RCMP Won't Go After Personal Filesharers

mlauzon writes "The RCMP announced that it will stop targeting people who download copyrighted material for personal use (Google translation). Their priority will be to focus on organized crime and copyright theft that affects the health and safety of consumers, such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, instead of the cash flow of large corporations. Around the same time that the CRIA successfully took Demonoid offline, the RCMP made clear that Demonoid's users don't have to worry about getting prosecuted, at least not in Canada. 'Piracy for personal use is no longer targeted,' Noël St-Hilaire, head of copyright theft investigations of the RCMP, said in an interview. 'It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it.'"

The reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was too hard to get the horses into people's bedrooms, basements, dorms, etc.

Re:The reason?

[plierhead]

And the horses have a tendency to trample people's rights.

Re:The reason?

[chemindefer]

It was too hard to get the horses into people's bedrooms, basements, dorms, etc.

Not to mention getting horses into the internet tubes that connect them.

Re:The reason?

[callmevinny]

> I've always wanted to see a pirate and a mounty go at it.

Arrrr, eh?

Re:The reason?

[MattHawk]

Reminds me of a wonderful Canadian Pirate song - The Last Saskatchewan Pirate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G_L9tXEwmc). There's even a verse with a mounty!

Re:The reason?

[Fieryphoenix]

Can't believe I blew my own joke. Correction: Arrr, aye! Eh, Eh?

mount -t police /ca/royal

[EmbeddedJanitor]

They won't chace Windows users because there's no mount. They will chase *nix users though.

News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north...

[Elemenope]

In a sudden outbreak of reason and common sense, a government has decided that its own people are not "the enemy". The US quickly responded that such subversive hippie-dippy communist ideas will not be tolerated on their doorstep.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[Watson Ladd]

The US would have little choice. The UK has nukes and subs, and protects Canada.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[Elemenope]

Northern Minnesota has been itching for an "incident" for 150 years. I don't think an abstract idea like "Mutually Assured Destruction" will deter an incursion. One photo set of a captured American partisan fighter being Labatt Blue-boarded and you've got yourself World War III.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[Torvaun]

I know at least twenty people that would volunteer for a Labatt Blue-boarding.

Re:

[Torvaun]

Canada's got way more land mass than the U.S. Only country with more land mass than Canada is Russia.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[debrain]

Canada's got way more land mass than the U.S. Only country with more land mass than Canada is Russia.

Canada [wikipedia.org]
Area
Total: 9,984,670 km (2nd)
Water (%): 8.92 (891,163 km) ... 9984670 - 891163 = 9 093 507
Thus, Canada has 9,093,507 sq km of land mass.

United States [wikipedia.org]
Area
  - Total 9,826,630 km [1](3rd2)
3,793,079 sq mi
  - Water (%) 6.76 ... 9826630 - (9826630 * 0.0676 = ) = 9826630 - 664280 = 9 162 350
Thus, the United States has 9,162,350 sq km of land mass.

9 093 506 sq km (Canada's land mass) is less than 9,162,350 sq km (the US land mass), therefore your statement seems incorrect. Canada does have more total area, but more of that area is water.

Re:

[Torvaun]

Your numbers seem to be incontrovertible. That'll teach me to go off of things like "Canada is the second largest country in the world" when we only care about the part that you can walk on.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[darthflo]

Jesus could walk on water, so if Canadians are as Jesus-loving as some Americans, water counts too.

You forgot about China?

[Animaether]

Certainly doesn't seem that way on a map - but most map projections are incredibly deceiving. CIA factbook figures:

RUSSIA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html [cia.gov]
total: 17,075,200 sq km
land: 16,995,800 sq km
water: 79,400 sq km

CHINA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html [cia.gov]
total: 9,596,960 sq km
land: 9,326,410 sq km
water: 270,550 sq km

USA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html [cia.gov]
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia ( add some for the all the islands, if counting )

CANADA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html [cia.gov]
total: 9,984,670 sq km
land: 9,093,507 sq km
water: 891,163 sq km

Re:

[CaptCanuk]

I'm still disputing the Alaskan panhandle so that should put us back on top.

Our Neighbors (read: Resources) to the North

[handy_vandal]

But the US has *more* (*cough*better*cough*) nukes and subs. And land mass to absorb the UK's nukes.

The U.S. won't nuke Canada -- not the Athabasca Oil Sands [wikipedia.org], anyway.

-kgj

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS, I said I was sorry.
I won't eat the curry again.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[lpq]

I hope Canada has no financial ties with the US. [slashdot.org] Otherwise they'll find some punishing language buried in some upcoming bill tying the US's honoring those "ties" unless RCMP's come up with a "technology solution" to punish online file sharer's. Hmmm...some Commie Republocrat Demblican is probably trying to figure this out as we speak.

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[Dun Malg]

The usual fallacious argument. I'm not a fan of the RIAA's *tactics*, but the fact that a whole lot of people break the law doesn't make it OK, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.

The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.

Basically, people have found a way to get for free what they used to pay for. The fact that they have little chance of being caught have empowered people to break the law, but that's about it.

You still have not substantiated your implication that what they're doing is wrong. Just because technology previously made it easy to limit distribution via an artificial monopoly doesn't make it right. You're engaging in the Bare Assertion Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. Justify the state of the law.

And please don't make a lame ass 'civil disobediance' arguement next. If you feel that strongly about it, don't listen to the RIAA's tripe *at all,* pirated or not.

So are you saying bad law should be obeyed because somebody makes money off it? Because there's no moral justification in civil disobedience unless it's a great injustice, like segregation? Because it's the law? You're saying the best way to fight bad law is to obey it and mount futile boycott? A debate strategy of telling other people not to bother to defend their position rather than actually presenting arguments in support of your position is intellectually bankrupt*.

* that means "you're a fucking idiot"

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[bigpicture]

Yes, a few hundred years ago they used to hang the hungry peasants for hunting game on the Landlords Estate. That was the LAW, but times have changed and that law no longer applies. And neither does a pile of other crappy laws that created class distinction by giving certain groups of people "SPECIAL RIGHTS".

Patent and copyright laws are no different than the segregation laws that finally got knocked down. It is an anachronism, belongs in another time and place, where the monarchy could control the presses and thus control the dissemination of subversive (to them) ideas.

Everyone who ever wrote a sentence, or came up with an idea, was educated in the school system, and by the society that they live in. And since the actual nature of thought being what it actually is, it needs foundational material on which to build. Ideas are not actually unique they are just recycled and applied in different context. The working concept of a computer existed many years before there was an actual computer. Ever hear of Charles Babbage? Shakespeare or Newton or Angelo are always somewhere in the background. So then where do these special RIGHTS come from????

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[AcidPenguin9873]

The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.

A personal belief that piracy is okay (and thus not paying for something someone else has created) is the crux of your argument. I disagree with that, I think it is wrong. Given that, every other argument you make is pretty much immaterial.

To paraphrase Abbie Hoffman,

[Kazoo the Clown]

Steal this MP3...

Don't forget that the media market has not been a level playing field for a very long time. Britney Spears didn't become popular because the marketplace heard her and said "hey, we like that, give us more." Britney became popular because a large corporation who with a few other large corporations completely control the non-internet marketplace, decided to hype Britney into popularity. This was done at the expense of many other talented artists who were never heard at all by the public.

Re:

[nametaken]

I'm bothered by both sides of this argument.

I think it actually is wrong, not just illegal, to download music and movies without paying for them. Making those things costs money, and without people paying for content, nobody gets paid and nothing gets made. I suppose a lot of people have some kind of faith in the notion that generous, creative people will somehow fill the void, but I'm not so sure. I admit, I like those ridiculous, high-budget movies that Hollywood makes. If the industry plays by the ru

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[Elemenope]

Ahh, no I must disagree here. In all seriousness, any law which makes the majority of citizens into criminals by its design is a law which is perverse and illegitimate on its face. After all, laws are codifications of the boundaries of expected social behaviors; if they do not serve that function, they become broken and do damage to the society in which they operate. Laws also operate to describe to individuals in a society that society's priorities; if those priorities do not serve the person whose asked to obey them at least in some bare capacity, then they cannot be expected to obey or respect them. Laws which seem to demonstrate to a public that they are not the priority to be served will only breed disregard for the authority emanating from all laws, even those which are legitimate. This is a corrosive pattern.

This is not a "lame civil disobedience" argument, just a sober view of the facts on the ground: no law can require respect of principles which are not respected, and by and large by their actions many people, especially of the younger generations, demonstrate they simply do not respect the concept of enshrining exclusive distribution rights for digital content. In such a situation, a government may continue to attempt to instill through the use of force such a respect (e.g. also drugs, prostitution), or realize that resources can be better spent elsewhere and instead decide to try to address the issue in another way, such as Canada seems to be doing.

Ever heard of Civil Disobediance?

[Newer Guy]

In the United States, it USED to mean that people have the DUTY to fight/ignore/snub their noses at oppressive laws that turn millions of citizens into lawbreakers. Of course, that was before the widespread usage of designer legistation, where corporations (through their BRIBING-OOPS, I meant lobbying- of public officials) decide what should be legal. I'm not sure it even exists today among the brainless robotiod trolls that the average American has become.....

Re:

[QuantumG]

Ask you mother if she's ok with you copying one of her CDs. If she says no, that would be against the law and she thought she raised you better than that then the law is just. Otherwise, if, say, she says "sure, whatever you like son", then the law is neither wanted nor needed by society. The music industry makes less money than the self storage industry.. I don't see why we need special laws to protect their broken business practices.

Re:

[shark72]

"Ask you mother if she's ok with you copying one of her CDs. If she says no, that would be against the law and she thought she raised you better than that then the law is just. Otherwise, if, say, she says "sure, whatever you like son", then the law is neither wanted nor needed by society."

I don't think it was intentional, but you're slippery-sloping here. "it's okay to copy a CD owned by a family member" does not equal "it's okay to offer a copy to 1,000,000 of your closest friends on P2P."

"The musi

Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north

[drsmithy]

and by your logic the drinking age should be lower as more people drink under the age of 18/19, speeding should be legal and marijuana should be legal since more people have smoked it.

Exactly. Did you have a point ?

Re:

[Myopic]

Yeah that's what I thought too. Doesn't he have any good examples of widely-broken laws which are actually good laws? Because drinking age, speed limits, and marijuana prohibition are downright terrible examples. The drinking age should be lower. I don't know how low, but lower, maybe graduated or something, but certainly the current state of that law is suboptimal. And it's not that "speeding" should be "legal", rather that speed limits should be higher, especially considering the high-quality cars with gr

Re:

[CastrTroy]

According to a study by Industry Canada [michaelgeist.ca], file sharers actually buy more music than non-file sharers. All file sharing allows people to do is to find music that they like much easier. The more stuff they find that they like, the more money they will spend on music. If you've only ever heard of Britney Spears, because that's all the radio ever plays, then you can't buy that many CDs.

Re:

[shark72]

"According to a study by Industry Canada [michaelgeist.ca], file sharers actually buy more music than non-file sharers. All file sharing allows people to do is to find music that they like much easier. The more stuff they find that they like, the more money they will spend on music. If you've only ever heard of Britney Spears, because that's all the radio ever plays, then you can't buy that many CDs."

This study was torn to bits when it was first covered on Slashdot a few weeks ago. The non-file-sharing

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I think it's more to the point that we're dealing with increasingly unenforceable laws, save in the most arbitrary of fashions via pretty questionable detection methods and even more questionable legal methods.

Burn Karma Burn

[Xaositecte]

Dear Mods,

Different viewpoints than your own != Flamebait.

Re:

[drsmithy]

The usual fallacious argument. I'm not a fan of the RIAA's *tactics*, but the fact that a whole lot of people break the law doesn't make it OK, [...]

Uh, yes, yes it does. In fact, if "a whole lot of people" break a law, that's prima facie evidence that the law is, in some way, flawed and should either be struck from the books or reimplemented.

[...] and that seems to be the crux of your argument.

The crux of your argument seems to be the law is unchanging, infallible and objective. Given that it is non

Unfortunately

[RecoveredMarketroid]

The RCMP don't speak for other police forces in Canada--in particular, the provincial police forces (e.g., the Ontario Provincial Police). While I suspect that they won't be aggressively pursuing individuals either, this is no guarantee. I believe the OPP has fairly extensive technology-related policing resources, but I can't substantiate that...

Re:

[starfishsystems]

Provincial enforcement of federal statutes? Because that's what copyright is, in Canada.

Re:Unfortunately

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Provincial enforcement of federal statutes? Because that's what copyright is, in Canada.

Copyright is a federal statute in Canada, which means that provincial legislatures don't have the power to change that statute. It doesn't affect the police; the Criminal Code is also a federal statute, and yet provincial and municipal police investigate murders (indictable offences) and shoplifting (summary offences) all the time.

Generally, a police officer with jurisdiction in some area of Canada can exercise his powers to enforce any law that governs that area. Of course, the Calgary city police generally aren't going to allocate their resources to investigating crime in Edmonton, for example, but if they do, it might even be considered wilful obstruction of a peace officer for the Edmonton police to interfere.

Re:Unfortunately

[CastrTroy]

The OPP only counts if you live in Ontario. There's a QPP for Quebec. None of the other provinces AFAIK have provincial police forces. They all depend on the RCMP. In some places, such as the far north, and other sparsely populated areas, the RCMP are the only police. Also, looking at this from a different angle, what I think they are saying is that the RCMP has bigger fish to fry. People that are much more dangerous. It's not worth the resources to hunt down personal file sharers, because they aren't hurting anybody. I imagine that the OPP would probably feel the same way. The local police might care about catching people doing petty crimes like this, but probably don't have the resources or technical expertise.

Re:

[SleepyHappyDoc]

You're forgetting municipal cops. Anyone who lives in almost any Canadian city would be arrested by the cops for that city, not the RCMP. This announcement really only affects the people who live in the boonies.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Try reading the last sentence of my post.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Other states have city police, which amounts to the same thing as the OPP, just more fragmented.

Anyway, the social contract is between the people in a body politic. In a republic, the people make the law and if a law causes all people to break the law, then the law itself is broken.

Re:

[RecoveredMarketroid]

The OPP only counts if you live in Ontario. There's a QPP for Quebec.

Um... That's about 2/3 of Canada's population...

Your point about other forces also thinking that they have 'bigger fish to fry' makes sense, to a degree. I agree with you-- it seems unlikely a force like the OPP will pursue individuals. On the other hand, political pressure (including that generated by industry lobbies) can potentially influence this, whether its getting the OPP to enforce it, or getting the RCMP/federal goverment to change their minds.

Unfortunately, there is a key difference

Re:Unfortunately

[CastrTroy]

But Newfoundland doesn't have any computers, so we can ignore them.

Re:

[drcagn]

yeah, you know me!

Not possible.

[PieSquared]

'It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it.'

That's because there is no way to stop it. If I can look at a string of numbers, I can write them down somewhere else. If my computer looks at a string of numbers, *it* can write them down really, really fast somewhere else. And so it isn't possible to stop anyone from making a copy of a digital "work."

You can shut down places where transfers occur, you can *try* to scare people into not copying... but you can't *stop* me from writing down all the 1's and 0's that make up your program or data except to stop me from reading it in the first place. And if you don't let anyone read it, it might as well not exist.

Re:Not possible.

[CastrTroy]

I think I heard it best on the CBC Podcast of Search Engine [www.cbc.ca]. Basically, what he said, is that computers are machines that copy information. When they are working properly, they copy information really quickly, and really accurately. Trying to stop a computer from copying information is like trying to stop gravity.

Good common sense practical move

[vux984]

The RCMP resources are stretched thin like any police force anywhere. Its good to see that they have decided / realized that they have far more important things to do with those resources. Its the right move. I want violent crimes, family abuse, gang related issues, grow ops & drug related crime, and corporate fraud investigated, not children and families who listening to music they downloaded over the internet. I don't need my tax dollars protecting the interests of American megacorporations from children.

Note that this doesn't mean filesharers now get a free pass; the recording industry is still free to prosecute what it views are attacks on its business, but it never should have been allowed to the use the RCMP to do it for them. And its good to see the RCMP come around.

So...

[Rix]

You oppose punishing people who violate copyright in the privacy of their own homes, but you support punishing people who grow a plant in the privacy of their own homes?

Re:

[smallpaul]

gang related issues, grow ops & drug related crime

It is the criminalization of normal human behaviour (mood altering plant consumption) that funds the gangs. Prosecuting drug buyers and sellers is much more insidious than prosecuting music copiers, because it delivers gangs a ready-made business model.

BUT SOCAN now is happy - Tariff 22

[future assassin]

This is a bit ot but hasn't been reported here and my submission was rejected http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/news_events/news/Tariff22_07.jsp [socan.ca]

totalitarianism?

[bukuman]

Selective enforcement is a tool of totalitarianism.

Maybe it's a 'good start', but ultimately the law has to be either changed of enforced.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

I think the same thing about speeding laws. The fact that you can often drive 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, and not get charged 99.9% of the time, yet at some point there will be some cop who needs to meet a quota, and can find hundreds of people to give a ticket to if they choose. I've always thought that speeding laws were stupid. I think they should actually set the speed limit as a limit, possibly with a small margin to account for errors in their readings, and in your speedometer reading. None of this

Re:

[SpeedyDX]

You can drive 140 on the 401?!?!!? I can barely go up to 40 most days!! :)

Now, next on the list.

[Zeebs]

While we're deciding not to go after people for petty things: How about they stop going after people who commit truly victimless crimes like smoking a joint?

Both will piss the United States off to the same extent.

Re:Now, next on the list.

[ceoyoyo]

We tried to decriminalize pot but the USians objected and we decided selling them stuff was more important.

Re:

[Zeebs]

Exactly. I attend the legalization march each year, most recently billed as "The Toronto Freedom Festival". You'd be hard pressed to find opposition to such a change outside of strict authoritarian circles. Even then their argument usually consists of "But it's illegal".

Re:

[Zeebs]

Argh, hate to reply to myself. I also wanted to mention the courts at various levels have repeatedly ruled possession laws unconstitutional but due to pressure and threats of economic punishment from the south the laws don't change.

Re:

[xtal]

Remember to ask just that when your friendly MP's come knocking. I always do.

This would be the right way

[nurb432]

For profit piracy is wrong. Personal duplication/sharing is not.

Re:

[stubear]

Personal duplication amongst friends might not be too bad but mass distribution via P2P apps is clearly wrong and just as harmful to the industries that are supported by the protections provided by intellectual property law.

Re:This would be the right way

[rlk]

Just about every technological advance, by nature of its disruptiveness, harms some people and helps others, but that doesn't make it wrong. The entertainment industry can either fight a rearguard action to delay the inevitable, hurting a lot of people along the way, or embrace the reality that copying data is cheap and easy and find new ways to profit from the situation. It's always been the mark of a good business person that he or she finds opportunities rather than complaining about the situation. Right now it looks like EMI is starting to understand the situation; let's see how long it takes the rest of the industry (and the movie industry) to figure it out.

If it turns out that a handful of mega-stars supported by large multinational companies is not the most efficient way to deliver entertainment, I see little loss to society as a whole, and it would surely be to the benefit of a much larger set of artists.

Re:

[Myopic]

The entertainment industry can either fight a rearguard action to delay the inevitable, hurting a lot of people along the way, or embrace the reality that copying data is cheap and easy and find new ways to profit from the situation.

Correction: the entertainment industry could have fought a rearguard action to delay the inevitable, or embrace reality...

The fact is the industry made that decision in 1998 and 1999, when the Napster thing happened. It is now too late for that industry, they have caused themsel

How is it "clearly wrong"?

[Rix]

Industries do not have any inherent right to exist. Is producing cars "clearly wrong" due to their effects on the buggy whip industry?

Re:

[Zanth_]

It isn't clearly wrong and this is a major issue worldwide. It is "clearly wrong" in the eyes of the RIAA and their ilk, but not so to a good bunch of people, downloaders or not. Also, it is not harmful to an industry at large (say in this instance, the music industry) what is is harmful to the near racketeering-like setup the RIAA has with their "clients." The RIAA can no longer use their strongarm tactics to leverage ownership of works they never created. This liberation of the artists is AWESOME and

Re:

[Virtual_Raider]

I'm curious about your idea. I'll try not to troll or flamebait but why do you think the latter is not wrong?

I hope you'll agree that all intellectual works released commercially are for profit (on the part of the releaser). You say that if I grab a copy of a song/book/poem/knitting-pattern/MS Office 3000 Plus Plus and then resell it at the flea market that is wrong.

But if I give a free copy to my buddy, that's not. Even though in both cases I'm causing for someone to get a copy without compensating the o

Re:

[trawg]

Arguably, "sharing" - giving people something for free which they would otherwise have to pay for - is indeed wrong.

In the common context, "sharing" == "copyright infringement", which I think many people agree is still wrong. I think, however, most people can justify copyright infringement by thinking that a) the laws about all this stuff are MORE wrong and b) the business practices of the RIAA/MPAA/etc are also MORE wrong. That is, of course, when they bother to think about it at all.

I sort of dislike the

I thought copyright violation was civil law.

[debest]

Why was the RCMP *ever* involved in investigating copyright violation? I always thought (at least here in Canada, where we don't yet have a "DMCA" law) that violation of copyright was a civil infraction. I also thought that the police limited their investigations to criminal infractions.

Of course, I could very well be totally wrong! :-P

Any Canadian lawyers know of the legislation that our police were acting upon when they were involved?

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

You're wrong. The RCMP has investigated copyright infringement for some time. I remember some people getting busted for copying Apple II software and the mounties letting them off if they paid twice for everything they copied.

Fucking Canadians

[rastoboy29]

You think you're cool 'cause you're all "rational" and stuff. 

How was demonoid taken down?

[aussie_a]

How could the CRIA have a leg to stand on in shutting down demonoid when downloading music without permission from the copyright holder is legal in Canada?

Re:

[Poromenos1]

Meh, movies.

What's this?

[Trogre]

Another sudden outbreak of common sense?

Now I'm worried. Do RCMP count as horsemen?

Code is Law!

[headkase]

...'It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it.'...

I know how to stop it but no-one heres going to like it. Taking a page from Snow Crash where the network routers police traffic according to democratically arrived at laws, Internet protocols should be regulated in such a way that the network itself enforces distribution licenses. You download you're Linux iso's for free because thats the license in appropriate field of the Bit-Torrent 2009 protocol while material requiring payment has it automatically debited from your account on download, again depending on whats in the license field of the torrent. Regulating the network itself in a way that all licenses from free to ad-supported to subscription to purchase are enforced where it would be difficult to circumvent them (on the network not your computer) would ease issues in other areas that suck because of the lack of regulation of the network: having to put up with the likes of copy-protection on our computers and various nasties (think of the children being exploited) being filtered at the network level. The Internet is not a new phenomenom that magically facilitates people circumventing payment based licenses: before it was the SneakerNet but now that the Internet is a reality, it has become the tool of choice to distribute things beyond their intended audiences.

And just a quick word to people who think all bits should be free: If someone wants to give it away for free then more power to them *but* in our economic framework it takes effort to organize all the bits in software and you paying the publisher then them paying their employees then the employees paying their bills is a great way to spread the effort around. Entertainment is hard to make for free right now - operating systems are different, they're infrastructure and there are more obvious benefits to cooperation in them.

Re:

[headkase]

Backbone routers. And its not purely a technological solution, it would take legislation creating standardized: credentials (to purchase or acquire), registries (to associate who put what on the 'net and what license it uses), and enforcement/auditing software to make sure everything was running smoothly. It's basically taking the 'Wild West' out of the Internet and moving it towards something that would probably end up being more Gibson-esque where most people use the 'net according to the built in Laws

Sketchy Translation?

[xrayspx]

Is it that hard to translate from Canadian to English?

Re:

[Petrushka]

Is it that hard to translate from Canadian to English?

D'accord. Ici l'original [ledevoir.com] si vous le préférez.

Criminal vs. Civil

[SamP2]

So all the RCMP said is that they are not going to CRIMINALLY prosecute filesharers.

When is the last time that the US has launched a CRIMINAL trial against file sharers? Piracy IS a criminal offense both in the USA and Canada, not just a civil one, but nobody ever launches criminal trials in the US. Sure, the US cops haven't actually pledged NOT to launch criminal trials, but this doesn't change anything on practice as they haven't been actually doing it either. And given that file sharing is notoriously ha

What about civil claims, guys?!

[Dzimas]

Umm... US police forces haven't been focused on personal downloading, either. The RIAA has been targeting downloaders through civil suits. The Canadian Recording Industry Assoc (whose members are international corporations - the Canadian labels have all withdrawn membership) could pursue the same course of action once they manage to push through a few draconian amendments to Canadian law.

Once again Canada does America better than America

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Way to go Canada. Can i please move there now?

C'mon up to Canada Y'all

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Reasons to move to Canada:

1. You won't get prosecuted for piracy
2. Our dollar is now worth more than the US dollar
3. We don't have perfect leaders, but most if not all are more intelligent than Bush
4. We still have some degree of privacy left (aka. our telcos dont spy on us)
5. We have beautiful natural wonders
6. We have much greater diversity of cultures, weather & landscapes.
7. Our beer is much better (& stronger)
8. You can throw a rock in urban cities and hit 3 starbuck locations.
9. We rule at ice hockey
10. You get to wear a tuque, pet a beaver, eat maple syrup, and say eh? instead of huh?

Forgot one

[Joe The Dragon]

11. free health care!

[OT] Somewhat amazed by good Google translation

[McDutchie]

The automatic Google translation (from French to English) is relatively of really good quality. Try plugging the original article [ledevoir.com] into Babelfish [altavista.com] and see how lousy it does by comparison.

One point that particularly amazed me is that Google not only tanslates the acronym right (GRC => RCMP), but even the acronym's meaning (Gendarmerie royale du Canada => Royal Canadian Mounted Police), even though that's not anywhere close to a literal translation!

Does anyone know more about how they do this? Do they use

Re:Ambivalent feelings

[trolltalk.com]

"Illegal file-sharing is not proper theft but it is without a doubt a fraud, as you are getting a service (entertainment) without paying for it."

Wrong. Canadians DO pay for it, via a levy on recording materials (blank CDs, etc) that goes back to the recording industry, so its not even "fraud."

Re:

[Virtual_Raider]

Right you are, I forgot about that. Well, I guess it makes sense then =)

Re:

[click2005]

Also, they only mention not going after downloaders. I dont think the RIAA has begun to target downloaders yet, they seem content going after uploaders (for now) & those running the file-sharing websites & networks.

Re:

[OECD]

Also, they only mention not going after downloaders. I dont think the RIAA has begun to target downloaders yet, they seem content going after uploaders (for now) & those running the file-sharing websites & networks.

But with bittorent, every D/Ler is also an U/Ler.

Re:Ambivalent feelings

[starfishsystems]

You raise an important point. Canadian law, as well as Canadian expectations of civil conduct and civil rights which underly our laws, are somewhat different than American. In particular, they're often more elastic, more open to interpretation of the spirit of legislation rather than blunt enforcement. Historically, this has applied to copyright, recreational drug use, sexual conduct, and regard for privacy, among many other subjects. Not that it's necessarily better; we just approach things differently.

It seems that the RCMP has looked at the media levy, which, as you mention, exists precisely as a concession to the industry because copying of music for personal use is permitted in Canada. And it has looked at a number of serious copyright issues that do require enforcement, and it has looked at its own finite enforcement resources.

And the RCMP has decided that it makes no sense to target personal music downloads for enforcement. I recall a few years ago that a similar decision was made by the provincial courts here in BC regarding minor drug posession. Not deemed a big risk to society, not enough resources, better things to do with them.

It makes sense to me too. Canada, you'll notice, is not exactly falling apart in comparison to the United States. We actually have a lower rate of recreational drug use than the States, according to a report aired on CBC Radio yesterday, despite a much lower rate of enforcement and sentencing. And our dollar isn't doing too bad lately, either.

Re:

[PhysicsPhil]

Wrong. Canadians DO pay for it, via a levy on recording materials (blank CDs, etc) that goes back to the recording industry, so its not even "fraud."

Quite so, although it should be said that the copyright levy only covers copying of music. Copying video etc is still a problem.

Re:

[camperdave]

Quite so, although it should be said that the copyright levy only covers copying of music. Copying video etc is still a problem.

It should also be said that only Canadian artists can receive disbursements from levies collected. That means that Canadian artists are theoretically earning revenue, indirectly, from downloads of non Canadian music.

Re:

[noidentity]

On the other this is a bad precedent, they are essentially saying that "if you can't beat them, ignore them". Illegal file-sharing is not proper theft but it is without a doubt a fraud, as you are getting a service (entertainment) without paying for it.

Maybe the government is realizing that copyright law is outdated? It's not a fundamental right of human beings, just a tool that was used in the past to jump-start the publishing industry. How about a new model that doesn't require any enforcement, where peo

Re:

[Trogre]

An academic question, but how would you feel if next year the UN and all its member countries unilaterally declared perpetual copyright to be a fundamental human right?

Would you respect the decision as law, or find another angle to attack it?

Re:

[Torvaun]

I would consider the law to be flawed, and work against it. I don't even pirate, but I'd start if I needed to oppose something like that.

Re:

[Dun Malg]

Interestingly enough, I only now just noticed Article 27, which vaguely references copyright:

Article 27.
<br>
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
<br>
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.<br><br>

Paraphrasing, they first s

Re:

[AuMatar]

Life liberty and PROPERTY?!?!?! I don't think so. I can think of a few dozen, if not a few hundred rights more important than property. Nobody but the libertarians think thats a fundamental human right.

Re:

[Virtual_Raider]

Maybe the government is realizing that copyright law is outdated? (...) How about a new model that doesn't require any enforcement, where people fully pay for the labor used to create the product, then it becomes freely available?

I agree with the sentiment and there are new models emerging that integrate freeloaders into the equation, i.e. Radiohead's stunt or Saul Williams' [niggytardust.com] (yes I bought the album, that's why I keep pushing it =D ) but only time will tell if they work or not. It's hard to make sweeping g

Re:

[CastrTroy]

My biggest problem with both the Radiohead and Saul Williams (which I'm downloading right now) methods for selling music, is that they don't offer samples. So I can't tell if I like the music. In both cases I had to download them for $0, to find out if I liked it. I ended up paying $4 for the Radiohead album, We'll see if I end up paying for the Saul Williams album. I hadn't heard about Saul Williams doing this. If enough artists start doing it, I would really like to see a single consolidated place whe

Re:

[aussie_a]

On the other this is a bad precedent, they are essentially saying that "if you can't beat them, ignore them".

You mean like the precedent set when prohibition was abolished?

Re:Ambivalent feelings

[vux984]

On the other this is a bad precedent, they are essentially saying that "if you can't beat them, ignore them".

Um no. This is fantastic precedent. It is actual democracy. If society overwhelmingly commits an action in defiance of 'the law' then society accepts and approves of that action. What else *should* government do but respect the wishes of the majority of its citizens?

Illegal file-sharing is not proper theft but it is without a doubt a fraud, as you are getting a service (entertainment) without paying for it.

Really? I have MTV, Much Music, Commercial Free Digital Music via my Cable Service, Commercial Free XM Satellite Radio... if its a current Top 40 track I can hear it dozens of times a day, and I *do*. So, if I decide to download that track instead of record it off the radio or TV, what is the real difference? And 90% of the infringing p2p music traffic is top40 crud and fits into the category.

I already have the right to record it myself any number of the dozens of times I hear it per week, but suddenly I'm committing a fraud if I download the track over the internet instead? And storing it on media I paid a music levy on? (And I pay that levy even if I store my own digital photos on the discs instead??)