Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Government The Courts

Canadian Government Steps In To Stop Misleading Infringement Notices 103

Posted by Soulskill from the drawing-the-wrong-kind-of-attention dept.
Dangerous_Minds writes: Recently, misleading notices were spotted being sent out by Rightscorp. Michael Geist posted the letter which, among other things, cites U.S. laws, says the Canadians could be on the hook for $150,000 (does not actually exist in the recent copyright reforms now in force), and that payments should be made directly to the company. Apparently, the Canadian government was not amused and has announced that they will be speaking with rightsholders and ISPs to address the concerns that were raised. The government says, "These notices are misleading and companies cannot use them to demand money from Canadians."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Government Steps In To Stop Misleading Infringement Notices More

Canadian Government Steps In To Stop Misleading Infringement Notices

Comments Filter:

  • That was quick ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbara.jane.hudson@nospAM.icloud.com> on Saturday January 10, 2015 @05:54PM (#48782953) Journal
    That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October). Maybe we should have elections EVERY year (like Italy)?

    • Re:That was quick ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by namgge ( 777284 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:02PM (#48782985)
      I wonder which politician has been sent one of these notices...

      • Re:That was quick ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@nosPaM.gmail.com> on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:13PM (#48783033) Homepage

        Probably none. Despite the whining that people go on about the government here in Canada, they actually do productive things. They have stepped in the past to deal with issues from "autonomous government agencies" like the CRTC, but I'm sure someone is going to whine and cry about my post anyway.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by davecb ( 6526 )
          I don't like the party in power, but you have to admit they're not slow!

          • I see this more of a "stop doing this until after the election so we don't have to deal with little-people backlash over having just passed this very copyright-holder friendly batch of laws".

          • I don't like the party in power, but like the alternatives even less. Each of the current sides do the bidding of either corporate or union masters and use various tactics to demonize their opponents. It ends up always being a case of 'pick the side that's going to profit me the most'. Win for democracy?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by davecb ( 6526 )
              I think we have a problem involving a lack of negative feedback. If I'm PM, I can do anything I want, and no-one can stop me. If I'm an ill-advised liberal I can do as much damage as an ill-advised conservative and equally as much as a deliberate "Dr Evil". That's probably a bad thing...
              • The PM's near impunity is a mixed bag. In some cases it allows a leader to do what he or she thinks is best for the country, regardless how public opinion views the decision. The public must wait for the next election to 'voice' their displeasure. A good example was the unpopular Brian Mulroney who pushed through both the NA Free Trade Agreement and the 7% general sales tax. It should be noted that Chretien campaigned on removing the tax, was voted in, and immediately stated that it was never a campaign pro

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by davecb ( 6526 )

                  In a now far-past age, we had a fix for this. Politicians of the "family compact" era fought hard against "responsible government", which made ministers responsible for their departments, and honour-bound to resign from cabinet when they failed in their undertakings.

                  It was imposed anyway as part of Lord Durhams' reforms, much to their displeasure.

                  Over time, governments have become more resistant to losing votes and ministers have become very resistant to stepping down for anything other than cheesing of

        • As an inveterate hater of the Harper Govt. I am deeply pissed that they have done the right thing here.

          If on nothing else, on this issue, they do seem to know their ass from their elbow.

          • Re:That was quick ... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by FatLittleMonkey ( 1341387 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @07:48AM (#48786233)

            that they have done the right thing here.

            Done the right thing? Passed a law slavishly devoted to the copyright industry's wishes? So mindlessly copied the US version that it contained the same decade-known flaw, an absence of penalties for false-notices, fraudulent-notices, spamming robo-notices, allowing 3rd party companies to create whole business models around extorting fake "fines" out of people? How is any of that the "right thing"?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Probably none. Despite the whining that people go on about the government here in Canada, they actually do productive things. They have stepped in the past to deal with issues from "autonomous government agencies" like the CRTC, but I'm sure someone is going to whine and cry about my post anyway.

          Unlikely. The CRTC thing happened because it literally blew up in their face and the publicity behind it was growing. Even then it took months for something to happen - before the media got wind of it and it literal

        • Quick and productive. Like how quickly and productively they passed policy forbidding government scientists from speaking to any press lest "facts" that disagree with government ideology leak out. Or how quickly and productively they shut down the environmental round table. The Environmental Round Table was specifically set up to provide spin free info to parliamentarians so at least they could have the facts. When asked why they de-funded it, they said flat out " We de-funded it because it continued to

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps it was handled directly by the politicians and didn't get sent successively to the bilingualism committee, the first nations rights committee, the federal-provincial affairs committee, the handicapped rights committee, the lesbian-gay-transgender rights committee, three slumbering Senate committees, et decelera ad nauseum?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I was most content when we had a minority government, of any type. It keeps the politicians on a short leash. An election every year wouldn't be necessary *IF* the government in power consulted and respected the wishes of the rest of Parliament and the people they represent (i.e. exactly the way it should be all the time).

    • That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).

      This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

      • That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).

        This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

        WHAT?!?! They already said they are going to give them a strong talking-to. Geeze some people are never satisfied!

      • It's fraud, but someone has to step forward and file a criminal complaint before anything can be done.

      • This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

        Even that isn't enough. Any system that gives aid and comfort to the extortionists is, by definition, corrupt. An appropriate response would be to create a centralised, universal licensing system to replace existing individual rights-holding licensing. Ends exclusive licenses, therefore prevents region blocking (by allowing other companies to exploit the absence), allows competition and model-differentiation in the distribution marketplace, allows artists to register directly and easily, letting them bypass

    • Governments tend to react quickly when someone tries to butt into their business: I.e. deciding what laws apply to the area they claim jurisdiction for.

      How long do you think the US government would take to react to a Canadian company mailing US citizens and telling them that Canadian law applied to them and they should heed it?

    • Except Harper government is a majority government so the election is not going to happen anytime soon.

      • Assuming they follow their own law (Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act, passed in 2007), the next election is on October 19, 2015, the third Monday in October, 4 years after the last election.

        Constitutionally, the latest an election could occur is in early July of 2016, as Parliament would have be dissolved by May 23rd.

  • Governmnt acts quick (Score:3)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:02PM (#48782983)

    to fix possible lawsuits to media companies for these false claims. Let see if they'll sanction them, then I'll believe they did it to protect the Canadian citizen from the loophole.

    • I would love to see the Mounties come into the US on the down-low and rendition Michael Geist, we'd has fresh source of Dudley Do-Right [wikipedia.org] jokes for years.

      Most Canadians live within 50 miles of the US border, so they all pretty much now there's nothing a US company or Government can do to them unless they actually come into the US, and most that have US bank accounts don't have that much in them for the courts to sieze. I doubt Geist is getting anything but laughed at.

  • Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by umdesch4 ( 3036737 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:08PM (#48783011)
    That letter includes the work address and phone number of the CEO of Rightscrap. Good times are ahead, I'm thinking.

  • Speaking with? (Score:3)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:21PM (#48783067)

    WTF. How about 'SPEAKING' to the law's abusers in the same manner they spoke, using threats of $150,000 fines.

    • Understatement! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davecb ( 6526 ) <davecb@spamcop.net> on Saturday January 10, 2015 @07:41PM (#48783431) Homepage Journal
      This is Canada, where we engage in somewhat British-sounding understatement. The police or courts may say they are be "speaking" to someone, and the words they speak may be polite, but the import of them may be very unpleasant to the listener. Americans might translate it as "hitting on him with a clue-stick".
      • So you say your police and courts often hit on people in ways that are unpleasant to the listener?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by davecb ( 6526 )
          Yes, and courts are neuter, so it's a waste of time for them to hit on anyone (;-))

        • Canadian police are very polite. For a minor first infraction, they will apologize for interrupting your activities before announcing that if you do not stop then they may need to arrest you. This is known as a "caution." For a larger first infraction, they will apologize for interrupting your activities before delivering a search warrant and arresting you.

          If the Canadian police show up with guns drawn, then you screwed up big-time.

  • Rightscorp CEO Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by andydread ( 758754 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:21PM (#48783069)
    Just in case folks would like to contact the CEO Christopher Sabec here is his info

    Christopher Sabec
    CEO
    Rightscorp, Inc.
    3100 Donald Douglas Loop, North,
    Santa Monica, CA 90405
    Telephone: (310) 751-7510

  • Yeah "speaking to" them. Let me know when people do jail time for fraud or blackmail.

  • If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If an American violates Iranian decency laws by making a picture of a woman in a swimsuit available in Iran, why would the American not be subject to Iranian law?

    • Re: How is it misleading? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Absolutely nothing. An American company is free to sue a Canadian in an American court. But, understand that a summary judgment will also stop at the 49th, as well.

      Unless the Canadian has US assets, mind you.

      • Re: How is it misleading? (Score:5, Informative)

        by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday January 11, 2015 @12:19AM (#48784957) Journal

        But, understand that a summary judgment will also stop at the 49th, as well.

        Unless the Canadian has US assets, mind you.

        Not necessarily.

        The distinguishing issue here is copyright. Current treaty law allows one to enforce copyright registered in one country in other member countries. The exact process for this is somewhat convoluted as the treaties (more specifically the WCT, WPPT, and the Berne Convention) have provisions included that require the signatory countries to set up processes for this enforcement and if there isn't, then the process in the registered country will be substituted as far as the requirements under the treaty allow (Berne Convention).

        Under this scenario, if someone violated a provision under the treaty- like copyright infringement- the author or recognized rights holder would have to use the system set up in the country the infringement took place and that system would have to suffice unless there is no protection in place. At that point, the authors home country protections (where the copyright was first recognized) could be enforced. So a lawsuit in the US could be enforced in another country if they signed the treaties and those governments should/could allow the "Enforcement of the judgements" [wikipedia.org] to the extent as they comply with their own laws using a process called lex fori and Comity.

        Clearly here in this current situation, only Canadian law can be enforced under the treaty so an American company could only suit for infringement in Canadian courts under Canadian law. However, if Canada had no law concerning this or it was another country without a law, then a suit in US court would/could proceed and once the judgement is final, they would go to a Canadian (or other country if it happened in another country) court and ask for enforcement of a foreign judgement. The Canadian court would look at the reasons for the judgement, local law as well as the treaties claimed to be governing them, and if they found enough cause, would enter a judgement of the same without hearing the merits of the case. Now this judgement is enforceable under Canadian law in any way normally allowed in Canada (or other country).

        But it should be noted that most foreign countries refuse this quite a lot based on excessive punitive damages which means if a case proceeded in absentia (the defendant wasn't present) and the maximum legal damages were awarded, the foreign court would most likely laugh it away.

        So there is a way for a judgement to be enforced in Canada even though it is unlikely and would violate the copyright treaties.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      Because US law should stop at the border?

      Like, someone in the USA uploads, makes available, a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf and a Dutch citizen downloads it, surely that's legal in the US but just as much it's illegal in The Netherlands, who's law to apply?
    • If someone in Germany downloaded Nazi stuff from you who should be liable under German law you or them? Your action was in your home nation and that is where you should be liable

    • Re:How is it misleading? (Score:4, Informative)

      by fnj ( 64210 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @07:04PM (#48783263)

      Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?". If it was a case of country A requesting the extradition from country B of a citizen of country A, or in extraordinary circumstances even country C, visiting country B, it would be somewhat less unlikely.

      • Re:How is it misleading? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by willy_me ( 212994 ) on Saturday January 10, 2015 @07:42PM (#48783433)

        Canada extradites Canadians to the US on a regular basis. Typically, these people have committed a crime in the US and are being sent back to receive their punishment - also in the US. Only stipulation is that they can not receive the death penalty because Canadians do not consider it humane. The same thing applies to Americans who commit crimes in Canada.

        The American and Canadian governments have an agreement in place to prevent criminals from jumping the boarder with hopes of avoiding punishment. This has not been used for cases of infringement. If they tried, it probably would not work.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jardine ( 398197 )

        I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?".

        Not for copyright infringement at least. They extradited Marc Emery for selling cannabis seeds through mail order to Americans though.

        • Non commercial Infringement is a civil dispute, smuggling is a crime.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Strider- ( 39683 )

            Non commercial Infringement is a civil dispute, smuggling is a crime.

            Except that it wasn't a crime in Canada when he sold the seeds. Under Canadian law, the seeds themselves aren't controlled substances, so it's perfectly legal to buy and sell them. What Marc Emery did was not a crime in the location that he did it in.

      • Depends on the law, in the US most laws have a line something like "It is illegal for anyone the the United States, the District of Columbia, It's Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to ..." and some have "It is illegal for anyone to". Murder, Rape and Piracy on the High Seas are example of the second.

      • Seriously? Do you think everybody in the world should be subject to the laws of all 196 countries in the world? The only way the US could get its claws on a foreign national residing in his own native country would be rendition or kidnapping. I doubt Canada would extradite a Canadian citizen to the US. The response would probably be something like "are you fucking kidding me?".

        Actually, the dialogue would go like this:
        Rightscorp: "We're suing this guy for copyright infringement."
        U.S.: "Okay."
        fnj: "You can't extradite him!"
        U.S.: "No one asked to. It's a civil suit."
        fnj: "No kidnapping either!"
        Rightscorp: "Gracious, no. We just want money."
        fnj: "Canada will resist any attempts to extradite or kidnap its citizens!!"
        U.S.: "... we're going to stand over there now."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      I hereby sue you for breaking the English obscenity laws while you were sitting at home yesterday.

      See the problem now?

      • I hereby sue you for breaking the English obscenity laws while you were sitting at home yesterday.

        See the problem now?

        Nope. You can bring a suit for anything you want. First, you'll have to serve me with notice. Second, you'll have to get a default judgement (which will be easy, because I'm not going to show up or pay anyone to show up). Third, you'll have to get an enforcement order, since I'm not going to voluntarily pay. Fourth, you'll have to wait for me to visit England to enforce that enforcement order. And Fifth, as soon as I do visit, I get the default judgement reversed and you lose at summary judgement. So, you'r

    • If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States while located in Canada and running his operation from Canada, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

      I highlight the one key bit of information that you forgot to include which suddenly makes the entire mess a grey area. The old school way of thinking about it is that you follow the law of the land. If a case is serious enough you seek extradition to to the other land but that is often reserved for severe criminal cases or people who companies with serious funds have a grudge against (Kim Dot Com).

      These are not simple answers. There are many lawsuits currently in progress regarding these matters, the two m

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by c ( 8461 )

      If a Canadian infringes American copyright material by redistributing it within the United States, why would the Canadian not be subject to US law?

      They probably could be. But the copyright owner is going to have to go through a Canadian court to get a court order to get the subscriber information from the ISP.

      I expect an American corporation could start a suit in Canada, get the identification of the Canadian citizen, then dismiss it and open a new copyright lawsuit in the US. But even if they win a large d

  • when they start throwing these asshats into jail for extortion.

  • So this company commits fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, illegal conversion, grand theft, and extortion (and probably a litany of other crimes I can't think of off the top of my head), and all they're going to get is a finger wagging???!!

    • So this company commits fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, illegal conversion, grand theft, and extortion (and probably a litany of other crimes I can't think of off the top of my head), and all they're going to get is a finger wagging???!!

      Saying that someone could be liable under U.S. law is not fraud, even if they're in Canada. Yes, if they decide to move tomorrow to the U.S., they could be sued.

      A bigger issue is that you appear to just have publicly accused the company of all sorts of crimes (many of which, you know nothing about - illegal conversion, really?). Are you going to complain that you only get a finger wagging for libel?

  • I don't follow Canadian politics but these sort of laws always come from lobbyists anyways. Lobbyists going lobby. Governments should realize they are bending over for BMG and MPAA and such before they pass these laws. Didn't they see what happened in the US?

    Will the companies be fined more then a token amount? Will anyone go to jail? Will the law be repealed? No. But don't worry your leaders will 'tisk tisk' BMG, which will just slightly tone down the letters and carry on

  • Salam Hokky BOS... Ramaikan serunya Poker dan DomninoQQ bersama kami Hanya di WWW.DUNIAQQ.COM DuniaQQ Dengan Permainan Judi Poker Dan Domino QQ Sudah Terbukti Aman Dari Robot. Bagi Pengemar Poker & Domino QQ Online Terpercaya Yang Telah Melayani Ribuan Member Dari Seluruh Kalangan Deposit Dan Withdraw Dengan HARGA YANG RELATIF Sangat kecil Hanya Rp.20.000,- Anda Sudah Bisa Menikmati Semua Permainan Yang Ada DI WWW.DUNIAQQ.COM Dengan Proses Deposit & Withdraw 3 Menit saja. Anda Bisa Bermain Poker

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close