Quebec ISP To Terminate Subscribers Over Copyright 290
An anonymous reader writes "Quebecor, which owns Quebec's biggest ISP, has thrown in with Hollywood
interests by arguing for the 'graduated response' approach that would kick off subscribers based on three allegations of infringement. The company told Canada's telecom regulator that net neutrality rules are not needed since content blocking has social benefits, including the potential for
a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy."
Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Videotron for my own internet access. I disagree with their reasoning on this though. What I am more interested in is exactly why they (or any other ISP) would take this position? The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs, which is a win for them for obvious reasons.
But if they want to have that kind of power, then they would also make themselves at least somewhat liable for what their subscribers are doing over the internet. Do they really want to take on that liability to any degree? Or do they expect to be able to get the ability to throttle bandwidth while still not incurring any liability for user activities?
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:1, Insightful)
Liability? What liability? They get three valid complaints, they kick the infringer. This isn't them monitoring your communications, this is them responding to what they're already getting.
If anything, it lets them reduce their liability because they can always say "Yeah, we do eventually do something about copyright infringers who don't change their ways" .
good revenge tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Allegations? By whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sniff the wire and get your hogging neighbors bounced. Or that grll with no taste.
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you're using P2P for World of Warcraft updates? What if you're using P2P to download Linux distros? What if you use P2P to download music, videos and books that are public domain?
Will the ISPs really check the validity of the complaints or simple check for any P2P activity from their users?
Re:meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Crazy french people (Score:3, Insightful)
As a french Canadian (i.e. Québécois) who prefers to watch movies and TV shows in their original versions (be it french, english or japanese with french or english subtitles), I find your comment funny, insightful and scary.
Re:Allegations? By whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Users downloading creative commons or public domain material or Linux ISOs also typically use more bandwidth than regular users.
Huge bandwidth users != copyright infringement.
Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, there's a "disconnect" (har har) over what an internet connection means in 2009.
It's not cable TV. It's not your spa membership. This isn't 1997, where one's internet connection was a curiosity and a pastime; it's since assumed the role one's principal informational conduit with the outside world. You pay your bills with it, you file government documents and applications with it, you communicate with employers, employees, friends, and loved ones with it.
The burden of proof to take someone's internet access away, to force them to live in a non-connected world that no longer even exists, should be monumentally high. That it can be revoked simply on allegation of casual infringement on a copyright should be a lot more disturbing to people than it seems to be.
Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. (Score:2, Insightful)
+1. I'm a Videotron client, and all alternatives either suck (Bell), suck more (Videotron resellers), or have no choice but to suck (TekSavvy uses Bell infrastructures).
Currently, the only service provider with a good signal, less connection drops, and an overall good stability is Videotron. I will be the first to say that our DSL service with Bell is sometimes worse than accessing cellular internet - I kid you not. But aside from Bell (throttling b1tches), Bell resellers (poor them), Videotron (Quebecor obviously wants to push their own agenda) or Videotron resellers (Cogeco comes to mind, Radioactif too), we don't have much of a choice up here.
List of Bad ISP in Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Right here [azureuswiki.com]. Despite having friends working at Videotron, I believe the Quebecor empire [wikipedia.org] (more info in Fr [wikipedia.org]) is a bad one as a whole (e.g. newspaper consolidation), not only the ISP part.
wow. corporations deciding what's good for public (Score:5, Insightful)
get a load of that. private interests are the decider of what's good for society now.
that's what happens when you allow unbridled capitalism. if there is an unorderly chaos, a lack of authority, more powerful groups fill the gap and establish their own hierarchy. NO different than post roman empire chaos in which roman government wasnt able to restore order. in that feudal lords arose, establishing a new order. it was only in 1400s that central kings were able to establish a valid rule for the land, with the help of cannons, beating feudal lords and freeing them from the whims of robber barons.
today is no different. we have a king in the form of governments, which WE, as people, control, we have 'private interests', which are trying to assert their own authority in various aspects of social life, hiding behind capitalism, competition and free market excuses.
the only way that you can have EQUAL, FAIR environment is to bash feudal lords through your central hammer at your disposal - your federal government.
do it, and you wont live in a virtual feudal domain in your locale under whatever big group controls aspects of life. - for any fool that may err in thinking that they dont : almost all of the services&products you use in your daily life belongs to various corporations which are the holdings of various big megaholdings themselves.
Re:Crazy french people (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, heaven forbid that a group of people try to maintain and preserve their unique culture and heritage - just like China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries do.
Re:Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogy time:
If I park in someone's reserved space, then the property owner should be within his rights to call the towing company to get my car out of there. But then it should just be between the property owner and me; they send me a bill for the towing and that's it -- They shouldn't be able to call the secretary of state and have them revoke my driver's license so that I'm no longer a threat to reserved parking spaces.
Re:Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.
Maybe there is no alternative. But that doesn't matter. It then becomes a question of what is more important: respecting people's privacy and due process; or enforcing copyright law.
You don't have to be in the pro "download anything you want" camp to believe that privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important than copyright. You simply have to value those things more highly. The fact that many of us don't value copyright very much (because we view it as a flawed and oft-abused law) further tips the balance, such that there isn't a justification for revoking privacy and due process simply for the marginal and inconsistent protection of copyright.
Here's the question - how can anyone prove it?
Again, it needs to be emphasized: there isn't necessarily a solution. There isn't necessarily a way to totally enforce copyright without infringing people's rights. But this is hardly unique. There isn't any way to totally enforce any law without infringing people's rights. So for each law we must weigh the importance of the law against the personal freedoms or rights that may be infringed. So for instance many of us view automobiles as somewhat dangerous, and decide that reducing car accidents is sufficiently important that we will allow our freedoms to be somewhat restricted (licensed required to operate a car), and our privacy to be somewhat reduced (license plates, driver's license, etc.) in order to save lives. But there is a limit (we could perhaps reduce deaths even further if every car were constantly tracked; but I personally would view that as overly encroaching on my freedoms), even for laws I support.
In the case of copyright, it seems there is no way for it to continue to exist (and be enforced) without sacrificing more important ideals. Thus we need to either accept that these laws will not be enforceable, or we need to change these laws.
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
who cares? what's the difference of the sources until it's proven in court.
This throws that whole "is it legal" argument out the window in favor of screwing anyone the industry doesn't like.
You just illustrated the futility of what they are trying so hard to do.
They aren't actually trying to screw anyone whom the industry doesn't like. That people are also getting screwed is more of a side-effect. They're trying to eliminate a technology that the industry doesn't like. The thing about that, is that the cat is already out of the bag and isn't going back in. That's why this will fail.
Only one open question remains: how many people are going to suffer in one way or another before it is generally understood that this can't possibly work?
Conflicker worm to the rescue! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, seriously. Figure out what worm/malware is the most prolific in Quebecor's customer base.
Have that program dl a simple client that hooks up to a P2P network and begins asking for Britney Spears albums nonstop. Then watch as Quebecor's customer base drops to zero.
Remember, it's three allegations of copyright infringement that gets you bumped off their network. Not three proven incidents.
Perhaps this would show them the error in their policy.
Re:Typical (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is that even if we know how to scream, the monopolies still exist with us. Quebecor is the best example. They the most popular TV "news" channels and newspapers.
So yeah, we could scream as loud as we could, the message will not pass.
That being said, Quebecor has to respond to the CRTC, as every provider of Canada. And well, I never really know in favor of which side, the ISPs or the Canadians, the CRTC rules...
So in the worst case, in Quebec, we could have to chose between being throttled by Bell or "terminated" by Videotron.
Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crazy french people (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes they do when you are there. Quebec is different from the rest of Canada and even institutes mandates differently. There are a group of separatist in Quebec that attempt to make it as different from Canada as possible. Take bill 101 for instance. The British parliament created a rule for minority education in different languages so Quebec made French the "official language" and refused to allow English or any other version until it was challenged in the Canadian supreme court.
To this day, Quebec attempts to lock out English or other language speaking people even though the Bilingual act forbids it. If you attempt to do business with the Quebec government in any other language, you will get railroaded until you complain to Montreal and then you still don't get normal cooperation. At least that's the way it was in 2002-2003 when I last did business there.
Quebec, contrary to their fucked up ideas, are a province of Canada which has it's own rules that Quebec needs to follow too. It isn't that they have their own rules that is the problem, it's that they are in some cases ignoring the country's rules that are the problem. If something is a national law (and by national, I mean Canadian) then Quebec is supposed to be in compliance with it. Bill 101 is clearly in violation with federal constitution's bill of rights section 20. Bill 101 is the most obvious case and there are more.
Again, the problem isn't that they have their own ways, it's that their own ways conflict with the country's ways thereby pushing it on you. The option to move to another state or province because one is being hostile to the country's laws and constitution is absurd to say the least. If California all the sudden said English only or Spanish only, or arbitrarily decided that the 16th amendment need not apply, the rest of the US would be outraged and make the stop. Why Canada puts up with it, I will never know. Probably because too many people said if you don't like it, leave and they did.
Re:Old news (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not questionable at all. Despite what CIRA has been lying about, it's perfectly legal to download music and movies in Canada.
Uploading is NOT legal.
Now paging the /. legal team: Your Law and Order training is required below my post.
The private copying rules only apply to music, not movies.