RCMP Won't Go After Personal Filesharers 405
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The reason? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The reason? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The reason? (Score:5, Funny)
Arrrr, eh?
Re:The reason? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The reason? (Score:5, Funny)
mount -t police /ca/royal (Score:5, Funny)
News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:5, Informative)
Area
Total: 9,984,670 km (2nd)
Water (%): 8.92 (891,163 km)
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
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: (Score:2)
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot about China? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Our Neighbors (read: Resources) to the North (Score:2)
The U.S. won't nuke Canada -- not the Athabasca Oil Sands [wikipedia.org], anyway.
-kgj
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I won't eat the curry again.
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:2)
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:5, Insightful)
* that means "you're a fucking idiot"
Re:News Flash from our cute neighbors to the north (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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, (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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: (Score:2)
Burn Karma Burn (Score:3, Insightful)
Different viewpoints than your own != Flamebait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good common sense practical move (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
totalitarianism? (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, next on the list. (Score:2, Insightful)
Both will piss the United States off to the same extent.
Re:Now, next on the list. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This would be the right way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:This would be the right way (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2, Redundant)
Of course, I could very well be totally wrong!
Any Canadian lawyers know of the legislation that our police were acting upon when they were involved?
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking Canadians (Score:5, Funny)
How was demonoid taken down? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
What's this? (Score:2)
Now I'm worried. Do RCMP count as horsemen?
Code is Law! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Sketchy Translation? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
D'accord. Ici l'original [ledevoir.com] si vous le préférez.
Criminal vs. Civil (Score:2)
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?! (Score:2)
Once again Canada does America better than America (Score:2)
C'mon up to Canada Y'all (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
[OT] Somewhat amazed by good Google translation (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Would you respect the decision as law, or find another angle to attack it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrasing, they first s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ambivalent feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
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??)