Slashdot Mirror


New Canadian Copyright Laws Require ISPs To Retain, Share Illegal Download Info

BarbaraHudson writes: New Year's Day brought into force new Canadian copyright laws that go after people who download copyrighted materials online. From the article: "As of January 1st Internet service providers (ISPs) are required to pass along notices of alleged copyright infringement., something which used to be voluntary. ISPs must also retain records of the notices they receive and forward to users for at least six months in case a copyright owner decides to pursue legal action. Lawsuits could seek up to $5,000 for downloading copyrighted material for personal use, and up to $20,000 for a download that led to commercial gain.

ISPs are also now be required to provide your personal info, but only if the copyright owner sues. Search engines also have to remove cached versions of allegedly infringing material that have been removed from a website. Non-compliance allows copyright owners to pursue legal action and claim damages against them as well. Finally, a review of the Copyright Act every five years is now required."

161 comments

  1. Secret Government Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try it on the Canadians first! Way to go, eh?

  2. The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me guess, a right wing government, always the best than money can buy.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      I don'the know if left or right-wing ideology has anything to do with such matters. In the U.S. it is generally the left-wing Democrat party that pushes the agenda of the Hollywood media giants with regards to copyright law and the government aiding corporations to step all over individual rights to pursue copyright violations.

    2. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Democrat party isn't left-wing, it's right-wing. It's just a different flavor of right-wing than the Republican party. The Republicans' good buddies are the oil and gas industries, the military contracting industries, and the gun industry. The Democrats' good buddies are the media companies/copyright industry and the big banks.

    3. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by x0ra · · Score: 1

      ooth, the dmca was signed under Clinton...

    4. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting claim you make there. However, just because you partner with business it doesn't mean you are right-wing. No, it's the ideology. To be honest though, I can't tell whether this is a right-wing or left-wing action because copyright can be argued to either be anti free market (left-wing) or pro free market (right-wing). When it comes to the actual people who did it, money surely was a factor.

    5. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Brought to mind a funny image, if US politics were a bird, say an American Eagle it would be flying permanently sideways with it wings perpendicular to the ground (ie both wings on the same side), of course doing that, it could never stay up and will inevitably spiral into ever tightening circles and crash into to the ground. The American Eagle has become an endangered democracy.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by mpthompson · · Score: 2

      Perhaps from the outside the Democrat party appears right-wing, but in the U.S. they generally self identify as being left-wing.

      BTW, I believe it would be best to abolish using terms derived from 18th century revolutionary France to describe modern political parties. Both of the parties seem to have fascist tendencies when it comes to favoring eilitist and corporate interests over a citizen's individual rights.

    7. Re: The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 1

      Harper is conservative. It doesn't matter no political party isn't trying to wedge this stuff in.

    8. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting claim you make there. However, just because you partner with business it doesn't mean you are right-wing. No, it's the ideology. To be honest though, I can't tell whether this is a right-wing or left-wing action because copyright can be argued to either be anti free market (left-wing) or pro free market (right-wing). When it comes to the actual people who did it, money surely was a factor.

      it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.
      Actions are the important thing, not words.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I completely disagree. We need to retain the terms, but we need to use them correctly, which means we need to call both the Democrats and the Republicans "right wing". Otherwise, we're going to continue to falsely believe that somehow they're different, rather than the truth which is (as you say) they both have fascist tendencies and favor elitist and corporatist interests over citizens' individual rights.

      If we start calling the Democrats "left wing", then we'll just continue to be fooled, and we'll never get to a state where the well-being of the People is given any weight in politics.

    10. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.

      In the U.S., basically Left means Democrat and Right means Republican. Which means all 4 of them have lost much meaning.

      Ostensibly today, Left and Democrat mean "big government" or "government economic control" along with "social liberalism", while Right or Republican means "small government" but also "social control".

      Note the word "ostensibly". It's all BS, and both sides want to control everything in your life, from who you can or cannot hire or do business with to who you sleep with, plus how you spend your money, and how much of it, before Government confiscates the rest.

      The single Left-Right dichotomy has always been bullshit, but at least Back In The Day it had some real meaning.

      It all boils down to this: Government, and those who run it, are generally hungry for both power and money. No matter whose "side" they claim to be on.

      All other political ills stem from those two things. There are a few good people in Government but at least today they are overwhelmed by the greedy powermongers.

    11. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Americans seem to have changed a few meanings and as you say, most of it is bullshit anyways as both parties are mostly on the authoritarian side. Unluckily authoritarian types seem to do better in democracies, if only due to being able to be more immoral.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by knightghost · · Score: 2

      Everyone seems to be skirting around 2 truths:
      1. Marketing. They'll say anything to get elected.
      2. Money. That's the only vote.

      Our power? Ignore the marketing and vote with your dollar.

    13. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's hard to ignore the marketing, even when you're aware of it. Certain messages repeated in the background have an affect even if it is not on a conscious level. These politicians spend a lot of money on psychology to find the most effective message..

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no 'left wing' or 'right wing'

      there are 'statists' and those who believe in individual choice and liberty.

      Democrats believe in big welfare government
      Republicans believe in big warfare government.

      Neither believes you should be able to choose your own destiny.

      Republicans say they don't like big government, yet they want government to mandate against same sex marriage and weed.
      Democrats say they want to help the little guy, yet the last 6 years have shown they only care about the big corporations (big banks are bigger than before the GFC, and little banks are regulated out of existence).

      All 'bipartisan' means nowdays, is that both sides agree on what to spend YOUR money on.
      When they 'disagree' its because one wants to spend YOUR money on something different from the other team.

      Does anyone ask you where YOU would like to spend YOUR money? Certainly not the IRS.

    15. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably the best form of representative government would be where we randomly select people who apply to be congressman. That way even if you get a bad apple, he can't be bad for more than 1 term.

      We should have some sort of lottery where anyone over the age of 21 with no criminal record (except for possibly drug possession) be allowed to apply to be a congressman.

      The money to support congressional caucuses would disappear faster than water in California.

    16. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Republican means a small government in order to preserve the liberties of individuals. Except for where drugs are involved, of course. And pornography. And abortion. And immigration. And the feds still need to butt in and overrule the state authority to ban gay marriage and preemptively block non-discrimination laws. Oh, and it's important the government still be able to erect giant crucifix monuments and put up displays of the ten commandments just to make sure everyone knows that non-Christians aren't true Americans and aren't welcome in the country. But asside from all that, they stand for small government. And massive subsidies for well-connected companies, but the democrats do that too.

    17. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's relative. The republicans are on the right of US politics, the democrats are on the left of US politics - but US politics as a whole only spans from 'right' to 'extreme far right' by European standards.

      What Europe calls left would be regarded as traiterously communist in the US, and what the US calls right would be reduced to the man standing on a European street corner screaming that the end of the world is upon us.

    18. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others have already responded to you, but I will do it as well, just to reinforce the point, hopefully. The point being that the Democrats in the US is not a left-wing party by any means. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are very right-wing, with the Republicans being ever so slightly even more extremely so than the Democrats.

      In the US there is no tangible presence of anything resembling left-wing on the main political arena, and there hasn't been any for quite some time. There might be scattered presences here and there in smaller contexts (individual communities, cities, possibly) but not nation-wide.

      The US doesn't have anything but very, very right-wing politics as a nation.

      That the Democrats in some select few issues may be viewed as ever so slightly to the left of the Republicans does not mean that they are left-wing. It just means that they (again in some select few issues) are slightly less extreme right-wing than the Republicans.

      Your political-spectrum-o'meter needs to be calibrated. It's currently way off.

    19. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " We need to retain the terms, but we need to use them correctly, "

      I challenge you to correctly define the words 'left wing' and 'right wing'.

      Why not call democrats democrats and take them for what they are?

    20. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Someone else defined then pretty well earlier in this conversation: left-wing is for the people, right-wing is for the aristocracy (which this days means the corporations and other rich people).

      Just calling them "democrats" doesn't say anything about who they want to help, and there's a common misperception that they're left-wing (and in favor of helping common people), which simply isn't true at all.

    21. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      ooth, the dmca was signed under Clinton...

      Because he was a right-wing president. Same reason he muscled through the free trade, deregulation, and gutting of welfare that Reagan-Bush never could.

    22. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      the democrats are on the left of US politic

      Not when elected Democrats are to the right of Republican voters on most issues. Republican voters don't want bank bailouts, their Medicare or SS cut, nor did they want the NDAA or telecom immunity. Hell, they "evolved" on ending DADT before Obama did.

    23. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I don't think I "forgot" those things. They are implicit in what I wrote.

    24. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be using darknets like I2P and Phantom for filesharing.

    25. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Americans seem to have changed a few meanings

      Sadly, they changed it for the rest of the world, too.

    26. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I really wonder what would happen if the Democrat Party, as a whole, suddenly changed their platform on two issues: gun control and immigration, to mostly match the Republicans on those issues. (i.e., no new Federal gun laws, and no more push for "comprehensive immigration reform".) I believe the Republican party would quickly cease to exist with a majority of it voters switching to the Democrats, and a new party left of the Dems would quickly rise up to fill that void.

    27. Re:The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does in this case - he's right wing fascism in the Mussolini meaning.

    28. Re: The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by baristabrian · · Score: 1

      Gutting? You are *not* talking about the US of A, obviously. A trillion dollars spent fighting the good "war" on "poverty" and "homelessness," since the alleged "gutting." You need to get out more, seriously. Just saying. I won't even get into the fact the the taxpayers' money (based on the fact the "war" is obviously being lost) is being wasted. Simply wanted to put the "gutting" misnomer in perspective. -- the Homeless Guy

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
    29. Re: The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe that the left wing is for the people?

    30. Re: The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Do you also demand to know why the US of A continues to spend billions on roads every year, after Eisenhower spend all that money in the 50's building the interstate highway system, because you've never heard of the term "ongoing expense"? Or why you should keep getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist cuz after the first time you saw one when you were four? Or why you should have to keep spending money on gas after you drive a car out of a dealership?

      Just wondering if your willful stupidity is general, or specific. Either way, it's a non sequtiur as it's. a. simple. fact. that Clinton gutted welfare in the United States.

    31. Re: The Best Politicians Money Can Buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that you are wrong.

  3. What would happen... by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    Just a question to ponder:

    What would happen if one of the judges responsible for this law or politician, were to have his/her system hacked, leading to prosecution for alleged copyright infringement?

    1. Re:What would happen... by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      Or their kids or spouses get ensured after downloadinga few songs from a torrent (assuming we know judges would never participate in such activities themselves).

    2. Re:What would happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one will be removed from the party, but the regulations will be kept.

    3. Re:What would happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't happen. Judges and politicians are pure in Canada.

    4. Re:What would happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just a question to ponder:

      What would happen if one of the judges responsible for this law or politician, were to have his/her system hacked, leading to prosecution for alleged copyright infringement?

      The copyright industry wouldn't go after a judge or politician.

      What good are bought laws if they can backfire?

    5. Re: What would happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judges are a bro club, wouldn't happen.

    6. Re:What would happen... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It will happen. Or something like it. This is a Corporate Money Grubbing Law and I don't see it lasting for very long.

      It sounds almost as bad as SOPA.

  4. Stranglehold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fine with all of the above, but, only if copyright were to go back to what it used to be: 20 years after first publication and NO MORE

    1. Re:Stranglehold by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I'd argue even 20 years is too much. 20 years was back in the days before big box stores, online retail etc. Now anything culturally relevant gets to market saturation in a year or two. Everything else is a trickle and you could probably still gobble up via the luddite/collector types being willing to actually pay for a box set of stuff. Say you missed a few episodes of Chuck. Not enough to justify purchasing a season on Bluray but enough that you are annoyed that you can't catch up. The show is doen and you have the general jist of how things work out so the value to you might be fairly low, lower than the studios are willing to part with their precious bits. At some point, and at a much earlier point than current copyright requires the customers value should be the approximate value charged for the content (ie near zero).

    2. Re:Stranglehold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my honest opinion, 20 years is pretty fair overall. It's not too long and not too short for the author to generate an income/living out of it. HOWEVER (pardon the uppercase), 20 years for film/music is far too long and should be 5-10 years at the most. Written publications can at times take years to complete and I think 15-20 years is justified for this instance.

      Slashdot seems to have this warped mindset that everything should belong to everyone within 5 years or less (judging by the mod points you received)... why would anyone bother to invent and or otherwise create anything at all without being able put food on the table for their honest work? I'm pro-copyright-reform, but, you have to keep within reality.

      X amount of years allows the creator to monetize their creation in every which way until the deadline hits, after which, their original work belongs to the public. If the author were to create something completely new using their original material they could copyright that, but, the original work itself should be public domain in my opinion.

    3. Re:Stranglehold by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      It isn't to me that I think everything should be free. It is a matter of balancing the creators rights to income versus society's rights to its cultural material. Patents are long term because you might very well need to build a factory, find a product that your little widget will help with etc before you get the big review stream. That isn't the case with a lot/majority of film, music etc after it is released. Also often patents are for things that the user doesn't know about where as media by definition is playing around in the cultural space and so more rightly belongs to society. Regardless, the intent of copyright is to allow for a reasonable reward for creating cultural material not to insure that those capable of creating great works never have to work again (and thus deprive society of any further benefit). It might take years before someone takes the script but once the movie is out there it very quickly switches from a review generating object to a part of the cultural background material. People without a large media budget shouldn't be locked out of cultural references.

    4. Re:Stranglehold by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I'd argue even 20 years is too much. 20 years was back in the days before big box stores, online retail etc. Now anything culturally relevant gets to market saturation in a year or two. Everything else is a trickle and you could probably still gobble up via the luddite/collector types being willing to actually pay for a box set of stuff. Say you missed a few episodes of Chuck. Not enough to justify purchasing a season on Bluray but enough that you are annoyed that you can't catch up. The show is doen and you have the general jist of how things work out so the value to you might be fairly low, lower than the studios are willing to part with their precious bits. At some point, and at a much earlier point than current copyright requires the customers value should be the approximate value charged for the content (ie near zero).

      Things are worth what a buyer pays a seller for. Obviously, if you missed a few episodes of Chuck, and it bothers you that much, why shouldn't they pick up a few bucks to relieve your itch? Setting the price below a certain amount doesn't increase purchases because the market will already be saturated.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. "download copyrighted materials" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do people even do that these days? I thought everyone ripped music from Youtube and used video streaming sites for everything that wasn't there? Do they have a massive blacklist of links, or something?

    1. Re:"download copyrighted materials" by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      There's this thing called BitTorrent. It's a brand new technology for downloading... wait, they're telling me it's been out since 2001.

    2. Re: "download copyrighted materials" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't concerned with audio or video quality, then sure.

    3. Re: "download copyrighted materials" by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Which most people aren't.

      Frankly, for anything I don't already have in my laptop, it's easier to click a YouTube link than to do pretty much any other action. I don't even bother downloading anymore. It's just there because I'm on the Internet.

      I do care about audio quality. Generally if I'm going through this process for an album more than once or twice, I'll find a lossless or high-bitrate copy for sale and buy it. But for casual listening of whatever, pretty much nothing beats the search engine's media player.

  6. Michael Geist's opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Michael Geist's opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Geist isn't a frequent contributor, I'm waiting for Bennett Haselton's opinion thank you very much.

  7. CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For fuck sakes if we're going to go full on america up here can we get rid of the fucking tariff please

    1. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      The media tariff is your get-out-of-jail-free card here. Just buy one blank CD-R and keep the receipt. When the media companies try to sue you, simply send them a copy of your receipt as proof that you paid for an unencumbered home-use license via the government, and inform them to send the government their demand for payment.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    2. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media tariff is your get-out-of-jail-free card here. Just buy one blank CD-R and keep the receipt. When the media companies try to sue you, simply send them a copy of your receipt as proof that you paid for an unencumbered home-use license via the government, and inform them to send the government their demand for payment.

      I hope you are being sarcastic, because that is terrible legal advice.

    3. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Tha'ts now how the tarrif works. It doesn't make copying legal - it's simply a payment in compensation for the many many many acts of illegal copying which the government admits it is powerless to stop.

    4. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      For fuck sakes if we're going to go full on america up here can we get rid of the fucking tariff please

      You're still buying CDRs? Because that's the only media the tariff applies to.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    5. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      So if I've already paid compensation, at the rate determined by the government, how can it be alleged that I haven't? To be fair, you claim that it is this way, but that's never actually been proven in court (unless I missed some ruling: please cite...)

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    6. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It allow's Canadians to copy music onto blank audio recording media for their private use.

    7. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cpcc.ca/en/the-cpcc/private-copying-and-copyright

    8. Re:CAN WE STOP PAYING THE MEDIAT TARIF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the private copying provisions in the Copyright Act make peer-to-peer file sharing on the Internet legal?

      No. The Copyright Act states that it is not an infringement of copyright in a musical work, a performer’s performance or a sound recording for individuals to make a copy onto an “audio recording medium” for their own private use. However, it does not permit the sharing of those copies with millions of people through the Internet – private copies must, by definition, remain private. The payment of the private copying levy is also not a passport to steal the source material. “Copying” should not be confused with “gaining access” to the material to be copied. The fact that one is allowed to copy recorded music does not mean that the original sound recordings themselves are suddenly free.

      Taken from the cpcc website in the FAQ section (#9)

  8. Don't be afraid by tom229 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This summary makes things sound worse than they are. From my interpretation of tfa it sounds like Canadians are just going to start getting a lot more warning letters. Considering that the max penalty is 5 grand, and the copyright holder has to take you to court to get it, I'd imagine these letters are going to relatively benign.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    1. Re:Don't be afraid by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If 6 different copyright holders all take action at the same time for different infringements, you could be facing multiple fines. $5,000 for your kid grabbing a movie is going to hurt. $30,000 half a dozen movies and songs is more like a bomb going off.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Don't be afraid by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      $5000 x 10000 MP3s = Bankruptcy to the average person.

    3. Re:Don't be afraid by Strider- · · Score: 1

      According to Michael Geist, this law limits liability to $5000 for *ALL* infringements. In your example, the copyright owner would have to bring forward separate court proceedings for each of those 10,000 infringements. I doubt any court would accept that.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    4. Re:Don't be afraid by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually, not. The actual law says that it's $5,000.00 max per proceeding (legal action). Each copyright holder is entitled to initiate their own proceedings. See the part I bolded? "A copyright holder" - singular.

      38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

      (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to

      all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

      (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

      If Sony sues and settles, that doesn't mean that Microsoft can't sue as well, because downloading their software would not be included in Sony's proceedings. Sony can only institute actions in relation to subject matter that THEY are the copyright holders.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Don't be afraid by dryeo · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, downloading music for personal use is still legal in Canada due to the side affects of the media levy on blank CDs, audio cassettes etc. We pay a levy, we can make copies, which wasn't what the music industry expected the courts to rule.
      The courts have also made rulings that make a pretty liberal definition of downloading as well, basically as long as you pull rather then I push you can copy all my music.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Don't be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 10000 people bring individual legal action against you then you won't have to worry about the payout. You'll be long dead by the time that much paperwork gets through the courts.

      Then you also need to find that many people who think it's worth suing over $5000.

    7. Re:Don't be afraid by camperdave · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, downloading music for personal use is still legal in Canada due to the side affects of the media levy on blank CDs...

      That's only for music (not films, tv shows, etc) from artists registered with the Canadian recording industry. Furthermore, it doesn't cover downloads, but copying to the blank media. In other words, the only thing it protects is that Celine Dion mix disk.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Don't be afraid by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point - the goal is to stop illegal downloading, not make money off it. Making an example of a few people every week will have a chilling effect. Already, something like 87% of those who got a second notice before this law was passed have stopped.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  9. Up to $5k... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Up to $5k. For what? One download? Or for overall downloads?

    Also, suing many people at once doesn't really make sense and any such action would almost automatically be thrown out and require individual cases instead.

    Anyway, this is far cry from the US bullshit

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/...

    Also, the *up to $5k* means that the $5k is reserved for most extreme cases.

    1. Re:Up to $5k... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, the *up to $5k* means that the $5k is reserved for most extreme cases.

      No, for the most extreme cases you'd be sued for gaining commercially, since you listened to that downloaded song on your way to work one day.

    2. Re:Up to $5k... by mrbcs · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The big thing that people miss is: They can only sue for the value of goods downloaded. AND they must prove that. No fishing.

      This is not Canada bending over for Amerika, It's Harper saying "Screw you" you're not going to threaten Canadians.

      If, for example, I go buy a movie, then download a version for my media centre, I have not committed a crime. I have paid for it. If I download it, and have not bought a copy, and they catch me, they can only sue me for $20 for the copy, not millions like the states.

      There will not be any 6 million lawsuits here.

      If the media companies weren't so stupid, they would price it properly and no-one would pirate. Who needs to pirate any songs anymore? I can just fire up Spotify and listen to whatever I want. If the movie industry ever pulls their heads out of their asses, we'll have the same for movies.

      /rant

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    3. Re:Up to $5k... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      Depends on if it's private or commercial. Statutory damages are a minimum of $500 per for individuals. Copyright Act.

      (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

      (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

      The problem for individuals is that there can be multiple proceedings from different copyright holders, and they are additive. You download a movie and a song, the movie copyright holder can only proceed against you for the movie, and the song copyright holder can only proceed against you for the song, so they would be different cases, with different plaintiffs.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Up to $5k... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative
      Wrong. The law also allows that the copyright holder can sue for statutory damages instead of actual damages.

      38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

      (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

      (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Up to $5k... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the rules about breaking DRM that have been introduced by the Conservatives, sure you're free to copy stuff, but if it has any form of encryption I believe it is a criminal offence now. No more copying most all DVD's though they did allow for copying VHS tapes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Up to $5k... by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Pricing isn't the only issue, it's availability. The media companies want to control how you watch something, when you watch something, how many times you watch it, what quality it is. The best thing about pirated movies is that they're far far better than what you can buy. No ads, no 'must watch' content on a disc, you can play it on ANY device, and they often come with more subtitles.

    7. Re:Up to $5k... by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 2

      They can only sue for the value of goods downloaded...If, for example, I go buy a movie, then download a version for my media centre, I have not committed a crime.

      So this is almost sensible.

      What I'd like to see is a double edge approach providing a media licensing system where every ISP has an optional media subscription service at a reasonable price. Then have it that media companies can only request download metadata for content that they license to that ISP, however if a customer subscribes to the ISP media service, then that buys them immunity.

      If the above was implemented then people would only need to download what their ISP can't provide, and there'd be incentive for media companies to license that content to ISPs, giving people what they want: One media subscription service that gives you everything.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    8. Re:Up to $5k... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK, actually breaking the encryption isn't illegal - but distributing any tools or software designed to break the encryption is, and so is distributing any content which has had the rights management stripped. As the UK law is just our implimentation of the EUCD, I imagine much the same applies in the rest of Europe.

    9. Re:Up to $5k... by mirix · · Score: 1

      This is not Canada bending over for Amerika, It's Harper saying "Screw you" you're not going to threaten Canadians.

      Bullshit. Harper lives to bend over for Americans. He'll do it without them even asking.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  10. LAND OF THE FREE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, wrong country.

    1. Re:LAND OF THE FREE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong planet!

  11. Fear solves nothing by gavron · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You can be afraid or not but that has nothing to do with this.

    The "summary" doesn't make things sound worse than they are. READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE!

    ISPs now MUST forward notices. They did not have to before.
    ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant. They did not have to before.

    What kind of a moron would think any of this is a good thing? Of course, purchased politicians and the MAFIAA who bought them.

    E

    1. Re:Fear solves nothing by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      My address is technically DCHP, but I've had the same address for years. I think the lease time is 24 hours, so as long as I renew once a day it never changes.

      I like it that way myself so I can easily SSH in, but I would expect ISP logs to be able to tie any particular IP to any particular modem in a given time frame regardless. DCHP does not hide you in any way.

      That said, first email I get I'll be signing up for a VPN service.

    2. Re:Fear solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have dynamic IPs here in the US too, a lot of ISPs I know of either charge extra or require a "commercial" plan to have a static IP.

    3. Re: Fear solves nothing by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you talking about? DHCP is used in the USA as well, and isps keep logs containing timestamps and account numbers associated with ips. No matter how often you change ips they know exactly who you are.

    4. Re:Fear solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs "must" do that as long as studios have the IP numbers of alleged infringers, and a detailed description of the infringements themselves. Which means the same old story: they can't do anything against pure downloaders (those who download from cyberlockers) because they don't have their IP numbers, and these are no less that 90% of copyright infringements. They can only TRY to go after bittorrent users, at least those who use no "precautions". Luckily this will incentive the use of Tor, I2P, etc...

      This has been going on for roughly 15 years in the rest of the world, and hollywood lost the war almost everywhere. In most european countries copyright holders have completely ceased any activity against end users, they are desperately trying to take down cyberlockers and linking websistes, with embarrassing results (like, the very same website appears two days later with a swiss domain instead of a french one, and then lithuanian, and then serbian, and so on).

      It's definitely a bad law, but canadian users should go on as if it almost doesn't exist. It's just a fear strategy, it failed anywhere else. It looks like Canada is ten years behind on this issue, this article reminds me of the days of RIAA mobsters at the beginning of the century.

    5. Re: Fear solves nothing by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 2

      It's like people don't understand that just because they don't log that stuff on their home network, that it doesn't mean other people aren't logging it on theirs.

      --
      XDInd
    6. Re:Fear solves nothing by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Wait, we can use Tor for torrenting now?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Fear solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's easy to find howtos on the internet, but don't ask me to link one, Tor is for serious things, its limited bandwidth should not be wasted to download the latest transformers. Canadians should use cyberlockers instead, it's more than enough to be safe. Furthermore, Tor would be an excessive and unnecessary measure in this case, the MPAA is not the NSA. They are just old, alcoholic cretins.

    8. Re:Fear solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant. They did not have to before.

      So now, if you want to find out who ANYBODY is, you can just file a bogus copyright complaint against them, and voila, you get their name and address.

      Great law.

    9. Re:Fear solves nothing by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I believe some of the ISPs give you an address in the 10.0.0.0 block so no using SSH to access your own system.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:Fear solves nothing by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I would not subscribe to an ISP that only gave me a NAT and not a registered IP.

    11. Re:Fear solves nothing by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Really it depends on your choices, Canada (at least some Provinces) is much like the States when it comes to choice of providers. If you're lucky you have the cable company and you have the phone company. Me I live on the outskirts of town so have very little choice, basically barbed wire, especially with the mountains limiting RF.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Fear solves nothing by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 3, Informative

      ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant.

      Actually, no. They need to ask an actual judge for a warrant first.

      https://torrentfreak.com/canad...

      Granted it's not an SCC ruling, but given the SCC just said even the police need a warrant, I'd say it's pretty solid.

      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

    13. Re:Fear solves nothing by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It'll get more common, though. The IPv4 pool is dry, which leaves NAT (Technically PAT, but everyone uses the term wrong anyway) as the only option. The only real solution to this is IPv6, but there's no commercial case for any ISP to deploy it until after everyone else has done so - and as it'll be both expensive to set up and initially unreliable due to the high number of misconfigured systems and unreachable destinations, no ISP wants to go first.

    14. Re:Fear solves nothing by itzly · · Score: 1

      My ISP (in EU) has been doing IPv6 experiments for years, and some time ago, they rolled it out as a standard. Every connection now uses dual IPv4 / IPv6. I never had to do anything on my side. It just works.

    15. Re:Fear solves nothing by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      You actually have to start legal proceedings to get their name and address. The cost of that is none-zero, so I don't see it being broadly used as a way to get people's info for other purposes.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:Fear solves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You always could. It's just not usually advised because the bandwidth used becomes enormous.

  12. Is it started yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm watching The Interview and it's funnier than expected.

  13. The long game by koan · · Score: 1

    All infringements stored for later use if you decide to protest the government or participate in the EFF, etc.

    No statute of limitations.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  14. $5000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm confused, why the hell is the limit $5K?

    How about capping it out at ten times the retail price of the item in question? That means for a $40 Bluray, you're on the hook for $400. I think that's more then fair considering most people would only watch it once then delete the file, so at worst the "copyright holders" are out a single sale. Of course, intent to distribute should be different since I really don't understand why anyone has to pirate then rip to disk and sell for personal gain (and I'm OK with that being criminal).

    I don't understand why modern day media is valued so much when they're selling this stuff at Futureshop for so little. All this does is tell me how toxic modern day copyright is, which just makes me want to stop spending money on movies and music all together (except for those few indie bands I can pay directly). Better to be safe and sorry (I was going to say "than", but then I realized as a Canadian I'm sorry all the time) and just avoid it all.

    1. Re:$5000? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      They're late in passing this law, and want to make sure the remaining pirates are bankrupt.

  15. It fails to provide the act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story fails to provide which parts of the act were changed, the courts in Canada have already ruled against such practice, this too shall not stand.

    1. Re:It fails to provide the act by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      The story fails to provide which parts of the act were changed, the courts in Canada have already ruled against such practice, this too shall not stand.

      Here. And no, the courts have not ruled against this, since the law has only been in force for one day.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  16. So can we get rid of the CD levy by headphones54321 · · Score: 1

    Now that they can chase down people who are (allegedly) downloading and distributing, can we get rid of the blank media levy - $0.29/CD, or laughably $0.24/cassette?

    1. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copying should still be quasi-legal due to the recordable media 'tax' but that is not the same as *downloading off the internet*

    2. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sux to be a canuk huh? Just a hop and skip from total socialist communism. One day you can hope for a better planet tilt and get some sun to see the light.

      But thanks for Celine.

    3. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to do that? The media tariff is basically your get-out-of-jail-free card here. Just buy one blank CD-R and keep the receipt. Then download all you want. When the media companies try to sue you, simply send them a copy of your receipt as proof that you paid for an unencumbered and universal home-use license via the government, in the proscribed manner, and direct them to send their demand for payment to the appropriate government office for servicing.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    4. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the benefits of being Canadian is that people like Celine get sucked down into the states and we don't have to look at them anymore. You are more than welcome to keep her.

    5. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, due to the media levy it is still legal to make personal copies of music (it never was legal for video etc) including downloading off the internet. Besides there is no levy on a blank DVD and it is more useful.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So fast to disown Teh Shatner? About as famous as any canadian who has ever lived he is.

      The begging question is, why would these superstars leave the great white north? Uh-huh. Because they can!.

    7. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tariffs should just have been updated to include all forms of (computer)media storage instead of just CD-R. Really I don't think the US media corps even deserve that much but if it shuts them up.....

      I really wish Americans would wake the fuck up and get the corps out of their govs asshole. It's really starting(lol...starting) to piss people off and makes you look really dumb. Copyright was never supposed to last forever. It certainly wasn't designed to enable a WORLD FUCKING WIDE MONOPOLY on entertainment media.

    8. Re:So can we get rid of the CD levy by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So fast to disown Teh Shatner? About as famous as any canadian who has ever lived he is.

      The begging question is, why would these superstars leave the great white north? Uh-huh. Because they can!.

      Sadly, it's worth it if you guys keep Justin Bieber out of our hair.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  17. missleading / incorrect summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a takedown of the new law and it's effects by Canadian law professor Michael Geist: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/notice-difference-new-canadian-internet-copyright-rules-isps-set-launch/

    Some notes:
    The notice-and-notice system "has operated informally for over a decade but will kick in as the law in 2015 ...".

    Under this system "copyright owners are entitled to send infringement notices to Internet providers, who are legally required to forward the notifications ..."

    ISP's must "retain information on the subscriber for six months (or 12 months if court proceedings are launched)".

    "[T]he personal information of subscribers is not disclosed to the copyright owner ... If the copyright owner is unhappy with only sending a notification and wants to proceed with further legal action, they must go to court to obtain an order requiring the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the subscriber".

    "Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded".

    1. Re:missleading / incorrect summary by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      "Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded".

      That is per rights holder. If you've downloaded 10 works from one rights holder, they can get no more than $5k. However if you've downloaded 10 works from 10 different rights holders, you may end up on the receiving end of ten law suits, with total potential fine of $50k. Both amounts not counting legal costs.

  18. Outsourced internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, that cha-ching sound you're hearing is the sound of VPN, Proxy, and seedbox providers in more freer countries taking New customers from Canada - welcome aboard :)

    1. Re:Outsourced internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no, the next logical step will be to block VPN and proxy use, unless I suppose you're 'registered' with the ISP. You'll be flat-out denied access to them, and anyone doing an end-run around their blocks will have their service cut off, and maybe reported to their version of the FBI for investigation of potential criminal activity. Same would go for being caught using Tor, because everybody knows only pedophiles and criminals use Tor, right?

      What a bunch of fucking bullshit.

      Prediction: This 'law' of theirs will fall on it's face, causing no increase in revenue for media companies due to lawsuit. Repeat after me, everyone: You can't stop the signal, Mal. Bytes want to be FREE; you can't stop them.

    2. Re:Outsourced internets by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Yep, that cha-ching sound you're hearing is the sound of VPN, Proxy, and seedbox providers in more freer countries taking New customers from Canada - welcome aboard :)

      I wonder how true that is.

      First off, most VPN and Proxy providers don't provide one IP per subscriber - it's shared among multiple subscribers (through NAT, usually). So if you're using a VPN or proxy server with 10 other people at the same time, an IP address will not pinpoint a guilty party. What's the provider to do - send 10 notices out?

      I mean, depending on how those notices are worded, you could argue that you're being extorted (9 people can argue that, but I'm sure the 10th will too) for money since you didn't do anything wrong and they're asking money.

      In fact, a lot of VPNs in the US have a "real time DMCA" function (apparently it's a TCP port or something), but that function always fails if more than one user is on it because you cannot conclusively identify the user (the real-time part means the notice is sent while the user is still doing the activity because there are no logs, so you can only send an alert while the user is doing it).

      So the general gist of it is - use a server that's got multiple people on it because really, short of exact connection tracking and logging, it's going to be problematic to pinpoint who is committing the activity. Unless you're going to force logging of all connections to users.

      Of course, one might want to avoid using the port forwarding feature of the VPN service if they can trace it to a specific port (for incoming connections).

      (My VPN service is based in the US, mostly for netflix and stuff).

    3. Re:Outsourced internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you apparently haven't heard the news... you all should be using anonymous location hiding darknets like I2P and Phantom for all your filesharing. Nothing better than sending a big permanent fuck you to the MAFIAA while sharing all your your warez at the same time.

    4. Re:Outsourced internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm predicting a great year for Tribler. It's free, more dependable than any of the paid-for services in terms of security, all it needs is a bigger swarm.

  19. Downloading only vs torrenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, how does this work. It says they target downloaders, but in the article it says companies might sue if they KEEP downloading, or posting it. So it sounds like the law actually is targeting uploaders.

    Is this law targeting seeders then? Or anyone who downloads from a non-sharing place, like Usenet or Mega.

  20. Why is it up the the ISP's? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    After all with out a computer there would be no way for me to download anything so why is an ISP being the target? Why don't they go after the hardware/computer manufactures for building electronics that will aid in piracy? Oh yah most ISP's either own content channels so probably get better deals on licensing (Shaw/Rogers/Bell) or they are small enough to be crushed through litigation costs.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Why is it up the the ISP's? by ruir · · Score: 1

      This is simple, they are barriers of entry to the market and should be illegal. Only the big ones have enough traction, time and people, and know how to be basically working for free for the media cartels. The pa & mon ISPs have no chance at that.

  21. How Does that Work for us Canadians? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    OK, from my understanding the US and other countries have been getting warning letters for a while now, there are even countries where the isp is supposed to kick you off (right?). But I sort of get the impression that people in the US still pirate stuff. How does is work? Am I definitely going to get warning letters now? Will I only get warning letters if I pirate popular modern things, like game of thrones? And then what? Somehow I find it hard to believe that all Canadians will now have to pay for Game of Thrones or stop watching it?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:How Does that Work for us Canadians? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      You will only get warning letters if you're downloading copyrighted stuff that:

      1. the rights holder is monitoring,
      2. from a service the rights holder is monitoring,
      3. if they can identify you somehow.

      Using encryption and built-in blacklists (of known monitoring sites) will help a lot.

      So the race is on for torrent client developers to make it even harder to track who's downloading what.

  22. HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is DOWNLOADING illegal?
    Since when is copyright infringement as a non commercial individual not a civil issue?

    1. Re:HUH? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Since when is DOWNLOADING illegal? Since when is copyright infringement as a non commercial individual not a civil issue?

      Illegal: against the law. The law is clear, and the copyright holders have, under this law, the right to institute proceedings against downloaders. That is a civil action.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law is clear

      What fantasy world are you living in?

  23. VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a simple solution, use a VPN.

  24. Retirement Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if an entrepreneur wanted to get rich quick by coaxing Canadians into illegally downloading his copy written content, what theme would foster the most downloads?

  25. this will work well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    cause every attempt at stopping p2p has worked in the past...

  26. Does this mean ISPs are now required to keep logs? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

    It sounds like it is implicit in this law that ISPs are now required to keep records of IP address assignments in the event they are later given a notice of suspected copyright infringement so they can pass it along to their customers. Is this true, or does the law only apply to ISPs that already have this information? I understand most ISPs probably already to keep this information, but does this new law mean that they now have to? And what constitutes an ISP? If I use the free WiFi at Starbucks, do they need to keep my personal info in case I'm later accused of infringing copyright? What about the public library if I have to use my userid to log in? What about universities?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  27. "are also now be" ? by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    Unpossible!

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  28. ^This by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    I'd mod up but already posted.

    Michael Geist's analysis is right on as usual.

  29. Re:Does this mean ISPs are now required to keep lo by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

    If I use the free WiFi at Starbucks, do they need to keep my personal info in case I'm later accused of infringing copyright?

    Do they ask you for ID?

  30. When do you suppose... by OldSport · · Score: 1

    ...that VPNs are made illegal or otherwise effectively blocked from operating? I give the golden age of VPNs another three years, tops.

    1. Re:When do you suppose... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      VPN doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:When do you suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... VPNs are made illegal or otherwise effectively blocked ...

      It may be done under the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument. But a lot of businesses demand better security than TLS, so this will be a very difficult sell.

      An alternative to VPN is TOR, although governments around the world have been trying to undo its security features for some time. If VPN is blocked, most people will be forced onto TOR. Such a result would be disastrous for the government since any investigation would first have to separate the innocuous traffic from the nefarious traffic.

    3. Re:When do you suppose... by OldSport · · Score: 1

      Commercial VPN services.

  31. Misconceptions abound. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having been working diligently around the upcoming regulations, things that need to be showcased with these laws:

    1. The maximum fine for all infringements you may have is $5000, not individually, but in bulk.
    2. The ISP will not provide names or addresses of anyone to the copyright holder. They ISP's are meant to pass on the information to the copyright holder, the most cost effective via email. (prepare to see a resurgence of paper bills and a scrub of emails.
    3. If a copyright holder would like to prosecute, they have to apply to the courts to have the information released by the ISP.

  32. Good luck ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck, torrents will soon be obsolete when the storj project finishes :) See if you can snoop on that :)

  33. Re:Does this mean ISPs are now required to keep lo by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Often, yes. It's common at wifi hotspots to be presented with a captive portal. You have to enter your mobile phone number, they text you a code, you enter the code to unlock the portal. That way they have tied your identity to a phone number.

  34. Re:Does this mean ISPs are now required to keep lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    solution pay as you go burner phone

  35. Fortunatly VPN providers arn't ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have the same stazi laws in Sweden. Fortunately they do not cover VPN providers... So now they have created revenue for the pirates by making people pay for access to pirated media via VPN's (many run by torrent sites). Way to go to make piracy an even greater problem!

  36. "How does is work?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, how does "is" work...

    American idiot.

    1. Re:"How does is work?" by wassomeyob · · Score: 1

      I think this is what he's looking for: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

    2. Re:"How does is work?" by wassomeyob · · Score: 1

      Or to quote another of your politicians: http://youtu.be/-ej7ZEnjSeA

  37. Almost everything you download is copyrighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything with few exceptions on a web page are under copyright protection. Unsolicited advertisements, logos, news articles, photos, Youtube videos, Pandora radio streams, everything on Github and Sourceforge, Windows Updates, Linux updates, Adobe updates, AV definition files, see a trend here?

    They may no differentiation between viewed with permission and viewed without permission. It is still copyrighted. GPL code, I hope the ISP has a huge repository to keep records. Recording every news article, photo, ad logo, ad jingle, ad text, etc, is going to take a huge amount of meta data storage. You think the NSA has storage problems with just SMS text and phone meta data. Keeping track of every content that I download and view is beyond their capacity to record it. Most of it IS Copyrighted. Even everything under Creative Commons is Copyrighted.

      Do ISP's get to choose and pick what they record, or are they REQUIRED to record all copyrighted content downloaded and viewed?

    Is this law simply a NSA metadata requirement for Canadian ISP's? Good luck with that.

    Have you read Slashdot's Copyright policy regarding each individual's posts? This post Copyrighted 2015. I do grant you permission to download and view it. You may even copy and distribute this post as you see fit. No attribution or payment is required. Bonus points if you hand it to the judge in the first Canadian Copyright case under the new law.

    Don't believe me? Just scroll to the bottom of the page and read this gem..
    Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © 2014 Dice. All Rights Reserved. Slashdot is a Dice Holdings, Inc. service.

    Oops, I just committed a copyright violation. See you in court.

    1. Re:Almost everything you download is copyrighted by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      All they have to do is keep the time period when someone was assigned an ip address. Someone makes a complaint wrt your ip, you get a notice. If they decide to sue, your ISP can be forced to cough up the personal info connected with that ip..

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  38. i call bogus on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian, our current law is it is only illegal to share, NOT illegal to download. Ive had friends receive those letters from ISP's and the ISP says, turn off your upload (in technical words).

  39. Re:Does this mean ISPs are now required to keep lo by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    Then yes. And I would expect they have been keeping that info all along.

  40. I2P - Tribbler- Etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F-em

  41. VPN by RobertFishwick · · Score: 1

    Excuse my ignorance, but if you use Hola as I do and set your location to another country, would your ISP still know that you were downloading files from where you actually are ??

  42. Yep, politicians and business combining. by Bust0ut · · Score: 1

    An then there are hackers in the world? No way!

    --
    He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.