Federal Court of Canada issues unprecedented ruling ordering ISPs to block piracy ser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnasp002

If Parliament didn't want the Copyright Act to be used in that way, why are the courts enforcing it that way ?

---

Perhaps this can help you under the Court's position better on this. Not saying you have to agree but think they do explained it adequately.

Quote:

---

28] First, TekSavvy argues that the remedies available to a copyright holder set out in the Copyright Act are exhaustive and do not include site-blocking orders. TekSavvy further notes that in introducing reforms to the Copyright Act in 2012 Parliament considered but chose not to provide for a site-blocking regime. It submits that the Federal Court should not now provide a remedy to the Plaintiffs that Parliament declined to make expressly available in legislation. The argument is not persuasive.

[29] Parliament’s choice not to adopt a site-blocking regime does not equate to Parliament prohibiting this Court from exercising its equitable jurisdiction to issue a site-blocking order. Furthermore, subsection 34(1) of the Copyright Act recognizes that, subject to that Act, a copyright owner is “entitled to all remedies by way of injunction […] that are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right”. This includes the right to seek relief against a non-party in circumstances where that non-party facilitates, albeit innocently, the harm being complained of (Equustek at para 31).

[30] This broadly stated entitlement to injunctive relief is not consistent with Teksavvy’s view that Parliament’s failure to legislate a site-blocking regime equates to an implicit intent to limit the availability of a similar remedy before the courts.

[31] Teksavvy further submits that the sole issue before the Court on this motion is a proposed site-blocking order against the Third Party Respondents, an issue that is discrete from the underlying action relating to the alleged copyright infringement. Teksavvy submits that site-blocking is a matter that falls within the CRTC’s mandate as set out in the Telecommunications Act and the CRTC has, in its decisions and policy documents, held that site-blocking is only warranted in exceptional circumstances. Teksavvy points to sections 7 and 36 of the Telecommunications Act to argue that the granting of the order would (1) usurp the CRTC’s role in ruling on the appropriateness of site-blocking, and (2) supplant the CRTC’s role in deciding which, if any “exceptional circumstances” warrant site-blocking in furtherance of Canadian telecommunications policy objectives as set out at section 7 of the Telecommunications Act.

---

GS2

I'm surprised that there is so little opposition to this.

When I said our rights are being eroded I was referring to the ISP's rights not my right to watch a pirated signal :)

However, it appears Parliament is considering some site-blocking rules so I guess Teksavvy is fighting a losing battle.

Even if they win this appeal it is only a matter of time before the government implements a similar site-blocking regime.

It is discussed in the STATUTORY REVIEW OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT the section is SITE-BLOCKING, DE-INDEXING, AND OTHER ORDERS it's page 92 of this document

Code:

---

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports/RP10537003/indurp16/indurp16-e.pdf

---

and now you know why it's a red a maple leaf on the flag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnasp002

I'm surprised that there is so little opposition to this.

When I said our rights are being eroded I was referring to the ISP's rights not my right to watch a pirated signal :)

However, it appears Parliament is considering some site-blocking rules so I guess Teksavvy is fighting a losing battle.

Even if they win this appeal it is only a matter of time before the government implements a similar site-blocking regime.

It is discussed in the STATUTORY REVIEW OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT the section is SITE-BLOCKING, DE-INDEXING, AND OTHER ORDERS it's page 92 of this document

Code:

---

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports/RP10537003/indurp16/indurp16-e.pdf

---

---

You never know in Court they could side with Teksavvy but then I agree Parliament could enact some site blocking rule. Let
say you had a business, a small one that you was Copy Right protected and along came people, companies offering the same services for much less because their pirated your Copy-righted Content and you faced going out of business.


You went to Court seeking their help, relief, remedies, as otherwise you would force to close and your employees would be on the street. What would you want to the Court to do ? the pirated business called GoldTv who you took to Court and lost, laughed at you and said so what, catch me if you can I am still operating, fudge you, go close up. So you went back to Court again seeking their help. What would you want the Court to do for you this time?


Now screw Bell and their Irreparable harm claim they have so much money they don't know what to do with it but what about small independent operators if there were any. I am just saying the Court has to consider all and if it was you not Bell you would be applauding their decision to have taken this step to protect you, your business and employees.




GS2

I don't believe site-blocking will solve their problem.

VPN's are cheap and effective.

I suppose it will prevent the plug and play stuff from working but it won't stop people that are determined to use IPTV.

Most VPNs will walk you through installing their product on your router.

Of course I'm assuming that IPTV services allow a customer to connect with a VPN because I have never used an IPTV service. If it comes down to it and that's the only way to connect I'm sure they will figure out a way to make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnasp002

I don't believe site-blocking will solve their problem.

VPN's are cheap and effective.

I suppose it will prevent the plug and play stuff from working but it won't stop people that are determined to use IPTV.

Most VPNs will walk you through installing their product on your router.

Of course I'm assuming that IPTV services allow a customer to connect with a VPN because I have never used an IPTV service. If it comes down to it and that's the only way to connect I'm sure they will figure out a way to make it work.

---

The Court acknowledges in their decision the ways people will defeat it but they feel or studies have shown it does cut out significant traffic, I don't quite remember exactly without looking it up. There were expert testimonies so they did cover a lot.




GS2