
Canadian cable companies interrogate, search Montréal software developer - na85
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/tvaddons-piracy-rogers-bell-videotron-court-1.4231340
======
JumpCrisscross
> _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.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

~~~
weberc2
I was shocked by this as well. I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would
face if it had such a mechanism.

~~~
myusernameisok
Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29)

EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.

~~~
ue_
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.

~~~
simonh
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?

~~~
ue_
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.

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
ue_
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.

------
komali2
Holy shit, terrifying.

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.

~~~
snuxoll
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.

~~~
kakarot
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

~~~
lotsofpulp
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.

~~~
kakarot
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.

~~~
pavel_lishin
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.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
It depends.

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.

~~~
pavel_lishin
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.

------
jaclaz
Well, according to Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)

an Anton Piller Order has a whole lot of "guarantees" for the "defendant".

In this specific case it seems like the behaviour of the "Independent
Supervising Solicitor" was far different from the one the Law assigns him/her.

See also:

[http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-
canada-g...](http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-
guidance-for-anton-piller-orders)

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.

------
Raphmedia
Some information about what is TVAddons:

"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.

The Canadian telecom cartel never sent us a takedown notice, something that is
required by law." [[https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-
tv-...](https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-addons-in-
the-fight-against-censorship)]

------
fwsgonzo
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.

------
bww
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.

~~~
am1988
No. What they did was beyond the bounds of this type of order.

Americans should get off your "FREEDOM" high horse until you reduce your
prison population to something sane.

~~~
plandis
You know it's possible, as an individual, to be critical of this and, for
example, prison population.

~~~
am1988
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.

~~~
blinddev
How do you know they're American? As a Canadian I'm disgusted by this, reeks
of fascism to me.

------
samfriedman
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.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)

~~~
jostmey
If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already
have all the proof you need. The law is an oxymoron and dangerous.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you
> already have all the proof you need._

Knowing that someone _has_ evidence isn't the same thing as _having_ that
evidence.

------
rkenneth
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...](https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltage-
CrossExam-Logan-TRANSCRIPT.pdf) )

~~~
jtl999
> 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.

------
andybak
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?

~~~
pbourke
> Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places?

Yes, to the degree that a certain percentage of Radio and TV content must be
of Canadian origin:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content)

~~~
am1988
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.

~~~
noarchy
>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.

------
mindslight
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.

Be a friend, pirate.

------
megous
Lot of power being used for copyright enforcement lately. Yesterday it was
NSA, now this. How much time until we see military getting involved?

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

~~~
pitaj
Intellectual property isn't real property, though. Which makes it even
scarier, like "thought police" scary.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
devrandomguy
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
jostmey
"...civil search warrant..."

That phrase sends chills up my spine. Does it mean a civilian organization can
obtain a search warrant in Canada?

~~~
aroberge
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".

~~~
jaclaz
No, this Anton Piller thingy has originated in Common Law BUT the Quebec Court
of Appeal has "accepted" it in Civil Law, see:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29)

~~~
reactor4
I found something interesting at paragraph 109 of citation #21
([https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...](https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html))

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.

~~~
jaclaz
Good find.

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.

------
pitaa
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.

------
mtl_usr
At least I'm pretty sure they (the cable companies) won't be able to use
anything they got there in court.

But let's be real for a moment, that man, if he sues, will get absolutely
nothing in return.

Still, it's about time Canada starts getting real laws.

This and the people held hostage without AC or water in a plane for 5 hours+
is a proof at how backward this country really is.

~~~
giarc
That's quite a bit of hyperbole to say those two cases represent a "backward
country".

I think the issue will be if other telco's use the same process (this time
staying within the bounds of their instructions) on other cases.

~~~
mtl_usr
It represent a backward country as these cases should never have happened in
the first place.

Also, the operation was lead by pretty much all of Canada's telcos. It's not
an especially competitive market.

~~~
giarc
Two cases do not make a country.

~~~
mtl_usr
You are right.

Maybe I'm biased and a tad emotional. I was expecting more from Canada.

------
dmitrygr

      Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.
    

Now that is some * * * * ed up stuff right there...

------
rapind
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.

------
scj
“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.

There's more on this case at: [https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-
war-canadian-...](https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian-
telcos-kodi-addons-170801/)

------
joshuaheard
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.

~~~
stan_rogers
You only _think_ you don't. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#Raids_and_lawsuits)

~~~
ameister14
"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.

~~~
endorphone
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.

~~~
reactor4
The limits and the penalties for overstepping are getting clearer:
[http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-
do...](http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-documents-
celanese-v-murray-demolition/)

------
wyck
Quebec having draconian ass backwards laws...no way.

~~~
mathieutd
It has nothing to do with Quebec. These warrants can be issued anywhere in
Canada and in many countries
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)).

~~~
wyck
Actually it does, in Quebec it's a civil law, in the rest of Canada its a
common law, big difference.

------
math0ne
I think the fact that his social media accounts were "seized" is even more
fucked up.

------
brndnmtthws
People should try to film/record these interactions whenever possible.

~~~
FrancoisBosun
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.

~~~
JabavuAdams
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.

------
settsu
Let's hope this was an anomaly, if a disturbing one.

Unfortunately, given the palpable desperation of the corporations actions, I
fear it may not be.

------
beached_whale
I was under the impression that section 7 of the charter means that one cannot
be compelled to speak. So how was the order lawful?

------
solotronics
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.

~~~
dharma1
that would have ended well

~~~
reactor4
of course not but if the plaintiff have to rely on force to fulfill the
warrant then the warrant is voided because it oversteps the limits.
([https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...](https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html)
(paragraph 109))

------
DarkKomunalec
"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?

~~~
Canada
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.

~~~
scrabble
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.

~~~
giarc
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.

------
na85
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.

~~~
slaymaker1907
I don't know why this was down voted, I was honestly thinking the same exact
thing.

~~~
JBReefer
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.

~~~
bragh
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?

------
Asooka
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.

~~~
khedoros1
> He broke the law.

Which law?

> 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.

~~~
Asooka
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.

~~~
khedoros1
> 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.

