B.C. court case has potential to make Google, Yahoo illegal in Canada

B.C. court case has potential to make Google, Yahoo illegal in Canada

www.ottawacitizen.com

A court case may drastically change the Canadian Internet landscape by making search engines such as Google and Yahoo illegal.
A case brought against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by ISOHunt Web Technologies Inc., is raising questions about whether search engines are liable for the sharing of copyright-protected content online.
The question before the B.C. Supreme Court is, if a site allows people to find a pirated copy of a song or movie, is it breaching Canadian copyright law?

(visit the link for the full news article)

Although this hasn't got much press coverage, it won't take long for someone to try similar tactics in the US.

Remember the "internet bully" conviction last year?

And the ACTA Treaty, terms of which Obama has declared "a national security" secret and exempt from disclosure?

Are we seeing a piecemeal diminution of our 1st Amendment freedoms and restriction of the 'net?

Deny ignorance.

jw

www.ottawacitizen.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is just absurd. Wow good job ISO Hunt Technologies??

I don't see how this makes sense, search engines are simply a middle man between what you're looking for and who has it. It makes no sense to hold them liable.

If you did, then search engines would still exist, they would just need to be drastically changed in order to block out websites. That would effectively start the censoring of the internet.

Wonderful.

Welcome to Internet2.

~Keeper

Originally posted by jdub297


Although this hasn't got much press coverage, it won't take long for someone to try similar tactics in the US.

Remember the "internet bully" conviction last year?

And the ACTA Treaty, terms of which Obama has declared "a national security" secret and exempt from disclosure?

Are we seeing a piecemeal diminution of our 1st Amendment freedoms and restriction of the 'net?

Deny ignorance.

jw

www.ottawacitizen.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not so sure about that. The U.S. operates business differently than the EU does. Doesn't Canada operate business according to EU rules since it's roots are French?

reply to post by sos37


Nopes, we have our heads shoved way far up America's toosh.

We follow the leader, and they happen to be our biggest trading partner among other things, so our politicians play nice.

We still have a Queen, but it's just a formality really.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


That's the point ISOhunt is trying to make. They are a search engine that finds torrents, some of which are of copyrighted material. Isohunt is the middleman. They are saying that they shouldn't be held liable. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. The Supreme Court already ruled that peer to peer sharing is not illegal in Canada so I can't see this decision going against Isohunt. Wait and see I guess.

reply to post by TheComte


Ok I misunderstood the OP. I thought ISO Hunt was bringing the case up against other search engines. Sorry.

Yeah as I said, completely ridiculous that the court would even consider that. It would be like holding google accountable for my 13 year old's googling of pornography under age.

Yes I am happy they have the Peer To Peer case working in their favor, and BC is pretty lenient when it comes to such things usually.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower

You're right on point.

But the "middleman" argument proves the case. If I give my friend $100 and he buys and delivers to me an illegal substance, hasn't he himself dealt the illegal substance?

Restrictions, permanent log-ons and more are coming; I can can see it pretty clearly now.

jw

reply to post by sos37
I believe Canadian copyright law (and a lot more) is fashioned after the US (English) model rather than the EU.

France is a different story altogether. They operated under the "Napoleonic Code" for a loooong time before joining the EU. (Louisianna still follows it, that's why they're so cool down there.)

Don't think it will make much difference anyway under the International/Global Law coming soon to a social state near you.

jw

reply to post by TheComte

I don't know if the "peer-to-peer" rationale will work, though. Not everything on my computer is copyright protected. Some of it is "public domain" and some never was copyrughted in the first place.

Everything that's copyrighted is copyrighted. If I steal some of it and you tell everybody I have it for sale or sharing, where does that put you?

It boils down to which side of the transaction you are on: The seeker's, the stealer's, or neither.

The correct answer should be "neither" just like a map seller doesn't sell you contraband, it just shows you how to get there.

This is sort of like the craigslist.org v. prostitution suits. CL says, 'Hey, I just own a bulletin board ...' and the cops say 'Yeah, but you've got a little square over there reserved for "erotic services. Turn around so I can cuff you.'

Our Supreme Court is notorius for getting it wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons, so I won't make any predictions about Canada.

Good luck to us all.

jw

reply to post by jdub297



The nice thing of about our Canadian copyright system is that if you own a copy of said thing then you are not infringing upon the rights of the person who made it.

Aslong as I have a hard copy of everything on my hardrive, I am immune to any charges.

But yes we do model ourselves with the American system, we only got the P2P ruling here because we don't represent a huge faction of people who would do such things.

~Keeper

One factor I think you guys didn't touch on is that while yes a middle man in a drug deal is liable because he chose to partake in the transaction; Google is just there... you don't have to ask them if they'll look something up for you, the machine does it. In my mind that separates them. The copyrighted material is put on websites and Google's technology doesn't differentiate, how could it?

reply to post by Scurvy

Google is still the "middleman."

They enable the 'transaction' between the parties. They can claim they didn't know what was in the "package" or even the identities of people wanting to buy and sell. They just point the way.

Not much difference except for circuit boards and wires.

jw

What about the whole Google, YouTube and China mess? Like I have said over and over, the days of the internet are numbered. Enjoy it while it last because when it is gone it will not be coming back.

There goes my plans to relocate to Vancouver.

Good catch.

Scary stuff. ...maybe an experimental wedge designed to control the net via legal, not techno, means.

FYI - Filmon, Canada's Prime Minister, played for Bush. Now that Bush is gone, seems he's the corporatists' golden boy in North America. Can't believe Canadians got sucked in again.

Pah.

Brilliant move by ISOHUNT I really hope they win, it will force Google to get involved in the issue especially when its attempted in America.

Major Music Companies Vs Google

That would be fantastic.

What I don't get about internet copyright infringement in its entirety.
Is how it is any different than doing it in real life?
You have private connections to other people, downloading something to watch it.
How is this any different than going to there house and watching there movie?
You still haven't paid for it, yet that is not illegal?
I believe these company's want control of the internet, purely for an additional profit medium.
There argument is always only lost revenue.
But if the person doesn't posses the income or money to pay for it in the first place.
Then it clearly was not lost revenue.
And because they didn't take an actual thing from them, they have lost nothing.
I think putting people in prison, due to a company's theoretical lost profits, is a massive scam.
And shows how the corporations have control of the government.

I think a suitable resolution would be a context sensitive pop-up/balloon/disclaimer anytime a link is used that goes directly to a POTENTIALLY copyright-violating site (ie; FTP, Torrents, exe's, zip, swf, etc.)

Who better to implement context-sensitive material other than Google?

The middle-man SHOULD be accountable for facilitating illegal activity.

Examples:
1.) Man knows child molester, man provides list of children living in area, molester abducts child on list - Middleman = GUILTY
2.) Man works for highway department, man builds bridge which is later used in a bank robbery, 2 police officers are killed pusuing suspects when their car is struck by a semi and knocked off the side of bridge - Middleman = NOT GUILTY

I think that Google and other search engines fall into the 1st scenario


[edit on 18-3-2009 by BuffaloJoe]

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
What I don't get about internet copyright infringement in its entirety.
Is how it is any different than doing it in real life?
You have private connections to other people, downloading something to watch it.
How is this any different than going to there house and watching there movie?
You still haven't paid for it, yet that is not illegal?
I believe these company's want control of the internet, purely for an additional profit medium.
There argument is always only lost revenue.
But if the person doesn't posses the income or money to pay for it in the first place.
Then it clearly was not lost revenue.
And because they didn't take an actual thing from them, they have lost nothing.
I think putting people in prison, due to a company's theoretical lost profits, is a massive scam.
And shows how the corporations have control of the government.

Yes, is it illegal under the letter of the law. It falls under the heading of EXHIBITION. So yes if you invited over so freinds to watch a movie and the copyright police showed up you would be in trouble.