Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Piracy Privacy Your Rights Online

Canada Prepares For Crackdown On BitTorrent Movie Pirates 292

Posted by Soulskill
from the nothing-else-to-do-until-the-NHL-stops-being-stupid dept.
New submitter dreamstateseven tips this Postmedia News report: "A forensic software company has collected files on a million Canadians who it says have downloaded pirated content. The company, which works for the motion picture and recording industries, 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. 'The door is closing. People should think twice about downloading content they know isn't proper,' said Barry Logan, managing director of Canipre, the Montreal-based forensic software company."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Prepares For Crackdown On BitTorrent Movie Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • Suck my pirate dick (Score:5, Informative)

    by atari2600a (1892574) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:18PM (#42111951)
    $100 for 10 movies, or $10 for a VPN for 100 movies?
    • by gagol (583737) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:22PM (#42111989)
      Since Canada have provisions and special taxes to alleviate piracy's impact, good luck in court.
      • by Trepidity (597)

        The taxes appear to only apply to physical media, however, and only to music. So it's legal to copy music onto a blank CD or cassette for personal use, but not to copy in other circumstances. The Copyright Board was planning to extend the tax to iPods, which would make it legal to copy for personal use onto them as well, but that was overturned [canada.com].

        • The taxes appear to only apply to physical media, however, and only to music. So it's legal to copy music onto a blank CD or cassette for personal use, but not to copy in other circumstances. The Copyright Board was planning to extend the tax to iPods, which would make it legal to copy for personal use onto them as well, but that was overturned [canada.com].

          Yes, the taxes are on physical media, but they cover the distribution and use of all those bits and bytes. It implicitly covers computers as the medium where the music is stored prior to being transferred to a disc. Since we're looking at "reasonable doubt" territory, can a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the music was never intended to go onto CDs?

          And while it technically does apply only to mp3s, the RCMP has stated that they're not actively pursuing individual infringement [arstechnica.com] - and they're

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by JimCanuck (2474366)

          Our Supreme court ruled that P2P and other user to user file sharing services of copyright material is legal.

          This is a non-story.
          • by rikkards (98006)

            Citation please? Serious question though as I don't recall that.

            • by JimCanuck (2474366) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:36PM (#42113097)

              http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6593/125/ - General copying for personal use at schools etc.
              http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/june62005.html - Giving up the identities of individual file sharers.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_Canada_Inc._v._John_Doe - File Sharing Specifically, the first such court case that reached that level of the courts and struck down the notion that file sharing is actively trying to rip off and profit from sharing files on a computer, whether copyrighted or not.
          • by mhotchin (791085)

            No, they ruled that *downloading* material is legal. Uploading is still illegal.

            • by JimCanuck (2474366) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:39PM (#42113133)
              No BMG Canada Inc v John Doe proved that sharing on a P2P system is legal. There is no distinction between uploading or downloading in that ruling.

              Advertising copyrighted material for copying is illegal, which is why posting copyrighted music for download on a website it illegal as your intentionally advertising it for download (same with TPB/Demonoid etc which is why Demonoid wen't to the Ukraine in the end). You are not intentionally advertising the files on a P2P shared folder, unless someone else looks for it so it's "legal".
            • by Dunbal (464142) *
              Good thing I'm a leech then isn't it?
      • by kawabago (551139) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:42PM (#42112195)
        If the entertainment industry starts suing people then I'll start downloading stuff up to the full value of the media levy I've paid. If we all do that then suing people should drive away customers and money from the entertainment industry, the opposite of what they want.
        • by hughJ (1343331)
          If only downloading something actually cost the entertainment industry money, I would download 10x as much just out of spite.
      • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:53PM (#42112319) Journal

        You are mistaken.

        The levy that you pay on blank media in Canada exists to compensate Canadian artists for private copying. It might alleviate the impact of piracy as side effect, but that is not the purpose of the levy.

        Under C-11, however, which is now evidently law in Canada, practically all private copying of newer media forms is illegal, since for many newer media forms, copying can necessitate bypassing some forms of copy protection, which under C-11 is illegal, without exceptions for private copying (the law is even explicitly says so, in fact). Therefore, the levy applies to an activity that Canadians cannot even generally lawfully participate in, as an ever increasing amount of content is published on digital media.

        This makes the levy illegal, for all practical intents and purposes. The Conservative Party of Canada has tried scrap the levy before, before they had a majority government, but they have not brought the issue up since the last Federal election.

        • So basically now they have the power to effect change on their own given to them by the people of Canada, they've back down to the CRIA?
        • by Mad Merlin (837387) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:39PM (#42112683) Homepage

          Yes, that is the disgustingly awful part about C-11, but you missed the upside:

          The goverment eventually arrived a trade-off that most Canadians would make: a tougher provision to target sites that facilitate infringement (the law already allows rights holders to do this) in return for a full cap on liability for non-commercial infringement. This applies not only to individuals (likely bringing to an end the prospect of file sharing lawsuits in Canada) but to any non-commercial entity including educational institutions and libraries (who may adopt more aggressive interpretations of the law with less risk of liability).

          Emphasis mine, see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]

          • by Jartan (219704)

            A cap of $5000 is not going to discourage them from phoning you up and pushing you into a quick settlement.

            • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @09:51AM (#42116245)
              It's important to note that the cap of $5000 is for all infringement up to the point the lawsuit is filed. Not $5000 per infringement. And even then, the new bill C-11 contains instructions to judges on determining statutory damages to consider the personal nature of the infringement and how much it actually damaged the plaintiff. That $5000 judgment could go all the way down to $100. You won't be seeing any "$2 million for downloading two dozen songs" bullshit, so that's something.
      • by poetmatt (793785)

        except that Canipre's data won't hold up anywhere, so acting like any single ruling is going to impact everything means that yes, court wont' even be a concern.

        Canipre's speaking of imagination if they think they can go after pirates without excessive retaliation.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:20PM (#42112547) Homepage Journal

      No matter how big you get, how healthy your economy, how great your health care and how happy your people, you will never ever be free of your servitude to multinational corporations.

      If you get that through your thick bohunk skulls you'll save yourself a lot of grief later. The USA circa 1980-2012 wants you to know that the more you resist, the more it will hurt.

      Your borders, your sovereignty, don't mean shit.

      And for the people of Canada, you can congratulate yourselves all you want for creating a wonderful progressive paradise, but when the guys with big money say "Jump" your politicians are still going to get on their knees and start sucking. Or something.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Indeed, this Canadian just prepared for the crackdown by setting up a shiny brand new vpn to the Netherlands and or Sweden.

  • by caseih (160668) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:20PM (#42111975)

    Just as in the US, in Canada there's no such thing as "illegal downloading." Guess it's lucky for the copyright cartels that the most popular way to download a movie is with bittorrent which, conveniently-enough, involves uploading (making available).

    In general, though, I wish the media would stop parroting the general idea that it's illegal to download copyrighted materials. It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:39PM (#42112157)

      It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.

      A crime punishable by 30 years in the electric chair under new copyright legislation.

      • by jamstar7 (694492) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:45PM (#42112229)

        It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.

        A crime punishable by 30 years in the electric chair under new copyright legislation.

        Not to mention, they stick your heirs with the electric bill.

        • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:26PM (#42112607)

          Not to mention, they stick your heirs with the electric bill.

          That assumes there's anything left I can put in my will. "To my beloved, one cracker, dry, slightly used. To my three children, whom I put up for adoption after being convicted, 12 scratch-off lottery tickets, pre-scratched, not winning. And to the recording industry, I bequeath my massive 3,000 ton collection of pig poop, collected over many years because it was the only thing that the bankrupcy judge let me keep, thinking it had now value... which is currently being sprayed on everything in the parking lot and the entrances and emergency escapes of the building you are reading this in. Lovingly yours, Me. P.S. You left your windows down."

    • by mark-t (151149)
      Only for the time being. I believe that it's just a matter of time before the laws governing copyright infringement are amended so that simply knowingly making a copy of any infringing content, regardless of the purpose of the copy, is illegal too.
  • Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fredprado (2569351) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:21PM (#42111981)
    So CRIA will start suing end users in the same way RIAA did in US, accomplishing probably the same results regarding piracy deterrence: none. Good idea...
    • Since the CRIA is composed of the exact same companies as the RIAA, it would be shocking if they didn't use the same tactics.
  • by c0lo (1497653) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:22PM (#42111991)

    People should think twice about downloading content they know isn't proper

    If the content is improper for viewing when pirated, how can one imagine obtaining it from a legit source would make it proper?
    (in other words: what incentive do I have to move my ass in a movie theater chair or buy it on disk?)

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:57PM (#42112357)

      (in other words: what incentive do I have to move my ass in a movie theater chair or buy it on disk?)

      Large civil fines ensure you'll always be bankrupt. Anything over $10,000 can't be discharged in the US; Not sure about Canada, but I suspect a similar limitation. Any significant assets you own will be seized. You won't be able to own a car worth more than a few grand, you'll never own a house; You'll be renting forever. Your wages will be garnished to ensure you are never able to acquire anything of value, or pay for your own health insurance (thank god you live in canada!). You will never receive another tax refund. Certain career choices will be unavailable to you, including anything in the government that requires a security clearance, work in the finance industry, or anything involving the handling of money or "crimes of trust." You may be denied a passport or visa, and will likely be unable to immigrate to any other country due to your debt (believe it or not, your credit report does matter when it comes to naturalization, just like any trouble with the law, even civil law). You will be summoned to court on a very regular basis to detail your financial situation to your debtors (the entertainment companies), and should you fail to show for any reason including being in a coma in a hospital, a bench warrant will be issued for your arrest. You will stay in jail for weeks to months until a hearing can be rescheduled. You will likely lose your job many times over the course of your life, and custody of your kids (if you have any).

      So there's your incentive. Now, that said, it wouldn't be a fair analysis without telling you what your odds of being caught, prosecuted, and a judgement placed against you are. File sharing is one of the most popular and widespread online activities there is, and the legal system can only process so many cases per month. It will take many years to decades of this kind of enforcement activity before your lifetime risk of being hauled into court leave the single digit percentages.

      As for me: I don't negotiate with terrorists; And terror is the weapon of choice for these people. Whether you do it with a bomb or a pen isn't relevant. They could make the penalty 30 years in the electric chair and it wouldn't change my behavior. But I'm not a normal person... normal people cave like a house of cards. It's your choice... but mine is to download, share, and annoy the hell out of them.

      • by fred911 (83970)

        " Your wages will be garnished to ensure you are never able to acquire anything of value, or pay for your own health insurance (thank god you live in canada!)."

        There's no garnishment for civil judgments in many states (most of the commonwealths) in the US.

      • by c0lo (1497653) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:08PM (#42112451)

        (in other words: what incentive do I have to move my ass in a movie theater chair or buy it on disk?)

        Large civil fines ensure you'll always be bankrupt. Anything over $10,000 can't be discharged in the US; Not sure about Canada, but I suspect a similar limitation. Any significant assets you own will be seized. You won't be able to own a car worth more than a few grand, you'll never own a house; You'll be renting forever. Your wages will be garnished to ensure you are never able to acquire anything of value, or pay for your own health insurance (thank god you live in canada!). You will never receive another tax refund. Certain career choices will be unavailable to you, including anything in the government that requires a security clearance, work in the finance industry, or anything involving the handling of money or "crimes of trust." You may be denied a passport or visa, and will likely be unable to immigrate to any other country due to your debt (believe it or not, your credit report does matter when it comes to naturalization, just like any trouble with the law, even civil law). You will be summoned to court on a very regular basis to detail your financial situation to your debtors (the entertainment companies), and should you fail to show for any reason including being in a coma in a hospital, a bench warrant will be issued for your arrest. You will stay in jail for weeks to months until a hearing can be rescheduled. You will likely lose your job many times over the course of your life, and custody of your kids (if you have any).

        So there's your incentive.

        No, those are disincentives. Since I've done nothing wrong, however you can't just wait to punish me, I'll tell you what I do: completely ignore your merchandise and never do any business with you.

        Think twice: a significant number of others may start thinking like me.

      • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:27PM (#42112615)

        TFA says that the statutory limit for damages for non-commercial infringement is $5000, and that they're going to go after habitual downloaders. $5000 is less than the limit for small claims court, meaning that if you decide to challenge it, they will have to take it to small claims court where "expert witnesses" won't be allowed. Just their lawyer, your lawyer, and about 15 minutes a side to make your case because there's 30 other cases on the docket that day. (yes, I have been in a Canadian small claims court).

        There's well over $5000 worth of DVD's in my collection. Physical media, most of which was bought at full retail price (and in some cases, well over retail price because it was a "special edition" box set). If those idiots decide to try to sue me because I downloaded a copy of True Lies (disc was scratched and I couldn't rip it when I was digitizing my physical copy), I'll be quite amused to see what the courts say about it. The reason there's nothing new in the collection isn't that I'm downloading movies, it's because the movies that they're making these days are crap.

      • by zentigger (203922)

        Under C11, statutory damages are now limited to $5000 for non-commercial infiringement, so there's not a lot of incentive for the rights holders to pursue litigation.

  • by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:29PM (#42112051)

    I really would like to see organized resistance and civil disobedience to the Media cartels, and a campaign to paint them as the evil monsters they are.

    I happen to think that RIAA, MPAA, CRIA, and BREIN are Scoundrels, of the same vein as the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Taliban, and other hate based organizations that use a religious or quasi-religious basis just like religion does to persuade people that they should be paid forever and ever and ever for a non-product, and for what really is an economically stilted scam meant to drain the poor, oppress other people, abuse children, ruin people's lives over a non-reason. Efforts should be taken by interest groups to dismantle these organizations.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maz2331 (1104901) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:33PM (#42112089)

    Your litigation campain advocates a

    ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante (x) legal

    approach to fighting piracy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

    (x) Torrent sites will change to a new protocol
    (x) They don't have the money to settle or pay damages
    (x) Open wi-fi access points
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    (x) Litigation is not actually a deterrent to teenagers
    (x) Your evidence collection methods are open to attack in court
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    ( ) Requires too much cooperation from judges
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many ISPs cannot afford to lose business
    ( ) Pirates don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
    (x) Bad press when you sue a grandmother for what a 10 year old does

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the net
    (x) Open proxies in foreign countries
    (x) Tor and darknets
    (x) Asshats
    (x) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
    (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
    ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    ( ) Extreme profitability of piracy
    ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business you
    ( ) Dishonesty on the part of pirates themselves
    ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
    (x) Any scheme based on mass lawsuits and prosecution is unacceptable
    ( ) IP headers should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Sending data should be free
    (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) I don't want the government reading my packets
    ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
    house down!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:34PM (#42112099)

    I didn't think there were that many people in Canada. Isn't it mostly populated by sheep and bears?

  • Illegal activities! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:35PM (#42112119)

    Once again, we see these unlicensed "private investigators" working behind closed doors with no oversight. They make lists of "IP numbers" with zero proof that anyone ever did anything wrong. This fake detective work is completely wrong and illegal. They (the criminal shakedown scammers) should be arrested and made to pay back all the money they have stolen. And go to prison for a long time too.

  • by Freshly Exhumed (105597) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:36PM (#42112133) Homepage

    The company name rhymes with canape, but I cannot help but read it as "Can I Prey!"

    Anyways, Google Street View shows that their head office appears to be a mail box in a post office that is part of a corner store at 15410 Pierrefonds Blv, Montreal, QC so I guess I won't be ordering them a few thousand pizzas.

    • by cbeaudry (706335)

      Its not a PO box. Its a suite. However i don't know the company, but in that same building there is a sushi shop, convenience store, bakery
      , bankruptcy agency AND a Thai massage parlor... With happy ending!!!

    • Every article has the same content, and links back to a post media story. I haven't been able to find a press release, and the case doesn't have a citation, so it looks like a "placed" story, to offset the limits on copyright infringement suits imposed by bill C-11.

      Generally, one has to commence a suit, then go to court and ask for an order, addressed to a particular ISP, to obtain contact information for specific customers. Otherwise you need an extraordinary remedy, a so-called Norwich order (see Slaw,

    • Canpire = Canadian Vampire. Sucking on the blood of the flow of the Internet.

      Wonder if sunlight (exposure) will turn them to ash too....?

  • what if they dont know its not proper?

    tv movies are a good example, they broadcast to you for free, maybe someone thinks "hey here is Stephen Kings IT on the web, lets watch that", they are now unknowingly being a movie pirate

    • by mark-t (151149)
      The "I didn't know" excuse won't fly forever.

      If the same person keeps passing counterfeit bills, and whenever he's caught, he keeps claiming that he didn't know... eventually there's going to be an investigation... and they might just stop believing the person.

  • *facepalms* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lightknight (213164) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:46PM (#42112245) Homepage

    Indeed, the door is closing, on the entertainment industry employing these types. They've seen how ineffective these firms are, how they've pissed off their customers, how they've gotten nothing but bad PR, how piracy actually increased their bottom line (sans lawsuits), and generally idiotic the entire enterprise has been.

    The MPAA (and friends) looks the other way, their wallet is fatter. They do not, and it's thinner. So, why would they pay money for someone to make them poorer? Dumb.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yep, i've said it a million times, making your customers angry is not good business. ever.
      look at companies like steam, Happy customers=$
      Suing customers = your fucking your own ass.

      it's not a hard concept.

  • I would like to pay a fair pirice for good content, and not pay a dime for the terrible content. Also not be forced to use a myriad of players/accounts. Deliver it in mkv/mp4 using a common service where I can pay for the exact tv-shows and movies I want. Make it easier to get it the way I want it legally than pirating it and I won't bother to torrent anything. Make this the only way to get the tv-shows so if people start pirating their favourite content it will bite them by that content going away.
  • How is this legal for them to pursue litigation for something I can get freely from legitimate sources? My local public library has all the same movies on BluRay I can get from TPB. I can watch all the same TV shows (more, in fact) online, streaming, from legitimate sources for free as well...
    • by mark-t (151149)
      The content you get from your library or that is put online by networks does not infringe on copyright. In all but extremely specific examples, however, any of the same content that you'd be able to download via pirate bay is infringing. Good luck trying to argue that you didn't realize that.
      • by Chaonici (1913646)

        Actually, to the average person who is ignorant of the nuances of copyright law, I can fully understand the connection being made between file sharing and public libraries. What, that download was a lost sale? How wasn't it a lost sale when I checked the book/movie/game out of the library and read/watched/played it?

        • by mark-t (151149)
          Only a very naive person would contend that copyright infringement equates a lost sale. It is not.... especially since the same copyright penalties can apply even to infringement on free content, where no "sale" is even applicable.
  • At one time Canada used to be a good place.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:00PM (#42112395)

    Someone with access to MaxMind or something similar look up the IP blocks owned by this "Canipre" company and post them here. Then everyone can start hosting torrents with a spoofed return IP that's in their range. Once they start pulling down their own IP ranges maybe they'll figure out just how fucking stupid this idea is.

  • which applies to making private copies for your own use of sound recordings of musical works we need a new file type that only plays the audio of the file but needs a password to unlock the video. This way all Canadians can still download the move and listen to is as an audio book but if if they are brave enough get the pass code to unlock the video. Or better yet a video player that fetches the pass code real time whenever you play the file.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mark-t (151149)

      You may want to review bill C-11... which became law just this fall. Specifically, note that the prohibitions on copy protection circumvention extend even to the point of preventing personal and private use.

      Oddly enough, bill C-11 makes the levy illegal, since it is charging Canadians for something that they cannot generally lawfully do.

  • by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:20PM (#42112543) Homepage

    wave the the extortion letters? Pay us $3000 or go to jail. I'll keep on downloading. If they bankrupt me I'll give be a incentive to grow weed and make my money that way. I can live comfortably with 4 1000W lights running.

  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:41PM (#42112693)

    What the hell are they wasting people's tax dollars (through the courts) on? What the hell are they suing people over? Copying data? What a good use of time, money, and resources! Thank you for tackling this national security emergency!

  • by rueger (210566) * on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:51PM (#42112747) Homepage
    Why this really pisses me off: just bought a new Sony Blu-Ray player, and especially chose one with WIFI and NetFlix built in.

    I now discover that because I'm in Canada I can only choose from one quarter of the movies and shows available in the US. [blogspot.ca]

    The total number of entries for Canada is currently 2687 movies/shows . The total number of entries for USA is currently 10407 movies/shows. Same price, one quarter the movies.

    When I can get the same choice, at the same price, I'll be more than happy to pay my $8 a month. Until then the media corps can suck eggs.
  • I did some quick math based on the numbers on the Statistics Canada website. Apparently there are 4.5 Million households in Canada. 80% of those had Internet access in 2011(that includes people with dialup folks...) So that's 3.6Million households. So you are telling me they have 1 million IP addresses? Are they really thinking of prosecuting1/3 of the Canadian population? Sketchy...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Always remember to fire up PeerBlock before visiting PirateBay or starting up Bit Torrent.
    They only go after the low hanging fruit, don't be it.

  • They NEED a WARRANT (Score:4, Informative)

    by CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:54PM (#42113267)

    General Inquiries
    canipre@canipre.com
    647.693.0727

    Robin Berry
    Senior Director, Operations
    rberry@canipre.com

    Media Inquiries
    media@canipre.com

    going to contact these people with the legal aspects of privacy law of canada and let them know that its against the law to knowingly gather information on a person OR IP especially since your scanning hte user to know they are using a certain protocol.

    Scanning without a warrant or private investigators liscense ( still questionable without a warrant ) is illegal.

    MAKE SURE YOU get a lawyer and have them look into scanning and info gathering without a warrant.

  • by msobkow (48369) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @01:44AM (#42113899) Homepage Journal

    I've purchased over 5,000 CDs and over 3,000 DVDs, as well as about 500 VHS tapes in my life. Prices back then weren't cheap, either, especialy for the VHS tapes. They were a "new thing." Same with DVDs when they came out.

    I've spent over $150,000 on media over the years.

    If I live to be 100, that would be 1200 months of payments. Near as I can figure, I've already paid $125/month from the cradle to the grave for media.

    Just when is enough enough?

  • The Wolf at the Door (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0111 1110 (518466) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @03:18AM (#42114233)

    The half wolf, half pig creature looked up into the rolling meadows. As far as its hungry, greedy eyes could see were beasts of burden. Thousands of grey-white furry forms like the swirls in a wide, muddy stream. The hungry animal wished it could eat all of them. It roared/squeeled, not bothering with a stealthy approach.

    Then it broke into a sprint and soon had an unlucky calf in its jaws, it's hot blood still pumping from its neck in spurts. The rest of the herd gradually dispersed. Although one was taken the rest were protected by their sheer numbers. Herd/swarm behavior evolved relatively quickly in the animal world because, at least for the majority, it works. Most of the animals worried little about being taken by predators and just went on with their lives. Someday it may be their turn, but the odds were against it.

"Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." -- Goethe

Working...