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."

Comments

Do they really want that responsibility?

[LordZardoz]

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

Re:Do they really want that responsibility?

[Yvan256]

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?

Re:Do they really want that responsibility?

[Yvan256]

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

Huge bandwidth users != copyright infringement.

Re:Do they really want that responsibility?

[causality]

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?

good revenge tactic

[FudRucker]

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...

Re:Allegations? By whom?

[meerling]

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....

Proportionality, lack thereof

[StreetStealth]

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.

Re:Proportionality, lack thereof

[StreetStealth]

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.

Re:Proportionality, lack thereof

[JustinOpinion]

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.

wow. corporations deciding what's good for public

[unity100]

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.

Conflicker worm to the rescue!

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Typical

[meloman]

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?