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!

Piracy Case Could Change Canadian Web Landscape

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the embrace-file-sharing-already dept.

The Courts 156

meatheadmike writes to tell us that a recent Canadian court case brought against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc, could drastically change the web landscape in Canada. "The question before the British Columbia Supreme Court is if a site such as isoHunt allows people to find a pirated copy of movies such as Watchmen or The Dark Knight, is it breaching Canadian copyright law? 'It's a huge can of worms," said David Fewer, acting director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa. 'I am surprised that this litigation has gone under the radar as much as it has. I do think this is the most important copyright litigation going on right now.'"

cancel ×

156 comments

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

1st post (-1, Troll)

sifur (1423871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273775)

1st post? :-)

Bad news (3, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273791)

If you can download their movie for free, Terrance and Phillip are going to go bankrupt.

Re:Bad news (0, Flamebait)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273829)

I just downloaded myself 500 times! HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh my God, you killed profit!

Bad assumptions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274143)

Slashdot, slashdot. Not everything's about money. If someone violates the terms of an OSS license, is that always going to be about money? So why do you think piracy's always about money?

Different jurisdiction, same story. (3, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273813)

So this is like the Pirate Bay case, only the issues are being examined in Canada. Hope there's enough people making noise about this up north to have an impact.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273947)

I didn't see anything in the article for supporters.
Do any of you have any ideas how a fellow Canadian can show support for ISOHunt?
Other than just e-mailing them I mean.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (4, Funny)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274061)

This is Canada. We don't make noise. We write letters. And only if it's about something that's really really annoying.

It's also not really something we need to worry about in Canadian copyright law... all the ISOHunt people need to show is that they are not actually making the files available themselves. In Canadian copyright law, it's ok to copy/share materials as long as it's not for material gain, and you're not distributing on a large scale.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275029)

Define "large scale" please, because if it well over a million then isohunt is done but i really hope they aren't...

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (4, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275255)

This is Canada. We don't make noise. We write letters. And only if it's about something that's really really annoying.

Yeah, things like the invasion of Poland, or when someone (ahem!) burnt down the city of York. Of course, we deliver those letters personally, and staple the envelope to the forehead of the recipient. Repeatedly.

...And politely.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276111)

As for the latter, that was the British. I realize this is a matter of some national pride for Canadians, but history does not bear it out. The commander was Irish born and the regiments were all various British units who had recently been freed up by the end of the Napoleonic War. No Canadian raised units (which were primarily militias) participated. The razing of the White House was strictly a British affair and did not involve the predecessors of modern Canadians.

Battle of Bladensburg [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276477)

Invasion of Poland? Canada was in that war two years before the yanks got out from behind their momma's skirts.

Not quite... (5, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273953)

It's different because Canadians have ALREADY paid for the content, in the form of a levy on all storage media. So the media companies want to be paid twice.

Re:Not quite... (5, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274083)

I could be misinterpreting this, but this is not about individuals. In Canada, as I understand, it is not illigal to download copyrighted works for personal use. Under Canadian law, commercial infringment is still very much illigal, but infringement for personal use, and no financial gain, is not illigal.

The issue at hand here is whether or not an individual/corporate entity can link to a copyrighted files (or in this case link to a file that has a link to look for a list of people that might have the file you need).

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274155)

You are absolutely correct. Back in the day of crappy internet and high school there used to be this guy I knew. He was making moolah by selling burned CDs with various software. Eventually he got busted. He got little other than slap on the wrist though.

Re:Not quite... (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274417)

The issue at hand here is whether or not an individual/corporate entity can link to a copyrighted files (or in this case link to a file that has a link to look for a list of people that might have the file you need).

I think this case is great news.
Either the court sides with isoHunt and the issue is permanently settled...
OR the court sides with the CRIA and the search engines hire lobbyists to fight it out and get the law changed.

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274907)

Actually, we only pay a levy for _music_ to the CRIA, which means that current opinion is that downloading music is legal. Every other type of media if effectively off limits, though the police and judicial system consider personal downloading to be too unimportant to pursue.

Re:Not quite... (4, Interesting)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274943)

That's not /strictly/ true. It's true that "fair use" and "format shifting" are established more firmly here than in the U.S.

In Canada it's always been legal to make copies for personal use. This means that it's perfectly OK for you to take a line output from your 8 track stereo to your line in on your Mac Pro and create a digtal copy of that Rush 2112 album you bought in 1976.

Similarly, it's fairly clearly legal for you to rip a copy of the Serenity Special Edition DVD you've bought to watch on your iPhone. You're breaking encryption, but it's probably still legal.

To extend from that to "it's not illegal to download copyrighted works for personal use" is a stretch. Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs. From there, you can shift your format...you don't need to buy multiple licences (though you obviously can.)

Whether this justifies the liberation of content gets into muddier waters. If I buy the DVD can I download a copy and say that's my "other format?" Maybe....maybe....the source may be illegal, but technically I do "own it" but I'm not sure that's justification. (Though I may use it as justification also.)

In the case of over the air TV shows such as "30 Rock" I don't have to "pay" for a licence. It's paid for by advertisers. If I download it without advertisements...different situation. It's not like anybody's lost money, except in the abstract sense that the network could have made _more_ money through advertising revenue with a larger audience...unless of course I watched it live as well.

In the case of a Compact Disc there's a more direct cause and effect: if I download a liberated copy of the medi, somebody's lost money. Labels aren't going to keep putting out music for no money, and bands aren't going to be able to record if nobody ever buys albums (touring revenue notwithstanding.)

The media levy muddies the waters a bit, but only a bit.

Re:Not quite... (2, Insightful)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275999)

Of course bands will still be able to record without the record labels, what they won't be able to do is spend $100K on recording an album. Nirvana recorded Bleach for $600 You're also forgetting that the vast majority of acts make their income from performances not from record deals. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]

Re:Not quite... (4, Interesting)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276145)

I don't disagree with your assertion, but that's your personal politics of music not the legality at play.

Neko Case told Paste Magazine that touring payed for her farm in Vermont, not recording. I believe strongly in supporting musicians while they're touring, and detest the face that I'm basically supporting Ticketmaster most of the time anyway.

Nirvana may have recorded Bleach for $600 but most of those millions of eventual fans didn't go see them because they bought Bleach, and even fewer of them went to see them at Neumo's.

Most of those fans heard of Nirvana long after they'd been signed by a major label and given a massive promotion and marketing push.

I'm not saying a similar story /couldn't/ have happened if they'd just toured like crazy, I'm saying the story you're telling happened in the current system and not outside of it.

I feel similarly about Radiohead's succesful "experiment" with selling In Rainbow's direct, btw. It really wasn't that interesting an experiment...it was a band that had benefited from millions of dollars of earlier promotion leveraging their name recognition. It's much more interesting to see what new bands are doing with the new medium...those bands that aren't signing with major labels (like the aforementioned Divine Ms. Case, who's been asked to do so more than once but values her integrity and independence.)

It's about the legality, not the politics. In Canada if I've seen an artist live does that give me the right to liberate all of their music? I've asked this myself...I keep going to /see/ Kathleen Edwards but I don't own much of her music. Can I liberate it? I don't think it's legal.

Followup question: if I borrow a CD from the library and rip it, is it legal for me to keep it?

Re:Not quite... (4, Informative)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276149)

Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs.

Incorrect. Any person can make a copy of any copyrighted musical work for their own personal use. It doesn't mean they can only copy things they already own, it doesn't matter if they've paid anything for it at all. You can come to my house and copy all my CDs, and so can everyone I know. You may also invite anyone to come to your house and make copies of your CDs, including the ones you copied from me. Making any copy of any recording for personal use is not infringement.

See the "Copying for Private Use" section of the Canadian Copyright Act: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770 [cb-cda.gc.ca]

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274145)

Not true. We pay it on cassettes, CDR/W "audio", and minidisc.

Not on all media. Not DVDR/W, not HD, not printer paper. etc-etc, and oddly enough not on CDR/W "data". Yes, it doesn't make sense one way or the other. You've heard of the Chewbacca Defence? We do Chewbacca Legislation.

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274397)

Umm, you have that wrong.

It's the Americans that only pay on cassettes and audio-cdr.

http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_amount [neil.eton.ca]

Not on all media.

Correct.

Not DVDR/W

Correct, for now.

not HD

Depends on what device the HD is included in. If it's in an ipod, yes you *do* pay.

not printer paper

Yes, because printer paper is a digitial storage medium, right?

oddly enough not on CDR/W "data".

Bullshit.

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275327)

Yes, because printer paper is a digitial storage medium, right?

Why yes, it is!

Sounds like you don't know what "digital" means.

Re:Not quite... (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275599)

The cheap MP3 players that my wife, son and I bought all came with a song or two. So they were not blank and no levy. Hopefully other MP3 players also do the same.

Re:Not quite... (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274255)

It's different because Canadians have ALREADY paid for the content, in the form of a levy on all storage media. So the media companies want to be paid twice.

They want to be paid as many times as they can. Remember DRM?

Re:Not quite... (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276173)

Whereas your strategy is to get paid as few times as possible?

I /think/ I understand your point, but I'm not sure that it's a really valid argument. Not every paying isn't really going to solve the problem either...

Re:Not quite... (3, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274339)

The article in question is about downloading movies. You're referring to the Canadian levy on blank CDs, which goes to Canadian recording artists and Canadian record labels. If you've bought a blank CD in Canada, odds are that none of it went to the people who worked on The Dark Knight or Watchmen -- both products of the USA.

Your purchase of blank media might give you a sense of moral justice in pirating, say, Celine Dion or Bryan Adams tracks... if this is ample justification for you, then go about your merry pirating ways and God bless you. But it would be a stretch to apply this moral justice to downloading Watchmen.

Re:Not quite... (5, Insightful)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274693)

I'm a Canadian and I download music and movies, I do buy blank media but I don't buy it for moral justice, I buy it because I need somewhere to put the movies and music. I don't NEED to settle my morals because frankly I don't give a shit. I'm around when some of my friends watch those paparazzi shows and if Hollywood can afford those clowns ridiculous lifestyle then it can sure as hell afford my free copy of Watchmen.

Re:Not quite... (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275225)

Just remember that more people than rich movie stars and directors work on movies.

Re:Not quite... (2, Insightful)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275549)

This while true is besides the point. Hollywood still makes more than enough money and it isn't anyone elses fault that they distribute it to a small minority of the people who make their products.

Re:Not quite... (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275791)

Wow, it's nice to know that I'm not allowed to buy American movies in Canada. After all, how ever would the money find its way back to the creators of those movies? Likewise for American music.
Now that I think of it, how would they ever sue you for copyright infringement in the first place? I mean, they're all from America (musicians and actors only work in America, right?) and people are pirating all over the world! Maybe they'll make organizations in various countries to represent their interests and collect royalties from copyright users. That's not a bad idea. In fact, they could get together with other major, non-American labels (if such a thing exists) and make organizations in each major legal jurisdiction to do this for them. I wonder what we could call organizations like [wikipedia.org] this [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Not quite... (2, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274487)

That levy on storage media is intended to subsidize private use copying. Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?

Re:Not quite... (2, Insightful)

yayotters (833158) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275621)

Why would 'private use' need a tax? What a load...

Re:Not quite... (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276515)

Putting something on your computer so that anybody can access it when they have a link to it and then publicly posting that link for anybody to find sort of forgoes any notion that might have otherwise existed that the copy was just for private use, don't you think?

You are conflating "making available" with "copying".

If I copy something for my own use, I need somewhere to put it. If that "somewhere" happens to be a shared drive, that's a separate legal question.

If my intent was to copy it to share it out, that's no longer private copying, but if my intent was to make it available so that I can access it regardless of where I am when I travel, then putting it in a shared location is perfectly reasonable.

If I were to allow everyone in my city (or province, or the entire counrty) to come into my house, and copy my CDs using my computer, that would be perfectly legal (as long as they're copying it for your own personal use.) What's the difference if those CDs are available on the internet or not?

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274731)

The levy in question is only in regards to sound recordings and goes to the CRIA (our RIAA). The money doesn't really amount to much but since you can't have a levy on illegal activity, copying sound recordings is legal in Canada.

The article itself is unclear. The CRIA does not have anything to do with movies, only sound recordings.

I suspect that the CRIA has been harassing isoHunt about its music links despite the current legal situation in Canada for music sharing and isoHunt decided to push back. The movie connection was probably just a reporter who thought downloading movies was more exciting than music.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274441)

Different jurisdiction, same story.

Yep, it's called divide and conquer. Of course, the governments and big media are quite globally united, with things like copyright treaties, sadly.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274559)

Its the voice of the public vs the $$$$ of like mpaa. you know which side will win this.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275269)

>>>So this is like the Pirate Bay case, only the issues are being examined in Canada.

I don't know why you were labeled insightful", because you're flat wrong. Piratebay provides the tracker server which enables piracy. Isohunt does not. Isohunt is like google, a search engine, which means technically they are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

The fact that google links to all websites, where isohunt only links to torrent sites, is the basis of this case and has implications for ALL search engines, as it may require them to stop linking to torrent sites too.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (4, Informative)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275635)

The Pirate Bay (TPB) offers an "optional" tracker that can be used for either legal or illegal purposes.

You can however post a torrent on TPB without any of the Pirate Bay trackers, so in this case TPB will act just like IsoHunt.

Re:Different jurisdiction, same story. (1)

Jesse_vd (821123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276459)

This is my local newspaper, basically, and i heard about it on Slashdot.

Can somebody explain what it's all about? (3, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273827)

I don't understand. Is the torrent site suing the CRIAA (Canadian Recording Industry Assh*les from America) to see whether non-Canadian content is copyrighted by the CRIAA? I thought those companies were subsidiaries of the recording companies and they just cross-license their stuff.

Legalese is so very confusing.

Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? (4, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274245)

No, they are suing becouse this is a grey area in the legal system and isohunt is tired of getting harassed my various right holders. They initiated the lawsuit so that a judge would finally decide if they run an illigal business or not.

Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274903)

ILLEGAL

i'm going to break something if you spell it wrong again.

Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275205)

illigal

Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? (1, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275411)

No he was right. "Ill-i-gal" is how they speak in Canada.

Re:Can somebody explain what it's all about? (1)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276085)

Have you ever been to Canada? Do you even know where Canada is?

Laws and stuff (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273841)

Everyone yells and jumps about over copyright. And while in truth yes, it will have an effect on our lives and how we conduct business, the law will never settle the matter. No matter how many judgements, treaties, proclaimations, arrests, convictions, and everything else we throw at it, it cannot change the fact that the internet is global. You can't stop the signal, nobody can. We can't simply dismantle the network, and try as we might to control what goes over it, if a connection can be made someone will figure out a way to get the data through. The internet doesn't care about copyright. It exists to transmit information between people, and nothing will ever deny that power. Not as long as it exists.

We might bear witness to a fifty year war on copyright, pirates, and blah blah blah, but the problem will never go away. The signal will always be there, someone will always have a copy, and eventually the economic drain that will come from fighting this war will bankrupt its supporters. Eventually. It might not happen in five years, or twenty, but it will happen.

Re:Laws and stuff (2, Insightful)

Rip Dick (1207150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273923)

Sounds reminiscent of the war on drugs...

Re:Laws and stuff (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274093)

Sounds reminiscent of the war on drugs...

The laws are screwy. I can take a 2x4 to your head and be out in six months for aggravated assault, but spend ten years in jail for downloading a song you made. I think we're already there.

Re:Laws and stuff (4, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274139)

Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)

Re:Laws and stuff (2, Interesting)

GenP (686381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274303)

Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)

You jest, but the day is coming... [fabathome.org]

Re:Laws and stuff (1)

Rip Dick (1207150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275991)

At first I read it as "fap at home" ...too much 4chan

Re:Laws and stuff (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274371)

I can take a 2x4 to your head and be out in six months for aggravated assault, but spend ten years in jail for downloading a song you made.

[Citation Needed]
How exactly does a civil judge sentence anyone to jail?

The only way you can get jail time is for criminal copyright infringement.
And that's if you can get the FBI to investigate and the DOJ to prosecute.

Generally, the FBI is only interested in large scale (the scene) non-commercial infringement, commercial infringement (selling bootlegs), cammers, and anyone leaking pre-release material.

Re:Laws and stuff (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274727)

Just wait until someone downloads your song, then, clobber them in the head. You'll probably get off with probation.

Re:Laws and stuff (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274001)

Everyone yells and jumps about over copyright. And while in truth yes, it will have an effect on our lives and how we conduct business, the law will never settle the matter. No matter how many judgements, treaties, proclaimations, arrests, convictions, and everything else we throw at it, it cannot change the fact that the internet is global. You can't stop the signal, nobody can. We can't simply dismantle the network, and try as we might to control what goes over it, if a connection can be made someone will figure out a way to get the data through. The internet doesn't care about copyright. It exists to transmit information between people, and nothing will ever deny that power. Not as long as it exists.

We might bear witness to a fifty year war on copyright, pirates, and blah blah blah, but the problem will never go away. The signal will always be there, someone will always have a copy, and eventually the economic drain that will come from fighting this war will bankrupt its supporters. Eventually. It might not happen in five years, or twenty, but it will happen.

This post sort of makes me want to hack the Gibson

HACK THE PLANET!!!!

Re:Laws and stuff (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275193)

You can't stop the signal, nobody can.

My international army of backhoes, fishing trawlers, and Tesla coils disagrees.

and your browser runs Google... (3, Funny)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27273861)

...and your OS runs your browser, and your bios loads your OS, and your hardware is the platform on which your bios runs, and your hardware uses electricity, which is generated by the power company by burning coal, which is mined from the earth. So really, this all the fault of the planet.

Re:and your browser runs Google... (2, Funny)

Bureaucromancer (1303477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274193)

Or maybe this all indicates that the coal mining company is supporting piracy? Sue the power company.

Re:and your browser runs Google... (1)

castorvx (1424163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274519)

It's difficult to prove in courts that sites like that are supporting piracy, but it is also disingenuous to suggest the exact opposite.

How much electricity is used for piracy? What portion of isoHunt's traffic is for data that is not copyrighted?

Re:and your browser runs Google... (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275659)

Here in BC it is hydro power which is delivered by the crown corp. BC Hydro.
So really it is the fault of the government for enabling us to download copyrighted material.

Not surprising. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274015)

That question has already been asked here in the USA. Is linking illegal? YES.

Case in point: 2600 magazine linking to DECSS code

Now what this will lead to is more of whats happening over in Australia and China.. We'll have content filters on each country divide monitoring for copyrighted materials and "websites known for trafficking of copyrighted materials". It'll be another WaronDrugs, this time with scatterplots of the whole population being charged with fines randing from 750$ to 35000$, plus federal hard time.

Mark my words: This is just the beginning.

Re:Not surprising. (2, Insightful)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274591)

That question has already been asked here in the USA. Is linking illegal in the US? YES in the US.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Not surprising. (5, Insightful)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274709)

+1 cause you're technically right, but seriously, if America thinks its illegal, they'll pressure someone else to think the same thing.

Only reason why tv-links went down was because of US involvement.

Re:Not surprising. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275407)

Yep... The USA has no influence over any other country.. except

ACTA
Sweden's PirateBay criminal suits
Iraq's new IP policy
Canada's New IP policy

And others Ive missed...

Yep. The USA is an island all alone.

Re:Not surprising. (3, Insightful)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276369)

+1 cause you're technically right, but seriously, if America thinks its illegal, they'll pressure someone else to think the same thing.

Only reason why tv-links went down was because of US involvement.

Completely true. The US attempts to push its ideals on other countries (I don't even need to give any examples, as anyone should be able to think of quite a few).

There are many items where Canada has held it's own on standpoints (copyright so far, leniency on marijuana etc). My biggest complaint is that the general viewpoint of "Americans" (as we refer to US citizens even though they aren't the only country in america) is that their viewpoint is the only right on and everyone else should follow suit.

My original post was to clarify that:
illegal in the US != illegal in other countries

Hardly redundant, and an important point to make as it seems many aren't clear on that.

Re:Not surprising. (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276489)

well if it helps, you were at +2 insightful when i made my comment :(

digital world (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274087)

If one does not want that his movies or songs are transmitted via networks just do not put them into a digital format. There will be no these movies and songs in the digital world, but nature does not like an emptiness, there will be other instead.

Re:digital world (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274751)

It's not too tough to convert something from any analog format to a digital format...
Basically they'd have to just not publish their songs ever. Or perform them ever.

Re:digital world (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274919)

Basically they'd have to just not publish their songs ever. Or perform them ever.

hey for most of the stuff they put out, that's not such a bad idea.

Why this wording? (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274101)

if a site such as isoHunt allows people to find a pirated copy of movies such as Watchmen or The Dark Knight, is it breaching Canadian copyright law?

I don't get it.

Are they trying to subtly make a point that only certain movies should be protected?

Or do they really feel that the general public doesn't know what a "movie" is, and could use some examples?

Maybe it's a nitpick, but something about that language just seems gratuitous, yet most news media seems to do just that.

Re:Why this wording? (3, Insightful)

TuaAmin13 (1359435) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274241)

I think they mean obviously commercially copyrighted works.

How would I know if your youtube video that is posted on a torrent site is freely distributed by you or someone else? This is the worst case "it obviously is not free"

Re:Why this wording? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274345)

I found it quite helpful. I didn't know what a movie was without those examples. I've also heard there are sites to help find songs to download but I haven't tried them yet because I don't know what a song is. Could someone give me some examples of those too?

Re:Why this wording? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275505)

The Wheels on the Bus
B.I.N.G.O.
I'm a little tea pot

Re:Why this wording? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274563)

Maybe it's a nitpick, but something about that language just seems gratuitous, yet most news media seems to do just that.

They're picking movies that are in the public eye so that readers (you) can relate to the issue being described. Even people who don't go to the movies have more than likely heard something about Watchmen or The Dark Knight.

12 years ago it would have been Titanic and Men In Black.
It's just a rhetorical trick and a useful one at that.

At the end of TFA: The Dark Knight became the most pirated movie in history after people found it through a BitTorrent search engine while it was still in theatres.
/It isn't quite as gratuitous as you make it out to be.

Re:Why this wording? (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274625)

They are pointing out that isoHunt allows people to find movies (1) where the general public obviously has not been given download permission, (2) that would still be copyrighted under any reasonable length of copyright, and (3) are intended to be paid for. This is one extreme of the spectrum of items that can be found, where the other extreme is obviously public-domain works. However, the point is that the former is possible, and does that mean what isoHunt does is illegal?

It also, of course, puts in some people's minds that isoHunt's sole purpose is to get such movies, but that is just a side benefit to the MPAA and its friends throughout the world.

Re:Why this wording? (2, Interesting)

gslj (214011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274687)

In Canada, musical recordings and movies leave copyright after fifty years. (Written works leave copyright fifty years after the death of the author). That means that an extensive list of movies is public domain (in Canada) and can be legally downloaded. For example,

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Fantasia (1940)
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
Lady and the Tramp (1955)

I used a torrent the other day to get a copy of music that my dad used to have on album, "Yvonne de Carlo Sings." The date: 1957. I'd argue that the torrent search engine and I are in the clear on this one.

The one proviso: when Disney restores the colour or re-engineers the sound track, the copyright clock starts ticking again ON THE REVISED VERSION, which is why Disney does that so often.

By the way, if anyone knows where I can get a torrent of the film "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" (1940) or Thurber's "The Male Animal" (1942) please let me know.

-Gareth

Re:Why this wording? (3, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275363)

The one proviso: when Disney restores the colour or re-engineers the sound track, the copyright clock starts ticking again ON THE REVISED VERSION, which is why Disney does that so often.

One could argue, though, that the remastered version is merely a derivative work and covered under the original copyright. Just as changing the font of a novel would not cause it to be a new copyrightable book.

purely legal (2, Informative)

salparadyse (723684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274231)

The intent of the site is that people searching it can find the location of copyrighted materials.

Since the consequences of putting up such "sign posts" is that people will find this material it is therefore arguable that the consequences were foreseen (if disregarded).
This is called inferred intent. The principle comes from UK Criminal Law but is applicable universally because it speak of a basic truth. That to recklessly ignore the natural consequences of your actions, but to carry on with those actions anyway, is tantamount to intending those consequences.
Ergo - the site's purpose is to facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials.
Ergo - they are guilty.
As to whether they are guilty of a moral crime is another matter.

Re:purely legal (5, Interesting)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274535)

Sorry, no.

IsoHunt acts as a search engine and returns torrent files that can be either "legal" or "illegal".

No search engine can determine with 100% accuracy if something is legal or not, not even Google.

If I record a movie in my own garden, I can release the video on my website or even on The Pirate Bay with a license saying that only the people in my home town have the right to download the video and the rest don't.

IsoHunt will index the torrent file nevertheless and from your point of view, IsoHunt indexes an illegal torrent that should be taken down, but from my (the creator) point of view it's perfectly legal.

It's the USER'S RESPONSIBILITY to read the terms of the license, the description of the torrent file I made and download the movie if he believes he's allowed to.

So what I'm saying is that a movie or song or any binary data can be copyrighted but also can be legal to download it, it's illegal to distribute/download/upload/whatever something you don't have rights to do that and IsoHunt or any other search engine can't know that.

You can use Google nowadays for much worse things than copyright infringement, things like how to make a lockpick, how to prepare cocaine, how to steal a car, how to make a gun... but apparently a company's loss is important enough to stop something very useful to a lot of people.

It's not even worth to start commenting about cases where a company makes a movie making millions in US but doesn't feel it's worth releasing a DVD or a VHS to a small country, because they estimate they'll sell very few copies there and the profits will be smaller than the distribution and fabrication costs.

When this company retains copyright over something but yet keeps that something locked and unavailable to where I am, is that company really losing any money or suffers any losses if someone copies and gives away that stuff for free in that country? Should that company be allowed to keep copyright for 90 years on that? What was copyright supposed to be for, anyway?

Re:purely legal (1)

salparadyse (723684) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274729)

But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.
Re your last paragraph - agreed. As I said, as to whether these sites have committed a moral crime is another matter.

Re:purely legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274863)

But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.

Google (yahoo search, MSN search, etc) doesn't filter results either.

Re:purely legal (4, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275171)

And how would you do that?

Let's say you have "Madonna.jpg"

How is IsoHunt supposed to know if it's
(a) a scan of a Madonna CD artwork (illegal)
(b) a picture you made with a camera of a Madonna statue
(c) a picture of your girlfriend you like to nickname "Madonna"
(d) a picture of the cover of a book that has Madonna in the name.

Or, if I make a movie of myself and friend at a party, dancing on Prince's music, and I label it "Prince - Purple rain.avi" should IsoHunt remove it because it may be the actual video of the song or should IsoHunt staff be forced to download it and count how many seconds of Purple Rain actually are (if any) so that they can determine if it's fair use (less than 30 seconds of song) or not?

If it's more than 30 seconds, do they use the Canadian laws where IsoHunt is, or MY laws, which may consider any length of song fair use?

Re:purely legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276141)

Or, if I make a movie of myself and friend at a party, dancing on Prince's music, and I label it "Prince - Purple rain.avi" should IsoHunt remove it because it may be the actual video of the song or should IsoHunt staff be forced to download it and count how many seconds of Purple Rain actually are (if any) so that they can determine if it's fair use (less than 30 seconds of song) or not?

They haven't lost the case yet. Isn't it a little early to start handing out such inhumane punishments? Purple rain videos... shudder.

Re:purely legal (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275197)

But they specifically don't filter out titles known to be unavailable for free. Ergo they allow such titles to be searched for and found, ergo they intend that result.

It would be pointless to filter those titles out. As soon as they started doing that, people would start encoding titles so that the filter won't block them and then publishing lists of real titles and their encoded names in some frequently changing location that is easy enough for a person to find, but difficult for a computer to decipher. It already happens frequently on usenet because DMCA takedown notices to the big usenet sites like giganews have so far all been the result of automated title searches of headers and nzb amalgamaters.

And ultimately it makes the job of copyright owners a heck of a lot easier if the search engines make it obvious where the copyright violations are occuring because those sites can be shutdown with an DMCA notice or whatever the local equivalent is.

Re:purely legal (1)

jonnyt886 (1252670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275425)

If I record a movie in my own garden, I can release the video on my website or even on The Pirate Bay with a license saying that only the people in my home town have the right to download the video and the rest don't.

IsoHunt will index the torrent file nevertheless and from your point of view, IsoHunt indexes an illegal torrent that should be taken down, but from my (the creator) point of view it's perfectly legal.

It's the USER'S RESPONSIBILITY to read the terms of the license, the description of the torrent file I made and download the movie if he believes he's allowed to.

Yup, agreed. I don't know how it is phrased in legalese, but if I give someone the opportunity to do something illegal, but they make the final choice about whether to do it or not, I shouldn't be held liable if they break the law. For example, Google presenting me with a link to some ill-gotten MP3. If I click it, that's my act, I should be liable, not Google for presenting me with the link.

Let's try a car analogy: if I buy a car, take it on the road, crash it and kill someone, the cops don't go back to the showroom claiming the car manufacturer is liable because they provided me with a machine that is capable of breaking the law.

If I legally buy a gun, that's fine. If I go out and kill someone with it, I've broken the law. It's not the fault of the guy who sold me the gun, it's my fault.

Re:purely legal (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274769)

So why are books explaining how to make bombs, how to hack, how to murder, etc all legal? Yes, it's obvious people will use such things for nefarious purposes. Just like it's obvious people will use isohunt to download illegally. But there are also perfectly legal uses of such resources. And there are perfectly legal uses of isohunt.

So in Google (1)

howman (170527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274283)

'Watchmen filetype:torrent' makes Google a torrent search engine... Don't see them pulled into court... granted, places like ISO hunt, Torrent reactor and Pirate bay are making their name specifically by only searching for one file type. I wonder how things change if they add more file types and let you sort the results?

Re:So in Google (1)

Rex Stone (1505533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274823)

What about the "intitle:"index.of" {file extension} {filename}" search string in Google?

A Pleasant Reversal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274301)

"A recent Canadian court case brought against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc"

In Soviet Canada, Pirates sue YOU.

Re:A Pleasant Reversal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27274515)

No no no: In Soviet Canada, iso Hunts YOU!

Short answer - too bad (1, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274457)

The problem is that people are still trying (and for the most part, failing) to make money from digital works. There are considerable forces in the world that want to make this impossible. And they are winning.

If you spend money for a movie, you are their sworn enemy. If you pay for music, in any form, you are part of the problem and they think they are part of the solution.

The problem is, right now they can win. For the most part "crime" on the Internet can't be effectively punished. Which is why just about anyone with a static IP address is assulted on a daily basis with break-in attempts. It is why your children can't be allowed to use the Internet without supervision - someone will approach them with some unsavory proposal. Anyone doing this "in real life" would either be beaten to death or arrested, depending on who caught up with them first (a parent or the police). On the Internet, I can seduce your children, I can commit fraud, libel and anything else I choose and you can do nothing about it.

This means I can buy movies and post them on the Internet with the specific intent of making sure not another dime is spent on that movie, ever again. Will my purchase be the last? Right now it is changing from a silly question to approaching a 50/50 proposition, depending on where I post information about "my" movie.

You can figure this is going to happen with books, software, music, movies and anything else in digital form. Anything is fair game.

So why is free bad? It sounds really nice, just having everything for free. More money for everything else. Doesn't this just make us all richer? Sure, everyone except the creator. Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid. Well, payday is almost over. And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.

So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.

Re:Short answer - too bad (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275003)

It is why your children can't be allowed to use the Internet without supervision - someone will approach them with some unsavory proposal. Anyone doing this "in real life" would either be beaten to death or arrested, depending on who caught up with them first (a parent or the police). On the Internet, I can seduce your children, I can commit fraud, libel and anything else I choose and you can do nothing about it.

Obviously, you did not have a computer when you were a kid.

Yes, children can be seduced on the Internet but if you would be bothered to sit down with your kids and explain them about these kinds of people and what's appropriate and what's not, you wouldn't even need to supervise them, because they'll learn to recognize what's good and what's bad.

Just like promoting abstinence as birth control for teenagers, hiding children from the dangers of the world and supervising them constantly JUST WON'T WORK. You need to be patient and explain children about all these things and prepare them for life.

My parents were too embarrassed to teach me about sex and about these things and just hoped I would learn at school... well, I just learned about sex way before it came to learn at school by staying and watching softcore erotic movies on TV after parents went to sleep.

By the way, if you really want to protect your precious snowballs you should start burning your books because I can guarantee it your kids will look at your medicine/anatomy/romance books and look at pictures or read them, and they'll find about what you're trying to hide from them either way.

So why is free bad? It sounds really nice, just having everything for free. More money for everything else. Doesn't this just make us all richer? Sure, everyone except the creator. Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid. Well, payday is almost over. And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.

The creator doesn't get paid sh*t anyway. The movie director, the artists in the movie, the band, they're all under a contract and paid a fixed amount of money. The label or movie studio gets their copyrights in return for giving them money in advance and for promoting the movie/records.
If the movie will be available for free, the poor movie studio will probably only make 100 million dollars from cinemas and associated merchandise instead of 150 million dollars. Maybe if the actors in the movie would not be paid millions of dollars like Angelina Jolie or others are paid, movies would be cheaper to make but I can guarantee you the movie studios will still be upset about losing money, because they're in it for the profit.

Re:Short answer - too bad (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275523)

It sounds really nice, just having everything for free.

Indeed it does. It'd be great if everything in life were free. However, TANSTAAFL. At least, not in this world.

Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid.

Well, they didn't expect that the public would say "we enjoy your work, but fuck you." and since

payday is almost over

They'll do whatever anyone else does when they stop getting paid. They'll quit doing it and move on.

So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.

No, it's my way of encouraging them to create more. You would just as soon rip off an independent group of filmmakers with no major corporate backing as you would a major film studio. You'd do it even if you liked their work. And you expect them to make more of anything, when you make the plain point that you'll fuck 'em over on a whim?

And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.

Indeed, you'd better like it too when the flow of current NEW works slows to a trickle. Cause no one will waste their time doing something when they're just going to get screwed in the end.

If It's In Canada... (0, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274531)

I do think this is the most important copyright litigation going on right now.

If it's in Canada, how could that possibly be true? :^)

indexing is not copying (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274677)

repeat after me indexing is not copying.

No matter how much the RIAA wants you to think otherwise. Indexing or making other available of where to find something is very different from actually making it available.

Also making it available is not the same as copying it. People who put a movie up on a server are not violating copyright. Digital media must be copied to temporary storage to be played.

Do not listen to the RIAA and their weird interpretation of what is a violation of copyright.

On the face of it... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274701)

...it saeems as if this is a case over whether or not a search engine can be held responsible for making it possible to find illegal content.

And doesn't that mean that search engines would then be liable for the content of sites they list?

And doesn't that mean that search engines need to know the nature of the content they index?

And doesn't that mean that Google, for instance, needs to decipher if the results in a 'Watchmen' search are lawful previews, generic fanboi blog noise, press releases about the opening night receipts, or a torrent of the flick?

And doesn't that mean that the torrent sites will just obfuscate their pages to let Google and the others off the hook?

This does have the impact of either criminalizing search results for illegal content, or more likely rehashing the argument over 'offering' and 'providing'.

Which I think we have prcedent in the US that 'offering' is not the same as 'providing' or distribution, and so not infringement.

Didn't we settle this once? Will Canada agree?

Of course, if this were about ch1ldpr0n, we wouldn't be *allowed* to question this - anything is permissible to eradicate ch1ldpr0n.

feh. I'm still appreciating my 70s rock too much to bother buying anything new. And if I want to hear something new, which happens about twice a year, there are plenty of great artists out there giving their stuff away. And the irony? I PAY them! they don't even have to ask!

I just feel a little guilty over stiffing the artists who mistakenly signed on to the Dark Side. Most didn't know better.

OK - so here - do this (2, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27274763)

to get fairly quick access to any music title you want.

go to Google and type in:

"bandName" "recordTitle" download inurl:blogspot

just substitute "bandName" with the name of the band you want and "recordTitle" with the title you need from them.

BANG.

the blogs linking to them come up.

sigh. So simple and convenient...

RS

JUST so you guys know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275019)

p2pnet won the 1st salvo and as a judge said

linking is not ilegal as its the user that makes the choice of whethar to goto infringing or illegal content.

IF ISO hunt wins this based on that earlier ruling
then it affirms it, if not all it does is cloud the issue for a second case to determine why one is legite and the other isnt , which lends me to beleive its going to go iso hunts way.

AND in other news
in may if BCE gets its way
no more unlimited in canada
and a 200 GB use will cost about 200$ CAD/month
with 60GB CAPS to CAIP 3rd parties while bell offers 95gb and rogers offers 100GB
all these arses are overcharging us to death

we will in may be paying 100 times what americans pay for net use

You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275969)

Fuck Canada.

Just a matter of time (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276159)

Before ALL content is restricted and you can only post 'approved' items.

"but you can run xyz to get around it!" for now, just wait until TPM/DRM tech is *required* to run. Then your files ( and thus applications ) themselves become subject to approval by the future 'internet content governing body', a wing of the UN.

Enjoy what is left of your freedom while you can. Dark days are coming.

And before you label me as just 'yet another tin foil hatter', if i had told you a decade ago we would even be having this discussion you would have called me paranoid, but guess what, we are. ( which i did predict 15 years ago.. too bad i was right )

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>