Quebec ISP To Terminate Subscribers Over Copyright 290
An anonymous reader writes "Quebecor, which owns Quebec's biggest ISP, has thrown in with Hollywood
interests by arguing for the 'graduated response' approach that would kick off subscribers based on three allegations of infringement. The company told Canada's telecom regulator that net neutrality rules are not needed since content blocking has social benefits, including the potential for
a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy."
meh (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conflicker worm to the rescue! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, seriously. Figure out what worm/malware is the most prolific in Quebecor's customer base.
Have that program dl a simple client that hooks up to a P2P network and begins asking for Britney Spears albums nonstop. Then watch as Quebecor's customer base drops to zero.
Remember, it's three allegations of copyright infringement that gets you bumped off their network. Not three proven incidents.
Perhaps this would show them the error in their policy.
Re: (Score:2)
because Bell is so much better...what with their evening/late-night throttling and crazy prices.
I'm moving to Montreal this summer and I hope I can find something better than these two giant ogres for my internet service.
Re: (Score:2)
No other options, sorry. (I'm in Montreal)
As far as I know, every provider here leases their service from Bell or Videotron.
Hopefully this won't come to pass just yet, but so far I'm fairly happy with Videotron. Like the GP poster, I get great download speeds (1200Mbit/s actual) and no interference from them, apart from a blocked port 80 (meh).
The downside is the monthly cap (100GB combined up/down for $79 CDN, so watch your torrents). As long as you don't go over the monthly limit, it's an awesome provider
Re: (Score:2)
What is scary about this story is that they are talking about mere allegations of copyright violations to suspend service. Surely this will be abused...
So... abuse it! Nothing points out the problems with a system faster than breaking it. Is there a punishment for people whose allegations turn out to be incorrect?
I took some photographs and put them in an archive named "StarWars.zip". This person downloaded and seeded a file by that name on BitTorrent.
Wait--I thought the blank-media tax made copying legal in Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
That sums it up quite nicely. They used to be great, but in the last 3-4 years they've been rather consistently shitting all over their customer base. I jumped ship when they decided the Extreme plan was no longer unlimited.
Like every other ISP, they will become a boring, frustrating, penny-pinching joke/scam. It's only a matter of time before they start pissing off the people they thought un-pissable.
There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. (Score:5, Interesting)
Alternatives? Where. Show me. Explain to me.
There is NO alternatives in Quebec.
Show me the "competitve market" in Ontario. Please leave the Rogers/hBell wholesalers and resellers, and show me the competition.
Primus in select area's that is not on Bell equipment? MSNi in Windsor not on Bell equipment?
nexicom in petorborough not on Bell equipment?
This competition is in isolated communities that the masses have no access to. Now explain the competition in Quebec to me please. Where should Videotron users move to again?
Whith whom should they speak to with their wallet?
I will be very surprised if the french language media even picks up on this.
Quebec isn't even aware of the copyright fight that went on. A couple of obscure articles that came out a month AFTER the re-election.
Think they will know about this?
Quebec will push for its own CRTC saying its good for the people, have no coverage, and not tell the people stuff like this will happen. They have been pushing for their own CRTC for years now.
There is close to zero awareness of these things in Quebec french media and french population.
Will Quebecor put out a press release saying what it wants to do in their media? heh
speak with your wallet? Change telco? Let me know when you found an alternative...
Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. (Score:5, Interesting)
Who modded this troll? Is there Videotron/Québécor agents reading slashdot?!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know what he said is true. But he had a "troll" mod for a short time. I wasn't saying "who modded this troll [poster]" I was saying "who modded this [as a] troll".
Kinda confusing now that I read my post again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know what he said is true. But he had a "troll" mod for a short time. I wasn't saying "who modded this troll [poster]" I was saying "who modded this [as a] troll".
Kinda confusing now that I read my post again.
Glad to see that others have noticed some of the low-quality moderation that goes on and are willing to say something about it. I know that this can't be true, but for a while there I felt like the only one.
I've never seen a good reason for why the old metamoderation system was abolished.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone was not impressed with the cut and paste from TFA....
Re: (Score:2)
Then the mod should have been "redundant", if anything.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. (Score:5, Informative)
It may not be as simple as just starting an ISP. The last mile service is the most difficult to achieve. Most ISPs in place already have the last mile infrastructure in place from other offerings or had some government assistance to get access.
DSL, and it's slow adoption is probably the most obvious example of this issue. For years, the lines were not in a shape or quality that could carry DLS signals. This is true within Canada just as much as the US. When DSL tech came availible, some areas had to wait 5 or more years before lines where upgrades and so on before they could get access to it. What people don't really realize is that ADSL was originally developed back in 1988 or so with it's roots coming from the scientific paper released in 1948 "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". It probably wasn't until 2000 or so until DSL started becoming widely availible and affordable because of all the upgrades that needed to be made. Now this is despite the telecoms already using it as an extension to DS1 services to pipe the bulk of calls outside the local exchange.
Back in 1999, I was working with a guy and we were going to start a DSL ISP in my local area and even rent bandwidth to some local ISPs (mom and pop shops) so help cover the costs. Now, this was in the US so things might be a little different but to get the tech out to the limits of the existing technology at the time, we were going to have to rewire half of the city before we even thought about putting R-DSLAMS in to extend the ranges. And even though we were replacing wire that the telecoms were already obligated to replace, we had to go through the motions of getting a right of way and all that. In the end, it think we estimated it to take something like 15-25 years to repay the initial investment if we were operating at maximum capacity for that time. In 2000 or 2001, Time Warner started upgrading their lines in my local area and offered roadrunner which started taking some of the T1 internet access accounts away, the telcos then upgraded their lines (without having to fuck with 'right of ways') and offered DSL.
Now both Time Warner and SBC/ATT will offer fiber access to 90% of the local area if your a commercial customer but all your phones and stuff go over the fiber access too which is significantly pointing to the "other uses" which covers the last mile installation costs. Hell, even Verizon's FIOS services which are sold to private customers do the phone and all too.
It may be impossible for someone to set up a second network offering the speeds and such and remain competitive in the least. This wouldn't be because there aren't enough file sharers or P2P users, it's because so much of the costs are already offset by other services and those opertunities may not be availible to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of costs in starting an ISP. Hardware, running the wire, buying politicians... the usual stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
+1. I'm a Videotron client, and all alternatives either suck (Bell), suck more (Videotron resellers), or have no choice but to suck (TekSavvy uses Bell infrastructures).
Currently, the only service provider with a good signal, less connection drops, and an overall good stability is Videotron. I will be the first to say that our DSL service with Bell is sometimes worse than accessing cellular internet - I kid you not. But aside from Bell (throttling b1tches), Bell resellers (poor them), Videotron (Quebecor ob
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Until recently, the best choices where DSL resellers, with a very low price tag and great speed (8mpbs). Sadly, bell got the right to slow down their resellers lines when they detected p2p stuff on it. And if you lived in a good area, the connection quality (uptime) was great too!
Some where offering contract free service, or services without any logging etc...
Nowadays, you need to go live further away and get a DSL or cable service from the community, and if you are sawwy enough you could even become the ad
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but maybe someone who is might chime in:
Since the "alleging 3rd party" and Quebecor caused damages to you ( loss of internet service ) without showing reasonable proof, I wonder if you could sue them?
Is it possible to get a class action going if they caused large numbers of people to lose internet access?
Re: (Score:2)
I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.
I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.
I acuse ADMIN@QUEBECOR.CA of copyright infringement.
There, three times. Now what? :D
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now you've summoned one of the Elder Gods, Cop'Yr'Ight and his insatiable horde of lawyers. You've doomed the entire world!
Hastur's got nothing on this tentacle-faced prick.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is NO "competitive market" in Quebec. (Score:4, Informative)
In Montreal at least, you can go with Colbanet [colba.net]'s ADSL2+ service. They've got their own equipment, separate DSLAMs and pipes, and don't rely on Bell for anything.
A previous roommate worked for them on their ADSL2+ rollout. Turns out it was cheaper for them to move the customers they had on Bell's equipment (where they didn't pay for bandwidth) over to their own (where they did). Pretty crazy.
If you're in Montreal, give them a call and see if they cover your area. If they do, they might be worth the switch.
Old news (Score:2)
Isn't this already common practice? I know my ISP (COX) warned me that 3 complaints would lead to account termination.
Re:Old news (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't this already common practice? I know my ISP (COX) warned me that 3 complaints would lead to account termination.
I think it's new and maybe it's becoming common, but right now it's still unusual.
The one thing that bothers me is that it sounds like mere allegations are enough to count towards the "three strikes". I'm hearing about account terminations etc. and I am not hearing much about the burden of proof.
The summary had one thing right though:
I agree that this will have societal benefits. For one, if this becomes a widespread practice we're going to see encrypted or obfuscated torrent protocols in a hurry. This will start an arms race that the ISPs have no hope of winning, which is appropriate because copyright is a legal issue, not a technical issue or a customer service issue that an ISP should be concerned about. That's the best way I know of to start an arms race -- apply the wrong solution and when it fails, try harder and harder instead of recognizing a failed idea and looking for a different solution.
The other societal benefit is that more people are going to start questioning whether draconian copyright enforcement measures are in anyone's best interests. It's like places that have arbitrarily low speed limits; the model depends on the idea that most people get away with it most of the time. If there were a way to perfectly catch and fine 100% of people who exceed the speed limit by even one mile per hour, the result would be a severe public backlash that would cause the speed limit to be raised. Once the public gets tired of the copyright interests' insatiable appetite for increasingly punitive measures, those copyright interests are going to wish like hell that they had quit while they are ahead. They and their products are a mere luxury; we do not need them and as soon as we realize that, it will help to restore the balance of power that is sorely missing.
The general public is exceedingly stupid when it comes to seeing ahead of time that something is headed down the wrong path and is going to be a problem, but once they do, there's not a whole lot that can stop them. This has all the makings of a severe public backlash because what drives the awareness is the Internet and open discussion so the usual mass-media's one-sided approach to everything won't hold this one back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, no wonder it wants its ISP to lead the march to block P2P and do as much harm as possible to anything that can be used to infringe copyright laws. It is somewhat like have the cop, the judge and the claimer in the same person. In
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Canada it is questionable whether downloading stuff is even illegal. Especially music, which has a levy on blank media to pay for sharing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not questionable at all. Despite what CIRA has been lying about, it's perfectly legal to download music and movies in Canada.
Uploading is NOT legal.
Now paging the /. legal team: Your Law and Order training is required below my post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not questionable at all. Despite what CIRA has been lying about, it's perfectly legal to download music and movies in Canada.
Uploading is NOT legal.
Now paging the /. legal team: Your Law and Order training is required below my post.
The private copying rules only apply to music, not movies.
Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Videotron for my own internet access. I disagree with their reasoning on this though. What I am more interested in is exactly why they (or any other ISP) would take this position? The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs, which is a win for them for obvious reasons.
But if they want to have that kind of power, then they would also make themselves at least somewhat liable for what their subscribers are doing over the internet. Do they really want to take on that liability to any degree? Or do they expect to be able to get the ability to throttle bandwidth while still not incurring any liability for user activities?
END COMMUNICATION
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Users downloading creative commons or public domain material or Linux ISOs also typically use more bandwidth than regular users.
Huge bandwidth users != copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the scary thing and I don't think most people appreciate it.
It would be better for us to have every last copyright interest and major media corporation go completely out of business and leave us with little or no music and movies, than it would be to compromise sound standards of evidence in an
Re: (Score:2)
Quebecor, which owns Videotron is a huge media and content owner. Through subsidiaries, they're closer to being the "Time Warner" of Quebec(and they own some stuff west, just not dominating there like they do here) than just about anything else here.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only real gain for an ISP would be the ability to kick bandwidth hogs"
Yes but not only, Videotron is owned by a media company that Owns tv station, newspaper film distributors , book and music publishers.
They want to sell you their stuff trough their pipes but first they need to cut off the competition , free or not, legal or not.
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you're using P2P for World of Warcraft updates? What if you're using P2P to download Linux distros? What if you use P2P to download music, videos and books that are public domain?
Will the ISPs really check the validity of the complaints or simple check for any P2P activity from their users?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but what I'm afraid of is that ISPs won't care what you do and label you a "thief" for using P2P.
Re: (Score:2)
who cares? what's the difference of the sources until it's proven in court.
This throws that whole "is it legal" argument out the window in favor of screwing anyone the industry doesn't like.
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
who cares? what's the difference of the sources until it's proven in court.
This throws that whole "is it legal" argument out the window in favor of screwing anyone the industry doesn't like.
You just illustrated the futility of what they are trying so hard to do.
They aren't actually trying to screw anyone whom the industry doesn't like. That people are also getting screwed is more of a side-effect. They're trying to eliminate a technology that the industry doesn't like. The thing about that, is that the cat is already out of the bag and isn't going back in. That's why this will fail.
Only one open question remains: how many people are going to suffer in one way or another before it is generally understood that this can't possibly work?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you completely, but the problem is exactly what you say in the last statement, and that is my biggest concern, and this has been happening with an excess of technologies, policies, etc.
I think the real reason is a bunch of politicians doing a completely shitty jobs in general by being willing to violate their own ethics has translated to businesses doing a shitty job and violating their own ethics, and so forth down the road. I have a feeling every generation has dealt with this, we are not the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you completely, but the problem is exactly what you say in the last statement, and that is my biggest concern, and this has been happening with an excess of technologies, policies, etc.
I think the real reason is a bunch of politicians doing a completely shitty jobs in general by being willing to violate their own ethics has translated to businesses doing a shitty job and violating their own ethics, and so forth down the road. I have a feeling every generation has dealt with this, we are not the last, and certainly not the first if history has anything to say about it.
I don't know what the cure is for that, since there is clearly enough nepotism for people to stretch their political career beyond retirement and beyond death, into their own children etc. I think this has been covered [despair.com] far more than enough already.
However, on the flip side in favor of being too careful is just as bad as not being careful in that both result in undesired change/errors/mistakes/people thrown to the wayside as innocent victims. There just isn't a balance at all, and this is evident in many cultures worldwide. It's just becoming more apparent because of the internet, or maybe it's just as apparent as it's always been. I don't know.
We the public are generally far too docile and naive. I recognize that almost all of our problems follow from this. I think it's because we have largely abandoned principle in favor of immediate convenience and gratification and that this has made us weak and timid. What immediate convenience would see as a gross overreaction to something small is what principle would see as stopping a problem in its early stages before it can grow and develop into a crisis.
We ignore the acorns that are planted and y
Re:Do they really want that responsibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't believe for a second that they're going to do any more due diligence in verifying the validity of infringement complaints than the record labels do in filing them. Why is it okay to allow this to happen?
I guess I'm in the minority of those who use P2P protocols for legal purposes. Trying to download DVD images (Solaris, various Linux distros, etc) without BitTorrent is terribly painful, and bad for the distributor in terms of bandwidth utilization. I don't give two shits about music downloads, although I have an iTunes account for my wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Valid? I don't think I've seen a "three strikes" law containing that word, let alone a definition of who makes the judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
No. There's no requirement that the complaints be valid, or that they even try to verify the complaint. Three unsubstantiated complaints and they can terminate your service. All somebody has to do is complain that you're infringing and you have problems. If they do it three times, you're out, with, AFAIK no recourse and no other provider. I can only guess that this company has either never heard of or doesn't believe i
Re: (Score:2)
Yabut - the US DMCA has been shown to be abused - Isn't it the case that just about anyone can lodge a false DMCA complaint against content at say Youtube, and they will pull it down without investigation? They dare not leave it up after receiving a DMCA take down because they would then be liable for damages at that point?
Unless the victim has a big pile of cash for lawyers, said victim has no freedom of speech..
Re: (Score:2)
So Canada doesn't require that any DMCA complaints be filed under penalty of perjury, or any other mechanism to require them to be valid?
I'm very sorry for Canadians that they are vulnerable to harassment through this method. I suggest they consult with their government representatives on it.
They should also include the right to file a counter-notice, if it's not there already.
Frankly, I see that problem as one with the government, not one with your ISPs. Of course, my experience with most ISPs is that they
good revenge tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, for mass effect, do random drivebys on unsecured wifi routers. Torrent some unencrypted goodies through the connection so there's real proof in the ISP's logs that infringement happened.
Then report the address of the hapless blokes. It may only take a couple dozen instances in the average sized city to achieve the desired effect.
Cutting off internet access to a bunch of Joe Consumers (who spend over a hundred bucks a month on their cable bill) is a big deal and would guarantee mainstream coverage of t
Crazy french people (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a french Canadian (i.e. Québécois) who prefers to watch movies and TV shows in their original versions (be it french, english or japanese with french or english subtitles), I find your comment funny, insightful and scary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, heaven forbid that a group of people try to maintain and preserve their unique culture and heritage - just like China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries do.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the others are actual countries. Quebec isn't a county, it's a province inside a country and they do more then attempt to preserve their culture, they push it onto anyone who comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Quebec isn't a country, but it is a nation. They're entitled to try to preserve their own unique cultural identity. They're just not entitled to try to force it on the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the historical culture of a nation doesn't remove it's obligations to the country it is part of. And your right, it doesn't entitle them to enforce that onto others but it's what they try to do. It's why so many other people don't like them, even Canadians from different provinces don't like them for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes they do when you are there. Quebec is different from the rest of Canada and even institutes mandates differently. There are a group of separatist in Quebec that attempt to make it as different from Canada as possible. Take bill 101 for instance. The British parliament created a rule for minority education in different languages so Quebec made French the "official language" and refused to allow English or any other version until it was challenged in the
Re: (Score:2)
A nation is pretty much little more then a group of people with similar qualities. It's not a legal right in any way. A nation is also subject to interpretation as it is being used. Take the nation of Islam for instance or the nation of the US. Members of both can be members of both because they talk or separate common grounds. A club of Chess players can be a nation once it's members reach a certain size but it doesn't give them any legal status.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, heaven forbid that a group of people try to maintain and preserve their unique culture and heritage - just like China, Japan, and hundreds of other countries do.
Preserving culture and heritage is fine. Forcing people who have no interest in your culture and heritage to learn your language is not fine.
There are at least 85 languages which are extinct in North America alone (citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_North_America [wikipedia.org]). If someone wants to preserve the culture by learning one or more of those languages, that's perfectly fine by me. What's completely ridiculous is forbidding people to send their children to English schools (becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Allegations? By whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sniff the wire and get your hogging neighbors bounced. Or that grll with no taste.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, there's a "disconnect" (har har) over what an internet connection means in 2009.
It's not cable TV. It's not your spa membership. This isn't 1997, where one's internet connection was a curiosity and a pastime; it's since assumed the role one's principal informational conduit with the outside world. You pay your bills with it, you file government documents and applications with it, you communicate with employers, employees, friends, and loved ones with it.
The burden of proof to take someone's internet access away, to force them to live in a non-connected world that no longer even exists, should be monumentally high. That it can be revoked simply on allegation of casual infringement on a copyright should be a lot more disturbing to people than it seems to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... It is tantamount to removing someone's freedom of speech as most people use it as their primary conduit to post their own thoughts and feelings as well.
I sure hope that some people get together and sue over this policy. Not only is it unfair and unjust. You have to realize that much public money has gone into helping these companies build the infrastructure they make money off of. None of this half assed begging for public money to do things then treating the network as your own personal back yar
Re:Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogy time:
If I park in someone's reserved space, then the property owner should be within his rights to call the towing company to get my car out of there. But then it should just be between the property owner and me; they send me a bill for the towing and that's it -- They shouldn't be able to call the secretary of state and have them revoke my driver's license so that I'm no longer a threat to reserved parking spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a terrible analogy. Having someone steal your reserved parking space is far more of a hassle, annoyance and damaging than having a very small percentage of your potential customers get their goods somewhere else.
Re:Proportionality, lack thereof (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.
Maybe there is no alternative. But that doesn't matter. It then becomes a question of what is more important: respecting people's privacy and due process; or enforcing copyright law.
You don't have to be in the pro "download anything you want" camp to believe that privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important than copyright. You simply have to value those things more highly. The fact that many of us don't value copyright very much (because we view it as a flawed and oft-abused law) further tips the balance, such that there isn't a justification for revoking privacy and due process simply for the marginal and inconsistent protection of copyright.
Here's the question - how can anyone prove it?
Again, it needs to be emphasized: there isn't necessarily a solution. There isn't necessarily a way to totally enforce copyright without infringing people's rights. But this is hardly unique. There isn't any way to totally enforce any law without infringing people's rights. So for each law we must weigh the importance of the law against the personal freedoms or rights that may be infringed. So for instance many of us view automobiles as somewhat dangerous, and decide that reducing car accidents is sufficiently important that we will allow our freedoms to be somewhat restricted (licensed required to operate a car), and our privacy to be somewhat reduced (license plates, driver's license, etc.) in order to save lives. But there is a limit (we could perhaps reduce deaths even further if every car were constantly tracked; but I personally would view that as overly encroaching on my freedoms), even for laws I support.
In the case of copyright, it seems there is no way for it to continue to exist (and be enforced) without sacrificing more important ideals. Thus we need to either accept that these laws will not be enforceable, or we need to change these laws.
Re: (Score:2)
So, here's an interesting question then. What if ISPs were not allowed to target downloaders, but only providers?
For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunatley, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal" ... so we're reduced to forcing law-enforcers to proving that we not on
Re: (Score:2)
Your confusing the just downloading it argument. If you obtain a file or copyrighted work, you havn't broken a law in most areas regardless of if you listen to it or not. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to control who hear or sees the work, it gives them the right to control it's distribution and public performances and uses in other works.
Downloading can never be against copyright law because it has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with conversion and receiving something you didn't hav
Re: (Score:2)
We are generally talking about torrents here. The only problem with your suggestion is that the very nature of a torrent is that each downloader is also uploading. I strongly doubt that ISPs are going to draw a distinction between "uploading as part of downloading" and "being the original seeder." They certainly won't have incentive to do so. So we're back again to the original problem, whic
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]The "I have nothing to hide [so search me]" mentality was never a valid position. Its very basis is the idea that privacy is not legitimate, that the only purpose of privacy is to cover up wrongdoing. If you hear anyone honestly say "I have nothing to hide", I wonder how they'd react if you told them to disrobe, in public. I don't recommend actually doing that, of course, but it illustrates the point. You'd quickly find that even people who think they believe in that BS do in fact have things they do
BZZZT, wrong!!! (Score:5, Informative)
You don't seem to be reading the news. The Pirate Bay hosts *no* content at all. They don't make anything available. All they do is supply pointers to people who claim to have something available. The whole process is called "peer-to-peer".
I can understand your problem and sympathize with you and all other artists and people who depend on selling their intellectual creations. But the fact is that the current business model for that is broken. We need a new way to let people earn a living from their creations. Misunderstanding the problem and trying to implement radical solutions will not help accomplish that end.
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? (Score:2)
How about one strike and I am out. Accuse me once of infringement without due process and I will quit and get a different ISP. Simple.
Of course I don't live in Quebec so I am not sure what their ISP options are. However if it is like Ontario, there isn't much choice, but there is choice.
Not surprising (Score:3, Informative)
Québécor owns most of Québec music companies, most of the private TV networks and a lot of newspapers.
Back when the courts determined that file-sharing was legal and ISPs should not be compelled to ID copyright infringers, Vidéoétron was perfectly willing to turn subscribers IDs to record companies.
List of Bad ISP in Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Right here [azureuswiki.com]. Despite having friends working at Videotron, I believe the Quebecor empire [wikipedia.org] (more info in Fr [wikipedia.org]) is a bad one as a whole (e.g. newspaper consolidation), not only the ISP part.
3-strike policies (Score:2)
Why?
Because many people will not take the trouble to dispute the first 2 notices, even if they are in error. Only when they get their third unjustified notice will they recoil in horror, realizing that their internet service has been cut off for stupid (and probably unjust) reasons.
We have all seen what happens when bogus takedown notices are sent. Innocent people suffer. A
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA needs to go away.
Ummm... the DMCA is a US law. TFA is about a Canadian ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
wow. corporations deciding what's good for public (Score:5, Insightful)
get a load of that. private interests are the decider of what's good for society now.
that's what happens when you allow unbridled capitalism. if there is an unorderly chaos, a lack of authority, more powerful groups fill the gap and establish their own hierarchy. NO different than post roman empire chaos in which roman government wasnt able to restore order. in that feudal lords arose, establishing a new order. it was only in 1400s that central kings were able to establish a valid rule for the land, with the help of cannons, beating feudal lords and freeing them from the whims of robber barons.
today is no different. we have a king in the form of governments, which WE, as people, control, we have 'private interests', which are trying to assert their own authority in various aspects of social life, hiding behind capitalism, competition and free market excuses.
the only way that you can have EQUAL, FAIR environment is to bash feudal lords through your central hammer at your disposal - your federal government.
do it, and you wont live in a virtual feudal domain in your locale under whatever big group controls aspects of life. - for any fool that may err in thinking that they dont : almost all of the services&products you use in your daily life belongs to various corporations which are the holdings of various big megaholdings themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think they live in a bubble of unbridled capitalism? There is plenty of regulation in the ISP "market". If you ask me, this is more the fault of the government, for their intense regulation of ISPs and letting one or two telcos completely own an area. Unbridled capitalism would mean customers could vote with their wallet and go somewhere else, but yet there are actual customers in here complaining that there are no other options!
Re: (Score:2)
"Unbridled capitalism" has absolutely nothing to do with what choices are available for the customer. It means that A.) corporations are completely unlimited on what they can do to grow their companies (if they can get rid of all competition, so much the better for them!), and B.) there are no restrictions on what the customer is allowed to buy. But also, since there is no regulation, there is also nothing to say that any particular corporation or industry has to make any particular thing available for sale
and (Score:2)
you're anonymous.
why ?
Who's the customer, anyway? (Score:2)
Does anyone find it odd that an ISP would be looking to CUT its customer base?
If you ask me, it isn't about RIAA or MPIAA, the ISPs are greedy. Torrents are hard to shape and take bandwidth that they have to pay for. So, it is a way of booting "expensive" customers and trying to make it look like it is a positive thing.
Seriously, its just a way for them to increase their bottom line.
Terminate?! (Score:2)
Wait...what's that? Oooooh. They're just cutting off internet service.
ThePiratebay says it best (Score:3, Funny)
Try here: image [thepiratebay.org]
No news here... (Score:3, Informative)
We'd get intrusion emails from sysadmins, particulars, etc. We had a set of rule (sysadmins complaint had more weight than regular individuals, but we still took both into account).
If we received enough complaints (10 invidiual or 2 sysadmins iirc), you'd get a call from me or a colleague of mine, asking you to refrain. 2nd time would be a final warning, 3rd time was a complete disconnection of your Internet services.
We were getting complaints from RIAA back in the day, and would process those complaints with the same rule as sysadmins.
Agreed, back in the day, botnets and all were WAY less widespread than they are now, so I'd say that 75-80% of the time, it was the actual person who did the deed (guy's registered email adress is "leetdude at videotron dot ca" and the alias they caught him under on IRC was "leetdudeqc" for example), where nowaday, a lot of people do "bad deeds" unknowingly because their computer was zombified. But even then, after a single warning, you should get your shit together and get your computer fixed, cleaned, protected. A 30$ router and a 60$ AV/AS software works wonders (not PERFECT, but a lot better than an unpatched unprotected computer plugged in directly in the cablemodem).
Re: (Score:2)
nowaday, a lot of people do "bad deeds" unknowingly because their computer was zombified. But even then, after a single warning, you should get your shit together and get your computer fixed, cleaned, protected. A 30$ router and a 60$ AV/AS software works wonders (not PERFECT, but a lot better than an unpatched unprotected computer plugged in directly in the cablemodem).
A lot of people have no idea how computers work and are not interested in learning. Router may prevent external computers from exploiting open ports or whatever, but nothing's going to stop the user who downloads and runs an ".exe" because the website claimed it was a "required plugin" for viewing the secret porn content. Even if the antivirus pops up a warning, the user is just as likely to disable it, or add this .exe as an "exception", to be able to get at the porn.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how my car's alternator & fuel injection works, and i don't care. All i know is the following:
1) Car starts each morning. If it doesn't start on first turn, i call up my mechanic (Even after 4 years i haven't had a starting problem).
2) I know i have to remote-lock my car when i exit it. If i lose the car because i failed to lock it, its my fault. Duh!
3) I know i have to fill premium Gas every week, change the engine oil every 20,000 Kms, and check/fill the air every time i fill Gas.
4) I k
Three strikes and you're out, huh? (Score:4, Funny)
I hereby accuse the entire Bloc Quebecois of copyright infringement.
Come on, guys. Two more accusations and we'll never hear from these clods again!
Re:Typical (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from the language laws (which is a divisive issue itself in Quebec), Quebec has always seemed to be fairly progressive when it comes to personal freedom. I doubt if the average Quebecois agrees with what one of its major corporations would want to do to its citizens. Quebec is far from being anything like the Bible Belt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're absolutely right on with that comment. Quebec is quite a ways from where I live, but I find myself identifying with Quebecers on a lot of issues, and strangely alienated from a lot of other "left-coasters" who live in the more rural areas of my province.
I'm sure there is the same broad spectrum of people there as in other areas, but in general Quebec strikes me as quite progressive with regard to social issues, while still fiercely libertarian on a personal level.
I doubt this will go very far; Quebec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially considering lots of Americans aren't even born in the USA.
Actually it is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of the things Quebec disagrees on work out really well. Lots of universities with low tuition, better leave for kids, $7/day day care (I was paying $55/day in Toronto), no fault insurance (way, way, cheaper, and the additional accidents are due to the badly designed highways and more aggressive drivers not to the cheaper insurance)...
Videotron is just making a case for having its cable monopoly broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot... since when has that been a requirement? Thank for at least recognizing that I was trying to be funny, which justifies some 'artistic license'. Yes, I suspected all government documents in Canada were required to be bi-lingual. France and the US are really very similar, which was sort of the point of the movie Les Triplettes de Belleville. France was once a dominant world power, just as the US is now. But now French speakers appea
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of a dumb question, *everything* thats eligible for copyright has it in the US, including open source/creative commons work.