Anyone ever get a letter from Rogers about a Torrent?

[bouche]

A guy at work said that Rogers contacted him telling him that he was in violation of copyright by download something from Universal Studios and to cease the activity.

Has anyone had that happen? If so, what did you do? This guy is scared to download any more movies.

[Northern Wish]

Don't download anything else from Universal.

[Booche]

Pack it up folks. The internet is over.

[bouche]

Videotron doesn't seem to care about torrents.

[Basher]

bouche, the ISP in question HAS to warn the customer on behalf of the victim, or face the possibility of legal actions.

[TheAlphaNerd]

Don't download from pirate bay like a tool

[deranger]

I know of several people who have received a letter from Rogers warning them about downloading. In all cases they were downloading movies, not music. It's my understanding that these letters constitute a threat but that no law yet exists that specifically makes downloading a movie in that manner a crime. I think this new Copyright bill will put an end to that by spelling out exactly how downloading a movie via something like a torrent is illegal.

Is there a lawyer on the board or someone who is knowledgeable in this area that can give us some insight into this? I'm not at all 100% sure about the letters legality and again, this is only my understanding through conversations with avid movie downloaders and those who received a letter.

[phishtaper]

bouche, the ISP in question HAS to warn the customer on behalf of the victim, or face the possibility of legal actions.

this is my understanding as well

[StoneMtn]

I think the warning is to negate the potential for an "innocent infringer" defence to come from the alleged infringer, actually.

[Kanada Kev]

I think the warning is to negate the potential for an "innocent infringer" defence to come from the alleged infringer, actually.

and also for the ISP to cover their butts so they can say that they warned them. From what I understand, the movie industry doesn't have a leg to stand on (yet) in trying to convict any user here. At best, the ISP can ban them/shut them down if they receive too many complaints from the movie watchdogs.

[StoneMtn]

Are they not "covering their butts" by having "warned them" so as to negate the potential for an innocent infringer defence?

I think you just said the same thing I did in your first sentence (fragment).

I won't comment on the rest of what you said, other than that I disagree.

[phishtaper]

why would rogers feel a need to negate someone's defense? i saw a bunch of these sorts of letters a couple of years ago and read then that they were intended to protect the ISP's own butt against allegations by the copyright owner that ISP's were negligently allowing people to illegally download.

and I apologize in advance for my, no doubt, frustrating bastardization of various legals terms, Stone.

[StoneMtn]

One defence to a Copyright Claim is that the person did it by mistake or by accident. If you put that person on notice, though, then it is clear that any infringement that happens after that was done with the knowledge that the sharing of the work was an infringement, so if it goes to Court the Plaintiff need only prove that the letter was sent and received to be able to deal with that part of the action.

[phishtaper]

ok, we get that, but why would rogers be sending the letter? they dont own the copyright. presumably they are doing in on behalf of universal studios (or whoever). but why?

[StoneMtn]

Well, obviously I haven't seen the letter, but Rogers is probably the ISP and they were probably warned by the copyright owner or its agent that they are facilitating the infringement through their server, etc, so now they are on notice to put an end to it or risk being a party to it.

[Esau.]

I think right now, the sending of letters to customers is completely up to the ISPs and as far as I know (as of right now anyway) they can't take action against you other then sending those emails/letters. I assume it has a lot to do with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) discussions that Canada has been part of now for a couple years.

Under the ACTA rules Canadian ISPs will be responsible to police their networks for illegal downloads and notify the customer of any occuring from their IP address. Apparently they will also be required to hand over customer information upon request. If I remember correctly it's to have a 3 strike policy, warning, internet suspension (rumored 12 months) & then a large fine.

I couldn't find the article I read last year (free press one) but here are a couple links. Google "ACTA Canada" for more info.

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34739

[StoneMtn]

I think it is also in response to the pending Digitial Millennium Copyright Act, actually.

[bouche]

One defence to a Copyright Claim is that the person did it by mistake or by accident. If you put that person on notice, though, then it is clear that any infringement that happens after that was done with the knowledge that the sharing of the work was an infringement, so if it goes to Court the Plaintiff need only prove that the letter was sent and received to be able to deal with that part of the action.

I've read on other forums that individuals think they can cover their butts by telling rogers that "someone must have hijacked my wifi". Well, rogersez response to that is to tell them to lock down their wifi with a password.

These individuals don't comply to that and pretend that they don't understand.

I don't think that would fly though if Rogers did warn them, and even told them to lock down their wifi. Any more torrents after that would probably be easily shown that the dude was responsible. the dude.