Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canada Considering A Three Strikes And You're Off The Internet Policy?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-stop-the-signal dept.

The Internet 470

Techdirt is reporting that Canada may be considering a "three strikes" policy which could see users internet access privileges revoked for file sharing violations. "Given how secretive the industry and the government have been about new copyright laws, perhaps this isn't too surprising. We do know that the industry was pushing for greater ISP liability as part of copyright law changes a few months back, so it wouldn't be surprising if ISPs were negotiating a "three strikes" type rule to avoid the liability issues. Of course, they probably want to keep it secret, as publicity (and resulting anger) about these types of laws in Europe has at least some politicians moving away from them. However, as the entertainment industry does keep succeeding in getting these types of laws to move forward, how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"

cancel ×

470 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just great... (5, Funny)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381798)

My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!

The aristocracy is planet-wide... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382140)

...and the wealthy get really upset whenever something valuable is also abundant. The creation of artificial supply limitations, as a means of maintaining wealth and power, is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

You cannot escape this by relocating. Stand and fight. Hold your ground. It is the only way to get what you want.

The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382520)

My plan to escape American ISP's and DMCA madness by going to Canada has been foiled!
What the USA has, the right wingers of Canada desire.
And since the Conservative party is in power in Canada, what the USA does, Canada does a year later.

Sounds good (4, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381804)

I'll just switch to filing my taxes electronically...

Re:Sounds good (5, Insightful)

scipiodog (1265802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381966)

This is actually a very good point, in my opinion.

Seriously, with the importance of the Internet in everyday life, is there a case that this actually infringes on a person's civil rights, or at least on their basic rights?

Yes, I know Internet usage is not a civil right per se. However, in the USA and Canada, it's becoming extremely difficult to carry out certain basic functions off line. When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?

Banning someone from internet access for something so trivial would severely restrict their life, IMHO.

Re:Sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382360)

So let's make it illegal if you get caught doing something illegal 3 times! Um yeah... that's gonna work. Next up, bootleg connections to homes.

Re:Sounds good (5, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382490)

What about free wifi? That's the real issue. I used to live in an apartment building, and all my neighbors sprung for a business-grade internet connection, and we set it up on wifi and went nuts while all the other poor bastards in the building were stuck with the crap cable connection.

If we'd been banned, we'd have just switched the cable to someone elses name. What are they going to do? Search my house weekly to make sure I don't have a wireless card?

Completely pointless.

Re:Sounds good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382406)

When is the last time you looked up something in a "phone book" made of paper?
When was the last time you searched for a specific product located in your neighborhood online and got results like 'Buy here!' Where here is a town 3 states away.

An outdated view of technology (4, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382592)

Proposed legislation like this is based on an out-of-date mindset that internet access is some sort of above-and-beyond privilege to be closely regulated.

To people who have worked in the paper-laden chambers of legislative bodies for many years and have their assistants print out their e-mails for them to read, perhaps it still looks this way to them. But it is not.

Enough daily tasks, both personal and public, now require access to the internet such that I think it's time for internet access to be considered a civil right, to be suspended only for those genuinely too dangerous to remain at large.

Denying internet access isn't like a sentence of probation anymore; it's more akin to house arrest and should only be applied when the punishment fits the crime.

In Soviet Canada (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381806)

Internet Strikes You!

Soviet Canada? - Hardly (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382058)

As a Canadian I feel I must inform you that, given the current pathetic excuse for a federal government, that should read "In Fascist Canada", run by shills for big business and foreign superpowers.

DUh! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381816)

No wonder I can make a First Post!

We are all camels (-1, Offtopic)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381822)

It's raining straws...

banned from the internet?! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381826)

I mean, whats that all aboot, eh?

Recipricol Three Strikes (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381844)

I'd suggest that this law not be so one sided.

How about a three strikes provision against the *IAA (or equivalent) as well. This way, if they accuse falsely three times, they get tossed. Seems only fair to me. :-D

Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382084)

when you get in a position to actually suggest this in the formal forum that it needs to be suggested in than you let us know. until than may i suggest that you and your supporters not steal music so that it's not an issue.

everyone here wants to talk the talk but there isn't a single one of you who's going to do something about it.

Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382552)

you and your supporters not steal music so that it's not an issue.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the problem with the homeless guy and the maid who doesn't own a computer who were accused of "stealing music", they should just quit downloading music and warez to the computer they don't own!

Two strikes...

Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382382)

I'd suggest that this law not be so one sided.

How about a three strikes provision against the *IAA (or equivalent) as well. This way, if they accuse falsely three times, they get tossed. Seems only fair to me. :-D
Unfortunately though voters, like fans, may shout "Kill the Umpire" they generally lack in follow through. How long will we ignore the batters bribing the umpires to miss calling strikes, calling foul balls home runs and issuing undeserved walks, all the while picking the pockets of the paying customers? Sometimes to improve the game, you have to toss the umpires.

Re:Recipricol Three Strikes (5, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382594)

Why not simply have the same rules for companies? Every company that has been found guilty in court of copyright, trademark or patent infringment at least three times is banned from the Internet.

Good bye, Sony BMG! Good bye, Microsoft! Good bye about nearly every larger editor or company!

The internet will be again as we knew it in the pre-1990ies.

First they came for the pirates... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381846)

Can the government really strip you of your right to speak for breaking a civil statute? Or is copyright infringement without profit motive a criminal offense in Canada as well as the US?

Re:First they came for the pirates... (0, Flamebait)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382574)

"Free Speech" is *not* a right in Canada.

Re:First they came for the pirates... (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382678)

Free Speech is a right everywhere. Governments do not grant rights.

Canadians have the right of free speech, however they allow their government to deny them the ability to exercise their natural right.

Re:First they came for the pirates... (3, Informative)

dmatos (232892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382690)

If I may quote from the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms [justice.gc.ca] :

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

        a) freedom of conscience and religion;
        b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
        c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
        d) freedom of association.

That said, internet is not a fundamental right in Canada.

Re:First they came for the pirates... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382680)

The short answer, is yes they can.

They can do ANYTHING they want, its up to the supreme court ( or its equivalence in other countries ) to strike it down, after you have been jailed and ruined for life.

Im also not so sure that the US first amendment has an equivalent in canadian law. I know it doesn't have a 2nd amendment equivalent.

sigh.... (3, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381850)

Dear Everyone,

Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power.

Thanks

Re:sigh.... (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381958)

Dear Jasyn,

We would if anybody but shills, shysters and despots were running.

Thanks,
Everyone

Re:sigh.... (5, Insightful)

linuxpyro (680927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382020)

Dear Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People,

Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.

Thanks

Re:sigh.... (5, Funny)

inflamed (1156277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382152)

You might want to consider posting that anywhere but here.

Re:sigh.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382242)

Dear linuxpyro,

When given more options than shills, shysters, and despots, please make sure that said shills, shysters, and despots don't end up with 99.5% of the vote anyway.

Thanks,
Intelligent, Competent, and Caring Person

Re:sigh.... (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382256)

Dear Fools,

"Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People" are too busy whining about how someone else should fix their problems rather than doing anything about the problems themselves. BUt I like that touch: calling them "Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People", when we know what they really are. You have a way with people. Perhaps you should consider running for office.

Cheers

Re:sigh.... (2, Insightful)

genner (694963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382274)

We would but no one gives us campagin money.

Re:sigh.... (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382284)

Dear linuxpyro,

Where would we get the money needed for an election campaign? They only seem to be handing it out to shills, shysters and despots these days.

Thanks,
Association of Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People

Term limit the bastards (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382320)

because it seems that no matter how intelligent, competent, and caring they are, once they get in office power corrupts them

Suddenly they are the MOST intelligent people they know, they are far more competent than before, and they care so much because they give away so much money.

politicians should be allowed in at most six years, after that they seem to feel entitled and thats when it goes wrong

Re:sigh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382352)

Dear Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People,

Please consider running for office and giving us more options than shills, shysters, and despots.

Thanks
Dear consumers of mass media news and entertainment,

Please stop watching, reading, or otherwise supporting networks and publications that engage in gutter politics, character assassination, and other things that generally scare intelligent, competent, and caring people away from the idea of running for public office.

Thanks

Re:sigh.... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382462)

Dir Sir,

I did, and all the people wanted was someone promising them the moon, which I expressly said I wasn't going to do.

So what the people want, is exactly what they get.

Thanks

Re:sigh.... (2, Informative)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382478)

Dear concerned citizens, We do but then we have to deal with those around us who limit our power, blackmail us, and lobby against us. Thanks

Dear linuxpyro (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382586)

Feel free to start up a campaign donation for me, because I doubt that myself or any of those who actually give a damn are going to be able to run for election.

Re:sigh.... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382692)

Dear Voting Public, please stop being taken in by election-cycle pandering, appeals to emotions and empty rhetoric. Otherwise, there's no point in intelligent, competent and caring people running for office, or being in a democracy.

Re:sigh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382412)

Dear Everyone,

Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power. And for the love of God, PLEASE STOP STEALING MUSIC AND MOVIES

Thanks
Don't worry, I fixed it for ya. :P

More like "Sigh..." (4, Insightful)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382418)

Dear everyone,

Please actually read the article that is linked. The French are reporting that apparently the Canadians are considering implementing this policy. That's second hand hearsay at best. And the quote included in the Slashdot article is from whomever made the original post on Techdirt.

Let's ask the Professor (1)

BendingSpoons (997813) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381860)

Kent Brockman: Professor, would you say it's time for our viewers to panic?

Professor: Yes Kent, I would.

Follow-up question: Given that our neighbors to the north "may be considering" an internet policy, isn't it only a matter of time before we enact the same policy?

One thing to hope for. (5, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381872)

how long will it be before similar laws are proposed in the US, with "everyone else is doing it" as part of the reasoning?"

Maybe we can get one of those Canadian politicians to jump off a bridge?

Re:One thing to hope for. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382006)

yeah, like the president of canada. It wouldn't hurt to have bush out sooner.

President of Canada? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382400)

wtf?
Since when do we have a president of canada.
seriously, go to school or something.

Dion? (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382102)

I nominate Stephane Dion. Oh, wait, I WANT him to self-destruct the Liberal party even more than he already has. I don't want him to jump off (yet).

Layton would work though. His mutant moustache would be stopped from taking over the country then!

Bush Junior... er, I mean Steve Harper... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382254)

Uh, why don't we get bush jr. to jump?

Re:One thing to hope for. (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382216)

But where would you get a bridge in a place like that?

Hmm, perhaps someone should try to get a bill passed that would create one.

You must have been one of the 'mericans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382474)

... that Rick Mercer managed to get to congratulate Canada on getting their first university.

Or maybe one of the people who signed the petition to revoke Canada's 100-year-old treaty meaning only the aboriginal people of Canada are allowed to hunt the Great Canadian Rhinoceros.

Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (5, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381886)

I'm canadian, and every time something controversial is proposed, the american media jumps all over it and says 'Canada is going to [insert crazy idea here]'.

The way laws are passed here makes it very difficult for something controversial to pass, unless it is a human rights case. AND, even in the event that the federal government does pass a law, each province can ignore it by using the 'not-withstanding clause'.

It sure is a horrible idea, but it would go against so many of our other laws that it would be struck down as soon as it was challenged even if it did get through the 3 readings and the senate and house of commons.

I'd have to say that this sort of law would be much more likely in a place like the USA, where the government has already revoked so many of the rights of the citizens in the name of national security. I wonder how much pressure it would take to claim that piracy is a matter of national economic security...

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382060)

That's not what the notwithstanding clause [wikipedia.org] means. It means that the government can ignore (i.e. pass a law that runs counter to) certain parts of the Canadian Charter. It doesn't allow provinces to ignore federal acts of parliament.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (2, Insightful)

greenbird (859670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382188)

I'm canadian, and every time something controversial is proposed, the american media jumps all over it and says 'Canada is going to [insert crazy idea here]'.

The way laws are passed here makes it very difficult for something controversial to pass, unless it is a human rights case. AND, even in the event that the federal government does pass a law, each province can ignore it by using the 'not-withstanding clause'.

Yeah, because we all know the Canadians would never pass a stupid law [wired.com] at the behest of certain industry lobby groups or one that eliminated your ability to criticize [slashdot.org] certain groups because they might be offended by your criticism. And even if such stupid laws were passed they would be ignored by the provinces.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (4, Interesting)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382338)

I don't think the blank cd tariff is such a bad thing. It basically legalized file sharing [news.com] . It has made it possible for us to avoid such draconian laws like the DCMA. Besides, without us canadians, you americans wouldn't get any of your pirated movies (according to the MPAA).

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382644)

Besides, without us canadians, you americans wouldn't get any of your pirated movies (according to the MPAA).
Come on, we're sorry, eh? You just keep those files comin' and we'll try to keep these hosers from makin' fun of you.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (3, Informative)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382470)

That stupid law to which you refer is the reason Canadians are allowed to download music legally [wikipedia.org] . It may not be "working as intended", but at least our judges let that double edged sword bite the music industry when it swung back at them. Uploading is illegal here, but that's easy enough to turn off on most BitTorrent/file sharing clients.

regarding the data tariff (2, Insightful)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382560)

What would you prefer to live in, a country that taxes you for data in light of the unavoidable piracy that the internet brings

OR

a country that allows recording companies to sue their customers for substantially more per CD indiscriminately without attention to proper due process to extort money out of people who can't afford lawyers?

One seems the lesser of two evils. I'm happy with the one I'm given.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382328)

if i understand my history correct, the the 'not-withstanding clause' you refer to was ripped off from the concept of American Federalism

as for:

"I'd have to say that this sort of law would be much more likely in a place like the USA, where the government has already revoked so many of the rights of the citizens in the name of national security."

please refer to:

"I'm [american], and every time something controversial is proposed, the [canadian] media jumps all over it and says '[America] is going to [insert crazy idea here]'."

but i have to admit, that's a pretty neat trick: you took news of a fascist canadian proposal and turned it into an opportunity to bash the usa. well played!

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (0)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382510)

Oops. I forgot.
DHS is such a canadian concept. The DCMA is such a fair and balanced law. Illegal wiretapping is ... constitutional after all. Waterboarding is OKAY so long as we do it to non-americans.

Sorry if I'm a bit cynical, but americans need to get their news from somewhere that isn't in the pocket of their govn't.

The daily show has more real news than fox.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382546)

It is More Important to be Good than it is to be Right. And clearly, waterboarding is GOOD, since it is clearly not RIGHT, but practiced anyways. You americans have strange ideas about how the world works.

Re:Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382562)

care to name any of those rights that were revoked? or is this yet another example of someone talking out their ass about something they don't really know anything about?

Michael Liberal Geist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381892)

yawn

File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381920)

File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!

That's it! I declare that the world has gone insane. Driven by corporate greed and stupidity!

Re:File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382012)

File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!


Well, pardner, 'round these here parts file sharin' is a hangin' offense.

Thanks,
The MAFIAA

Re:File Sharing?!?! WTF?!? (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382422)

File sharing? FILE SHARING? You gotta be joking! Oh, no, let's ignore.. oh I don't know... sexual predators... or, identity theft... and jump straight to the fsck'n FILE SHARING!
"Sexual predators" are hardly being ignored. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of law enforcement agents sitting around in chat rooms right now pretending to be 14 year old girls in the hope that some idiot will talk with them and try to arrange a meeting. And, at least in the US, being caught as an internet sexual predator is not a three-strikes offense. It is a one-strike offense, with the end result likely being a long prison term and lifetime sex offender registration (along with heavy computer usage restrictions in many states).

This is (ahem) child's play in comparison with the amount of resources allocated to stopping sexual predators online.

Sexual predators (2, Informative)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382616)

Actually, I believe that in there have already been cases where people in sexual predator or identity-theft cases have been banned from using the 'net.

This is after a real trial which ascertains guilt though, as opposed to the whim of an ISP/label.

No go (4, Insightful)

^_^x (178540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381926)

Well, first off that would be illegal considering we already pay a levy to compensate for THEORETICAL copyright violations whenever we buy blank media. It is against the law to tax people for nothing at all (you at least have to have a "reason" even if it is not followed through on) so for this to happen they would have to repeal it. I don't see that as likely since not a cent AFAIK has gone to actually compensate artists - it's going straight into the government's pockets like a sin tax, and they're far too greedy to give up such easy money for doing nothing.

Re:No go (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382036)

That levy only covers CDs that are actually copied. Not music transfered over P2P. You can borrow a CD from the library or a friend, and make a copy for yourself. You cannot make a copy for your friend. Your friend has to make the copy himself. The levy doesn't cover every possible copyright violation you could possibly make.

Re:No go (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382496)

No, it pretty much covers any copying of music (not movies/games/tv shows), so long as you aren't "distributing" the copies. It's unclear as to whether making files available on a P2P network constitutes distributing, but it's been pretty well decided that downloading is ok.

Re:No go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382570)

Regardless of what you happen use that CD for though, that same portion of its purchase price still goes into the account with all the other levy funds.

*completely ignoring the fact that the levy only covers Canadian artists*

Actually (1)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382624)

The data tariff covers hard drives too, which I'm assuming is where you're downloading your p2p network fodder to.

Re:No go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382498)

Well, you know wrong, at least according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , which says that the money is distributed by a private non-profit organization using the formula "66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies", and that "As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed." It goes on to say that the metric used to decide who gets how much depends on commercial airplay and commercial sales, so it probably all goes to bands that you (and I) hate and to their record labels, but it doesn't stay with the government.

Good but... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381946)

Will they then repeal the media tax?

Re:Good but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382070)

how much is the tax? Like $2 CDN? That's like a dime to us.

rimshot

I'll be here all week

Re:Good but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382350)

how much is the tax? Like $2 CDN? That's like a dime to us.
Evidently you've not checked the value of the U.S. dollar in the last half decade or so. Or, as it's now commonly called, "the half peso."

Sure, it's fun to mock other currencies when yours is worth something. Given that, back in November [yahoo.com] , the U.S. dollar dropped below CA$0.94, that time has long since passed.

Re:Good but... (1)

wakingrufus (904726) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382416)

yeah, not anymore. according to google: 1 Canadian dollar = 0.996016 U.S. dollars

Re:Good but... (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382442)

I like the media tax. It isn't much at all, really... and it makes file sharing legal, since I'm already paying for it.

Zombies? (2, Interesting)

linuxpyro (680927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23381968)

Just a thought, but what about doing this for zombie machines? I think an idea like that has been brought up here on Slashdot before, like if your machine is not up to date patch-wise you get booted or restricted to say Windows Updates. But what about actively going after people who fail to maintain their computer to the point that it harms others?

Well, truthfully I guess it wouldn't be right in either case. It could still be abused. But given the choice I would rather have a rule that would hopefully cut down on the size of the botnets.

Re:Zombies? (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382670)

Just a thought, but what about doing this for zombie machines? I think an idea like that has been brought up here on Slashdot before, like if your machine is not up to date patch-wise you get booted or restricted to say Windows Updates. But what about actively going after people who fail to maintain their computer to the point that it harms others?
Just create a botnet that shares files and emails a record of it to the RIAA or the local equivalent. Problem solved :)

Three Strikes? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23381986)

Let's see if we can put this in more "Canadian" terms...

Good day, eh! We just thought that if you were like, you know, to get a hat trick of internet offenses, then we say good for you, eh, and ask you not to play anymore 'cause you're like too good, eh.

Or maybe try this one...if you had one Molsen for every time you get caught file sharing, then by the time you've had three beers, then we'll have to like cut you off, eh.

Or if that doesn't work...look, hoser, if we catch you sharing files as many times as Brian Boitano spins when he does his lutz, you're like done, eh.

Illegal? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382000)

internet access privileges revoked for file sharing violations
Well since the levy makes all file sharing legal, i guess this three strikes thing can be implemented without anyone ever getting struck.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Pitr (33016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382228)

Downloading to levied media is legal, uploading is still illegal. But since the making available arguement is getting struck down left right and center, hopefully you'll still be ok. Still to be safe, just set your P2P client of choice to "leech". ;)

Wonderful idea... (0, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382028)

That's it: I'M QUITTING THE INTERNET [dnforum.com] .

*sniff* *sniff*

=Smidge=

Will there be DUE process or will anyone be able.. (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382068)

Will there be DUE process or will anyone be able to make came and get you kicked off?

Is that even enforcable? (2, Interesting)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382148)

On a small scale they could assign an officer to follow you around and make sure you don't borrow someone's cell phone or use a public kiosk to check your mail, but keeping track of everyone who's downloaded more than three mp3s or unlicensed videos would require some sort of national ID system... perhaps they could put all of Canada on a proxy server?

Re:Is that even enforcable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382238)

Sounds like something China did to me...

Re:Is that even enforcable? (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382240)

I think with the transparency of the ever growing number appliances using the internet, it's a waste to consider how to enforce. This is clearly of the thinking of the "internet tubes" generation.

Re:Is that even enforcable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382378)

The Great Wall of Canada. Nah, doesn't sound right. Considering we pay that damn levy on media, and this may even evade on our extremely strict privicy laws, I don't foresee it passing. But I have yet to RTFA....

just a step down the slippery slope (4, Insightful)

ducman (107063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382194)

I think the most worrying thing about this is not the law itself. It's the fact that someone will quickly realize that in order to implement the law it will be necessary for anyone accessing the Internet to be reliably identified. We really could be only a few years away from needing a "RealID" card to log on to a public wireless terminal in a coffee shop.

Re:just a step down the slippery slope (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382466)

Again this brings up the o so fun identity theft issue / Cracking. Great go to local coffee shop with someone else id card, or some crack, steal all you want and go home. In the end the law will get some people but hurt a lot more as like any technology they come up with to try and enforce it, there will be more people out there trying to break it then trying to keep it working right. And hey try to prove you did nothing and your identity was taken for a few mp3's. It can be done but will cost you cash, greif and everything else. I like it the way it is, we pay a tax on blank media, we put what we want on it, RIAA/ MPAA thugs get payed form it as the artists sure as hell don't see that cash, and we keep going. But then we still pay for media, but get whatever the hell we want.

Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thing. (4, Insightful)

RexDevious (321791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382204)

It started in schools, and quickly moved to the US Justice system. "Three Strikes And You're Out!". It sounds both reasonable, and incredibly American at the same time. If you've been in jail 2 times already and then steal a loaf of bread... "You're Out". By which they mean out of society for good. It's worked out so well, why not try it with the Internet?

Here's the problem. In baseball, if you get three strikes - you're out for that particular try at batting. You're not out for the inning, you're not out for the game, and you're certainly not banned from ever playing baseball again for life.

So, if we're going to base public policy on sports rules, could we at least restrict that to sports rules we actually understand? Seriously, that'd be a great start. Later we work on basing them on common sense or something.

Re:Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikeSTUPID (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382566)

If you've been in jail 2 times already and then steal a loaf of bread... "You're Out". By which they mean out of society for good.

Actually it means you're so stupid that after two trips to jail already you still can't learn how to be an acceptable member of society. Removing you for a long time after that is much to society's benefit.

Re:Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thi (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382628)

Exactly - we should stick with hockey metaphors in Canada. A two year minor penalty for downloading, a five year major for uploading a terabyte of movies, and a permanent suspension for jumping on someone's head with your skate.

Absolutely Impossible! (3, Interesting)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382206)

This is not possible. From a legal standpoint, if the government goes through the right loopholes to get these laws passed, it's possible, but the consequences it would create would cause nothing but trouble. Almost 50% of the Internet users in Canada would most likely get their first "strike" in just one week because they probably consider anyone using file-sharing "pirates", regardless of the legality of what their downloading. From there, I would predict that about 20% would abide by the warning and stop file-sharing, but 30% would continue regardless of the system until they're eventually taken offline, which would have substantial effects on the economy and e-commerce (not as many people buying things online, for instance).

This still wouldn't work (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382250)

Unfortunately, this still wouldn't do much if anything to prevent movie or song piracy. Have they forgotten that pirating music is as easy as purchasing a CD or DRM-free song and simply burning a CD and giving it to a friend? At best this just stops a few poeple from having an Internet connection, but when they could easilly haul a 500 GB external HD over to a friends house and load up all on manner of content, there's no way that it will curb the overall level of piracy to any extent. Hell, even if you were cut off, internet is only an unsecure access point or location with free internet away.

There are always going to be a certain subset of people who feel that prices are too high and will seek alternative methods of acquiring songs, movies, or any other similar form of media. They could probably reduce the price to reduce the amount of people who resort to such methods, but the current price might be the one that maximizes revenue for all I know.

Personally, I think the ideal solution is for the bands, songwriters, et al. to ditch the **AA (or equivalent in their countries) and use a model similar to what Radiohead or Trent Reznor used. Even when they offered their music for free, some people still donated money. Hell, if they were independent and sold tracks through Amazon, iTunes, or some other music store they'd get to keep everything that Amazon, Apple, etc. doesn't keep to cover distribution costs. That'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of $.75 or more per song sold. How much more likely would the poeple who either don't buy music now or refuse to pay the currents rates be to donate money to a band for purchasing their album if they knew that most of it wasn't going to a middleman that has a history of acting hostile towards its customers or that they would only need to offer up a few dollars, if anything?

Not a sure thing (1)

MrAndrews (456547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382260)

I don't think this is even close to a sure thing (along with much of the potential legislation) because the playing field is far too confusing right now to try and pass anything so restrictive. There are a lot of trial balloons being floated right now, and I think the government is watching to see which ones catch the most flak. That said, it's probably best to make noise about this all the same, just in case.

Relatedly: I'm hosting a discussion about Canadian copyright (specifically in relation to WIPO) in a forum that avoids loud rhetoric and flamewars. If you're at all interested in the topic, check it out at http://calmcopyright.ca/ [calmcopyright.ca]

Three strikes of what? (4, Insightful)

Shagg (99693) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382276)

Three strikes of actually being found guilty in a court of law, or three strikes of wild accusations thrown around by anybody with content to protect (and very little, if any, proof)?

Stupid sports metaphors (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382292)

"Three strikes and you're out!" makes a lovely catchphrase but is ridiculous is actual use.

How about 2, 5 or 10 minutes in the penatly box? :P

If there's a star wars analogy (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382444)

Given the theme [slashdot.org] on slashdot [slashdot.org] today [slashdot.org] , I would say we are living through episode 5 right now.

PRoC (0, Flamebait)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382468)

I'm sure that the People's Republic of Canada won't dare apply this policy against any "protected" group. That would violate both Political Correctness and Mulitculturism, as well as make them look meaner than that bad old USA on their southern border.

Slashdot considering a similar policy? (5, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#23382532)

Yes, but does it run... [STRIKE1]
Imagine a beowulf cl... [STRIKE2]
I, for one, welcome ... [STRIKE3]
  --- NO CARRIER ---

min0s 4, Tro7l) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23382600)

Fastest-growing GAY bureaucratic and AnyThing can UP TODAY! IF YOU
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>