Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited by Moderator)
WINNIPEG - A Winnipeg radio station says Shaw Cable (TSX:SJR.B) will be sending its Internet customers warnings about illegal downloading.

CJOB says Warner Brothers Entertainment wants Shaw to send emails advising customers that it is illegal to download copyrighted music and movies.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/shaw-cable-to-send-warning-emails-to-customers-about-illegal-downloading-112967629.html



As far as I understand the laws, downloading copyrighted content is technically not illegal in Canada and Shaw is under no obligation by any law to actually tell the copyright company anything about the user, correct?

Shaw wouldn't actually cut off someone's internet, would they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I believe the obligation is more due to their role as a broadcaster than any legalities that may or may not be in play. If the media powerhouses (studios, labels, etc) become displeased with Shaw, it wouldn't bode well for their bottom line.

In this case, WB said "Jump!" and Shaw didn't even ask how high--they leaped!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
It's a badly written news article so it isn't clear what Shaw actually intends to do.

If it's to write e-mails to customers who are using P2P technologies to download copyrighted material, it is clearly illegal to do so. P2P file sharing programs work by uploading chunks of files as they download so by downloading a copyrighted program one is in fact uploading and distributing that content. It is illegal in Canada to do so. Since Mr. Bissonette is quoted as saying that they will be sending such notices at the request of the copyright holders, it is likely that this is who is being targeted. Warner would have no way of identifying the IP of a usenet downloader (which is legal conduct in Canada in any event as long as it is for personal use).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
That was my own personal take as well that under the law currently downloading is not technically illegal but it was the uploading that infringes on the copyright laws. Shaw would be made aware of the copyright infringement by the content owner who holds the copyright (Warner Bothers in this case) and at WB's request would pass the info along to the end user. Shaw in no way releases any of the info to the copyright holder without a court order to do so. Typically Shaw tries to educate the person on what they are doing as often some customer have no idea that a P2P program is even on their computer let alone sharing the content and running up their bandwidth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
were paying Shaw good money, we should be able to download what ever we want. if something is "illegal", then the rcmp should shut it down, its got nothing to do with the isp.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
were paying Shaw good money, we should be able to download what ever we want. if something is "illegal", then the rcmp should shut it down, its got nothing to do with the isp.
In principle, I have to agree. ISP are not police, they are not judges, and they are not juries so its time they stop acting like all of the above.

but the rcmp can't shut down servers and program makers in China or Russia
And what do servers in China and Russia have to do with P2P downloading?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
were paying Shaw good money, we should be able to download what ever we want. if something is "illegal", then the rcmp should shut it down, its got nothing to do with the isp.
Shaw's talking about doing what Telus and some others already do. They are writing to customer for whom they have received a complaint to advise the customer that they have received the complaint and that the customer's actions may be illegal. They have stated publicly that they will not release your information to the complainants nor will they take action in most cases.

The exception is reasonable: if the content owner gets a court order requiring Shaw to disclose, of course they will. In addition, your terms of service with any ISP includes language that allows the ISP to terminate your service or take other action if it can be established that your actions expose them to legal liability or are illegal. While this language has not been used by Canadian ISP's with respect to file sharing (to my knowledge), illegal activities captured by it would include hacking, child pornography, and hate crimes. While not playing "police", certainly Shaw has a right to refuse to allow their networks to be used for these purposes.

Lastly, and I suppose I am repeating myself, if you are using P2P technologies like torrents, you are not just downloading, you are also uploading. If the content is copyrighted, then you are distributing copyrighted material and that is illegal. It's not playing police for a company to say you can't use our private property in the commission of an illegal act. Why is Shaw's responsibility for that any different than a homeowner who rents his or house and discovers it's being used for a grow-op?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
Shaw is simply sending out a notification to the customer that we have been informed by the content's copyright holder (Warner Brother's in this case) that there has been an alleged violation from their account. Shaw in no way provides any information to Warner Brother's about the customer and would not do so unless order to by a court.

Shaw is simply complying with a copyright agreement that exists between all broadcast distributors and copyright holders.

Again our team will educate customers as to what type of activity may have led to the alleged violation and assist the customer in preventing similar situations in the future for their own protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,368 Posts
Again our team will educate customers as to what type of activity may have led to the alleged violation and assist the customer in preventing similar situations in the future for their own protection.
So, Shaw will help the customer setup a VPN connection to a endpoint in a country that doesn't comply with international copywrite law and tell them to start that VPN connection before they launch their bittorrent client? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
So, Shaw will help the customer setup a VPN connection to a endpoint in a country that doesn't comply with international copywrite law and tell them to start that VPN connection before they launch their bittorrent client? ;)
More likely they'll update their P2P page to set your upload speeds to 0 kpbs.

I'm guessing this is a result of them purchasing Global. Now as one of the biggest content distributors in the country Warner is pushing them to try to protect the content they're broadcasting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
I don't think this has anything to do with Shaw Media. Shaw is not the first Canadian ISP to get on board with Warner and other content owners. Telus has been doing this for years.

Second, what possible beef is there with Shaw's position? Using torrent clients to download content is illegal because you are distributing copyrighted content. You are doing so over Shaw's networks and therefore they get a complaint. They are forwarding that complaint to you. If you continue you do so it's at your own risk, namely that Warner will file suit and seek a court order requiring Shaw to disclose your identity. I would say that the odds of Warner doing so are low, except it's a known tactic of the RIAA and MPAA and it's only a matter of time before CRIA or whomever up here decides to do the same thing (I think its an abhorrent way to treat the consumer but it is one of their tactics). How is Shaw (or Telus or Rogers) the bad guy for warning you that your IP's been identified?

BTW, have you seen the article about the Videotron customer and her hijacked wireless and the bills that resulted from it. Shaw's saying that this is one way to assist you in identifying hijacked wireless. Guess what .... it works. My sister had her wireless hijacked. She discovered it because Paramount complained to Telus who advised her that she had uploaded a specific movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Receiving a letter from Shaw is a lot better than being sued for tens of thousands of dollars, as has happened in the US. I suspect that the proposed copyright law will have some effects as well. Being fined $500 per movie is a bit steeper than renting or buying. OTOH, maybe if TV broadcasters did a better job of providing popular content, fewer people would resort to using P2P to get their favourite TV show on time. I hate watching December Holiday episodes in May. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Shaw is simply sending out a notification to the customer that we have been informed by the content's copyright holder (Warner Brother's in this case) that there has been an alleged violation from their account. Shaw in no way provides any information to Warner Brother's about the customer and would not do so unless order to by a court.

Shaw is simply complying with a copyright agreement that exists between all broadcast distributors and copyright holders.

Again our team will educate customers as to what type of activity may have led to the alleged violation and assist the customer in preventing similar situations in the future for their own protection.
And what exactly would that be? Tell the customer not to use torrents or when the copyright law passes they will end up getting sued?

This is not linked to an individuals upload proportion specifically, and an individual doing 0 uploading has the potential for receiving a copyright infringement letter (the way WB or other companies track illegal downloaders is join a torrent swarm and then record all the IP addresses in the swarm).


Shaw is under NO legal obligation to comply with WB in providing information about the user (infact it may be against the law to do so) or send any of these requests to the users. They haven't been doing so for years.

These letters are a deterrent for the first and most part (I had a friend who destroyed his first PC when he got a letter from his ISP). The chance of a lawsuit standing up in Canada against an individual who simply downloaded a movie are nill. Shaw is not doing it to be the "good ISP looking out for it's customer" or even for the management of it's own network; but for it's own benefit (either to force users to use the VOD service or to receive more content or maintain the existing level of content from the copyright holder).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
In shaws adds on huge billboard no less they state you can download more movies and more music faster. do you think there appealing for customers to download more on itunes or torrents. Obviously there referring to torrents.

In the states a university student got sued for 600,000 dollars for sharing 24 songs. How do they get that evaluation??????????? The guy had no choice but to go bankrupt . They also sued a 12 year old girl. Personally i think it just a scare tactic. I'm not aware of any of lawsuits in Canada, but if anyone knows of any please post them here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I don't think this has anything to do with Shaw Media.
I was thinking it might be related to Shaw Media because of the timing of this announcement. I know that many other ISP's in Canada pass along these notices, but I remember reading an article where Jim Shaw's response to these notices were that they were bullshit. At that time they had some media broadcasting, but over the past year, they've become one of the country's biggest broadcasters.


Large media companies have tried to sue to get the names of the people behind the I.P.'s, but courts have dismissed these suits. This is why every once in a while you'll hear about the government trying to change the copyright laws which would allow for the type of practices seen in the U.S. where you can sue a single mother of three for millions of dollars.

The only purpose to these letters is to scare Canadians, those who don't understand the law, into thinking they're about to be sued, which will hopefully (for the media company) make them stop sharing content online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Haven't gotten an email/letter yet.

Even if I do get one I'll just stop torrenting and switch to http sites and then just verify the MD5 with the official release documents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
were paying Shaw good money, we should be able to download what ever we want. if something is "illegal", then the rcmp should shut it down, its got nothing to do with the isp.
I don't know why you put quotes around illegal. Distributing copyrighted material is illegal, even in Canada, and you can face legal action for it.

I'm always amazed when someone takes the "I have free will, let me do what I want" position, but then demands that Shaw abrogate its right to exercise their free will as well.

If they want to send you a letter to cover off their liability, then they have a right to do so. You should thank them for letting them know the copyright holders are on to you.

Anyway, if someone is going to be a thief, I don't know why they get all touchy when someone treats them like one. Everything has its cost, including "free" movies and music. Some people won't care, but others will look down their noses and treat the thief with contempt, which is their right. (free will again, right?)

I digress. The warning letters are perfectly justified, and I'd rather receive one than have my information handed over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,342 Posts
^^^^
Actually, there's plenty of copyrighted material that can be legally shared. One example is open source software, such as Linux or OpenOffice. I also recently came across a web site, where you are free to download PDFs of their books. As long as the copyright owner has given permission, it's entirely legal to distribute copyrighted material far and wide. As far as Shaw's letter is concerned, I would compare this to the phone company listing in to your calls and telling you what you can or cannot talk about. This is one reason why ISPs should be made common carriers, which would make it illegal for them to do this.

BTW, I do not copy, download or share copyrighted material without permission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
I would compare this to the phone company listing in to your calls and telling you what you can or cannot talk about. This is one reason why ISPs should be made common carriers, which would make it illegal for them to do this.
You are kidding right? How is this anything to do with the phone company listening in on your phone calls? Please explain it to me? People downloading copyright materiel from the internet is VERY different from two people having a conversation on the phone. :rolleyes:
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top