| Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada Giest talks about it: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5999/125/
TorrentFreak too:
»torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-law···-110909/
Scary stuff, the ISPs are just rolling over for this too from the sounds of it.
Time to fire up that VPN.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
| These cases will be the litmus test for P2P law in Canada.
My guess is that major Canadian ISPs will be much more willing to roll over and identify IPs than the ISPs in the US were. With all the vertical integration going on in this country most ISPs are content owners and producers as well as bitching about *congestion* caused by P2P more than ISPs in the US, and so they have a doubly vested interest in terrorizing P2P users.
The only possible refuge here is the court system. If the courts rule that disclosing IPs is a privacy violation, or if they rule that an IP is insufficient to identify an individual, we'll be ok.
I am very very willing to contribute money to the legal funds of any defense against this crap.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 | reply to static416
Your best way to put companies this stupid in a hurt locker is to stop supporting them. Do not watch or do anything to give money to any of the films on this page:
»www.imdb.com/company/co0179337/
Make sure anyone involved knows that if they work for Voltage Pictures their movie will never be enjoyed by anyone and that they may/may not get paid when Voltage Pictures goes bankrupt from the lack of income. |
|
| said by shepd:Your best way to put companies this stupid in a hurt locker is to stop supporting them. Do not watch or do anything to give money to any of the films on this page:
»www.imdb.com/company/co0179337/
Make sure anyone involved knows that if they work for Voltage Pictures their movie will never be enjoyed by anyone and that they may/may not get paid when Voltage Pictures goes bankrupt from the lack of income.
Worst case scenario, I have no problem completely avoiding all copyright infringing consumption of video content. I still download stuff now, but I can't think of the last time I actually watched any of what I have. It just comes down automatically and I never bother looking at it.
There is far more than enough quality movies and video online that is legitimately free and produced by people who are both visionary in their craft and their business model. And I typically spend my time watching that stuff anyways. On top of being free, it's actually better content too.
If these dinosaur companies are that desperate to sue to the only people who actually watched their movie, then they can go screw themselves. I'll watch and support the content of people who embrace the future instead of trying to stop it.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
| There's tons of expired copyright & public domain stuff at »www.archive.org/details/movies that's worth watching. |
|
| Also go to vodo.net as it has lots of interesting recent open shows and movies that you can legally torrent. |
|
| reply to static416
We need to establish a legal fund for the accused in these lawsuits. I think lots of people would be willing to contribute to the defense of the people targeted by these mafia-shakedown tactics.
I wonder if OpenMedia would be willing to act as the collector and publicist for this fund, and if Micheal Giest would be willing to act as council.
We have to do whatever we can to prevent these corporations from suing the pants off their own customers.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to static416
said by Michael Geist :
It now appears that the lawsuits are coming to Canada as the Federal Court of Canada has paved the way for the identification of subscribers at Bell Canada, Cogeco, and Videotron who are alleged to have copied the movie. Late last month the court ordered the three ISPs to disclose the names and addresses of subscribers linked to IP addresses alleged to have copied the movie. The ISPs were given two weeks to respond and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses.
If I'm understanding this correctly, only clients of some of the larger ISPs are affected?
Rogers, Shaw and wholesale aren't named, which is a little strange. It's like saying if I'm speeding in a Toyota I'm going to get a ticket but if I'm speeding in a Ford I won't.
On another tangent I'm curious to see what recourse affected ISP clients will have; I'd defend myself in court certainly, and I would certainly take my ISP to court if they handed over my IP.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again? |
|
| said by El Quintron: If I'm understanding this correctly, only clients of some of the larger ISPs are affected? Looks that way right now. But this might just be the first wave. Rogers, Shaw, Telus are probably next.
I imagine they might pass on wholesale, too small a target. Or maybe they'll use the Bell and Rogers DPI gear to identify wholesale customers. That would almost be a good thing, due the flagrant privacy violation that would create.
said by El Quintron:On another tangent I'm curious to see what recourse affected ISP clients will have; I'd defend myself in court certainly, and I would certainly take my ISP to court if they handed over my IP.
If history is any example, they will try to get you to settle out of court for some mysterious amount of money on the condition you admit fault and don't talk about the deal. If you fight the case and go to court, they will drop the suit if it looks like you are winning (they've done this in the past) in order to avoid setting a negative precedent.
You'd then have to file and successfully win a counter-suit in order to actually establish legal precedent capable of protecting others. The whole time they'd be fighting hard, stalling, and trying to bribe you to stop to avoid the precedent.
Jammie Thomas is still fighting her suit and it's been like 10 years since Napster even existed.
In reality they are on very weak legal grounds here. An IP is not a person, and infringement of a single movie shouldn't cost the accused $10K. But they win because they have more money than the people they target, and the victims just settle out of court rather than fighting it.
It's not at all hyperbole to call it a mafia-style shakedown.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Thank you for this link. I've bookmarked it. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by Brantford :Thank you for this link. I've bookmarked it. You should explore all of archive.org there's some amazing movies and music on there... all in the public domain or in the creative commons.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again? |
|
| reply to static416
said by static416:But they win because they have more money than the people they target, and the victims just settle out of court rather than fighting it.
It's not at all hyperbole to call it a mafia-style shakedown.
In the US, you can win in court but still go bankrupt paying legal fees to defend yourself against a deep pockets corporation.
As I understand it, Canadian courts typically require the losing party in a court battle to pay court costs and the winner's legal expenses (which is very wise because it discourages frivolous lawsuits).
These copyright mobsters might find that they're stirring up a hornets' nest here. |
|
| reply to El Quintron
>Rogers, Shaw and wholesale aren't named
Rogers throttles torrents 24/7. If I were a Rogers customer that got sue, I would use that fact as my defense for not having used torrent.
Also loser pays in Canada, so if there are enough innocent people that stands up to them and not settle, their law suits is going to cost them big time. |
|
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:You should explore all of archive.org there's some amazing movies and music on there... all in the public domain or in the creative commons.
Thank you, I will. Thanks also to FiReSTaRT for the »vodo.net link which I have also bookmarked. |
|
|
|
 eksterHi there.
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:1 | reply to static416
I'm sure there are going to be at least a couple of lawyers that will defend with the conditions of "If we lose, it's free, if we win, you spent 20 hours every day with me for the past 3 months, here's the bill" type of thing... |
|
| reply to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Also loser pays in Canada, so if there are enough innocent people that stands up to them and not settle, their law suits is going to cost them big time. While this might be true for now, remember that laws can change and people play golf, so don't bank on getting those legal fees back.
--
Ilija - Caneris Inc |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | pirating exists because the industry refuses to provide affordable DRM-free content via internet and tries hard to protect legacy medium by sabotaging companies such as Netflix.
The legacy movie industry is like SCO. Instead of adapting, they are turning into an organisation who sole purpose is suing people.
If we had a government that protected our needs, it would reject the lawsuits with a "come back once you have DRM free movies at ffordable price where more than 75% of revenues go to the production company. |
|
| said by jfmezei:pirating exists because the industry refuses to provide affordable DRM-free content via internet and tries hard to protect legacy medium by sabotaging companies such as Netflix.
Exactly. I wrote a blog post awhile ago about how piracy is really just a symptom of market failure, and shouldn't be heavily penalized. It's the consumer routing around a greedy and uncooperative corporation. And it's not even necessarily a net loss for the corporation. Even if one consumer doesn't pay for your product, if it's good, he'll tell his five friends, all of whom may buy instead of pirate. That's why Microsoft isn't too rigid about enforcing consumer copyright infringement. They'd rather have you using it for free and contributing to the Microsoft culture, than you switching to OSX or Linux.
If a corporation isn't willing to sell it's product in a fashion that the consumer wants, I don't think the consumer should be punished for finding an illegitimate method to get it that way. I'd pay for movies online if they would let me, but they won't, so I'll get them the only way I can. I'm not going to buy a TV and Bluray player just so I can watch one movie they way they want to sell it.
If you want to penalize me for not following all the rules, I guess that's ok if the fine is $50 for a $5 movie, but not $80,000/song like in the Jammie Thomas case. And there should be due process and law enforcement involved, not just one corporation giving another corporation all my info because my IP showed up somewhere.
Alas, the problem is that both of us are using a thing called logic to win this argument. And in our society arguments are won with money, power, and lawyers, not logic.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
 TigerLordResident pentaxianPremium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Canada
kudos:6 | reply to static416
The movie was barely deserving of its Oscar nominations, let alone its trophies. The studio has lost its mind. |
|
| said by TigerLord:The movie was barely deserving of its Oscar nominations, let alone its trophies. The studio has lost its mind.
Ironically, that's sort of why they are suing people. The producers are mad because it didn't make much money in theaters, but was pirated after the Oscars far more than some movies that already made money.
They feel that being an Oscar winner, they deserved higher revenue than they got for the movie. So now they are trying to get that revenue by suing the few people that DID choose to watch it.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog |
|
