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

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?"

Just great...

[Aranykai]

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

The aristocracy is planet-wide...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[PopeRatzo]

As an American who has liked to think of Canada as a somewhat enlightened cousin to the North, the news that their government can be every bit as clueless and corrupt as our own is a little bit disconcerting.

Like Aranykai above, the potential for fleeing over the border if things got much worse down here (say if another GOP administration was elected) seems to have been just another dream that is dying a sad (if clarifying) death.

Re:

[bigstrat2003]

...the news that their government can be every bit as clueless and corrupt as our own is a little bit disconcerting.

It's "news" that all governments are clueless and corrupt at times? Come on, you can't be that clueless.

...if things got much worse down here (say if another GOP administration was elected)...

...wait, I take that back. Anyone stupid enough to believe that party defines a candidate's worth is stupid enough to believe anything.

Re:

[LKM]

If you think both parties are still alike, you haven't learned anything during the past eight years.

The Empires' wannabe little brother.

[Scrameustache]

As an American who has liked to think of Canada as a somewhat enlightened cousin to the North, the news that their government can be every bit as clueless and corrupt as our own is a little bit disconcerting.

Fortunately, Canadians aren't as bad as their cousins to the south. Harper has a minority government, not the 3-house majority that the US far-right had for years, so he can only do limited damage.

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[ceoyoyo]

On the other hand they keep trying their best to introduce new copyright bills and they keep withdrawing them in the face of public protest.

If the Conservatives actually passed this kind of bill and all the people downloading music got kicked off the net, sued, charged, whatever, the next government would not be a Conservative one.

Around here if you screw up you get voted out.

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[Serapth]

Two key differences...

1 - they are a minority goverment
2- in a legal system with a non confidence vote.

In other words, no matter what the Conservatives want to push down our throats, if atleast one of the other parties doesnt support it, it isnt going to happen. Not only that, but it could get the party bounced from power.

Imagine how much different the states would be right now if Bush had to work under similar rules? Then again, in Canada the Prime Minister really isnt near as powerful as the Presidents position (has become ).

Re:The Empire strikes back in the great white Hoth

[chdig]

While what you wrote is true, it's also misleading and missing in context.
1 - Though there is a minority government, it's common practice for the parties to barter votes between issues. ie, if the opposition wants bill xx passed, they might agree to the government's copyright bill. True, though, it is more difficult to pass normal votes without a majority.
2 - non-confidence votes are primarily for financial issues (like the annual budget) or highly sensitive issues (like Canada's role in Afghanistan), and a copyright law would be very unlikely to fall under this category.

The irony, however, is that the best way the government can pass something is to make or attach it to a non-confidence vote. The opposition is so scared of an election that they'll pass things they don't agree with, just to avoid an election.

Sounds good

[decipher_saint]

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

Re:Sounds good

[scipiodog]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[StreetStealth]

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.

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.

Indeed.

Now, who gets to say what is "too dangerous" to be allowed Internet access?

Let's say I download (and legally, I might add) several gigs of mp3s. Apparently, this is causing millions of dollars in damages. Therefore, if I continue to have internet access, I am personally costing various industries millions of dollars a day!

I'm a dangerous person. I'm exactly like a professional shoplifter. Except, weirdly enough, those guys still get to buy groceries FROM STORES.

As always, contact your local MP.

Re:

[iCEBaLM]

The analogy falls on it's face: as much as some corporations would like to believe, the internet is not a big store. Nor is information analogous to physical property.

This analogy would be more apropos: Not allowing someone who has duplicated an item three times from walking on any street.

Re:

[jez9999]

The analogy falls on it's face: as much as some corporations would like to believe, the internet is not a big store.

No, it's a big truck.

Re:An outdated view of technology

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Same thing could be said about money. You can copy it, and you don't deprive anyone of its use, yet it means that the entire currency is devalued, and the currency that everyone else has ends up worth less than it did before the crime. The victims in this case are the people as a whole. In the case of copyright infringement, the damages are concentrated purely to copyright holders. You may not see it (or counterfeiting) as stealing, but there's no question of deprivation, victimhood, or morality; copyright infringement and counterfeiting are morally wrong, when measured against the morality of society as a whole. And no, before you jump to conclusions, I'm not part of the copyright lobby, just someone with the ability to reason.

All this, of course, is completely beside the point, as I wasn't comparing copyright infringement with stealing in the first place.

Re:

[Kjella]

You may not see it (or counterfeiting) as stealing, but there's no question of deprivation, victimhood, or morality; copyright infringement and counterfeiting are morally wrong, when measured against the morality of society as a whole.

If money was worthless, we wouldn't use money. We would go back to the barter economy using things of real value, which might be expressed in dollars but isn't intrinsic to them. There's no way the physical value of that small roll of neatly printed paper equals the value of a car, money is just the representation of it. If I could print free money I'd be the richest man in the world because everything else is supposed to have an exchange rate to dollars, everyone else would get poorer because I've put in

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No, but in the vast majority of cases, people don't just stick their illegal files on their hard-drives for decoration (there are far more legal ways to decorate your file-system!) They do the equivalent of spending it, which is to listen to it and to gain pleasure from it.

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Lijemo]

how about you people just learn to obey the fucking law and stop stealing music and movies? who give a shit what happens to people ho dont give a shit about the content creators.

Ah, so there is no need to make the punishment fit the crime, because you can avoid the punishment by just not doing the crime?

In that case, lets institute a no-appeals death penalty for speeding, jay-walking, minor traffic violations, and late payment of income taxes. After all, who cares what happens to people who break the law?

Re:An outdated view of technology

[Safety Cap]

lets institute a no-appeals death penalty for speeding,
-- Lijemo

Add in "changing lanes without signaling," "cruising in the fast lane," and "not knowing what you want to order by the time you get to the front of the 5-minute-long concessions queue at the ballgame," and you got yourself a deal!

Re:

[dryeo]

This is Canada, there is no crime. The artists get compensated every time I back up my computer or screw up and make a coaster.
Just because drinking is a crime in certain countries should we in Canada have to pay the penalty?

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It's not just you (as you probably know); there are several people with the same criteria for paying for content. Who knows, there could develop a significant, thriving market for free music. You trade off price potentially with selection and quality. Perhaps there really is a significant number of people who's demand for music could be satisfied entirely by free music, but we can't really tell while those people help fill that demand with illegal music. Even you, I don't know you, your means, your taste in

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

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

I wonder if there have been any cases of people forbidden from using the mail who have been convicted of mail fraud.

Re:Sounds good

[SatanicPuppy]

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:

[davolfman]

With former-policemen riot-gear-wearing stormtroopers and no warrant no less. This is the MAFIAA we're talking about

Re:

[digitrev]

Not really. Do some research on the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Your speech is free only so far as it doesn't offend anyone.

Re:

[RobinH]

Let's not overstate the case. While I agree that the human right commission wants to have more thought police power, and I'm generally against "hate crime" legislation, the actual hate crime legislation is rather narrowly defined. It's akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", as some have called it. Essentially, it is supposed to apply when speech is being used as an action rather than as an idea. When a religious leader stands up in a temple and tells his followers that their deity commands them t

Re:Sounds good

[mini me]

This is the Canadian government we are talking about. The same government that lets you file your GST returns online, but you may only do so between 9AM and 5PM EST. Maybe some day they will invest in some computers to handle the job instead of having their staff manually process each HTTP request.

Recipricol Three Strikes

[Archangel Michael]

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

[Sique]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[Duradin]

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...

[dmatos]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

You mean unless you say or write something that offends Muslims, right?

That's not a troll either, it's the truth.

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Kompressor]

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Is it not possible to consider that one "other media of communication" would be communication that occurs online, for example a blog, e-mail, slashdot postings, etc?

As I understand it, denying someone the right to print an article, or to have an article published, would contravene this section of the Charter (discussion about the right for a private party to refuse to publish someone elses article notwithstanding). Thus, I believe that it would be difficult to implement something like this as a law.

Now, I could see an ISP having a list of disenfranchised users, and possibly (although I would be disgusted by it) the ability for ISPs to share the lists of these people between each other. For a similar example that already exists, look at the requirements that many bars in Edmonton and Vancouver have for scanning your drivers license before you are allowed in. This system checks against a shared database that confirms you aren't listed as a "troublemaker" (AKA haven't been blackballed). The logic behind this system might be simple enough to apply to a shared blacklist at ISPs.

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. That is exactly the way a Charter challenge to such a law would work. Even persons convicted of a serious indictable offence and sentenced to (and serving time in) prison are entitled to 3(b) protections with minimal, proportionate restrictions. Even these restrictions are subject to challenge, since section 24(1) applies to anyone.

2. The point is to make the committees in the House of Commons and the Senate see that a Charter challenge is both inevitable and unwinnable, and to simply not proceed with the legislation on that basis. There are still Senators and MPs who feel that Parliament should not be in the business of producing legislation which is known a priori to conflict with the Charter, unless it is tagged by the non obstante clause or an extremely persuasive section 1 limit, both of which are rare and politically awkward.

Also importantly, there is the question of whether society has a compelling interest in the prevention of not-for-profit individual-scale copyright infringement that would justify criminal sanctions that will be expensive to investigate and prosecute.

As a deterrent, are tiny numbers of heavy sentences (i.e., make it an indictable offence) realistic? Or large numbers of small sentences (summary conviction)?

The courts have been in no mood to accept large increases in the number of criminal cases put before them without sufficient resources to cope with them, and this sort of move is liable to provoke another "11(b) work-to-rule" akin to the fallout after Askov v. R., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 in matters involving minor offences, despite R v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771. One of the obvious administrative issues will be the sheer number of people who participate in file sharing now.

On the other hand, the possibility large numbers of people (a percent or more of all Canadians!) waiting for 2 years or more between charge and trial is a risky proposition for a minority government! File sharing makes marijuana use look rare.

What ridiculous nonsense.

[Hamster Lover]

What nonsense. The Charter of Rights also does not delineate a right to poop, or read books, or sleep or throw a frisbee either but those rights exist none the less. The Charter is not exhaustive as it was never the intent to list every single right and freedom that could possibly exist and is instead a barrier to government action.

I think this makes it fairly clear that the Charter is not intended to restrict our rights and freedoms to those listed in the Charter:

OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Besides, the Supreme Court of Canada has made significant rulings on our right to freedom of expression as it pertains to the Internet on numerous occasions (to wit, "other media of communication"). Apparently they think we have a right to express ourselves on the Internet, but you do not.

Re:

[Digestromath]

Outside the freedom of speech arguement, this would fall instead presumably under section 7 not section 2. Section 2 lays out very speciffically those freedoms (religion, thought, assembly etc) as they come across as so major yet so often (historically) impeded.

Section 7 talks about the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This section includes references to the necessity of due proces

Re:First they came for the pirates...

[Beardo the Bearded]

The hell it isn't!

We've got a Bill of Rights here, and I quote from it: [justice.gc.ca]

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech; (emphasis mine)

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

sigh....

[Jaysyn]

Dear Everyone,

Please stop voting shills, shysters & despots into power.

Thanks

Re:sigh....

[morgan_greywolf]

Dear Jasyn,

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

Thanks,
Everyone

Re:sigh....

[linuxpyro]

Dear Intelligent, Competent, and Caring People,

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

Thanks

Re:sigh....

[inflamed]

You might want to consider posting that anywhere but here.

Re:

[genner]

We would but no one gives us campagin money.

Re:sigh....

[eln]

It's easy to generate campaign money. All you have to do is become a shill, shyster, or despot and the money comes rolling in.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

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

[Shivetya]

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:

[Archangel Michael]

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:

[HalAtWork]

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

[phorm]

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.

More like "Sigh..."

[SilverJets]

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.

One thing to hope for.

[AltGrendel]

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?

Dion?

[Erioll]

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...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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

Re:

[Kingrames]

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.

President of Canada?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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

Considering? Sure. Gonna happen? NOPE.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[greenbird]

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.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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.

[Dancindan84]

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

[ebbomega]

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:

[circletimessquare]

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 c

Re:

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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.

File Sharing?!?! WTF?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?!?

[morgan_greywolf]

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:

[QCompson]

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

Sexual predators

[phorm]

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

[^_^x]

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:

[CastrTroy]

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.

Actually

[ebbomega]

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

Good but...

[LWATCDR]

Will they then repeal the media tax?

Re:

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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?

[linuxpyro]

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 c

Re:

[Danse]

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 :)

Illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Will there be DUE process or will anyone be able..

[Joe The Dragon]

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

Is that even enforcable?

[wattrlz]

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?

just a step down the slippery slope

[ducman]

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.

Gotta call BS on this whole "three strikes" thing.

[RexDevious]

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

[Nom du Keyboard]

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:

[level_headed_midwest]

Well of course it's higher than China and any number of corrupt regimes worldwide- you don't have to stick people you've shot dead in jail.

Absolutely Impossible!

[Doug52392]

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

[alvinrod]

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

[MrAndrews]

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) i

Three strikes of what?

[Shagg]

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

[Pope]

"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

[Evets]

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

Slashdot considering a similar policy?

[sootman]

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

Re:

[Daimanta]

I for one, welcome our meme-banning /. admins!

Solution is simple

[unity100]

make a fuss about such stuff BEFORE they are even conceived. blow your representative's ears off with calls before they even hear of such a proposal or see it on their desk. do it now.

If they outlaw the internet...

[jollyreaper]

...only the internet will have outlaws. Or is that outlaws have internets? If they ban marriage, only outlaws will have in-laws. No, wait. Forget it.

"May be considering" == Vaporlaw

[Eco-Mono]

Let me just take this opportunity to say that I am sick and tired of articles about some law that might be getting proposed for initial review in some obscure corner of a legislature somewhere. It reminds me of that one time everyone jumped down the Pope's throat for something that an editorialist speculated he'd be commenting on in his next encyclical. It's idle speculation. It's not even vaporware; we haven't heard anyone in the government say two bits about it, either for or against!

C'mon, editors. I'm told you used to be more selective than to post this kind of nonsense. :/

Re:

[Eco-Mono]

Right. And when/if it appears in committee, I'll certainly pay attention. But this isn't even a glint in Parliament's eye yet; this "news article" can be traced back to speculation in the French government as to what other nations might be doing/planning. Again, this is an important issue. But there's no reason to whip ourselves into a nerdrage when the law hasn't even been proposed yet.

I would be much less opposed to such an idea...

[jd]

...if the same sorts of things applied to the music industry. If they were banned from the Internet for illegally distributing files, violating copyright (say, the GPL) or distributing malware, then it would seem equitable for others to suffer likewise. Strange how no such provision exists. It's ok for person/group A to violate person/group B's copyright, but not for B to violate A's. Two wrongs never make a right, but if something actually is a wrong, in and of itself, then what possible contribution is offered by allowing the more serious offender off?

Yes, I said the more serious offender. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that originators are protected against the abuses of others. Music labels are forever being sued for contract violations, although only artists who are rich enough can afford to do so. The number of poor artists who cannot sue is unknown. Given that price increases in the stores have generally not translated into royalty increases for artists, it can be assumed that the number of poor artists being stiffed by the music industry is substantial. (Most sane artists start their own label as soon as they can afford to, because running such monsterous overheads is still more profitable than continued servitude to the major operators. That should say something, given the promotional muscle of a giant and the benefits of scale efficiency.) Copyright violations, say of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" or the Bannana Boat Song, hit the headlines, but didn't hit any studio's wallet or lead to Internet access being withdrawn. Why not? Artists in Africa probably ARE starving. If artists are who matters, then why the Scrooge impersonations?

Major music and film corporations are reputed to have links with organized crime, are quoted by foreign artists and foreign directors (in the case of the movie industry) of supplying drugs and prostitutes to people considered key, and other sordid stuff. It's one thing to have liberal leanings (which I don't believe Hollywood has), it's another to be considered by outsiders as racketeers who'd supply a kid with cocaine if it meant they could earn more money.

Those accusations may be true, they might not be, but I don't expect to be seeing the FBI plough much in the way of resources there.

privilege?

[nguy]

The ability to contract for Internet access is not a "privilege", it's a right.

Finally, but this needs to be expanded...

[slashname3]

This is an excellent idea! But this needs to be expanded to solve the problem of spam. Send out the typical spam messages. But when some id10t responds to the spam message they are tracked down and their Internet access is suspended.

If this is done then spam will go away. Right now there must be enough id10ts out there that actually respond and buy stuff that it makes sending out spam worth the effort. If you take away enough of the idiots out there that spend money based on spam then the monetary reason for sending spam will go away and the problem will finally be solved.

Damn!

[bill_kress]

I saw that heading and thought the only logical possibility is that someone finally decided to block bots by taking them offline until their machines can be cleaned.

I never imagined they were actually proposing something THAT stupid.

I just don't have the imagination I used to.

Look, this is a democracy (at least in theory) right? In the constitution we GIVE them copyright to their creation for a LIMITED time, ONLY so that it spurs innovation and gets more "IP" into the public domain for us all, right?

Well, I'm done with this shit. I say we vote to eliminate copyright protection all-together, across the board. Let them deal with that. If they want to stop making music because of it, I'll live. I'd prefer to have my music made by people who would make it regardless of if they got paid or not.

If every single lab suddenly decides they can't make medicine any more because it's too expensive, others will pop up with better, less expensive techniques. Foundations will still do a lot of the research anyway (how much do we donate to cancer research each year? When they come up with something--who will reap the benefits of the medicine developed?)

Let's get rid of it! Maybe we can experiment with that for couple decades and see how it goes--if it fails, I'm totally up for trying something else.