Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Why Liability Is Limited: A Primer on New Copyright Damages as File Sharing Lawsuits Head To Canada

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Why Liability Is Limited: A Primer on New Copyright Damages as File Sharing Lawsuits Head To Canada

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Wednesday November 28, 2012
Over the past couple of days, there have been multiple reports about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada, with fears that thousands of Canadians could be targeted. While it is possible that many will receive demand letters, it is important to note that recent changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability in non-commercial cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims. In fact, it is likely that a court would award far less - perhaps as little as $100 - if the case went to court as even the government's FAQ on the recent copyright reform bill provided assurances that Canadians "will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement."

Bill C-11, the recently enacted copyright reform bill, featured several very good provisions including an expansion of fair dealing, a user generated content provision, new consumer protections, and a balanced approach to Internet provider liability. One of the most important changes to the law, however, was the creation of a cap on potential damages for non-commercial infringement. As I highlighted during debates on the bill, Canada is among a minority of countries that have any statutory damages at all for copyright infringement as most developed countries require rights holders to prove actual damages.


Canadian copyright law once included statutory damages rules that provided for up to $20,000 per infringement, creating the potential for massive personal liability for non-commercial file sharing (the $20,000 per infringement is still available for commercial infringement). The industry insisted it had no intention of bringing such lawsuits back to Canada (CRIA members filed file sharing lawsuits in 2004), with one industry representative telling the committee studying the copyright bill that "we're not interested in sweeping up the John Does." Yet despite those assurances, the file sharing lawsuits have begun with reports indicating that thousands of Canadians may be targeted.

The lawsuits will likely follow a three-step process. First, rights holders will seek a court order requiring Internet providers to disclose customer name and address information. Second, should the court order the disclosure, rights holders will use the information to send settlement demand letters to subscribers. The letters will allege infringement and likely offer to settle the case for several thousand dollars. If subscribers refuse to settle - perhaps they believe the allegation is inaccurate or the settlement demands unfair - it will fall to rights holders to follow through with a lawsuit. Given recent changes to the law, there is reason to doubt those cases will be filed as the individual liability is very limited.

The new non-commercial statutory damages provision in the Copyright Act states:

Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

Note that rights holders can elect to pursue actual damages, but those are likely to be even smaller in the case of a downloaded movie or song.  The law sets a maximum of $5,000 liability for all infringements if the rights holders rely on statutory damages. That would still be a very significant award, which is why the law also provides guidance to judges that may result in a figure closer to $100. The law includes the following provision as guidance for an award of statutory damages which instructs judges to consider:

in the case of infringements for noncommercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.

Concern about proportionality and hardship was also evident in the government's FAQ on the statutory damages change:

Will the Bill allow record labels to sue individuals and groups for large amounts, like in the U.S.?

This Bill ensures that Canadians will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement. Under current law, for commercial and non-commercial infringements, copyright owners can sue for statutory damages ranging from $500 to $20,000 for each work that is infringed. This Bill will dramatically reduce an individual's potential liability in cases of non-commercial infringement. In such cases, statutory damages will be reduced to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.

The government also emphasized the change to statutory damages during debates in the House of Commons. For example, Industry Minister Christian Paradis told the House:

While our government knows that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are law-abiding, we are concerned about the threat of major penalties that hang over Canadians who infringe copyright for non-commercial purposes. Currently, those who have been found to violate copyright can be found liable for damages from $500 to $20,000 per work. If people illegally download five songs, for example, they could theoretically be liable for $100,000. In our view, such penalties are way out of line. As such, the bill proposes to reduce the penalties for non-commercial infringement. Under its provisions, the courts would have the flexibility to award total damages of between $100 and $5,000.

Similarly, Conservative MP Ron Cannon stated:

Our government also understands the difference between a large-scale violator and an ordinary consumer. The legislation introduces the concept of proportionality in statutory damages. It revises current provisions for statutory damages to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement. That is very important. This bill reduces an individual's potential liability in cases of non-commercial infringement to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5,000 for all infringements that took place prior to any lawsuit being launched.

While rights holders are obviously entitled to pursue their claims in court (and seek either actual or statutory damages), the statutory damages provisions in Canada are clearly designed to dissuade them from pursuing lawsuits against individuals in non-commercial cases. If Canadians begin to receive settlement demand letters, they should be aware of the recent changes that limit their liability in light of the government's view that huge payment demands for non-commercial infringement are "way out of line."
Comments (95)add comment

none said:

...
Mr-Dr Geist.

What about the old supreme court ruling from years ago when they tried this? IIRC it was ruled ISPs would not have to give over data. (Due to having payed taxes on media, possibly re-obtaining content people owned, etc.)
November 28, 2012

D. Morgan said:

Right to Share
What happened to the the right to share with friends that was introduced with the tape/CD/DVD tax. If the tax is still being charged haven't we already paid for our shared copies?
November 28, 2012

Shawn H Corey said:

...
What about class-action defence? Aren't they paid for by the government? I think the trolls are going to find a really hard time in Canada.
November 28, 2012

David Collier-Brown said:

Does that mean they're going to be asking for Norwich orders?
You wrote: "First, rights holders will seek a court order requiring Internet providers to disclose customer name and address information. Second, should the court order the disclosure, rights holders will use the information to send settlement demand letters to subscribers."

Does this mean that they're compelling ISPs to forward notices, or compelling them to identify the accused?

I understand the latter is considered unusual from the Slaw discussion of "Norwich Orders", and that previously one commenced a suit against a large number of John Does and then asked the court to order third parties to help identify the defendants.

So is this forwarding notices or what?

--dave
November 28, 2012

Warren Oates said:

Appeals?
This has come to the foreground as a result of a Federal Court's ruling that ISPs must hand over the names of subscribers (based on IP addresses); I think this is the same court in Montreal that issued a smilar ruling about 18 months ago (which resulted in some embarrassment for the Montreal Canadiens hockey team). The ISPs have never appealed these rulings -- will this one day wind up in the Supreme Court?
November 28, 2012

Joah Moat said:

I think this is corporate bullying.
http://www.globalnews.ca/pages...6442761468

We Canadians have developed a society based upon information. We nurture an economy based upon information. We have machines that enable us to communicate almost anywhere and anytime. We invest in machines that hold a vast repertoire and that have been designed specifically to archive (in the form of folders and free space). We have been enabled to connect each of our machines in a manner of sharing them on a national network. This is what we have become by virtue of our machines. It's like putting wheels on a cab that runs on toxic fumes and saying you can only look at the vehicle and not carry anything.

By nature man is a gatherer. He will go out of his cave to gather provisions that he may or may not need at the time. We need to make these bullies understand that we are the ones that shape our society. We are Canadians, this is our land and it is by our right that you make your media available to us. We will give you a portion of our earnings to take our wives and children to your generic theaters that have been built upon our land and given the right to an establishment within our society. Our people will perceive your tactics when they begin to see the damages of protectionism through copyright.

We Canadians should create a defense panel so that we can be prepared to counter this corporate bullying. Our defense should stand for the people whom are incriminated and should be paid by the government both provincial and federal. Our defense should also counter-sue as this is s legitimate part of the courtboard (eg. Apple vs Samsung).

When it comes time, information sessions should be set up so that people understand what is happening and why it is happening. Theaters operated by those corporate agents should be boycotted, yes this will require the use of picket signs. By virtue of our solidarity we will learn from this and our world will be a better place.

Cheers,

November 28, 2012

Rob C said:

...
While it's nice to know that statutory damages are limited, lawyers aren't.

If a media association were to send me a settlement notice or threaten to sue me, I definitely wouldn't pass on legal counsel and head to court. And even if I was certain that my penalty was only going to be $100, I would think long and hard if my expected defense costs were twice as high as their offer to settle.
November 28, 2012

Crockett said:

A game of chicken.
With the $5K cap it is uneconomic for rights holders to actually litigate a claim. This is only true though if people stand up to this trolling and not cave to demands. If a significant portion of people give in then there will be no need to litigate.

I also expect they would not want to see an actual court case take place as the damages awarded will likely be so small as to not be a dissuading factor to the public. Bad optics there.

We have all seen the rampant and unethical abuses of copyright trolling in the USA where damages can actually be ... damaging, regardless of proven guilt. Let's not let that same cancer start up here.

At the same time people ... if you are going to use someone's copyrighted work then pay for it. Support artists you appreciate, and especially the ones who appreciate you, they deserve it. Don't feed the lawyers.
November 28, 2012

Jenny said:

Canadian-made content vs American-made content?
One thing I'm curious about that I haven't been able to nail down in any articles, is wether this only related to Canadian content producers sueing other Canadians for infringement, or if American content producers are sueing Canadians as well. Anyone know if these changes encompass international infringement? Or can we suffer the same outlandish damages if the content is American-made?
November 28, 2012

PeterP said:

@ Jenny
To answer your question Jenny, should a Canadian be sued for Copyright Infringement(s) by a U.S. based company or content owner it's the American Copyright Act that comes into play not Canada's C-11; so the $5000.00 cap for all Works infringed does not apply.
The Canadian Copyright Act (C-11)covers Canadian content and it's Canadian owners.

Considering the countless posts Geist has made regarding this very issue / question one would think he would have at the very least informed people.





November 28, 2012

@Jenny said:

@Jenny
PeterP is wrong. Canadian law applies to a Canadian lawsuit, regardless of who sues or what content is involved.
November 28, 2012

@@Jenny said:

@@Jenny
... Unless the extradition succeeds.
November 28, 2012

Crockett said:

Failure on that count too ...
@Jenny "... Unless the extradition succeeds."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/uk-tv-shack-admin-wont-face-trial-in-us-on-copyright-charges/?comments=1#unread

The only effective weapon the **AA has is fear, and like any bully they will fold if you pop them in the nose.
November 28, 2012

Jordan said:

What about this lawsuit
Michael:

I'm wondering what your opinion is on the NGN Prima Productions lawsuit:
http://copyrightenforcement.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NGN-Order-Montreal.pdf

The court has ordered the ISPs involved to hand over their subscriber information based on the IP addresses.
November 28, 2012

Colin said:

I'm still confused
From the sounds of it can't they still sue you on a "per infringement" basis? Wouldn't they just have to file multiple lawsuits? Could the judge then grant $5000 for each one?

Also, what differentiates between "commercial" and "non-commercial"?
November 28, 2012

Craig said:

How is infringement proven?
Hi Michael,
I am curious about how infringement is proven in these cases. I know that infringement monitoring companies will contact all bit-torrent clients participating in an infringing file and attempt to download a small portion of the file. I don't understand how this can be used to argue that a particular person downloaded an entire infringing file.

How does the argument for infringement proceed after this step? What makes a sufficient case for infringement? Is it because the client was advertising the availability of a file? Is it a sufficient case for infringement that the IP-address transmitted a small ~64KB portion? Are the mechanisms used by these companies publicly available?

Also, how does one argue that an IP-address corresponds to a particular person?

Thanks.
November 28, 2012

PeterP said:

@ Crockett
The Richard O'Dwyer case - interesting one but ended badly for the accused. He's now legally required to go to the U.S. pay fines and sign an official Agreement. Smart move on his part to settle and avoid a full hearing though.

@ Jenny - "PeterP is wrong. Canadian law applies to a Canadian lawsuit, regardless of who sues or what content is involved."

Huh???

"Unless the extradition succeeds"
Canada and the U.S. share many of the same IP laws.
What extradition are you referring to exactly?

Hey Jenny I have no doubt that you're a very interesting person - but you're understanding (or lack of)copyright laws and due process would not make a good conversation for me to take part in.




November 28, 2012

Alan2k13 said:

...
@PeterP

Canadian citizens, DO NOT have to obey American acts, regulations or laws, unless physically on US soil.
November 28, 2012

PeterP said:

@ Alan2k13
How brilliant! That's exactly what the Americans think about Canadian laws!

"Canadian citizens, DO NOT have to obey American acts, regulations or laws, unless physically on US soil." Canadians don't have to respect Canadian laws either - your point is?
November 28, 2012

Ray Saintonge said:

@Craig
The burden of proof throughout the process is on the plaintiff. That means that there are many hurdles for the rights holder to jump in order to win a case. It may be enough that there be apparent infringement to get a court order to identify the apparent infringers. Without a court order an ISP, releasing the information could leave it vulnerable to a suit for breach of privacy.

If things get that far, and the accused has the balls to ignore the extortion letter from the rights holder's lawyers, the plaintiff must then prove the key elements of his case. If they only have a snippet from a sampling programme who's to say that it's not within the bounds of fair dealing?

The simple point is we can't know how they will prove their case, and each element that they raise gives scope to a range of possible defences. It will take years for the courts to sort this out. Meanwhile the legal costs will keep mounting, and will quickly exceed $5000. This is not all recoverable since the limits in the court rules would likely apply.

For me the best strategy is to tell them, "Make my day," while I hold out my foot for them to trip on.
November 28, 2012

Maverik said:

DON'T BE FOOLED ...
A lesson from my teachers around the world:

Definition of "Government":
Derived from the Latin verb Guverno, Guvernare meaning "To Control"
and
The Latin noun Mens, Mentis meaning "Mind"
To Control The Mind [remember this at all times throughout your life]

We have a large number of types of Law on Earth. Most relevant are, in order:

Universal Laws of all things in universe - we are still learning / relearning them .. this includes Natural Law.

Gods Law [plural] this includes angels, titans, heroes, watchers etc. [those who from heavens came] - laws of the ancients, our predecessors.

Most laws we use today are derived from these, and it doesn't matter which 'God' or system you believe in. They ALL predate 12,000 yrs ago.

All "governing" bodies on this planet use some sort of restrictions to protect themselves and to mediate between themselves, and on the other hand to control the populations. Yet we have three [3] major kinds of law for man [men and women].

Sovereign Law - ones who are not part of any system and do as they think best with the "knowledge" they have attained. This includes shamans, priests, rabbi's, knowledge seekers, free men, wise men, etc.

Common Law - for commoners and students of life and universe so they should attain knowledge to be part of group above.

Now we come to so called CANADA, a very interesting animal:
CANADA is an extension of British rule [not English, more on this later] according to treaties signed with natives of this land. Nothing more. It setup colonies, provinces, states / estates, land confiscation by dubious means and other such mechanisms. Yet it still has Civil Law derived from Common Law and Statutory Law [Government Law].

Big difference between the two, and you better know which you are subject to or you will be abused every time.

Here is how it works:
It is up to you to learn these things before you reach the "age of consent" .. before you get your SIN, passport, driver's license or any other government documentation. By signing up with government you have the OPTION of working for them, be in any function which involves government [an agent] or get a job with them. You are NOT a government employee by default.

The Supreme Law of Canada, The CONSTITUTION ACT of 1982 clearly states:
1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

And,
“Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.”

If this is not clear enough for those involved the Supreme Court of Canada clearly and blatantly states that Government has no right to interfere in private matters and it is clearly meant to throttle Government and agents thereof:

R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246
Application of the Charter to Interactions Between Private Citizens
[8] The second exception to the general rule that the Charter does not apply between private individuals occurs when a private person can be categorized as “part of government” because he or she is performing a specific government function: Buhay at para. 25, citing Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624. In Eldridge, at para. 43, the Court noted that the Charter will only apply to a private entity if it is found to be implementing a specific governmental policy or program. The Court in Buhay, at para. 31, observed that this exception would apply if there were an express delegation of a public function to a private person or if the state were to abandon, in whole or in part, an essential public function to the private sector.

And ...

Let’s not forget section 52 of the Canadian Constitution [same document]:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Can't get any clearer than this boys and girls.

...
November 28, 2012

JD said:

....
What if you download samples of movies from torrents not the actual whole movie that comes with it, would it still be considered copyright infringement? Are they going after only people who download torrents or sites that contain links to download also?
November 28, 2012

Maverik said:

DON'T BE FOOLED .. contnued
A bit of history:
CANADA'S Government is a Freemason / Templar / Knights Templar system. Head office for the Bar Society is inner city of London UK ... the Temple Bar. Only foreign sovereign piece of land on English soil. Templars derive from Merovingian kings, the illuminated ones, and alchemists of old ... who derive from certain Jewish Merchants. Same families of merchants who killed a guy on the cross. Don't take my word for this .. search it out for yourselves in their own documents.

Notice: Not all Jews are corrupt .. only ones from supposed ten [10] lost tribes of ISIS RA EL = Israel. They were kicked out of "promised land" by Assyrians for crocked deals and abuse. They spread throughout Rome, Europe, Middle East and anywhere they could get a foothold. They were the first ones to charge "interest" in money transactions .. a crime punishable by "death" even by the most corrupt parts of Roman Catholic Church at the time.
They renamed themselves to local names as they went, intermarried and pulled all sorts of scams to steal what's not theirs wherever they travel.

Two houses of Jews that are just are the house of David and Levi. And there is an island of Rabbi's off the coast of Norther Africa that's just. So hold your antisemitic comments.

In any case, learn what you are subject to and what not. Those words in the Constitution are there for a reason.
Example: many [millions] do not pay taxes on "work" to support family, travel, private commerce, sharing, private trade, barter, don't register guns for survival, do video tape and record, practice permaculture and much more.

Civil Law, Common Law and above is above Statutory Law every time.

If you are NOT doing commerce on the Internet they [businesses, corporations and government] have no standing in your "private" affairs. If they harass you, in any way, ask them for proof of their claims and jurisdiction. No jurisdiction, no case. That simple.
Record everything and make lots of copies with your friends.

And don't EVER back down or get fooled in any way or they will charge you or throw you in jail faster than you can say greased pig.

Enjoy :)

BTW: it is your DUTY to report any crimes that government does and to make them pay. That's what all that Statutory stuff is there for.
November 28, 2012

@Maverik said:

Crazy.
You are.
November 28, 2012

exploderator said:

An IP address is not a person
I wish them good luck connecting my name, the name on my internet subscription, with one of the numerous people who may or may not use my account for piracy. An IP address is not a personal identifier, and to my knowledge, subscribing to the internet does not make me legally liable for other people's actions. I may violate the TOS with my ISP for openly sharing my wireless, but that's a whole different thing than actually carrying the blame for copyright violations that I didn't do.

If I ever end up with a threat/settlement letter, I'll be letting them know it wasn't me, that I have no clue who it could have been, that I forget and/or don't know who was using the internet at the time (why would I remember on their behalf anyways?), and that I anticipate they'll have a hard time naming a guilty PERSON beyond reasonable doubt. An IP address is not a person.
November 28, 2012

Hatesauce said:

Scare Tactics
Using a proxy might be helpful.
November 28, 2012

Dude said:

none
my deal is and will remain quite simple. i spend $90.00 taking my grand kids to see a movie, i own that movie, can download, delete, download again. this is a fair market deal.
November 28, 2012

Maverik said:

Learn more ...
Over the years I have received many letters from ISPs, music/movie industry ... I answer them all. To "ignore" them is to loose by default in any court of law. It is why they give you time to answer, whether it be a parking ticket or criminal charges.

You don't need to hire a lawyer once you know the basics. They even give you all the documents for ease of reading and learning:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts

... but you DO need to use critical thinking in dealing with them. Especially things they don't say in their documents. They omit them on purpose. You need learn the game and which hats they wear at the time.

Lawyers are part of the Bar. This means they work for the Statutory system .. even when they are re-presenting you.

What you may want is an Attorney [a turn key] if you have not taken basic law classes or learned enough. An attorney's duty is to the civilian ... a shift from Statutory law and Civil Law / Common Law. Yet they are not all that powerful as you ... YOU are the boss still.

If you can not afford one then happy learning.

Example: while back I received a parking ticket on public property [court house]. I sent off a letter for proof of jurisdiction and why didn't the city provide free parking for civilians. No answer for ten [10] days.
I went in front of some guy with a black robe and white collar. I asked if he was a priest ... no answer.
I asked him for his title .. after three [3] tries, finally managed to find out he's a Justice of the Peace .. not a judge.

Hmm ... something fishy here. I asked for proof of jurisdiction. He failed three times and wanted to continue.
NOT a chance ... i hammered him til he left the courtroom with fully red face and almost seemed smoke bellowing out his ears.

I received a standing ovation and cheers from all civilians.

This is the case with every incident where I have not broken the law .. civilian law.

You also have the right to switch jurisdictions with notice to the court at ANY time. Something like this:
I declare these proceedings to be a matter of public record and under civil law .. or you can say Common Law jurisdiction.
This is allowed as Civil Law trumps [is of higher standing than] Statutory law .. and under Civil Law you hold court 24/7 ... and as you are not on duty for the Government during that time.

They don't like it and sure get angry, to outright livid .. but they are obligated to accept.

Then I billed the JP and the Major for wasting my time. ... both paid.

As for recording / music industry .. stopped bothering me few years ago.
BTW: we share over 20 TB of files.

In any case, the business world has declared "war" on all civilians on the planet. The only peaceful way to battle them is with their own laws. :)
November 28, 2012

Aaron said:

Hero
Maverick, I am interested in what approach you would take against a letter like one of these, do you have a way for me to contact you other than on this post?
November 28, 2012

Edward said:

...
With regards to the first sentence "Over the past couple of days, there have been multiple reports about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada" I have not seen "multiple reports" only what appears to be a single press release that has been republished multiple times. Where does this originate? Is it even real? It reads like something that was put out by the marketing dept of the "forensic software company".
November 28, 2012

fuzzpot said:

...
Maverik, I didn't quite follow what was going on there. Could you explain it better for us laymen?
November 28, 2012

Phil said:

Interesting@Maverick
Pretty cool stuff.
Maverick, any pointers on where to find more info on the changing jurisdiction bit? Spent some time googling and I'm afraid I haven't found anything of substance.
November 28, 2012

Bruce Chapman said:

stealing is stealing is stealing
I am dismayed if not surprised by the tone and content of these letters. Writers, musicians and the like have invested their lives in producing product that the people on this forum generally seem to feel should then be handed over to them. There is a word in Canada for taking someone's intellectual property and disseminating it. It's called stealing. The repercussions are long term. Songwriters for example who can no longer make a living writing songs won't do it. We'll be listening to Neil Young for the next 60 years. Self righteous bozos.
November 28, 2012

Maverik said:

@ Aaron
KISS rule = Keep it simple stupid is the best way,
Example only:

--
This document is a matter of public record.
date , from, to ...

Sir / Ms,
Please show full proof of your claims. I believe you have none according to [lawful, constitutional and or legal language here] ... as I was operating in a private capacity at the time.
I believe you are out of your jurisdiction as I have not participated or acted in a Statutory capacity at the time.
If you fail to show proof you will be charged according to [hint: how much does a top lawyer charge per hour?] for the duration of these matters.

Signed,
...

Copies to: [examples] Attorney General, Governor General, head of state, civil rights orgs, news, ISP, sheriff's office [if you have a just one], etc.
[do not put private parties or friends here. friends and private parties are your witnesses and backups]

*Now send REGISTERED mail copies of blue ink signed letter to friends, news, local media, complainant and Attorney General etc.
usually ... Black ink is for servants and slaves / voluntary slaves.
Blue ink for civilians, common law and in some cases servants.
Red [blood] for Sovereigns, leaders and heads of their own domains.
Gold [not yellow] is for kings, queens, shamans, pharaohs, wise men and those who teach the individuals under their care as well as their realms.
Green for free men or "men in the wild".
For rest on formatting see Queen's printer. No, you do not need to use their prepared forms.

Now also learn how to do a commercial lien to backup your words.

Please use your head, this is only an example. Though similar should work in any Commonwealth jurisdiction.
Note: It is your duty to learn your local laws if not all laws pertaining to YOU, and not what they try to shove down your throat either.

The only reason you want to show up in court is to collect your remedy. You want to negotiate with your adversary at all costs before going to war / court. So you better have all your info and ducks in order before you go there.

Originally there was/is only one law for man [man and woman]:
to learn, to share and to ascend to universal community in a peaceful way, if you so wish. Anything or anyone who interferes with this directly or indirectly is highly unlawful and is perpetrating the highest crime. Hence all relevant education is free. Those who hide it are [there is no other way to put it] criminals.

Keep in mind that under Civil law the penalties are much greater. You get caught lying and you are in deep ... , besides being the laughing stock of the town.

Also keep in mind that if you sign a contract and you don't comprehend all of it and the ramifications thereof you can declare it null and void.
Your best coarse of action afterwards is to find an ISP that will protect your rights or ... get together and buy bulk bandwidth under private or private educational jurisdiction ... create your own ISP.
Hint: there is also something called "usufruct".
November 28, 2012

Crockett said:

@ Bruce "I am dismayed if not surprised by the tone and content of these letters."
Dear Bruce,

There are some who just care how to work the system, and that is unfortunate, but others like myself actually do care for to improve the current state of affairs.

First, let me say that the issue of this particular post is copyright trolling. This is quite different than protecting copyrights. The purpose of trolling is extract funds from people without proof of wrongdoing. Often it involves painfully embarrassing pornography titles and only an IP address which in no way identifies the person involved in the activity. Is it an open or spoofed router? A visiting house guest? Just the stigma of having your name dragged through this is enough to get people to 'settle', is this the justice you are looking for?

Second, "Stealing is stealing is stealing" is actually incorrect. Copying is functionally different from stealing, it is infringement and operates under different laws and remedies. I am not speaking to the morality of the issue just the definition. Stealing absolutely deprives someone of something, copying may or may not.

Third, songwriters existed before copyright and would theoretically continue without it. I am not in any way advocating the abolishment of copyright, but I can see it having to adjust to the digital era. Unfortunately, the evolution of law is far outpaced by the rate of technological advancement.

Lastly, there are quite a few artists who rather than listen to their self interested **AA masters have embraced new technology and are doing quite well for themselves. With a little investment and effort, you have all the tools readily at your fingertips for self production, promotion and distribution. Sure, not everyone is cut out for that but I see it as the future.

Good luck.
November 28, 2012

Maverik said:

Answers ...
@ fuzzpot ... many think there's only one body of law that covers everything. It is not so. Just showed examples of some of them.

--
@ Phil ... and you probably won't. This comes from England and how nobles dealt with the king, lords, counts etc. Still has force here as this system is originally from England and Britain and obviously extension of it.
CANADA's Constitution was actually signed in UK:
"30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.)"
"1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B"
It also makes sense as Admiralty law doesn't apply to someone under Sovereign law of Common law, or any other law for that matter.
Example: How can a Buddhist be bound by Jewish, Muslim or any other law?
I also gave a Constitutional example above where men, people, individuals and other forms of intelligent life are not mentioned. Put your thinking cap on ... :)
And, the court must accept whatever you bring in front of it. I'm not sure if they are "obligated" though.

--
@ Bruce Chapman .. show proof that anyone is stealing from artists.
The reality is that originators of music are getting majorly ripped off by big businesses and corporations. Corporations used to need a yearly renewal to exist. Now they commit fraud, conspiracies and steal openly. Now they also perpetrate frivolous lawsuits just to stop people, in turn by making them go broke or causing major fear.
It's called legalized extortion and theft, and to mention terrorizing the people. Now that's what I call the real terrorist organizations.

Originally musicians were called mistrals or vagabonds, among other reputable names. They passed knowledge and news from area to area by their songs and limericks. They got paid well for their services.

If they want to go back on the road or sing in clubs to be honest then so be it. Any artist that's too lazy to do this deserves to go hungry.

Sharing tunes and files is not unlawful. It's a necessity in today's day and age just to receive a basic education.

Surprisingly i can make a free copy of just about anything and be legal as well as lawful. So why not tunes and videos?
It's a blatant SCAM by the music, movie, software industries and trolls!

Besides all that Statutory stuff is for businesses and government. They can fight it out among themselves ... NOT for civilians.
What's next? ... patenting or copyright of free speech?
November 29, 2012

Jess said:

?
"If you’re watching an illegally downloaded movie, someone could be watching you."

How the hell can they do that? Are they just really trying to scare us more than actually doing anything?

"says a recent court decision forcing Internet providers to release subscriber names and details is only the first step in a bid to crack down on illegal downloads." Which Internet company's Rogers doing this now and only the first step, what is the next step they planning?
November 29, 2012

John_D. said:

I'm actually pleased
These damages appear to be a logical and well balanced compromise between the rights holders and the general public. Really, they are. And I can't believe that I'm going to say this. Harper's government has perhaps actually got this right.

In all honesty people, did we really expect a (right) revision to twenty-year copyright terms and a sketchy continuation of freeloading off newly-created artwork? This bill strikes the balance in the present situation.

I hate the RIAA and their ilk and I view with the deepest suspicion (at best) modern Conservatism, but this looks to be a reasonable solution.

Kudos to Harper's government, and I can't believe that I wrote that.

We should all give ourselves a pat on the back for our successful protesting of the Information Revolution. We did it people, we actually did.

And thank-you Mr. Geist, you were the General who lead us letter-writing troops, without you this could have been a disaster.
November 29, 2012

John_D. said:

I'm actually pleased - typo oops
Oops typo correction.

We should all give ourselves a pat on the back for our successful protesting of *this attack on* the Information Revolution. We did it people, we actually did.
November 29, 2012

Ludacris said:

@John_D.
I hope you're really just being sarcastic. But anyways this is just the beginning,I'm sure they're on their way to making it as bad as America has it just a matter of time.
November 29, 2012

Paul_O said:

@PeterP
Re: "To answer your question Jenny, should a Canadian be sued for Copyright Infringement(s) by a U.S. based company or content owner it's the American Copyright Act that comes into play not Canada's C-11; so the $5000.00 cap for all Works infringed does not apply.
The Canadian Copyright Act (C-11)covers Canadian content and it's Canadian owners. "

The above is incorrect.

The Berne Convention states:

(http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html)

"Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886)

The Convention rests on three basic principles and contains a series of provisions determining the minimum protection to be granted, as well as special provisions available to developing countries which want to make use of them.

The three basic principles are the following:

(a) Works originating in one of the contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works which were first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of “national treatment”) [1].

(b) Such protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of “automatic” protection) [2].

(c) Such protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work (principle of the “independence” of protection). If, however, a contracting State provides for a longer term than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases [3]. "

In other words, a work produced in one of the 165 states that are party to the Convention receives copyright protection in another participating state as if that work was produced in that other state, assuming that the other 2 principles are adhered to.

So... Since both Canada and the United States are party to the Convention, a work that is produced in the United States is treated in Canada as though it were produced in Canada under Canadian Copyright law.

November 29, 2012

Random_2 said:

...
@ Maverik

TLDR: Please explain yourself to me like I am 7.
Thank you.
November 29, 2012

Greg said:

...
I see this as pretty fair. No one deserves to have their life destroyed because they were downloading content. $5000 is a good dent in someone's wallet to make the point, but something that people can recover from.
November 29, 2012

An_anonymous_poster said:

Here's what I'm wondering
Let's take a look at two typical Canadian torrent users...

Say, person X is a casual torrent user, who usually only downloads around 10GB worth of content a month, if that, mainly consisting of music. Person Y, on the other hand has a faster connection and downloads around 50GB of content a month, including HD movies and TV shows. Both users download purely for private, non-commercial purposes.

What are the odds that these users are levied with lawsuits, and if they are levied with lawsuits, how much can they expect to pay?
November 29, 2012

Anon said:

Free wifi services
My local coffee shop has stopped offering free wifi now as they claim that they don't want to be on the hook for the fines associated with illegal downloads. I hope that Starbucks and McDonalds don't follow suit. Perhaps the Government will force them to start handing over MAC addresses.
November 29, 2012

poo_flinger said:

There is a simple solution to this.....
Don't download content via torrents.
If your going to download content do it via Usenet. I have never heard of one case brought upon someone using usenet. The only letter you will get is from your ISP saying your hogging bandwidth. Torrents are highly in efficient anyway as it takes forever download.
November 29, 2012

jimbob said:

felow
perhaps it would be helpful for everyone to hear from someone who really knows a step by step way to adress troll notifications
November 29, 2012

Bindo Jalmoot said:

Do I get to keep my illegal downloads?
Is paying the fine the same as buying the music? If I have 1000 movies and pay the statutory 5000 dollar maximum do I now own the downloads?
Similarly if I settle after receiving a letter from rights holders (or reps) do I then own my downloads?
BJ
PS: I don't download anything, just curious?
November 29, 2012

Crockett said:

...
@ANON "I hope that Starbucks and McDonalds don't follow suit. Perhaps the Government will force them to start handing over MAC addresses."

Don't you mean *BIG* MAC addresses :D

Oh my, I must have got up much too early.
November 29, 2012

PeterP said:

Paul_O
Oddly enough your statement: "So... Since both Canada and the United States are party to the Convention, a work that is produced in the United States is treated in Canada as though it were produced in Canada under Canadian Copyright law."

is partially why I posted what I did. If the complaining party is American chances are they'll ask for the case to be heard there.
And since we now share many of the same IP's laws [and limitations] on the legal Uses of Copyright protected Works I don't see why an American firm would waste their time fighting in Canadian courts when they have the legal rights to fight in their own country under their own similar laws.




November 29, 2012

Shawn H Corey said:

Time to Boycott
Definitely time to boycott all RIAA and MPAA affiliates. There is plenty of free music and video available on the internet. If they want to do something this dumb, it's time to ignore them.
November 29, 2012

Ray Saintonge said:

@PeterP
An American firm may very well want a case to be heard in a more convenient place. The US courts may even claim jurisdiction, but that still doesn't mean that their judgement is enforceable in Canada. We are still dealing with non-commercial infringement where all of this allegedly infringing activity were only downloads that took place entirely within Canada. There are cases regarding choice of forum, but these are quite complicated.
November 29, 2012

JohnSmith said:

@poo_flinger
It's easy to say if you don't have a younger sister or brother who doesn't know how to use any other programs other than Utorrent.
November 29, 2012

Cincent Vlement said:

East Solution
We will just end up consuming less content. I know that in my household we spend less and less each year on purchasing content. Books, DVDs, CDs and Cable TV are becoming too expensive or have too many restrictions for them to have any value.

Due to scheduling issues, I have had recordings on my PVR stop after a minute. I pay for my cable and I pay for my PVR, but apparently the TV networks do not want me to watch shows at a time that is convenient to me. It's common for TV shows to end at 9:01 or start at 8:59 and that sometimes means you can't record programs even on a dual tuner PVR. I've also had some picture quality issues that force my PVR to skip parts of recorded programs. In some cases I turned to bittorrent so that I don't miss an episode. But if I can't have that backup plan, I'll just stop watching those shows all together.
November 29, 2012

PeterP said:

@ Ray Saintonge
"An American firm may very well want a case to be heard in a more convenient place."

An American and her legal team will absolutely motion to have the case heard in the U.S. lets be real here.

"The US courts may even claim jurisdiction, but that still doesn't mean that their judgement is enforceable in Canada."

The judgement is however 100% enforceable in the U.S. - aware of all the complications (legal and otherwise) that ensue when an individual ignores a court order against them?

"We are still dealing with non-commercial infringement where all of this allegedly infringing activity were only downloads that took place entirely within Canada."

A great many people don't know the difference between non-commercial vs commercial, in this thread alone you'll find a few.
And unless Canada has set up a firewall preventing it's people from information outside of Canada (that only you seem to be aware of) your statement that "downloads that took place entirely within Canada", is it even possible?

"There are cases regarding choice of forum, but these are quite complicated."

Every case begins with (choice of forum) jurisdiction Ray but that's not exactly the complicated part.

Geist started a page on reddit, check it out, some of the comments may be of some use.
November 29, 2012

Ray Saintonge said:

response to PeterP
"An American and her legal team will absolutely motion to have the case heard in the U.S. lets be real here."

We are, of course, assuming that it's the plaintiff who's American. It would file wherever it's convenient to it. If it chooses a US venue it would be up to the defendant to file a motion of "forum non conveniens". When only downloading is involved we are mostly looking at corporate plaintiffs and individual defendants. That alone can generate an imbalance of convenience.

As to what takes place entirely within Canada, we can begin with a person working from the desktop in his own home, and a dot-ca domain. The great firewall of China has holes, and I can't imagine it would be any different if Canada tried the same thing. But the worry is not about a Canadian firewall; Canada would be quite happy to have these infringement cases heard in its own courts. I know that even dot-ca domains are often served from outside the country, but that just leads to more uncertainties.

I haven't been on Reddit, but I can check it out.
November 30, 2012

Brian Ferguson said:

...
Does anyone have any contact info for NGN Prima Production who are taking the point on this assault? website, email, street address, telephone number I can't find any trace of them.

Overcharging is Theft.

If you don't watch the commercials you are stealing TV - Homer J Simpson
November 30, 2012

end user said:

...
I got my new Usenet account ready to download in 123.... Got about 400+ dvd's so its gonna be a while to download but sure beats watching the DVD rip one by one.

Also a lot of the pawn shops are switching to stocking BR only and crazy deals on used DVD's.
November 30, 2012

PeterP said:

@ Ray Saintonge
I just read your reply to Craig.
Ray Saintonge said: @Craig

"The burden of proof throughout the process is on the plaintiff. That means that there are many hurdles for the rights holder to jump in order to win a case. It may be enough that there be apparent infringement to get a court order to identify the apparent infringers. Without a court order an ISP, releasing the information could leave it vulnerable to a suit for breach of privacy."

Ray it works more like this (with little or no "jumping" for the Rights holder): A DMCA take down notice is sent (or notice to notice in Canada), the person receiving the notice can counter but most do not. Should the Rights holder want to pursue, the Rights holder (not just a lawyer) can then take the notice(s) to a court house in order to have a subpoena set to the ISP.
Pretty simple stuff so far, and this should cost the Rights holder about $100.00.

"If things get that far, and the accused has the balls to ignore the extortion letter from the rights holder's lawyers, the plaintiff must then prove the key elements of his case. If they only have a snippet from a sampling programme who's to say that it's not within the bounds of fair dealing?"

No one would waste their time energy or money pursuing legal action for a mere "snippet from a sampling programme" as the people who actually do this work daily, as a profession, know the difference.

"The simple point is we can't know how they will prove their case, and each element that they raise gives scope to a range of possible defences. It will take years for the courts to sort this out. Meanwhile the legal costs will keep mounting, and will quickly exceed $5000. This is not all recoverable since the limits in the court rules would likely apply."

Anyone who works within the legal system knows how they can prove their case Ray, it is after all their profession.
You are aware that everything we do on the Net is logged by our ISP right?
"Possible defences" would have been a counter to the original notice sent would it not?

"It will take years for the courts to sort this out." It took more than a decade to sort out C-32 / C-11, that part has been done Ray.

"Meanwhile the legal costs will keep mounting, and will quickly exceed $5000." Yes for all parties involved, this includes the accused, who, unlike the larger companies does not have a legal team on staff 24/7.

"For me the best strategy is to tell them, "Make my day," while I hold out my foot for them to trip on."
Best of luck with that approach Ray, it's been my personal experience that people who say stuff like that cry the hardest in court.
November 30, 2012

PeterP said:

response to Ray Saintonge
"We are, of course, assuming that it's the plaintiff who's American."
Yes Ray, yes we are, have been from the get go.

"It would file wherever it's convenient to it. If it chooses a US venue it would be up to the defendant to file a motion of "forum non conveniens"."
I would think she would file where she has the legal rights to do so.
Sure the lawyer for the defendant could motion for a different venue, but as you know that costs a lot of money for the defendant, the company pursuing (like most large companies) has a legal team on staff so it really doesn't cost them anything.

I don't know if you're going to find the comments on Reddit of any use Ray, a great many people there actually know whats going on and very few can be fooled.
Good luck out there!
November 30, 2012

Pacos said:

General response
What about Youtube http://youtu.be/6oRz3XB8434

If Wifi was free and available everywhere, then all we would do is stream our favorite songs and we wouldn't download anymore because all possible songs would be at our fingertips; no more use for Itunes for everyday commute or workout or even at home music.
November 30, 2012

Gregg said:

I'm not to be confused with Greg...
Absolute B.S.

The industry once threatened to sue me for downloading my own content.

I am at all out war with them
December 01, 2012

RealityCheck said:

The argument ends here?
I don't think these anti-piracy companies realize what a massive hit it would be to the ISP's if they started forcing people to stop pirating. So many people would drop down to the cheapest service available companies like my ISP would go bankrupt, especially considering how many people stopped using home phone services and are having their cable shut off these days (which I am considering lately).

Furthermore:
The statutory amount they can fine you for AT MOST is 5,000. Think about that. Take a deep breath and actually let those synapses fire for a few seconds.
It will take them more then 5,000 dollars to bring you to court and drag you through the notoriously slow Canadian Judicial system then 5,000. They will lose money hand over fist if they actually followed through on any case.
All they are going to do is send scare tactics letters and wait for the people to stupid to know any better to start coughing up 2 to 300 bucks to make it go away.
December 02, 2012

Roger said:

Streaming vs. Downloading
Is streaming content without storing it the same legally as downloading to store it?
December 02, 2012

maebnoom said:

...
I use logless VPN
December 03, 2012

BobbyT said:

But does that $5k barrier do any good?
What is stopping them from forcing you to come to the US for a trial vs staying at home under C-11 laws?
December 03, 2012

Mark said:

...
How do they know that infringement was actually for noncommercial purposes? It seems to me to be trivially possible for a company to, say, have somebody distribute competitor's works from their own home in the interests of undermining their competitor's copyright control, and the maximum fine would only be $5000, in spite of there being an (unprovable) commercial intent.
December 03, 2012

A1gouche said:

Don't Know Jack
I'm using my old handle here. I use to hack(use to). I could hack personal computers and open thier CD drive or change their desk top just for a good laugh. This was just through (peoples IPS address. I could also hack highly secure industries which I do not do any more. All of this was self taught and was put to an end due to the Terrorist Expatriation Act. Given that was approx. twenty-three yrs. ago I'm assuming with advancements in technology they can do a lot more.
I my case, I was on the site for approx. twenty to twenty three minutes using a 56Kb modem State of the art back then unless you had major doe. In that time they had all my information Real name date of Birth. Driver License, etc. I had used different programs to cover my trcks as well, cloning, rapid disconnect, mult. bell routering stations. I should have been invisaible but was still caught.
I'm Canadian which was about the only thing that saved me as well as the sever that I was using back then had "lost" my contract.
Just be carefull of what you think you know and what is really out there.
December 03, 2012

Anon said:

I know several Jacks
What's with the moron troll A1? From the sounds of things you couldn't hax a lunchbox. I bet you starved in elementary school because you couldn't figure the latch out and were too embarrassed to ask for help :(. On the other hand, all the reading I've done here and there isn't much of a solution. I like the idea of sending back letters provided by Maverick. I think the trick here is to get their lawyers to work as much as possible while spending as little money as possible yourself. Learning about the law is the beginning. Every letter they have to draft to support their case against you is time that lawyer can be spending working on a case that doesn't have a $5000 limit attached. Some of these companies may have lawyers on staff, but they are still being paid. These companies still need them to spend their time recovering the most money possible. I think this does work in favor of the non commercial users. Especially if the guidelines given to the judges lean more to a $100 settlement anyway. The fact is, if I don't get a lawyer, my output is $0 and the most I can expect to have to pay is $5000. The company coming after me is going to have to pay lawyers to spend time on my case, and to run through my hoops. And, I am going to provide as may hoops as I possibly can. The fact is, I do not want to pay $5000, but it's not the end of the world. If it costs them $10,000 in lawyers time to recover $5000 from me, I will be sad - but they will be sadder. Period. Just because they are on staff doesn't mean that wasting $10,000 of their time to recover $5000 makes sense for them. It does not. A lawyer who does that will soon find themselves no longer on staff. I don't think that this is illogical thinking.
December 03, 2012

ClaudiaHauser22 said:

...
uptil I looked at the receipt four $6908, I accept ...that...my sister could realie earning money part time from there labtop.. there neighbor had bean doing this 4 only eleven months and just now took care of the depts on there appartment and bought a top of the range Lotus Elan. this is where I went, Fox76.com
December 03, 2012

Mike said:

Retroactive?
This bill (C-11) went into effect this month (November), so how are they allowed to ask for info on people that downloaded stuff months ago?

It's the same old story: short term gain, long term pain. People *might* stop downloading with the threat of lawsuits, but if you bring someone to court they will *definitely* stop buying your product. A movie/music company can't litigate their way to less crappy movies/music.
December 03, 2012

dolly said:

let yourself be heard
http://openmedia.ca/lockdown
December 03, 2012

val said:

scare tactics ... or ..... ?
http://forums.780tuners.com/sh...-in-Canada
December 03, 2012

manolito2112 said:

Are we talking about MP3s?
A compressed audio format, music deteriorated, seriously?, A law is being created for this type of content,I laughed
December 04, 2012

IC said:

...
I encourage everyone to stop buying Blu-rays, dvds, ect.. stop stop stop..
December 04, 2012

Risky Business said:

IP Address?
So to actually prove it was you they would also have to prove that your IP address was not hacked, or insecure. Everyone uses wi-fi now. If I am not tach savvy and my neighbour (who knows who it really is) is using my internet then I am responsible? Prehaps there are some serious holes in the whole concept of actus rea, mend reas with this,no?
December 04, 2012

johndoe said:

...
Go to Tim Horton's parking lot with a laptop. Free Wi-Fi. Download all the movies, songs, TV shows you want... Anonymously!!!!
As for musicians worrying about not getting the money they feel they're entitiled to? I'm sure you get more than enough in royalties. If not, your music probably sucked.
December 05, 2012

John said:

...
---
How Golden Frog Responds To Civil Investigations:
Golden Frog will not release a member's identifying information - minimal information reasonably calculated to identify and no more - or usage information to investigators, attorneys, or agencies unless we are directed to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction in the matter. If there is a hearing in court, the member will be notified so they will have an opportunity to contest the surrender of personal information.
---

So court can get you no matter vpn or not. Why bother then?
December 08, 2012

Anon said:

Lawyers
Anyone know where I can find/contact a lawyer that would take a case such tas this?
December 11, 2012

Larry said:

larryg
So would this be retroactive, or are they targeting downloads that occur November 30 and forward?
December 11, 2012

@Anon said:

re: Anyone know where I can find a lawyer....
Anon do NOT go to a lawyer.
There is a cap on judgments, maximum of $5000 but those will be reserved for the worst offenders, and even then it will be a stretch for a judge to award those kind of statutory damages.

If you are served a letter from one of these proceedings, simply go to your local courthouse, reply to the suit, and have it served.

Court clerks will help you with the basics, and that's all you will need.

Due to the limit on personal liability judgments, these matters will never be pursued in court.

The costs and time involved will be prohibitive in relation to the judgments they will receive.

This is a simple case of intimidation, and trying to get people to pay amount sin settlements which are actually higher than what would be awarded if it went to court.

The Plaintiffs are counting on people being too afraid to fight back, and are counting on people having heard about some of the big judgments in the United States and rushing to settle.

Our legislation here in Canada is very different that in the USA.

Do NOT let these people bully you.

Let's call this what it is, it's a trial balloon.

Did anyone stop to ask why one of the first battles on this new legislation is being fought by Voltage Pictures LLC vs TekSavvy?

This is to test the waters of this new legislation, and to see how judges will interpret the statutory penalties for non commercial infringements.

The majors (RIAA, MPAA, major studios) will be watching this, and if they see that Canadians can be bullied into large settlements by simply sending infringement notices, then the floodgates will open.

Do not give in to this. You do not need a lawyer. Respond and request to have your day in court.
That will end the process right there, I can guarantee you they will not proceed.
December 12, 2012

Robin Brown said:

Who is Barry Logan?
If this case depends on one man's testimony they should have picked one who is not a music pirate who made money from published music without paying royalties.

Barry Logan (Canipre) has credibility issues. He played in a band called "Whoa! Miss Mojo" at Stratford Ontario's Ribfest 2011. Cover bands are supposed to pay royalties but guess what? 4 of the pirated songs are posted on YouTube.
December 12, 2012

Rodmyster said:

...
What is the penalty if you download music/movies from another country? eg. Baidu.com in China. Do you know you can get the movies in about 6 languages
December 14, 2012

Scuzzi said:

Voltage
So I just got a notice yesterday. At this time my response is as follows

Dear Sir/ Madam

Please show me full proof of your claim with regards to my infringement on your property as I was operating in a private capacity at the time.
I use a wireless router at my location so that multiple computers can use the internet all over the house and it is an encrypted channel. I have always wondered if my router has been hacked and someone is using my bandwidth, so as the burden of proof rests on your company in this case, I am sure that you will be able to determine that for me. Also note that I have fixed some computers at my house and although I am sure I erased my router password, I am only human.

I am not sure what they are talking about, but I will be sending them this anyways
Now if only I could find their email address and then proper mailing address. It seems they changed their info just recently.
December 14, 2012

Scuzzi said:

Tracking
Also, if they are tracking and analyzing packets of information does that mean that any online banking, buying and everything else I am doing means that they are watching this? Doesn't that mean they are spying on me and my information; thus breaching my privacy? Should I include that in my letter to them?
December 14, 2012

JJ said:

Partial Upload
Hey,
So aside from all the issues that stem from downloading files, my question is would uploading take a person into the "commercial" bracket, and if so, would the upload have to be the full 100% of a file to be considered "illegal", or is it all the same if just 50% of a file has been uploaded/shared over torrent. Cause there is a clear difference between someone initially uploading and providing the file, and people who share just because torrenting requires this for speed, and never actually end up sharing 100% of a file.
There are definitely many things that need to be cleared up here.
December 14, 2012

ChloeBrown22 said:

...
Ava. even though Peggy`s c0mment is surprising... on tuesday I bought a new Jaguar XJ sincee geting a check for $5268 this - 5 weeks past and over ten/k lass month. without a question it is the nicest work I've had. I started this nine months/ago and practically straight away started bringing in over $74.. per hour. I follow the details on this straightforward website, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT
December 15, 2012

TeckSavvy said:

Needs further review before making it law
This lawsuit should be overthrown until gov’t builds a proper firewall on consumer information when a foreign company requests for this data, especially from “Troll lawyers”.
Its time to reset this law for a later date in 2013, Canadians have been warned and this alone should help the FilmMusicMedia industry from further erosion on sales on growth.
There are no assurances that you will not be charged and arrested when you cross over to the USA.
These lawyers can easily find gaping holes and opportunities which will slaughter Canadians like lambs when they cross over the border. The Bail Bond itself will be equivalent to a house mortgage, since there is risk of you not returning to the states.
The punitive damage is quite excessive which includes possibly jail time when you compare it to Canada and other nations.
In 2013, you will read new stories on Dad going to jail, when going to Disney Land with wife and kids, in the states due his children downloading habits.

The Federal and States laws do not necessary correlated with each other. For example, people that grow medical marijuana in a state where it’s legal are thrown in jail and sentence by the Federal government [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/grant-full-pardon-chris-williams-man-facing-80-years-prison-legally-growing-medical-marijuana/PgtWfvFg.]
The ISP should pass the information to a Canadian Privacy agency for them to submit the notice and legal action in behalf of the legal firm to protect the identity of individual from being prosecuted in a foreign land, especially for a 1st offense.
December 18, 2012

SBSP said:

Commericial copyright
What differentiates commercial and non-commercial copyright?
December 22, 2012

JustACanadian said:

None
How is one to know what is copyrighted in the first place? I would think that it must be clear to the user that a data download is somehow infringing on material that should not even be available on the internet - i.e. if one does not want one's material copied, keep it off the internet. To simple.
January 08, 2013

Patrick said:

...
I am very curious about one thing. I am with Teksavvy (Just an example) and they clearly state that they do not monitor what their users do. Therefore, they have no idea what you are doing with your internet connection. I do not understand how these copyright owners even know what you are downloading / sharing, because they cannot get this info from the ISP. It is my opinion that the only way for them to know who downloads their copy righted material, is by invading people's privacy and illegally monitoring their activities on the internet. I do not see another way for them to know who they can file suit against. Does any one know how they get to this information and if it would be legal to use in court?
January 21, 2013

@Patrick said:

...
The way to know what you are downloading is quite simple, in the case of torrents. They pick a file, say movie X, then check the IP addresses of the people that are sharing it (downloading). This is simple in the case of torrents, due to the lack of security involved in the torrent protocol. Anybody can do this, not just this company.

Then they match the IP addresses with an ISP, and request they give them the personal information of the person that used a given IP, in a given day.

It is not the ISP that monitors your internet activity, is a third party company that does that.

They are trying to make a case against torrent users, so if you are not a torrent user, chances are they are not going to reach you.
February 11, 2013

jjk said:

คาสิโนออนไลน์ รู้จักกันหรือยังคร ับ ว่ามันเป็นอย่างไร
คาสิโนออนไลน์ รู้จักกันหรือยังคร
บ ว่ามันเป็นอย่างไร

สำหรับในบทความนี้ก
จะมากล่าวถึงความห
ายของ คาสิโนออนไลน์ ให้ได้ทราบกันสักหน
อยล่ะกันครับ เพื่อว่าหลายๆท่านอ
จจะยังไม่เข้าใจว่
มันคืออะไร แล้วเค้าเล่นกันอย่
งไร ก็คือโดยทั่วไปแล้ว เราน่าจะทราบกันดีว
า casino online นั้นเป็นแหล่งรวมเค
ื่องเล่นหลายๆประเ
ทที่ซึ่งให้นักเสี่
ยงโชคเข้าไปเล่นเพื
อความสนุกสนานเพลิ
เพลิน และมีเปิดกันอย่างเ
รีแบบถูกกฎหมายแต่
ำหรับประเทศเรายังไ
ม่มีครับเพราะบ้านเ
าถือว่าเป็นสิ่งผิ
กฎหมายครับแต่จะยกต
ัวเอย่างให้ที่แบบถ
กกฎหมายใกล้ๆบ้านเ
าที่มีคนไทยนิยมไปเ
ล่นก็อย่างเช่น ในกัมพูชา ครับที่นี้เรามาเข้
เรื่องคาสิโนออนไล
์ gclub กันเลยดีกว่าครับก็
ือเค้าจะทำเป็นลัก
ณะให้บุคคลทั่วไปสา
มารถเล่นออนไลน์ livescore กล่าวคือเล่นผ่านเว
บไซต์ holiday palace และอินเตอร์เน็ตได้
ลยครับหรือบางเจ้า
็อาจจะมีแบบต้องโหล
ดโปรแกรมด้วยแล้วก็
ล่นได้เลยครับโดยไ
่ต้องเดินทางไปเล่น
ในคาสิโน ruby888 จริงๆทั้งนี้ก็มีหล
กหลายเจ้าและหลายเ
็บไซต์ผลบอลที่เปิด
ให้เล่นคาสิโนออนไล
์ครับอีกทั้งมีให้
ลือกเล่นได้หลากหลา
ยไม่ว่าจะเป็นบาคาร
าไฮโลรูเล็ตฯลฯเรี
กได้ว่าเล่นกันสนุก
ไม่แพ้การเล่น sbobet ในคาสิโนจริงๆเลยล่
ครับก็ถือได้ว่าเป
นทางเลือกที่ดีสำหร
ับนักเสี่ยงโชคที่ไ
่ต้องเสียเวลาในกา
เดินทางไปเล่นในสถา
นที่จริงครับส่วนใน
รื่องของกติกาการก
รเล่นรายละเอียดต่า
งๆผู้ให้บริการแต่ล
ะเจ้าก็จะมีการบอก
ยู่แล้วครับเพื่อให
้ผู้ที่จะเข้าร่วมเ
่นได้ทำความเข้าใจ
นการเล่นและสนุกกับ
การเล่นได้อย่างเต็
ที่ครับ หากสนใจลองติดต่อที
เว็บไซต์นี้ ..
สมัครสมาชิก ติดต่อสอบถาม http://www.gclub-casino.net/ โทร. 082-1279973, 082-1279974 ตลอด 24 ชม.

ขอขอบคุณพื้นที่เผย
พร่ข่าวสารดีๆ

*----------------------------------------------
March 18, 2013

Janice Rahme said:

Manager
I have read most of this string and didn't see any reference to the loss of revenue to the owners of media.
Yes it easy to copy CDs and DVDs but is it right? Private and Non-private use.
Private - Are you supporting the musicians you love?

Non-private - training material (safety, human resources, tech, etc.) is expensive to produce with a very limited audience to purchase it. Because you can copy the DVD easily, does it mean you can share it with hundreds or thousands of employees on line or on a server? Can you share it with colleagues and partners?

Who will pay for the media to be produced when there is reduced revenue.
Many companies and organizations are very good about seeking proper permissions but there are many who don't. My income depends on customers purchasing the appropriate rights, I in turn pay taxes and support the economy.

Making sure you have the RIGHT to copy or share or change is your ethical responsibility.

July 04, 2013

Susan Quinn said:

Conflict mediation
Resolving complaints informally through conflict mediation is mostly simpler, needs fewer resources and infrequently prevents any step-up of the difficulty whereas in no method trivialising the difficulty or the impact it's on a private.
October 03, 2013

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: