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?"
Recipricol Three Strikes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
That's it! I declare that the world has gone insane. Driven by corporate greed and stupidity!
No go (Score:4, Insightful)
Good but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.
Thanks
The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot escape this by relocating. Stand and fight. Hold your ground. It is the only way to get what you want.
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because we all know the Canadians would never pass a stupid law [wired.com] at the behest of certain industry lobby groups or one that eliminated your ability to criticize [slashdot.org] certain groups because they might be offended by your criticism. And even if such stupid laws were passed they would be ignored by the provinces.
just a step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:sigh.... (Score:1, Insightful)
When given more options than shills, shysters, and despots, please make sure that said shills, shysters, and despots don't end up with 99.5% of the vote anyway.
Thanks,
Intelligent, Competent, and Caring Person
This still wouldn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:sigh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Three strikes of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sigh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where would we get the money needed for an election campaign? They only seem to be handing it out to shills, shysters and despots these days.
Thanks,
Association of Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People
Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
More like "Sigh..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Please actually read the article that is linked. The French are reporting that apparently the Canadians are considering implementing this policy. That's second hand hearsay at best. And the quote included in the Slashdot article is from whomever made the original post on Techdirt.
Re:File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is (ahem) child's play in comparison with the amount of resources allocated to stopping sexual predators online.
Re:Good but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:5, Insightful)
And since the Conservative party is in power in Canada, what the USA does, Canada does a year later.
regarding the data tariff (Score:3, Insightful)
OR
a country that allows recording companies to sue their customers for substantially more per CD indiscriminately without attention to proper due process to extort money out of people who can't afford lawyers?
One seems the lesser of two evils. I'm happy with the one I'm given.
An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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:First they came for the pirates... (Score:2, Insightful)
Canadians have the right of free speech, however they allow their government to deny them the ability to exercise their natural right.
Re:sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
"May be considering" == Vaporlaw (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me just take this opportunity to say that I am sick and tired of articles about some law that might be getting proposed for initial review in some obscure corner of a legislature somewhere. It reminds me of that one time everyone jumped down the Pope's throat for something that an editorialist speculated he'd be commenting on in his next encyclical. It's idle speculation. It's not even vaporware; we haven't heard anyone in the government say two bits about it, either for or against!
C'mon, editors. I'm told you used to be more selective than to post this kind of nonsense. :/
Depends really (Score:1, Insightful)
MOST people use the net daily, but older folks really don't depend on it.
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:0, Insightful)
Re:The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:2, Insightful)
freedom of assembly could include on line. (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at the extremes the governments go to in repressive regimes like russia or china or america to control the internet.
Making it trivial to ban someone from the most democratic communication tool since the soap box seems a poor road to follow.
Telephones too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
I never imagined they were actually proposing something THAT stupid.
I just don't have the imagination I used to.
Look, this is a democracy (at least in theory) right? In the constitution we GIVE them copyright to their creation for a LIMITED time, ONLY so that it spurs innovation and gets more "IP" into the public domain for us all, right?
Well, I'm done with this shit. I say we vote to eliminate copyright protection all-together, across the board. Let them deal with that. If they want to stop making music because of it, I'll live. I'd prefer to have my music made by people who would make it regardless of if they got paid or not.
If every single lab suddenly decides they can't make medicine any more because it's too expensive, others will pop up with better, less expensive techniques. Foundations will still do a lot of the research anyway (how much do we donate to cancer research each year? When they come up with something--who will reap the benefits of the medicine developed?)
Let's get rid of it! Maybe we can experiment with that for couple decades and see how it goes--if it fails, I'm totally up for trying something else.
Re:The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:0, Insightful)
Complaining about the wealthy: poor people's way of making themselves feel better about being lazy.
Re:Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because drinking is a crime in certain countries should we in Canada have to pay the penalty?
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:4, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
If you can live for a long time only on free music, and not buy/download a single piece of non-free music, then I grant you that it makes no difference whether or not you pirate it. However, it's a catch-22 in my favour, because if it truly doesn't make a difference to you, you don't need to break the law, and you wouldn't need to pirate anyway. But if you did for some insane reason, and you didn't advertise the fact, and you disabled uploads on any P2P network you use, then yes, your piracy wouldn't make a difference. The problem is the bar for that is set very high, not many people make it.
Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Counterfeiting vs. copyright violation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An outdated view of technology (Score:3, Insightful)
I can copy around a public domain work all day long and people only get richer because the more people hear it the more people have gotten some utility from it, even though no money changes hands. In short, copying enriches people while counterfeiting deprives people of value. Restricting copying should not be a goal in itself, as certain people that want to treat ideas as real property with indefinate copyright and totally under the owner's control argue. Copyright should granted to promote the creation of works, not the perversion we see today.
Yes, copyright holders are being deprived of value but if you want to talk morality I see far better arguments that copyright should be rebalanced to return some of the value not only given to the copyrigth holders, but also directly lost because of their restrictions returned to the people. I suppose you can read that as a "we want something for nothing" argument, but the truth is that copyright is a burden to society too. The mindless reproduction is one thing, but the limitation on derivates is restricting the free flow of thoughts and ideas and improvements which is the source of new works. I do think there should be reasonable compensation for coming up with new things, just not to hold them under lock and key almost forever.
Re:The aristocracy is planet-wide... (Score:2, Insightful)