ISPs and Movie Industry Prepare Canadian Pirate Site Blocking Deal (torrentfreak.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A coalition of movie industry companies and ISPs, including Bell, Rogers, and Cineplex are discussing a proposal to implement a plan to allow for website blockades without judicial oversight. The Canadian blocklist would be maintained by a new non-profit organization called "Internet Piracy Review Agency" (IPRA) and enforced through the CTRC, Canadaland reports. The plan doesn't come as a total surprise as Bell alluded to a nationwide blocking mechanism during a recent Government hearing. What becomes clear from the new plans, however, is that the telco is not alone. The new proposal is being discussed by various stakeholders including ISPs and local movie companies. As in other countries, major American movie companies are also in the loop, but they will not be listed as official applicants when the plan is submitted to the CRTC. Canadian law professor Micheal Geist is very critical of the plans. Although the proposal would only cover sites that "blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally" engage in or facilitate copyright infringement, this can be a blurry line.
"Recent history suggests that the list will quickly grow to cover tougher judgment calls. For example, Bell has targeted TVAddons, a site that contains considerable non-infringing content," Geist notes. "It can be expected that many other sites disliked by rights holders or broadcasters would find their way onto the block list," he adds. While the full list of applicants is not ready yet, it is expected that the coalition will file its proposal to the CRTC before the end of the month.
"Recent history suggests that the list will quickly grow to cover tougher judgment calls. For example, Bell has targeted TVAddons, a site that contains considerable non-infringing content," Geist notes. "It can be expected that many other sites disliked by rights holders or broadcasters would find their way onto the block list," he adds. While the full list of applicants is not ready yet, it is expected that the coalition will file its proposal to the CRTC before the end of the month.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong - this is American Imperialism in action
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately the only recourse is to terror bomb "innocent" American citizens. While you're not directly responsible for the actions of your corrupt corpotocratic government, there's no other way to achieve justice.
Why is that the only recourse? I would have thought a much better one would be to go after the oligarchs behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the only recourse is to terror bomb "innocent" American citizens
If the Canadians bomb America, I think no one on either side will hate if you start with the mansion where the Baldwin brothers all live.
Re: You Canadians love your censorship (Score:2)
This censorship brought to you by the Canadian movie "industry". Our slogan is: Working hard to deny poor folks access to culture!
Re: (Score:2)
First amendment restricts GOVERNMENT, not ISP's and Disney/whatever media company gets in bed with said ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Canada has a very sensible system for copying movies on optical discs. They charge a fee on blank media [wikipedia.org] to reimburse content producers, and then you can feel free to copy anything you want.
They should implement a similar "copying fee" for internet bandwidth, so Canadians can just stream or torrent whatever they like with no compunctions.
Re: Lead Balloon (Score:5, Insightful)
So you advocate supporting the culture industry through taxation. Fair enough. But hadn't we ought to nationalize them first?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it abhorrent to support oligarch-controlled, for-profit, not democratically accountable, "private" "businesses" through taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
So you advocate supporting the culture industry through taxation. Fair enough. But hadn't we ought to nationalize them first?
Canada already has. Broadcasters are required that a specific amount of broadcast media has "canadian content" the government operates numerous funds that you can get to get money to make said content. The law itself is shorted to "Cancon." We also have the "ministry of heritage" which determines "what is canadian culture" which seems to be redundant now, especially with Trudeau Jr's belief(along with the Liberal Party of Canada) that Canada has no culture.
Re: (Score:2)
As so eloquently explained in Screw You, Taxpayer! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But its not a tax it is a fee.
No really it is just a fee not a tax.
This has been the response to a lot of these "taxes" (I thinking mainly of the media fee and the electronics recycling fee but I'm sure there are others).
Re: (Score:2)
So that money can not get distributed to the artists. And when it does it gets distributed by sales percentage so it doesn't accurately pay the artists that are "hurt" by the pirating.
Then there are the businesses and people that don't pirate anything yet are still forced to pay the tax, sorry levy. Businesses that use a lot of media are put at a disadvantage and punished for something that they don't do.
Small-time bands just love this because they are paying extra on the discs they sell at gigs which goes
Re: (Score:2)
FYI - the blank audio media levy is collected only for audio works, and the subsequent law allowing duplication of copyrighted works for personal use applies only to music.
You theoretically _can_ still be taken to court for copying a movie, a television show, or even an audio book.
Re: (Score:2)
A banned site will not show and nothing more happens?
The banned site will not load and the person attempting to steal movies has their ip is passed to law enforcement?
The locked away site redirects to tell the user their ip has been passed to law enforcement and lists politically connected sites that sell music and movies?
Something to buy while they wait for their court date?
YouTube (Score:1)
So Canada is going to block YouTube? That will go over well.
Might as well paint a giant "hack me" sign on your back.... once hacked, what would be some fun domains for us to block? gc.ca? rogers.com? bell.ca?
Oh what fun it will be!
What was wrong with the original submission? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The title was way too accurate and factual with not enough click-bait-y-ness-es.
Re: (Score:2)
The title was way too accurate and factual with not enough click-bait-y-ness-es.
You're probably right. That and it isn't spamming TorrentFreak everywhere even though Freezenet beat them to the punch I suppose. What a bummer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's let stupid people eat their own shit. (Score:2)
You know I'd prefer that the unwashed masses not learn how to use VPN. We invited them on the internet and now they've ruined it. I say it's about time we slice off a chunk of net for them to turn into the AOL of their dreams and leave the rest of us alone.
USENET, TOR, and the general Internet itself were all fairly chill places for awhile and then the masses arrived bringing their rats, feral dogs, and venereal diseases junk the place up. Now USENET is spam and warez, TOR is full of CP, and the interne
Re: (Score:2)
if the internet is too balkanized even VPNs won't really help.
Internet 1.1 will be where it's at, via mesh networks... *if* it can reach some level of critical mass.
Internet 2 folks were *smart*, no commercial access, ultra high speed academics only.
first pooost (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be IPRAA, y'hosers?
Fascism (Score:1)
When companies are the judge, jury and executioner.
Why else would they form a coalition to bypass judges?
They are trying to legitimize mafia tactics to the point where the government can't even get involved.
"That's a nice site you got there. You know me and my buddies got this list. It would be a shame if your site wound up on it."
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess (Score:2)
Re: Let me guess (Score:2)
Meeting Canada should just declare independence. They'd probably be happier as a separate country.
Such polite phrasing (Score:2)
"implement a plan to allow for website blockades without judicial oversight."
At present, the CRTC enforces net neutrality - pricing may be based on bandwidth and transfer, but not content.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the ISPs actually try this, because the CRTC isn't all that strong a regulatory body from the consumer perspective, and nobody complains about illegal content being blocked.
Somewhere, though, somebody's site will be incorrectly blacklisted and there will be a lawsuit that could b
Re: (Score:2)
My main concern is that once the ISP becomes a censorship authority, how slippery does that slope become? Great Wall of Canada? Probably not that bad, but probably a good time to start supporting the Canadian chapter of the EFF?
SJW will be listing sites too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement often starts with all kinds of talk about books, movies, reviews, comments on the internet.
Movie review sites?
Books about faith and cults?
History sites?
Political sites?
Law sites that list details about a nations crime rate?
Sites that review political books?
That could induce a person to consider copyright infringement after reading about a problematic book or movie.
Block the problematic site and the temptation for copyright infringement is removed.
The SJW get to ban sites they don't like and the risk of copyright infringement is removed.
Win, win for censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rogers and Bell are really left. They also own a sizable chunk of the Canadian media landscape. They go out of their way to support "progressive" causes and whatnot as well. Canada hasn't had a reform party in almost 20 years when they merged with the Progressive Conservative party and took it over.
The "alt-right" in Canada would be leftist groups like the Bloc which have far more in common with them, like restricting the flow of immigrants, ethnostatism(different from ethnonationalism), open racism and
Re: (Score:2)
they also believe that things like FMG isn't barbaric, and beating your wife is okay too
I'm not sure if you remember what life was like in 2011 before the Conservatives added mention of FGM and honour killings into the immigration guide. I'll give you a hint - not having those things mentioned in the guide didn't mean anyone thought it was ok. They're both illegal. Removing them from the guide is (obviously) not a sudden promotion of them. If I put a sign on your lawn indicating that FGM is bad, and you take it down, does that mean you think FGM is ok?
We don't need this kind of US-style "us v
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you remember what life was like in 2011 before the Conservatives added mention of FGM and honour killings into the immigration guide.
You remember when Trudeau Jr.(the current PM) came out against both of those? Remember how hard he argued that it was culturally insensitive and I also believe he used islamophobic against mentioning that? That was until there was a huge backlash then he kinda got quiet over it all of a sudden and is now pushing against having that listed. Hell you do know that we've already had at least one criminal case here where a muslim immigrant from syria tried to argue that "he didn't know it was wrong not to bea
Re: (Score:2)
a muslim immigrant from syria tried to argue that "he didn't know it was wrong not to beat his wife"
And locally born citizens that beat their wives come up with ridiculous excuses also. Thankfully ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in either case. Also the version of the guide when this man immigrated (the same one available today) is the one with the "barbaric cultural practices" addition which specifically mentions violence against spouses is severely punished. So I'm not sure what your point is other than that it obviously didn't help in this case. Also given that this guy beat his wife for 30
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm way off base please educate me.
I'd sway way off base. It's a bit more analogous to removing the ENTIRE head of the penis. It makes it very difficult for the woman to feel pleasure afterwards.
I'm circumcised myself, and while I regret that had been done to me, I don't have nearly the sorts of problems that women who have been through FGM have been through.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot a few other things which often face calls to ban:
Porn sites.
Sites criticising or insulting religion.
Already seen it (Score:3)
I was with an ISP which, earlier this year, started blocking TPB. Gave me the push I needed to switch to a different ISP which conveniently also costs $5 less per month.
I have a feeling that, if this happens, only the big players will implement it. A lot of the smaller guys see it as a big selling point that they don't do any traffic shaping and such, and some of them even offered free SSL tunnels as part of their basic service back when the big players were trying to throttle torrent traffic over the bulk bandwidth which they sold to the smaller companies.
If not, I suppose there's always VPNs.
Re: Already seen it (Score:2)
You sound like the twat whose solution to STDs is "hurr durr just don't have sex".
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want an STD, don't have sex with people who have STDs.
That might actually mean "don't have sex with someone who you don't know LONG TERM. And has gotten tested if they have a sordid history."
Re: (Score:2)
Until they block VPN. No net neutrality means ISPs can (and will) block/throttle/etc. whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they block VPN. No net neutrality means ISPs can (and will) block/throttle/etc. whatever they want.
This is in Canada, where Net neutrality still exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Already seen it (Score:2)
That would be a hard sell. More and more businesses and government employees are using VPNs; it would be difficult for ISPs to block it outright.
Re: Already seen it (Score:2)
I haven't used any of those in a decade or more. I was with Koodo and Virgin for a while, now I'm with Fido. And my bill is currently the lowest it's ever been; just $15 a month for 3 gigs of data.
Yes, most Canadians are with one of the "big three", but that's to be expected ... that's why they're the big three. Doesn't mean you can't shop around.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Fido, Koodo, Virgin, Lucky are still part of the big 3. Fido (and Chattr, though they were closed down) is Rogers, Koodo is Telus and Virgin is Bell. And Be
Re: Already seen it (Score:2)
I'm aware that they're subsidiaries of the big three, but that doesn't really mean much.
I was with virgin until they got bought out by Bell. Within a year their website went to shit, their service got worse, and their prices started going up. So I left.
I use Fido now; though they're owned by Rogers and run over the same network, their prices are customer service reps are both far better than Rogers. As such I don't really care who they're owned by.
what about canada's 1st amendment? (Score:2)
the CRTC is government and them reinforcing an block can end up in a court case over government censorship
Re: (Score:2)
The "first amendment" in Canadian law doesn't exist. Canada has no fundamental guarantee to speech, it can be restricted by the first. The 1st section of the charter of rights and freedoms state: "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The 2nd section "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, bel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that tampering with telecommunications was illegal in Canada, punishable by imprisionment.
Can someone explain to be how these acts could be legally conducted?
Long story short you don't live in a democracy, what corporations want governments will pass.
Crisis of democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI [youtube.com]
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.
Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 [youtube.com]
Manufacturing consent:
http [youtube.com]
Bad. (Score:2)
I can only imagine who will sit on the board of directors of this "new non-profit organization called "Internet Piracy Review Agency" (IPRA)"
I can also only imagine the amount of scope creep that will happen, as they start to expand into all sorts of areas.
I would totally not support this, not that it matters.
Bad deal (Score:1)
This is especially bad for Canadians as we already pay a fee on media that goes to compensate the content management and maybe even content producers that is supposed to allow personal backup.