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."

71 of 103 comments (clear)

  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 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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!
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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

    18. 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?

    19. 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
    20. 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.

    21. 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
    22. 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
    23. 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. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.
    7. 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. . . .
    8. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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 kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in France or the Netherlands.

    14. 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...
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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."

    18. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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. . . . . . . .
  16. 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.