New Copyright Infringement Laws in Canada

[TheXFactor]

If you haven’t illegally downloaded something off of the Internet, you are probably a saint. Or you didn’t know it was possible; or you didn’t know until right now what the internet was.

But those illegal downloading habits got a bit more precarious in the New Year.

Canada’s new anti-piracy laws went into effect this week, giving copyright holders an avenue to confront illegal downloaders. It is unlikely, however, that piracy will end overnight.

The U.S. and Britain currently have similar laws, or stronger ones, in place and illegal downloading is still rampant in those countries.

The issue of internet piracy has been a growing concern, as media trends toward an online existence faster and more emphatically. What was popularized in the 1990s by Napster – the now-defunct peer-to-peer music exchange site – has since become a massive, unending web of access points.

Pirate Bay is perhaps the best-known torrent site, where Internet users share content such as movies and television programs. It was raided in 2006 but was reformed. The site was ripped offline again in December.

A bare-bones site remains online, with a countdown clock ticking down to Feb. 1.

It is important to note that the process of sharing files over the internet is not illegal. The issue is raised when those files are copyrighted material, being shared by those who don’t hold the copyright.

Like last week, when the controversial movie “The Interview” was put up for sale online and was quickly pirated and shared 200,000 times in a day.

Canada’s Copyright Modernization Act went into effect on Jan. 1. The Act gives the people who own the rights to movies, television shows and music the right to protect their property from illegal downloads.

Copyright holders can request Internet service providers – the companies that provide you with Internet access – relay warnings to people monitored participating in illegal downloading - via streaming services or torrents.

Those warnings act as notices that, should the activity continue, the users could be sued.

The user’s identity would be kept private through this process, but could be made available in the case of a lawsuit.

This is by no means Canada’s first foray into policing online content access. The Canadian Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement agency petitioned to have Ontario Internet providers release personal information about their users in 2013, in an apparent effort to assist a Canadian production company seek financial payment from illegal downloaders.

And while Canada has had a framework for punishing illegal content users previously, it lagged behind other Western nations. Britain is currently governed by the Digital Economy Act, which is similar to what Canada has put in place.

And America’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows holders to gain direct access to the identities of those caught illegally downloading their material. The result has been a series of lawsuits against Internet users. Some have resulted in significant financial punishment, but all have captured the attention of the masses.

So should Canada expect to see an immediate end to illegal downloads? Clearly not. First of all, it is unlikely many will learn their lesson until they receive their first warning from their internet service provider.

For another, the laws in other countries have done little to end the practice there.

In Britain, the practice of illegally accessing digital entertainment media - whether that be music, movies, books, television, video games or computer software - appears to be on the incline.

According to the Ofcom online copyright infringement tracker, 17 per cent of U.K. Internet users over the age of 12 illegally accessed digital media between March and May 2013, the latest information available. That accounts for 7.4 million users.

A quarter of these people exclusively consumed illegal content.

Put more bluntly, if you adjust the field to consider “all Internet users who consumed content online over the three-month period” (rather than anyone over 12 who used the Internet during that time) and the percentage of users who illegally consumed content reaches nearly one-third (30 per cent).

Also notable in the report was a decrease in the number of users who exclusively accessed content legally – 40 per cent during the report’s timeframe, down from 43 per cent the previous period.

The problem is much worse in the U.S. where much of the illegally consumed content is created. In 2012, Americans made 96.8 million torrent downloads. The Institute for Policy Innovation estimates the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in revenue each year to online music piracy alone.

So if Canada’s new laws don’t work, how should they cut down on Internet piracy? The Ofcom study delves into that from a British perspective. According to the report, 32 per cent of infringers said they would be encouraged to stop if there were cheaper legal services. Another 24 per cent said more clarity on what is illegal and what is not would encourage them to follow the rules.

Only 14 per cent of British infringers said they would be turned off if they received a letter threatening to suspend Internet access. We’ll have to see whether Canadians feel the same way about such threats.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canadas-new-online-copyright-protection-laws-now-185628067.html

I'll just play devil's advocate for a bit here.

A. People who pirate likely wouldn't pay for the product regardless. So are the copyright holders really losing money? One could argue that said product is just getting more publicity and exposure which would actually be a good thing.

B. Many people will continue to pirate despite this new law. Money and resources spent on addressing "minor" piracy such as downloading music is a waste, especially for a country who's currency value is dropping faster then the Russian stock market.

I could probably go on a tirade about how Canada has bigger problems to deal with, but then again I don't even think this new copyright infringement law will actually do much in the long run. Even if the copyright holders started suing everyone and their mothers, people will just find other ways not to get caught.

Edit: So apparently an acquaintance of mine was actually called by his ISP and got a warning back in October for downloading illegal files. Maybe they really are planning to take this law seriously?

[Heretic]

It's kind of going to far IMHO....example, youtube.

I have taken down all but 1 of my uploaded videos now because of receiving a complaint that my videos contained "copyrighted music".

Just means that I am no longer giving free advertising to that music.

Too bad - some was stuff you can get anymore.

The last one I have that contains music, I have sent a personal email to the artist - asking them if they want me to take it down or not.

No reply as of yet.

[BanTSN]

The big impact is that apparently VPN's have to keep logs for 6 months. However if the VPN's server is in the US, for example, then American laws will apply, even if the company is Canadian. There are more details to this simple work-around.

[butters]

I hate it when people try to justify their torrenting by saying they are actually benefiting the product. Stopping BSing yourself. Just admit you like free shit and are doing something selfish, don't try to dress it up.

[Rick Grimes]

I hate it when people try to justify their torrenting by saying they are actually benefiting the product. Stopping BSing yourself. Just admit you like free crap and are doing something selfish, don't try to dress it up.

Ignorance is bliss, eh kiddo?

I've said it before, not everybody can afford $15-20 on CD's $20-$30 for a new DVD(More for a collection) $40-$60 for new games AND pay for bills, gas & dates/life.

[-AJ-]

Question. Is watching a movie online considered downloading it? I have a friend who has actually just straight up taken movies and downloaded them to his hard drive. This is obviously downloading a movie. However, if I just go to a website and watch it from there, would that still be illegal? I figured someone on here would know.

[Dazzle]

It's kind of going to far IMHO....example, youtube.

I have taken down all but 1 of my uploaded videos now because of receiving a complaint that my videos contained "copyrighted music".

Just means that I am no longer giving free advertising to that music.

Too bad - some was stuff you can get anymore.

The last one I have that contains music, I have sent a personal email to the artist - asking them if they want me to take it down or not.

No reply as of yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong or not, the artist doesn't have full royalties to songs, which, in essence, can't let them decide what they want to do with the music, unless they have permission from the label.

[VanGnome]

This issue has an ebb and flow to it. Laws are passed, ISP's receive pressure to enforce their Acceptable Use Policies, they keep it up for awhile, then it dies down until companies start applying pressure again.

Here's my whole problem with legally accessing content (TV, Movies, Music) etc.

Outside of music, there are very few legitimate options that are concise and all encompassing. IE, Netflix is great, but if I want access to everything, I need to subscribe to 3 or 4 different streaming services just to have a full range of exposure to the things I want to watch. The problem with that then, is aggregating all of the content available into a single usable service, otherwise where is the benefit to me? It's more time consuming, and generally annoying to keep track of multiple services.

A few of the shows I watch are on HBO, yet if I want to watch them legitimately, I have to 1. Pay for HD Cable (about 100 bucks a month without any promotions), 2. Then pay for the HBO package on top of that which is another 30-40/mo.

So I'm forced to spend approximately 1500/year just to gain access to something I want to watch. If the cable companies were to provide a la carte service, and actually allow me to pay per month for ONLY the channels I wanted to watch, I would be more inclined to have service.

Additionally, I would love if I could pay a la carte for the channels I want to watch, and have an option to pay additionally more to have those channels delivered in a advertising free format. IE real time, on demand programming.

I find it rather annoying that I'm not given the opportunity to opt out of advertising and marketing. Combine that a la carte service with internet service, and charge me 2000/year for what I want as a consumer and I'm pretty darn happy.

Because those options don't exist, I generally tend to just not watch TV. I use an alternate streaming service for the Canucks, and that's really about all I watch as far as TV goes. The rest is original programming like Revision3, or certain Youtube channels. Prime Time TV really hasn't interested me much recently.

If I really want to watch a show, generally I will buy it on Bluray (because I'm a stickler for quality), digitize it and then throw it on my personal file server at home and consume it how I want, when I want, without sharing it to others. It's great not being so dependent on media as to have a need to watch it as soon as it comes out (aside from the Canucks that is).

[Dazzle]

Ignorance is bliss, eh kiddo?

I've said it before, not everybody can afford $15-20 on CD's $20-$30 for a new DVD(More for a collection) $40-$60 for new games AND pay for bills, gas & dates/life.

You could afford it, but you don't want to. You can afford "Dates&Life", lol..., but you're supposedly broke. It's no excuse.

That being said, I'm not going to pretend that I haven't ever downloaded.

[BanTSN]

Here's a quick breakdown of what the new law, which actually just means ISP's just 'have' to do what they've already been informally doing for years, means to the average user.

Michael Geist is a Canadian law prof. and expert on internet and e-commerce Canadian law.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/notice-difference-new-canadian-internet-copyright-rules-isps-set-launch/

Notice the Difference? New Canadian Internet Copyright Rules for ISPs Set to Launch

December 22, 2014

The longstanding debate over how Internet providers should respond to allegations of copyright infringement by their subscribers was resolved in Canada several years ago with the adoption of a “notice and notice” system. Unlike countries that require content takedowns without court oversight or even contemplate cutting off subscriber Internet access, the Canadian approach, which has operated informally for over a decade but will kick in as the law in 2015, seeks to balance the interests of copyright holders, the privacy rights of Internet users, and the legal obligations of Internet providers.

The result is a system that has proven effective in raising public awareness about copyright, while safeguarding the identities of Internet subscribers, providing legal certainty to Internet providers, and leaving potential legal actions to the courts.

Under the notice-and-notice system, copyright owners are entitled to send infringement notices to Internet providers, who are legally required to forward the notifications to their subscribers. The notices must include details on the sender, the copyright works and the alleged infringement. If the Internet provider fails to forward the notification, it must explain why or face the prospect of damages that run as high as $10,000. Internet providers must also retain information on the subscriber for six months (or 12 months if court proceedings are launched).

For Internet providers, the system creates significant costs for processing and forwarding notices. However, assuming they meet their obligations of forwarding the notice, the law grants them a legal “safe harbour” that removes potential liability for actions of their subscribers.

There are important benefits for Internet users as well. First, unlike the content takedown or access cut-off systems, the Canadian notice approach does not feature any legal penalties. The notices do not create any fines or damages, but rather are designed as educational tools to raise awareness of infringement allegations.

Second, the personal information of subscribers is not disclosed to the copyright owner. When the Internet provider forwards the copyright notice, only they know the identity of the subscriber and that information is not disclosed to any third party.

If the copyright owner is unhappy with only sending a notification and wants to proceed with further legal action, they must go to court to obtain an order requiring the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the subscriber. Canadian courts have established strict rules and limitations around such disclosures.

Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded.

The Canadian notice-and-notice system takes official effect on January 2nd, but it has been used on an informal basis for many years. Indeed, the evidence has consistently demonstrated that notifications work. For example, Rogers told a House of Commons committee in 2011 that 67 per cent of notice recipients do not repeat infringe after one notice and 89 per cent cease allegedly infringing activity after a second notice.

Those numbers are very similar to 2010 data from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, which found that 71 per cent of notice recipients did not place an infringing file back on BitTorrent systems. Similarly, the Business Software Association told the CBC in 2006 that the notice-and-notice approach has “been most effective.”

So are there reasons for concern with the new system?

There are fears that Internet providers will be inundated with notices, particularly since the government decided against establishing a fee for forwarding them. That could lead to increased costs for consumers. Moreover, the government also declined to specify the precise content of the notices, leading to concerns that some copyright holders may include threats to sue alongside dubious demands to settle the allegations for thousands of dollars.

Should these concerns materialize, the government will need to revisit some of the notice-and-notice regulations. In the meantime, however, it rightly points to the system as a “made-in-Canada” solution that is likely to be emulated by countries around the world.

Basically, ISP's may send you a warning if you are a serial downloader. More likely to happen if you are a serial sharer. That's it. Just a warning.

At the end of the day ISP's here will likely use this law as a reason to jack up their rates... To cover the costs of issuing notices.

Meanwhile, similar laws in the UK have done absolutely nothing to curb piracy.

[Kakanucks]

Maybe if we had legitimate alternatives then there wouldn't be so much illegal downloading. Netflix is okay for the general TV series from US/Canadian/UK....but past that, what else is there? I watch alot of different kind of shows, I watch US tv shows, TW shows, HK shows, Japanese dramas and anime, Korean dramas, Chinese shows.

[c00kies]

Question. Is watching a movie online considered downloading it? I have a friend who has actually just straight up taken movies and downloaded them to his hard drive. This is obviously downloading a movie. However, if I just go to a website and watch it from there, would that still be illegal? I figured someone on here would know.

I don't think it counts as downloading. I think that's just streaming, which should be fine.

[Rick Grimes]

You could afford it, but you don't want to. You can afford "Dates&Life", lol..., but you're supposedly broke. It's no excuse.

That being said, I'm not going to pretend that I haven't ever downloaded.

Life being; things like Car insurance, Gas & Groceries...

[NightHawkSniper]

Here's a quick breakdown of what the new law, which actually just means ISP's just 'have' to do what they've already been informally doing for years, means to the average user.

Michael Geist is a Canadian law prof. and expert on internet and e-commerce Canadian law.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/notice-difference-new-canadian-internet-copyright-rules-isps-set-launch/

Basically, ISP's may send you a warning if you are a serial downloader. More likely to happen if you are a serial sharer. That's it. Just a warning.

At the end of the day ISP's here will likely use this law as a reason to jack up their rates... To cover the costs of issuing notices.

Meanwhile, similar laws in the UK have done absolutely nothing to curb piracy.

In the end though I'm sure ISP's would rather just 'warn' you and not take it seriously so they still make money off of you.

[Tystick]

In this day in age, no one will be able to get rid of piracy, it's just too far gone. They can try, but nothings going to happen.

Devils advocate, I think downloading is a great way to find out if you actually enjoy something.

Especially if it's a new band you're checking out.

I'll end up downloading something to see if I like it. Whether it sucks or I like it, I'll delete it. But if I do enjoy it, I'll end up buying it on iTunes, or support the band in some other way.

[butters]

Ignorance is bliss, eh kiddo?

I've said it before, not everybody can afford $15-20 on CD's $20-$30 for a new DVD(More for a collection) $40-$60 for new games AND pay for bills, gas & dates/life.

So don't buy em then. That's what you do when you can't afford something. Especially entertainment. Doesn't mean you are morally justified in taking those things. I have much less problems with people who just admit what they are actually doing. (Ignorant) arguments like yours hold no water.

[SabreFan1]

The article got the premise of the U.S.'s DMCA wrong. It has nothing to do with the use of torrents with the one exception of serving a notice on a search engine that links directly to a torrent site's front page. It gives the lawyers a bat to yield against people and companies to demand that certain things be taken off of the internet. I've seen it used mainly for copyrighted images of celebrities, and things like music or tv shows or movies being used on Youtube.

The author lost credibility with me.

[sam13371337]

can someone please tell me of a legal avenue a soccer fan in Canada can watch European football?

something I have always enjoyed doing in life was watching the El Clasico's between real Madrid and Barca.

just until 2 years ago~, you could legally watch it on goaltv with like 3-4$ subscription.

Then Al Jazeera sport, and their pimp daddys in Qatar purchased the rights and took it off goal. But had absolutely no plan/infastracture to actually broadcast it into Canada.

The Canadian broadcast rules still prevent this as far as I know.

one of the biggest sporting spectacles in Canada is not broadcast in any legal way. this is just 1 example.

please tell me how this benefits the consumer in any way? until Canada's broadcasting rules remain the dinosaur they are. This is just another example of politicians selling out their own people for big business.

[SabreFan1]

In the end though I'm sure ISP's would rather just 'warn' you and not take it seriously so they still make money off of you.

This. In the US, the ISP's rarely revoke people's connections. They keep warning them over and over. Once they hit the predetermined 6 warning threshold, they suspend the connection until the customer calls them and says it wasn't them, then they flip their connection back on and start the whole process over again. I pay $70/month for my 50/5 internet access, and it would be against their interests to shut me down for pirating. They offer those fast speeds knowing that there are few alternative reasons for needing that kind of bandwidth.

[Dazzle]

So don't buy em then. That's what you do when you can't afford something. Especially entertainment. Doesn't mean you are morally justified in taking those things. I have much less problems with people who just admit what they are actually doing. (Ignorant) arguments like yours hold no water.

Life being; things like Car insurance, Gas & Groceries...

There ya go.

I want a Ferrari. Doesn't mean that I can steal one for joyriding for an hour (I promise I'll even return it in pristine condition) because I can't afford it.

Besides, it's not THAT expensive to buy something from store, but they are set at prices that you don't want to buy them at (i.e. 49.99).

If 50 dollars is too much to choke up for a TV show season, just wait till it's on TV again - that or stream it.

Your argument is just lazy.