said by TSI Marc:
I think you have it crossed a bit though.. essentially, we would get notice from a court, saying an entity has intention of taking specific IPs to court. If the court orders us to, we can't really say no.. it's the law... so we would then give our customer a notice that we have been asked by the court to give up this information.. and then we would provide the info to the court and that's the extent of our involvement.
said by zacron:
Marc, could you explain "We can't really say no" to us?
Thanks for clarifying
Man I wrote out the reply and hit the wrong button and lost it. Here we go again, F&S.
So I'm not writing it all out again, but rather, read through »Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
The only thing stated there not really true is when I called PrivCom, »Re: Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
I stated in that topic that they said, "there is nothing they can do". This wasn't true. I just didn't want to write it in the forum where videotron, Bell and Cogeco could see at the time.
But they told me Videotron, Bell and cogeco broke section 7 (or is it section 6? I forget now) of the ACT. Seems they have an obligation to "protect", which they did not. So that would have been another lawsuit of "the people versus Videotorn et al".
Anyhow read through that link, get a grasp of it, then re-ask