Cable companies interrogate Montreal software developer and search his home.

[rayden54]

The idea of corporations being able to search your home legally without Police oversight is fucking SCARY!

They had oversight.

[Azadina]

They had oversight.

All the good that did, when said oversight was probably paid off to not do any oversighting, seeing how they exceeded what they were allowed to do.

[Pengekaer]

There's a bailiff in charge of the search. They clearly state this. All having the police conduct the search would do is add an extra remove; the police would seize his PCs and turn them over to the cable company's tech guys. Instead, it was the technicians who were there indicating what they needed. Really not that big a shift.

And that bailiff let things get reaaaaally out of hand, how neutral could he possibly have been?


On topic:
Having the offended party search the house of the offender is plain madness, oversight or not. Only a neutral part, like law enforcement, should be allowed to enter IMO. And the Police should have their own IT-experts investigate the matter, who else should do it? :S Outsourcing of investigations? New Public Management has reached a new low, ha.

This story is interesting in that it shows that the law and justice are not always one and the same.

- - - Updated - - -

They had oversight.

Which was obviously totally worthless.

My point remains:
With judicial practices like this, the Canadians will never see independent investigations again. They can kiss them goodbye. One can say that independency in investigations can never be assured no matter who conducts it, but when left to offended party as in this case, a biased investigation is not only a risk; it's guaranteed.
I don't doubt that politicians will want to shift the burden of such investigations over to some private initiatives to save money. It's our duties as citizens, IMO, to not let them play with such fire.

As for the internet... it provides the music industry, the gaming industry and the film industry with a bridge from which to reach the entire world, granting them virtually endless opportuinies for profit. And then, there's a downside to this; the risk of piracy. Take the bitter with the sweet, says I. They gotta stop whining and accept they don't own the internet, or people's private lives for that matter.

[Serpha]

http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-sea...-piller-orders

Good read for Canadians. I can't believe I'm saying this but I think they had a case against that guy but they fucked up acting like gestapo.

[Endus]

And that bailiff let things get reaaaaally out of hand, how neutral could he possibly have been?

Don't get me confused with someone else; I'm in support of the guy who was targeted, here, not the cable companies. I'm just saying the search itself, in theory, wasn't some major breach of protocol. How it actually went was, which is gonna be good for the guy in the long run.

[Mistame]

I'm on this guy's side, actually, I'm just pointing out that a civil search warrant isn't the ridiculous thing people are claiming it to be.

A private entity obtaining the "right" to search your property? That's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, regardless of the circumstances.

Errr, no. That isn't how any court system operates. Even in criminal cases, the prosecution works for the State and isn't "unbiased"; their goal is to convict.

Pretty sure he means company calls police > police execute the search, as it should be. Since they're the only, you know, actual authorities.

[Kapadons]

Good for the cable companies. Scumbags stealing from them non-stop has to end. Canadian government doesn't care so the corporatations have to do things like this to get justice

[Pengekaer]

Don't get me confused with someone else; I'm in support of the guy who was targeted, here, not the cable companies. I'm just saying the search itself, in theory, wasn't some major breach of protocol. .

yeah i know, but the protocol itself is appalling. Just curious as to why such a protocol could be approved in an otherwise free and functional place.

[jimboa24]

Doesn't matter what seems wrong to you. They had legal right to go into the home. Which I'm assuming there was at least one cop accompanying them on it in case something happened.

I disagree with it too. But unfortunately that's what's written and nobody will do anything to get that changed.

Proof that Canada isn't some kind of paradise compared to the United States, and that no, you do NOT have the same rights and protections there that you do here. At least in the States, only official law enforcement can obtain search warrants, and only with probable cause .

[Doctor Amadeus]

Stealing other peoples shit, yeah, I can't feel too sorry for anybody who gets caught up in this while everybody else chooses to pay for work by those who made it. Don't want to get ITunes or any of the other several methods to listen to this music or movies legally Enjoy!

[Deleted]

Stealing other peoples shit

Man, I steal songs left and right every day by listening to the radio. I'm such a thief. Now I have those songs and they do not! Cos I stole them!

[Doctor Amadeus]

Nope, because the radio stations have an agreement through commercial advertising making those songs available you rebel pirate you.

[the game]

Nope, because the radio stations have an agreement through commercial advertising making those songs available you rebel pirate you.

did you never tape songs off of the radio onto a tape cassette? Or record a movie on a vcr? That's pirating.

[purebalance]

The part that's relevent.



yes with that warrant they have the right to search the home. Piracy is illegal. If you do it in anyway you should be prepared to face the consequences if/when you get caught.

This. Apparently it's a legal thing, but you can't just arbitrarily get it much like a normal warrant so it isn't like they can just waltz into anyone's home without a good reason.

[Doctor Amadeus]

did you never tape songs off of the radio onto a tape cassette? Or record a movie on a vcr? That's pirating.

Yes, to both, and those are still legal, because one they are being made commercially available through a legitimate means, and two, because making that tape doesn't deprive the author from making a profit from that description, unless or until I try to sell it, which I haven't ever.

Taking material through an unauthorized means and then redistributing thus depriving the author of the right to profit from their work is theft.

[purebalance]

did you never tape songs off of the radio onto a tape cassette? Or record a movie on a vcr? That's pirating.

None of those are pirating and actually counted as fair use actually.

http://legalbeagle.com/6696968-tv-re...ight-laws.html

At least in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, to both, and those are still legal, because one they are being made commercially available through a legitimate means, and two, because making that tape doesn't deprive the author from making a profit from that description, unless or until I try to sell it, which I haven't ever.

Taking material through an unauthorized means and then redistributing thus depriving the author of the right to profit from their work is theft.

This. The redistribution makes it pirating. Hence typically the people who got in trouble with Napster related crimes was more due to the fact that it was a distribution network.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

See, this whole hypocrisy against piracy is to miss the point entirely.

Piracy is not a problem unless you share. To consume it individually, to consume a product that has no material limitation isn't illegal.

Likewise, creating and managing a platform where user can make their own custom software - regardless of the author of the platform - is not enabling piracy.

And, as stated in the article:

On June 9, the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice, to search for and seize relevant evidence before it can be destroyed.

A Federal Court judge would later declare the Anton Piller order in this case "unlawful," but that was weeks after a group of men arrived at Lackman's door at 8 a.m. on June 12.

[Doctor Amadeus]

See, this whole hypocrisy against piracy is to miss the point entirely.

Piracy is not a problem unless you share. To consume it individually, to consume a product that has no material limitation isn't illegal.

Likewise, creating and managing a platform where user can make their own custom software - regardless of the author of the platform - is not enabling piracy.

And, as stated in the article:

Incorrect piracy has destroyed those industries and cost millions in jobs.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Incorrect piracy has destroyed those industries and cost millions in jobs.

That's not true. People who use piracy to come by are people who wouldn't be able to afford it in the first place.

In fact, they tend to attract more customers. Someone who use piracy to download a movie, then do good PR to his group of friends may have one or two of them buy the product. Without that, it's two sales lost. It's literally two sales lost, not one gained.

There are several studies done on this particular subject. The sole reason big enterprises keep pushing this agenda is to make people who can afford to buy things legitimately fear being caught in some illegal scheme. It's also to disrupt it so it doesn't become too big.

In this particular case, however, what these three cable companies have done is utterly illegal. I wonder who they paid to gain access to a legal contract like this one.

[Masark]

yeah i know, but the protocol itself is appalling. Just curious as to why such a protocol could be approved in an otherwise free and functional place.

It's functionally the same thing as discovery, but enhanced to prevent possible destruction of evidence.