Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy? 470
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?"
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sigh.... (Score:3, Informative)
Sexual predators (Score:3, Informative)
This is after a real trial which ascertains guilt though, as opposed to the whim of an ISP/label.
Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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:5, Informative)
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.
What ridiculous nonsense. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
EFF Reckon It's Not Ture (Score:2, Informative)
Canada is mentioned at the bottom
Jonathan
Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:3, Informative)
Section 7 talks about the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This section includes references to the necessity of due process, that laws not be arbitrary and a void for vagueness clause.
In this day and age, it isn't unthinkable that internet access is a necessity of daily life, not much unlike a telephone. It's has become a necessity to pursue one's life freely, one which can not be removed with due process of law.
Although there isn't any official documentation as to this proposed bill, it still faces a number of monumental challenges, notably, the void if vague bit, due process, civil/criminal matter, "fair use" / current copyright laws.
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:2, Informative)
What has been stolen in this case though? Has the downloading of a copyrighted work deprived anyone of use of that copy of the work? Copyright infringement is not theft, regardless of how badly the entertainment lobby would like people to believe that it is.
Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:5, Informative)
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:1, Informative)
Re:First they came for the pirates... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sounds good (Score:3, Informative)
When a man says that the holocaust never happened, the Jewish people in Canada start calling for him to be charged with crimes under the hate speech laws, and sometimes he even will be charged, but he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't try to use the speech as a violent weapon. I'm aware of Ahenakew, and I believe he just won an appeal, did he not?
Personally, I'd rather live in a place where people can shout fire in a crowded theatre and deal with those consequences than live in a place where there's any restriction on free speech and the consequences that entails. However, we need to stick to the facts of the case when debating this.
The Empires' wannabe little brother. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6652183.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Cancer doctors have told the BBC they fear the NHS will not be able to afford the new generation of cancer drugs.
Specialists are already arguing that patients may have to pay for more drugs themselves, with the issue becoming pressing as new drugs are developed.
But some patients offering to pay for a cancer drug are being told they would have to meet all their care costs.
Not only will the NHS not pay for some drugs, but they won't let you pay for them either, unless you opt out completely and pay for everything!
And Doctors can only prescribe drugs which the NHS advisory board accepts as being cost effective.
Around half the drugs submitted to the English NHS advisory body NICE are for the treatment of cancer.
Some, like Herceptin for breast cancer, have won NICE backing as being cost effective for the health service. Others like Tarceva, which can extend the life of lung cancer patients, have been turned down.
So it is possible that a drug to cure you can be too expensive
Mr Allen is terminally ill with kidney and lung cancer and had been told he only had six months to live.
NHS funding for the drug recommended for him was refused, with letters explaining the health service has limited resources and faces very tough decisions.
He managed to find an NHS trust which allowed co-payment (i.e. he would pay only for the drugs the NHS wouldn't but they would still pay for the ones they could) and thus could spend 'only' an extra $1000 per week to stay alive until his granddaugther is born.
It will get worse apparently. There are lots of drugs which the NHS will never be able to afford and the official policy is still that either you have NHS care and don't have the drugs you need, or you opt out and pay the total cost of your healthcare -
In England, the official policy of the Department of Health is that allowing patients to contribute towards NHS care - known as co-payment - is against the principles and values of the NHS. The government says it could lead to a two tier system.