Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Government Steps In To Stop Misleading Infringement Notices
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."
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.
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*
That letter includes the work address and phone number of the CEO of Rightscrap. Good times are ahead, I'm thinking.
WTF. How about 'SPEAKING' to the law's abusers in the same manner they spoke, using threats of $150,000 fines.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.