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?"
Just great... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
...the news that their government can be every bit as clueless and corrupt as our own is a little bit disconcerting.
It's "news" that all governments are clueless and corrupt at times? Come on, you can't be that clueless.
...if things got much worse down here (say if another GOP administration was elected)...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Empires' wannabe little brother. (Score:3, Informative)
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: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: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.
Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
This analogy would be more apropos: Not allowing someone who has duplicated an item three times from walking on any street.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, it's a big truck.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If money was worthless, we wouldn't use money. We would go back to the barter economy using things of real value, which might be expressed in dollars but isn't intrinsic to them. There's no way the physical value of that small roll of neatly printed paper equals the value of a car, money is just the representation of it. If I could print free money I'd be the richest man in the world because everything else is supposed to have an exchange rate to dollars, everyone else would get poorer because I've put in
Re: (Score:3, 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:An outdated view of technology (Score:5, Funny)
Add in "changing lanes without signaling," "cruising in the fast lane," and "not knowing what you want to order by the time you get to the front of the 5-minute-long concessions queue at the ballgame," and you got yourself a deal!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because drinking is a crime in certain countries should we in Canada have to pay the penalty?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (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: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:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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: (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 proces
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.
sigh.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power.
Thanks
Re:sigh.... (Score:5, Funny)
We would if anybody but shills, shysters and despots were running.
Thanks,
Everyone
Re:sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.
Thanks
Re:sigh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Term limit the bastards (Score:2)
Suddenly they are the MOST intelligent people they know, they are far more competent than before, and they care so much because they give away so much money.
politicians should be allowed in at most six years, after that they seem to feel entitled and thats when it goes wrong
Re: (Score:2)
I did, and all the people wanted was someone promising them the moon, which I expressly said I wasn't going to do.
So what the people want, is exactly what they get.
Thanks
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dear linuxpyro (Score:2)
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.
One thing to hope for. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we can get one of those Canadian politicians to jump off a bridge?
Dion? (Score:2)
Layton would work though. His mutant moustache would be stopped from taking over the country then!
Bush Junior... er, I mean Steve Harper... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, perhaps someone should try to get a bill passed that would create one.
President of Canada? (Score:2)
Since when do we have a president of canada.
seriously, go to school or something.
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...
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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'.
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.
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
as for:
"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."
please refer to:
"I'm [american], and every time something controversial is proposed, the [canadian] media jumps all over it and says '[America] is going to [insert c
Re: (Score:2)
File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it! I declare that the world has gone insane. Driven by corporate greed and stupidity!
Re:File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, pardner, 'round these here parts file sharin' is a hangin' offense.
Thanks,
The MAFIAA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Sexual predators (Score:3, Informative)
This is after a real trial which ascertains guilt though, as opposed to the whim of an ISP/label.
No go (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually (Score:2)
Good but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zombies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, truthfully I guess it wouldn't be right in either case. It could still be abused. But given the choice I would rather have a rule that would hopefully c
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought, but what about doing this for zombie machines? I think an idea like that has been brought up here on Slashdot before, like if your machine is not up to date patch-wise you get booted or restricted to say Windows Updates. But what about actively going after people who fail to maintain their computer to the point that it harms others?
Just create a botnet that shares files and emails a record of it to the RIAA or the local equivalent. Problem solved :)
Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will there be DUE process or will anyone be able.. (Score:2)
Is that even enforcable? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
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:Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikeSTUPID (Score:2)
Actually it means you're so stupid that after two trips to jail already you still can't learn how to be an acceptable member of society. Removing you for a long time after that is much to society's benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely Impossible! (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Not a sure thing (Score:2)
Relatedly: I'm hosting a discussion about Canadian copyright (specifically in relation to WIPO) i
Three strikes of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid sports metaphors (Score:2)
How about 2, 5 or 10 minutes in the penatly box?
If there's a star wars analogy (Score:2)
Slashdot considering a similar policy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Solution is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
If they outlaw the internet... (Score:5, Funny)
"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. :/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be much less opposed to such an idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I said the more serious offender. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that originators are protected against the abuses of others. Music labels are forever being sued for contract violations, although only artists who are rich enough can afford to do so. The number of poor artists who cannot sue is unknown. Given that price increases in the stores have generally not translated into royalty increases for artists, it can be assumed that the number of poor artists being stiffed by the music industry is substantial. (Most sane artists start their own label as soon as they can afford to, because running such monsterous overheads is still more profitable than continued servitude to the major operators. That should say something, given the promotional muscle of a giant and the benefits of scale efficiency.) Copyright violations, say of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" or the Bannana Boat Song, hit the headlines, but didn't hit any studio's wallet or lead to Internet access being withdrawn. Why not? Artists in Africa probably ARE starving. If artists are who matters, then why the Scrooge impersonations?
Major music and film corporations are reputed to have links with organized crime, are quoted by foreign artists and foreign directors (in the case of the movie industry) of supplying drugs and prostitutes to people considered key, and other sordid stuff. It's one thing to have liberal leanings (which I don't believe Hollywood has), it's another to be considered by outsiders as racketeers who'd supply a kid with cocaine if it meant they could earn more money.
Those accusations may be true, they might not be, but I don't expect to be seeing the FBI plough much in the way of resources there.
privilege? (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally, but this needs to be expanded... (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is done then spam will go away. Right now there must be enough id10ts out there that actually respond and buy stuff that it makes sending out spam worth the effort. If you take away enough of the idiots out there that spend money based on spam then the monetary reason for sending spam will go away and the problem will finally be solved.
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.