Moore’s Strong Rejection of Three Strikes Model for Canada

It did not attract much media attention other than a few tweets, but perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the Ministerial news conference on Wednesday launching Bill C-32 was the comments from Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore on the possibility on bringing a three-strikes and you're out (or "graduated response") system to Canada.  While some have encouraged the government to move in that direction in recent months, Moore slammed the door shut on that possibility.  According to Moore:

One of the proposals that was suggested was the idea that Canada would have a three strikes rule, which is what they have in France.  We don’t agree with that. I don’t think a three strikes rule is in the best interests of consumers. Which is what, consumers would receive three notices or three allegations of impropriety and then their internet would be cut off.  It would be devastating for individual Canadians, bad for consumers, because now, access to the internet is part of our everyday lives, not just for movies and for songs, but for doing banking, for taking care of your mortgage, for communicating with your kids, for communicating with family across the country. This is an essential part of our economy, so we disagreed with the idea of a three strikes rule.

This is good news, particularly given comments this week from Bloc MP Carole Lavallée, who seemingly thinks three strikes is too generous.  She urged the government to adopt a two strikes and you're out policy.

Update: I received an email from Ms. Lavallée this afternoon indicating that the Canoe story did not fully capture her views.  She says that three strikes is an option that should be discussed, but that she did not put it forward as a firm solution.


  1. thanks
    I would like to offer a general word of appreciation for your ongoing attention to these issues; the intellectual and consumer rights of Canadians have benefited a great deal from the debate on this site over the past few years, and I suspect this will continue in the months to come. One question I hope you might briefly address, just for the record, are you or have you even been associated with ‘video game hacking groups’ as alleged by Mr. Gannon?(

  2. Pervasiveness of the Internet
    It’s good to see that Moore recognizes how pervasive he internet has become. It would appear that it will be the primary method for communication, eventually, and it is important that we maintain our freedom – privacy & expression, for instance – from those who would control/limit it.

    A corporate body with a right to monitor all internet communication based on the possibility they are experiencing diminished profits, is a step beyond the scope of acceptable behaviour, IMO. It would seem that the copyright bill is going to necessitate a new form of policing and enforcement; I would hope that this function will not be given to a private entity with a vested interest in internet control, but rather an impartial third party capable of functioning independently of any interested party’s influence. As an extension of Moore’s sentiment, a biased monitor of internet communications is not in Canadians’ best interest.

  3. notice and notice
    Hopefully the government will also make sure there is a fee associated with the notice-and-notice regime, to prevent copyright holders from using it frivolously.

  4. Re: Thanks
    ‘anon’ : clicking through to the link you provide leads to a Glenn Beck style diatribe of implied accusations and general rambling nonsense – I hope Michael doesn’t waste his time go down that rat hole.

    However I would be interested in his take on Mr Gannon’s Myth 4 “The laws protecting digital locks will trump fair dealing rights”

  5. b
    “from Bloc MP Carole Lavallée, who seemingly thinks three strikes is too generous.” why the hell do we still have french people still running their mouths in this country ? i thought they wanted to be separate. dont let the door hit you in the ass…

  6. kellythedog says:

    It would seem to me from that comment that Mr. Moore is close to saying that internet access is an essential service here in Canada.

  7. .
    Quebec seems to always be in the past. They where the last to allow women to vote 1940, the rest of the country was 1918.'s_suffrage

  8. @anon (ref James Gannon)
    In a sense, he is correct, however he is not telling the whole truth. I would refer Mr Gannon to sections 41.1(b) which makes if illegal to offer TPM breaking services to the public and section 41.1(c), which makes it illegal to manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale or rental, or provide… technology used to break TPM. So, while it is legal for the consumer to break TPMs for their own use, the only way that they can do it is to reverse engineer the TPM themselves and develop the necessary technology to break it (the research clause would apply here). While not explicitly illegal, the effect is to make it not possible for people to break a TPM for their own use. A fine line; the upshot is still to deny the vast majority of consumers the ability to exercise their fair dealing rights.

  9. Well, I think that this does restore some of my faith that the democratic institutions in this country are alive and kicking, and that our politicians are making smart decisions in the face of extremist behaviors from some in industry.

    The Internet plays an important role in our economy, and is an essential business communication tool. It’s not just a “play thing”. I fail to understand exactly why industry would call for this measure in the first place rather than actually doing market research, and innovating around consumers needs.

    While some insist in driving this war with consumers forward, it’s refreshing to see that Government can see the dangers in doing this would have profound impact outside the entertainment industries, and on our economy as a whole Bravo!

  10. strunk&white says:

    But I thought the out-to-lunch James Moore was going to introduce a virtual copy of Bill C-61, and was advocating for ever stricter anti-consumer rules. Isn’t that what “sources” were saying weeks ago? I thought I read that somewhere.

  11. @a, @a.martin
    Well Mr. a, wasen’t it the Federal’s idea to do a “bed-in” in Montreal to show Quebecois how mutch english Canada loves Quebec?


    Unfortunatly a.martin is actually right in a way… because of Quebecor Media and Gesca, Quebec is isolated in a cocoon of lies because we rarely hear about the copyright debate except when it’s time for Mc. Morrons of LADISQ and SODEC to say: “Le téléchargement c’est illegale!!!” (Downloading is illegal) or rather crappy blurb about either the french Hadopi or now this MP talking about a 2 strikes regime…. Only people like myself that are actually able to speak both official languages of this country can see the dichotomy about news reporting in this bicephalous country…

    PS: I wonder if I should start making a blog or vlog or something about copyrights…. in french off-course…

  12. RE: Stunk&Stupid
    ” …
    But I thought the out-to-lunch James Moore was going to introduce a virtual copy of Bill C-61, and was advocating for ever stricter anti-consumer rules. Isn’t that what “sources” were saying weeks ago? I thought I read that somewhere.”

    You do realize that the good exceptions in the bill were largely a result of Tony Clement, not Moore?

    Maybe you should try state your point-of-view and actually provide evidence instead of just pointless attack-debating. And before you say it, I freely admit that my previous comment towards you was largely emotional-based (although it had more substance than any of your hap-hazard comments). I however am admitting my error. I have a feeling that you will not do the same.

    BTW, did you ever consider that the more liberal format of the final bill was largely because of Michael Geist reporting the original, mediocre version of the bill and the subsequent public outcry, or Michael doing what he does in general? Food for thought (if you are capable of abstract thought).

  13. @strunk&white
    It’s clear that those who have responded here before with respect to the “Moral” aspect of this copyright debate, were given the huge shaft and disappointment from not just Moore and Clement, but from all the traditional political parties, and big business in Canada in favor of a very realistic economic issues. It’s about time the extremists got the shaft.

    Digital locks will be dealt with in Committee, probably allowing consumers to break these locks eventually for personal non-commercial use. Levy’s will probably be implemented to compensate artists, and we’re currently looking at legalizing file sharing right in the face, even with respect to this bill as is, and the proposed changes Canadian businesses and creative talent want.

    The statutory damages provision in this bill are subject to proof of damages, which in my view is an awesome part of this bill. Those that have been following the copyright debate for sometime, know very well there is a huge lack of evidence with respect to “actual” damages if any have occurred when sharing a file. Evidence presented in court with respect to this can be countered fairly easily as some of us posters have done in this blog several times.

    The worse thing that would happen is getting an e-mail from your ISP if you file share. It would in all likely hood cost industry lawyers more to file to get the max $5000 with a lack of evidence to prove their case. Yep that’s right ladies and gents, epic fail for the extremists. Looks good on them.

    The digital locks are unenforceable, and it would be impossible to prove the lock was broken by a consumer. The digital locks for other groups, like education and business will create a headache, and protect incumbents rather than foster much needed innovation, something the business and creative communities seem to be joining up against in recent days and are worried about.

    Shame on those who haven’t pushed forward with much needed innovation even where reform is present in the rest of the world. Shame on those who showed up at the Toronto Townhall and blamed everyone but themselves for their demise and for their economic problems, and shame on those who thought they could by-pass a democratic system to implement extremist views.

  14. bill predictions
    @Eric L

    I like Michael Geist as much as the next person, but given this government’s method of operating it seems very unlikely that it changed the bill based on his blog post a month ago.

    @Strunk & White

    I was also thinking about Geist’s prediction and went back to look at the post. He seems to have gotten it pretty much exactly right. The post stated that there was a disagreement between Moore and Clement, that Harper sided with Moore, and that the bill would have C-61 anti-circumvention rules, no flexible fair dealing, and come in June.

    The disagreement between Moore and Clement is obvious if you read their comments and tweets. The bill has some new flexibilities on fair dealing, but it came in June, with no real change from C-61 on anti-circumvention, and no flexible fair dealing. Sounds about right to me.

  15. Crockett says:

    Surprised and somewhat pleased
    I have to admit that apart form the digital lock issue, this bill is actually more balanced than I expected. I applaud the compromises that were made, especially Tony Clement’s efforts to listen to the public consultation opinions. I’m thinking the US lobby groups will not be having a big celebration over this bill (especially if the digital locks provision can be watered down), and that’s a good thing.

  16. Mathew Englander says:

    Michael, you have inaccurately reported the views of BQ MP Carole Lavallée. My French is not perfect, but the article is clear that she would give two warnings before someone is disconnected. That is a three-strikes rule −— not a two-strikes rule as you said.

  17. @Anon-K
    It seems that all the special exemptions Mr. Gannon mentions in Myth 3 contain language explicitly allowing distribution, and use as a service, of circumvention technologies if it is done for the purposes of achieving those exemptions. This is laid out in subsections 2 and 3 of 41.12, subsection 3 of 41.14, ect.

    There might be a bit of an issue if personal copies are allowed, and TPM can be distributed, but the TPM can not be explicitly distributed for the purpose of making personal copies. This seems to me like it might amount to nothing more than a technicality, however; the “real use” of the technology being an open secret, so long as it can be billed as an interoperability device. I’m not entirely comfortable with it, but the more I read up on the bill the more I’m starting to wonder if it’s really all that bad.

  18. Geist, you are an utter embarrassment to Canada, Ottawa, and U of O. I feel ashamed to have you affiliated with my country, city, and university.

    I am glad the Canadian government believes we should all take more responsibility in protecting intellectual property.

    I look forward to C32, just as I look forward to ACTA.

    Grow up.

  19. @Mike M
    Get over yourself. At least Geist is fighting for consumer rights and I for one, am thankful because I’m not in a position to do so. I suppose you’d be more happy if we were living in a police state where all our communication can be monitored. It’s a slippery slope into paranoia and chaos from there.

    I know…someone must have pi$$ed in your Corn flakes. Go get your type-writer and 8-track player serviced or something. 😛

  20. boycott big media companies says:

    @Mike M

    there is no need to insult our host because you don’t agree with him. I disagree with him, for example I think ‘intellectual property’ is an oxymoron. the legislation you look forward too is IMHO a done deal, Harper is a globalist puppet. the legislation will result in lots of billing for lots of lawyers, including our host

  21. “Geist, you are an utter embarrassment to Canada.”

    Must be a member of the CRIA, or Sookman’s PR people. Hi and welcome.

    “I am glad the Canadian government believes we should all take more responsibility in protecting intellectual property.”

    I personally think more responsibility should be bestowed on our industries to start innovating now we have a copyright bill in place. Protecting copyright is only a part of the battle. It shouldn’t take any more than 1 month to implement all these new investments and services consumers and creators will benefit from after this bill receives royal assent, considering industry has had about 12 years of updated copyright laws in the US, they should know by now what the market and consumers expect from them.

    It’s interesting that after Geist’s interview on the Lang and O’leary exchange the piracy numbers per capita per developed country were put up. Even more interesting to see that the US still leads Canada on online piracy per person by a wide margin, and virtually no innovation has occurred in the past 12 years in the US around what the markets demand to help bring in new income for creative talent. What a shame, and how sad it is for creative talent to believe copyright law is the fix to all of this.

  22. Bringing in the 3 strikes policy would be more damaging to the situation, interrupting and interfering with the flow of the digital economy at a time of economic uncertainty is unwise. It’s unwise at anytime. It’s not sound economic policy. I’m glad Moore took the stance he did. We should be setting the economic standard for the new economy here in Canada, not helping drag it down on the advice of others who put the world in economic uncertainty.

  23. Shawn H Corey says:

    Time to Lay Charges
    The three-strikes model is not just illegal, it’s treason. It places the authority of the government in private hands; and that’s treason.

    It allows the private sector to deny the Rights of Canadians, specifically:

    1. Freedom of Speech
    2. Freedom of Expression
    3. Freedom of the Press
    4. Freedom of Free Association

    Once granted, corporations will use it to shut down any complaints against them, any proposals to change the law, and any comment decremental to their profits. Anyone who promotes infringing on the Rights of Canadians without due process (that means going through the justice system) is a traitor and the sooner the RCMP charges them, the better off we all are.

  24. Good idea
    I think many of these rules have been hashed around across the world and it may be about time to integrate them in Canada. The three strikes rule might be a hard sell but it would certainly eliminate a lot of people from the internet as a result of violations to the infringement rules. Coming from an IT support role rules like this would be really nice to have in a business environment where people are using private resources for their own use. Would certainly be interesting for a manager to explain to his boss let along the company head that he inadvertly denied the company internet access because he got a TV show off the internet.

    Also those that really are die hards about getting things from free online maybe more interested in locating anonymous proxies to accommodate their habits, I didn’t hear anything about those provisions at the ISP level from this bill. Nor have I heard about downloading TV shows, which are often paid for by the advertising and then resold by various marketing agencies again. There was mention of using a PVR, but there are so many sites out there that market PVRed shows on the internet to be downloaded later or distributed.

    Much like so many other countries that have done similar rules Canada will shoot themselves, I believe it was Australia that went over board on their internet rules and now has seen a 50% decline in internet usage. Hum, maybe this is a good thing.

  25. “I believe it was Australia that went over board on their internet rules and now has seen a 50% decline in internet usage.”

    No it was Sweden, and it was a 40% drop which recovered in 8 months. Piracy rates remained unchanged after the recovery.

  26. @Mathew Englander, @Mike M
    @Mathew Englander
    Your right… the article on that webpage state that BQ MP Carole Lavallée did talk about a 2 warnings then disconnected… (and yes… my french is as good as it gets if it’s one’s native language^^.

    @Mike M,
    I am ashamed to live in the same country as people like you who would deny rights of the citizen to be protected aggainst security hole inducing crapware. Please remember that IP protection =/= stealing money of consumers by restricting access to paid content. (I agree, don’t copy that floppy(dvd,cd, blueray) but don’t deny advancements of technology to consumers by asking them to pay 12 times the actual value of the content).

  27. exploderator says:

    Good for Mr. Moore (sort of) (for a change)
    Why not 5 7/9 strikes, or 19/6 strikes? Either of those would obviously be perfectly acceptable, whereas THREE strikes is just so… well… wrong.

    Sorry. I delve into absurdity to draw attention. Certainly, Mr. Moore’s rejection of “three strikes” is hugely welcome and relieving, because it’s the right outcome. But he has arrived at this answer by the wrong equations. He fails to grasp (or refuses to admit) the more important and objective reasons why we should soundly reject such utter folly. There are specific technological facts, and important fundamental principles of justice to be considered here, first and foremost, before we should even begin to *speculate* about what might be “in the best interests of consumers”, “bad for consumers”, or what is “an essential part of our economy”. So long as these deeper issues remain out of the discussion, and superficial speculations form the basis of our technological policy, we remain dangerously vulnerable to having laws based corrupt and subjective influences, instead of sound objective analysis.

    To conclude the absurdity: Who made three a magic number? Is there some empirical reason, or this just baseball proposed as law? Why not use a 5 star or 10 star rating system, or an ‘even 10 is a big one’ like with birthdays? Technology law should not be based on arbitralily chosen rules of thumb.

    Something tells me that there is far more than accidental omission or innocent short sightedness going on here. I think that the entire “three strikes” discussion was begun and has been carefully framed by nefarious agendas, and has absolutely nothing to do with the public good (is unacceptable grounds to frame law).

    So, in the spirit of inviting better discussion into the deeper issues, I will begin to dig into the technological and legal reality, regarding things like anti P2P file sharing enforcement:

    Here’s a fundamental technology problem:

    There is no reliable way to identify the individuals who share files on the internet. All these allegations of file sharing violations are identified by corporate interests, who simply detect an IP address from across the internet. Of course, proud of their effort, they point the finger at real people, based on their “evidence”. But, an IP address only ever purports to identify a piece of networking hardware, possibly, for a while. AN IP ADDRESS DOES NOT RELIABLY IDENTIFY A PERSON, EVER. At very best, an IP address might show who pays the bill for a suspected internet account, a very different piece of information.

    This is an absolute fundamental technological fact: the IP addresses these companies detect cannot reliably identify anybody. Computers, wireless (wifi) routers, and the ISP’s neighborhood internet circuits are all routinely hacked, allowing both free access by unknown parties, and outright spoofing of the IP address. Nobody knows with any certainty who might have been using a given detected IP address at a given time. Even when a person takes great care to protect their digital security, many factors are simply outside their control. From inherently insecure wifi security standards, to hacked cable modems in the neighborhood, to undetected computer viruses, few people have the means to prevent being erroneously detected. And if strict laws like “three strikes” come into existence, hackers will become much more strongly motivated, and the situation will worsen greatly.

    Technological outlook: freely available encryption and security methods will further anonymize the P2P file sharing process, permanently and robustly defeating all ability to track or identify people who are illegally sharing copyrighted files.

    Technological conclusion: there is currently no reliable way to identify individuals using P2P file sharing to violate copyright, and the near future will absolutely preclude such detection.

    Question: why would we even begin to consider a “three strikes” law given this technological reality?

    continued next post…

  28. exploderator says:

    Good for Mr. Moore (sort of) (for a change) part 2
    Now an important legal issue:

    There is no legally binding expectation for internet account holders to maintain strict custody over the use of their internet connections. Nobody is automatically liable for illegal uses of an internet connection just because they pay for it. This is a good thing, and to suggest that account holders should be liable is extremely radical and dangerous.

    Speed cameras give a good example: we hold the owner of the car liable, even though they may not have been the driver at the time. This is justified in a few ways. The offense and penalty are both small; such automatic liability would not extend to serious matters such as accidents or vehicular homicide. Also, owners have a well established and binding legal liability for their vehicles, through their carefully conducted registration and insurance. But vehicle owners also enjoy an escape from most liability; they can demonstrate that the vehicle was stolen, or that they did not personally consent to or commit the acts in question. With both vehicles and individual people, which have an obvious and singular physical existence, it is almost always possible to solidly determine the facts of a matter, and assign culpability and liability accordingly. In all cases where the issue is more serious than a minor traffic violation, it is law that guilt beyond reasonable doubt must form the basis of such liability. Innocent until proven guilty…

    Internet connections are not at all like vehicles. Most internet connections are explicitly shared, which is both normal expected common practice, and expressly intended as part of the service, including in the contracts. This ranges from commercial subscriptions to home connections, all of which typically provide for multiple users. While a subscriber may be contractually expected to attempt to control the use of a connection, on threat of disconnection from the ISP, there is still no implied criminal or civil liability. Indeed it would be very unusual to hold someone liable solely on suspicion, for acts that were just as likely committed by others. Internet connections are freely shared, with no automatic liability to the account holder.

    An internet connection is not a distinct object, who’s use and location can be definitely observed and controlled by the subscriber, let alone anyone else under normal circumstances. Indeed, an internet connection clearly extends well beyond the boundaries over which the subscriber has any control, into neighborhood circuits, and often into the open radio airwaves via wifi. The technology itself is both too etherial and too fallible to reasonably justify any direct liability for its usage. Furthermore, unauthorized usage of an internet connection will seldom leave any physical evidence, which leaves the subscriber in an indefensible position.

    It would be a radical change to implement the strict controls, protections, mandatory technological standards, and complex governing laws, for such automatic liability to be possible or just. So far, we have not seen the need to treat internet connections with the same level of tight control and legal rigor as vehicles, firearms, or explosives. I suggest that’s a good thing in almost every way possible.

    In conclusion:

    Most suggestions in favor of “three strikes” schemes casually make and rely upon the paired assertions that “we can tell who is sharing files” and that “people should be responsible for their internet connections”. Most public debate casually accepts this as a valid part of the discussion. BUT WE CAN’T TELL WHO IS SHARING FILES, AND THE HOLDER OF THE INTERNET ACCOUNT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.

    The realities of implementing a “three strikes” law, and whether it would be at all feasible or desirable, are much deeper questions, with extremely far reaching and serious implications. To suggest it so lightly is at best gross negligence, especially coming from people who claim to be informed experts on the matter. These suggestions are too often met with a straight face, when they should immediately disqualify anyone making them from further serious discussion. Worst, these issues are overlooked by the people we hire to lead our country and write our laws, ignored as though they don’t even exist. It gives me very little confidence in our leadership.

    Promoting a “three strikes” law is asking to create by legal fiat alone, a magical wand for corporate interests to make suspected file sharers magically disappear. It is a completely flawed and repugnant idea that flies in the face of both technological reality and justice.

  29. cndcitizen says:

    @exploderator comments should be an article itself.
    Nice summation, especially around the who controls the computer or internet. In 2007 it was estimated 50 million US computer users were infected with trojans, spyware and virus. Each of these normally have payloads that also include the ability to route traffic through the computer without the owners knowledge. Based on the groth patterns of computer uses, that would mean potentially 50 million US household account holders could be disconnected for 3 strikes.

    I spent 2 days cleaning up my aged father in laws computer and it was full of crap, slower then anything but on a top level high speed connection. Looking at his billing every month he was using almost all his bandwidth per month meaning something was happening. The only reason he has a computer was to do his banking (yes all his passwords are now changed and he has a virus scanner installed). Why does he has a high speed connection you ask….well they sold it to him because they said he needed it to do secure banking and fast email retrieval. I have dropped his plan down to basic connection.

    So with the above real world example, his computer has been used for a wide range of things, outside of his control or knowledge. If he was in the US or UK, his internet connection would probably be disconnected without any way for him to say anything. Granted at that time I should have took an image of his hard drive in case something like a 3 strikes comes in, but was more concerned with the compromised computer…Also how many companies image a computer before they wipe it to get rid of viruses…not many and if they do they don’t keep the image for ever.

    Anyway, good analysis Exploderator,

  30. @Craig
    Craig, you’ve illustrated my point. The only exemptions to allowing cracking of TPM do not allow for cracking for personal use. The closest of 41.16(a), which would permit cracking to make the work available to someone with a perceptual disability, and 41.14(1) to find and remove spyware. In the case of 41.14(1), the way it is worded, could limit my ability to remove a root-kit unless I could demonstrate that an exploit has been published for a flaw in the root-kit which would cause it to allow the collection or communication of personal information… and (I suspect) only then if I actually had personal information on the machine. Thus, his assertion that the provisions protecting the digital locks ate not unduly restrictive is, shall we say, optimistic… At the end of the day it allows a corporation to determine if I can exercise my rights under the law.

    If I want to crack a TPM at home to make a personal use copy, or to continue to use the work after the publisher has stopped supporting the TPM, that, while not explicitly illegal, is not possible unless I have the technical capability to develop the means to actually do so.

    @Shawn H Corey: How dramatic. Look up the applicable section of the Criminal Code of Canada.

    @exploderator: Well put. I am just waiting for the CRIA members to put up unprotected WiFi networks. Good time to go sit outside their offices and share, via a Torrent, files of a competitor.

  31. exploderator says:

    @ cndcitizen and Anon-K
    Thanks for the positive feedback. Suffice it to say this three strikes thing has been bugging me for a while, and this seems an apt place to try to put it to words properly. I’m elated to hear our master Moore has made the right proclamation for us peons (this time, so far). But the divide between what he says about it (why & how etc…), and any basic sane logic or reason (hopefully what I’m chasing), seems like a dangerous chasm into which I hope we are never pushed, unlike France and the UK (shudders). Just look at the legal hoops those folks are creating and jumping, just to try to put three strikes in play with even a vague semblance of justice. Utter madness. And still utterly bolloxed by the unfixable hackable technology. We just ain’t there yet folks. Hope they like the lottery, because 99.9% of the time, consumers won’t even have any evidence afterwards to try to prove their innocence, and the hackers will be coming on hard, wouldn’t want to risk their own connections now would they. I expect disaster, and a serious stifling of growth, as consumers desperately clamp down, trying to wriggle away from the ban hammer any way they can. So much fail, so much cost, and can’t stop a bloody thing anyways.

    So, forget waiting for CRIA to put up open wifi: google crack or hack wifi, grab ye some tools, and fill yer boots with bits, secure in the knowledge she won’t be bogged by just any passing scallywag, and that they’ll see no reason to close it down anytime soon, “hurr it has a passwurd durr we’re safe”. Not very likely they aren’t.

    Cheers. And I think DRM is just as bad as three strikes, every bit as sinister, but that’s for another day and much more homework.

  32. cndcitizen says:

    @Exploderator – It is not three strikes it is the basic for Canadian law…if you get rid of the evidence and the investigation on being criminal then you end up with corps saying what they want outside of actual laws of this great country.

  33. “Update: I received an email from Ms. Lavallée this afternoon indicating that the Canoe story did not fully capture her views. She says that three strikes is an option that should be discussed, but that she did not put it forward as a firm solution. ”

    Really?… well I would not put past “Le Journal de Montréal” to do something like putting words in an MP’s mouth(well stricly because it’s controlled by Québécor Media…) but it’s still anoying to see this not being rejected massively by all MPs…

    I guess however that discussing WHY 3 strikes is a really bad idea is a good idea just to shut RIAA/CRIA/MPAA/etc… off about something so patetic as to deny basic rights (mind you… killers have a better treatment in prison imo).

  34. Does the punishment suit the crime?
    Of course some murderers (Depending on circumstances) and certainly child mollestors and rapists get better treatment in prison, they get segregated for their own protection and don’t have to “deal” with general population. It should be those who commit non-violent crimes who are segregated for their protection. Our justice system is broken beyond repair anyway. At this rate we’re going to need separate prisons for file-sharers…at least that’s how they would have it. Remember, it’s a max of $5000 PER offence…I assume that will be per recording company. So you can have $5000 for MGM, $5000 for Electra, $5000 for Columbia/Tristar, $5000 for Anchor Bay, $5000 for Metal Blade, etc., etc., etc. What happens if you can’t pay? You will go to prison and could potentially share a cell with a violent criminal…seems like a balanced punishment. If the punishment is going to this extreme, I think they should have to PROVE that an infringer’s activity actually caused this much loss. Unfortunatly this is corporate law, where guilt is assumed and evidence is optional.

  35. ThreeStrikes says:

    Is easily abused. If it is passed in any form I will be the first to form a straw-man case for its absolute destruction.

    There are too many vulnerabilities in Consumer (and enterprise based) level desktop operating systems to point the finger at someone. Its is relatively easy to exploit any number of 1,000’s of vulnerabilities to hijack a neighbors (or political enemy’s) computer and do with this how you please. Worse of all, by covering ones tracks through foreign VPN’s and proxies – one will never be caught.

    I don’t see how you can feasibility pass a law that is enforceable, yet offers a defendant any reasonable defense.

    In addition you’re just going to make the thieves find all the loopholes in the law not to get caught:

    A simple work-around to most notice & notice laws would to to couple Public Domain works with copyrighted works into 1 torrent. Therefore any offender can reasonably state that they had selected only the Public Domain works to be downloaded and that’s why they where connected to that particular torrent. The data will be encrypted and aggregated amongst multiple users so that it would be impossible to tell which part was coming from whom, without breaking the Encryption laws which are being proposed. Even if they where to be broken, its simple enough to mask the data using hashing so that it’d be impossible to figure out if a particular IP address was actually an offender with certainty.

    Its waste of tax payer dollars, and the industry itself should look at alternate methods of making money off the public. Your distribution cost just went down to zero – why not figure out how to create a profitable business model based on that rather than crying to lawmakers?

  36. @ThreeStrikes
    “Your distribution cost just went down to zero”

    I’ve said this a few times, and this really is something copyright advocates aren’t considering as to why on-line piracy is an issue. Not only does distribution cost go down to pretty much zero, production cost is reduced substantially with no physical product and no packaging, middle-man distributors and associated mark-ups should be able to be removed from the picture since production companies should be serving their own content. Over-all the cost to the producer is substantially lower, why then is the digital copy the same price? Makes me crazy!!!

    Someone who cannot afford a physical copy will not be able to afford a digital copy…making the issue more complex is the requiremant by many of these sites for a credit card. Most low income families do not have credit cards and a large demographic for music is the student, few of which who actually have credit cards. Many resort to “piracy”, not to be devious or to defraud the maker, but because it’s the only option open to them. If someone can afford it and has a credit card; if they’re downloading now, they’ll probably continue to do so…it’s just how it is.