Canadian recording industry pirates artists

Canadian recording industry pirates Artists

So you know all those compilation albums that the recording industry puts out? Well the artists are not being properly paid for them and proper permission is not being given by the Artists for the compilations that the music is being put on.



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates.ars

Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates

.........Between $50 million and $6 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.

Story continues............

ACTA

ACTA.
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

We don't want it, since it bypasses our right to access the courts and it also violates our rights to privacy.
It also allows a private company(Copyright Mafia) to get a users name details from their ISP from just a assumption of guilt, without hard evidence of a crime. And thats illegal. No warrants needed(also illegal). Remember that an IP address can not convict, since people can spoof it or hack into someones wireless connection to use it. And some ISP are in error on who had an IP at the time of the infraction, due to system clocks being set wrong.

It has been negotiated in secret by various countries including Canada and the United States.
If people are aware of what the act is made of, people would not allow it to come into effect.
3 Strikes and you are disconnected from the Internet(ISP), from just an 'accusation'. And thats illegal. Courts would not allow that, but no courts involved.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement



http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1541197061.shtml



Oh, look. European Union says that people have rights. As well as the right to court for any accusations of committing a crime.
http://torrentfreak.com/european-commission-no-3-strikes-without-judicial-oversight-091124/
European Commission: No 3 Strikes Without Judicial Oversight

Story continues......

Copyright lobby implements user censorship in England

Copyright lobby implements user censorship in England.

So whats with the title, you say?
In the eternal battle against the CopyRight Mafia. But England has decided to ignore the court system and kick users offline for file sharing infringement. And no real, court admissible evidence needed, since no courts are involved. Which makes all the new rules ILLEGAL.
It does not matter if someone hacked into your wireless connection to do the infringement.
It does not even matter if it was not your IP address at the time of the infringement.
It does not matter if the government starts to snoop into the traffic that you are doing on your Internet connection. Well, to ensure that you are not infringing.
The police in Canada want access to your sign up information for your ISP. Name, email address, as well as store your Internet data. Including your VOIP and emails. It is based on the French system of 'Guilty until proved innocent'.

Boy oh boy. Will this be awesome when it comes to Canada.
Ummm. Where is the privacy Minister again? http://www.priv.gc.ca/contactUs/index_e.cfm
Ummm. Where are our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of Communication. And to be ensured access to the courts for any accusation of a crime? And in the courts, the plaintiff would have to prove 'who' did the filesharing. And not just an instant conviction from a IP, that anyone could of had access to.
And no instant warrants to search your house either. Since someone could of parked in the street to hack and use your wireless connection.
And with Spyware going to be made legal in Canada, you can get your system full of all sorts of crapware that takes over your computer and causes crimes on the Internet, since anti-spywares and anti-virus will be illegal under the new CopyRight Mafia reign of terror.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8366255.stm

The government has laid out its plans to deal with illegal file-sharers as part of its Digital Economy Bill, outlined in the Queen's Speech.

It includes the power to disconnect persistent pirates.

But its broadband tax is not mentioned and will be launched as part of the Finance Bill, due next year.

Other elements of the bill include a shake-up of the radio spectrum and a classification system for video games.

The bill will, according to the government, "ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting".

The plans for tackling illegal file-sharing, detailed earlier this year, will be a two-stage process. Initially the government will aim to educate consumers and, those identified as downloading illegal content, will be sent letters.

If this proves insufficient, technical measures which will include the powers to disconnect persistent pirates, will be introduced in the spring of 2011.

Chief executive of music industry body the BPI, Geoff Taylor, welcomed the bill.

"It is good news for fans of British music that government is now introducing legislation to tackle illegal downloading. The creative sector in the UK needs new measures implemented urgently that address this problem for now and the future if the UK is to lead Europe in giving consumers innovative and high quality digital entertainment," he said.

But not everyone believes the plans are a good idea.

Lobby organization The Open Rights Group is urging people to contact their MP to oppose the plans.

Some more details at.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html


Meanwhile the CopyRight Mafia continues to do the same business model that is useless in the digital age.
Other forms of entertainment have adapted, but the Mafia just wants money, money, money. Oh and the Mafia will kick a few bucks back to the Artists. Just a way of thanking the Artists, for making the Copyright Mafia rich. And never mind the , ummmm, donations to some politicians.

Users Internet traffic harvesting

Users Internet traffic harvesting.


A very illegal method of an ISP using Phorm or Nebuad or Front Porch, etc , to monitor users 'Private' Internet traffic, in order to impose Ad's on the users webpages(not the Ad's that came with the webpage), or to sell the users surfing information to other companies to use the information to market products to users in some form or another.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/eu_phorm/
The UK government today came a step closer to international embarrassment over its failure to act against BT and Phorm for their secret trials of mass internet snooping technology.

The European Commission said it had moved to the second stage of infringement proceedings after the trials, revealed by The Register, exposed failings in the UK's implementation of privacy laws.

BT and Phorm intercepted and profiled the web browsing of tens of thousands of broadband subscribers without their consent in trials in 2006 and 2007.

Story continues..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm

Phorm, formerly known as 121Media, is a Delaware, United States-based digital technology company known for its advertising software. Founded in 2002, the company originally distributed programs that were considered spyware, from which they made millions of dollars in revenue. It has since stopped distributing those programs after complaints from groups in the United States and Canada, and announced it was talking with several United Kingdom Internet service providers (ISPs) to deliver targeted advertising based on the websites that users visit.

The company's proposed advertising system, called Webwise, is a behavioral targeting service (similar to NebuAd or Front Porch) that uses deep packet inspection to examine pages. Phorm says the data collected will be anonymous and will not be used to identify users, and that their service would even include protection against phishing (fraudulent collection of users' personal information). Nonetheless, World Wide Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee and others have spoken out against Phorm for tracking users' browsing habits, and the ISP BT Group has been criticised for running secret trials of the service.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has voiced legal concerns with Webwise as it is currently implemented, and has said it would only be legal as an "opt-in" service, not an opt-out system. The European Commission has called on the UK to protect Web users' privacy, and opened an infringement proceeding against the country in regard to ISPs' use of Phorm. Some groups, including Amazon.com and the Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other collaborative wiki projects), have already requested an opt-out of their websites from scans by the system.

More at Wikipedia.........

Content Neutrality

Content Neutrality

http://www.convergedigest.com/DSL/lastmilearticle.asp?ID=28806&ctgy=
The American Cable Association, which represents cable network operators, is calling on the FCC to stop content providers from using wholesale arrangements to restrict consumer access to lawful content. ACA cited Disney's ESPN360.com as an example where the most powerful sports programmer denies access to content, unless a consumer subscribes to a particular broadband provider.
Story continues.........


So in Canada, when you try to go to a U.S. station's website, to see the latest shows on the web. But then up pops a notice that Canadians are banned from seeing that content, due to 'exclusive deals', that block Canadians from that content. Violating Canadians Right to 'Freedom of Communication'.
Another excuse to the blocked content is that some Canadian owns the content rights. But since the owner is cheap, the owner makes people in Canada watch the same rerun, over and over again, till the user's quit watching TV.

Internet providers rules

Internet providers rules.

What this is missing is any 'Privacy' rules.
And here is Canada, we are banned from parts of the Internet, due to copyright holders in Canada. So where is this free and open Internet without borders we keep hearing about?



An excerpt.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/fcc-proposes-network-neutrality-rules-and-big-exemptions.ars

The draft rules are short, taking up less than two pages of text. At their heart are the four existing "Internet freedoms" that the FCC approved back in 2005:

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

• A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
• A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Legalized rootkits and spyware

Legalized rootkits and spyware in Canada?

Yes, you read that right. The CopyRight Mafia wants to put Rootkits and Spyware on software and music in Canada, without the users permission.
And the Lobbyists want Scumware to be fully legal as well, which would make your Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware and Anti-malware programs illegal.

From:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4464/125/

Friday October 16, 2009

As I posted earlier today, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act comes to a conclusion in committee on Monday as MPs conduct their "clause by clause" review. While I have previously written about the lobbying pressure to water down the legislation (aided and abetted by the Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee) and the CMA's recent effort to create a huge loophole, I have not focused on a key source of the pressure. Incredibly, it has been the copyright lobby - particularly the software and music industries - that has been engaged in a full court press to make significant changes to the bill. The copyright lobby's interest in the bill has been simmering since its introduction, with lobbyists attending the committee hearings and working with Liberal and Bloc MPs to secure changes. The two core concerns arise from fears that the bill could prevent surreptitious use of DRM and block enforcement initiatives that might involve accessing users' personal computers without their permission. The DRM concern arises from a requirement in the bill to obtain consent before installing software programs on users' computers. This anti-spyware provision applies broadly, setting an appropriate standard of protection for computer users. Yet the copyright lobby fears it could inhibit installation of DRM-type software without full knowledge and consent. Sources say that the Liberals have introduced a motion that would take these practices outside of the bill. In its place, they would define computer program as, among other things, "a program that has as its primary function...inducing a user to install software by intentionally misrepresenting that installing that software is necessary to safeguard security or privacy or to open or play content of a computer program." This sets such a high bar - primary function, intentional mispresentation - that music and software industry can plausibly argue that surreptitious DRM installations fall outside of C-27. Even more troubling are proposed changes that would allow copyright owners to secretly access information on users' computers. PIPEDA currently features a series of exceptions to the standard requirements for obtaining consent for the collection of personal information (found in Section 7). Bill C-27 includes a provision that bars those exceptions in cases involving computer harvesting of email addresses and the "collection of personal information through any means of telecommunication, if the collection is made by accessing a computer system or causing a computer system to be accessed without authorization." In other words, email harvesting and spyware would not be permitted and would not qualify for the PIPEDA exceptions found in Section 7. The copyright lobby is deeply concerned that this change will block attempts to track possible infringement through electronic means. The Section 7(1)(b) exception in PIPEDA currently states that collecting personal information without consent or knowledge of the individual is permitted if it is reasonable to expect that the collection "would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information" and the collection is "related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada." One can well imagine how this exception could be used for investigations targeting the violation of a user agreement or alleged copyright infringement. With the changes in C-27, the exception would no longer apply to harvesting email addresses or to accessing personal information on computers without authorization. For the copyright lobby, this would block investigations that involve capturing user information on computers without knowledge or consent. In response, sources advise that the Liberals have tabled a motion that would exclude Section 7(1)(b) from C-27 - effectively restoring the exception in these circumstances. On top of these provisions, sources say the Liberals have also tabled motions to extend the exemptions for telecom providers. The bill currently includes an exemption for telecom providers where they act as intermediaries in the transmission of a spam message (Section 6(6) of the bill). This obviously makes sense as telecom providers should not be treated as the message sender when they are merely the messenger. Yet there is a proposed motion that would also create an exception for telecom providers to the requirement to obtain express consent before users install programs on their computers. It states that the section does not apply to telecom providers providing a telecom service, which is defined to include: "providing computer security, user account management, routing and transmission of messages, diagnostics, technical support, repair, network management, network maintenance, authorized updates of software or system firmware, authorized remote system management, and detection or prevention of the unauthorized, fraudulent or illegal use of a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer programs" These proposed changes are simply outrageous and it is disappointing that the Liberals have brought forward motions on behalf of the lobby in this manner. With the hearing on Monday, it is critical for Canadians to speak out - yet again - to ensure that C-27 does not leave the door open to private surreptitious surveillance. Write to Industry Minister Tony Clement, your MP, or the members of the Industry Committee today asking them to reject these changes. The members of the committee include: Michael Chong (Con), Chair Anthony Rota (Lib), Vice-Chair Robert Bouchard (BQ), Vice-Chair Gordon Brown (Con) Siobhan Coady (Lib) Marc Garneau (Lib) Mike Lake (Con) Brian Masse (NDP) Dave Van Kesteren (Con) Robert Vincent (BQ) Mike Wallace (Con) Chris Warkentin (Con)