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."
Let me guess, a right wing government, always the best than money can buy.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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?
link
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.
For fuck sakes if we're going to go full on america up here can we get rid of the fucking tariff please
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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?
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".
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 :)
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.
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*
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.
It's a simple solution, use a VPN.
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.
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.
cause every attempt at stopping p2p has worked in the past...
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?
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).
Wrong planet!
Unpossible!
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I'd mod up but already posted.
Michael Geist's analysis is right on as usual.
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?
...that VPNs are made illegal or otherwise effectively blocked from operating? I give the golden age of VPNs another three years, tops.
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.
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.
I think this is what he's looking for: http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Or to quote another of your politicians: http://youtu.be/-ej7ZEnjSeA
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.
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.
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.
Then yes. And I would expect they have been keeping that info all along.
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 ??
An then there are hackers in the world? No way!
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.