Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Anti-Piracy Firm Caught Infringing Copyright

Posted by Soulskill on from the of-pots-and-kettles dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Canipre, a Montreal-based intellectual property enforcement firm, yesterday issued a press release announcing an infringement monitoring program designed to take advantage of the Canada's new copyright notice-and-notice system. Yet a new report indicates that the company may itself be engaged in copyright infringement, with a director's blog posting dozens of full-text articles from media organizations around the world, often without attribution and some that are subscription-only content."

61 comments

  1. Same ole, same ole ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Do as we say, not as we do." History repeating itself, they're trying to get more customers to run what basically will amount to an extortion racket.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re: Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're a troll spammer, who cares what gender they are.

    2. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We just made a simple mistake. You did it on purpose!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is ten+ years old now, but Orrin Hatch is still a sitting senator. Good to remind ourselves stuff like this happened.

    4. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd expect from a company that claims to be the crusader for copyright to understand it. Guess it either means that they themselves don't give a shit about what they claim to protect, they just want to milk it for money. Or even an expert on it can't understand it 'cause the friggin' crap is borked beyond repair.

      You decide.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by whining_time · · Score: 1

      Or... They are trying to get themselves fined/punished which they intend to use as reference for suits brought forward by them...

    6. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not both?

    7. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Because with the combination of malice and incompetence they could earn a lot more in politics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, that is what happens if you let criminal organizations run the show....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      But do his computers still exist?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      I'd expect from a company that claims to be the crusader for copyright to understand it.

      The part they infringed upon is easy to understand (downloading and redistribution of stuff they find online, exactly what many lawsuits are fought over, and specifically what they always tell the public is not OK to do), so misunderstanding the matter is indeed not likely. So it's likely the first: they don't give a damn.

    11. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Understanding and respecting the spit are two very different things. If you look at the various studios that are pushing hardline copyright enforcement, they generally have massive internal problems with copyright violations themselves. However they tend to have the legal staff to either buy off the offended party after the fact or run them into bankruptcy via the court system. They see copyright as THEIR tool to use against others, not something that has to be respected or followed when it come to peons. Very similiar to military power actually...

    12. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I'm going to take some from column A.

      It might be hard to prove a copyright infringement to the level needed for prosecution based only on an IP address and a file name, but copyright infringement is boneheaded easy to "detect" if you're sitting there watching when it happens (and doubly so when you're causing it to happen.) You don't even need to be a lawyer to realize that "derp copying something without permission is infringing the copyright."

      The only times it would be even remotely questionable is if the work you're copy is close enough to expiring into the public domain and you're not sure exactly what date it will release on (given the perpetual retroactive extensions, differing laws in different countries, etc) or if you've got an agreement but its too vague (lots of "free for X type use" software has this problem for mid-sized companies -- for example does a 5 user license mean 5 installs? 5 simultaneous connections? A lot of licenses aren't always 100% clear on the boundary conditions. If you've only got one or two users its obvious that you're below 5. If you have 20 users its obvious you're above it. If you've got 6 users and its not something they use 100% of the time, then you may find yourself infringing for a few hours a week but not the rest of the time and probably don't even realize if/when its happening.)

      But flat out copying articles from webpages without explicit permission or even attribution is almost certainly not a grey area, no matter how basic your understanding of the law.

    13. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precicely! Hypocrites!

    14. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    15. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      But flat out copying articles from webpages without explicit permission or even attribution is almost certainly not a grey area, no matter how basic your understanding of the law.

      There's also fair use/fair dealing which does allow some copyright infringement such as the quote of your copyrighted post above. A very gray area.
      Also our Conservative government recently was planning to amend the copyright act to allow more use of copyrighted material as they want to use stuff for their attack ads and the copyright holders were saying no so they were/are making it legal. This government is a law and order government and every time they get caught breaking the law, they change the law to make it legal or at least to stop the government agency in charge from reporting it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Any sufficient level of Incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Same ole, same ole ... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's government. Last time I did a government job here in Canada, there were old as dirt IBM and netware servers made in 1988 running everything.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. Hypocrisy? by bhlowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hypocrisy on the net, in politics, or in real life is about the most common "scandal" you can find. But its fun click-bait.

  3. infringement is infringment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and some that are subscription-only content.

    So what? Copyright infringement cares not a whit whether it's subscription-only or not.

    Is the point that the two-faced bastard had to work harder to infringe? Or that he had to pay for the content that he's infringing?

    1. Re:infringement is infringment by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It means he couldn't have reasonably thought it was free to distribute. So no excuses.

    2. Re:infringement is infringment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Is the point that the two-faced bastard had to work harder to infringe?

      Yes, that's exactly the point. Some people believe, erroneously, that putting material on a public web site voids the copyright. However, in order for the web to work, clearly there must be some form of implicit licence when you put material on a public site or no-one would be allowed to lawfully download it so they can view it. That argument does not hold for content that is hidden behind some sort of registration scheme or paywall, where typically there would be explicit terms for accessing the material that you must actively accept.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:infringement is infringment by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not sure about Canada, but in the USA the fines for infringement can be significantly larger for 'wilful infringement', which means that you must prove that the infringer knew that what they were doing was in violation of the relevant laws. If you distribute something that you were under the impression was in the public domain, or licensed in such a way that would permit distribution in the way that you are distributing it, then the penalties are typically lower. If you are an organisation responsible for telling people about copyright law and the stuff that you are infringing needed a subscription to access, then there's no defence against accusations of wilful infringement.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:infringement is infringment by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Some people believe, erroneously, that putting material on a public web site voids the copyright. However, in order for the web to work, clearly there must be some form of implicit licence when you put material on a public site or no-one would be allowed to lawfully download it so they can view it.

      There's an implicit license that you can view the articles and download everything in the course of viewing the articles. Saving a copy for yourself (say by printing to PDF) would be valid fair use. So would quoting a section of the article and linking to it. However, copying the entire article and posting it without even giving the courtesy of attribution is bad form and major copyright infringement. (It could be considered plagiarism too if the posting made it look like he was the author given the lack of attribution, but I don't know if there are any criminal penalties for plagiarism.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  4. It's not copyright infringement... by Subm · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We're okay. It's not copyright infringement. It's theft."

    1. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      "We're okay. It's not copyright infringement. It's theft."

      "We're okay. It's not copyright infringement. It's theft."

      "We're okay. It's not copyright infringement. It's theft."

      Technically, it's not theft if he wrote all those articles himself.

      This kind of thing actually happens quite often. When a journalist is about to miss a deadline, he goes to a PR dept or an advocacy group. The PR department, which is staffed by former professional journalists (except that they're being paid far better than their counterpart), effectively write a unique article for the struggling journalist, and with a nudge and wink tell him or her, that he can just use the article in its entirety and take full credit for tit.

      Of course, the struggling journalist is free to edit such an article if wishes, but if the PR department is lucky enough, or if the writers on staff at that PR dept are skillful enough, the struggling journalist may just take the lazy way out and just republish the entire story as is - without changing a single word. And when that happens, the PR person just feels like has won the jackpot, and then goes up and down the corporation telling every executive he may find, that someone from a reputable news outlet has copied his article verbatim and published it under his own name.

      And no, before someone says it, that kind of article can't look like it's just another press release with too many buzzwords. That's actually the point of it. it must look enough like a real original article for a struggling journalist to actually want to plagiarize it.

    2. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      And no, before someone says it, that kind of article can't look like it's just another press release with too many buzzwords.

      Are you joking, 95% of mass-media articles are rehashed/reprinted press releases from their sponsors, the other 5% are editorials extolling the virtues of the companies that provided the press release, that's how the news industry have always made their money - sponsors. However that does not give anyone the legal right to republish the full article from the media outlet, doing so is a clear case of infringement, actually it's willful infringement considering what he does for a living.

      The proper thing to do would be the same as what is done here on Slashdot all the time, "fair use" (currently*) allows anyone to quote a few relevant lines and supply a link to the source.

      * - If Rupert had his way, supplying a link to one of his rehashed press releases would require a payment to him

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technically, it's not theft if he wrote all those articles himself.

      Close, but not correct: "it's not 'theft' if he owned the copyright on those articles, or has a license to distribute them".

      Having written something yourself doesn't mean you own the copyright on it: e.g. if a journalist writes an article for the newspaper he works for, the copyright usually goes to the newspaper. Another situation where you may not distribute your own stuff, is if you write something, and then license it on exclusive basis to someone. Though in this case it may actually be breach of contract rather than breach of copyright.

      In both cases, however, the author should be very well aware of what he may or may not do with his own work.

    4. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Rupert had his way, supplying a link to one of his rehashed press releases would require a payment to him

      Spain is trying that out right as we speak. I'm gearing up to laugh heartily when that entire concept explodes spectacularly in their face, and they're forced to rescind their ridiculous laws.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was piracy!?

    6. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, it was already blowing up. Instead of rescinding the laws, however, they've doubled down and tried to make it mandatory for Google to link to them. In other words, they want to force Google to pay these sites and Google won't be able to drop them no matter what.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of thing doesn't happen quite often, Stephan. In fact, it doesn't happen very much at all. Your generalizations about "struggling journalists" make no sense and your cynicism is based on ignorance, not any real knowledge of how the media works. Do you have any actual examples in any legitimate publications? Have you ever had the displeasure of reading the copy of the average PR professional?

    8. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      95 per cent, eh? You must read a lot of news! Or, perhaps you read absolutely none at all, judging by your opinion of the media. You don't appear to understand how the media is funded or the difference between editorial content and news content. On the Media from NPR is a good start to learn more!

    9. Re:It's not copyright infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the next step? Send in the Policia to stick a gun in their face and just take the money?

  5. Didn they already get cought by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    once before when they first appreaed on the scene? Something to do with their website and the desing or something.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Didn they already get cought by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Wow my spelling :hides:

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    2. Re:Didn they already get cought by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just washed your hands and can't do a thing with 'em, eh? :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  6. Would appear the article was rewritten by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    The copyrighted infringement items removed and links supplied.

    Less than a page of text it must of been a huge article with the infringements included.

    1. Re:Would appear the article was rewritten by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Ha, wrong link I hit the third link which reported the infringements which itself has the links of quoted used.

      My bad, ignore

    2. Re:Would appear the article was rewritten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of gibberish is "must of been"? Did you mean "must have been"? Or perhaps you intended to be slangy and write "must've been"?

  7. Headline vs. Summary by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Caught in Infringement"

    "...may itself be engaged in copyright infringement..."

    I guess the headline was deemed to be more eye-grabby.

    1. Re:Headline vs. Summary by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If it was a headline from them about someone they thought was infringing, do you think they'd worry about the niceties? It wouldn't be "alleged", or "may", it would be "Obvious Pirate is Pirating Content"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Headline vs. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may or may not be a definite possibility that infringement is suspected.

  8. Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    to Quebec.

  9. Sauce for the goose: sounds OK to me by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Surely this is "fair use" isn't it? ;-)

    1. Re:Sauce for the goose: sounds OK to me by ustolemyname · · Score: 1

      Surely this is "fair dealing" isn't it? ;-)

      FTFY, don't forget this is Canada ;)

  10. Those hosers stepped on their dick, eh ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they can at least drink some Labatt's and feel better.

  11. You wouldn't... by klingers48 · · Score: 3

    ...Re-blog a handbag...

    1. Re:You wouldn't... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But I'd go to the toilet on the blog...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Revolving door criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't the first time canipre have been identified as "thieves":

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/15/2110243/anti-infringement-company-caught-infringing-on-its-website

    I believe it's time we throw the book at these commercial pirates. They clearly aren't learning from their mistakes!

  13. Read the articles by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Ok, there's a lot of nonsense on here about Hypocrisy... but I suspect he didn't even realize he was infringing.

    But there's still plenty of room for getting him good here. Often the people they claim are pirates don't know they're pirating either... but they don't think that's an excuse. And your grandma ends up torrenting that movie for 6 months and thousands of people download it... they think those are all violations as well.

    So Slashdot his site... hundreds of thousands of people read those "pirated" news articles... then demand he compensate the original authors...

    1. Re:Read the articles by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ok, there's a lot of nonsense on here about Hypocrisy...but I suspect he didn't even realize he was infringing

      You're more trusting than I am. Grandma looks after 15 cats and writes the church newsletter, this guy runs a company that tracks down people on the internet and tales them to court for infringement. I (reasonably) suspect willful commercial infringement by someone who (IMO) has a broken moral compass and a natural talent for manipulating the justice system.

      BTW - It's true, "we're all hypocrites in our own way", but this arsehole's extreme sense of entitlement still gets up my nose.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Read the articles by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I (reasonably) suspect willful commercial infringement by someone who (IMO) has a broken moral compass and a natural talent for manipulating the justice system.

      Not to mention a view of copyright that essentially says "Nobody can copy my stuff without my permission. Everyone else's stuff is fair game for me to copy, though, as I see fit."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  14. How do you know they haven't gotten permission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article assumes a lot. How do you know they haven't asked for and received permission to republish the articles and photos from the copyright holders? We have no way of knowing what license agreement, if any, they have made with the copyright holders.

    1. Re:How do you know they haven't gotten permission? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      Because usually when that happens there is a footnote acknowledging the original source.

  15. Canipre is prounounced.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Can I prey?"

    Just thought I'd clear that up.

  16. I am shocked... by bikin · · Score: 1

    I am shocked, shocked to find that copyright infringement is going on here!

    1. Re:I am shocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My theory, it's a EULA violation.

      They read the first 5 words of the EULA, decided that slowly plucking their own fingernails out would be more fun, and clicked Agree. And somewhere around page 59 the EULA reads "if the user blinks while using this software that is a violation of these terms."

  17. Re:suspect he didn't even realize he was infringin by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I would like to stand in friendly relations to you but ratchet up the rhetoric where it needs to go on this kind of stuff.

    "...suspect he didn't even realize he was infringing". No. Just no. But before we get to the big ticket reason why, let's go to an extremely important edge case why.

    Look at YouTube. Look at the multi millions of things posted by random accounts. (Who really identifies with handles like grap3fruuit77 anyway?!) Account posts a song, let's say it's Justin Bieber, because this is a Canadian story and I'm sure he has a fan up there. Up goes the song, and the comments say: "I don't own this song! I'm just posting it!"

    We should get a slashdot researcher to get 10,000 of these people into a sports stadium on an off day and ask them all "Sure. You don't own it. So why did you post it?" ... Because we're in the middle of an unspoken civil revolution that is subconsciously trying to evolve the meaning of copyrights. It just feels different because it's Not A Cat Picture and/or Not On Facebook.

    Now let's look at this guy. He's a "Managing Director, Operations" for a copyright attack dog. Of *course* he realizes he's infringing. He just believes he's above petty little laws for peons. And for a time, he might be.

    We need a quiet little voice for the people with big bucks to take these specific kinds of cases, where the copyright guys break their own rules, and pound them into the ground. No settlements, and keep after them if they play shell-company-monte.

    Sure, random mid execs in a grain and textile company, whatever. Managing Directors for Operations for copyright attack dogs, no.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. Missing from the story.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this story really needs is some information about who, specifically, is suing these people for infringement.

    What, nobody is? Well, whaddya know. Maybe they paid for, or otherwise lawfully obtained, the rights to republish those articles. It's not unusual, newspapers do it all the time, and although it's usual to give an attribution, it's not an invariable rule by any means.