dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TSI Marc

Re: How Long Till Canada Gets A Copyright Alert System

said by TSI Marc:

"It scares me that Videotron (the worse of the lot), who is also my internet provider, will also be my copyright cop if a kid downloads a True Blood episode instead of me buying their channel that carries it."

The way Canada is implementing it is designed so that the ISP is *not* the cop. All we would do if forward the notice to the end user, and let the people who want to send the notice that the end user has been sent the notice... so, notice and notice...

WRONG
you are sending the notice YOU are the cop. If it were the rights holder then it would be them....WHO hands you a traffic ticket ? A COP. AND like i said i pay a levy for music and am in a province that allows class action. The charter of rights and freedoms is quite clear on what you can and can't do to people regarding laws. YOU cant make one law that everyone is following and then toss them in jail or fine them for following it. If i were you and other isps i'd be really thinking about this because it might get the copyright law struck down as unconstitutional.

I'll add that the CRIA now music Canada then is also profiting by breaking the new law ....ya can't have it both ways....and this just shows how stupid and backwatered the conservative party is.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
...yeah it's a pill for everybody, you and us :\ ...that's for sure.

I think you have it crossed a bit though.. essentially, we would get notice from a court, saying an entity has intention of taking specific IPs to court. If the court orders us to, we can't really say no.. it's the law... so we would then give our customer a notice that we have been asked by the court to give up this information.. and then we would provide the info to the court and that's the extent of our involvement.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


zacron
Premium
join:2008-11-26
canada
Marc, could you explain "We can't really say no" to us?

Thanks for clarifying


hm

@videotron.ca
said by TSI Marc:

I think you have it crossed a bit though.. essentially, we would get notice from a court, saying an entity has intention of taking specific IPs to court. If the court orders us to, we can't really say no.. it's the law... so we would then give our customer a notice that we have been asked by the court to give up this information.. and then we would provide the info to the court and that's the extent of our involvement.

said by zacron:

Marc, could you explain "We can't really say no" to us?

Thanks for clarifying

Man I wrote out the reply and hit the wrong button and lost it. Here we go again, F&S.

So I'm not writing it all out again, but rather, read through »Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada

The only thing stated there not really true is when I called PrivCom, »Re: Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada.

I stated in that topic that they said, "there is nothing they can do". This wasn't true. I just didn't want to write it in the forum where videotron, Bell and Cogeco could see at the time.

But they told me Videotron, Bell and cogeco broke section 7 (or is it section 6? I forget now) of the ACT. Seems they have an obligation to "protect", which they did not. So that would have been another lawsuit of "the people versus Videotorn et al".

Anyhow read through that link, get a grasp of it, then re-ask

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

...yeah it's a pill for everybody, you and us :\ ...that's for sure.

I think you have it crossed a bit though.. essentially, we would get notice from a court, saying an entity has intention of taking specific IPs to court. If the court orders us to, we can't really say no.. it's the law... so we would then give our customer a notice that we have been asked by the court to give up this information.. and then we would provide the info to the court and that's the extent of our involvement.

there is an out for TSI
its a rarely used bit of lawsuit law that states if bad milk was delivered to the store old days you had to sue the store whom would sue the bringer of the milk....now i can remove you and go right at CRIA and i promise i want you to give me a notice and ill do just that and then get everyone i know on the net to make it class action and take BOTH the CRIA and the conservative party to court.
THEY both have legal counsel and thusly can't plead ignorance of the law. I swear its should be named the retarded party of canada.
JUST marc do what they tell you we the people will take care of the rest.
NOW you know why the harper govt was against the levy YET it still exists....and the law speaks not of retro-activity....( grins )


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to zacron
said by zacron:

Marc, could you explain "We can't really say no" to us?

Thanks for clarifying

I think Geist explains it all in his blog: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6033/125/

Essentially, once that bill becomes law... We will have to live by it..
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Spike
Premium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

2 edits
said by TSI Marc:

said by zacron:

Marc, could you explain "We can't really say no" to us?

Thanks for clarifying

I think Geist explains it all in his blog: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6033/125/

Essentially, once that bill becomes law... We will have to live by it..

C-11 seems to be unfinished legislation since the Cons seem so inclined to delay implementing some of it, including Notice-and-notice for ISP's as per this thread...

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6686/125/

More public scrutiny required.... which is funny, seeing how most of the bill was subject to intense public outcry yet rubber stamped regardless. Digital locks being the primary #1 fault.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by Spike:

More public scrutiny required....

I think you misinterpreted that. You meant to say:
More back door lobbying by US benefactors.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

...yeah it's a pill for everybody, you and us :\ ...that's for sure.

I think you have it crossed a bit though.. essentially, we would get notice from a court, saying an entity has intention of taking specific IPs to court. If the court orders us to, we can't really say no.. it's the law... so we would then give our customer a notice that we have been asked by the court to give up this information.. and then we would provide the info to the court and that's the extent of our involvement.

and harassment is legal is it. THIS is why i mention that if i am downloading music and then putting them onto levied cdrs that i pay a levy on , that was a previous law and setup how can i be found to be infringing and doing illegal acts and have you harrass me?

Me thinks a charter violation has occurred here....

It would be like having everyone sent a letter your not to cross the street anymore on green lights and we dont care....i pay taxes to gte htose lights and system setup and you are saying then that they pass a law without thinking of consequences WHICH you cannot do under law ( pleading ignorance )

i want all my levy money back as the law as written makes no mention of retro-activity either....
i dont care id rather see the cria have to give it all back.