Comments on news posted 2013-01-15 14:24:30: Copyright troll Voltage Picture's attempt to extort money out of Canadian Teksavvy customers will have to wait a little longer. ..
Someone needs to tell the judge of the billions of dollars of economic impact and thousands of jobs that will be eliminated if lawsuit-o-matic cases aren't rubber stamp approved and (gasp!) intelligently looked at. These cases need fast tracked immediately.
Bell's last mile has put Teksavvy in a precarious position
The CRTC has put Teksavvy in a precarious position by approving absurd fees by Bell and Rogers, well especially Bell. This has resulted in Teksavvy having no resource funds for lawsuits thanks to the CRTC. I feel very sorry for Canadians not having the Prime Minister step in and do something on the behalf of all Canadians.
Voltage is a foreign company (they're American), so even if there WERE billions of dollars of economic impact and thousands of lost jobs, that could arguably be considered a net positive for the Canadian entertainment industry :P
It's important to remember that this is a US company arguing before a Canadian court, so those sorts of arguments aren't going to be as persuasive.
This is why ISPs should not keep logs that connect IP addresses to names to ensure they cant be hassled by groups like this. Keeping logs of an IP address to a user just creates liability for the ISP.
This is why ISPs should not keep logs that connect IP addresses to names...
Anybody who tries it would have their 'safe harbor' protection yanked, plus it guarantees no one will want to peer with or touch their traffic ever again.
Not really you can bet your ass the US company's were telling the government you pass this new copyright bill or we'll stop making movies in Canada. So not passing copyright laws would have an effect on cdns jobs and money.
and the fact old hollywood had a record breaking year. It's not about the money they're making to them it's about what they think they could make that makes them hate piracy so much. Thanks to me downloading movies I buy more then I used too.
The only time you need to keep logs is if someone starts a copyright suit.
quote: The ISP or search engine would be required to store the subscriber’s IP information for six months, or a year if a court action stems from the infringement. Failure to maintain such information could make the ISP liable to statutory damages ranging from $5,000 to $10,000.
If US co's did try to hold that over the CAN gov'ts head, I'd bet the US co's would blink 1st.
It's common knowledge US outfits go to CAN to film due to significantly lower costs- I doubt they'd follow through on that threat since it would cost them real money, and not the ficticious losses from file trading.
I hope they make such a threat- it would prove their "losses" are really bogus.
It is not. Show me a link to this law, or an article about it.
You are right. It isn't a law. But this should wake people up to ask their ISP's, hosting provider, and who ever else about retention periods.
So far we have seen Start Communications lower their retention from 1 year to 3 months. They recognized there is a potential for abuse by vultures (like Voltage, as an example), or other reason to tighten their retention policy for the better.
In an update to the "blog post" that Karl links to up above, The person who runs pogowasright.org nails it again here:
quote:This case should also make all Canadian ISPs take a longer, harder look at their data retention. Law enforcement and companies like Voltage want long retention periods, but why should ISPs retain data for long periods if such retention is not necessary for processing of the subscriber’s bills or account and only increases the risk that data may be hacked or used for other purposes against the subscriber?
Start Communications did just this. Other ISP's choose to ignore it. However, PIPEDA (your privacy laws) do outline a general criteria which half (if not most) of these smaller ISP's are not following.
Bigger issue here than meets the eye if one were to get the ball rolling with PrivCom and the CRTC.
quote:Supporting the right of subscribers to privacy protection from frivolous or erroneous lawsuits does not equate with condoning piracy. It merely recognizes that before ISPs turn over subscribers’ details, there should be solid evidence supporting allegations of copyright infringement by the subscriber.
One need not toss away their "safe harbour" for this, as stated. A case in point would be when bOINGbOING.net's Canadian hosting provider got a cease and desist for copyrighted material being hosted and an order to "take down". The provider took the time to look it over and said it had no merit so chose to ignore it. Nothing came of it, except everyone mocking the copyright holder.
Mind you in this case, with someone running to get a court order, it is a bit different. But like the bOINGbOING.net's Canadian hosting provider, ISP's can look at the over-all merit of the request and oppose it w/o any recourse. "Safe Harbour", in Canada, doesn't mean you have to toss up your hands and not oppose it, as TSI chose to do.
But I guess they must have reasons for doing this that we are all not aware of.
quote:Teksavvy has incited significant costs. 190k. --- Teksavvy wants costs paid before handing over info. Foreign company who could disappear with info
quote:Voltage alludes 190k #teksavvy claims so far seems very high since some trials would not run that.
quote:Teksavvy argues BMG law: if disclosure order is granted, specific directions must be given, privacy concerns must be met #voltage #teksavvy (SVILaw) --- TSI seems to suggest again that they were only able to correlate 50% of IPs provided
quote:Thirdly, Judge wants to court to be informed by what is an "IP" number #voltage #teksavvy (SVILaw) --- Judge: What is the connection between IP number and parties. Not automatically apparent what that is. #voltage (PAnderson)
quote:Judge: procedural question of how to handle potential for 1000 defendants in front of this court
If US co's did try to hold that over the CAN gov'ts head, I'd bet the US co's would blink 1st.
It's common knowledge US outfits go to CAN to film due to significantly lower costs- I doubt they'd follow through on that threat since it would cost them real money, and not the ficticious losses from file trading.
I hope they make such a threat- it would prove their "losses" are really bogus.
Actually, with the Canadian dollar being generally worth more than the US dollar these days, not as much 'Hollywood' & US network production is taking pace in Canada as before. eg. X-Files was almost exclusively produced in Canada, but the economics of that are long past.
Not really you can bet your ass the US company's were telling the government you pass this new copyright bill or we'll stop making movies in Canada. So not passing copyright laws would have an effect on cdns jobs and money.
They've already taken their ball, and gone home, due to our outstanding dollar.
They have no stick to pound us with. What - they will stop making awful movies?
Apparently, the reason why Teksavvy chose not to oppose Voltage Pictures is because they think the new copyright laws prevent them from doing this. I don't understand how Teksavvy's legal team could misinterpret the new law this badly but this is the reason Marc gave.
I wonder if Voltage Picture's legal team was able to intimidate Teksavvy's legal team into not opposing them.
quote:Teksavvy wants costs paid before handing over info
Can they do this? If so, can they also demand this amount if Voltage Pictures chooses not to pursue these account holders?
yes they can. There is a mechanism for this when a company is not in Canada and retrieving the money would be next to impossible. Thus the reason why if you look through the tweets you will see the reference to how Voltage is a foreign company and thus falls under the rules to pay up-front.
Apparently, the reason why Teksavvy chose not to oppose Voltage Pictures is because they think the new copyright laws prevent them from doing this. I don't understand how Teksavvy's legal team could misinterpret the new law this badly but this is the reason Marc gave.
I wonder if Voltage Picture's legal team was able to intimidate Teksavvy's legal team into not opposing them.
Yeah I saw that. But does that even make any sense at all? Their lawyers would have to be pretty damn bad (lack of a better word) if that was the paid legal advice given to them.
I think there is more to it than that. Has to be a scapegoat reply he gave to get people off his back. Even Copyright expert Howard Knopf called them out on this.
If I read correctly, Voltage could add that cost to their claim against the defendant.i.e, you would pay a portion of the 190k if Voltage sues you and wins.
[blockquote] Teksavvy wants costs paid before handing over info [/blockquote]
Can they do this? If so, can they also demand this amount if Voltage Pictures chooses not to pursue these account holders?
then Voltage pictures would have pulled off the most amazing data-grab in history, and turn around and sell it to a 3rd party advertising company for some serious $$ on the side.
ROFL.... Job losses?? Voltage movies are pap. I'd be surprised if they employ a half dozen employees based on the revenue coming in from the garbage films they produce.
quote:Judge: procedural question of how to handle potential for 1000 defendants in front of this court
This is one of the things that's hung up recent lawsuit-o-matic cases in the US. Plantiffs would love to have one case that covers all the infringement of a movie. However each act of infringement is a distinct act and not in conjunction with the other. A trial with all of them would be a logistical nightmare as each defendant is entitled to their own defense counsel. Plus, a combined trail would be extremely prejudicial for someone who was innocent to be included with those who were not with nothing in common between the cases aside from the name of a movie.
