61 Reforms to C-61, Day 42: ISP Notice and Notice - No Penalty for False Notices |
| Print | |
|
Tuesday August 19, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||
A second concern associated with the notice and notice approach in Bill C-61 is the absence of a penalty against claimants that file wrongful notices. This means that subscribers may receive completely erroneous notices regarding allegedly infringing content with no consequences to claimant. Section 41.25(2) includes considerable specificity about what should be included in a complainant notice:
Comments (8)
a guest
said:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
... Hypothetically, if C-61 passes and I receive a notice that is totally false what could I do about it? Is there anything I could do to protect myself from litigation (just so I don't have to go to court to prove my innocence)? I suppose they'll just ask me to pay a small "penalty" so that I don't have to go to court and incur all kinds of legal fees. |
|
haha hey lets all send notices to everyone that made this bill until they like hte rest of us are bankrupt. |
|
How much are the lobbiests paying harper ... it sounds like the Conservatives are trying to create a new business for the American Record Industry ... release one CD and sue everyone else. You have to be blind to see what's going to happen - - Freelance lawyers are going to go into business suing as many customers as possible - with no penalty. This is nothing more than the extortion bill. The citizen can't innovate (did the record industry give us the MP3??? nope) and we'll have to take it. Why are the conservatives anti-innovation? |
|
Sick reform Jim Prentice's Bill C-61 reform is nothing short of sick, very sick, actually. Jim should stop following GWB's doctrines like trying to establish a "de facto police state" domestically (in addition to the one illegally established, in Afghanistan). Thanks for heading the fight against such an anti-Canadian law reform, Michael. |
|
... seems reasonable to have penalties, but what amounts to abusive? may be impossible to prove infringement but the notice could still have been justified on what evidence was available |
|
@previous The necessity of proof lies with he who complains. That's how the law works. Unless there's enough prima facie presented by whoever is sending the notice, tough luck for them, doubt they'll sue anyway. |
|
What about being hacked? That notice to notice approach is a bit out of the reality window. Actually, I know people that say they hacked the WiFI router of person to take the IP and the Bandwidth of normal citizen. With a law as C-61, a lot more people will used that kind of hacking device to do file sharing without being identified. WEP security, Mac address security are all hackable with simple program over the Internet. In front of the court, how can you prove liability if most of the Pirate are hijacking citizens internet?? The government should not intervene in Copyright with the new technology. The government should let the market decide what is best for the consumer. The Distributor Emperor with billions of dollars upon the work of artist need a change... and that change is bring with the Internet. They freaking need to live with it to offer something best than using peer-2-peer. Jourdespoir |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
