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."

19 of 61 comments (clear)

  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 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!
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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...

  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. 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 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.

    3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

    ...Re-blog a handbag...

  7. 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!

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.