misterooga
join:2008-05-01
Toronto, ON |  The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
Just a public announcement that this is coming down: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/
And they even got the three-strike law. |
|
pegcitynet
join:2009-09-02
| Except that downloading content in Canada for personal use is completely protected by the Copyright act. Any attempt to charge people would likely be thrown out in Canada as unconstitutional. What's frightening is that this has the potential to usurp power from the Canadian courts, instead giving it to a free trade copyright authority run by the industry itself. This would allow you to be sued in USA courts for downloading (legally) in Canada with the judgement binding. |
|
AkFubar
Resistance is Futile
join:2005-02-28
Toronto Can.
1 edit | reply to misterooga
oooooooo nnnnnnnoooooosssssss  |
|
pegcitynet
join:2009-09-02 | I've been publicizing this on my facebook. |
|
umm no
@videotron.ca
| reply to pegcitynet
said by pegcitynet  :Except that downloading content in Canada for personal use is completely protected by the Copyright act. Any attempt to charge people would likely be thrown out in Canada as unconstitutional. What's frightening is that this has the potential to usurp power from the Canadian courts, instead giving it to a free trade copyright authority run by the industry itself. This would allow you to be sued in USA courts for downloading (legally) in Canada with the judgement binding. Umm no. If Canada does sign on as a signatory, it trumps our copyright laws. How many free lawyers out there will make charter challenges to the supreme court for you? Not many. So no, you are not "completely protected" if Canada signs on to this.
In addition, there is also 3rd party liability. This means that if Teksavvy didn't have a throttle, or actively block unauthorized content (this could include blocking access to websites like IsoHunt et al) then they will be held under 3rd party liability and sued along with you. |
|
misterooga
join:2008-05-01
Toronto, ON
| reply to pegcitynet
said by pegcitynet :This would allow you to be sued in USA courts for downloading (legally) in Canada with the judgement binding. Exactly. So all of the sudden, US RIAA could request that the said person be removed from Canada to be in court on US soil. And of course, upon entering US, the said Canadian would be already a criminal.
This already happens, of course...as was the case with some people who were tortured... It just means, with this law, using p2p can net you in the same boiling water as, say, suspected of being a terrorist. |
|
salut
@videotron.ca | reply to misterooga
This would make a great Quebec separation vote. |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| reply to umm no
said by umm no :
In addition, there is also 3rd party liability. This means that if Teksavvy didn't have a throttle, or actively block unauthorized content (this could include blocking access to websites like IsoHunt et al) then they will be held under 3rd party liability and sued along with you. Ah, Hollywood is correcting the error in the DMCA regarding safe harbor. Bet the US carriers, Youtube, Bing, and all will accept this. NOT!
You must have read this wrong as the tech and telecom industries are going to fight to keep their safe harbor. And, they have considerably more lobbying clout than Hollywood. No one messes with Ma Bell! |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| said by Croaker :said by umm no :
In addition, there is also 3rd party liability. This means that if Teksavvy didn't have a throttle, or actively block unauthorized content (this could include blocking access to websites like IsoHunt et al) then they will be held under 3rd party liability and sued along with you. Ah, Hollywood is correcting the error in the DMCA regarding safe harbor. Bet the US carriers, Youtube, Bing, and all will accept this. NOT! You must have read this wrong as the tech and telecom industries are going to fight to keep their safe harbor. And, they have considerably more lobbying clout than Hollywood. No one messes with Ma Bell! Precisely.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc. |
|
Big Nose
join:2008-12-29
East York, ON | reply to misterooga
Of course with a Conservative government in power Canada will lay down and do whatever America tells us to do. |
|
olebiker
join:2008-04-16
Glenburnie, ON | reply to misterooga
And so the corporations now run the world in secret. God I am glad that I am not young and starting out as the future looks like it sucks. |
|
sedmonds
join:2007-05-25
Kitchener, ON
| reply to pegcitynet
said by pegcitynet :Except that downloading content in Canada for personal use is completely protected by the Copyright act. Any attempt to charge people would likely be thrown out in Canada as unconstitutional. What's frightening is that this has the potential to usurp power from the Canadian courts, instead giving it to a free trade copyright authority run by the industry itself. This would allow you to be sued in USA courts for downloading (legally) in Canada with the judgement binding. Copyright laws are not part of the constitution, and as such are not the basis for a challenge to the constitutional validity of any laws Parliament passes in the process of implementing ACTA.
You can already be sued in the US if you engage in copyright distribution in the US. If you've uploaded to a computer or through lines physically located in the US, you've committed an offence in the United States and under the jurisdiction of United States courts. It is, however, more difficult for the companies of the RIAA and MPAA to prosecute and collect these cases than focusing on domestic efforts. A judgement may be entered, in absentia, in a US court but it is less clear whether or not a Canadian court would enforce that judgement inside Canada. ACTA would simplify this in a few ways - copyright laws would be more consistent between nations and because of this our courts would have less justification not to enforce the US court judgement under existing laws and policies, and more significantly ACTA has provisions for international prosecution. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| said by sedmonds :said by pegcitynet :Except that downloading content in Canada for personal use is completely protected by the Copyright act. Any attempt to charge people would likely be thrown out in Canada as unconstitutional. What's frightening is that this has the potential to usurp power from the Canadian courts, instead giving it to a free trade copyright authority run by the industry itself. This would allow you to be sued in USA courts for downloading (legally) in Canada with the judgement binding. Copyright laws are not part of the constitution, and as such are not the basis for a challenge to the constitutional validity of any laws Parliament passes in the process of implementing ACTA. You can already be sued in the US if you engage in copyright distribution in the US. If you've uploaded to a computer or through lines physically located in the US, you've committed an offence in the United States and under the jurisdiction of United States courts. It is, however, more difficult for the companies of the RIAA and MPAA to prosecute and collect these cases than focusing on domestic efforts. A judgement may be entered, in absentia, in a US court but it is less clear whether or not a Canadian court would enforce that judgement inside Canada. ACTA would simplify this in a few ways - copyright laws would be more consistent between nations and because of this our courts would have less justification not to enforce the US court judgement under existing laws and policies, and more significantly ACTA has provisions for international prosecution. Much of Canada's 'domestic' internet traffic is routed via the USA.
Most of the time flights from Toronto to Vancouver are routed via US airspace to save fuel. Download a video or music file and the xxIA's of Hollywood will get some hot dog fighter pilot sic'd on your Air Canada flight to force it down in Minneapolis so you can be taken into custody. |
|
umm no
@videotron.ca
| reply to Croaker
said by Croaker :said by umm no :
In addition, there is also 3rd party liability. This means that if Teksavvy didn't have a throttle, or actively block unauthorized content (this could include blocking access to websites like IsoHunt et al) then they will be held under 3rd party liability and sued along with you. You must have read this wrong Ma Bell aside, no I did not read this wrong:
»www.efa.org.au/2009/11/04/acta-c···orrying/
quote:
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be required [to] establish policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are modeled under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30. They include policies to terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.
iiNet in AUS (an aussie ISP like TSI) is being sued now and it is currently being played out in court (in case you haven't been following international news) |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| said by umm no :
Ma Bell aside, no I did not read this wrong:
Look, I don't have a beef with you. The ACTA provisions mirror the DMCA is all I was trying to get at. If they don't, there's no way this will pass in the US. The telecom lobby is second to none and more than able to out spend Hollywood.
Also, our having a minority government, makes the passage of ACTA in it's current form impossible even if the Conservatives wanted to. Which they don't by the way... |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| reply to misterooga
In the end what will happen in the short term is an escalation of encryption and obfuscation.
As long as TSi discloses to me that it is unable to provide any type of privacy on their network, then I'm aware I must take steps to protect myself from my ISP.
At which point this creates a situation where Copywrong agents need to obtain a warrant in order to inspect my traffic.
I would more or less bet on their agents (copyright infringement contractors) moving on to easier targets at that point.
I feel its unfortunate that I would choose to protect myself by making a predator move to an easier target but that's usually how it ends up anyways.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| said by El Quintron :In the end what will happen in the short term is an escalation of encryption and obfuscation. As long as TSi discloses to me that it is unable to provide any type of privacy on their network, then I'm aware I must take steps to protect myself from my ISP. It's probably best to begin using this type of service now simply from a privacy point of view, never mind waiting for ACTA to kick in.
They are watching and recording your every move right now anyway.
Tinfoil Hat On/
NSA is building a $1.5 Billion data center in Utah now to archive and sift through every bit of data that crosses the US border. This is a complementary and similar sized data center to another one currently under construction in Texas.
Don't think that the data won't be used against you someday in some way. |
|
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Gatineau, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by MaynardKrebs :said by El Quintron :In the end what will happen in the short term is an escalation of encryption and obfuscation. As long as TSi discloses to me that it is unable to provide any type of privacy on their network, then I'm aware I must take steps to protect myself from my ISP. It's probably best to begin using this type of service now simply from a privacy point of view, never mind waiting for ACTA to kick in. Would you care to explain how this would be done?
For this example, let's use a VPN provider. Would he at some point, due to ACTA, have to keep all data going over his service thus rendering the activity pointless?
Ha! Unless the VPN service is from a country that didn't sign on? |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron :At which point this creates a situation where Copywrong agents need to obtain a warrant in order to inspect my traffic. Depends on the passage of Lawful Access (bill C-27?). In it, law enforcement will not need judicial oversight in order to get information from your ISP.
Also, how long will it be before we get a law requiring the disclosure of encryption keys similar to the UK statute.
Better to stop this madness now by contacting your MP and voicing your displeasure with Canada's position to ACTA.
Thank god with have a minority government. At least they need to pretend to give a damn about what the voter wants! |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| But, and to the above;
The way in which copyright is enforced right now, is that the job of collecting infringing IPs is farmed out to contractors busting you whilst infringing.
If they can't bust you immediately they'll move on to an easier target.
That's my original point.
Not that they won't want laws allowing them to come after us (they do) its just the economic realities of enforcement contracting make it more viable for the contractor to go after a "sure bust" rather than conducting a lenghty investigation.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage. |
|
