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."
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.