Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Government Steps In To Stop Misleading Infringement Notices

Posted by Soulskill on from the drawing-the-wrong-kind-of-attention dept.

Dangerous_Minds writes: Recently, misleading notices were spotted being sent out by Rightscorp. Michael Geist posted the letter which, among other things, cites U.S. laws, says the Canadians could be on the hook for $150,000 (does not actually exist in the recent copyright reforms now in force), and that payments should be made directly to the company. Apparently, the Canadian government was not amused and has announced that they will be speaking with rightsholders and ISPs to address the concerns that were raised. The government says, "These notices are misleading and companies cannot use them to demand money from Canadians."

103 comments

  1. That was quick ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October). Maybe we should have elections EVERY year (like Italy)?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:That was quick ... by namgge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder which politician has been sent one of these notices...

    2. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was handled directly by the politicians and didn't get sent successively to the bilingualism committee, the first nations rights committee, the federal-provincial affairs committee, the handicapped rights committee, the lesbian-gay-transgender rights committee, three slumbering Senate committees, et decelera ad nauseum?

    3. Re:That was quick ... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably none. Despite the whining that people go on about the government here in Canada, they actually do productive things. They have stepped in the past to deal with issues from "autonomous government agencies" like the CRTC, but I'm sure someone is going to whine and cry about my post anyway.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:That was quick ... by davecb · · Score: 2

      I don't like the party in power, but you have to admit they're not slow!

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    5. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was most content when we had a minority government, of any type. It keeps the politicians on a short leash. An election every year wouldn't be necessary *IF* the government in power consulted and respected the wishes of the rest of Parliament and the people they represent (i.e. exactly the way it should be all the time).

    6. Re:That was quick ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).

      This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

    7. Re:That was quick ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).

      This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

      WHAT?!?! They already said they are going to give them a strong talking-to. Geeze some people are never satisfied!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:That was quick ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Governments tend to react quickly when someone tries to butt into their business: I.e. deciding what laws apply to the area they claim jurisdiction for.

      How long do you think the US government would take to react to a Canadian company mailing US citizens and telling them that Canadian law applied to them and they should heed it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:That was quick ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's fraud, but someone has to step forward and file a criminal complaint before anything can be done.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:That was quick ... by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Except Harper government is a majority government so the election is not going to happen anytime soon.

    11. Re: That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      October.

    12. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And cry I shal, CanCon requirements for streaming services.

    13. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: DID productive things, as in past tense. With harper at the helm, we've been circling the bowl and his hand is on the handle.

    14. Re:That was quick ... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Assuming they follow their own law (Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act, passed in 2007), the next election is on October 19, 2015, the third Monday in October, 4 years after the last election.

      Constitutionally, the latest an election could occur is in early July of 2016, as Parliament would have be dissolved by May 23rd.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. Re:That was quick ... by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      As an inveterate hater of the Harper Govt. I am deeply pissed that they have done the right thing here.

      If on nothing else, on this issue, they do seem to know their ass from their elbow.

    16. Re:That was quick ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Probably none. Despite the whining that people go on about the government here in Canada, they actually do productive things. They have stepped in the past to deal with issues from "autonomous government agencies" like the CRTC, but I'm sure someone is going to whine and cry about my post anyway.

      Unlikely. The CRTC thing happened because it literally blew up in their face and the publicity behind it was growing. Even then it took months for something to happen - before the media got wind of it and it literally blew up. That's when government acted - because everyone started making noise about it. When it was just a few posts on an online forum, nothing.

      This thing was a tiny paragraph in an editorial section. There is hardly any coverage of the notice-and-notice system, and I think most people probably didn't even know about it.

      The only difference in this case is the ISP is sent a letter and the ISP forwards it on. The thing is, the "rights holders" have no idea who the letters are being sent to (you have to go to court to find out) so there's no way to filter out the notices by address (I'm certain in the US they note if they're about to send a letter to a politician or their family and "lose" it). And since it began on January 1, I'm sure all the companies were arming themselves to send notices out.

      And I'm sure more than a few politicians got the notice - it's easy in Canada thanks to the fact that despite being right next door to the US, TV programming often comes later, we don't have quite as many music stores (it's basically iTunes - seems DRM-free destroyed all the other music stores), Netflix in Canada is a joke, and streaming radio... well, we have spotify and rdio. So pirating is sorta routine. And the end result is probably more than a few politicians getting the letter and wondering why they're citing US laws and all that.

      And there probably were more than a few calls to the ISP about them and mentioning changes in Canadian law.

      And knowing ISP incompetence from the big guys, I'm sure this will repeatedly keep happening as ISPs fail to filter out the notices that were supposed to go to politicians.

      Remember, Geist got a letter forwarded to him by the ISP who was about to send it onwards. Quite likely a number of politicians got sent one because of their family members or something.

    17. Re:That was quick ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I see this more of a "stop doing this until after the election so we don't have to deal with little-people backlash over having just passed this very copyright-holder friendly batch of laws".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    18. Re:That was quick ... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      that they have done the right thing here.

      Done the right thing? Passed a law slavishly devoted to the copyright industry's wishes? So mindlessly copied the US version that it contained the same decade-known flaw, an absence of penalties for false-notices, fraudulent-notices, spamming robo-notices, allowing 3rd party companies to create whole business models around extorting fake "fines" out of people? How is any of that the "right thing"?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    19. Re:That was quick ... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

      Even that isn't enough. Any system that gives aid and comfort to the extortionists is, by definition, corrupt. An appropriate response would be to create a centralised, universal licensing system to replace existing individual rights-holding licensing. Ends exclusive licenses, therefore prevents region blocking (by allowing other companies to exploit the absence), allows competition and model-differentiation in the distribution marketplace, allows artists to register directly and easily, letting them bypass the Big Four. And sends a clear message that if you don't play nicely with other children, we will take your toys away.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    20. Re:That was quick ... by lonecrow · · Score: 2

      Quick and productive. Like how quickly and productively they passed policy forbidding government scientists from speaking to any press lest "facts" that disagree with government ideology leak out. Or how quickly and productively they shut down the environmental round table. The Environmental Round Table was specifically set up to provide spin free info to parliamentarians so at least they could have the facts. When asked why they de-funded it, they said flat out " We de-funded it because it continued to put out reports that disagreed with government policy".

      Ideology 1, Evidence 0
      Game set and match

    21. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

    22. Re:That was quick ... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      I don't like the party in power, but like the alternatives even less. Each of the current sides do the bidding of either corporate or union masters and use various tactics to demonize their opponents. It ends up always being a case of 'pick the side that's going to profit me the most'. Win for democracy?

    23. Re:That was quick ... by davecb · · Score: 1

      I think we have a problem involving a lack of negative feedback. If I'm PM, I can do anything I want, and no-one can stop me. If I'm an ill-advised liberal I can do as much damage as an ill-advised conservative and equally as much as a deliberate "Dr Evil". That's probably a bad thing...

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    24. Re:That was quick ... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      The PM's near impunity is a mixed bag. In some cases it allows a leader to do what he or she thinks is best for the country, regardless how public opinion views the decision. The public must wait for the next election to 'voice' their displeasure. A good example was the unpopular Brian Mulroney who pushed through both the NA Free Trade Agreement and the 7% general sales tax. It should be noted that Chretien campaigned on removing the tax, was voted in, and immediately stated that it was never a campaign promise. Of course the Liberal shills remember fondly the subsequent years as the time when their party balanced the books, ignoring the fact that it was on the backs of the tax payers due to a broken 7% promise.

    25. Re:That was quick ... by davecb · · Score: 1

      In a now far-past age, we had a fix for this. Politicians of the "family compact" era fought hard against "responsible government", which made ministers responsible for their departments, and honour-bound to resign from cabinet when they failed in their undertakings.

      It was imposed anyway as part of Lord Durhams' reforms, much to their displeasure.

      Over time, governments have become more resistant to losing votes and ministers have become very resistant to stepping down for anything other than cheesing off the PM. Just flat lying to the electorate has become popular, here, in the UK and the US.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    26. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you get half points for the class warfare "Tories profit me most", but only half, as you fail to disclose your comfort with their social policies that marginalize more than just the poor. Wouldn't you be happier in the USA?

    27. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mulroney's government passed the US/Canada FTA, and not NAFTA. That came later, when Chretien was Prime Minister.

      Chretien's government ran a running battle with several Liberal Senators who for some time refused to back down on litigation started against the predecessor government; Graham and MacEachen in particular had a strong claim that the GST legislation was improperly passed through Parliament. The winning argument for abandoning those suits and private members' bills to repeal the GST was that it was so entrenched by that point that rolling back would damage the economy (which while highly speculative was also sufficiently persuasive, apparently). Additionally, the argument was on a political fault-line between the Martinites and the Chretienites (and also the old Trudeauites who were not wholly aligned with Chretien) in the Liberal party, and Martin was strongly in favour of retaining the GST -- with some changes and with the eventual goal of a VAT-like tax uniformly applied across Canada by the federal and provincial governments in cooperation. There was enough party infighting even early in the Chretien era that a peaceful compromise was arrived at in Cabinet, in spite of what many backbenchers (and Liberal supporters) believed they had been promised.

    28. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are romanticizing the past, and Lambton (Durham) in particular.

      "Responsible government" in the Westminster tradition has always meant that the Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament, and the equivalent relation in each province. The "family compact" and "chateau clique" held paid positions in executive councils that had no direct responsibility to any legislature or electorate yet could produce secondary legislation at will (when the executive councils could be bothered to do anything at all). They had already faced a decade of criticism from the Whigs in the British House of Commons, which was keen on diluting their abuses of power.

      The cliquists and compactists reaction to the expansion of the franchise driven by pressure from London and from local Reformers (who were increasingly a presence in the respective legislative assemblies) was to appoint themselves to the legislative councils and to deny the elected lower houses their right to originate money bills of their own volition (cf. the Royal Recommendation, Constitution Act 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54).

      Far from "reforms" to fix this, and in spite of him being a pretty credible Radical Whig in the context of Great Britain, Durham's report sided firmly with the cliquists on the grounds that they were relatively liberal, progressive, and modern, and were working on a programme to force French-speaking Lower Canadians to be likewise by assimilation and cultural and economic pressure. He sided against the Family Compact in Upper Canada mostly because they were very Tory and were likewise not very progressive or modern.

      Durham's proposal was to unite the two provinces and the maritimes into a single Westminster-like system, to dilute the personal powers of the appointed-by-the-British-Prime-Minister governors, to force the governors to draw members of the new executive council from the united legislature, to stack a new unelected upper house with supporters sympathetic to Durham's views, to consolidate the accounts of the united provinces (using the fiscal surplus of Lower Canada to satisfy the debts of the others), and to roll back the promises on the administration of justice and the structure of private and property law in the settlement with the Canadiens after the Seven Years' War (notably the Quebec Act 1774 and the earlier Royal Proclamation 1763).

      Essentially, Durham was so convinced of the rightness of his causes -- which was typical of his whole political career -- that it did not occur to him that people would see his report as nakedly partisan.

      Additionally, he was terrible at brokering compromise and would tend to antagonize both sides -- this was principally why he never became the Whig leader in Britain, and why he was often sent overseas after leaving Parliament. In Canada, coincidentally with the finalization of his report on the affairs of BNA, he decided on a compromise on the "penal question", the disposition of political prisoners arrested during the rebellions of 1837. The lawful course would have been to wait for the courts in Lower Canada to deal with juries that would be in no mood to convict; he arrived when the longtime governor of Lower Canada (Colborne) was about to declare martial law, and as the newer governor of Upper Canada (George) had extrajudicially executed several political prisoners as demanded by the Executive Council (run by the family compact) who wanted even harsher suppression of potential and actual rebels. Durham's solution was to do what amounted to a plea bargain: in exchange for guilty pleas by the ring leaders -- who were then transported to Bermuda -- the other untried political prisoners would be released upon their bond.

      This solution was reasonably popular in Lower Canada, enraged the rulers of Upper Canada (who demanded and got assurances that fugitives not covered by the deal would be hunted down and subject to execution), and brought him rebukes in the British parliament, notably by Brougham, who pointed out that Durham's s

    29. Re:That was quick ... by davecb · · Score: 1

      When I said "honour bound", I didn't necessarily mean it wasn't the dishonor heaped on a politician by his opponents (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    30. Re:That was quick ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Politicians have kids too, and I'm sure there's family members that watch movies and TV too, via torrent. I'm wondering just what kind of media these notices are being sent out for, though. TV shows?Movies? Or music?

    31. Re:That was quick ... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      So you're just another anonymous coward who would rather label someone and suggest that if they don't share your opinion they should leave the country. Ok, I'll play along and do the same. I'll infer from your statement that you are a far left wing extremist who hasn't used logic in making a decision at any point in your life. Your have a political party of choice and would never consider anyone else. In your opinion, your party has never had a bad leader, bad decision, bad policy and any scandals they were involved in were constructed by the opposition. When a party other than the one you support is in power there is nothing they can do right. Their leaders are corrupt and heartless, their decisions are bad, and if they ever do anything that even resembles something good it's obvious their hand was forced by either legal or opposition pressure. If there's a scandal, everyone should resign. I'd also suggest that you'll pat yourself on the back for making a charitable donation, choosing the charity based on what sounds the best. You'd feel guilty about checking out the charity first, to find out how much overhead costs will eat into your donation. You'd be downright horrified at the concept of considering the short and long term impact of the portion of contribution that makes it to those in need. Wouldn't you be happier in Denmark? For the record, I could do this for the right-wingers as well, but I'm pretty sure you have that covered.

  2. Google Translate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many languages did this go through before the submitter finally landed on English? It's drivel. I loved Slashdot, but there's no signs of improvement. Any suggestions for a tech/science centered news aggregating site with a simple layout and a smart comment/moderation system?

  3. Governmnt acts quick by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    to fix possible lawsuits to media companies for these false claims. Let see if they'll sanction them, then I'll believe they did it to protect the Canadian citizen from the loophole.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Governmnt acts quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sanctions? not likely, as they are none built into the law afaik, and lawmakers would be pressured by media interests to ensure that there never is any.

    2. Re:Governmnt acts quick by budgenator · · Score: 0

      I would love to see the Mounties come into the US on the down-low and rendition Michael Geist, we'd has fresh source of Dudley Do-Right jokes for years.

      Most Canadians live within 50 miles of the US border, so they all pretty much now there's nothing a US company or Government can do to them unless they actually come into the US, and most that have US bank accounts don't have that much in them for the courts to sieze. I doubt Geist is getting anything but laughed at.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re: Governmnt acts quick by SpottedKuh · · Score: 4, Informative

      To clarify for you: Dr. Geist is a Canadian law professor at the University of Ottawa. He was not the one who sent the letter; he just posted it online.

  4. Wow! by umdesch4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That letter includes the work address and phone number of the CEO of Rightscrap. Good times are ahead, I'm thinking.

  5. Speaking with? by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    WTF. How about 'SPEAKING' to the law's abusers in the same manner they spoke, using threats of $150,000 fines.

  6. Rightscorp CEO Info by andydread · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just in case folks would like to contact the CEO Christopher Sabec here is his info

    Christopher Sabec
    CEO
    Rightscorp, Inc.
    3100 Donald Douglas Loop, North,
    Santa Monica, CA 90405
    Telephone: (310) 751-7510

    1. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      No fax number? No email address?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by vmxeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google Maps show Rightscorp's address as Santa Monica Airport: https://goo.gl/maps/IFgj5

      At first I thought this was a mistake. However, upon further consideration, this may also be an obvious choice location for any fly-by-night operation.

      --
      Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
    3. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That information vn be found on an SEC filling

    4. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's his LinkedIn profile. That might be one way to contact him.

      Wow. Apparently he discovered and managed Hanson.

    5. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      So there's two reasons to hate him?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how many band members are in Hanson. But whatever number there are, take that and add one more to it, yes.

    7. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Some people really know how to find something everyone can hate them for.

      It's a talent, no doubt. Just one that I don't really envy him for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Just in case folks would like to contact the CEO Christopher Sabec here is his info:
      Christopher Sabec, CEO
      Rightscorp, Inc.
      3100 Donald Douglas Loop, North,
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 751-7510

      P.S. I hear these guys draw offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case folks would like to contact the CEO Christopher Sabec here is his info

      Christopher Sabec

      CEO

      Rightscorp, Inc.

      3100 Donald Douglas Loop, North,

      Santa Monica, CA 90405

      Telephone: (310) 751-7510

      I know this guy. He has published a picture of Mohammed right?

    10. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That information vn be found on an SEC filling

      As was mentioned above, the address given is actually the address of the Santa Monica airport. It seems reasonable to believe that it would be a felony to provide a fake address on a SEC filing.

    11. Re:Rightscorp CEO Info by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Alas, noise regulations prevent departures between 11pm and 7am at the Santa Monica airport.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  7. Speaking to by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Yeah "speaking to" them. Let me know when people do jail time for fraud or blackmail.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  8. Speaking with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry

  9. How is it misleading? by BradMajors · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

    1. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      If an American violates Iranian decency laws by making a picture of a woman in a swimsuit available in Iran, why would the American not be subject to Iranian law?

    2. Re: How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely nothing. An American company is free to sue a Canadian in an American court. But, understand that a summary judgment will also stop at the 49th, as well.

      Unless the Canadian has US assets, mind you.

    3. Re:How is it misleading? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Because US law should stop at the border?

      Like, someone in the USA uploads, makes available, a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf and a Dutch citizen downloads it, surely that's legal in the US but just as much it's illegal in The Netherlands, who's law to apply?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:How is it misleading? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      If someone in Germany downloaded Nazi stuff from you who should be liable under German law you or them? Your action was in your home nation and that is where you should be liable

    5. Re:How is it misleading? by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?". If it was a case of country A requesting the extradition from country B of a citizen of country A, or in extraordinary circumstances even country C, visiting country B, it would be somewhat less unlikely.

    6. Re:How is it misleading? by ledow · · Score: 1

      I hereby sue you for breaking the English obscenity laws while you were sitting at home yesterday.

      See the problem now?

    7. Re:How is it misleading? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States while located in Canada and running his operation from Canada, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

      I highlight the one key bit of information that you forgot to include which suddenly makes the entire mess a grey area. The old school way of thinking about it is that you follow the law of the land. If a case is serious enough you seek extradition to to the other land but that is often reserved for severe criminal cases or people who companies with serious funds have a grudge against (Kim Dot Com).

      These are not simple answers. There are many lawsuits currently in progress regarding these matters, the two most famous of which are:
      - Kim Dot Com fighting extradition from New Zealand for breaking USA laws using services hosted in Hong Kong.
      - Microsoft a USA company fighting against the USA government under USA laws to not hand over information stored in servers in Ireland run by its Irish branch which are not subject to USA laws.

    8. Re:How is it misleading? by willy_me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Canada extradites Canadians to the US on a regular basis. Typically, these people have committed a crime in the US and are being sent back to receive their punishment - also in the US. Only stipulation is that they can not receive the death penalty because Canadians do not consider it humane. The same thing applies to Americans who commit crimes in Canada.

      The American and Canadian governments have an agreement in place to prevent criminals from jumping the boarder with hopes of avoiding punishment. This has not been used for cases of infringement. If they tried, it probably would not work.

    9. Re:How is it misleading? by Jardine · · Score: 1

      I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?".

      Not for copyright infringement at least. They extradited Marc Emery for selling cannabis seeds through mail order to Americans though.

    10. Re:How is it misleading? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Depends on the law, in the US most laws have a line something like "It is illegal for anyone the the United States, the District of Columbia, It's Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to ..." and some have "It is illegal for anyone to". Murder, Rape and Piracy on the High Seas are example of the second.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:How is it misleading? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Non commercial Infringement is a civil dispute, smuggling is a crime.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:How is it misleading? by c · · Score: 2

      If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

      They probably could be. But the copyright owner is going to have to go through a Canadian court to get a court order to get the subscriber information from the ISP.

      I expect an American corporation could start a suit in Canada, get the identification of the Canadian citizen, then dismiss it and open a new copyright lawsuit in the US. But even if they win a large default judgement, they'd then have to go back to the Canadian courts to collect on that judgement.

      That last step would probably be a huge mistake.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    13. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they didn't infringe US Laws while being in the US. Your laws do not apply to people living in other countries, over the internet.
      Otherwise we'd all be stuck with the draconian censorship laws of China and the likes.

    14. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that this story does not relate to Canadians distributing anything. It relates to Canadians retrieving data from the internet. While downloading various data from the internet may be illegal for Americans, it is not necessarily illegal for Canadians to do so when in Canada.

    15. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler, obviously. He's the one illegally reproducing himself and moving his bits to the Netherlands.

    16. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason you wouldn't be subject to sharia law if you were to post an image of muhammed which someone in a muslim country happened to see.

      Almost anything is illegal somewhere, you are only subject to the laws of your own country or you'd end up breaking dozens of laws on a daily basis.

    17. Re:How is it misleading? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in France or the Netherlands.

    18. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the united states could simply return any disallowed goods to the sender? You put your hat on your head.

    19. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wolfenstein 2015

    20. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did the Canadian enter the United States to commit the crime?
      In your example, wouldn't the American downloading the content be subject to US laws and the Canadian be subject to Canadian laws?

    21. Re: How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon the lawyers will start arguing that a citizen of another country "enters" the USA whenever they open a connection to a US server to do a download.

      This will segment the Internet more.

    22. Re:How is it misleading? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Non commercial Infringement is a civil dispute, smuggling is a crime.

      Except that it wasn't a crime in Canada when he sold the seeds. Under Canadian law, the seeds themselves aren't controlled substances, so it's perfectly legal to buy and sell them. What Marc Emery did was not a crime in the location that he did it in.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    23. Re: How is it misleading? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      But, understand that a summary judgment will also stop at the 49th, as well.

      Unless the Canadian has US assets, mind you.

      Not necessarily.

      The distinguishing issue here is copyright. Current treaty law allows one to enforce copyright registered in one country in other member countries. The exact process for this is somewhat convoluted as the treaties (more specifically the WCT, WPPT, and the Berne Convention) have provisions included that require the signatory countries to set up processes for this enforcement and if there isn't, then the process in the registered country will be substituted as far as the requirements under the treaty allow (Berne Convention).

      Under this scenario, if someone violated a provision under the treaty- like copyright infringement- the author or recognized rights holder would have to use the system set up in the country the infringement took place and that system would have to suffice unless there is no protection in place. At that point, the authors home country protections (where the copyright was first recognized) could be enforced. So a lawsuit in the US could be enforced in another country if they signed the treaties and those governments should/could allow the "Enforcement of the judgements" to the extent as they comply with their own laws using a process called lex fori and Comity.

      Clearly here in this current situation, only Canadian law can be enforced under the treaty so an American company could only suit for infringement in Canadian courts under Canadian law. However, if Canada had no law concerning this or it was another country without a law, then a suit in US court would/could proceed and once the judgement is final, they would go to a Canadian (or other country if it happened in another country) court and ask for enforcement of a foreign judgement. The Canadian court would look at the reasons for the judgement, local law as well as the treaties claimed to be governing them, and if they found enough cause, would enter a judgement of the same without hearing the merits of the case. Now this judgement is enforceable under Canadian law in any way normally allowed in Canada (or other country).

      But it should be noted that most foreign countries refuse this quite a lot based on excessive punitive damages which means if a case proceeded in absentia (the defendant wasn't present) and the maximum legal damages were awarded, the foreign court would most likely laugh it away.

      So there is a way for a judgement to be enforced in Canada even though it is unlikely and would violate the copyright treaties.

    24. Re:How is it misleading? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copyright violations are not criminal actions that qualify for extradition. The cases are civil.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    25. Re:How is it misleading? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?".

      Actually, the dialogue would go like this:
      Rightscorp: "We're suing this guy for copyright infringement."
      U.S.: "Okay."
      fnj: "You can't extradite him!"
      U.S.: "No one asked to. It's a civil suit."
      fnj: "No kidnapping either!"
      Rightscorp: "Gracious, no. We just want money."
      fnj: "Canada will resist any attempts to extradite or kidnap its citizens!!"
      U.S.: "... we're going to stand over there now."

    26. Re:How is it misleading? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I hereby sue you for breaking the English obscenity laws while you were sitting at home yesterday.

      See the problem now?

      Nope. You can bring a suit for anything you want. First, you'll have to serve me with notice. Second, you'll have to get a default judgement (which will be easy, because I'm not going to show up or pay anyone to show up). Third, you'll have to get an enforcement order, since I'm not going to voluntarily pay. Fourth, you'll have to wait for me to visit England to enforce that enforcement order. And Fifth, as soon as I do visit, I get the default judgement reversed and you lose at summary judgement. So, you're out the cost of all of those earlier motions and orders, plus, in England, as the losing party, you'd also have to pay my costs for step 5.

      But this has nothing to do with international borders. Say I sue you in Mass. and you're in California. If you don't show up, I can get a default judgement, same as above. And when you do finally visit Mass. and I try to enforce it, you can get the default thrown out and we go to trial.

    27. Re:How is it misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that's true, I understand transporting cannabis across the Canadian border is illegal, inside Canada is fine

  10. FRAUD is the technical term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ending people's lives is unkind and angry people cannot do so to make themselves feel better."

    Or, more simply, "That's murder. Go directly to jail".

    Difference between them? The government isn't sending the mass-fraudsters to jail--only the guy who couldn't pay his rent and tricked a rich lawyer into paying membership fees for some random society.

    Although the two sentences focus on different aspects of the situation, they should both parse to the same result in a court room.

    I'm tired of the government letting corporations flagrantly and knowingly violate the law... are you?

  11. Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about having the arrest warrants issued for Extortion, and applying to have the CEO of Rightscorp extradited to Canada for trial and 10 years imprisonment?

    The Government should not be "talking to" persons or companies committing crimes in Canada, nor should it be attempting to make deals to allow those criminals to avoid prosecution for crimes they have already committed (also extortion and unlawful in Canada).

    1. Re:Extortion by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, knowing how "restrained" Canadians are when choosing the terms they use, I guess the correct US translation for a Canadian "talking to" them would be "ask them if they're fucking nuts and whack them with a cluebat 'til they know how to dance properly".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Extortion by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about having the arrest warrants issued for Extortion, and applying to have the CEO of Rightscorp extradited to Canada for trial and 10 years imprisonment?

      Why not just call it what it is under US law and make a strong complaint to US government officials requesting prosecution.

      In the US, it is considered wire fraud to -

      Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

      I think it is possible to say that they devised a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses and representations (listing the wrong penalties of law) and caused to be transmitted by wire in foreign commerce and could be imprisoned for 20 years and fined under the wire fraud statutes.

    3. Re:Extortion by is+as+us+Infinite · · Score: 1

      Good point and explanation. So the question becomes, what is the equivalent law in Canada? And can RightsCorp be prosecuted under it?

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .
    4. Re:Extortion by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There really isn't an equivalent law in Canada just fraud. Canada does break it down for telemarketing it appears but this would just be fraud in Canada and only a 10 year sentence.

      However, Canada can push the US to prosecute and they likely will. That's where the 20 years is good. These guys did not go to Canada, send the letters, and come back. They did it in interstate commerce and are just as subject to US law as Canada's.

  12. Understatement! by davecb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is Canada, where we engage in somewhat British-sounding understatement. The police or courts may say they are be "speaking" to someone, and the words they speak may be polite, but the import of them may be very unpleasant to the listener. Americans might translate it as "hitting on him with a clue-stick".

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:Understatement! by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      So you say your police and courts often hit on people in ways that are unpleasant to the listener?

    2. Re:Understatement! by davecb · · Score: 1

      Yes, and courts are neuter, so it's a waste of time for them to hit on anyone (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    3. Re:Understatement! by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      Canadian police are very polite. For a minor first infraction, they will apologize for interrupting your activities before announcing that if you do not stop then they may need to arrest you. This is known as a "caution." For a larger first infraction, they will apologize for interrupting your activities before delivering a search warrant and arresting you.

      If the Canadian police show up with guns drawn, then you screwed up big-time.

    4. Re:Understatement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or were, possibly, walking downtown while Important People were in for a visit.

  13. Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... companies cannot use them to demand money ...

    I know they're IP lawyers, which says much about their integrity, but surely they knew, their 'demands with menaces' business plan wasn't going to work?

    Lawyers tend to side-step laws because laws deprive companies of power over poor people. So why are they avoiding a law which empowers them?

  14. Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when does the racketeering criminal investigation start?

  15. Wake me up by meglon · · Score: 1

    when they start throwing these asshats into jail for extortion.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  16. A Stern Talk by StormReaver · · Score: 1

    So this company commits fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, illegal conversion, grand theft, and extortion (and probably a litany of other crimes I can't think of off the top of my head), and all they're going to get is a finger wagging???!!

    1. Re:A Stern Talk by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      So this company commits fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, illegal conversion, grand theft, and extortion (and probably a litany of other crimes I can't think of off the top of my head), and all they're going to get is a finger wagging???!!

      Saying that someone could be liable under U.S. law is not fraud, even if they're in Canada. Yes, if they decide to move tomorrow to the U.S., they could be sued.

      A bigger issue is that you appear to just have publicly accused the company of all sorts of crimes (many of which, you know nothing about - illegal conversion, really?). Are you going to complain that you only get a finger wagging for libel?

  17. lobbyists laws by johncandale · · Score: 1
    I don't follow Canadian politics but these sort of laws always come from lobbyists anyways. Lobbyists going lobby. Governments should realize they are bending over for BMG and MPAA and such before they pass these laws. Didn't they see what happened in the US?

    Will the companies be fined more then a token amount? Will anyone go to jail? Will the law be repealed? No. But don't worry your leaders will 'tisk tisk' BMG, which will just slightly tone down the letters and carry on

    1. Re:lobbyists laws by dk20 · · Score: 1

      You should read up on Canada's "Lobbying laws"
      http://www.ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/s...

      They are not the same as the US and are rather strict and they have charged people for doing it.
      http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics...

  18. Game Online Seru Banget Buruan Daftar Yuk by sanny+tan · · Score: 1

    Salam Hokky BOS... Ramaikan serunya Poker dan DomninoQQ bersama kami Hanya di WWW.DUNIAQQ.COM DuniaQQ Dengan Permainan Judi Poker Dan Domino QQ Sudah Terbukti Aman Dari Robot. Bagi Pengemar Poker & Domino QQ Online Terpercaya Yang Telah Melayani Ribuan Member Dari Seluruh Kalangan Deposit Dan Withdraw Dengan HARGA YANG RELATIF Sangat kecil Hanya Rp.20.000,- Anda Sudah Bisa Menikmati Semua Permainan Yang Ada DI WWW.DUNIAQQ.COM Dengan Proses Deposit & Withdraw 3 Menit saja. Anda Bisa Bermain Poker Dimana Anda Berada Dengan Handphone Android, iPhone & iPad BONUS REFERRAL 10% Dengan Support Bank Indonesia: *BCA *MANDIRI *BNI *BRI *DANAMON Dengan Layanan Operator Professional 24jam Siap Melayani Anda Di WWW.DUNIAQQ.COM Dapatkan Pelayanan SUPER RAMAH dari CS DuniaQQ - YM: cs.duniaqq@yahoo.com - BB: 2B44FC28 - SUPPORT LIVECHAT 24JAM ( Bagi Anda Yang Tidak Punya YM Atau BB ) Karena Kepuasan Anda Adalah Prioritas Kami Boss Ayo Gabung Sekarang Juga Di link Bawah Ini: http://www.duniaqq.com/?ref=14...

  19. Agen Poker online terpercaya Di Indonesia by sanny+tan · · Score: 0

    Salam Hokky BOS... Ramaikan serunya Poker dan DomninoQQ bersama kami Hanya di WWW.Elangcapsa.Com Elangcapsa Adalah Permainan Capsasusun Poker & Domino Online Terpercaya Dan Aman Dari Robot Dengan Minimal Deposit & Withdraw Hanya Rp.50.000,- Dengan Proses Deposit & withdraw 2 Menit Bisa Bermain Elangcapsa Dimana Anda Berada Dengan Handphone Android Dengan Support Bank Indonesia Yang Sangat Lengkap: -BCA -MANDIRI -BNI -BRI -DANAMON Dengan Layanan Operator Professional 24jam Siap Melayani Anda. www.elangcapsa.com Coustumer Service Yang Baik & Ramah Dari CS ELANGCAPSA Kalau Anda Ada keluhan Mengenai depo & WD Atau Mengenai Cara Deposit Silahkan Hubungi - YM: CS.Elangcapsa@yahoo.com - BB: 2B9544C4 - WECHAT: Elangcapsa Dan Support LIVECHAT 24JAM ( Bagi Anda Yang Tidak Punya YM,BB Atau Wechat ) Ayo Gabung Sekarang Juga Di link Bawah Ini: http://www.elangcapsa.com/?ref...

  20. Libel and stalking are crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

  21. Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    residing in Canada are subject to Canadian law. Unless they have traveled to the U.S. and broke U.S. law while there, Rightscorp, a U.S. company has no excuse for its attempts to extort money from Canadians. Even were that the case, they would have to go through the Canadian government and try to extradite them to the U.S., something that I consider unlikely to happen, as Rightscorp is an entity formed for the sole purpose of trying to extort funds by threat of litigation.