Topic '[BC] Bill C-11' in forum 'Shaw' - dslreports.com

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:23:53 EDT

urbanriot posted :

said by AJ102:

Correct. And what was mentioned previously sounds like 'plenty of doubt' and doesn't come even close to holding any water concerning other forms of piracy. The judges I've encountered have sifted through what they basically deem as BS, points that every day people would argue are plausible, and say "you don't have proof" in more plain words.

Perhaps you have different, more people-friendly experiences in court than I have but concerning software piracy, what I've seen are binary situations of proof or zero proof. Invoices with proper dates is proof, everything else is zero proof, case closed, you lose.

Again, I hope the legal firms representing those alleging infringements are not the same as those representing software companies. Since the costs involved concerning media infringement are considerably less, perhaps more people-friendly explanations can be provided by human beings to a nicer, kinder judge... I truthfully can't say, I haven't participated in a media-centric case.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:24:43 EDT

AJ102 posted : Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. In a civil trial, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probability" (i.e., > 50% likely), rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". That standard cuts both ways. The claimant doesn't have to prove every little detail of their case with incontrovertible proof, they just have to establish that it's more likely than not that the defendant did infringe copyright. On the other hand the defendant doesn't need solid evidence for every part of their defence if they can convince a judge that it's believable and likely to be true.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:58:21 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by CapsCaps :

Shaw's cap on their 50 meg service is 400gig, isn't Telus 250gig?

No the 250 gig cap is on their 25mbps package. (which matches shaw). Their 50mbps package is on a soft launch so I don't think the details are on the website yet. It's a good bet its 400gigs as they seem content to clone shaw's caps.

On the flipside Telus hasn't started to enforce caps yet....

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:16:19 EDT

urbanriot posted :

said by tlhIngan:

Obviously you don't shop at the good used media places whose receipts don't really say much other than "DVD - $3.99".

No, instead I have experience in the court of law concerning piracy.

said by tlhIngan:

Plus, if we take a movie like Hurt Locker - I'm fairly certain the courts will excuse the lack of receipts because well, which reasonable person would have a receipt from 4 years ago?!

Exactly. Welcome to the unfair world of unjust damages in the court of law. No receipt? You don't own it. Receipt? What's the date? No date, you can't prove you owned this at the time of the alleged crime.

Saying you cleared out old receipts for tax reasons or you simply don't keep them, that means you can't prove it.

said by tlhIngan:

I'm sure the courts would love to rule that receiving a Christmas present doesn't mean you own it because you didn't ask the giver for a receipt.

I haven't heard of that situation but I'd love to hear of someone successfully using that one. I have a feeling it would cost you more than its worth to try and involve someone else to prove they purchased you a Christmas gift that a team of high priced lawyers allege you stole.

Every day logic won't work in the court of law when it concerns software piracy, all your points are smoke and mirrors that are trumped by a legal set of logic that's hard for anyone to wrap their head around. It's unfair and it's unjust, but that's the way it is.

Businesses make claims they disposed of software licensing receipts 6 years ago because of tax reasons... oh, well, that was stupid because you threw out your proof of ownership.

The truth is as crazy as it sounds.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:28:07 EDT

tlhIngan posted :

said by urbanriot:

said by tlhIngan:

Or, if you get a notice, go out and buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray (if you downloaded the DVD or high-def version). Buy used from those used media stores.

Just to advise people thinking they can do this, they can't. The court of law refers to receipts to prove ownership. If you don't have a receipt, you don't own the item. It doesn't matter if you're holding it in your hands.

Edit: and oh, yea, the date of the receipt needs to be before the allegations so you can't show a current day receipt.

Obviously you don't shop at the good used media places whose receipts don't really say much other than "DVD - $3.99". Plus, if we take a movie like Hurt Locker - I'm fairly certain the courts will excuse the lack of receipts because well, which reasonable person would have a receipt from 4 years ago?! And I can tell you that most people would've thrown away their receipts even if they just bought the movie. We're talking about a $20-30 movie here. Pay in cash and Future Shop can't link the transaction to you, either, just one of the many people who bought that DVD/Blu-Ray/game/etc on that day and paid in cash (yes, there are plenty of people who buy in cash). Receipts, when they exist, prove ownership. When they don't, doesn't mean anything (you could've traded it with your friends, got it as a gift, etc). I'm sure the courts would love to rule that receiving a Christmas present doesn't mean you own it because you didn't ask the giver for a receipt.

Of course, if you're downloading a movie before it's DVD release (eww, cam rip), then it obviously won't help.

And when you think about C-11, since you can't break a digital lock, downloading IS the only answer if you want to watch that blu-ray on your phone or something (other than digital copy, but you can find movies without them).

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:56:43 EDT

AJ102 posted : Forget the thought of buying a DVD and showing a receipt to prove that you own the movie you are being sued for downloading. Aside from the fact that nobody will believe you, just read the law - it's illegal to make a copy from an unauthorized source, regardless of whether you have an alternative authorized source or not.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:29:59 EDT

anon posted : Shaw's cap on their 50 meg service is 400gig, isn't Telus 250gig?

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:00:59 EDT

urbanriot posted :

said by tlhIngan:

Or, if you get a notice, go out and buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray (if you downloaded the DVD or high-def version). Buy used from those used media stores.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:55:50 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by Drum:

BTW they've started suing users from TekSavvy. Head over there in the section for TekSavvy and check it out. Its pretty epic in there, full of all kinds of info...

Woah dude your like the American media... lol. No one's been sued yet. Teksavvy was directed to share the info of about 2000 ip address. They declined unless they got a court order to do so. Tomorrow that is before the courts. Then if a court order is created the rackateering company will have the names associated with the infringing ip's. I suppose at the point they'll have to see if all the hassle is worth a max $5k reward.

They haven't sued anyone yet though... you're post was a little sensational? (cnn style? :) )

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:08:37 EDT

capdjq posted : Got this from another Forum about TechSavvy

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:51:10 EDT

Drum posted : BTW they've started suing users from TekSavvy. Head over there in the section for TekSavvy and check it out. Its pretty epic in there, full of all kinds of info...

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:44:40 EDT

ShadowMeph posted : wel then I might as well downgrade my internet speed to fairly low since I don't play to many online games and I won't need the speed now, on a positive note this will save me a few dollars.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:34:37 EDT

kevinds posted : TV episodes, yes
Linux distos, some of them.

RedHat Enterprise they don't like shared... But that is the only one I can think of at the moment.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:58:19 EDT

ShadowMeph posted : what about using torrents to download TV episodes and or Linux distros can people get into trouble doing that? I ask because I download a fair amount of both the TV eps I do because I really hate commercials

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:01:10 EDT

Baud1200 posted : It will only happen if we the people let it. Us sitting here behind PC's and preaching to the quire sadly wont make much of a difference.

We need to make the average Joe user aware of whats happening because the bought off presstitute mainstream media will not explain the full details to them until its too late.

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:52:43 EDT

Drum posted : I suggest everyone reads points 21 and 27 from this document:

»www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Commi···nc.E.pdf

They will fine the ISPs that don't comply with all of this mumbo jumbo, which means all of this is happening...

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:51:47 EDT

anon posted :
Found it:

»www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Commi···nc.E.pdf

on page 4 of the PDF says:

First, ISPs are not given any time to design and implement the automated notice
processing systems that will be required in order to comply with the requirements
of the Bill; and

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:40:48 EDT

anon posted : I read somewhere yesterday that Shaw submitted some sort of opinion regarding the bill c11 to the legislative committee and it wants the government to give them time to implement an automated system for the infringement complaints. They apparently are receiving thousands of infringement complaints every year and cannot manage them all at the same time...

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 02:13:56 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by SlipperyPete :

Well Shaw best not follow telus, as again there will be a mass Exodus to Teksavvy or the likes, as it was for the UBB...fiasco

Telus followed shaw. IE the new caps are identical to shaw's current caps. I suppose I see what you mean. If shaw want's to lower them further and they think telus fill follow suit, it could start a vicous trend to what they have out east.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:47:22 EDT

Baud1200 posted : Believe it or not, Torrents aren't only used to transfer copyright material. I have used it as a legitimate P2P transport for the transfer personal and or free use non copyright material. Material that is politically sensitive and is prone to deletion from cloud providers and hosting services due to either their financial backers and or political pressure.

This is why i stress avoiding cloud providers and hosting services with content nannying and favor the use of personal storage and serving. Unfortunately Shaw will not let you run a web server or FTP server on the residential package so P2P is the only remaining alternative.

From my perspective, aside from the usual profiteering to appease gov. lobbyists, the bill is another attempt to force users onto a cloud based solution (which all major ISP and services are now foolishly migrating to or promoting), thus the legislation not only affects users that are concerned with copyright infringement, but also will allow them to conveniently nanny and censor the content you do serve once you have it on their cloud. Anyone that has tried to post content like this on YouTube knows all too well what happens.

Maybe the next phase will be raiding houses to bust up people's printing presses!

Of course, Shaw could solve any legal implications by simply disabling logging on their network, so that they don't have any log files to provide to investigators the same way BTGuard does, but again considering the political/financial pressure on Shaw this is likely not even on the table.

History Lesson:
Martin Niem�ller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niem�ller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:02:36 EDT

anon posted : Well Shaw best not follow telus, as again there will be a mass Exodus to Teksavvy or the likes, as it was for the UBB...fiasco

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:50:08 EDT

anon posted : Looks like many many people will be lowering their internet needs, if people really start getting these fines then many won't need a fast internet connection...

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:17:20 EDT

Juggernaut posted : Perhaps I've missed it along the way but, wouldn't it be easier to avoid the hassle, and the account red flag by just not bothering?

People seem to think this will get dropped to a $100 fine, but you may well have a nasty surprise.
--
I'm not anti-social, I just don't like stupid people.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:07:47 EDT

upantsmaster posted : While we are still waiting for one serious offense to set the precedent, I think that none of us will pay 5k or take this to court. I think this notice and notice thing will make a lot of money for CANAIPRE.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:39:54 EDT

AJ102 posted : Yes they can take you to civil court, but then they have to prove the amount of actual damages caused by your copyright infringement if they want more than the statutory amount. Since that's virtually impossible in cases of non-commercial p2p file sharing, all the lawsuits to date in the U.S. have relied on statutory damages. The new copyright law Bill C-11 in Canada limits the statutory damages to a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $5000, with guidance to judges that it should be proportional to the offense (presumably something like the minimum for downloading 1 movie, with the maximum reserved for someone downloading hundreds of gigabytes per month and continually sharing hundreds of movies.)

The $5000 (or $100) is not a government fine, it's statutory damages in a civil judgement against you. It goes to the copyright holder that sued you. Of course in practice it goes to the lawyers, and that's the big monkey wrench in this process. In the U.S. these lawsuits were self-funding for the lawyers, because they could sue for $millions in statutory damages, and the media companies didn't have to pay for anything. What's the chances that they are going to pay expensive lawyers to sue thousands of people to recover a few hundred dollars each when a single lawsuit could cost them $20,000 in expenses?

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:22:44 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by tlhIngan:

The other way is to have the police file charges against those people. then when the subpeonas are issued, drop the case, then re-file the case in civil court. This worked until a few years ago in the US when judges started getting annoyed at this practice because they never saw the case end up on the docket and started seeing it as a abuse of the court as criminal charges were never intended to be filed - it was done just to get the subpeona'd information.

I know civil court is for suing people opposed to criminal proceedings. Could punishments be worse than the $5k fine in civil court. Can they take you to civil court for something that like that?

Your post also brought up another thought. The punishment is a $5k fine. It says nothing of that money going to the record companies or movie companies. It's probably like a parking fine/speeding ticket and goes to the government? IE companies would be footing alot of legal bills without anything in return?

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:37:18 EDT

tlhIngan posted :

said by zod5000:

I just had another thought. How are private companies getting access to the data of those 50 users?

Aren't warrants and what no only issued to police? How can the courts turn over private information to private parties?

I could understand turning it over if the police have obtain a warrant, but if it's as easy as a private party showing an ip address to a judge, I think there's going to be some privacy issues?

Why do you think Vic Toews keeps wanting to push his spy bill through? One of his "You're a child pornographer if you oppose this bill" favorites is the ability to get subscriber information without a court order, among other things. All it would take was basically asking. And even though the original bill is dead, the offspring of that bill are still very much alive. So much so that privacy commissioners from several provinces have banded together detailing their concerns.

The other way is to have the police file charges against those people. then when the subpeonas are issued, drop the case, then re-file the case in civil court. This worked until a few years ago in the US when judges started getting annoyed at this practice because they never saw the case end up on the docket and started seeing it as a abuse of the court as criminal charges were never intended to be filed - it was done just to get the subpeona'd information.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:12:15 EDT

zod5000 posted : I just had another thought. How are private companies getting access to the data of those 50 users?

Aren't warrants and what no only issued to police? How can the courts turn over private information to private parties?

I could understand turning it over if the police have obtain a warrant, but if it's as easy as a private party showing an ip address to a judge, I think there's going to be some privacy issues?

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:23:57 EDT

AJ102 posted : The current spate of stories was generated by one shady company trolling for business. There are lots of these companies monitoring traffic on p2p networks and offering their "services" to groups of lawyers who want to make money by launching lawsuits on behalf of media industry associations. So while there's no need to get particularly excited about this one, keep an eye on your politicians. Where there's money to be made, there will be continuing pressure to change the regulatory environment to make it easier to sue. Monitor what legislation your politicians are proposing and where they are getting their campaign contributions from.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 01:30:58 EDT

tlhIngan posted : I think it limits max damages to $5000 total so if you're caught with 20 downloads, it's $5000 max for all 20.

Or, if you get a notice, go out and buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray (if you downloaded the DVD or high-def version). Buy used from those used media stores.

Just say you were exercising your right to place-shift the content, and since you can't break the digital lock, you downloaded it. But you legitimately own a copy of it.

The law says you can't break the digital lock at all. It doesn't say you couldn't have someone break it for you and you grabbed that version.

Plus, the courts will probably be more lenient if you were doing it to exercise your legal rights than if you were trying to get movies and stuff for free.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:19:30 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by upantsmaster:

I read an article today about what's considered as a reasonable penalty and the law is up to 5000 for non-commercial infringement. The court, the article argues, can say 100 dollars is reasonable. The law is making the judge decide what's reasonable and if the content owner wants to file a lawsuit for 100 dollars then I am in, just to see what's it like. In all seriousness, because of this law I am downsizing my cable TV and internet as well.

This is one of the things that makes me wonder if it will be worth it for companies to go after individuals.

In the US you get a letter saying pay us a few thousand dollars or we take you to court for hundreds of thousands. They's a pretty strong motivation to avoid the court system. It also allows the copyright trolls to rackateer money even if people aren't guilty.

In Canada there's a max fine of $5000. So what are they going to do... Pay us $2500 or you're to court and you might have to pay $5000? I don't think its per pirated item either. IE I don't think they can bust you for 20 items and fine you $5000x20.

The other thing is these companies can't take you to court directly? Its a law. Which means I think the cops or the crown have to charge you. How much of the court system are cops/crown going to want to fill up with this crap.

The question is because it's law. Does it create a criminal record? That could be the only deterrant I can think of. Not being able to go on travel to the US, jobs that require a check... etc...

Other then that how many people would force it to court over a few grand?

My guess? They'll eventually ammend the law to make it worse.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:57:52 EDT

upantsmaster posted : I read an article today about what's considered as a reasonable penalty and the law is up to 5000 for non-commercial infringement. The court, the article argues, can say 100 dollars is reasonable. The law is making the judge decide what's reasonable and if the content owner wants to file a lawsuit for 100 dollars then I am in, just to see what's it like. In all seriousness, because of this law I am downsizing my cable TV and internet as well.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:49:02 EDT

kevinds posted : Yeah, I know.

Shaw hasn't released information in the past, but C-11 may change that.

I don't know all the details on how C-11 and the Consumer Privacy laws interact with each other.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:31:26 EDT

anon posted :

said by zod5000:

said by slipperyPete :

I warned all my friends with using BitTorrent and the possibilities of eavesdropping. May I suggest Encryption for your future endeavours?

»torrentfreak.com/how-to-encrypt-···traffic/

Encryption like that doesn't work. P2P needs you to directly connect to others in the swarm to share files. Since you have to be able to connect to their pc's directly you can't hide your ip using standard encryption.

Proxies and VPNs will mask your ip, or at least an a layer so you can't be identified directly.

ahh yes, correct you are, forgot about how it uses a swarm. *need more java* Never used P2P myself, not my thing.

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:50:00 EDT

upantsmaster posted : I am not using torrent but paid download storage so I dont think that's exempt too

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:31:48 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by slipperyPete :

I warned all my friends with using BitTorrent and the possibilities of eavesdropping. May I suggest Encryption for your future endeavours?

»torrentfreak.com/how-to-encrypt-···traffic/

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:12:56 EDT

anon posted : I warned all my friends with using BitTorrent and the possibilities of eavesdropping. May I suggest Encryption for your future endeavours?

»torrentfreak.com/how-to-encrypt-···traffic/

[BC] Bill C-11

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:38:46 EDT

upantsmaster posted : Ever since I hear the news on the radio, I have been consumed by this and paranoid about SHAW releasing my information. This Canipre company in Montreal threatens to fine each torrent users 5000 dollars. and take matters to fed.