squeeze more money for the "unlimited" packages that they even couldn't provide so far...

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    18. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Punishing those who use a transfer protocol for legitimate purposes is simply unacceptable. We don't punish people for owning guns, shooting them at target ranges, or using them against another human beings in cases of legitimate self-defense. We punish those who use such tools in an illegal manner.

      I don't believe for a second that they're going to do any more due diligence in verifying the validity of infringement complaints than the record labels do in filing them. Why is it okay to allow this to happen?

      I guess I'm in the minority of those who use P2P protocols for legal purposes. Trying to download DVD images (Solaris, various Linux distros, etc) without BitTorrent is terribly painful, and bad for the distributor in terms of bandwidth utilization. I don't give two shits about music downloads, although I have an iTunes account for my wife.

    19. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't know the law in Canada, but you are held under penalty of perjury if you file one in the US. If Canadian law doesn't make such provisions, then I would suggest that the Canadians change their laws. Preventing false complaints is quite important, and those who do engage in such behavior should be punished.

    20. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I am more interested in is exactly why they (or any other ISP) would take this position? The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs, which is a win for them for obvious reasons.

      The better question is why. Videotron has a 50 Mbps residential connection for $80/month. I believe that is the fastest residential internet connection in all of Canada:

      http://www.videotron.com/services/en/internet/internet-tgv50/presentation.jsp

      Videotron even mentions how fast it is for downloading movies & songs.

      The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing...

    21. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by causality · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely, but the problem is exactly what you say in the last statement, and that is my biggest concern, and this has been happening with an excess of technologies, policies, etc.

      I think the real reason is a bunch of politicians doing a completely shitty jobs in general by being willing to violate their own ethics has translated to businesses doing a shitty job and violating their own ethics, and so forth down the road. I have a feeling every generation has dealt with this, we are not the last, and certainly not the first if history has anything to say about it.

      I don't know what the cure is for that, since there is clearly enough nepotism for people to stretch their political career beyond retirement and beyond death, into their own children etc. I think this has been covered far more than enough already.

      However, on the flip side in favor of being too careful is just as bad as not being careful in that both result in undesired change/errors/mistakes/people thrown to the wayside as innocent victims. There just isn't a balance at all, and this is evident in many cultures worldwide. It's just becoming more apparent because of the internet, or maybe it's just as apparent as it's always been. I don't know.

      We the public are generally far too docile and naive. I recognize that almost all of our problems follow from this. I think it's because we have largely abandoned principle in favor of immediate convenience and gratification and that this has made us weak and timid. What immediate convenience would see as a gross overreaction to something small is what principle would see as stopping a problem in its early stages before it can grow and develop into a crisis.

      We ignore the acorns that are planted and years later we wonder how the hell that giant mighty oak tree got there and we curse at how hard it's going to be to chop it down and at how much damage it's going to do when it falls. We act like it's so hard to know with certainty when we are on a wrong path and we think we need to go down each wrong path before we can see that clearly. Anyone who tries to tell us these things ahead of time is ignored, ridiculed, or is given some cop-out like "you're arrogant" or "who are you to judge?" The difference between true arrogance and speaking the truth with authority because you can see it with your own eyes is seldom appreciated.

      I think that the answer to almost everything you have mentioned boils down to this flawed and unstated assumption in our society that people don't need to understand themselves and don't need to come up with their own understanding of the world. Most people have beliefs and worldviews, including strong ones, that are not the product of a careful evaluation of all available options. This amounts to programming. Regardless of age, I do not believe that a person is properly an adult until they have evaluated every last thing they think they believe with a willingness to reject anything and everything that does not help them grow as a human being. If this dynamic process of personal growth were the norm in our culture, if the average citizens were not a bunch of overgrown children, then the ethical violations of politicians and corporations would never be accepted for a moment. We have become weak and vacuous and they are moving in to fill this vacuum but they themselves are effects, not causes.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    22. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Canada doesn't require that any DMCA complaints be filed under penalty of perjury, or any other mechanism to require them to be valid?

      I'm very sorry for Canadians that they are vulnerable to harassment through this method. I suggest they consult with their government representatives on it.

      They should also include the right to file a counter-notice, if it's not there already.

      Frankly, I see that problem as one with the government, not one with your ISPs. Of course, my experience with most ISPs is that they ignore your average notice, and make an effort to avoid actually doing anything.

    23. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      "The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs"

      Yes but not only, Videotron is owned by a media company that Owns tv station, newspaper film distributors , book and music publishers.

      They want to sell you their stuff trough their pipes but first they need to cut off the competition , free or not, legal or not.

    24. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by danking · · Score: 1

      This ISP is being notified by a third-party, correct? How does this third-party find out about torrent-users/file sharers on the ISP's network? Do they run a bunch of torrent programs and then find the IP address of the people downloading from them? Is it not illegal to upload copyrighted material in Canada?

    25. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by gwait · · Score: 1

      Yabut - the US DMCA has been shown to be abused - Isn't it the case that just about anyone can lodge a false DMCA complaint against content at say Youtube, and they will pull it down without investigation? They dare not leave it up after receiving a DMCA take down because they would then be liable for damages at that point?
      Unless the victim has a big pile of cash for lawyers, said victim has no freedom of speech..

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    26. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Then you are completely ignorant, purposely or otherwise. I don't know how it's apparent to you that I know even less, if you don't know anything of the sort.

    27. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Jardine · · Score: 1

      So Canada doesn't require that any DMCA complaints be filed under penalty of perjury, or any other mechanism to require them to be valid?

      I'm very sorry for Canadians that they are vulnerable to harassment through this method. I suggest they consult with their government representatives on it.

      They should also include the right to file a counter-notice, if it's not there already.

      Frankly, I see that problem as one with the government, not one with your ISPs. Of course, my experience with most ISPs is that they ignore your average notice, and make an effort to avoid actually doing anything.

      Canada does not have a notice-and-takedown system on the law books. Even the recent attempts to introduce a law like the DMCA in Canada did not include a notice-and-takedown system. There was a notice-and-notice system included in at least one of the proposed bills. Notice-and-notice would basically mean that the ISP forwards the email to the alleged offender.

      There is no requirement for an ISP in Canada to immediately take down alleged infringing material. They may investigate on their own if they wish.

    28. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Only one open question remains: how many people are going to suffer in one way or another before it is generally understood that this can't possibly work?

      Ask the same question about pot.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    29. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Cool, when they start doing that, I'm starting a class-action suit against them because they haven't prevented me from receiving spam.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    30. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm not deluded enough to think that I've monitored everybody's P2P traffic on the net - which would be a prerequisite for what you claim to know. If you have doen that, I'd like to know how you did it - and we'll have a detailed breakdown while you're at it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      The fact is, blocking p2p is an annoyance for the people who use it for "legitimate" purposes, it won't stop sharing, and it's attacking the protocol which itself is legal. I'm tired of dealing with the throttling of BT when I'm trying to get hold of distro upgrades.

    32. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      and they own some stuff west, just not dominating there like they do here

      Scary thought :/

    33. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by digitrev · · Score: 1

      And we all know how often perjury is prosecuted.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    34. Re:Do they really want that responsibility? by ady1 · · Score: 1

      What if you're using P2P for World of Warcraft updates?

      It should be one strike in that case and trust me, they will be doing you a favor

  6. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical Quebec bashing. That's as stupid as saying that all Americans are gun-loving rednecks who only speak english and are afraid of anyone who wasn't born in the USA.

    There's plenty of morons everywhere, and Quebec is no exception.

  7. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "become"? Quebec has always been like that, and it gets more "distict" with every law passed since as a general rule, if the Canadian Federal government issues some sort of law, Quebec's provincial government will make itself an exception to the law unless the law was crafted by them for the federal government to begin with.

    If Canada had at a federal level a requirement of a 3 strikes policy I'd bet you Quebec would be the one place where such a practice would be forbidden by law. :)

  8. good revenge tactic by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    know somebody who you dont like at school or work that just happens to use this ISP? just complain three times to the ISP and "Bam!" no more internets...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:good revenge tactic by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Or, for mass effect, do random drivebys on unsecured wifi routers. Torrent some unencrypted goodies through the connection so there's real proof in the ISP's logs that infringement happened.

      Then report the address of the hapless blokes. It may only take a couple dozen instances in the average sized city to achieve the desired effect.

      Cutting off internet access to a bunch of Joe Consumers (who spend over a hundred bucks a month on their cable bill) is a big deal and would guarantee mainstream coverage of the monitoring issue.

      Or something like that.

    2. Re:good revenge tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In New Zealand they are enacting a similar law tomorrow. Under our law you have to be a registered organisation (ie. big business) to be allowed to make accusations.

      Furthermore, your innocence or guilt will be decided by an ISP on the basis of "evidence which would be acceptable to a court" (according to the last draft I read).

    3. Re:good revenge tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother, they will apply this only on residential accounts.

  9. Crazy french people by schwillis · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wouldn't be suprised if part of this was pressure from quebecious sepratists who are upset french people are downloading movies in english instead of going and buy french dubbed dvd's.

    1. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be suprised if part of this was pressure from quebecious sepratists who are upset french people are downloading movies in english instead of going and buy french dubbed dvd's.

      wow.....you don't know what you talking about ;)

      First Peladeau is a Liberal...so please...think before saying so ...ignorant stuff ;)

    2. Re:Crazy french people by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a french Canadian (i.e. Québécois) who prefers to watch movies and TV shows in their original versions (be it french, english or japanese with french or english subtitles), I find your comment funny, insightful and scary.

    3. Re:Crazy french people by meloman · · Score: 0, Troll

      I find your comment funny, insightful and scary.

      I find his comment stupid, ignorant and nothing but a troll.

      --
      http://www.vivahate.org/
      Stay home, be bored. It's crap, I KNOW!
    4. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah so you're just some bigoted jack-ass, got ya.

    5. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have livid in montreal and quebec city for 30 years and I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

      Ever read bill 101? In any other 'country' it would be considered racist/fascist at best. In quebec, its just business as usual.

      In any other country I would laugh at the parent and say eventually its about money when you get down to it. But in QUEBEC - i would not be surprised if this is REALLY about sad FRENCH nationalists who are continuing try and isolate their people from reality.

      and before you leap to any conclusions - yes - i - am french-quebecois.

    6. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as an English Canadian, I find myself having to resort to downloading to actually see some of the great movies coming out of Quebec (Bon Cop, Bad Cop for example). The internet is a huge boon for getting some of the talent in Quebec noticed.

    7. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know to know what I'm talking about, you're a fucking idiot.

    8. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, heaven forbid that a group of people try to maintain and preserve their unique culture and heritage - just like China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries do.

    9. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the others are actual countries. Quebec isn't a county, it's a province inside a country and they do more then attempt to preserve their culture, they push it onto anyone who comes in.

    10. Re:Crazy french people by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Quebec isn't a country, but it is a nation. They're entitled to try to preserve their own unique cultural identity. They're just not entitled to try to force it on the rest of us.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    11. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Following the historical culture of a nation doesn't remove it's obligations to the country it is part of. And your right, it doesn't entitle them to enforce that onto others but it's what they try to do. It's why so many other people don't like them, even Canadians from different provinces don't like them for that reason.

    12. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Quebec has been declared a Nation by the Canadian government...

      http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061122/harper_quebec_061122/20061122?hub=TopStories

    13. Re:Crazy french people by Nebu · · Score: 1

      Yes, heaven forbid that a group of people try to maintain and preserve their unique culture and heritage - just like China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries do.

      Preserving culture and heritage is fine. Forcing people who have no interest in your culture and heritage to learn your language is not fine.

      There are at least 85 languages which are extinct in North America alone (citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_North_America). If someone wants to preserve the culture by learning one or more of those languages, that's perfectly fine by me. What's completely ridiculous is forbidding people to send their children to English schools (because English is not a dying language), and forcing them to attend a Molalan school instead, all in the name of preserving culture. What's completely ridiculous is making it illegal to post any commercial signs in English, and instead saying all commercial signs be written in Coquille. "Sorry, you can't name your cafe 'Starbucks Coffee'. You'll have to translate the name to whatever the Coquille equivalent is." What's completely ridiculous is forbidding the sales of videogames unless they've been translated to Piro.

      Montreal (a city in Quebec, for those less geographically inclined) has a beautiful section of the city called "Chinatown", and no sane person would argue that Chinatown is not part of the unique culture and heritage of Montreal (and thus of Quebec). So why do the Quebec language police go to Chinatown and tell the restaurant owners there that they can't have their signs in Chinese, instead these signs must be written in French?

      If it were up to me, people should be allowed to learn whatever languages they want, and post commercial signs in whatever languages they want, and provide service in whatever languages they want. You want to open up a restaurant where all the staff only speak Yaquinan? Perfectly fine with me. Maybe it'll turn out to be a bad idea because none of your potential customers speak Yaquinan, and thus your business will suffer. Or maybe it'll turn out great, and you'll revive the Yaquinan language. You're an adult, and thus allowed to make these decisions yourself and live responsibly with the consequences.

      The only exception to this rule is any government provided service should speak, at a minimum, all the official languages of the region. So for example, since the official languages of Canada are French and English, then post offices employees, public transport employees, police officers, firefighters, public school teachers, free clinic doctors, etc. would all be required by law to speak both French and English, and have signs in at least these two languages. They are free to speak more languages, and have signs translated into more languages if they like. Private businesses (like restaurants, stores, etc.) have no minimum requirements on language at all. The capitalistic free-market is enough of a pressure to push them towards supporting whatever languages are spoken in their region.

    14. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A nation is pretty much little more then a group of people with similar qualities. It's not a legal right in any way. A nation is also subject to interpretation as it is being used. Take the nation of Islam for instance or the nation of the US. Members of both can be members of both because they talk or separate common grounds. A club of Chess players can be a nation once it's members reach a certain size but it doesn't give them any legal status.

    15. Re:Crazy french people by RedK · · Score: 1

      None forces Quebec culture unto others. If you move to Quebec, you live by the provincial rules, which are set by the elected officials representing people of the province. This is no different than Ontario, Albert or any other province. If you don't like the provincial laws, you are free not to move there.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    16. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we are still not a country, but we are recognized as a nation...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_nation_motion

      So, yeah, it was the idea of that (stupid) motion, and yeah culture is important to us. I never saw any laws saying that a group of people of any sort was not allowed to defend it's culture... Canada should accept that in Quebec we speak, write, act and sing in French as Quebec accepts that the school kids living in the Rest of Canada still sing the O Canada weekly.

      (I'm -still- federalist by the way, but happen to speak French.)

    17. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None forces Quebec culture unto others.

      Actually, yes they do when you are there. Quebec is different from the rest of Canada and even institutes mandates differently. There are a group of separatist in Quebec that attempt to make it as different from Canada as possible. Take bill 101 for instance. The British parliament created a rule for minority education in different languages so Quebec made French the "official language" and refused to allow English or any other version until it was challenged in the Canadian supreme court.

      To this day, Quebec attempts to lock out English or other language speaking people even though the Bilingual act forbids it. If you attempt to do business with the Quebec government in any other language, you will get railroaded until you complain to Montreal and then you still don't get normal cooperation. At least that's the way it was in 2002-2003 when I last did business there.

      If you move to Quebec, you live by the provincial rules, which are set by the elected officials representing people of the province. This is no different than Ontario, Albert or any other province. If you don't like the provincial laws, you are free not to move there.

      Quebec, contrary to their fucked up ideas, are a province of Canada which has it's own rules that Quebec needs to follow too. It isn't that they have their own rules that is the problem, it's that they are in some cases ignoring the country's rules that are the problem. If something is a national law (and by national, I mean Canadian) then Quebec is supposed to be in compliance with it. Bill 101 is clearly in violation with federal constitution's bill of rights section 20. Bill 101 is the most obvious case and there are more.

      Again, the problem isn't that they have their own ways, it's that their own ways conflict with the country's ways thereby pushing it on you. The option to move to another state or province because one is being hostile to the country's laws and constitution is absurd to say the least. If California all the sudden said English only or Spanish only, or arbitrarily decided that the 16th amendment need not apply, the rest of the US would be outraged and make the stop. Why Canada puts up with it, I will never know. Probably because too many people said if you don't like it, leave and they did.

    18. Re:Crazy french people by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The funny bit is that for all the effort Quebec and France put into promoting French, the Spanish language continues to spread across North America without any Government supported promotion at all.

    19. Re:Crazy french people by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      1. Bill 101 allows for bilingual advertising. 2. A lot of these federal things are treading on provincial attributions in the constitution: Canada is a federation, not whatever Ottawa's whims declare.

    20. Re:Crazy french people by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Culture and Education are the preserve of provincial governments, if you're Canadian, go back to civics, plzkthx.

    21. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems futile to debate on the legitimacy of Bill 101 when what is really at stake are the principles of net neutrality and the rights of ISP providers. Videotron is a powerful enough media empire, that has its own movie rental places, and to me it seems reason enough for them to start to warn movie downloaders (because those are the warnings that have been sent so far; for english and for french movies). Let's not try to make this about some political debate that has nothing to do with the problem...

    22. Re:Crazy french people by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      Lol I love you :) And I'm not french... I'm a North-American-Canadian who talk french :P

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    23. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The federal constitution provides that French and English is the official language and each Canadian has the RIGHT to address their government or any services it offers in either. Read it yourself, it's article 20, Bill 101 and their implementation runs a foul of that.

    24. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Assuming that your still in civics class, ask your teacher what Article 20 (or was it 22, I can't be bothered to check right now) of the Canadian federal constitution says about that. Especially along the lines of Bilingual access to government, services provided by the government, education, health and so on.

      When you finish your course, we can talk.

    25. Re:Crazy french people by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Every province ran afoul of that until the 90s, Quebec was no exception. And you can get service in English in Quebec from the government, otherwise the mockup of the Ãtat Civil's website in english has to be one of the most incredibly well conceived waste of time ever.

    26. Re:Crazy french people by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Quebec has bilingual access according to article 22 then, I rely almost exclusively on english services within the city of Montreal and have friends who do the same in the Gatineau and Sherbrooke area, which is where Quebec's english minority is concentrated despite. I will also note that the french minorities were not accounted for decades in provinces with substantial minorities.

    27. Re:Crazy french people by aqk · · Score: 0

      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition!

      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

    28. Re:Crazy french people by RedK · · Score: 1

      One big problem with your argument is that language is a provincial jurisdiction. You seem to be mostly against bill 101, which is simply a bill about advertising language. The French Language Charter is what you're really denouncing though and this charter dictates that you will get billingual service in government, even though English is not an official language of the province. This simple mistake shows me you probably don't really have a clue what you're talking about and are just repeating anti-French propaganda we see coming from the English side.

      Also, you should note that with Charlotte Town's failure, Quebec still hasn't ratified the Canadian constitution and as such, I don't see why we should be bound by it, especially in areas where the Federal government is trying to push itself unto provincial jurisdiction.

      As such, your post is simply an attack on the French culture and not proof that the French culture is pushing itself unto people forcibly. Even, it seems to be the contrary, you seem to be trying to push your culture unto the people of Quebec. Good luck with that bit of hypocrisy.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    29. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not Canadian but I had to do some business there back in 2002-2003. In Quebec, I was stonewalled and given the run around for not knowing French until I eventually made a complaint to my contacts in Montreal who contacted someone in Ottawa who then contacted the governments I was working with. I then got cooperation but it was one of those "only because I have to" confrontational situations. If a form needed another form, they wouldn't say a word and I ended up having to hire an attorney to get some simple things done that normal citizens were supposed to be able to do. I could fill out the forms in English but they wouldn't give any written in English and often provided the wrong forms just to give me the run around.

      I don't think any part of Canada is supposed to work that way. We ended up cutting our business with Canada altogether after that. Or at least for the next 15 months I still worked on that project.

    30. Re:Crazy french people by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      That's not a question of quebecois ethnic issues, that's quebec bureaucracy through and through with anything if you don't happen to be greasing palms.

    31. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      One big problem with your argument is that language is a provincial jurisdiction.

      Not according to the Canadian constitution and the sections on rights. Language is set in stone to be both English and French and your options, not the provinces. Now the province can make rules on who is entitled to the options like in education where one parent has to be a native English or french speaker or whatever. As for getting government services, it's either or at your option. They are obligated to the Constitution which glues the country together are they not?

      You seem to be mostly against bill 101, which is simply a bill about advertising language. The French Language Charter is what you're really denouncing though and this charter dictates that you will get billingual service in government, even though English is not an official language of the province.

      Your not serious are you? You really think the Charter of the French Language and bill 101 are separate pieces? They aren't, they are the same thing. What your thinking of was the fist court challenge to bill 101 which dealt with the advertising requirements. Make no mistake, they are the same. And yes the constitution act guarantees bilingual services where Bill 101 or the "Charter of the French Language" as they are the same thing, only guarantees the right to french language except in specific cases. The problem I have is that Universal rules are/were being ignored and it directly effected me at one point in time. I don't care is french was the official language, I care that the rules of the damn country said I should have been able to conduct my business in English and I was railroaded by the government because I tried to do so.

      BTW, I would make sure you know what your talking about before accusing someone else of being ignorant on the subject.

      Also, you should note that with Charlotte Town's failure, Quebec still hasn't ratified the Canadian constitution and as such, I don't see why we should be bound by it, especially in areas where the Federal government is trying to push itself unto provincial jurisdiction.

      I don't care what hodgepodge setup you guys managed to mangle yourself in. Quebec is taking advantage of Treaties and other activities provided by the federal government of Canada and in doing so, they need to follow the rules. IF you want to split away, then do it. But don't create an environment where you pick and choose the best of both worlds. It screws others who don't know how anally retentive Quebec is. It's seriously like attempting to play a game and having one person changing the rules to their benefit during the game then claiming to have won by playing by the rules. Either give in or get out so everyone knows the rules and where they stand.

      As such, your post is simply an attack on the French culture and not proof that the French culture is pushing itself unto people forcibly. Even, it seems to be the contrary, you seem to be trying to push your culture unto the people of Quebec. Good luck with that bit of hypocrisy.

      My post was to attack Quebec, not the french culture. It's Quebec that is pushing the french culture in inane ways with the government refusing to participate in English in many instances. I could care less about the french culture itself. What I care about is having the rules say one thing and then the government acting in a totally opposite way that ends up costing me money. And no, I'm not trying to push my culture anywhere, I'm simply trying to play by the rules that said English or French. Denying that right which is protected by the constitution doesn't mean I'm pushing anything, It means I'm objecting to having something else pushed on me.

    32. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It probably would have been cheaper in the long run if I greased the palms of the bureaucrats but without knowing French, I couldn't even tell if they were hinting that they wanted that. You would think that if corruption was their goal, they would have at least came to my level so I could understand what they wanted.

      Oh well, with any luck, I will never be in that position again.

    33. Re:Crazy french people by RedK · · Score: 1

      Quebec is French culture. Attacking Quebec is attacking French culture and it is a show of bigotry and racism.

      Again, The French Language Charter is bill 101 only in name. The French Language Charter was adopted in 1977 by repealing Bill 22, which was passed in 1974 by a Liberal government of all things and which essentially made the official Language French in everything, but still maintains to this day English services for the English speaking population. Bill 22 is what put everything in place, Bill 101 was exclusively a name change and advertising clauses (French advertising must be bigger than English advertising, and all product literature must be available in French) modifications, the rest pretty much staying the same as it was in 1974 when Robert Bourassa presented it and passed it to the assembly.

      Also, I don't get your gripe about English service in government, since you can get served in English at every government office or any Ministry. Even all their websites are both bilingual, which is more than what the French Language charter provides for. The Federal rules govern only Federal jurisdiction, they cannot dictate to a province what is and isn't acceptable language wise, only the language of Federal services. Since those are few and far between, their jurisdiction doesn't amount to much. Provincial language jurisdiction covers everything like health, education, business, imports etc..

      I'm sorry you lost money, but that is your own fault. Maybe you should have read the rules before you started doing business in Quebec. No one is forcing French culture on you again, but if you want to come here, you have to play by our rules. We won't go to your home province and try to force French on you, nor do I expect any kind of French when I go to Toronto or Vancouver even though the Federal government provides for it.

      And Quebec didn't get into the mess it is now, the English speaking population refused to include Quebec into the constition during the Lac Meech accord. Charlotte Town, which tried to fix the racist mess the English population created was too little and too late and the population of Quebec was already too pissed off to care. Since then, no attempt has been made to reintegrate Quebec into the constitution, except Harper's non consequential announcement of the "Quebec Nation", which is just essentially voting to agree with Robert Bourassa's speach to the nationnal assembly after the failure of Lac Meech.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    34. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When I was there, I got the run around for attempting to use English. I couldn't select where I went based on the majority or minority population either, I had certain things to do that needed to be done in certain places because of the details involved. I ended up having to call a guy connected to the Canadian federal government so he could call a guy who ended up putting pressure on the local offices to deal with me and then I suffered an extreme attitude for it. Eventually, I ended up having to hire a lawyer to do what normal people are supposed to be able to do and even he told me I should have been able to do it on my own.

      As for the minorities and all that. I don't care how they are made up. I don't even care if it was "french only". What I care about is the rules being one thing and then having them be another in practice so you don't know what your supposed to do. If I had known it was French only because of the rules, I could have made arrangements from the start that would have saved a lot of time and money. But when the rules say one thing and they change them without notifying anyone, it creates a hassle that according to the law, I shouldn't had went through.

    35. Re:Crazy french people by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Quebec is French culture. Attacking Quebec is attacking French culture and it is a show of bigotry and racism.

      Bullshit. Baseball and apple pie is the American way but not liking apples or speaking out against the steroid use in Baseball isn't trashing America or the American way. In the same sense, speaking out against a province of a country that breaks the country's own laws is not speaking out against their culture. In order your statement to be close to being right, the french culture must be little more the arrogant asses who refuse to follow the rules and attempt to withhold government services from people that aren't just like them. I don't think that is true in any sense.

      Again, The French Language Charter is bill 101 only in name. The French Language Charter was adopted in 1977 by repealing Bill 22, which was passed in 1974 by a Liberal government of all things and which essentially made the official Language French in everything, but still maintains to this day English services for the English speaking population. Bill 22 is what put everything in place, Bill 101 was exclusively a name change and advertising clauses (French advertising must be bigger than English advertising, and all product literature must be available in French) modifications, the rest pretty much staying the same as it was in 1974 when Robert Bourassa presented it and passed it to the assembly.

      In name, it doesn't matter. The connection is there and that means you are simply wrong. As for Bill 101, every version that I can find, be it on wikipedia or through various law sites, include everything in the Charter of the French Language. Bill 101 is more then an advertising clause whether you like it or not.

      Also, I don't get your gripe about English service in government, since you can get served in English at every government office or any Ministry. Even all their websites are both bilingual, which is more than what the French Language charter provides for. The Federal rules govern only Federal jurisdiction, they cannot dictate to a province what is and isn't acceptable language wise, only the language of Federal services. Since those are few and far between, their jurisdiction doesn't amount to much. Provincial language jurisdiction covers everything like health, education, business, imports etc..

      You don't get it because you aren't paying attention to what I said. Your supposed to be able to get bilingual service in every government office but that wasn't the case when I needed to do so. Do you understand that the gripe is because they didn't do what they were supposed to do. The rules said one thing and someone pushed another on my- ignoring the rules. And yes, the federal rules do dictate to non-federal government offices. It's in the federal constitution and states that all citizens have that right when dealing with anything provided by the government. The original Charter of the French language has been modified numberous times because of constitutional challenges and some of those cases made it to the Canadian Supreme Court (Quebec (Attorney General) v. Blaikie, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016 is probably the most known one).

      I'm sorry you lost money, but that is your own fault. Maybe you should have read the rules before you started doing business in Quebec. No one is forcing French culture on you again, but if you want to come here, you have to play by our rules. We won't go to your home province and try to force French on you, nor do I expect any kind of French when I go to Toronto or Vancouver even though the Federal government provides for it.

      I did read the damn rules. The damn rules were followed by the damned government. Here is something else you won't do if you come to my home, you won't find that the laws and rules say one thing but everyone else does another and it stops you from participating in something your

    36. Re:Crazy french people by ady1 · · Score: 1

      I find it scary and funny to find a french canadian with such mentality.

    37. Re:Crazy french people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look I'm not sure this is the best place to have a political debate.

      But let me just say that if you are refering the Official Languages Act (when speaking about the Bilingual Act) it only applies to the federal gouvernment and federal courts. The Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which you are refering to as the bill of rights) says approximatively the same thing.

      New Brunswick is the only province which is officially bilingual. All the other provinces are unilingual by law or de facto. And I'm pretty sure that it is much more easier to be served in English in Quebec than in French elsewhere (except in New Brunswick of course).

      Next time you come to Quebec, don't be surprised if get a bad reaction if you're trying to impose your language. Try to speak to us in French as a sign of good will. We'll be more inclined to help you (and probably speak you back in English)

      And please, stop demonizing the separatists. It won't help.

  10. Allegations? By whom? by redelm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This looks like a great way to execute a Denial-of-Service attack -- just make false allegations. Preferably on nice lawyer letterhead and legalistic language.

    Sniff the wire and get your hogging neighbors bounced. Or that grll with no taste.

  11. In the words of Stan Lee.. by staryc · · Score: 1

    "With great power comes great responsibility." With more regulation at their own discretion, maybe it doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.

    --
    The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
  12. Re:Allegations? By whom? by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    who said they have to be false? allegations are unproven... Hmmm.... shall we make allegations against the higher ups at that ISP? Oh, let's really tweak with them and make allegations against Canada's Telecom Regulator. The only thing worse than getting screwed with, is getting tricked into screwing the guy you bosses you around....

  13. Proportionality, lack thereof by StreetStealth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again, there's a "disconnect" (har har) over what an internet connection means in 2009.

    It's not cable TV. It's not your spa membership. This isn't 1997, where one's internet connection was a curiosity and a pastime; it's since assumed the role one's principal informational conduit with the outside world. You pay your bills with it, you file government documents and applications with it, you communicate with employers, employees, friends, and loved ones with it.

    The burden of proof to take someone's internet access away, to force them to live in a non-connected world that no longer even exists, should be monumentally high. That it can be revoked simply on allegation of casual infringement on a copyright should be a lot more disturbing to people than it seems to be.

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    1. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by CannonballHead · · Score: 0

      I agree that the burden of proof should be high. Here's the question - how can anyone prove it? Can't search my computer, that's not supposed to happen (in ideal worlds). Can't sniff my packets, that's not fair. Can't monitor my traffic, that's invasion of privacy.

      I find this to be a really hard place for ISPs. On one hand, they do have to worry about copyright infringement. It happens, ok, and it's illegal, and no matter what grassroots movements are out there, if a corporation doesn't abide by the laws of the country, ridiculous laws or not, they will have some major problems in that country. So, how do ISPs do it? Yes, burden of proof should be high. How do you propose they detect and shutdown illegal activity?

      Basically, here's what I want to say - and not necessarily to you, but to the topic in general - it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.

      Arguing for rights of privacy is one thing, but arguing for the right of illegal activity ... uh, is stupid. And corporations are in the position to care about illegal activity. Probably because of money/lawsuits, but they still have to do it.

      Of course, if someone decides to take GPL code and do something against GPL, woe to them, so there is a double standard there, too, IMO.

    2. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by StreetStealth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Analogy time:

      If I park in someone's reserved space, then the property owner should be within his rights to call the towing company to get my car out of there. But then it should just be between the property owner and me; they send me a bill for the towing and that's it -- They shouldn't be able to call the secretary of state and have them revoke my driver's license so that I'm no longer a threat to reserved parking spaces.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    3. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.

      Maybe there is no alternative. But that doesn't matter. It then becomes a question of what is more important: respecting people's privacy and due process; or enforcing copyright law.

      You don't have to be in the pro "download anything you want" camp to believe that privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important than copyright. You simply have to value those things more highly. The fact that many of us don't value copyright very much (because we view it as a flawed and oft-abused law) further tips the balance, such that there isn't a justification for revoking privacy and due process simply for the marginal and inconsistent protection of copyright.

      Here's the question - how can anyone prove it?

      Again, it needs to be emphasized: there isn't necessarily a solution. There isn't necessarily a way to totally enforce copyright without infringing people's rights. But this is hardly unique. There isn't any way to totally enforce any law without infringing people's rights. So for each law we must weigh the importance of the law against the personal freedoms or rights that may be infringed. So for instance many of us view automobiles as somewhat dangerous, and decide that reducing car accidents is sufficiently important that we will allow our freedoms to be somewhat restricted (licensed required to operate a car), and our privacy to be somewhat reduced (license plates, driver's license, etc.) in order to save lives. But there is a limit (we could perhaps reduce deaths even further if every car were constantly tracked; but I personally would view that as overly encroaching on my freedoms), even for laws I support.

      In the case of copyright, it seems there is no way for it to continue to exist (and be enforced) without sacrificing more important ideals. Thus we need to either accept that these laws will not be enforceable, or we need to change these laws.

    4. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except ISPs -don't- have to worry about copyright infringement. Incidental copying is usually not restricted.

    5. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by infalliable · · Score: 1

      It's not the ISP's job to do.

      They have no stake in the copyright, the only concern they have is the bandwidth usage.

    6. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      So, here's an interesting question then. What if ISPs were not allowed to target downloaders, but only providers?

      For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunatley, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal" ... so we're reduced to forcing law-enforcers to proving that we not only made it available AND downloaded it, but actually listened to it. It's almost getting as ludicrous on the anti-copyright side as the copyright side. May as well go wit hthe "I didn't inhale" argument.

      Maybe an overhaul of copyright laws/ideas is the way to go. But is not protection of individual artistry and creativity an important ideal, too? Or do we not care, as long as we get it for free. :)

      That said, I might add that I do believe privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important. On the other hand, I also think copyright infringement is illegal and don't support people who want to hide behind privacy laws simply because they don't want to be caught. It's a hard position for me to be in, because usually that is misinterpreted as the "I have nothing to hide" mentality. No, it's more the mentality of asking "what right do you have to rant about the evil and questionable actions of the ISP when you're doing illegal activity as well?" Not to say anyone is perfect... but something else is wrong, too, with consumers that think they deserve the right to freely download other people's work, effort, and monetary contributions (recordings aren't free :) ). And there again, accusations come of "but copyright laws are stupid as they are!" and again comes the retort "then we need an alternative, not copyright anarchy." Or me, being a composer, am going to go buy a big gun and take copyright infringement punishment on my own hands. "By opening this sheet music, you agree to die if you infringe on the creative commons copyright therein." hehe :)

    7. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your confusing the just downloading it argument. If you obtain a file or copyrighted work, you havn't broken a law in most areas regardless of if you listen to it or not. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to control who hear or sees the work, it gives them the right to control it's distribution and public performances and uses in other works.

      Downloading can never be against copyright law because it has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with conversion and receiving something you didn't have a right to. Not to many places have laws specifically dealing with that on this scale. Now when you distribute the file or whatever it is, if you make copies in the act or do it in a way that violates one of the rights assigned to the copyright owner, your get into legal conflict with the copyright laws.

      The making availible isn't a violation claim has to do with making sure the file is what you claim it is too. Simply having a file labeled metalica's greatest hits does not mean it is violating Metalica's copyright in any way. You could play the file and hear me saying they sold out for 45 minutes to a three cord melody I composed minutes before making the recording. Now, if you actually obtain the file from me, and it is your copyrighted works, then I have broken the law. But simple naming of something does not make a violation.

      That being said, this is why rules like the three strikes and your offline are so stupid. It doesn't distinguish between actual violation and treats complaints as trialed facts when they aren't. The way to catch someone is to actually pose as a user and download something from them and review the content to ensure it is yours. This gets expensive because it's hard to automate. The recovery from copyright violations already allow extra money for damages but for some reason, they seem to want to short circuit this and take the least possible path of resistance. This leads to incorrectly being charged for things done, it leads to accusations that aren't true, and it leads to punishment without due process of the law. And yes, when the courts have used taking away internet access as punishment, it becomes punishment when it is done because of accusations.

    8. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by causality · · Score: 1

      So, here's an interesting question then. What if ISPs were not allowed to target downloaders, but only providers?

      We are generally talking about torrents here. The only problem with your suggestion is that the very nature of a torrent is that each downloader is also uploading. I strongly doubt that ISPs are going to draw a distinction between "uploading as part of downloading" and "being the original seeder." They certainly won't have incentive to do so. So we're back again to the original problem, which is whether ISPs have any business acting as enforcement agents for copyright interests. My position is that they don't.

      It's a hard position for me to be in, because usually that is misinterpreted as the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.

      The "I have nothing to hide [so search me]" mentality was never a valid position. Its very basis is the idea that privacy is not legitimate, that the only purpose of privacy is to cover up wrongdoing. If you hear anyone honestly say "I have nothing to hide", I wonder how they'd react if you told them to disrobe, in public. I don't recommend actually doing that, of course, but it illustrates the point. You'd quickly find that even people who think they believe in that BS do in fact have things they don't wish to open up to the scrutiny of strangers.

      Privacy certainly is legitimate. I'll tell you what is not legitimate: people who don't respect yours.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      [quote]The "I have nothing to hide [so search me]" mentality was never a valid position. Its very basis is the idea that privacy is not legitimate, that the only purpose of privacy is to cover up wrongdoing. If you hear anyone honestly say "I have nothing to hide", I wonder how they'd react if you told them to disrobe, in public. I don't recommend actually doing that, of course, but it illustrates the point. You'd quickly find that even people who think they believe in that BS do in fact have things they don't wish to open up to the scrutiny of strangers.[/quote]

      Well said.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    10. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      "I find this to be a really hard place for ISPs. On one hand, they do have to worry about copyright infringement. It happens, ok, and it's illegal, and no matter what grassroots movements are out there, if a corporation doesn't abide by the laws of the country, ridiculous laws or not, they will have some major problems in that country."

      You are really really wrong!

      ISPs do NOT have to worry about copyright infringement, except as prescribed by law, and I don't think there is one in Canada yet that applies to ISPs. They might have to wrry about bandwidth consumption or the effects of piracy on thier attempts to sell media or their relations with rights-holding companies, but there has not yet been an ISP convicted of illegal activity based on the downloading of copyright by their users, nor is there a law currently in place holding them responsible,

      There is no law involved in this story, just a telco offering to do this 3 strikes thing.

      The illegality of copyright infringement is, as far as i know, still a civil matter, like defamation, not a criminal matter. In no way is the ISP breaking the law, any more than a New York cabbie is when you catch a ride with weed in your pocket, or the Telco is when you make bomb threats by phone, and these are criminal offences, not civil!

      I will argue for the right of illegal activity. Absolutely. As an individual posessing free will to harm the interests of other entities in a manner which leaves me open to civil prosecution. Until casual piracy is a criminal offence, meaning the RIAA comes under DOJ (or equivalent) juristiction, then neither the legislators nor the ISP has any role in getting involved.

      When every car is mandated by law that it can't exceed the top speed limit in the state in which it is registered, then we can talk about people retaining rights to illegal activity. If there is no public road where it is legal to go 65mph, why should you retain the right to own a car that can? This is much more clear-cut case than the online traffic debate, and yet you'd have a lot of trouble getting traction.

      Does an ISP have an obligation to stop people using other people's patents online? Should an ISP be obliged to stop users from sending email which causes others harm and distress?

      Why should copyright infringement be any different?

      Think about the implications of what you propose.

      Lastly, you claim:

      "If a corporation doesn't abide by the laws of the country, ridiculous laws or not, they will have some major problems in that country"

      OK, which corporation? Which country? When?

      Here's a hundred from the USA. All convicted of crimes during the 1990's. All fined.

      http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html#Briefs

      So that's a massive 2 billion US Dollars, maybe that's a major problem, but it's for 100 different corps over ten years, so it's only 2 million per corp per year.

      This list includes Pfizer, ADM and Exxon, so it's not as though these types of fines are 'major problems'.

      None were dissolved, or nationalised, or put on an official offenders watch list. No parole rules were enforced, and none we suspended from doing business for even a day.

      How much in subsidies was dished out to the corporate sector in the 90's? How much to these companies alone? How much to Pfizer, ADM and Exxon alone? Enron broke lots of laws, but that's not why they went bust.

      It's all a sham, a game buddy, it's not one law for them and another for us; it's laws for us written by them!

    11. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      This is a terrible analogy. Having someone steal your reserved parking space is far more of a hassle, annoyance and damaging than having a very small percentage of your potential customers get their goods somewhere else.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    12. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      I agree... It is tantamount to removing someone's freedom of speech as most people use it as their primary conduit to post their own thoughts and feelings as well.

      I sure hope that some people get together and sue over this policy. Not only is it unfair and unjust. You have to realize that much public money has gone into helping these companies build the infrastructure they make money off of. None of this half assed begging for public money to do things then treating the network as your own personal back yard.

      In fact I think that only a COURT ORDER should be the only means to remove someones internet access. Even people convicted of phone crimes are permitted to have a phone that they can dial 911 with within their home.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    13. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Technically most ISPs are operating under the 'Common Carrier Defense' for infringing and/or illegal content that passes through their services in Canada. They do not have the true Common Carrier status that Telcos themselves have but they can go 'well we dont interfere with the line so we shouldnt be punished, we complied with the police' and get off of any problems.

      Now if the ISPs want to be Judge, Jury and Executioner then they better be prepared to take on the full responsibility. If they should let even 1 child porn image slip through their network they'd be responsible for possession and distribution of child pornography! Maybe we should start making a special section in the Sex Offender Registry and start putting the company execs on it.

      Background into the Canadian Copyright Landscape... See a few years back the Canadian version of the RIAA/MPAA lobbied Ottawa to put what is effectively a TAX on blank media (cassettes, CD-R/W, DVD-R/W, Hard Drives, USB Drives, etc..) and give it to them but technically it was called a 'Levy'. This was to cover the fact these things could potentially be used for copyright infringement. Now there was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where they basically said 'They already paid you via Blank Media Levies. You cant charge them for copyright infringement because it was non-commercial copyright infringement'. Which is good since looking at my desk they probably owe me a few hundred dollars in entertainment anyways. Commercial Copyright Infringement is basically someone downloads or rips a DVD and burns 100 copies and sells them at $5 a pop. Those are the outfits they should be targeting.

      PS: IANAL just thinking of going to law school

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    14. Re:Proportionality, lack thereof by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      If you dont sell your songs, it's not because of piracy... it's because your a bad composer. Just USE piracy to promote your group/effort, then use new media (Apple music store or many more!) to sell directly, or via your own website. this way you'll finally sell somes... And this way, you'll get 90% of the money instead of something like 1-5%(don't know the exact rate...)?

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
  14. WTF?! by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I love how Quebec loves to ignore federal laws/policy then run off on a tangent and make their own.

    --
    I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    1. Re:WTF?! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      They can't read the federal laws since they are written in English, so they make up their own in French.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:WTF?! by Bidouleroux · · Score: 1

      All federal documents and communications are required by constitutional law to be made available in both official languages. Know what you're talking about before trying to be funny.

    3. Re:WTF?! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Know what you're talking about before trying to be funny.
      This is slashdot... since when has that been a requirement? Thank for at least recognizing that I was trying to be funny, which justifies some 'artistic license'. Yes, I suspected all government documents in Canada were required to be bi-lingual. France and the US are really very similar, which was sort of the point of the movie Les Triplettes de Belleville. France was once a dominant world power, just as the US is now. But now French speakers appear to be pissed off that French is no longer the "Lingua Franca" of business, and that (bad) English currently is. But in a few years, it will be some other language (probably Chinese), and English speakers will be in the same position that French speakers are now in. By the way, my wife spent 16 months as a refugee in Guinea, so she learned to speak French to survive. The Quebecois have been in an English speaking country for what, about 150 years now? Although there is nothing wrong with preserving your own language and culture, isn't it about time they all learned English?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although in no way scientific, here are my observations:

      Most of the fracophones I know at least understand English be it spoken or written. Most speak it also. Few write it decently well.

      Most of the anglophones I know understand very little spoken French, can hardly read it, And can barely speak it.

      Both anglos and francos have indeed been living together in Quebec for well over 150 years. I can hardly understand why this difference in language skills persists...

      Myself, although born in Quebec, in a french-speaking family, can speak and write French and English and speak and read German ... Oh, and a bit of Spanish also ...

    5. Re:WTF?! by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      Hum, they are written in both languages dude. Go back to your troll cave.

    6. Re:WTF?! by Bidouleroux · · Score: 1

      Like anon said in his reply, we are all required to learn English as a second language here in Quebec (previously from third grade, now from the first), although Anglo-Quebecois do not have the same obligation towards French. In fact, in some parts of Montreal it is difficult to be served in French and many French speakers will default to English to accommodate the Anglo-Quebecois and immigrant population (not to mention the tourists). But learning English as a second language is also required in France and many other countries so we're not against that. What we're against is the Anglo-Quebecois trying to run the province like it's their own (they account for only 10% of the population and are concentrated on the west of Montreal) and the rest of Canada (the infamous ROC) that undermines or objects to everything we do or try to do, like becoming an independent nation. Anyway in Quebec we do not have this sense of grandeur that France has and many Quebecois do not know French was once the lingua franca of the world (and they certainly don't know that "lingua franca" means "French Language"). After all, we were a mere colony, a very small and unimportant one at that. We still speak French like Louis XIV and like it that way. It does after all sound more frankish and less gay.

    7. Re:WTF?! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with being bi-lingual. Your English is flawless, so you're obviously not part of the problem. Part of the problem is that most French Canadians consider Canada a bi-lingual country, while English Canadians consider Canada an English-speaking country. The other part of the problem is that some Quebecois still think Quebec should be French only. Like most conflicts, a few asshats on both sides of the issue make things hard for everyone else.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:WTF?! by aqk · · Score: 0

      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Signez mon petition!
      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

  15. Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    How about one strike and I am out. Accuse me once of infringement without due process and I will quit and get a different ISP. Simple.

    Of course I don't live in Quebec so I am not sure what their ISP options are. However if it is like Ontario, there isn't much choice, but there is choice.

    1. Re:Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? by d-r0ck · · Score: 1

      This is how I see them doing it: Currently they simply forward any infringment notice from MPAA/RIAA (sent from mediasentry or whoever) on to the subscriber and then wipe their hands. Once this is implemented they will in addition just add a counter to the account. If it hits 3, then the account is terminated. The actual number of people to get 3 letters is likely small since even though this letter carries little weight in Canada, it still serves the purpose of invoking FUD. The subscriber will likely change his methods once the letter is received - there are 2 choices - stop P2P, or get the files using a method with less chance of another letter.

    2. Re:Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? by simonbas · · Score: 1

      It's the nearly only coax provider, 3G is extremely costly and undevelopped, ADSL is slower. Microwave is not really an option.

      Sure, some companies lease the videotron cable, and they are pretty good but they are not known by the population.

      Did you know that they have a 50Mb coax residential network in Laval, Qc?
         

    3. Re:Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate.
      Are you saying it is an alternative to the Videotron network?

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    4. Re:Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? by simonbas · · Score: 1

      Some companies rent the Videotron Cable.
      Radioactif.net and b2b2c.ca amongst others. But they are dependant of Videotron usage restrictions and bandwidth throttling. But they offer a lower price and a different facturation.

  16. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You mean we aren't?

    Fuck...

  17. Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...
    Quebecor Inc. != Quebec's Gov

    Stop bitching us, we're going nowhere this way

  18. Intranet blocking by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Translated, Quebecor argues in favour of certain instances of ISPs controlling content

    Which is a continuing worldwide trend of companies and countries devolving from an open and worldwide Internet to a closed and insular Intranet. According to the pundits, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you should welcome suppression with open arms and arses. Of course the pundits are Trolls, but simple and weak arguments that are based on emotion and dishonesty usually win against logic and rationality. Nice ISP users finish last.

  19. Not surprising by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Informative
    Il should be understood that Vidéoétron is owned by Québécor, and Québécor (well, PKP) is the Rupert Murdoch of french media in Canada.

    Québécor owns most of Québec music companies, most of the private TV networks and a lot of newspapers.

    Back when the courts determined that file-sharing was legal and ISPs should not be compelled to ID copyright infringers, Vidéoétron was perfectly willing to turn subscribers IDs to record companies.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies can argue all they want, at the end of the day, the govt in charge is looking to be re-elected and making unpopular laws after unpopular laws doesn't quite help.

      I'd doubt that Charest would go about enacting some kind of law that made this compulsory.

      Now if Quebecor decides to do it and some poor chap goes to court with a solid case, chances are a law will eventually be made to prevent this retarded practice. Let's just not get our panties tied up in a bunch just yet, shall we?

    2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A clear case of conflict of interest. Should Quebecor not go along with the interests of its Music/Entertainment partners, it would stand to loose precious profit.

      Between taking the risk of of exposing itself to litigation with powerful commercial interests (read entertainment industry) and almost no litigation risk from the regular Joe, guess what it will choose ...

      This is a common strategy akin to bullying that can be observed in many business: Do something -> Put the burden of proof on the other party knowing very well that the other party most likely does not have the means (monetary or else) to defend itself.

  20. Hey! That's mine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I create online stupidity! I'm going to complain that Quebecor is violating my IP on stupidity!

  21. List of Bad ISP in Canada by Lord+Satri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right here. Despite having friends working at Videotron, I believe the Quebecor empire (more info in Fr) is a bad one as a whole (e.g. newspaper consolidation), not only the ISP part.

  22. 3-strike policies by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    have a terrible track record for justice. And in this case, I anticipate that it would have an even worse record... much worse.

    Why?

    Because many people will not take the trouble to dispute the first 2 notices, even if they are in error. Only when they get their third unjustified notice will they recoil in horror, realizing that their internet service has been cut off for stupid (and probably unjust) reasons.

    We have all seen what happens when bogus takedown notices are sent. Innocent people suffer. And often it has been difficult to get the content restored even after they demonstrated that they had the right to display it.

    The DMCA needs to go away. Taking down content without warning (and often on mere suspicion, without evidence) is not the way our laws were supposed to work.

    1. Re:3-strike policies by jhantin · · Score: 1

      The DMCA needs to go away.

      Ummm... the DMCA is a US law. TFA is about a Canadian ISP.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    2. Re:3-strike policies by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. But the DMCA still needs to go away.

    3. Re:3-strike policies by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      DMCA take down notices are fine. What they need to do is make the notice itself under penalty of perjury. If the person receiving the notice is being treated like a criminal the person sending it should as well. It would also reduce the frivolous amount that are sent out.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    4. Re:3-strike policies by jhantin · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. But the DMCA still needs to go away.

      The abusive parts certainly do, but there are a few gems of common sense in it, such as 17 USC 117. Per the USDoJ's gloss in the manual on prosecuting IP crime, chapter 2, pages 68-69, "... this allows the lawful owner of a piece of software to install it on his machine, even if doing so requires copying the program from a CD-ROM to the hard drive or loading it from the hard drive into RAM, both of which are considered reproduction under copyright law.", and cite some case law supporting this view.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    5. Re:3-strike policies by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes that is true, admittedly. Back in the '90s, for an example of a ridiculaous EULA I used a real one from Microsoft that, if taken literally, would not allow you to use their product, since according to the EULA your installation to the hard disk constituted your legally-allowed "archival" copy, and copying the program to RAM constituted yet another copy, which the EULA then went on to specifically prohibit. Completely asinine... and you know that a huge body of lawyers were paid to come up with such garbage.

      Even so: lots of the DMCA are nothing but corporate-greed garbage, and need to disappear. Such as the parts about reverse-engineering, and even studying corporate copy protection methods. These stifle innovation for no reason other than to try to guarantee profits to the content providers.

  23. Re:Typical by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aside from the language laws (which is a divisive issue itself in Quebec), Quebec has always seemed to be fairly progressive when it comes to personal freedom. I doubt if the average Quebecois agrees with what one of its major corporations would want to do to its citizens. Quebec is far from being anything like the Bible Belt.

  24. Quebec - Fascists 'R Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is an interesting use of the phrase 'graduated response' in their statement regarding copyright infringement claims. It presupposes the validity of the claim.

    A lawyer may send me a 'take down' notice, but it does not imply the force of law - it is only a notification of their representation. It does not even indicate the actions they describe would be undertaken. Lawyers are in it for the money, and action is not inexpensive, financially, temporally, and they also need to have an inclination to follow through.

    But now, merely the claim is going to damn you, if they repeat it, which for the {mafi}AA is a simple step,

    Although the inclination for Quebecor to go along with this scam is understandable, after all, they owe their alliegence to the Bonanno family in New York, not to Canadians.

  25. wow. corporations deciding what's good for public by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    get a load of that. private interests are the decider of what's good for society now.

    that's what happens when you allow unbridled capitalism. if there is an unorderly chaos, a lack of authority, more powerful groups fill the gap and establish their own hierarchy. NO different than post roman empire chaos in which roman government wasnt able to restore order. in that feudal lords arose, establishing a new order. it was only in 1400s that central kings were able to establish a valid rule for the land, with the help of cannons, beating feudal lords and freeing them from the whims of robber barons.

    today is no different. we have a king in the form of governments, which WE, as people, control, we have 'private interests', which are trying to assert their own authority in various aspects of social life, hiding behind capitalism, competition and free market excuses.

    the only way that you can have EQUAL, FAIR environment is to bash feudal lords through your central hammer at your disposal - your federal government.

    do it, and you wont live in a virtual feudal domain in your locale under whatever big group controls aspects of life. - for any fool that may err in thinking that they dont : almost all of the services&products you use in your daily life belongs to various corporations which are the holdings of various big megaholdings themselves.

  26. Actually it is a good thing by junkgoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many of the things Quebec disagrees on work out really well. Lots of universities with low tuition, better leave for kids, $7/day day care (I was paying $55/day in Toronto), no fault insurance (way, way, cheaper, and the additional accidents are due to the badly designed highways and more aggressive drivers not to the cheaper insurance)...

    Videotron is just making a case for having its cable monopoly broken up.

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    1. Re:Actually it is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, alot of that stuff isn't unique to quebec. Take the low tuition. I pay less in Florida then what McGill's tuition is. Heck I have a scholarship here paid for with Lottery money. So, considering Florida is pretty conservative of a state (No state tax is nice), I can say that Quebec isn't all that crazy.

    2. Re:Actually it is a good thing by salemnic · · Score: 1

      But guess who ends up paying for all of that in the end?

      Everybody.

      All the University tuition and the lower daycare costs do is take it out of the hands of the individual, and spread it out over the broader public.

      Ontario Tax Rates

      http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm

      Quebec Tax Rates

      http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/qc.htm

    3. Re:Actually it is a good thing by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Oh, and having all signs in public have French larger than English, even though it's been ruled unconstitutional (not that our constitution means anything - can you say 'notwithstanding clause'?). And having pretty much the only airports in the world that use French in their communications with their pilots (I know a pilot who has flown to both Quebec and France, guess which region uses French?). Vive la difference!

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    4. Re:Actually it is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason Quebec can afford all those lovely social services is because they suck tax money from the rest of Canada. It goes something like this: the federal party who wants to win/keep power needs votes from Quebec. The vast majority of Quebec voters care *nothing* for people outside of their province ie. english-speaking Canadians. So the politicians funnel tax money from all the other provinces to Quebec in return for keeping that government in power. The Liberals did it for years, and the Conservatives have done it recently as well. The NDP never had the chance at bat, but their recent failed attempt to seize control from the ruling Conservative party by joining forces with Quebec separatists suggests that they too would have no problem feeding Quebec our money to keep them from whining too loudly. Mark me troll if you like, but the vast majority of non-Quebec Canadians really wish Quebec would either join Canada in spirit as well as on paper, or just separate completely. Quebec is the spoiled brat of Canada, and I really wish the government would stop enabling them.

    5. Re:Actually it is a good thing by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, we're one of the few provinces that neither suck out (the Maritimes) or hand out (Ontario and Alberta especially), or at least that was the numbers in 2001 when I last bothered to check.

    6. Re:Actually it is a good thing by paulwye · · Score: 1

      Uhh, Ontario also features no-fault insurance, and there is nothing cheap about it. Perhaps you mean 'public' auto insurance, which *is* much cheaper and, based on my understanding, available under much fairer terms--for example, the ability to insure a motorcycle for three months at a time; in Ontario, if I want even one day of insurance, I have to buy the whole year.

  27. Who's the customer, anyway? by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    Does anyone find it odd that an ISP would be looking to CUT its customer base?

    If you ask me, it isn't about RIAA or MPIAA, the ISPs are greedy. Torrents are hard to shape and take bandwidth that they have to pay for. So, it is a way of booting "expensive" customers and trying to make it look like it is a positive thing.

    Seriously, its just a way for them to increase their bottom line.

  28. 3 allegations? or 3 convictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf... someone needs to shut that P.O.S. down.

  29. Re:Typical by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I agree, it's totally wrong. Not *all* Americans are like that.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Terminate?! by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a little extreme? These people most likely have families to take care of!

    Wait...what's that? Oooooh. They're just cutting off internet service.

  31. ThePiratebay says it best by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Try here: image

    --
  32. Cut off the CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will last until someone files 3 accusations against the CEO.

  33. No news here... by LePrince · · Score: 2, Informative
    I worked there, from 1998-2001... If you submitted a ticket to abuse at videotron dot ca between during 2000 and 2001, there's a 98% chance I was the one replying to it.

    We'd get intrusion emails from sysadmins, particulars, etc. We had a set of rule (sysadmins complaint had more weight than regular individuals, but we still took both into account).

    If we received enough complaints (10 invidiual or 2 sysadmins iirc), you'd get a call from me or a colleague of mine, asking you to refrain. 2nd time would be a final warning, 3rd time was a complete disconnection of your Internet services.

    We were getting complaints from RIAA back in the day, and would process those complaints with the same rule as sysadmins.

    Agreed, back in the day, botnets and all were WAY less widespread than they are now, so I'd say that 75-80% of the time, it was the actual person who did the deed (guy's registered email adress is "leetdude at videotron dot ca" and the alias they caught him under on IRC was "leetdudeqc" for example), where nowaday, a lot of people do "bad deeds" unknowingly because their computer was zombified. But even then, after a single warning, you should get your shit together and get your computer fixed, cleaned, protected. A 30$ router and a 60$ AV/AS software works wonders (not PERFECT, but a lot better than an unpatched unprotected computer plugged in directly in the cablemodem).

    1. Re:No news here... by Nebu · · Score: 1

      nowaday, a lot of people do "bad deeds" unknowingly because their computer was zombified. But even then, after a single warning, you should get your shit together and get your computer fixed, cleaned, protected. A 30$ router and a 60$ AV/AS software works wonders (not PERFECT, but a lot better than an unpatched unprotected computer plugged in directly in the cablemodem).

      A lot of people have no idea how computers work and are not interested in learning. Router may prevent external computers from exploiting open ports or whatever, but nothing's going to stop the user who downloads and runs an ".exe" because the website claimed it was a "required plugin" for viewing the secret porn content. Even if the antivirus pops up a warning, the user is just as likely to disable it, or add this .exe as an "exception", to be able to get at the porn.

    2. Re:No news here... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how my car's alternator & fuel injection works, and i don't care. All i know is the following:
      1) Car starts each morning. If it doesn't start on first turn, i call up my mechanic (Even after 4 years i haven't had a starting problem).
      2) I know i have to remote-lock my car when i exit it. If i lose the car because i failed to lock it, its my fault. Duh!
      3) I know i have to fill premium Gas every week, change the engine oil every 20,000 Kms, and check/fill the air every time i fill Gas.
      4) I know how to replace a blown tire with the spare in my car's boot. (Have done it enough times to time it to 13 mins)
      5) I know to do the 7-point checkup when i start the car- EVERY Single Damn Time. I don't skip on it.
      6) I know to wash the car every week and wax it every month.
      7) I know to fill the window washers with water mixed with the anti-scratch oil.

      What i don't know and don't bother to know is:
      1) When my car starts making a creaking noise on startup which dies away slowly, i know to take it to a mechanic.
      2) When my car responds differently to premium fuel versus ordinary fuel (acceleration), i take it to a mechanic. Premium keeps the car engines cleaner. Ordinary Gas doesn't need to.
      3) When my car's horn blows like a bull horn or a ship's whistle, i know its time to replace the damn thing.
      4) When my cars brakes take a long time to stop my car (more than 10 mtrs travelling at 70 KPH), i know to take it to a mechanic.

      A Computer is an appliance. Period.
      Expecting users to know about firewalls, NAT, .SCR, .VBS is like expecting me to know how to analyze my Car's engine and hot rod it, or repair the fan belt by myself. The Hell i will.
      My Car takes me from Point A to point B. I Keep it clean, serviced and well maintained. In return it never, ever fails me.

      Make the Damn PC like an appliance: everything is out of the box.
      Why the hell does grandma need to know to launch Windowsupdate every day? Why does she need to know to renew her kaspersky license?
      Why does she need to download spyware blaster install it and update it every week?

      Are you friggin' kidding me?

      Make the PC an appliance and THEN then talk about disconnection. Else you WILL get sued and you WILL go bankrupt paying compensation.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:No news here... by aqk · · Score: 0

      Hostie Tabarnouche!
      Alors, signez mon petition!

      WE NEED HISPEED!
      And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

      .

  34. Three strikes and you're out, huh? by Flakeloaf · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hereby accuse the entire Bloc Quebecois of copyright infringement.

    Come on, guys. Two more accusations and we'll never hear from these clods again!

    --

    Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    1. Re:Three strikes and you're out, huh? by simonbas · · Score: 1

      Please respect the political opinion of the majority of my nation.

  35. Asking for trouble by werfu · · Score: 1

    I realy think Videotron is asking for trouble with this. Most of the people I know who got this kind of letters weren't big downloader but parent who got kids downloading stuff on Kazaa/Limewire. Believe me this wont cut piracy at all, simply scare little downloader who're using easy way of sharing files. Anybody who know how to download rightly will not get caught. It will simply kill the unsure P2P client for some new one which will make more difficult to trace peers. Anyway, people won't let this run for long. Either Videotron will back down or they'll end up in front of the court with a class action and trouble with the consumer protection office. As for choice of ISP in Quebec, we've got near nothing. It's either Bell or Videotron, both being more than crappy. Others are resellers. It's near impossible nowaday to start its own ISP without being a reseller of these two. It would require too much cash to get a fiber to a point and build an infrastructure for clients access. I'd realy like to set up a local WiMax ISP, but that would be a hell of a burden. It would require a lot of cash for equipment, the fiber line and I would have to take a using license from one of the WiMax frequency operator in my zone. Now, going normal WiFi by running fiber around the city and setuping antena is far from efficient and trouble-some. And would still require a license from the CRTC. We're far from the day someone could lease some lines, a pipe and setup it's server in is basement :( And for Quebec hater all out there, I pretty much hate independantist as you do and I think the 101 law is stupid too. Just don't put everybody in the same basket. The problem in Quebec it's that most of time, stupid people get more light than they should.

  36. Another example of Canadian/Quebec socialisim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Quebec gov. is also implementing photo radar. They also decide in which language your child can attend school in depending on your ancestry. Now we should be surprised that they want to start controlling what we can do on the internet? Let's take our collective heads out of the sand. Videotron isn't the only company that has entertainment interests and are major distributors of the networks we use to connect to them. What starts here in Quebec will spread to the rest of Canada. Just think of the Roger's empire. Now the question is, what can we do to fightback, other than just switching off?

    1. Re:Another example of Canadian/Quebec socialisim by Bidouleroux · · Score: 1

      Socialism? This looks more like corporatism to me. Try opening a dictionary for once.

  37. Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a thought, why not force companies limiting internet trafic (ie: trafic "reshaping" to cap bittorrent transfer to 30k) or intruding into net neutrality to not be allowed to use the term Internet as it isn't really... something like partial Internet, imagine : Super discount on your first three months of partial Internet! ... not quite the same effect on your market... but keeps the clients informed on what services they get.

  38. Conflicker worm to the rescue! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, seriously. Figure out what worm/malware is the most prolific in Quebecor's customer base.

    Have that program dl a simple client that hooks up to a P2P network and begins asking for Britney Spears albums nonstop. Then watch as Quebecor's customer base drops to zero.

    Remember, it's three allegations of copyright infringement that gets you bumped off their network. Not three proven incidents.

    Perhaps this would show them the error in their policy.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Conflicker worm to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamnit. I work there. I hate that policy with all my heart, and hell, theyve decided to even serve those notices to their own employees.

      Which pisses me off all the more, because Id gladly switch to the competition, but I get high-speed for peanuts because of my employment there. :(

      Worst part is, with this public position, we'll get alot more "allegations". :(

    2. Re:Conflicker worm to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading MUSIC is legal in Canada thanks to a misstep by the RIAA in the ninties, so no, a Britney Spears album won't even be one strike.

    3. Re:Conflicker worm to the rescue! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Fascinating if true. Do you have anything documenting this that I could read?

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  39. Cox has been doing this for at least 3 years by hpj · · Score: 1

    I had my Cox Communications internet connection disabled about 3 years ago because of this. When I called up and asked customer support about (It just seemed like it was down from my end) I was told that they had detected a specific torrent being shared from my network. They also informed me that if they caught this 3 times they would disable my service so I don't see anything new here.

    I have also heard from several of my friends that also use Cox Communication that they have had similar experiences.

    1. Re:Cox has been doing this for at least 3 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was said torrent copyrighted?

    2. Re:Cox has been doing this for at least 3 years by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Kind of a dumb question, *everything* thats eligible for copyright has it in the US, including open source/creative commons work.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  40. and by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you're anonymous.

    why ?

  41. BZZZT, wrong!!! by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

    For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunately, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal"

    You don't seem to be reading the news. The Pirate Bay hosts *no* content at all. They don't make anything available. All they do is supply pointers to people who claim to have something available. The whole process is called "peer-to-peer".

    Or me, being a composer, am going to go buy a big gun and take copyright infringement punishment on my own hands.

    I can understand your problem and sympathize with you and all other artists and people who depend on selling their intellectual creations. But the fact is that the current business model for that is broken. We need a new way to let people earn a living from their creations. Misunderstanding the problem and trying to implement radical solutions will not help accomplish that end.

  42. Re:Typical by Ivlis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For visitors coming to Canada from abroad, stay the fuck away from the filthy cesspool of French distinct society that Quebec has become.

    You're righter than you think. :(

  43. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by FreakWent · · Score: 1

    needs citation

  44. Crap :( if this keeps up... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    I will pretty soon run out of neighbors with WEP'ed WiFi setups. Hows that WPA2 crackage coming along?

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  45. Re:Typical by Ivlis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am in Québec and I was the victim of an *intentional* aggression by a surgeon that left me with a handicapped left arm. I am in the process of complaining to the medical college. I could not file a lawsuit because the system in Québec in biased against malpractice victims. This makes it so that surgeons can intentionally butcher anyone they dislike for whatever reason.

  46. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an aspiring internet troll, this is excellent - all I have to do to ruin a Quebecorer's week is get their IP and send three allegations of copyright infringement to the ISP.

    What will they think of next?

  47. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    get a load of that. private interests are the decider of what's good for society now.

    that's what happens when you allow unbridled capitalism. if there is an unorderly chaos, a lack of authority, more powerful groups fill the gap and establish their own hierarchy.

    and

    the only way that you can have EQUAL, FAIR environment is to bash feudal lords through your central hammer at your disposal - your federal government.

    Uhh...you do realize that it was the government that created such laws as the DMCA, anti-piracy, and granted power to the RIAA and MPAA...right??!!

    What your essentially asking is for is the government to fight itself. This is about as productive as a dog chasing its own tail. A complete fucking waste of time.

    I have a better idea. How about we at *least* prevent the government from making stupid laws before we ask them to regulate an issue they just created. Naw, that would just make too much sense. Never mind...

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  48. Re:Typical by Ivlis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The name of the surgeon who *intentionally* aggressed me and left me with a handicapped left hand is: Julien Poitras.

  49. What with the hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uh, what's up with all those incredibly negative anti-Quebec comments?

    The Quebec government/population hasn't a THING to do with that, Québécor is a privately owned company which does everything it wants by itself (and being rather large, they have sufficient pushing power to do it). Are you accusing the USA government for what the RIAA does?

    1. Re:What with the hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, what's up with all those incredibly negative anti-Quebec comments?

      Shut up you separatist bastard. Va te faire foutre.

  50. Re:Typical by multisync · · Score: 1

    That's as stupid as saying that all Americans are gun-loving rednecks who only speak english and are afraid of anyone who wasn't born in the USA.

    Especially considering lots of Americans aren't even born in the USA.

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  51. Re:Typical by multisync · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're absolutely right on with that comment. Quebec is quite a ways from where I live, but I find myself identifying with Quebecers on a lot of issues, and strangely alienated from a lot of other "left-coasters" who live in the more rural areas of my province.

    I'm sure there is the same broad spectrum of people there as in other areas, but in general Quebec strikes me as quite progressive with regard to social issues, while still fiercely libertarian on a personal level.

    I doubt this will go very far; Quebecers are not shy about telling someone to fuck off, in any language.

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  52. bad revenge tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try it in the US and you'll be put in jail. DMCA notices are sworn under penalty of perjury, and harassment happens to be a crime as well.

    1. Re:bad revenge tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, so I might be wrong about this. However, I thought that the DMCA notices were not sworn under penalty of perjury, however, the counter-notices were. In other words, it always sounded to me like there is little danger in filing false DMCA notices.

    2. Re:bad revenge tactic by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 1

      http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

      The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to
      its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
      owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
      elements, to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent.

      Yeah, you might be wrong about this, at least in so far as the initial notice is concerned, it requires the statement as much as the counter-notice does.

  53. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by hansamurai · · Score: 2

    Do you think they live in a bubble of unbridled capitalism? There is plenty of regulation in the ISP "market". If you ask me, this is more the fault of the government, for their intense regulation of ISPs and letting one or two telcos completely own an area. Unbridled capitalism would mean customers could vote with their wallet and go somewhere else, but yet there are actual customers in here complaining that there are no other options!

  54. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem is that even if we know how to scream, the monopolies still exist with us. Quebecor is the best example. They the most popular TV "news" channels and newspapers.
    So yeah, we could scream as loud as we could, the message will not pass.

    That being said, Quebecor has to respond to the CRTC, as every provider of Canada. And well, I never really know in favor of which side, the ISPs or the Canadians, the CRTC rules...

    So in the worst case, in Quebec, we could have to chose between being throttled by Bell or "terminated" by Videotron.

  55. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What form did this surgeon's aggression take? In which city and hospital does he practice?

  56. three-strikes-and-you're-out is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as all ye council, gov't members, telco execs and their family are also subjected to the same rule.
    How hard is it for millions to allege this small group 3 times?

  57. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by Endo13 · · Score: 1

    "Unbridled capitalism" has absolutely nothing to do with what choices are available for the customer. It means that A.) corporations are completely unlimited on what they can do to grow their companies (if they can get rid of all competition, so much the better for them!), and B.) there are no restrictions on what the customer is allowed to buy. But also, since there is no regulation, there is also nothing to say that any particular corporation or industry has to make any particular thing available for sale to the customer. If it's not as financially beneficial as they would like, there's no reason to do it.

    This is why we don't do unbridled capitalism. Ultimately, any given industry will result in a monopoly if left unchecked for a long enough period of time.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  58. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt this will go very far; Quebecers are not shy about telling someone to fuck off, in any language

    I know this is off-topic, but certain languages are just more intimidating and bombastic when expletives are used. French just isn't one of them.
    These are the languages I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure other languages are even more suited to cursing.
    Italian and Spanish - you definitely know when someone's pissed, but you don't fear bodily injury.
    English - the US variant uses expletives too often for any real intimidation unless the words are spoken at higher volume in the southern US (think of Samuel L. Jackson) or in gruff tones in the northeast and north-central regions (more like Joe Pesci).

  59. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we had true capitalism, there wouldn't be any dispute over copyright law because it wouldn't exist.

    We also could just switch to another ISP if they started to pull bullshit on us, because there wouldn't be massive hurdles in place to becoming a small ISP, so we wouldn't have state-sponsored monopolies.

    The basic fallacy in Guardianism is the theory the state exists to serve its people, which the course of history has shown to be false time and time again.

  60. Re:Typical by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

    That's interesting, because I've lived here all my life and what you're describing is a pretty small minority.

    Have you considered that you might be an asshole magnet? Perhaps that's why you're posting anonymously?

  61. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must have been living in some kind of bubble all your life.

    Please open your eyes and take a look at the "society" around you, which is a magnet for people a lot less pleasant than assholes.

  62. Mediacom does this now..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal? My ISP, Mediacom Cable, has been doing this for at least a year. 3 accusations and you're done. I've already received 2 for allegedly downloading games and movies I've never even heard of. Of course, since it's a "guilty, period" system, I've got no way to dispute the claims, I can only change to DSL.

  63. Re:Typical by meloman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow! I can't believe what I'm reading here! This is an article about an ISP... what the fuck is wrong with you people? You can't read the word "Quebec" in an article without vomiting on Quebecers? Are you that stupid?

    --
    http://www.vivahate.org/
    Stay home, be bored. It's crap, I KNOW!
  64. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Quebecois I have to say Fuck you. Having full uninhibited access to the net is not a privilege, it's a right. We shouldn't have to pay the same as everyone else only to have our choices of surfing experience narrowed without our consent while others are unaffected.

  65. Re:Typical by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    I'm from Quebec and I agree with you. We have minds of our own and we make ourselves heard. They shouldn't be pulling this crap on us.

  66. Re:wow. corporations deciding what's good for publ by Logic+Worshiper · · Score: 1

    Actually the government fighting it's self is called politics. It's at least as hard as keeping Windows stable, and is equally susceptible to stupid user syndrome. Sadly there is no easy solution to that problem like running Linux.

  67. contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. I was looking for a way to terminate my contract with these retards

  68. Ted turners 40GB caps are history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now that i think of it he sold that division off....
    so they want to go out a business hahahahaahaha

  69. I see a hidden U.S. Corporate Hand in This, Canada by ItaloSuave · · Score: 0

    People who use the Internet should "smarten up" about who is trying to curtail or limit their individual usage of the amazing and empowering enablement to use and transfer files between connected computers. These big companies and some government officials just cannot "get it through their heads" that they are not in charge of our files, computers and desktops: we are. In America we call it "We the People" but in the Queen's Canada, I don't know how you delineate or protect your alleged or asserted freedoms from these sneaky, ongoing and pernicious predations. The case of Quebecor pinching people's Internet accounts, reminds me of the recent American brouhaha over Comcast Cable Company deciding unilaterally to squeeze the Internet pipeline for their customers who utilized file sharing programs. Once brought to the attention of the American people and those of us who favor a free and open, available Internet, Comcast, the rich and powerful corporation, was hauled into court, in a case which they lost. Proving to be sore losers, Comcast Corporation, run by the Roberts Brothers, continues to try an "end run" around this clear and decisive American court case result, this time by using Canada, it's government, people and legal structure, as it's foil to accomplish there, what they could not accomplish here in America, namely, steal the free and easy freedoms of the Internet for the millions of users who depend on it daily, for many important and vital functions in their lives, not just entertainment or file sharing, although these are certainly valid, useful, and quite legal activities in their own right. The idea that you can have your Internet access pinched or terminated by a major Internet service provider or ISP such as Comcast or Quebecor is utterly ridiculous. Only some incredibly obtuse and unobservant person in the bureaucracies of government or corporations could possibly continue to think along these lines, in this modern era. I guess "hope springs eternal" even in the hearts of would-be, money focused, autocratic jerks. Wake up, Canadiens! Study the Case of Comcast here, and ask for help, if you need it. This battle for Internet freedom, will obviously be a continuous series of engagements with the enemies of our freedoms and individual empowerment and civil liberties. Time to Rock and Roll.

    --
    MDelCamp1 on YouTube - check out my PlayLists there.
  70. Define "Terminate" by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

    Quebec ISP To Terminate Subscribers Over Copyright

    Man, I'd hate to have the name Sarah Connor and live in Quebec right now...

    Your name is Cyberdyne IP!

    TAKE THAT BITCH!!

    TELL YOUR COUSIN I'LL BE BACK!!

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  71. Re:Typical by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    That's interesting, because I've lived here all my life and what you're describing is a pretty small minority.

    Odd how such a small minority seems to be able to pass so many oppressive laws in its favour.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E5DA1538F937A25756C0A964948260

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/12/12/quesigns_021212.html

    You'd think in a democracy a amall minority wouldn't be able to do that. So either Canada's system is seriously flawed, or you're a liar.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  72. Re:Typical by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

    That bigoted law allows bilingual signs, self-righteous dipshit.

  73. Re:Typical by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

    You've never heard a Quebecer swear, have you? ;) My mother is from Britanny, I know a bit of it and swears in it probably sound a bit weak to you too (I'd tend to agree). I live in Montreal and with my strong french/breton accent I tend to not have the same weight so I just avoid swearing in French, but the Quebecois have a plethora of swear words that are rather delivered in the same way as Spanish and Italian does.

  74. Quebecor Media: lovely company to hate by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

    They own one of the two halves of Quebec's duopoly (they're Comcast's half), are about the sole distributor for cable, happen to own the most listened to off-cable channel (for some shows and some days, admittedly), and a newspaper whose readership stats are considerably distorted because they somehow feel they're special enough to pretend that 10 times as many people read their shit as they sell.
    They've done that sort of bullshit a lot to protect their IP, they've also crippled the music on the electronic downloads section of their brick-mortar front's web presence with DRM that doesn't work in anything but WMP9-10 and maybe with a prayer 11. Apparently it doesn't even play on a Zune and trying to take it off using wmp just broke the songs.
    And they seem utterly unaware of people not using Windows, or IE for that matter, which is a whole lot of fun trying to work with their crap. Accessibility neither last I checked their ISP's corporate page, but that was a few years ago...
    Thing is, nothing really is there to break up the damn provincial monopolies/cartels unless the government does, and the government doing gets people screaming "SOCIALISM" - which has a hint of truth I guess since the last cartel they broke apart was almost entirely nationalised. And while it worked with it and not-nationalising but breaking up might work if put in practice, all it does now is get a regional third party made up of essentially the french wing of Harper's electors almost elected.

    1. Re:Quebecor Media: lovely company to hate by agnosticnixie · · Score: 1

      Also, iirc, there used to be a Quebec based torrent tracker and its owners are still Quebecois, but Quebecois laws (which I suspect came with hefty palm greasing but heh) ended up forcing them to relocate somewhere where IP laws where a bit less draconian and not defended by corporate overlords (which is what it is, Quebec's "socialism", as the ideological zombies scream, is really a bit of social services and a hell of a lot of corporatism).

  75. J'accuse Michael Geist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post says it all.

  76. Re: Blank Media Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL either, but don't Canadians pay a tax on all blank media to allow them to download?

  77. Quebecor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Totally true, and being there, I can tell that you must take into account the fact that they are doing a lot of effort to isolate us from international content. So we will listen to THEIR content (TV, FM radio, Internet, printed media, newspaper, news everywhere, etc.).

    Quebecor has a strong political power here by controlling the medias. As an example, they have a bunch of artist working for them, labeled by them, promoted by them, always willing to tell the population that P2P is bad for them, that we are stealing to food from their table, yaddayadda... Strangely, you look on P2P network, you don't see much of Quebec artists content because we are simply not interested in their bad music.

    Not so long ago it was the french language protection that was used to prevent english content to go on radio (we are still under quota on this), then it was the protection from US airwaves on satellites, now they are hitting on the Internet.

    The other major ISP (Bell Canada) adopted a P2P throttling approach on peak hours, less problematic to my taste. I can underdstand the bandwidth issues, and let's be honest, the legal P2P traffic does'nt represent enough comparing to the illegal one. You put the download in the queue, and it will be done tomorrow anyway because the pipe will unclog at midnight. Get that Linux ISO via HTTP, they are not throttling this.

  78. So lets accuse Quebecor by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Then they can kick themselves off the internet.

  79. Live in Quebec? Then SIGN MY PETITION, dammit! by aqk · · Score: 0

    Sign it: Rural petition

    But most (urban & suburban) people in Quebec have access to hispeed AFAIK, so they can't be bothered signing it...

    .

  80. Re:WTF?! I am dialup! by aqk · · Score: 0

    Hostie Tabarnouche!
    Alors, signez mon petition!

    WE NEED HISPEED!
    And pass it on! (in Quebec only)

    .

  81. Score! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now everyone will rush into the shops and buy buy buy crapy albums with only one or two good songs, and pay pay pay 20, 30, 40 dollars per piece. This is how all these companies that practically do nothing can sky-rocket their profits through the roof.
    If we only had more bright thinkers like these we could get out of the crisis in no time.