Slashdot Mirror
Canada Creates Cap On Liability For File Sharing Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes "Over the past couple of days, there have been reports
about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada, with fears that
thousands of Canadians could be targeted. While it is possible that
many will receive demand letters, Michael Geist has posted a
detailed primer on liability in Canada that notes that recent
changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability in non-commercial
cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims. In fact,
it is likely that a court would award far less — perhaps as little
as $100 — if the case went to court as even the government's
FAQ on the recent copyright reform bill provided assurances
that Canadians 'will not face disproportionate penalties for minor
infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and
non-commercial infringement.'"
Yet another reason to consider moving to Canada...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prime Minister
You might want to read what you linked to - the levy doesn't exist on DVDs since it only covers audio. Download music in Canada, without making it available yourself (so no bittorrent), and you should be good. Download a movie and you can still be sued.
> notes that recent changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability
> in non-commercial cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims.
But that is $5000 in Canadian dollars. How much is that in human dollars?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
* provide legal protection for businesses that choose to use technological protection measures or "digital locks" to protect their work as part of their business models; and,
* give consumers the ability to, among other things, record their favourite TV shows for later viewing, transfer music from a CD to a digital device, and create a mash-up to post via social media.
In other words, stronger protections for (1) to take away (2). They explcitly repeat it under the consumer benefits as "if they are doing so for their private use and have not broken a digital lock." and under concerns of creators as "Consumers will not be able to break a digital lock to exercise these exceptions.". They're also going to hit on all sorts of "enablers" of copyright infringement, but don't worry because they say "Search engines and ISPs will be unaffected by this provision, to the extent that they act as true intermediaries." My guess is that there's no true Scotsman. But sure they capped the non-commercial infringement to $5k instead of $20k now. By the way, did anyone check if they use the US definition of "commercial" where if it has a large enough sticker value they count it as commercial anyway even if you make no money on it?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There has to be something in place to prevent people from outright stealing of music and movies. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work. But this American notion of massive awards to greedy Hollywood studios has got to stop. Is it really fair to bankrupt people because they shared some songs? I never stole any songs but I am so disgusted with the whole thing that I have basically stopped buying music all together. It's mostly internet radio for me these days. I won't give those greedy bastards a nickel.
Well, DUH!
If there's nobody to bribe politicians, they will do what gets them votes, after all, then this is their main income. They are just like any whores, they follow the money.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What I do is set my upload to 0. I know, I'm a dick for not seeding, but there's not much I can do.
In terms of being sued, it's simply not worth the company's time to sue an individual now. They're limited to actual damages (which require a receipt), court costs (we have a loser-pay system here) and punitive damages (which are reasonable here). The total liability is now up to $5000 and there is no guarantee that you would see that. In terms of digital lockbreaking tools, the tools themselves are not illegal to own, and any damages for personal use are strictly limited to what they can prove. (i.e. they have a receipt; e.g. Beardo ripped Movie instead of buying a digital copy, we're out $9.99.)
For claims less than $25k, they would be forced to go to small-claims court, which would also prevent a label from using their Uber-Lawyer team. You'd have to have the actual person who is being damaged go to court.
Further, the ISPs here require a warrant to disclose information. They will not share IP and personal info in a civil case because they could get sued by our Privacy Commissioner. That office has some teeth; they're the guys who forced FB to change some of their regulations.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
You should have seen the proposed copyright laws dating back to the Liberal government of the early 2000s. RIAA and MPAA were pushing really hard for a super-DMCA, and were still putting on the pressure over the last few years. But every once in a while, making a helluva lot of noise can accomplish something. I wrote my MP three letters over the last five years detailing out how the media industry-backed legislation would significantly harm consumers, remove choice and open up even minor infringement to destructive lawsuits.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"If there's nobody to bribe politicians"
Or more simply, implement a completely transparent registry of all lobbyists, who they *really* represent, and all their meetings:
https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/home
Go ahead and try to bribe, or strong-arm. Someone *will* notice. There's people who's only job is to watch the list and report on it.