Comments on: New Big Music defeat in Canada http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-14085 Reader's Write Sun, 22 May 2005 15:38:31 +0000 #comment-14085 Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not? one word ... reeeefooorrrmmmmm ;) Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not?

one word …

reeeefooorrrmmmmm ;)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-14080 Reader's Write Sun, 22 May 2005 07:44:44 +0000 #comment-14080 What part of the court decision didn't you read? I'd go back and check because the decision strengthened privacy rights and made it just that much more difficult to get real names. What part of the court decision didn’t you read? I’d go back and check because the decision strengthened privacy rights and made it just that much more difficult to get real names.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-14067 Reader's Write Sat, 21 May 2005 21:59:17 +0000 #comment-14067 I want to remind people that what we are seeing in the courts is just setup for the battle that will happen in parliament. CRIA is not interested in those 29 alleged infringers, but in scaring parliament into making massive changes to copyright in their favor (against musicians, audiences, and nearly everyone else). In some cases the changes are against themselves, as they are not technologically competent enough to understand the implications of what they are lobbying for. http://p2pnet.net/story/4797 Please turn your frustration and anger into action. Last Thursday I sent a letter copied to 9 members of parliament. This was a letter to the Heritage Minister where I printed out the court decision for her. "Your words, as quoted by the media around the Junos, suggest that you had had not read or understood the earlier decision of the Federal Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein (Citation: 2004 FC 488) that was being appealed." "Given this, I am including a copy of the appeal of this decision with the hopes that you will read it, and stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Canada's copyright act." http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/872 Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not? I want to remind people that what we are seeing in the courts is just setup for the battle that will happen in parliament. CRIA is not interested in those 29 alleged infringers, but in scaring parliament into making massive changes to copyright in their favor (against musicians, audiences, and nearly everyone else). In some cases the changes are against themselves, as they are not technologically competent enough to understand the implications of what they are lobbying for. http://p2pnet.net/story/4797

Please turn your frustration and anger into action. Last Thursday I sent a letter copied to 9 members of parliament. This was a letter to the Heritage Minister where I printed out the court decision for her.

“Your words, as quoted by the media around the Junos, suggest that you had had not read or understood the earlier decision of the Federal Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein (Citation: 2004 FC 488) that was being appealed.”

“Given this, I am including a copy of the appeal of this decision with the hopes that you will read it, and stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Canada’s copyright act.”

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/872

Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-13992 Reader's Write Fri, 20 May 2005 06:39:13 +0000 #comment-13992 the appeals court did not say that the lower court was wrong when he said file sharing was legal under canadian law. What they said was was in Laymen's Terms the lower court did not have any standing to make such a ruling in that case. The legality of file sharing was the issue in that case. I'm sure the next time the cira tries this again some isp or group will bring that issue to a court the appeals court did not say that the lower court was wrong when he said file sharing was legal under canadian law. What they said was was in Laymen’s Terms the lower court did not have any standing to make such a ruling in that case. The legality of file sharing was the issue in that case. I’m sure the next time the cira tries this again some isp or group will bring that issue to a court

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-13991 Reader's Write Fri, 20 May 2005 06:09:52 +0000 #comment-13991 Did you read the decision? From this article and your interpretation, it appears you did not. The decision agreed with the lower court with many items except when it came to privacy rights. The appeals court ruled the CRIA cannot obtain the customers info, but they lowered the evidence requirements. That is huge, and I am a bit surprised you didnt cover it in your article. But then again, perhaps I am not suprised. Basically the court said "You cannot have the info this time. Come back next time with even less evidence and then you can have their ID's" The CRIA is in a better position now then they were before. This is just a procedural change. Did you read the decision? From this article and your interpretation, it appears you did not. The decision agreed with the lower court with many items except when it came to privacy rights. The appeals court ruled the CRIA cannot obtain the customers info, but they lowered the evidence requirements. That is huge, and I am a bit surprised you didnt cover it in your article. But then again, perhaps I am not suprised.

Basically the court said “You cannot have the info this time. Come back next time with even less evidence and then you can have their ID’s”

The CRIA is in a better position now then they were before. This is just a procedural change.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-13988 Reader's Write Fri, 20 May 2005 04:38:18 +0000 #comment-13988 A victory means a win, and the record label cartel desperately wanted an outright win that would have allowed it to pillory Canadians in the same way it pillories Americans. No ifs or buts. It didn't get it. Cheers! A victory means a win, and the record label cartel desperately wanted an outright win that would have allowed it to pillory Canadians in the same way it pillories Americans.

No ifs or buts.

It didn’t get it.

Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-13987 Reader's Write Fri, 20 May 2005 03:58:28 +0000 #comment-13987 The most critical part of this decision is the level of evidence that will be required. While the court confirmed that privacy legislation needs to be respected, they also said that only a bona fide ("good faith") case needs to be made, and not a prima facie (sufficient to establish a case unless disproved) case. This puts things as not as bad as CRIA wanted, which is that they not be required to offer any evidence at all, but between that and the sensible situation which would be that adequate proof of copyright infringement be required to prove their case if brought to court. We all know that once the names are disclosed that the excessive statutory damages will mean that Canadians will be forced to settle out of court, whether they committed any infringing activities or not. Note: I am sitting here listening to the votes on the two budget bills, watching to see if the government will fall. The most critical part of this decision is the level of evidence that will be required. While the court confirmed that privacy legislation needs to be respected, they also said that only a bona fide (”good faith”) case needs to be made, and not a prima facie (sufficient to establish a case unless disproved) case. This puts things as not as bad as CRIA wanted, which is that they not be required to offer any evidence at all, but between that and the sensible situation which would be that adequate proof of copyright infringement be required to prove their case if brought to court. We all know that once the names are disclosed that the excessive statutory damages will mean that Canadians will be forced to settle out of court, whether they committed any infringing activities or not.

Note: I am sitting here listening to the votes on the two budget bills, watching to see if the government will fall.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4901/comment-page-1#comment-13985 Reader's Write Fri, 20 May 2005 02:52:59 +0000 #comment-13985 Actually it is a victory for them. The level of evidence they need has been significantly reduced. This is a big loss for privacy...All this has bought anyone is time. Dammit, this sucks. Actually it is a victory for them. The level of evidence they need has been significantly reduced. This is a big loss for privacy…All this has bought anyone is time. Dammit, this sucks.

]]>