Canadian Copyright Notice-and-Notice System: Citing False Legal information 172
An anonymous reader writes Canada's new copyright
notice-and-notice system has been in place for less than a
week, but rights holders are already exploiting a loophole to send
demands for payment citing false legal information. Earlier this
week, a Canadian
ISP forwarded to Michael Geist a sample notice it received
from Rightscorp on behalf of BMG. The notice falsely warns that the
recipient could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement when
the reality is that Canadian law caps liability for non-commercial
infringement at $5,000 for all infringements. The notice also warns
that the user's Internet service could be suspended, yet there is no
such provision under Canadian law. In a nutshell, Rightscorp and BMG
are using the notice-and-notice system to require ISPs to send
threats and misstatements of Canadian law in an effort to extract
payments based on unproven infringement allegations.
notice-and-notice (Score:2)
why do people keep saying "notice and notice"? it sounds like it's just "notice".
Re:notice-and-notice (Score:4, Informative)
It's short for "If you see it (notice) send a letter (notice)".
Re: (Score:2)
oh. in the US we say see something, say something.
Re:notice-and-notice (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was see something, shoot something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
why do people keep saying "notice and notice"?
They used Xzibit as a consultant.
Re: (Score:2)
And, we can take away your Birthday (Score:2)
The notice falsely warns that the recipient could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement... The notice also that the user's internet service could be suspended.
Really? If those enticements fail to grab my attention, is Christmas on thin ice as well?
It may not be a lie. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
they're using canadian law in order to send those notices.
so they're agreeing to act under that law - or face other potential consequences for not acting in good faith etc.
of course, you can never trust the bastards. then there's double jeopardy and what have you - not that it would stop the bastards from trying.
if you murder someone in, say, Finland, sure I victims family can sue you in USA civil court but that does go against internationally established practices(damages and such to affected would be hand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do US courts have any jurisdiction handling infringements which did not happen in the US ?
Depends if you ask someone in the US or someone in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It may not be a lie. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It may not be a lie. (Score:5, Informative)
You think US courts won't take "judicial notice" of a Canadian suit on the very same crime, and one in which the company had to commence a Canadian action to get the information? You think we don't have treaties with the US? You think countries haven't honoured each other's decisions and court orders since the middle ages?
Re: (Score:2)
"You think countries haven't honoured each other's decisions and court orders since the middle ages?"
In this particular case, no. :)
That said, I see the slimy way this will happen is that they will use the law and Canadian courts to get personal information, then use that information in US court, likely in a State with stupid IP laws such as east Texas, to try to extort money from Canadians. These things typically don't go to court, but are just used as blunted objects to scare people into paying money. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, and thanks. I used your characterization about the "aim of the slimy" in a comment in the article we're discussing.
That's different from the courts screwing up, and more like a trick to get away with forum shopping, something that wouldn't happen nearly as well (badly) between states.
Re: (Score:2)
to get a parallel proceeding in another jurisdiction you would have to lie to the court. If the case is already the subject of a criminal proceeding, any civil proceedings *must*, no matter where they are, be suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. In the case of two civil or two criminal trials for the same thing in two different jurisdictions, there are a few options: a Lis Alibi Pendens is issued by the court of first instance, which means no other proceedings may take place, period; or
Re: (Score:2)
or the two jurisdictions agree to move the proceedings to a higher jurisdiction (eg District to County) where both may prosecute the same case on the same evidence at the same time in the same chamber.
And what joint higher court would there be for an action in Canada and one in the USA? It doesn't seem like you could appeal to a district court that included both.
Re: (Score:2)
in which case one of the other options is used. That's why there are several.
Re: (Score:2)
you comment is completely wrong. Any court would first ask, why the fuck are you suing here when the action took place in another country, when you answer that you did sue there they would throw your case out, potentially with costs awarded to who you were suing. If this sort of thing was allowed companies and especially patent troll type companies would be launching suits all over the world to try to cash in as much as they could.
But if the files are being shared on Bittorrent, they're being made available to every country in the world, and these could all be regarded as separate instances of infringement.
There is another word they studiously avoid (Score:2)
and for good reason; because it puts them under PERSONAL LIABILITY: FRAUD.
Call it like it is, folks, deliberately misrepresenting the Law for gain is FRAUD.
Re:There is another word they studiously avoid (Score:5, Informative)
oh, before you say it isn't fraud in this case, try reading up on Canadian law:
Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the general definition for fraud in Canada:
380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
In addition to the penalties outlined above, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from "seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3.
The Canadian courts have held that the offence consists of two distinct elements:
A prohibited act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means. In the absence of deceit or falsehood, the courts will look objectively for a "dishonest act"; and
The deprivation must be caused by the prohibited act, and deprivation must relate to property, money, valuable security, or any service.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that deprivation is satisfied on proof of detriment, prejudice or risk of prejudice; it is not essential that there be actual loss. Deprivation of confidential information, in the nature of a trade secret or copyrighted material that has commercial value, has also been held to fall within the scope of the offence.
Re: (Score:2)
The case law on this stuff is a mile long in terms of fraud here. If they're looking to be criminally charged, they're going about it the right way.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the notice? They're demanding money. The lies are there in the hopes of making the victim scared enough to pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
yes I did. The problem is while they are lieing bastards there is no gain by deception here, the settlement is legitimate and the copyright owners are indeed entitled to settle. Yes the consequences are BS but that is a separate issue, they should be stopped from sending this stuff but it isn't fraud even though it most definitely is misleading.
Re: (Score:3)
there does not have to be a proven loss, according to both the quoted Statute and the Case Law. There only has to be a proven intent to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception, as is precisely what is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said they are NOT obtaining monetary advantage by deception and I think it would be damn hard to argue they are in any court. The settlement is legitimate, the offense is legitimate, they are entitled to make such a settlement. Yes they are providing incorrect advise, but that isn't fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
their own documents damn them. The statements on the notices are collectively and individually, statements of intent. That they are deceptive places those statements in the realm of fraudulent. That they deceive in terms of the legal position of the Person who issued them, doubly so in that they are instruments of Fraud, and that they make threats of litigation using false information makes them Statutory instruments of Fraud.
Thank you, come again.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless or until the accusation goes to trial, it is not legitimate in the eyes of the court. It is just an accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that deprivation is satisfied on proof of detriment, prejudice or risk of prejudice; it is not essential that there be actual loss. Deprivation of confidential information, in the nature of a trade secret or copyrighted material that has commercial value, has also been held to fall within the scope of the offence.
They gain a quick settlement where if the alleged infringer knew the penalties are limited he might have decided to go to court. For example, if he didn't do it but wasn't willing to risk huge penalties on the court coming to the correct conclusion.
So it is fraud.
Consider, if the rights holder didn't expect to gain something from lying in the notice, why do it? Funsies?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you have is that breaking the Law to enforce the Law is a right afforded only Law Enforcement Officers, and then under extremely narrow circumstances. For example, shooting a suspect in the back (fleeing a scene waving a gun around?) can be justified, where if he were on the floor with his hands behind his head and his thumbs interlocked and his legs crossed over his ass, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
in old English law, prior to 2006 and as specified in the Fraud Act (1978?), obtaining or attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage, as here, by deception, as here, is fraud. In the Fraud Act it is defined as a summary offence - no question of intent. Did the fraud occur or did it not occur? If it did, then it did, end of story. Bend over, new fish.
Re: (Score:2)
The Act goes on to say. "This deception must be the cause of the obtaining". i.e you actually need to show that the lie is what lead to them getting the payment, it isn't enough just to have lied.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, it is. Simply because, in Canadian law (an in others), actual loss need not have occurred. Only the act of deception needs to be proved; a simple reference to the relevant Statute will do that in very short order.
Re: (Score:3)
Ergo, misprepresenting the Lawful position in order to obtain a settlement equal to the actual cap under threat of a claim for some thirty times the cap which would be dismissed anyway, but not before it bankrupted the respondent, would be found as fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
sure they have the right to settle. They DO NOT have the right to have a THIRD PARTY make deceptive threats on their behalf, though, which ab initio invalidates their entire claim.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Just send the notice back and wait until they correct the mistakes on it.
Is this not a red herring? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ISP's are not monitoring us here in the case of this law. The copyright holders are obtaining IP addresses from Torrent sites, etc like they do in the U.S.. They then create the letters and tell the ISP to forward them to the customers at those IP addresses. The ISP cannot provide any customer detail to the copyright owner due to Canadian privacy laws unless instructed to by a court order. Even the police and RCMP are still fighting to get access to simple customer information without warrants.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amateur hour (Score:3)
WTF would Canadians care about 17 U.S.C. 512(c)?
If they can't afford Canadian legal staff to even write their letters they will likely not have much success in Canadian courts anytime soon either.
Harper has to go (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It is not illegal to lie (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be illegal to lie for gain, particularly for a corporation, depending on the precise details of the case. They're opening themselves up to criminal charges, not to mention civil lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?
Who's going to act? (Score:2)
Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?
Someone has to tell a whole mass of possibly-terrified individuals and a collection of government and police forces that a crime is being committed. Othewise the criminal walk away with their ill-gotten gains.
Re:It is not illegal to lie (Score:5, Informative)
I've already received a notice and my ISP did exactly that. Here's the full text of the message I received:
Hello,
TekSavvy has received what the Copyright Act calls a "notice of claimed infringement". It listed an IP address and time. Our systems indicate that the IP address listed in the notice was likely assigned to your account at the specified time. We are therefore legally required to forward the notice to you. The notice is reproduced, unaltered, below.
First, though, there are some things you should know:
(a) We haven't told the sender who you are. Your privacy is paramount to us. We don't track, or know, what you do. We do know what IP address we assigned to you within the last 30 days. But we don't provide personal information like that to anyone unless a court orders us to -- and we have not done so here. The notice was simply received by us, and we have forwarded it electronically on to you.
(b) We are an intermediary that is required to forward this notice to you. We do not, and cannot, verify its contents or its sender. However, a private party's notice does not mean there has been any legal ruling. Only a court can do that.
(c) It is good practice to make sure you secure your account. Your wireless router should be password-protected; the password should be changed regularly; and those who have the password should maintain good virus protection. Your MyAccount allows you to check your bandwidth usage: do so regularly, and make sure what is happening and what you think is happening line up.
(d) We retain IP address information for 30 days. If your modem has not been powered off during that period, then we may have IP address information going back to the last time you did. In addition to requiring us to forward this notice, the Copyright Act also requires us to retain the records matching the IP address and time to your account for six months. If the people who sent the notice apply to a court, they can require us to hold it for longer.
We have provided some links below. The notice, which we are required to forward unaltered, follows.
Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... [justice.gc.ca]
TekSavvy:
http://teksavvy.com/en/why-tek... [teksavvy.com]
https://myaccount.teksavvy.com... [teksavvy.com]
Automated translation (you may need to copy and paste):
https://translate.google.com/?... [google.com]
http://www.bing.com/translator... [bing.com]
--- Forwarded Notice of Infringement follows:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Notice ID: XX-XXXXXXXXX
Notice Date: 04 Jan 2015 03:52:22 GMT
TekSavvy Solutions, Inc.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Irdeto USA, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Irdeto") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized Irdeto to act as its non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. Irdeto's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the below report.
Irdeto has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of in the below report is not authorized by Paramount, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the below report. The below documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement.
We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others unauthorized Paramount's materials in the future (see, 17 U.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this not Mod (5+), Informative?
Is the post false?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me like a very flowery letter that is actually a phishing expedition for your personal information.
As Teksavvy stated in the preamble, they protect your identity, only the courts can release it, which would require a warrant.
Yet here they are asking you to voluntarily surrender your personal information in the form of an email or letter, which I am sure once they have it, an extortion letter or civil proceeding may follow...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It is not illegal to lie (Score:4, Informative)
Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb). Fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It might actually be more expedient to sue them for unsolicited, fraudulent legal advice, against the Bar of whatever province the consumer was sued in.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but suppressing copyright infringement is neither unfair nor unlawful. Whatever else may be wrong about it, fraud it is not.
That claim requires the end justifies the means. Never has, never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Be an apologist for MAFIAA organized crime if you get a kick out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
But they're not trying to suppress copyright infringement. They're trying to get people to send them money. (Whether those people actually committed copyright infringement is a moot point; this sort of extortion works just as well either way.)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, you believe that the ends justifies the means. In this case, the ends are to extract money from the masses. And, the means involves lying.
This has damned near nothing to do with enforcing copyright law. Perhaps you didn't notice the name of the corporation involved - Rightscorp, acting on behalf of BMG. Or, you've forgotten how they've made news in the past. They dwell among the scum of the earth. They have been shot down time and again for exploiting loopholes in the law. And, oh yeah - p
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, it's extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
But no infringement has been proven in court, only an allegation made. The threatened (false) penalties may induce an innocent potential defendant to pay just to make it go away. That would be a monetary gain through deceit.
Re:It is not illegal to lie (Score:5, Informative)
Criminal Code of Canada 346(1)
Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Re:It is not illegal to lie (usually) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're a bad person. Copyright infringement is far less serious than extortion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because extortion has nothing to do with lying. Extortion is the criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. You know, like your MAFIAA buddies.
Re: (Score:3)
It might be legal, though I'm unconvinced. It is definitely unethical, and it *should* be illegal.
Keep in mind that the only possible justification for copyright's existence is that, on the whole, it benefits society. Every time it is abused, it tips the balance a little more. I'm no longer certain that it *is* a net benefit to society; we may be better off without it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not illegal to lie - except under oath.
Try that with the cops next time they question you and let us know how it works out. Oh, and don't forget your "soap on a rope."
Re: (Score:2)
Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.
It varies by state, but you're still committing at least a misdemeanor. Washington State [wa.gov] is one example.
Re:It is not illegal to lie (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
It is, however, illegal to infringe on copyrights. If the legal lying helps reduce the illegal infringement, I'm fine with it.
But it won't, of course, because the illegal infringers will see the lies and use that to justify their infringement.
What would make a difference is to make legal content available more widely and without restriction. Why should I "buy" a DRM movie download that I can only watch on a designated "approved" device and only as long as the company I "bought" it from is still in business when it's even easier to download it from a torrent, and then I have full use of it on any device forever.
Generally when I want to buy a movie, I'll just buy a used DVD and rip it myself though sometimes if it's something I want to watch right away I'll torrent it and buy it at the same time so I can watch the movie immediately. I believe I'm violating the law in both cases despite the fact that I have physical DVD's for all of my movies.
If I could buy a non-DRM'ed "official" movie in digital form for a reasonable price, I'd rather do that since I'd be guaranteed a high quality copy in my language (that sure beats waiting 3 hours for a torrent to download only to find out that the audio is in Mandarin with no subtitles), but there's no way to do so.
In Canada it is legal to download and rip movies (Score:5, Informative)
In Canada when you play money, you have to get something in return in the form of a physical item, a license, a limited license, or a service.
Home videos were going to be under the physical item category originally. The problem the MPAC had with this is that legally, in Canada, you cannot put any restrictions on what people do with an item that is labeled as physical.
The MPAC wanted home videos only to be used for private showings, thus they lobbied to have home videos be classified as a license. The problem they have now is that you own a license to watch that performance of the movie. If you have a VHS copy of The Jungle Book, it is legal for you to download the 1080p version and watch it.
The movie studios, or record companies, can get around this a bit by coming out with modified versions of the movies, or music. There is a threshold for how much change there needs to be for this to happen.
Also Herr Harper passed a law making it illegal to teach other people how to crack encryption. Though cracking the encryption for personal use is not illegal.
Basically, if you buy a movie, you own a license to view that performance, doesn't matter how you get it. Higher quality transfers, or remastering are generally still considered the same performance.
Re:In Canada it is legal to download and rip movie (Score:5, Informative)
Recent copyright law renders it illegal to break any digital "lock" mechanism, regardless of whether it's for the sake of format shifting or not. There are exceptions, but you'll note that platform shifting is not one of them:
source [ic.gc.ca]
Platform shifting is still legal, but not of, for instance, Blu-rays or DVDs
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the question, what is considered "hacking of a digital lock"?
After installing DeCSS on my Linux PC well over a decade ago when I still had a working DVD player, I didn't notice the lock. Was it really still there? Is it really a lock? To view a .jpg image I also need some special software to decode it for me and display it on my screen.
Even after decoding CSS, you still have to decode the MPEG to be able to send it to a screen for display. Most players do both steps in one go, without a single
Re: (Score:2)
The term "hacking" that the government's summary webpage used was clearly chosen as a bit of confusion/propaganda; the actual bill uses the term "circumvention" and defines it thusly:
Re: (Score:2)
A case might also be made that it is protection of data.
Or, just to be safe, download a torrent. That way, someone else broke the digital lock.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem they have now is that you own a license to watch that performance of the movie. If you have a VHS copy of The Jungle Book, it is legal for you to download the 1080p version and watch it.
No it isn't. Canadian copyright law allows for one to create or obtain a backup of any multimedia product that one owns as this falls under fair dealing (aka fair use). However, this doctrine is dated and does not make any stipulation on the legality or the source of the backup, although the recent bill C-11 has clarified it a little bit which would seem to make acquiring copies from others impermissible. This aspect of Canadian copyright law has not been well tested in court, which is why many people have
Re: (Score:2)
> In Canada, once you have paid for a license of a movie, it is legal to rip it from a physical copy, or download a digital copy.
The problem being, is that it is still illegal to upload that digital copy. And bittorrent is peer-to-peer, which means unless you have specifically configured your client to *not* *share* with other members of the swarm, you are uploading.
Where do you think the notice companies get your IP address? You sent them a piece of whatever content they're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not violating the law as far as ripping goes as long as you actually bought the disk. If you borrowed or rented the dvd/blu-ray, you would be illegally distributing.
Unless the DMCA has changed recently, I believe I'm still in violation:
http://lifehacker.com/5978326/... [lifehacker.com]
The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Managemnt) to rip the DVD, you've violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM . . . Some courts have tried to leaven this rather harsh rule, but most have not. While it's typically hard to detect small-scale circumvention, the question is whether bypassing DRM is legal. The statute sets up some minor exceptions, but our ripper doesn't fall into any of them. So, the moment a studio protects the DVD with DRM, it gains both a technical and a legal advantage—ripping is almost certainly unlawful
While ripping the movie from a non-encrypted DVD may be legal, I don't believe that i'm legally allowed to bypass the CSS encryption.
And as far as torrenting, then that's illegal because you would be doing two things that are bad. 1. You are receiving illegally obtained goods; 2. You are distributing without authorization.
If I leech the torrents, am I really guilty of illegal distribution? Though it's likely that I'm guilty of receiving stolen goods, though I wonder if there's any wiggle room on that if I already own the movie?
Make sure you actually own the physical disk.
That part is easy, I have a big DVD binder full of every movie I
Maybe not in the US... (Score:2)
It is not illegal to lie
In most places it constitutes fraud... Prosecuting it is hard (and often impossible), but it is still illegal to commit fraud. Or sell a product under false advertisement which is what they do here, the product being a license to the work that is allegedly infringed.
Fraud, false advertising, etc... call it what you want, lying is rarely legal.
Re: (Score:2)
fraud is extremely easy to prove if you have the instruments of fraud as sent by them, in your hand to show to the court as exhibit A.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
better check the relevant jurisdiction [slashdot.org].
Misrepresenting the Law then hiding behind it with malicious intent is most certainly FRAUD.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "malicious" about upholding one's copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, though, you're assuming (against all evidence) that the purpose of these notices is in fact to suppress illegal activity, rather than to line the pockets of the mobster, er, "copyright holder". The business model is based on the "voluntary" fines, not on the original content.
Re: (Score:2)
Distinction without difference. When shooting a robber for example, are you taking another human being's precious life to stop the crime in progress, or to protect your own flabby body and/or meager possessions?
Their business model is based on producing content, which other p
Re: (Score:2)
They're not shooting the "robber", they're pulling a gun on him and demanding his wallet. I'm fairly sure that doesn't count as self-defense.
Also, you're confusing the porn company's business model with Rightscorp's business model.
Re:It is not illegal to lie (about some things) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
Definitely not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lying is not illegal in and of itself, but in business and legal contexts it is often either a crime or a tort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
Sure, fraud, false advertising, slander, and libel are all perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud is a criminal offence, requiring the person be making a false statement to obtain money, and the false statement not to opinions like "my product is better than his".
In the US, the tradition is to sue folks. In Canada we tend to call the cops. I'm mildly surprised no-one has said they done so already.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you on about?
Tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability. That's why they call it "tort law".
Re: (Score:2)
it's either that or learn how to make lanyards for soaps...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't researched this, but it is my understanding that the ISPs just have to forward the notice to the customer; at that point, at least, they don't have to give the complainant the customer's details. (Similar to the system here in NZ.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't get names from the ISP... or addresses, or anything else.
You send your notice to the ISP and they forward it to the person using the IP at the time you allege the infringement happened.
Re: (Score:3)
I posted a story a while ago about a slew of John Doe copyright cases that were dismissed out of hand for the simple reason that the COPYRIGHT HOLDER, NOT A THIRD PARTY, is the sole entity with the right to file such claims, AND that there is no way to prove an IP as a form of personal identity.
That post was dropped in favour of a slush piece about Kim Kardashian's ever increasing glutes.