dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to upantsmaster

Re: [BC] Bill C-11

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?

tlhIngan

join:2002-07-08
Richmond, BC
kudos:1
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.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
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?

AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC
Reviews:
·TELUS
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?

upantsmaster

join:2008-06-13
Vancouver, BC
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.