Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Government Media Music The Courts News

Canadian ISP to Name Music Swappers 329

Posted by Zonk from the i-wish-my-isp-had-a-cool-name dept.
Daemon writes "The Globe and Mail reports that Videotron, a Canadian ISP, will not be fighting the request to turn over the names of music swappers to the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). According to a lawyer for Videotron, producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly that they believe that it is justifiable to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs on-line. The five Internet service providers named in the case -- Shaw Communications, Rogers Cable Communications, Bell Canada, Telus Communications and Videotron -- can't divulge the information without a court order because privacy legislation requires them to keep customer information sealed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian ISP to Name Music Swappers More

Canadian ISP to Name Music Swappers

Comments Filter:

  • Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Intron ( 870560 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:15AM (#12312843)
    Shaw Cable is the source of a lot of the spam that I see. I think people should just vote with their feet on this one.
    • but it's Videotron that is going to cave on this. Shaw is just another ISP being sued along with Videotron. No need even to RTFA on that one.
    • They're actually rather decent at listening to complaints, though; I know of at least one despicable company they booted from their BigPipe service for spamming. That company went bankrupt, then the owner started a new company (one that I had the distinct displeasure of working at) that Shaw had blacklisted.

      Almost didn't get my resume in because of that. I should have taken it as a sign; it took a year of fighting with the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour on my side to get paid.

      Anyway
    • I use Shaw. My roommate and I are both students and we use our fair share of their bandwidth on bittorrent. Some months we use 120+ gigs, which I am sometimes ashamed to say is outrageous. Occasionally we get a phone call letting us know that we haven't just passed the line, but destroyed it. I say "Fuck, it must be spyware or something" and thats the end of it. They are a good company in my opinion, and not because they are naive and let me rip off songs. They know what is going on, and it seems they just

    • Shaw fights hardest for user privacy (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dav3K ( 618318 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:22AM (#12313552)
      I did vote with my feet - and became a Shaw subscriber. You see, Shaw is the one ISP in Canada that is fighting the hardest against the requests being made by the CRIA. Of the five big players in the ISP market, Videotron sides closest with the CRIA, and Shaw is the farthest. The others (Telus, Bell) are playing a wait-and-see game.

      • Re:Shaw fights hardest for user privacy (Score:4, Informative)

        by InvalidError ( 771317 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @01:10PM (#12315252)
        One major problem with Videotron: it is owned by Quebecor, one of the biggest media company in Canada.

        (As if being a cable TV provider and video club chain were not already sufficient motivation for wanting to keep online media "locked up".)

        It sort of sucks and I would cancel my Videotron service if any comparable service was available... but right now, the next best thing is 75% slower and nearly as expensive.
      • Honestly, flaimbait as this must be, I think people who get caught illegally swapping deserve it... you people are talking about the invasion of your privacy... as if you have the right to illegally distribute music. If you get away with it, then good for you. No real harm done. If you get caught, don't bitch, it is illegal. Just like smokin marijuanna.. It's so good to get away with, but you expect to get in trouble if you're caught. *shrug*

    • Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sefert ( 723060 )
      Gotta agree with the others here. Shaw is not only very civilized when it comes to dealing with overages (and polite!) when they could do evil stuff like just tack on extra charges to your bill without talking to you about it, but having moved around a lot and dealt with lots of ISP's, I would be a happy man to be living in an area where Shaw was available again. I was one of their first 100 customers in Canada (as an ISP of course) and still see them as second to none. Most importantly - the other dud

    • Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rac3r5 ( 804639 )
      I duuno bout u dude.. but I've been using Shaw for a while now and I am very happy no complains at all.

      I used to use Telus DSL but that was just horrible. At first I was getting a decent speed, about 600 Kb/s on a bandwidth test, after a while I kept on getting super slow speeds 200 Kb/s when I did a bandwidth test. I called their tech support like a number of times and they dispatched their ppl almost immideatedly and each one kept on giving me different answers.

      1 Person would tell me that its cause I am

    • Fight back (Score:5, Interesting)

      by itistoday ( 602304 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @11:38AM (#12314344) Homepage
      Though admittedly this is a shameless plug (please forgive), I've created a website for just this purpose. BlackListedISP.com [blacklistedisp.com] is where you can go to see which ISPs are compromising your privacy without a fight. Currently you can just submit ISPs, but soon I'll have a page up with a full list.

  • Under canadian law they're shielded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:15AM (#12312844)
    Canada is the one place in the world that you're actually shielded from being sued because you use file sharing software. So this is a scare tactic.

    • Re:Under canadian law they're shielded (Score:5, Informative)

      by digidave ( 259925 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:25AM (#12312953)
      Only downloaders are protected. Uploading is at best a grey area, but it's likely that someone could be successfully sued for uploading vast amounts of copyrighted material.
      • No-one uploads.

        File sharers simply advertise their willingness to participate with anyone in manufacturing a new copy of a file on the requestor's machine.

        This act has never been tested in court as a copyright infringement.

        But, hey, who can afford to take things that far?

        • Re:Under canadian law they're shielded (Score:5, Informative)

          by srmalloy ( 263556 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:51AM (#12313246) Homepage
          No-one uploads.
          File sharers simply advertise their willingness to participate with anyone in manufacturing a new copy of a file on the requestor's machine.
          This act has never been tested in court as a copyright infringement.
          But, hey, who can afford to take things that far?

          As I understand it, Canadians pay a surcharge on recordable media (DVD-R, CD-R, etc., and tapes, both audio and video), with this surcharge purportedly to be paid out to copyright holders. If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid? So if you transferred the music file from someone else's computer to a CD-RW in your machine, it would be protected, but not if you transferred the file to the hard drive on your machine?

          Of course, you could burn the file to CD-RW, being protected through having paid the surcharge, and then copy the file back to your hard drive, which would be protected under fair use. But you'd have to be able to produce a copy of the file on CD/DVD/tape if you were charged...

          • No, that is not the case. At the moment, just the fact that we have the surcharge protects us.
          • If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid?

            As I see it, the tax is just a compensation for the fair use right.

            It's not that illogical, because it would be naive to think nobody would abuse, however IMHO the tax is too high here in France, but you then have the right to copy a media you've rent.

            That's why we have media marked "not for rent" (don't know if you've th

          • But they aren't after the people who download music... it's the people who upload. The levy doesn't grant rights to distribute copyrighted material.

          • If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid?
            I am not a Canadian lawyer, but it seems reasonable. However, since the Internet made national borders obsolete, you have to bare in mind that you're transferring music abroad (assuming you accept the definition of "uploading" which I don't). It might be worth checking if Canada has any international agreements that would be

          • Re:Under canadian law they're shielded (Score:5, Informative)

            by Secret Agent 99 ( 855215 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:43AM (#12313770)
            From a Copyright Board ruling [cb-cda.gc.ca]:

            "The exemption in section 80 applies only when a copy is made for the private use of the person making it. This expressly excludes selling, renting out, exposing for trade or rental, distributing, communicating to the public by telecommunication, or performing in public the copy made. This means that making a copy of a CD of the latest release by the hottest star to give to one's friend is still an infringing action, as it is not a copy for personal use. In the same vein, distributing this same copy to friends online is prohibited." (page 23)


            The same ruling mentions that permitted private copies don't actually need to be made onto levied media. (DVD-R, BTW, is not a levied medium.)

            "Section 80" is section 80 of the Copyright Act, which says:


            80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

            (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

            (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

            (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

            onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

            Limitation

            (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

            [...]

            (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

            [...]


            (Link to Copyright Act, Section 80 [justice.gc.ca])

            Another tidbit that may or may not be relevant: Private Copying under Canada's Copyright Act specifically applies to sound recordings. Nothing is said about video. (We just assume that time-shifting and the like is OK, so we do it.)

            Also, there's no such thing as "Fair Use" in Canada. We have "Fair Dealing", which is similar, only different. Most of what's spelled out regarding fair dealing pertains to educational institutions, libraries, and researchers, not individuals. Though "private study" may be mentioned.

            IANAL.

    • The silver lining... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:55AM (#12313294)
      Although no one would seriously want to be exposed as a 'criminal' by the five corporations that control the world's music recordings, the only good aspect of being on this list is that you will be one of the few people that the music industry will hire to restructure their industry when they (finally) realize that their current business model simply doesn't work anymore.

      One thing that the music industry doesn't seem to understand is that the MP3-P2P revolution has changed the way that people think about buying music recordings. In other words, the market is not going to go back to the way that it was ten years ago. If they do manage to stop all the file-sharing, it no longer follows that the file traders are going to restart buying recordings in the way that their older siblings and parents did previously. They will find other areas such as video games to spend their entertainment budgets.

      It doesn't matter to the global entertainment corporations where people spend their entertainment budgets, because they own the entire global entertainment industry . They're going to get the money anyway; whether it comes from recordings, movies, concerts, games, whatever. It's just a matter of time before this concept sinks in on the upper management levels of the entertainment corporations and they tell the recording division executives to finally stop harrassing their customers to the point where those customers will make a focused effort to avoid buying any product produced by the company. This is the only real scenario that they have to worry about.

      Eventually the copyright situation will change from micropayments from individual recordings (sorry, superstars) to a more cloud-like revenue stream shared by all the musicians of a particular genre. Recordings will be sold in giga-byte chunks with less emphasis placed on individual musician's product and more on 'bulk' collections of recordings of the same type of music. In a manner not unlike today's swapping of hard disks full of MP3 files among music collectors.

  • Where now? (Score:3, Funny)

    by M0riarty ( 850969 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:16AM (#12312853)
    Uh-oh, looks like we're not safe in Canada anymore

  • Note to self... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stick_Fig ( 740331 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:16AM (#12312857) Homepage
    Don't subscribe to Videotron, because they don't give a shit about my rights.

    • Re:Note to self... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:23AM (#12312942) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. But what I can't figure out is how they are getting away with this at all. I thought that PIPEDA [privcom.gc.ca] protected us from this sort of nonsense. A business can't divulge personal information about employees or customers without REALLY GOOD reason, or they risk rather steep fines.
    • Also note that they have Bandwidth Limits in their their Internet Access Plans! [videotron.com]

      "Monthly use of 20 GB download and 10 GB upload**
      **$7.95 per additional gigabyte, up to a maximum of $30 per month."

    • Re:Note to self... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sepper ( 524857 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:36AM (#12313078) Journal
      I doesn't suprise me at all. Videotron is owned by Quebecor Media Inc. [wikipedia.org] which also own (Suprise!) Archambault stores that sells CD and books... AND 'Le SuperClub Vidéotron' (DVD and VHS movie rental stores)

      Summary: Nothing to see here, move along...
    • Don't subscribe to Videotron, because they don't give a shit about my rights.

      No kidding! That's why I switched to DSL. One of their silly "can't do that" rules: You can't use a router at home. Woops. That means I can't use Airport? Screw them, I said ;)

      I know, you can still plug in a router and they wouldn't notice, but it's a pain when you have to call support and they tell you to do this and that on your computer, etc when you're just calling to say their service is down. Actually, at one point in time
    • i stopped using videotron a long time ago when i realized they don't care at all about their customers..

      putting rediculous caps on bandwidth and giving the boot those those who used too much.. even though they advertised it as high speed internet.

      bell has no cap and charges the same price, i don't understand why people still use videotron..
      • Lot's of reasons to not use Bell's Sympatico.

        Slow connection, nowhere near the speed of Videotron for one. They haven't been able to offer me a stable connexion in my area which is pretty urban. They can't provide to many resident's either who are stuck in a monopoly with videotron as a result.

        I stopped using sympatico the day that they decided to cap the download limit to 5 gigs (which at the time was less then Videotron) and increased the price. I know they came back on that policy but not before losing

    • Re:Note to self... (Score:4, Informative)

      by addie ( 470476 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:59AM (#12313335)
      There are countless reasons not to subscribe to Videotron. Though slightly off topic, here are my experiences:

      1) On and off internet service for 6 months. The service rep came to my apartment three times, found no issues, and said that it was probably just a temporary issue. He also said that it could be related to the strike of service people that had been going on.
      2) Charged for cable television. The first day I got my bill for cable internet, I got a separate bill for cable TV. After 9 months of writing letters, the bill continued to arrive and reached almost $1k, though my net bill was paid on time each month. They only stopped bothering me once I explained the situation to the collection agency they hired.
      3) Inefficient administration. When I requested a copy of the contract they claimed I signed regarding cable TV, they said that they didn't have one, and it was my responsibility to keep my copy.
      4) Horrific customer service. When trying to solve that problem with the TV bills, I spent a total of 8 hours on the telephone over two days and not once got a satisfactory response or was treated like a human being. I was transferred from department to department, and often told that it was impossible for me to be receiving a bill for a service I didn't request.

      I realize that the same complaints could be made about many different service providers, but I have never had the problems that I did with Videotron. I am now a Bell Sympatico subscriber, and entirely satisfied. This is just yet another example of Videotron taking the easy way out, and not standing up for their customers.
    • don't subscribe to videotron, because they give a crappy service to start with, and are overpriced compared to the competition (where there is any). the fact that they also don't give a shit about rights is just another nail in the coffin

  • Wait a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hiddekel ( 784329 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:17AM (#12312865)
    Isn't music swapping legal in Canada since the courts struck down the law making it illegal? What's going on here?

    • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:22AM (#12312928) Journal
      It wasn't necessarily proven as legal. First, possessing a personal copy I believe is what was considered acceptable -- but not widespread distribution. Second, CRIA (our RIAA equivalent) hasn't given up the fight...they're collecting evidence and will take another run at this in court. These subpoeanas are merely an element of their next strategy... in the end they only need one ISP (looks like Videotron) to roll over, then they can proceed with their casework. I'm sure they're hoping to set new precedents. Damn this english common law tradition :/

      However, we're protected quite a bit through the levy on media that exists here, considered financial compensation for our 'fair use' rights.
    • The ruling you are thinking of stated that it was legal to DOWNLOAD files; it was likened by the ruling judged to making a photocopy of some pages in a library book. I am not sure the term "fair use" was actually applied, but it seems that is the way it was being looked at.

      Sharing/Uploading is still illegal in Canada, since it is a clear violation of copyright.

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brain_Recall ( 868040 ) <brain_recallNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:18AM (#12312883)
    I guess that "pirate tax" on all recordable media is redundant and can be removed now? It was there to "protect the artists," but now the lawyers on the hunt trying to "protect the artists."

    • a proposal to protect the artists. (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShaniaTwain ( 197446 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:33AM (#12313038) Homepage
      well, clearly neither the tax on blank media nor lawsuits galore are doing a sufficient job of protecting the artists.. I think its time to pull out all the stops:

      Encase the artists in a solid block of lucite and store them in a secure warehouse.
      Think about it. Lucite offers a good level of protection to recording artists like Bryan Adams, Celine Dion and Avril Levine, shielding them from pirates, pigeons and the corrosive effects of oxygen. Also Lucite is clear which means they can still be viewed and photographed, which I believe is their strongest skillset.

      Now there are those that say "how will they record music when they are encased in a solid block of lucite?" Thats the beauty of this plan: They've already recorded their music. More of the same is simply redundant, and the world is spared the 'come-back' album where they croon the greatest hits of Frank Sinatra, but with a moog synth and a drum machine backing track.

      I do believe this is the only plan that will really be a 100% effective way to protect the artists.

  • Swapping names for what purpose? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sellin'papes ( 875203 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:20AM (#12312900) Homepage
    It is currently not illegal to share music files online in Canada. So I'm wondering why the CRIA is collecting the names of people who do? This seems premature and to infringe on file sharers rights.
    • I'm not a lawyer and this certainly doesn't constitute legal (or even good-) advice ... But my understanding is that it is and always has been illegal to share the music; it's downloading the music that is considered not to be illegal.

      The second you turn around and share something you downloaded, ripped, whatever, is when I believe you're breaking Canadian copyright law.

      • Actually it hasn't been determined if the sharing is illegal or not. The logic was that just making something available does (currently) not mean that the person is responsible to make certain nobody downloads.

        Having said that, downloading in an on itself seems to have been ruled "legal" as a levy is paid for each CD.

        Now, IANAL, so take it with a lump of salt.

  • Protect culture? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dimentox ( 678813 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:25AM (#12312952)
    [..]"Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of intellectual property and cultural products," Mr. Sasseville said Thursday from his office in Montreal. "Nobody gets paid. Not only the big companies but also the creators. It's really important that we protect our culture."

    IMHO that file shareing does not harm ones culture. The only thing it realy harms is big business. I am a musician myself and am under the camp that music should be free and people get paied for doing SHOWS.. The music itself should be promotional for the shows. And having almost signed a contract untill i read what i would get the musicians do not much per copy at all. They do make money on merchandizeing and doing shows.

    Its a shame how deeply rooted the music industry is and what it can pull off. I just cant see how they are pulling the "culture" flag out of their pocket in this one. How does free music ruin culture? It only enhances culture due to the fact that more people are able to share in this cultural music. Atleast its just one ISP for now that is not protecting your privacy rights. But how long is it till others follow suit?

    • I am a musician myself and am under the camp that music should be free and people get paied for doing SHOWS.

      Are you a professional musician, or do you have a day job? What is your album distribution like? Who sells them? Not trying to get in your face, but it's good to qualify that if you're going to use it for the discussion.

      Many professional musicians don't really make money on albums anyway unless they've picked up very widespread distribution. Most local and regional bands I know lose money o

    • Re:Protect culture? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:29AM (#12313619) Homepage
      I just cant see how they are pulling the "culture" flag out of their pocket in this one.

      Because it doesn't sound as good to stand up and say, "We're a bunch of greedy, pud yanking wankers trying to protect our racket and we want to sue these people because it beats working for a living."

      So when you don't want to say that, then you say something about protecting culture. If you're MSFT stuffing product activation down the consumer's throat, you say you're doing it to protect honest users. Just like when you're giving your buddies in the banking and credit card business a giant wet kiss on the lips you say you're doing it to make credit more affordable. And when you're sticking your nose into the private business of millions of Americans, you just have to say you're doing it to protect them. Just like we're protecting democracy in Iraq, which sounds better than saying we used bad intelligence as an excuse to invade another country. Instant nobility.

      And if you really get desperate, then drag children into it. You can justify almost any horror by claiming you're doing it to protect the little children.

      Got the picture?

  • What the article doesn't specify... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sixyphe ( 313087 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:25AM (#12312963) Homepage
    ... is that Videotron is owned by Québécor Media, who also owns a healty chunk of the local music industry. In other words, they are highly motivated to fight file-sharing of copyrighted material.

    This has a strong Sony feel to it.. the same company owning entities in domains that have conflicting interests, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

    • Re:What the article doesn't specify... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Red Alastor ( 742410 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:44AM (#12313157)
      ... is that Videotron is owned by Québécor Media, who also owns a healty chunk of the local music industry. In other words, they are highly motivated to fight file-sharing of copyrighted material.

      I guess that you mean is that Videotron is own by Québécor Media who also own a healty chunk of the local music industry, the two biggest french TV channel (we are talking about Québec here, people won't watch english TV) hence control the news and also happen to produce reality shows and own 98% of all the magazines of Québec so even the rumors that we see in magazines are produced by them ?

      Yes, it is.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Er... you mean fight "alternate distribution methods", I'm sure.

  • Since we are pointing the finger (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:26AM (#12312970)
    I name and shame Philip and Terence

  • Canadian Bacon (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alpha_Traveller ( 685367 ) * on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:26AM (#12312974) Homepage Journal
    If nobody mentions at least one quote from Canadian Bacon in reaction to this I think I'm gonna plotz.

    "Boomer: There's a time to think, and a time to act. And this, gentlemen, is no time to think. "

    Okay, good. Whew. Plotz avoided, carry on Eh?

    I have to agree, I just don't see how any of this could and would hold up in Canadian courts considering the protections in place for consumers. But then, that's just my opinion.

  • Quebecor Media (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Something interesting to know is that Videotron belongs to Canada's largest media conglomerate: Quebecor Media. They own a huge part of the media and... they also own Archambault (www.archambault.ca) which sells music, some of that music even comes from artists they created on one of their show they bought from France, Star Academy.

    They are totally against piracy because it cuts their profits on their music business.

  • Conflict of interest (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digidave ( 259925 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:32AM (#12313028)
    Article:
    "It's peculiar, added Mr. Sasseville, that the ISPs are fighting the order so fiercely since many of them own entertainment subsidiaries that produce TV and film content"

    I don't think this is peculiar at all. In large a corporation the ISP division would not be responsible for helping the media producing divisions. It's likely that these two areas of the company only share a CEO, with the rest of the corporate structure being completely separate. The ISP has a good argument that turning over their customers' information will result in lost revenue if other customers leave because of it. I would also suspect that the ISP could be sued if the CRIA sues someone who is innocent of copyright infringement.

    • Re:Conflict of interest (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 )
      "It's peculiar, added Mr. Sasseville, that the ISPs are fighting the order so fiercely since many of them own entertainment subsidiaries that produce TV and film content"

      So let me get this right... It's "peculiar" for a monopoly to NOT abuse it's position? What kind of world are we living in? It's normal for a business to take advantage of its conflict-of-interest position... and it's "peculiar" for a company to actually resist the urge to violate customer rights in one subsidiary in order to benefit an

  • Videotron = PIPEDA Violators (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:32AM (#12313035)
    One corp (CRIA, aka canuck version of RIAA) is asking another corp (VideoTron) for a list of their customers. In Canada, we have a law call PIPEDA that basically says any business that has client info must protect to info from being leaked out to the public. Here, VideoTron is just giving it out to anybody who asks. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_e.as p [privcom.gc.ca]
    • Unfortunately, PIPEDA does permit this sort of disclosure. This is quoted from the exact bill here [justice.gc.ca] with the relevant section quoted below...

      7.(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is...

      ...(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the

  • Sure Videotron will do this (Score:5, Informative)

    by SILIZIUMM ( 241333 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:34AM (#12313046) Homepage
    Videotron is owned by Quebecor [quebecor.com]. Quebecor owns several music producers and distributors, like Select, Musicor and Trans-Canada. Also, Quebecor owns Archambault [archambault.ca], which is one of the largest (if not the largest) CD retailer in Quebec.

    It's clear to me that using FUD, Quebecor (using Videotron) wants to raise up the profits in its music division.

    My 0.02$.

    • I'm sure it's also mentioned that they own Camelot [camelot.ca], the place where I get my Slackware boxed sets. I prefer to buy through a Canadian retailer so I don't get hit with taxes and customs brokers fees before I can collect my cds. Are there other retailers in Canada that sell Slackware that are not so nasty?

      PS. Camelot also spams their clients, bastiches.

    • Quebecor (using Videotron) wants to raise up the profits in its music division

      Any chance that they simply want the profits not to erode do to the copyrighted material of their artists being ripped off? If I run a business to earn a living, and someone figures out how to get my product or services without paying the price I'm asking, and to massively redistribute the same to even more non-paying users, is it "raising up my profits" to find a way to stop them? Or is "not losing my profits?"

      So what if th

  • Why the **** (Score:5, Interesting)

    by totoanihilation ( 782326 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:34AM (#12313048)
    okay? let me get this straight:

    I paid a 25$ levy on my iPod because it was assumed that I pirate music. This money was supposedly sent to the artists, to compensate them. My iPod is full of CDs I own and ripped myself.

    We have to pay double or even triple the price on our CD/DVD media because it is assumed that we pirate music. Again, this music is sent to the artists. Most of the stuff I burn is my own personal data.

    So. The artists get paid, and the music swappers get sued. Where does the money go? With all these 'taxes' you would think it would be legal to download music. If it is not, then can I get my 25$ levy and the difference in recordable media prices back?

    • Re:Why the **** (Score:3, Informative)

      by mopslik ( 688435 )

      If you paid a $25 levy on your iPod, you should look into getting it back [ipodlounge.com]. The levy was thrown out.

      You do, however, continue to pay a $0.21 levy (or so) on each blank CD.

    • I do not think it means what you think it means.

      You throw the word pirate around without regards, making law abiding citizens look like criminals. It would really help if you understood the law before you rant.

      You paid a levy in exchange for the LEGAL RIGHT to make personal copies of music, even if you don't own the source material. Again, LEGAL RIGHT. If you are making a copy for yourself, no matter where it came from, it is not copyright infringement. Period. The catch is, YOU have to make the copy. You

      • You paid a levy in exchange for the LEGAL RIGHT to make personal copies of music, even if you don't own the source material.

        That's not what the Copyright Act says. It says that you can copy audio recordings for personal use. (And the way legal judgements tend to go in Canada, I would expect the courts to consider modern DVDs "similar enough" to audio recordings to be considered equivelent under the private copying provisions of the Copyright Act.)

        It does NOT say you have to pay a levy to obtain this r

      • My problem does not really come from p2p. I couldn't give two diddly squats about the latest Britney Spears or Eminem album. The problem comes from the following:

        I have to pay a levy to copy my own CDs onto my iPod? Which is what's happening as it is, since all the music I have on my iPod was ripped from my collection. What about those blank CD's and DVDs that I do my data backups on?

        I guess I'll just have to start borrowing CDs from friends and ripping them to get my money's worth.

  • Well... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:41AM (#12313128) Homepage
    Better delete all my illegal Anne Murray and Paul Anka MP3s.

  • MIT published its complaint IP numbers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:42AM (#12313149)
    The MIT student newspaper publish the RIAA complaint today [mit.edu]. They listed the IP numbers, dorm address, song titles, but not students names.

  • An alternative music culture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sellin'papes ( 875203 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:49AM (#12313210) Homepage
    Lets assume that musicians are musicians because they want to support themselves doing what they love (making music) and not because they want to be millionaires.

    Now lets assume that the sharing and downloading of music files is free and legal.

    Then lets assume that people continue to go to concerts and bars where musicians play as they have been doing.

    What happens to the music industry?

    The large record industries go under. What are the impllications of this? The Britanny Spears, Jessica Simpsons, and Clay whatshisnames fall off the music radar, and smaller bands gain more attention.

    By making music sharing and download illegal, whose interests are we serving (big record business, or small local bands)? Can small local bands survive without selling cd at HMV?

  • I use Videotron (Score:4, Informative)

    by Webs 101 ( 798265 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:51AM (#12313240) Homepage
    Technically, it's superb. I live in a neighbourhood of mostly older people, so my share of the bandwidth is eneormous. I get T1 speeds on my cable modem as a matter of course. Also, it seems to be more reliable than its only real broadband competitor, Sympatico (owned by Bell Canada), according to what I see among my circle of friends.

    I'm not all that keen on Videotron's capitulation here, but I'm not going to change ISPs over it.

    Now, just to clear up some misconceptions....

    Back when blank media became a consumer good, the media companies feared losses of revenue to copying. They convinced the federal government to assess a fee on all blank media and recording devices to make up for those losses.

    There was a catch, however. The government can't tax an illegal activity. In order to mandate these fees, the government had to legalize the duplication of content for personal use. So we Canadians have been able to tape our albums, record TV shows, etc. within the bounds of the law for the longest time.

    Then came the digital revolution.

    The entertainment moguls demanded that the same fees be assessed on CD writers, blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc. The government agreed and extended the financial protection - but as a consequence also had to extend the right to make copies on the new media. As a result, downloading content is (still) pefectly legal in Canada.

    Uploading copyrighted content, however, is not legal and never has been. It may at first seem odd that we can download but not upload, but it's a consequence of the laws that give us the right to copy, not the right to share.

    The Canadian Recording Industry Association went to the Copyright Board to change this right and was Heismaned. The board ruled that they have been collecting the assessed fees and that that money was the industry compensation. Furthermore, the board ruled that such rights extend to downloading files. The board did extend the fee to cover digital music players.

    More here: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html

    • Actively uploading files is still illegal, but the act of leaving a music file in a publicly shared directory is allowed, as long as no positive action is made by the person sharing the file. http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html

  • Go ahead Videotron, and we'll class-action sue YOU (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @09:51AM (#12313244)
    Let's all get together and sue Videotron instead.
    That'll show them which side their bread is buttered on.
  • How about they start releasing the names of the people on the bot nets too.

  • Given the amount of P2P poisoning going on, the defense is going to have a field day.

    'Your honor, my client was attempting to download a copy of $insert_name_of_free_to_donwload_song, but instead kept getting songs from Avril Levigne!'

  • Article 12: personal information (Score:3, Informative)

    by toonworld ( 838479 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:13AM (#12313488)
    Taken from:

    http://www.videotron.com/services/en/service_cli en tele/8_3_1.jsp

    --
    12.4 Protection of personal information - The personal information supplied by the customer to Vid&#233;otron shall be treated in accordance with Vid&#233;otron's policy on the protection of personal information, which is available upon request at Vid&#233;otron's customer service by telephone or at: serviceclient@videotron.ca
    --

    I encourage the users to contact the company and ask fom the exact policy. Why is this not on their website? Why do you have to ASK for it?

    They're trying to hide. Can we say "class-action lawsuit" ?
  • Under Canadian law a child under 12 years old is considered too young to be able to discern right from wrong (hey, I didn't write the law) and is thus not liable for any crimes committed. An under 12 kid could literally murder someone and would only be sent home in the custody of his parents. Additionally, there would be a publication ban on his name.

    It should be quite interesting to see what happens in any court cases when it turns out that for some strange reason, it's always the under 12 year old in the
  • From da blurb:
    According to a lawyer for Videotron, producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly that they believe that it is justifiable to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs on-line.

    What kind of justification is that? "ISPs get strongarmed into sacrificing customer anonymity all the time, so it's right whenever it happens-" remember way back when people were actually afraid of what people could get away with using the anonymity the in

  • It is LEGAL to download music off the Internet
    It is LEGAL to place music files in a shared folder (a la. Kazaa, and most other file swapping programs).

    Programs that require you to upload while downloading (like BT, eDonkey) are not necessarily legal, however.

    Why is Videotron turning over private information about what I legally do with my internet connection? I smell a lawsuit coming against Videotron..

    (from the article)
    "Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of

  • Old story (Score:5, Informative)

    by Exp315 ( 851386 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:44AM (#12313776)
    Why report this as a new story? It's an old story - Videotron took this position 2 years ago when the case was filed. It was decided against the CRIA last year. The CRIA have recently appealed, but they appear to have few grounds, given the judgement that they had no case on multiple grounds.

  • FREENET! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Friday April 22, 2005 @10:54AM (#12313894) Homepage Journal
    This is why I constantly encourage users to make the switch to freenet NOW. Freenet is still very slow and immature, but at least it allows you to use it anonymously. Your ISP can not name you if it is impossible to find out who you are...

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Close