Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-know-what-you-did-last-summer dept.

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."

32 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  2. 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?

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

    link

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.
  7. $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.

  8. 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".

  9. 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 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).

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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
  21. 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?

  22. 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...

  23. 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
  24. 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.