> 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...
Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence [1].
Curious if such a law would pass Constitutional muster in the United States.
"Similar provisions are now required in the rest of Europe, under Article 7 of the European Union Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, approved in April 2004."
Yet another wonderful law funded by the IP lobby. Buying instead of pirating is rapidly becoming indefensible, when the profits are used to buy laws like this.
When corporations bribe politicians to strip you of your rights, they should be considered hostile.
On the other hand, Canada does seem to make some odd laws or judgements, such as the supreme court (or a similarly high court) judge ruling that for the purpose of child pornography laws, "person" includes a completely fictitious character, not based on any real person, and may have extremely abnormal and non-humanlike proportions.
A depiction of a fictional person is still a depiction of a person. Its just that the person being depicted is fictional.
Would you argue that propaganda glorifying the extermination of a community of a real religious or ethnic group, say Jews, would be ok if the community depicted was fictional?
Without really questoning what a "person" is, to get into a debate about abstract and concrete forms, etc. I firstly do not believe the example you have provided is a good counter example or fitting analogy given the intent of child pornography legislation, nor do I believe the material you describe should be illegal.
There is first a key difference in the kind of material I am talking about. You are talking about propaganda, I am talking about even private possession of drawings. Further, I think that it depends on if the cartoon in your scenario acutally calls for violence, or if it is merely a scene drawn in disgusting taste. I would find it disgusting, as would many others - but does that mean it ought to be illegal? To distribute on the street perhaps, but what about privately on the Internet? Or publicly on the Internet?
The key is intent. The intent of child pornography legislation is to prevent its circulation and production, for its production necessarily requires the abuse of a child, and market effects can demand more to be produced, necessitating more child abuse. As such I think it absurd to consider, for the purposes of child pornography legislation, a fictional character to be a "person". What harm is done by drawing on paper? What of keeping that paper to oneself in private? What of giving that paper to your friend? What of selling that paper for a price? What of giving it away for free?
It would be strange, though I accept, that you want the propaganda you describe to be illegal to possess or share. I however cannot agree on that principle, for I view it as a violation of one's rights of freedom of expression. In the same way, illegalising a disgusting pornographic comic I believe is also an infringement.
Finally there is no real victim being hounded in your example. There is no call to violence, threat etc. and I judge it hideous that one would prevent me from owning such material.
Hmm, I can't reply so I'll post here. I don't think bans on child pornography are just to prevent children being abused in its production. I think partly it's because the circulation of such depictions make it more likely for people who enjoy such material to act on their fantasies against real children. It. Institutes incitement.
In other words I think child pornography is a form of propaganda glorifying the sexual abuse of children.
Although I share this concern, I can't really square with the idea of freedom of expression. Because someone may do something, I don't think it's good reasoning. And as far as I know, there's little or no evidence linking drawings of fictional characters having sex to child abuse. I think it's strikingly similar to the argument that violence in video games may cause people to act out similar violence in real life, i.e I don't agree with it.
Until there is sufficient evidence, I will tend to err on the side of freedom. Unfortunately in my country (England) such depictions are illegal and I have campaigned online for the past couple of years for its repeal - though God forbid I do it in person.
I think we are living in a very strange world in which drawings are illegal because they might cause people to do bad things.
With regard to the idea that drawn CP is a form of propaganda, I must disagree. In propaganda there is intent, and there is no intent I can see in lolicon hentai manga to encourage abuse. In fact, many manga contain warning notices saying that such things in real life are hideous crimes.
And even in the instances in which it is propaganda, so what? People must be shielded by the law from propaganda?
The HN mods have put a flag on my account which says that I'm not allowed to post very often because once I was posting in quick succession on a political topic. As such, if you reply to this, my reply may be an addendum to this comment.
That's certainly the argument, but it's not clear at all that the argument is sound. For instance, there's compelling circumstantial evidence that Internet pornography leads to a decline in rape. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/ev...) Maybe prohibitions on child porn lead to more sexual abuse of children?
I mean... this could/does literally happen in the US as well. Don't get me wrong, the circumstances are slightly different, but the basic premise is the same:
This article is unclear about whether the RIAA actually executed the raid and on what legal grounds. It says they worked with the Secret Service (which is confusing itself--why would the secret service be involved in copyright violations?) and that people were arrested; I find it particularly hard to believe that the RIAA had legal authority to detain anyone.
I skimmed, but I couldn't find anything that indicates that a civil party can execute the warrant. To be clear, is not interesting that a court can order the forfeiture of property; it's interesting that a civil plaintiff can execute the order.
> I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would face if it had such a mechanism.
Probably none. The US has civil forfeiture and is barely raises an eyebrow. Hell, Jello Biafra was singing about it in the 1980s about when he had his stuff taken by the sheriff and it was sold before his trial. Regardless of whether you were innocent or not, the cops could sell your stuff.
> This wouldn't be the first time the government has elevated corporate policy to criminal law
The novelty isn't in the crime. It's in the mode of enforcement. Had a police officer knocked on his door and executed a search warrant or the plaintiff filed a motion to compel [1] discovery proceedings [2] with a court, this would have been business as usual.
The novelty is the plaintiff, a private citizen, executed the search warrant themselves. The only party that should be able to force you, on pain of violent punishment, e.g. imprisonment, to do something against your consent is the state, acting on behalf of itself or another party.
One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence, so violent retribution is fully legitimate.
Or maybe not. Maybe those responsible will be held accountable, and face jail-time for effectively holding someone prisoner, breaking into their home, and stealing their belongings, albeit with the dubious stamp of approval of a judge.
Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer.
If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.
> Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself
If Person A violently attacks Person B, then Person B has a right to defend themselves on the legal theory that Person A instigated the violence. "Credible threat" clauses muddy the line, but continue to rest on the pedestal of reaction versus action [1].
Here a court gave a company the right to instigate violence against the defendant. At least to this American, that's absurd.
Note that self-defence is a defense, not a justification. It doesn't stop you from being taken to court, because you still were involved in something the law considers a crime. Your actions being self-defence just mean that the judge will likely find that there is reasonable doubt whether you were, in fact, committing murder. You might still have been committing murder! You might have set the other guy up to attack you so you could kill him, like with the old custom of professional "hired gun" duelists. But, since the other guy did attacked you first, it's (usually) impossible to prove that that's why you did it, rather than it just being because you were, in fact, trying to save your own life. (Unless you left written documentation of your nefarious plots somewhere.)
Fun fact: this is also true of "Fair Use" in copyright suits—it's also a defence, not a justification. If you put a 30-second sample of someone else's song in your song, they can still sue you, and waste your time and money in court! They just probably won't win, in the end. But if they have a lot more money than you, you might plea anyway.
To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some context is available here[1].
That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation.
To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for?
Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.
American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that?
Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?
Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants.
If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's a garbage sentence.
Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.
And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight.
Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.
I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?
Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?
The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are--
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That definition came in well over a century after the Second Amendment was written (1956, as far as I can tell), and so should have no bearing on interpretation of the founders' intent.
I'm not saying it would work well, I'm saying it would be justified.
And I wouldn't call what happened here 'civil' - at best, the civility was one-sided: they get to raid his home, hold him captive, and force him to answer, but he doesn't get to do anything.
For what it's worth, there are already other exceptions. For example, you can use (non-deadly) force to detain other persons if you reasonably believe you have witnessed them commit a felony or certain misdemeanors, as long as the force used is necessary and reasonable (possibly matching the force used by the offender to commit the felony, or sufficient to restrain the offender) under the circumstances. You generally have the same duties in an arrest as an officer of the law, but with less protection from potential prosecution.
Civil search of property is, in my opinion, a less serious power/responsibility than citizen's arrest; though I guess it could apply in more circumstances.
> Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence.
No, the monopoly on the legitimated use of force (“monopoly on violence” in popular alternative, though less clear, phrasing) is not ceded when the State legitimizes force applied by entities that are not full-time agents of the State.
It's only ceded when the State allows some other entity to become accepted as legitimately (in the eyes of the people) able to exercise or authorize force without regard to the rules and procedures of the State.
"Monopoly on violence" means "monopoly on determining who may use violence legally", not "is the only one whose employees may legally use violence."
If the state says, "Alice, you can arrest Bob and bring him in", and Alice is not a sworn police officer, that is not ceding the state's monopoly on violence. (The state would, of course, have liability for whatever their authorized Alice to do.)
The article mentions that the developer was threatened with contempt of court if he didn't answer questions, didn't give up his passwords, etc. I subscribe to the "you can be the rap but not the heat" mentality - if he had kept his mouth shut, even if the bailiff hauled him off to jail that day, a week later he'd have been let out, email and social media intact and whatever other information he revealed in a 16 hour interrogation safe.
Does he have a day job? This always seems like an easy decision from 10 miles away, if the police/bailiff/whatever are threatening to take you to jail wrongly you hold your ground and get let out anyway, right? That works great when missing a day or more of work isn't going to end up with you getting fired, even if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
> That works great when missing a day or more of work isn't going to end up with you getting fired, even if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
Canadians are not scared of their employment in the same way Americas are. With Healthcare and a good social safety net, he would be OK if he lost his job, and would be able to draw on enough social assistance until he finds another.
Obviously very far from ideal, though not nearly as dire as in the USA.
I am extremely stubborn, such that whenever someone threatens bad thing X unless I do Y, I dig in my heels and become the unmovable stone. Bad thing X rarely happens. Bad things still happen, just not the exact thing they were threatening.
You have to figure that anyone who would threaten you in order to coerce you into doing something you don't want to do, will also lie about the consequences of you not doing it.
Even worse, somehow there's this mentality that "arrested = criminal" even though you can be innocent; some people could be fired simply for being in custody, whether or not any work was missed.
Well, fair for many cases. I believe he was a software engineer though, and that being the case probably has the privilege of missing work with little repercussions.
I understand where you're coming from though, the law is skewed heavily unfairly towards the rich.
In either case though, I believe the repercussions for giving away too much information in this lawsuit could potentially outweigh the repercussions of lost time at work or being fired. If I remember correctly, these "you fucked with BigTelecom" lawsuits end up with comically huge fines/settlements/legal fees.
Not all software engineers have the fortune to work for some startup or trendy employer that would be fine with you missing work for something like this.
My employer is pretty awesome in many ways, and they've demonstrated to me over and over that they value having me there - but at the end of the day I work in corporate America and I have no doubt that missing an entire week off unscheduled would endanger my employment with them (my managers would fight for me, but HR gets the final word and policy is pretty clear).
Now, in this case, you may very well be right that the potential ramifications may be even worse than losing your job in the long term - but people with families depending on them have the short term they have to think about too, there's a reason plea bargains are so common in the US even when you have a good case to defend against.
If you get fired for not handing over your personal information to the government after being wrongfully detained then, depending on your country, you have a potential lawsuit on your hands
When it comes to employment, the law only matters if you can afford to forgo income from that particular employer, and if you can afford the lawyers. For many people, if they don't have another stream of income or support from family or friends, it's effectively useless to them.
My integrity in the face of tyranny and the future of my country is worth more than my livelihood. Each and every time someone bends to the will of the police state like this, it makes them a little bit stronger.
It's easy to say. It's hard to do, especially when you have a family to support.
I'm not saying you're wrong - we should push back against things like this - but not everyone's cut out to be a martyr, and some people aren't in a position to martyr only themselves.
A software dev with a month of slush fund in the bank and a wife who can mostly manage the household is in a very good position to keep their mouth shut on principal, especially if the facts of the case are something the larger community can empathize with.
People will fund a kickstarter to pay your rent while you're in jail if you're in jail for a good reason. Getting publicity is the hard part.
Yup. I was in that position 18 months ago, and I would likely fight the law.
But today, we have a rambunctious 17 month old, and while my wife could raise her single-handedly for an indefinite amount of time - single parents do, after all - it would be incredibly difficult and unfair to both her and my kid, and all the family members who would have to increasingly begin to pitch in.
For starters, if I were facing a jail term of longer than about a month, she would likely have to move to a much cheaper, further apartment. A move isn't free, and a move isn't easy - neither is finding a new daycare, nor losing the hours in the day that get eaten up by the worse commute and having to drop off and pick up the child.
Sorry if some of what I said above is obvious, but a lot of people on HN are single and unattached, and these ramifications may not come as easily to them.
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
I've had several encounters with police in which my rights or the rights of others were trampled upon, and I have held my ground in each of them. Take me to jail if you must. I have sat in jail.
Making it just about me and my life is selfish.
If refusing to relinquish my right not testify against myself causes me personal suffering, it is my duty as a free mind to accept this personal suffering in order to stave off an ever-encroaching police state and take part in the struggle to give my posterity a better world to live in.
We all have our own priorities which influence the attachments we allow ourselves to have with the possessions and people around us, and how comfortable we require ourselves to be.
It certainly complicates things when there are mouths to be fed, human or animal.
It seems to me like any and all forms of "interrogation" of the defendant, let alone not allowing him to counsel are totally arbitrary and out of scope/boundaries of such order.
"TV ADDONS is an unofficial Kodi add-on development site, it does not host nor link to any type of protected content.
It was contended that out of the 1500+ add-ons indexed on TV ADDONS, less than 1% were what the plaintiffs considered to be allegedly “infringing.”
Kodi add-ons scrape content sources that are readily available online, sort of like specialized search engines.
Add-on developers do not control the content the add-ons are scraping, they are simply a conduit for accessing content through streaming web sites, the same way your web browser would.
I am baffled. That is some seriously dangerous lawmaking. Essentially a corporation was given the go ahead to gather evidence, in a private citizens house, for its own case. I don't see how this event can be twisted into any other story.
This is how the civil courts system works in Canada? Agents of a corporation are permitted by law to search a private citizen's home, seize property, detain him against his will, and deny him access to his lawyer for 16 hours?
Even if they overstepped their authority in this particular case, that there is any case where some version of this is legal is absolutely unconscionable.
From what I read the problem with this specific case was they over stayed their welcome (they were given 12 hours and took 18) and that they tried to gather info on other cases (were supposed to stay within the case at hand).
So everything else seems ok... which blows my mind.
I'm fine with people being critical of it, some questionable behaviour pretty clearly occurred.
I'm tired of Americans acting like they have a monopoly on Freedom and giving (often uninformed) opinions about how screwed up the justice system of another country is, and how the charter of rights and freedoms is worthless. I just think it's arrogant and hypocritical.
The Anton Piller order does not gives the right to the agents of the corporation to enter the citizen's home. The citizen can still refuse.
The order is ordering the civilian to allow the agents to enter his home. You can refuse. However, by refusing you very likely become guilty of contempt of Court.
As for the "deny access to his lawyer" the law says : "The defendants have a right to contact their lawyer within a reasonable amount of time". There is however a supervising lawyer present during the search. This lawyer is neutral to the case and is there to take note of what has been seized or searched.
The article states that the court order used in this case is something called an Anton Piller order [0].
Its intended use seems to be for cases where the defendant is known to possess incriminating material they are in imminent danger of destroying, and have caused serious damage to the plaintiff. It also seems that an independent lawyer is required in these cases to explain the order to the defendant and handle the collected material.
The judge apparently ruled the use of the order unlawful after the fact, so I'd hope that the poor guy is entitled to some sort of compensation.
In Canada, these corporations just don't deliver television content, they create it and own all the mediums of delivery. Many of those methods of delivery were once created by a Crown Corporation which was paid for originally through taxes and then privatized in times of need.
So basically, you control the media and you control the nation. There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally.
They own the Cellular Networks, Radio Stations, Television Broadcasting, Internet Service Providers and Newspapers. The Sports Teams, The stadiums, Movie Production, Television Production, Home Security Monitoring and more!
They don't have much sympathy from the public; generally there's a hatred towards them but when you have no options you choose your preferred lesser evil. There's some choice out there but it's few and far between because they're as much a victim of attacks from the monopoly as the citizens. (See Barry Logan v. TekSavvy - https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltag... )
> There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally
I wish we had a real free market in Canada for telecom services.
Canada has a reputation as a "softer, gentler" version of the US. I'm aware this is probably a gross distortion but the one topic about Canada where I hear more disturbing stories than any other is in relation to the amount of regulatory (or judicial/legislative) capture around copyright issues.
Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Or compromising photos of friends in very high places?
More seriously - what gives? How comes it appears that the Canadian system seems so one-sided on anything IP related? Or is it just an artefact of getting my Canada news from HN?
That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.
>That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.
This is why the Internet is such a wonderful thing, when it works properly (without worrying about georestrictions, for instance): it allows us to route around things like Cancon, and listen to the streaming audio of our choice.
Also, Canada's copyright laws in general are much saner than in the USA. For example, (unless it's changed recently - I know there's been discussion), if you have a copyrighted work, (say a CD), you're allowed to make a copy for yourself for backup purposes.
It may even be legal to break the "digital lock" on things like DVDs and Blu-Rays in order to create your backup copy, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
This corruption is directly supported by patronizing the content cartels, including their facelifts such as Netflix. These thugs can't be out of business soon enough.
In the end, property laws are the only really important laws for capitalist so be ready for them to lobby for more laws and enforcement in that direction.
> Intellectual property isn't real property, though
Do you mean intellectually property isn't really property, or do you mean intellectually property doesn't consist of estates in land (“real property”.) The latter is obviously true, but hard to see it's relevance; the former is false. IP is no less property than any other form of intangible personal property.
Intellectual property has many differences with other forms of property. The differences consist of two main properties that tangible property has which intellectual property does not: scarcity and exclusivity.
- Ideas are not scarce goods. They are for all intents and purposes infinite.
- Ideas cannot be exclusive. Two people can have the same idea at the same time.
There are only so many apples available, restricted by sunlight and water and nutrients and such. If I hold an apple, another person can't also hold that apple at the same time.
Sure it is, it is a completely different thing. The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. But it does not, it just tries it's best to model an idealized version of reality. This really starts to become apparent where legal English diverges from dictionary or common English.
> The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality.
IP isn't thoughts and concepts, it's expressions and concrete applications, and “property” is a legal relationship; human laws don't define reality, but they do define legal relationships.
Perhaps it is based on the fact that Quebec law is known in French as the "Code civil" as opposed to the English-based "Common law" and so, would have little to do with what the English speaking world know as "civil cases".
Je crois bon de préciser ici que les personnes à qui l'ordonnance a été signifiée auraient pu refuser de fournir les informations demandées. Devant un tel refus, Groupe AST (1993) inc. n'aurait pu insister davantage, mais aurait dû plutôt utiliser la procédure d'outrage au tribunal pour faire valoir ses droits. Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier indiquant que Groupe AST (1993) inc. aurait obtenu les informations par la force, après un premier refus. Si tel avait été le cas, il y aurait eu lieu d'annuler l'existence de l'ordonnance Anton Piller, vu que ses limites auraient été dépassées. En l'absence de preuve à ce sujet, je considère qu'i n'y a pas lieu pour notre Cour d'intervenir à cet égard.
It means that the defendant would be under contempt of the court if he refused to answer questions or let them get what they wanted under the warrant. But, if he refused, and that the plaintiff "uses force" to fulfill the warrant then the limits of the Anton Piller would be overstepped and it would be voided.
From what I understand, under Quebec civil law the maximum sentence for contempt of court is up to 5000$ and up to a year.
Still (see paragraph [106]), it seems to me (my French is not as good as it should be) that the generic point remains untouched:
>Par ailleurs, le paragraphe 29 n'autorise pas un huissier à interroger des témoIns comme bon lui semble. Il ordonne plutôt ...
>Furthermore, paragraph 29 does not authorize a bailiff to examine witnesses as he sees fit. Rather, he directs ...
Imagine that I have an Anton Piller order to find and seize for preservation something at a high risk of destruction, let's say all sugar in your house ;).
I can ask you where you keep the sugar, biscuits, cakes, sweets, mints and lollipops, besides soda beverages and chocolate. (and if you refuse to respond you are passible to be held in contempt of the Court)
I can also check whether you have hidden your sugar in the bathroom or in the bedroom.
What I cannot ask you is whether you are member of a club of sugar addicts, and the name of all its members, where you bought those nice looking cupcakes, how much meat and bread do you eat everyday, etc.
The scope of an Anton Piller order is just for presevation of evidence and specifically of evidence at high risk of destruction.
I was wondering why he didn't just clam up and let them arrest him, and then I read this:
> He was given a break for dinner and to speak to his lawyer, who was present.
I have to wonder if, after seeing how far off the reservation these guys were, his lawyer just told him to go with it in hopes that the whole thing would backfire. Which it looks like it has, at least to a point, if the judge ruled the search unlawful.
It baffles me that he let them in. Unless you have a badge, if you come to my door and tell me you need to search my home because of yada yada yada, you'll be escorted off of my property pretty damn quick.
I'm Canadian and I'll take my chances in court on this one. Complete nonsense.
I can only imagine how badly this could go if it happened in a rural area.
“It is important to note that the Defendant was not permitted to refuse to answer questions under fear of contempt proceedings, and his counsel was not permitted to clarify the answers to questions. I conclude unhesitatingly that the Defendant was subjected to an examination for discovery without any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances,” the Judge said.
A "civil search warrant"? Fortunately, we have no such thing in the U.S. And since it appears he wasn't allowed to leave, it was effectively a "civil arrest warrant" as well.
"Accompanied by Scientology lawyers, federal marshals made several raids on the homes of individuals who were accused of posting Scientology's copyrighted materials to the newsgroup."
That's different than the scientology lawyers going alone.
There was a bailiff and independent counsel there as representatives of the court, so they weren't alone in this case. This action is so rare that they obviously had no clue what the limits were, though.
His phone was seized... he couldn't have filmed even if he had wanted to. Besides, 16 hours, nothing I own would film for that long without changing something.
He didn't have to give up his phone. The searching parties need the resident's permission. They can threaten contempt of court, but they can't otherwise just barge in and take stuff.
this is exactly why its an Amendment in the US Constitution to bear arms. People should have a last resort of meeting the force of the state with their own.
No, the reason we have the second Amendment is to protect the States from either action against them or inaction in their support by the federal government, which is kind of clear from the (unique: only the second amendment has this) prefatory language in the amendment itself about it's purpose.
"Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.
"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman."
I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you really be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?
The article is terrible. Who exactly coerced Lackman to answer arbitrary questions? Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Who threatened Lackman with contempt or court?
I've known the parties to a couple of Anton Piller orders and I don't believe there was any questioning. Anton Piller orders are essentially a civil search warrant to seize evidence. Go in, take the items sought by force if necessary and hand them to an independent lawyer who will keep them. The defendant or someone representing it if it's a corporation has to be there to witness it and be given an inventory of what's taken. There's no scope for questioning anyone.
The article said that a judge ruled the search unlawful after the fact, and one of the reasons for that was because of the questioning -- so I'm not surprised there was no questioning in the cases you are familiar with since they may have been carried out correctly.
My interpretation was that the questioning was unlawful since they asked about other companies that might be selling these android boxes. They were supposed to limit questions to his particular case.
>> Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive?
Personally, this is the part that really scares me. The majority of us Canadians do not have personal lawyers. If this happened to me, I'd be stuck trying to find a lawyer for the first time. I'm sure the thugs entering my home would seize my computers and phone immediately, and refuse to allow me to use them to look up and contact a lawyer. Due to the seizure, I'd be unable to find representation. What do you do at that point?
Article 1 makes the the CCoRaF a joke of a "bill of rights":
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This seemed incredibly questionable for me when I read it. Of course, if he was prevented from consulting with his lawyer, how would he know if this is an empty threat or not?
That agents of private corporations can be granted the authority to conduct searches and interrogations is chilling.
Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the state grants law enforcement powers to corporations in order to defend outdated business models and protect profit.
Exactly! this is terrifying. The law should be exercised by neutral parties, not the plaintiff. This is the equivalent of you being able to imprison a person in your house because they stole something from you.
It's downvoted because its precisely wrong - the court ruled the search was outside the bounds of the law, and threw out the case. People fuck up all the time, but here, the system worked exactly the way GP wants it to.
Certainly the ISPs are at fault here, but the Canadian court system seems to be working just fine. The existence of the Anton Piller concept is troubling, still.
A correct system disallows abuse to happen in the first place. I would draw a parallel to buggy software, that loses the trust of its users. I feel that the same thing can happen to a legal system: and then what will happen?
The fact that the cable companies asking for the power to detain and search a private citizen weren't laughed out of the building by law enforcement is what's troubling to me.
He broke the law. Not just that, he broke the law and spit in the face of powerful people holding lots of money. Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS.
What happened to him is terrifying and way disproportionate of his crime, which amounted to a few dollars of lost profits by companies that continue to post record profits even in the face of widespread piracy. However, the lesson you should take from this is that if you should 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law, and 2) if you do, try to make yourself hard to find. People commit much worse crimes like rape and murder, and get away with it without being found, you should be able to figure out how to give people an app anonymously.
Of course, that is unless you want to make a political statement via civil disobediance, but I have the feeling that person wasn't after that.
> Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS.
What was he selling? The site looks like a free listing of other people's plugins for Kodi, hosted on other sites (github and the official Kodi add-ons repo, for the 5 add-ons that I looked at).
It looks like he's got ads up, and links to zips containing XMLs written by 3rd parties, that presumably provide the metadata to eventually reach some streamed audio/video/whatever. Calling it "selling his illegal products" is more than a stretch.
> 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law
Might as well drop "while breaking the law". Things won't end well if you piss of people with a lot of money legally either.
He's profiting from piracy. Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal. I assume that Canada has similar laws. So not only was he engaged in illegal activity - providing information on how to access pirate content, he was actively profiting from it.
What happened to him is absolutely the expected outcome of his activity.
> Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal.
How about links to links to pirated content? How many levels of indirection would it take to not be "linking to pirate content"? I assume that he must've received some kind of take-down notices (the site claims claim they haven't, but sure, we'll assume that they're just lying), but wouldn't it make as much or more sense for those notices to go to the account-holders on github where a lot of the repositories storing the actual connection data are?
With the information given, my opinion is that the connection is too indirect for the level of response. The site itself seems full of mostly-legal content (the same free channels that show up on my Roku, for example). It seems like overkill to me.
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...
Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence [1].
Curious if such a law would pass Constitutional muster in the United States.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence