5 ms·

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 9y ago
Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c... EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.
- mberube 9y ago
  From what I understand, Quebec had to recognize Anton Piller orders as they use civil law, not common law. Anton Piller orders are under common law, so already completely legal in the 'rest of Canada' as you say
- greenshackle2 9y ago
  That's not what the section immediately before the one you linked says.
- ue_ 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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_ 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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.
        9y ago
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  "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.
chongli 9y ago
The US does have such a mechanism: impoundment orders under section 503(a) of the Copyright Act. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment_orders_in_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment...
- weberc2 9y ago
  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.
tw04 9y ago
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: http://www.itworld.com/article/2807200/business/riaa-raids-alleged-music-pirates-in-new-york.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2807200/business/riaa-raids-a... *nvm, as I read more of the article it's pretty much the same thing
- weberc2 9y ago
  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.
vacri 9y ago
> 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.
- yohui 9y ago
  There's strong bipartisan opposition to civil asset forfeiture: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/session... The only question is whether Congress or the Supreme Court will strike it down first.
- weberc2 9y ago
  The interesting distinction is that the plaintiff was given authority to conduct a raid.
ionised 9y ago
Just tell people it was to stop the terrorists or the pro-choice activists or the libtards and suddenly you'll find vast swathes of the population in favour of it.
- weberc2 9y ago
  What a lame pot shot...
  - ionised 9y ago
    Who do you think that was aimed at?

Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c... EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.

mberube 9y ago
From what I understand, Quebec had to recognize Anton Piller orders as they use civil law, not common law. Anton Piller orders are under common law, so already completely legal in the 'rest of Canada' as you say
greenshackle2 9y ago
That's not what the section immediately before the one you linked says.
ue_ 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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_ 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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.
      - 9y ago
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"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.

chongli 9y ago

The US does have such a mechanism: impoundment orders under section 503(a) of the Copyright Act. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment_orders_in_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment...

weberc2 9y ago
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.

tw04 9y ago

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: http://www.itworld.com/article/2807200/business/riaa-raids-alleged-music-pirates-in-new-york.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2807200/business/riaa-raids-a... *nvm, as I read more of the article it's pretty much the same thing

weberc2 9y ago
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.

vacri 9y ago

> 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.

yohui 9y ago
There's strong bipartisan opposition to civil asset forfeiture: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/session... The only question is whether Congress or the Supreme Court will strike it down first.
weberc2 9y ago
The interesting distinction is that the plaintiff was given authority to conduct a raid.

ionised 9y ago

Just tell people it was to stop the terrorists or the pro-choice activists or the libtards and suddenly you'll find vast swathes of the population in favour of it.

weberc2 9y ago
What a lame pot shot...
- ionised 9y ago
  Who do you think that was aimed at?