| Beware censorship from CUIC/I-Am-Net! I recently began shopping for a new ISP since my Linux distro downloading/game playing/VPN access to work is going to easily make me go over Sympatico's bit cap.
One ISP that I was interested in is "Canadian Unlimited Internet Corp", or CUIC. However, I noticed in their acceptable use policy the following:
"6. Subject to the provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and any other applicable laws and regulations, Canadian Unlimited Internet Corp. reserves the right to remove or block access to, either permanently or temporarily, any files which Canadian Unlimited Internet Corp. suspects or which a third party alleges are associated with a violation of the law"
Naturally, I had to wonder why a Canadian company would hold their Canadian citizen customers subject to the DMCA, a highly controversial American law. After all, the DMCA plainly denies you rights given to you under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So, I asked them. Their response was not very satisfying and I informed them that I would not do business with them. To this they said:
That is o.k. sir because we were not prepared to accept an application from you. Typically anyone who questions this act we do not want to do business with.
So.. what they are telling me that they are going to discriminate against me by refusing to provide services to me simply because I questioned why they are using an American law to censor Canadians.
If you are a customer of CUIC or I-Am-Net or thinking about becoming a customer of theirs and are concerned with issues of freedom of speech, I highly recommend that you look for a different ISP.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-08 17:05:15] |
|
|
|
 emmpeethreeTwizzling FlagellaPremium
join:2001-04-13
Richmond, BC | i think basically they are just putting that their to cover their own ass. its a disclaimer so no one can chase them if someone is hosting an illegal server. |
|
 Buck FushGreat Minds With Great Debts.
join:2001-02-24 | reply to turambar386
DMCA doesn't apply to Canada thats the bottom line. |
|
 DKSDamn Kidney StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to turambar386
They have every right to refuse to accept any customer who doesn't agree with their Terms of Service.
You don't.
They don't want you as a customer. They have to live with that decision, as do you.
BTW, Sympatico says something similar, though they don't refer to the DMCA.
--
Bell HSE user by default... |
|
Buck FushGreat Minds With Great Debts.
join:2001-02-24 | reply to turambar386
Every right my arse DKS, come on, they like to enforce the DMCA, I bet they are using at least one unlicensed software for their busines purposes, using it at home is a different story. As goes for their right to refuse service to anybody, that I agree with, but at least don't give the person attitude who is trying to explain something to their dumb selves. call themselves CANADIAN UNLIMITED INTERNET CORP. ya right. I can't even designate you American.
--
»www.worldsocialism.org - We can make it happen
»www.Hitman2.com - Where the real assassins hang out! |
|
 Bob CarrickPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2000-04-24
New York, NY | reply to turambar386
What does I am Net have to do with this post though. I see CUIC quoted etc, but do not saying anything in reference to I am Net expect for the title and the very last line. Anyway, just wondering.
--
Bobhttp://www.carricksolutions.com - The largest PPPoE Help Website, including Tango Manager, EnterNet, WinPoET, MacPoET, Sympatico Access Manager,RASPPPoE, CFoS, NetVoyager, Broadjump SAM |
|
 jlupienPremium,VIP
join:2001-02-20
Ladysmith, BC | reply to turambar386
I wonder if they are using the DMCA law as Canada may soon have one of it's own.
I haven't been able to find much, but it sounds like there is a motion to modify Tariff 22 to make ISPs liable for their customers sharing of copyrighted material:
»strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSI/rp/caipcom.pdf
Sounds like they are just getting ahead of the game. |
|
| reply to Bob Carrick
said by Bob Carrick:
What does I am Net have to do with this post though. I see CUIC quoted etc, but do not saying anything in reference to I am Net expect for the title and the very last line. Anyway, just wondering.
Sorry, Bob. I should have explained that. I-AM-NET has the exact same AUP as CUIC. I suspect that they are the same company. |
|
Bob CarrickPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2000-04-24
New York, NY | I know for one they are not the same company. I know the owner of I Am Net realitively well.
It is odd that their ToS / AUP is the same but I would not worry about that clause all too much. Sounds like a protect your ass clause if a US company decides to try and sue the ISP to allowing it's users to download copy written material.
--
Bobhttp://www.carricksolutions.com - The largest PPPoE Help Website, including Tango Manager, EnterNet, WinPoET, MacPoET, Sympatico Access Manager,RASPPPoE, CFoS, NetVoyager, Broadjump SAM |
|
 Bender2000Bite My Shiny Metal AssPremium
join:2002-05-06
Dollard-Des-Ormeaux, QC | yeah, it's a protect your butt kind of clause. However, when someone asked why they are going by an american law (and not a canadian one) they get attitude...that's a little odd. |
|
Bob CarrickPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2000-04-24
New York, NY | Has anyone actually talked to I am Net about it? I thought only CUIC was questioned about this clause? We should not speak about an ISP whom no one has actually talked to about it. No point in starting rumors without confirmation.
--
Bobhttp://www.carricksolutions.com - The largest PPPoE Help Website, including Tango Manager, EnterNet, WinPoET, MacPoET, Sympatico Access Manager,RASPPPoE, CFoS, NetVoyager, Broadjump SAM |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to turambar386
DMCA is not legal in Canada, therefore that section of the agreement in VOID, it is the same as marking a big X thur it, ignore it, it does not exist. If you like the rest of the agreement then use it. If they cut you off stating this part of the agreement, you win in court. |
|
| reply to turambar386
Actually if you signed an agreement stating you would follow proper laws and not break the DMCA and they provided you with the DMCA to read, you are legally responsible. Just because it's in the US doesn't mean it isn't legal. Sure the US DoJ can't put you in jail but the ISP can sue you in civil court and you would most likely lose because you signed those papers which is a legal contract between you and the isp. In many cases when you get service agreements they may state where the laws would apply also. |
|
| reply to Bob Carrick
said by Bob Carrick:
I would not worry about that clause all too much.
Bob.. The DMCA is highly controversial. Many Americans consider it unconstitutional and it has been used to arrest and detain academics such as Dmitry Sklyarov. This has had a chilling effect on security researchers.
For a Canadian company to be voluntarily enforcing it, and then to assume that anyone who questions the practice is a criminal, is inexcusable.
On the question of whether IAm-Net and CUIC are the same company, you are right. They are separate corporate entities. They share the same AUP; IAm-NEt's DNS servers are listed in WHOIS as NS.CUIC.CA and NS2.CUIC.CA; and they both have the same upstream provider (Storm Internet), but other that that, they are separate. So I have sent IAm-Net a similar email asking clarification on their AUP and will post their reply when I get it. |
|
 KrispyPremium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
kudos:1 | reply to turambar386
While their response is (in my opinion) somewhat flawed and unprofessional they do have the right to consider copyright infringement against their policies.
For example, our AUP states you must abide by provincial, federal, etc laws and last time I checked copyright infringement was a federal crime in Canada - Copyright Act ( R.S. 1985, c. C-42 ) - so legally we have a basis to take action regardless of DMCA. The DMCA investigative bodies (contracted by companies such as Universal, Microsoft, Sony, etc) don't differentiate between American and non-American companies so I still receive umpteen reports a day (approx 15% of all abuse reports) DEMANDING I take action...personally I choose to refer them to the Canadian Justice Department explaining that we are not governed by the DMCA but fact remains copyright offenders are reported and ISPs are made aware of their actions.
That said, I still don't agree with their response and/or reference to the DMCA. |
|
| said by Lippy:
While their response is (in my opinion) somewhat flawed and unprofessional they do have the right to consider copyright infringement against their policies.
Hi Lippy. I absolutely agree that they have every right to enforce Canadian copyright law. I have no problem with that. However, the DMCA goes way beyond copyright law. Copyright law originated to protect the public by giving them rights to copy content based on fair use such as quoting parts of a book in a review of said book. The DMCA does away with such protections. It is a law that serves solely to protect copyright holders regardless of the public's constitutional rights. |
|
 IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Krispy
Is it possible that CUIC is owned by American investors, or they might have future plans to expand service south of the border?
The owners also might not want to get arrested in the US like Dmitri Sklyarov did. He worked for a Russian company not subject to US law either.
Canada may put something in place similar to the DMCA, although the Canadian governtment seems to like the idea of placing obscene taxes on digital media.
See »pcbuyersguide.com/hardware/stora···Q.html#8. |
|
| reply to Bob Carrick
said by Bob Carrick:
Has anyone actually talked to I am Net about it?
Okay, Bob. I have asked IAM-Net why they have this clause. Their response was much more polite than CUIC. The essence of the reply was:
"We enforce all North American laws when it comes to copyright laws and Internet regulations. Since Canada does not have a DMCA as detailed as the one in the United States we have adopted all rules and regulations from this. Canada has a smaller version of the DMCA @
»laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/"
Of course, C-42 is a bill and not yet a law. Until (and if) it becomes a law, I still consider that the DMCA goes so far above copyright law that it denies me rights granted to me under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (if C-42 gets passed I will still consider it unconstitutional but will obey it). I am not willing to voluntarily give up my rights for an ISP. |
|
KrispyPremium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
kudos:1 | reply to turambar386
I'd suggest writing a professional letter to the upper management of the company complete with references, etc. Odds are it's a combination of lack of knowledge on the author of the policy (or the recommendation body) and threats by the copyright infringement investigative bodies of the companies that are emailing the service provider...I see these notices and they try their best to be quite intimating. A person with little knowledge of the DMCA or Canadian legal system would likely be quite worried. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| One must understand the mechanics of American law to understand why a Canadian company (and ultimately an individual) may wish to obey an American law.
As owner of myownisp.ca I can be prosecuted under US law, in the USA, and in some cases, found guilty in absentia. I can be also be charged under US law, although never formally brought to court, and have an arrest warrant issued which generally for this kind of crime won't affect me until I attempt to set foot in the USA. I can be refused entry to the US, or held on the spot and taken to jail.
If, as owner of myownisp.ca, I should ever want to go to the USA, then I would want to cover my butt. The same applies to many companies with interests in other countries. For an ISP, particularly if bandwidth originates in the USA, it could be a problem.
For a large operator, like Cogeco, Shaw, Rogers, Bell, the "workers" like Lippy would not be involved, but upper management could be. On the other hand for a small operator, the top management could have their livlihood stopped in a hearbeat.
It's crappy.
Another example of this kind of insanity ... in Holland, smoking marijuana is not illegal, but if a person who has been to Holland admits to having smoked marijuana ever in their life, they are excludable from the US, even though they've never committed an offence in any country. Americans treat their law as international in nature if you want to be involved with them. |
|
