Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon May 12, 2008 01:44 PM
from the can't-stop-the-signal dept.
The Internet Government Politics
Techdirt is reporting that Canada may be considering a "three strikes" policy which could see users internet access privileges revoked for file sharing violations. "Given how secretive the industry and the government have been about new copyright laws, perhaps this isn't too surprising. We do know that the industry was pushing for greater ISP liability as part of copyright law changes a few months back, so it wouldn't be surprising if ISPs were negotiating a "three strikes" type rule to avoid the liability issues. Of course, they probably want to keep it secret, as publicity (and resulting anger) about these types of laws in Europe has at least some politicians moving away from them. However, as the entertainment industry does keep succeeding in getting these types of laws to move forward, how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Feed: Is Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy? by techdirtfeed (1081893)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Just great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aranykai (1053846) <slgonser.gmail@com> on Monday May 12 2008, @01:47PM (#23381798)
    My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!

    • The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @02:07PM (#23382140)
      ...and the wealthy get really upset whenever something valuable is also abundant. The creation of artificial supply limitations, as a means of maintaining wealth and power, is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

      You cannot escape this by relocating. Stand and fight. Hold your ground. It is the only way to get what you want.

    • My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!
      What the USA has, the right wingers of Canada desire.
      And since the Conservative party is in power in Canada, what the USA does, Canada does a year later.
      • As an American who has liked to think of Canada as a somewhat enlightened cousin to the North, the news that their government can be every bit as clueless and corrupt as our own is a little bit disconcerting.

        Like Aranykai above, the potential for fleeing over the border if things got much worse down here (say if another GOP administration was elected) seems to have been just another dream that is dying a sad (if clarifying) death.

        • Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday May 13 2008, @01:14AM (#23388238)
          On the other hand they keep trying their best to introduce new copyright bills and they keep withdrawing them in the face of public protest.

          If the Conservatives actually passed this kind of bill and all the people downloading music got kicked off the net, sued, charged, whatever, the next government would not be a Conservative one.

          Around here if you screw up you get voted out.

      • Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:5, Informative)

        by Serapth (643581) on Monday May 12 2008, @05:01PM (#23384618)
        Two key differences...

        1 - they are a minority goverment
        2- in a legal system with a non confidence vote.

        In other words, no matter what the Conservatives want to push down our throats, if atleast one of the other parties doesnt support it, it isnt going to happen. Not only that, but it could get the party bounced from power.

        Imagine how much different the states would be right now if Bush had to work under similar rules? Then again, in Canada the Prime Minister really isnt near as powerful as the Presidents position (has become ).

        • Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:4, Insightful)

          by chdig (1050302) on Monday May 12 2008, @06:28PM (#23385606)
          While what you wrote is true, it's also misleading and missing in context.
          1 - Though there is a minority government, it's common practice for the parties to barter votes between issues. ie, if the opposition wants bill xx passed, they might agree to the government's copyright bill. True, though, it is more difficult to pass normal votes without a majority.
          2 - non-confidence votes are primarily for financial issues (like the annual budget) or highly sensitive issues (like Canada's role in Afghanistan), and a copyright law would be very unlikely to fall under this category.

          The irony, however, is that the best way the government can pass something is to make or attach it to a non-confidence vote. The opposition is so scared of an election that they'll pass things they don't agree with, just to avoid an election.

  • Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by decipher_saint (72686) on Monday May 12 2008, @01:47PM (#23381804) Homepage
    I'll just switch to filing my taxes electronically...

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scipiodog (1265802) on Monday May 12 2008, @01:56PM (#23381966)

      This is actually a very good point, in my opinion.

      Seriously, with the importance of the Internet in everyday life, is there a case that this actually infringes on a person's civil rights, or at least on their basic rights?

      Yes, I know Internet usage is not a civil right per se. However, in the USA and Canada, it's becoming extremely difficult to carry out certain basic functions off line. When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?

      Banning someone from internet access for something so trivial would severely restrict their life, IMHO.

      • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @02:22PM (#23382406)

        When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?
        When was the last time you searched for a specific product located in your neighborhood online and got results like 'Buy here!' Where here is a town 3 states away.

      • An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)

        by StreetStealth (980200) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:33PM (#23382592) Journal
        Proposed legislation like this is based on an out-of-date mindset that internet access is some sort of above-and-beyond privilege to be closely regulated.

        To people who have worked in the paper-laden chambers of legislative bodies for many years and have their assistants print out their e-mails for them to read, perhaps it still looks this way to them. But it is not.

        Enough daily tasks, both personal and public, now require access to the internet such that I think it's time for internet access to be considered a civil right, to be suspended only for those genuinely too dangerous to remain at large.

        Denying internet access isn't like a sentence of probation anymore; it's more akin to house arrest and should only be applied when the punishment fits the crime.

        • Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:56PM (#23382916)

          it's time for internet access to be considered a civil right, to be suspended only for those genuinely too dangerous to remain at large.

          Denying internet access isn't like a sentence of probation anymore; it's more akin to house arrest and should only be applied when the punishment fits the crime.
          Indeed.

          Now, who gets to say what is "too dangerous" to be allowed Internet access?

          Let's say I download (and legally, I might add) several gigs of mp3s. Apparently, this is causing millions of dollars in damages. Therefore, if I continue to have internet access, I am personally costing various industries millions of dollars a day!

          I'm a dangerous person. I'm exactly like a professional shoplifter. Except, weirdly enough, those guys still get to buy groceries FROM STORES.

          As always, contact your local MP.

              • Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:4, Insightful)

                by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Monday May 12 2008, @11:24PM (#23387690) Journal
                Same thing could be said about money. You can copy it, and you don't deprive anyone of its use, yet it means that the entire currency is devalued, and the currency that everyone else has ends up worth less than it did before the crime. The victims in this case are the people as a whole. In the case of copyright infringement, the damages are concentrated purely to copyright holders. You may not see it (or counterfeiting) as stealing, but there's no question of deprivation, victimhood, or morality; copyright infringement and counterfeiting are morally wrong, when measured against the morality of society as a whole. And no, before you jump to conclusions, I'm not part of the copyright lobby, just someone with the ability to reason.

                All this, of course, is completely beside the point, as I wasn't comparing copyright infringement with stealing in the first place.

          • Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Lijemo (740145) on Monday May 12 2008, @03:55PM (#23383762)

            how about you people just learn to obey the fucking law and stop stealing music and movies? who give a shit what happens to people ho dont give a shit about the content creators.

            Ah, so there is no need to make the punishment fit the crime, because you can avoid the punishment by just not doing the crime?

            In that case, lets institute a no-appeals death penalty for speeding, jay-walking, minor traffic violations, and late payment of income taxes. After all, who cares what happens to people who break the law?

        • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Monday May 12 2008, @02:27PM (#23382490) Journal
          What about free wifi? That's the real issue. I used to live in an apartment building, and all my neighbors sprung for a business-grade internet connection, and we set it up on wifi and went nuts while all the other poor bastards in the building were stuck with the crap cable connection.

          If we'd been banned, we'd have just switched the cable to someone elses name. What are they going to do? Search my house weekly to make sure I don't have a wireless card?

          Completely pointless.

      • Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Funny)

        by mini me (132455) on Monday May 12 2008, @03:20PM (#23383234)
        This is the Canadian government we are talking about. The same government that lets you file your GST returns online, but you may only do so between 9AM and 5PM EST. Maybe some day they will invest in some computers to handle the job instead of having their staff manually process each HTTP request.

  • Recipricol Three Strikes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday May 12 2008, @01:49PM (#23381844) Journal
    I'd suggest that this law not be so one sided.

    How about a three strikes provision against the *IAA (or equivalent) as well. This way, if they accuse falsely three times, they get tossed. Seems only fair to me. :-D

    • Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sique (173459) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:33PM (#23382594) Homepage
      Why not simply have the same rules for companies? Every company that has been found guilty in court of copyright, trademark or patent infringment at least three times is banned from the Internet.

      Good bye, Sony BMG! Good bye, Microsoft! Good bye about nearly every larger editor or company!

      The internet will be again as we knew it in the pre-1990ies.

  • First they came for the pirates... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @01:49PM (#23381846)
    Can the government really strip you of your right to speak for breaking a civil statute? Or is copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense in Canada as well as the US?

      • Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:4, Informative)

        by dmatos (232892) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:40PM (#23382690)
        If I may quote from the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms [justice.gc.ca]:

        Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

                a) freedom of conscience and religion;
                b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
                c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
                d) freedom of association.

        That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.

        • Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @02:47PM (#23382786)
          "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

          You mean unless you say or write something that offends Muslims, right?

          That's not a troll either, it's the truth.

        • Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Kompressor (595513) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:56PM (#23382910)

          Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
          ...
          b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
          Is it not possible to consider that one "other media of communication" would be communication that occurs online, for example a blog, e-mail, slashdot postings, etc?

          As I understand it, denying someone the right to print an article, or to have an article published, would contravene this section of the Charter (discussion about the right for a private party to refuse to publish someone elses article notwithstanding). Thus, I believe that it would be difficult to implement something like this as a law.

          Now, I could see an ISP having a list of disenfranchised users, and possibly (although I would be disgusted by it) the ability for ISPs to share the lists of these people between each other. For a similar example that already exists, look at the requirements that many bars in Edmonton and Vancouver have for scanning your drivers license before you are allowed in. This system checks against a shared database that confirms you aren't listed as a "troublemaker" (AKA haven't been blackballed). The logic behind this system might be simple enough to apply to a shared blacklist at ISPs.

            • Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @04:02PM (#23383846)
              1. That is exactly the way a Charter challenge to such a law would work. Even persons convicted of a serious indictable offence and sentenced to (and serving time in) prison are entitled to 3(b) protections with minimal, proportionate restrictions. Even these restrictions are subject to challenge, since section 24(1) applies to anyone.

              2. The point is to make the committees in the House of Commons and the Senate see that a Charter challenge is both inevitable and unwinnable, and to simply not proceed with the legislation on that basis. There are still Senators and MPs who feel that Parliament should not be in the business of producing legislation which is known a priori to conflict with the Charter, unless it is tagged by the non obstante clause or an extremely persuasive section 1 limit, both of which are rare and politically awkward.

              Also importantly, there is the question of whether society has a compelling interest in the prevention of not-for-profit individual-scale copyright infringement that would justify criminal sanctions that will be expensive to investigate and prosecute.

              As a deterrent, are tiny numbers of heavy sentences (i.e., make it an indictable offence) realistic? Or large numbers of small sentences (summary conviction)?

              The courts have been in no mood to accept large increases in the number of criminal cases put before them without sufficient resources to cope with them, and this sort of move is liable to provoke another "11(b) work-to-rule" akin to the fallout after Askov v. R., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 in matters involving minor offences, despite R v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771. One of the obvious administrative issues will be the sheer number of people who participate in file sharing now.

              On the other hand, the possibility large numbers of people (a percent or more of all Canadians!) waiting for 2 years or more between charge and trial is a risky proposition for a minority government! File sharing makes marijuana use look rare.

        • What ridiculous nonsense. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Hamster Lover (558288) * on Monday May 12 2008, @03:38PM (#23383546) Journal
          What nonsense. The Charter of Rights also does not delineate a right to poop, or read books, or sleep or throw a frisbee either but those rights exist none the less. The Charter is not exhaustive as it was never the intent to list every single right and freedom that could possibly exist and is instead a barrier to government action.

          I think this makes it fairly clear that the Charter is not intended to restrict our rights and freedoms to those listed in the Charter:

          OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER.

          26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

          Besides, the Supreme Court of Canada has made significant rulings on our right to freedom of expression as it pertains to the Internet on numerous occasions (to wit, "other media of communication"). Apparently they think we have a right to express ourselves on the Internet, but you do not.

      • Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday May 12 2008, @03:00PM (#23382968)
        The hell it isn't!

        We've got a Bill of Rights here, and I quote from it: [justice.gc.ca]

        PART I
        BILL OF RIGHTS

        Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

        1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

        (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

        (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

        (c) freedom of religion;

        (d) freedom of speech; (emphasis mine)

        (e) freedom of assembly and association; and

        (f) freedom of the press.

  • sigh.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday May 12 2008, @01:49PM (#23381850) Homepage Journal
    Dear Everyone,

    Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power.

    Thanks
  • how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"

    Maybe we can get one of those Canadian politicians to jump off a bridge?

  • I'm canadian, and every time something controversial is proposed, the american media jumps all over it and says 'Canada is going to [insert crazy idea here]'.

    The way laws are passed here makes it very difficult for something controversial to pass, unless it is a human rights case. AND, even in the event that the federal government does pass a law, each province can ignore it by using the 'not-withstanding clause'.

    It sure is a horrible idea, but it would go against so many of our other laws that it would be struck down as soon as it was challenged even if it did get through the 3 readings and the senate and house of commons.

    I'd have to say that this sort of law would be much more likely in a place like the USA, where the government has already revoked so many of the rights of the citizens in the name of national security. I wonder how much pressure it would take to claim that piracy is a matter of national economic security...

  • File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2008, @01:54PM (#23381920)
    File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!

    That's it! I declare that the world has gone insane. Driven by corporate greed and stupidity!

    • File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!


      Well, pardner, 'round these here parts file sharin' is a hangin' offense.

      Thanks,
      The MAFIAA

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QCompson (675963)

      File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!

      "Sexual predators" are hardly being ignored. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of law enforcement agents sitting around in chat rooms right now pretending to be 14 year old girls in the hope that some idiot will talk with them and try to arrange a meeting. And, at least in the US, being caught as an internet sexual predator is not a three-strikes offense. It is a one-strike offense, with the end result likely being a long prison term and lifetime sex offender registration (along with heavy computer

  • No go (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ^_^x (178540) on Monday May 12 2008, @01:54PM (#23381926)
    Well, first off that would be illegal considering we already pay a levy to compensate for THEORETICAL copyright violations whenever we buy blank media. It is against the law to tax people for nothing at all (you at least have to have a "reason" even if it is not followed through on) so for this to happen they would have to repeal it. I don't see that as likely since not a cent AFAIK has gone to actually compensate artists - it's going straight into the government's pockets like a sin tax, and they're far too greedy to give up such easy money for doing nothing.

  • Good but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday May 12 2008, @01:55PM (#23381946) Homepage Journal
    Will they then repeal the media tax?

  • Is that even enforcable? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wattrlz (1162603) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:07PM (#23382148)

    On a small scale they could assign an officer to follow you around and make sure you don't borrow someone's cell phone or use a public kiosk to check your mail, but keeping track of everyone who's downloaded more than three mp3s or unlicensed videos would require some sort of national ID system... perhaps they could put all of Canada on a proxy server?

  • I think the most worrying thing about this is not the law itself. It's the fact that someone will quickly realize that in order to implement the law it will be necessary for anyone accessing the Internet to be reliably identified. We really could be only a few years away from needing a "RealID" card to log on to a public wireless terminal in a coffee shop.
  • It started in schools, and quickly moved to the US Justice system. "Three Strikes And You're Out!". It sounds both reasonable, and incredibly American at the same time. If you've been in jail 2 times already and then steal a loaf of bread... "You're Out". By which they mean out of society for good. It's worked out so well, why not try it with the Internet?

    Here's the problem. In baseball, if you get three strikes - you're out for that particular try at batting. You're not out for the inning, you're not out for the game, and you're certainly not banned from ever playing baseball again for life.

    So, if we're going to base public policy on sports rules, could we at least restrict that to sports rules we actually understand? Seriously, that'd be a great start. Later we work on basing them on common sense or something.

  • Absolutely Impossible! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doug52392 (1094585) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:11PM (#23382206)
    This is not possible. From a legal standpoint, if the government goes through the right loopholes to get these laws passed, it's possible, but the consequences it would create would cause nothing but trouble. Almost 50% of the Internet users in Canada would most likely get their first "strike" in just one week because they probably consider anyone using file-sharing "pirates", regardless of the legality of what their downloading. From there, I would predict that about 20% would abide by the warning and stop file-sharing, but 30% would continue regardless of the system until they're eventually taken offline, which would have substantial effects on the economy and e-commerce (not as many people buying things online, for instance).

  • This still wouldn't work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alvinrod (889928) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:13PM (#23382250)
    Unfortunately, this still wouldn't do much if anything to prevent movie or song piracy. Have they forgotten that pirating music is as easy as purchasing a CD or DRM-free song and simply burning a CD and giving it to a friend? At best this just stops a few poeple from having an Internet connection, but when they could easilly haul a 500 GB external HD over to a friends house and load up all on manner of content, there's no way that it will curb the overall level of piracy to any extent. Hell, even if you were cut off, internet is only an unsecure access point or location with free internet away.

    There are always going to be a certain subset of people who feel that prices are too high and will seek alternative methods of acquiring songs, movies, or any other similar form of media. They could probably reduce the price to reduce the amount of people who resort to such methods, but the current price might be the one that maximizes revenue for all I know.

    Personally, I think the ideal solution is for the bands, songwriters, et al. to ditch the **AA (or equivalent in their countries) and use a model similar to what Radiohead or Trent Reznor used. Even when they offered their music for free, some people still donated money. Hell, if they were independent and sold tracks through Amazon, iTunes, or some other music store they'd get to keep everything that Amazon, Apple, etc. doesn't keep to cover distribution costs. That'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of $.75 or more per song sold. How much more likely would the poeple who either don't buy music now or refuse to pay the currents rates be to donate money to a band for purchasing their album if they knew that most of it wasn't going to a middleman that has a history of acting hostile towards its customers or that they would only need to offer up a few dollars, if anything?

  • Three strikes of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shagg (99693) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:15PM (#23382276)
    Three strikes of actually being found guilty in a court of law, or three strikes of wild accusations thrown around by anybody with content to protect (and very little, if any, proof)?

  • Slashdot considering a similar policy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sootman (158191) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:29PM (#23382532) Journal

    Yes, but does it run... [STRIKE1]
    Imagine a beowulf cl... [STRIKE2]
    I, for one, welcome ... [STRIKE3]
      --- NO CARRIER ---

  • If they outlaw the internet... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday May 12 2008, @02:48PM (#23382800)
    ...only the internet will have outlaws. Or is that outlaws have internets? If they ban marriage, only outlaws will have in-laws. No, wait. Forget it.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.