|
Posted by timothy (40% noise) View
canwaf writes “According to the CBC, and the other guys: In a 9-0 decision, Canada’s highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. They continue in their decision that Internet access providers are not bound by federal copyright legislation. Coupled with an earlier story on Slashdot, this is a very good thing.” Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail’s article, too.
|
|
Big Glass of STFU - by groupthink (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
I think its worth taking note this wasn’t any kind of split decision on the court’s part. No decension among the ranks, 9-0 is a strong decision.
|
|
It’s so logical - by GillBates0 (Score: 5, Interesting) Thread
Canada’s highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download.
Just like gun manufacturers provide the means for killing but are not liable for what people do.
Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer’s identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn’t seem to fit into my gun analogy.
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information. Maybe it’s because it’s not law enforcement requesting the information, but deep-pocketed private parties seeking it.
|
|
Re:It’s so logical - by schon (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer’s identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn’t seem to fit into my gun analogy.
No, it does fit. Your prejudice is what prevents you from seeing it immediately. (See below.)
If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information.
This is the prejudice. You’re assuming that because someone made a file avaliable, that a crime was committed, where in reality, that is not so clear. The judge said as much in the ruling.
It’s not the case that the ‘gun’ was used in the crime, but that the courts weren’t convinced that a crime occurred at all. The CRIA said “ISPs are hiding people who are illegally trading our files!”, and the court responded with “no, they’re protecting the identity of people who are trading files, but it’s entirely possible that trading is not illegal - prove that, and then we’ll talk.”
|
|
This was brought forward by SOCAN … - by debest (Score: 5, Interesting) Thread
… the same folks who are responsible for us Canadians paying a levy on every CD-R, cassette, MP3 player, and (if they have their way) every friggen hard drive we buy! Glad to see they lost this battle.
It’s a lobby for the Canadian recording artists. They are supposed to be compensated for illegal copying, in exchange for a much more lenient definition of “legal” copying in our laws than in the USA.
Of course, like all Canadian programs, it ends up creating a huge government-paid organization to police this whole subsidy. Can’t really say if this is better or worse than clogging up the courts, as is the case in the States.
|
|
Double dipping attempt.. - by grub (Score: 5, Informative) Thread
In .ca we already pay a “tax“on blank CDs which goes to the recording industry. They’re trying to double dip for more loot.
Screw ‘em
|
[
Nikon have released a new version of firmware for their extremely popular D70 DSLR.