maXbimmer Forums

maXbimmer Forums (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off-topic (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   RCMP -serving warrants in Ottawa for Downloading/uploading movies!?! (http://www.maxbimmer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136593)

bmdbley'sBro 09-05-2010 01:53 PM

RCMP -serving warrants in Ottawa for Downloading/uploading movies!?!
 
so i was just talking with a friend. he tells me a truely horrifying tale showing the police state we now live in! he said he was chilling with his wife watching tv around 10pm. theres a loud knock at the door. he answers it to find a uniformed rcmp & a suite (detective) standing there. they have a warrant - its for Downloaded Movies!!!

the cop in a way admits to him what a extortion mafia racket this is by saying 'hey feel lucky you don't own a house & just rent. cause each movie can be (was it, either) $26K fine or $260K fine Per Movie!!' and went on about how one guy had to lose his home & declare bankruptcy, etc

so #1 everything we do online is monitored #2 you thought speeding tickets were bullshit!? just wait. go find every u.s media story you can ($20K fines for 1 song, total legal rape, etc) - cause we're doing that here now too i guess! I recall hardly seeing Any canadian media coverage of this (in general), perhaps its because people will get upset.
-
-
Quote:

Canada Fast-Tracks Draconian Anti-Piracy Law
Written by Ernesto on May 06, 2010

Following pressure from the US Government, Canada is preparing to ram through a revamped copyright bill that will have disastrous consequences for consumers. The Government is hereby ignoring the public consultation held last year, where many Canadians spoke out against harsher copyright legislation.

In 2008, Canadian lawmakers proposed a new anti-piracy bill dubbed C-61. The plans met great opposition from the public and were eventually wiped from the table later that year prior to the federal elections. Last year, the Government decided to consult the public on what they would want from a new copyright bill.

In that consultation the public made it clear that stricter copyright laws are not welcome. However, it seems that this has had very little effect as Canada’s Prime Minister is about to announce a ‘new’, even more draconian law. Michael Geist, prof. E-commerce Law in Ottawa, described the bill as “the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history.”

full article with links to bill & etc



http://torrentfreak.com/canada-fast-...cy-law-100506/

SiR 09-05-2010 03:43 PM

that was written in may.... has anything gone through yet?

ScotcH 09-05-2010 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiR (Post 1448816)
that was written in may.... has anything gone through yet?

It's summer ... parliament is out.

bmdbley'sBro 09-05-2010 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiR (Post 1448816)
that was written in may.... has anything gone through yet?

all I found

Quote:

PMO Issues The Order:
Canadian DMCA Bill Within Six Weeks


Wednesday May 05, 2010

Months of public debate over the future of Canadian copyright law were quietly decided earlier this week, when sources say the Prime Minister's Office reached a verdict over the direction of the next copyright bill. The PMO was forced to make the call after Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement were unable to reach consensus on the broad framework of a new bill. As I reported last week, Moore has argued for a virtual repeat of Bill C-61, with strong digital locks provisions similar to those found in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and a rejection of a flexible fair dealing approach. Consistent with earlier comments on the need for a forward-looking, flexible approach, Clement argued for changes from C-61.

With mounting pressure from the U.S. - there have been repeated meetings with senior U.S. officials in recent weeks - the PMO sided squarely with Moore's vision of a U.S.-style copyright law. The detailed provisions will be negotiated over the coming weeks by the respective departments, but they now have their marching orders of completing a bill that will satisfy the U.S. that comes complete with tough anti-circumvention rules and no flexible fair dealing provision.

The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repercussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government's seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill's provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position.

For those wondering what can be done, my only answer is to speak out now. Write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament and send copies to the Prime Minister, Moore, Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. No stamp is required - be sure to include your home address and send it to the House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6. Once that is done, join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same. You may spoken out before, but your voice is needed yet again.


http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5008/125/
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotcH (Post 1448818)
It's summer ... parliament is out.

true and also true - media didn't even know/report on ontario's eco fee till the 6th of july

Quote:

Perhaps even more important, uploaders, and to an extent, downloaders too (certainly those on torrents), will now be liable. While in the past, the RMCP has stated it won’t pursue uploaders, with new laws come changes in policy for those that enforce the laws. Bill C-61 contains a statutory damage amount of $500.

Limitation
(1.If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

This is a change from the previous wording, which gave the court latitude to drop that $500 to as low as $200.

Scene members, and torrent sites will also find themselves under increasing pressure. Despite claims that most torrent sites are not commercial, it’s not stopped industry associations from claiming they are, in order to get law enforcement action against them. From the act,

Circumvention of technological measure
(3.1) Every person, except a person who is acting on behalf of a library, archive or museum or an educational institution, is guilty of an offence who knowingly and for commercial purposes contravenes section 41.1 and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both; or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.



http://torrentfreak.com/canada-propo...cy-law-080612/

Blackedout95 09-05-2010 07:46 PM

Not the same but I used a torrent to get a Colbert Report I missed, within 2 days Cogeco was contacted by the Comedy Network and was given my info. I was given a first warning. The joke of it, I have almost never used the torrent for anything but maybe a handful of shows over the years, my first and last Colbert Report lol

SiR 09-05-2010 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotcH (Post 1448818)
It's summer ... parliament is out.

good pt*drink*

ProStreetDriver 09-05-2010 10:07 PM

so much for a free country or freedom of speech. couldn't this be classified as invasion of privacy???

sirex 09-05-2010 11:14 PM

Most of the people that get hit with these lawsuits, etc, are people that use public torrent trackers, AS well as those PUBLIC P2P programs such as limewire.

325isdan 09-06-2010 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProStreetDriver (Post 1448871)
so much for a free country or freedom of speech. couldn't this be classified as invasion of privacy???

What does stealing someone else's content have to do with freedom?

sirex 09-06-2010 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325isdan (Post 1448895)
What does stealing someone else's content have to do with freedom?


The invasion of privacy is about monitoring the data that enters and leaves your home. Regardless if the data is "illegal" material, without a warrant, they cannot be monitoring your private communication.

ProStreetDriver 09-06-2010 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirex (Post 1448925)
The invasion of privacy is about monitoring the data that enters and leaves your home. Regardless if the data is "illegal" material, without a warrant, they cannot be monitoring your private communication.

exactly! thank you.


same like taking a picture of someone or recording a conversation.

325isdan 09-06-2010 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirex (Post 1448925)
The invasion of privacy is about monitoring the data that enters and leaves your home. Regardless if the data is "illegal" material, without a warrant, they cannot be monitoring your private communication.



Internet companies are all ready aware of when you are stealing illegal content. Are they monitoring your private communications?

sirex 09-06-2010 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325isdan (Post 1449007)
Internet companies are all ready aware of when you are stealing illegal content. Are they monitoring your private communications?

They are not supposed to monitor it. They are also not supposed to impede it. They are also not "aware" of it. All they see are the packets going back and forth - obviously they can see what those packets are but thats not their job to police the internet. And they are also not supposed to give out any details to the authorities about it - without warrants,etc.

So technically and legally, no they are not monitoring your communications.

Monitoring communications is when you are purposefully looking for something like the police are. When they monitor what you are doing to catch you in the act of commiting a crime. To monitor someone like this you need to have a judge agree to it, you cant do it because you feel like it. If word got out that Rogers was "monitoring" your communications from criminal activity they would be sued and as a corporate entity would cease to exist.

Bullet Ride 09-06-2010 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirex (Post 1449019)
They are not supposed to monitor it. They are also not supposed to impede it. They are also not "aware" of it. All they see are the packets going back and forth - obviously they can see what those packets are but thats not their job to police the internet. And they are also not supposed to give out any details to the authorities about it - without warrants,etc.

So technically and legally, no they are not monitoring your communications.

Monitoring communications is when you are purposefully looking for something like the police are. When they monitor what you are doing to catch you in the act of commiting a crime. To monitor someone like this you need to have a judge agree to it, you cant do it because you feel like it. If word got out that Rogers was "monitoring" your communications from criminal activity they would be sued and as a corporate entity would cease to exist.

Where does the "notice and notice" program that the ISPs use fall? When they email you saying they know you downloaded Pirates of the Caribbean last week and that you should delete it and inform them when you have done so. There's obviously no legal weight there but they've been doing that for a few years now. Yeah it's not like they are going and telling the Police because like you said that would be illegal. So it's more like technically they are monitoring you, but legally they are not.

SiR 09-07-2010 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirex (Post 1449019)
. They are also not supposed to impede it.

they know what to throttle ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015