dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
28557
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to Content

Premium Member

to Content

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

I find it interesting that CIPPIC's "first and best known victory to date" was the one he personally headed. That now in another case almost exactly the same as the BMG case, it's suddenly no longer CIPPIC's job to intervene. It seems to me that he has no confidence in CIPPIC now that he's no longer a part of it.

He's also the one who was saying that all ISPs had to do was claim PIPEDA, and it'd keep subscriber info out of the trolls' hands. I'd like to make a point that many bloggers bashed his opinion on this. As well, one blogger who agreed originally with Mr. Knopf, changed his mind after hearing additional information.

I find it funny that in his prior blogs he says the best information came not from the blog-o-sphere, but from a National Post article. With multiple people live-tweeting the court hearing, as well as others blogging from their notes from being in the court room themselves, I would have figured that the live tweets would have been some of the best information, as it was coming out as it was happening.

Personally, I have no interest in hearing anything Mr. Knopf says, as it looks self-serving, and a "I know better" attitude. Everyone has differences in opinion, but he doesn't have to write his blogs so it clearly shows he thinks his opinion is worth more than other IP lawyers'.

Distributel's submission was a work of art, and frankly is awesome.

Would Distributel/Acanac be interested in the case file of the German trial that found Guardaley's evidence to be faulty? Keep in mind that Guardaley is the program that Canipre uses for monitoring the swarms.

MFido
Montreal
join:2012-10-19

1 edit

MFido

Member

said by resa1983:

Personally, I have no interest in hearing anything Mr. Knopf says, as it looks self-serving, and a "I know better" attitude.

Like almost always I total agree with you. He is too much full of shit ... I never believe or have confidence in this type of people ...

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

I find it funny that in his prior blogs he says the best information came not from the blog-o-sphere, but from a National Post article.

From what I have seen, read, and noticed is that on *his* blog he only references from people who have a certain rapport (lack of a better word). He only very very rarely allows comments unless it's from someone with a "name (lack of a better word), and rarest of all, allows an anon comment.

Out of the twitters and tweeters and those who wrote up on it, only one had something recognizable, A law degree, that he accepted. That was the reporter.

He strives to put only the most reliable of links, or the most reliable of names for his followers on *his* blog.

He also ha a very huge name in copyright. Maybe one of the biggest practicing names in Canada.

He avoids unsubstantiated claims or hearsay. My post there was indeed a very rare exception. I was kind of surprised it showed. But he laid it on the line for his readers (who may be supreme court judges, and his peers sittting on the copyright board, who knows. Only he knows) that as far as anyone should be concerned I was a nobody and the person who posted here could be a nobody and not who they claim to be.

That is *his* law blog. And that is how he runs *his* law blog.

You shouldn't be offended it by it (cuz it shows you were at the time, and still are. As were others).

Yup, in a case like this he will take the word of a lawyer with a name over the tweets of a ... well here we go again, for lack of a better word, someone with no name, credibility, and who is what exactly?

Maybe that is why his blog is one of the top law blogs in Canada as well? He only filters in the best even if it may mean leaving some other things out due to maybe unsubstantiated hearsay and claims.

Yeah, I can see many people taking offense to it. But it's his name, career, peers, and belief. No one else's.
hm

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Personally, I have no interest in hearing anything Mr. Knopf says, as it looks self-serving, and a "I know better" attitude. Everyone has differences in opinion, but he doesn't have to write his blogs so it clearly shows he thinks his opinion is worth more than other IP lawyers'.

Distributel's submission was a work of art, and frankly is awesome.

HK more or less stated the same thing. Did you see something else?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

Yup, in a case like this he will take the word of a lawyer with a name over the tweets of a ... well here we go again, for lack of a better word, someone with no name, credibility, and who is what exactly?

I was unaware she was also a lawyer. That's cool. I didn't get a chance to talk to her in the courtroom or afterwards.

However, while I am obviously a nobody, I wouldn't exactly consider someone on both the CIRA & ARIN board as a nobody.
fazeTO
join:2011-03-22

fazeTO to nickvca

Member

to nickvca
This is a great read. In theory couldn't Teksavvy just use the exact same arguments? The time difference, Location issues, IP != a Person, No proof the entire file was downloaded or if the IP even had the file at all.

These are solid arguments IMO.

So a question for fellow DSLr's out there. If for some reason the judges allows this to go through in either case, what is stoping say myself from making a spreadsheet of random IP's from a TPIA and going to them and demanding names and personal information. This IP downloaded one of my songs or movies etc?? I don't see the difference.

Honestly this is all to scary. All these guys have essentially provided is a list of IPs with a date and time stamp. I just feel there needs to be a WAY higher threshold of proof before even considering something like this in court.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by fazeTO:

Honestly this is all to scary. All these guys have essentially provided is a list of IPs with a date and time stamp. I just feel there needs to be a WAY higher threshold of proof before even considering something like this in court.

And the average person couldn't shell out a for a legal defense like this, or to have the bar raised.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy to fazeTO

Member

to fazeTO
said by fazeTO:

This is a great read. In theory couldn't Teksavvy just use the exact same arguments? The time difference, Location issues, IP != a Person, No proof the entire file was downloaded or if the IP even had the file at all.

These are solid arguments IMO.

So a question for fellow DSLr's out there. If for some reason the judges allows this to go through in either case, what is stoping say myself from making a spreadsheet of random IP's from a TPIA and going to them and demanding names and personal information. This IP downloaded one of my songs or movies etc?? I don't see the difference.

Honestly this is all to scary. All these guys have essentially provided is a list of IPs with a date and time stamp. I just feel there needs to be a WAY higher threshold of proof before even considering something like this in court.

This would actually be a good test. Make up some BS song, get a buddy to upload it somewhere and get everyone you and he knows to download it. Gather all the Ip's and then go and demand the info and see if you get it.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
Resa, do your friends at fight-copyright-trolls (or something) have any info on the NGN court filings in Boston and Florida?

ref: bottom of the first post in this topic.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

I'll check the site later, and if theres nothing, I'll email sophisticated jane doe to ask.
fazeTO
join:2011-03-22

fazeTO to hm

Member

to hm
Totally agree with the hm and cowboy here. I'm actually suprised the judge allowed the disclosure of information in the first Distributel request for names. Assuming they provided the same information as now (list of IP's and Date/Time). I guess I don't know exactly what traspired. Does anyone know if the judge asked any specific questions with regards to the evidence?.

Atleast in the TSI case the judge was asking some good questions and even stated a one sided affair is probably not in the public interest.
AsherN
Premium Member
join:2010-08-23
Thornhill, ON

AsherN to IamGimli

Premium Member

to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

Not all that different from the ISP/copyright scenario. A ticket is issued to the owner of the car, but that owner's driving record is unaffected because it can't be proven that he was in control of the vehicle. Similarely, an ISP can hold you, the account holder, responsible for nadwidth usage, but can't prove who actually used the bandwidth.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

said by AsherN:

said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

Not all that different from the ISP/copyright scenario. A ticket is issued to the owner of the car, but that owner's driving record is unaffected because it can't be proven that he was in control of the vehicle. Similarely, an ISP can hold you, the account holder, responsible for nadwidth usage, but can't prove who actually used the bandwidth.

At this point and time it's highly questionable if they can even prove that they have the correct account holder to match the IP, let alone diving into further detail. AND before they can even get to that point, they have to prove a whole bunch of different things just to be able to sue (which is also a requirement, intent to sue).

Also, that is traffic court, not a civil case. Much, much different in the way things are handled.....
souncool3
join:2009-01-07
Mississauga, ON

souncool3 to Content

Member

to Content
So it seems that they are going after small or indie ISP?
If someone is with Bell or Rogers they wont be troubled?
True or wishful thinking?
DanteX
join:2010-09-09

1 edit

DanteX to Content

Member

to Content
Iron Man 3 makes billions at the box office smashes all sorts of records the investment used to make the movie is made back many times over .

I am using this movie as an example to point out there is no loss suffered no hardship suffered if the money used to make the movie is made back and a nice profit is made. BY file sharing these works it promotes the product to people who may see it watch and go " Man i like this I am going to go and buy it" my Motto is you buy what you like after watching it. Holly is scared out of their minds because with file sharing people do not need them to distributed their works. A musician can now self promote themselves.

We are living in an age were increasingly our freedoms and liberties are being sacrificed all in the name of protecting Crooks like Hollywood who run extortion rackets that threaten people to pay a few thousand dollars or face them in court.

As a result I encourage people to learn what TOR and VPNs are. hell get yourself a nice VPS and run your own VPN server create keys distribute them to friends and family and even sell a few to make a few bucks on the side like I do. The Keys do not have to be expensive maybe like 8-10 dollars a month for peace of mind.

It is so easy Grandma can do it.

All Hollywood keeps doing is pushing File sharing back underground and pushing it as well to cloud based distributed computing services where the only way to bring it down will be to bring the entire Internet down.

They keep passing domain blocks on sites like TPB Kat.ph and you know what that has done? its made these sites surge in popularity proxies are popping up every sec to provide an alternate means to access these sites.

read on
@videotron.ca

read on to souncool3

Anon

to souncool3
said by souncool3:

So it seems that they are going after small or indie ISP?
If someone is with Bell or Rogers they wont be troubled?
True or wishful thinking?

Keep reading on... Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, videotron etc have all given their customer names to these vultures.

somrandomguy
@distributel.net

somrandomguy to DanteX

Anon

to DanteX
said by DanteX:

Iron Man 3 makes billions at the box office smashes all sorts of records the investment used to make the movie is made back many times over .

And for every blockbuster there are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars (John Carter, Gigli, Waterworld, The invasion etc). John Carter has hundreds of seeds and downloads currently and it's and "older" BT release.

Don't rationalize, just admit you didn't want to spend the money, be honest. I can respect that a lot more.
DanteX
join:2010-09-09

DanteX

Member

Considering a good number of the DVDS and blurays sitting on my shelves in my Office have been downloaded before I bought them I will be honest with you and admit When i download something and I like it I buy it.

If you made a product wouldn't you rather you be paid based on the fact the user found your product entertaining or useful instead of having the user buy your product only to discover its crap and of no use to them.

My buddies wife is an author who is pretty popular right now and she loves it people are downloading her works and doesn't expect to be paid.
jibby
join:2008-03-31

jibby to somrandomguy

Member

to somrandomguy
said by somrandomguy :

And for every blockbuster there are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars (John Carter, Gigli, Waterworld, The invasion etc). John Carter has hundreds of seeds and downloads currently and it's and "older" BT release.

Don't rationalize, just admit you didn't want to spend the money, be honest. I can respect that a lot more.

to be fair, Waterworlds failure was mostly due to insanely high production costs which the studio approved, and partially due to the set sinking in a hurricane

its not downloaders fault that movie was a giant flop
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

said by jibby:

said by somrandomguy :

And for every blockbuster there are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars (John Carter, Gigli, Waterworld, The invasion etc). John Carter has hundreds of seeds and downloads currently and it's and "older" BT release.

Don't rationalize, just admit you didn't want to spend the money, be honest. I can respect that a lot more.

to be fair, Waterworlds failure was mostly due to insanely high production costs which the studio approved, and partially due to the set sinking in a hurricane

its not downloaders fault that movie was a giant flop

It's never downloaders fault when movies are a flop.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by IamGimli:

said by jibby:

said by somrandomguy :

And for every blockbuster there are dozens of movies that lose millions of dollars (John Carter, Gigli, Waterworld, The invasion etc). John Carter has hundreds of seeds and downloads currently and it's and "older" BT release.

Don't rationalize, just admit you didn't want to spend the money, be honest. I can respect that a lot more.

to be fair, Waterworlds failure was mostly due to insanely high production costs which the studio approved, and partially due to the set sinking in a hurricane

its not downloaders fault that movie was a giant flop

It's never downloaders fault when movies are a flop.

Correct.
The movie flopped at the box office long before it was ever downloaded....... Gigli, Waterworld, every movie with the director name 'Alan Smithee' ( »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al ··· _Smithee ), everything that is direct to DVD..........