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."

8 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Michael Geist's opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. 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: 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.
  3. 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".

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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...