dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27542
share rss forum feed

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Content

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

said by Content :

Canadian BitTorrent Users Targeted for the First Time by Canadian Studio
»copyrightenforcement.ca/canadian···-studio/

Yesterday morning, the Federal Court in Montreal ordered the disclosure of the names and addresses of approximately 50 individuals who alleged illegally copied and distributed copyrighted materials belonging to Canadian Film Producer, NGN Prima Productions.

This is the first time a Canadian studio has sought damages in a Canadian court against Canadian BitTorrent users.

View … Court Order, NGN vs Does

As written, the order will compel Canadian ISPs to release identifying information for the customers associated with the infringing IP addresses.
... continues...

Anyone have the 50 IP's in question?

In addition, this Canadian studio has launched lawsuits in both Boston and Florida.

Montreal Court Order:
»copyrightenforcement.ca/wp-conte···real.pdf

Info on the Boston and Florida cases:
»copyrightenforcement.ca/canadian···sharing/

This now marks the first time a Canadian company is pulling American tactics.

1 as a hacker knowing the law i have one question HOW DO YOU obtain info on someone without a warrant
NO really if you scanned or used DPI tech its against the law and inadmissible without a warrant....

2 if you provided it in a swarm that is a privacy breach,

3 if you merely were in the swarm that is no different then a scan technically to find ips using a protocol ergo using the app to locate people using a protocol and port(s)

1 and 3 are definitely illegal....

oh and 5 grand cap ....also most they can take off a disability check is 50 a month
and the 5 grand is for everything you infringe....and as they only get 50 a month taking 8.3 years.....enjoy .....
im saying i have a copy of everything if ever busted then ill just go get it later....
hahahaha
oh welfare is half disability ....that amount too....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to fishing rod
said by fishing rod :

said by msharif:

I haven't been following canadian ip or copyright law. Can I get a link?

www.google.ca?

What the New Copyright Law Means For You
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6695/135/

Canadian Copyright Reform In Force: Expanded User Rights Now the Law
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

Government To Delay Implementation of Bill C-11's Internet Provider Rules
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6686/125/

use google to find more?

now go visit the charter of rights and freedoms and see how section 2 , 7 , 8 and 12 are violated because i pay a levy and then get penalized....and before you start yammering about music only look up what the darn word media means ....its more hen just music.Funny how lawyers try and cut the angle to just music....

also laws cannot be made in canada the govt has no wish or the cops cant or say they wont enforce as the RCMP said....
that means you have another charter challenge that the law is unenforceable because the govt itself is refusing to enforce it.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to random
said by random :

If they have around 1 million distinct IP addresses record, then 1 out of 30 person in Canada can be sued/ransomed.

Stats Can average Canadian household size is around 2.5 which means it is about 1 in 12 households!
»www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableau···-eng.htm

So next time when there is someone knocking the door with a big envelope at the door, it is more likely to be a lawyer than someone from publishers clearing house.

i say go for it the most you get fomr me is 50 a month
thats the most a person with a disability can pay to anyone including the govt or a creditor

no skin off my back and its for everything you infringe so once you pay it and its worded this way , go ahead and carry on you're paying for the judgement of law....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

said by fishing rod :

said by msharif:

I haven't been following canadian ip or copyright law. Can I get a link?

www.google.ca?

What the New Copyright Law Means For You
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6695/135/

Canadian Copyright Reform In Force: Expanded User Rights Now the Law
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

Government To Delay Implementation of Bill C-11's Internet Provider Rules
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6686/125/

use google to find more?

now go visit the charter of rights and freedoms and see how section 2 , 7 , 8 and 12 are violated because i pay a levy and then get penalized....and before you start yammering about music only look up what the darn word media means ....its more hen just music.Funny how lawyers try and cut the angle to just music....

also laws cannot be made in canada the govt has no wish or the cops cant or say they wont enforce as the RCMP said....
that means you have another charter challenge that the law is unenforceable because the govt itself is refusing to enforce it.

OH and i traced the DNS of the website to a california host....
which means that the website says montreal BUT its located in the USA....
there fore its in the usa....by our laws...will be fun to see tax revenues drop like rocks as the rich fat cats drag money out of everyone and harper gets screwed to balance his precious budget now...he dont get there are 21 million net accounts in canada and nearly 8-10 million pirates....
lets say they get 1 million times 5 grand = 5 billion
thats 5 billion times 13% that font get into govts hands
600 million poofed GOOD work dumbass conservatives what's next ending health care all together so some jerk can sit on his ass for 80 years....

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:

said by IamGimli:

said by analog andy:

Show me the bi-law or Canadian law that says its illegal for me to keep my WiFI router open. I haven't read the details but I'm pretty sure they still need a warrant for the ISP to give out the personal details of the IP holder.

It's not illegal to leave your wifi open but it doesn't absolve you of your responsibility with regards to the use of the internet connection which you (and only you) are under contract with your ISP for.

That's between me and my ISP and not the authorities or the media companies.

Then you need to read the law again because the illegal acts you commit using your ISPs services very much are a concern of copyright holders and the justice system.

Moreover your ISP is obligated by law to cooperate with any legal proceeding as soon as evidence of their service being used to break the law is presented to them.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:

Nothing to worry about though:

quote:
The law generally tries to target genuinely "bad actors", while leaving individuals alone. For example, the law now includes a cap of $5,000 for all non-commercial infringement (commercial infringement can result in liability of $20,000 per infringement). The change reduces the likelihood of lawsuits against individuals for non-commercial activities, including unauthorized downloading or mistaken reliance on fair dealing.
They'd need to take a NON-COMMERCIAL user (in other words, these kids downloading movies illegally) to court, maximum value is $5,000 for ALL (keyword) infringements. Now, if it is for commercial (someone selling copied version of the latest Twilight) purposes, then it would be $20,000 PER (keyword) infringement.

I do believe that sending a lawyer at $300 (at least) an hour to a courthouse to spend a day at court (total daily cost of at least $2,000 -- roughly 1/2 court day ($1,200) plus $800 for travel time and costs) hardly seems worth it.

Of course, users now can just find better ways to download content or simply turn off the sharing portion of their torrenting.

two caveats
those on OAS, welfare max they can pay a creditor is 25/month
disability its 50$ a month
so 16.6 years to recover your 5 grand for the first two and 8.3 years for the disability person

me thinks this will back fire as every single one of those should get donations and force them to trial and make em cost it hard
the max i can get is 5 grand so if i cost you ten grand that eats at other judgements buy others and if you think this business model will work then your in for fail if this idea catches on....

what are the odds that one or two or 10 of those 80 being sued are in any of these categories? PROLLY pretty good
every welfare person that costs them 10 grand to go to trial means 2 they have to get 10 grand cash off of....
disability same htng as they dont see the value for a long long time....
i hope i die before hte payments are done too....haha

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to russel
said by russel :

said by um :

8. Judge says ok your not guilty. You are out of pocket by now a minimum of 6 grand. Minimum. Which is about 3-grand more than what they demanded to begin with.

9. or you are found guilty. So now you paid your lawyer, the expert plus the 5,000$ fine allowed by law. That is about 11,000$, minimum. More if you have to pay their legal costs, if that's applicable here, which it might likely be since you refused to settle to begin with. So now that's around 11,000$ plus their high priced lawyers and their experts and whatever else. Who knows. Who cares at this point.

So if you win the court case you still have to pay fees? I'm not so sure about that one. Judges can (and usually do) award all the court costs to the loser. It's a well known disincentive for bringing court cases forward.

Also, nobody can force you to pay in the event you lose. Sure they might harass you for years to come, and try to ruin your credit report, but there's no way they can actually force you to pay; for example if someone is retired and living off their public pension, you simply can't force them to pay -- the only time it's possible is if you owe money to CRA or another govt department.

ill use donations for a lawyer and make the maffia er mpaa and friends come to court

ill make sure i get around 6-8 grand and make it a 2-3 day affair thus making sure they have to pay there lawyers 6-8 grand then get a judgemnet fo 5 grand and then realize that they can only get 50 a month from me ..i'll also admit to forgetting where i stashed my 30 terabytes of the rest of the net stuff i dled but they cna jsut add everything thats out there and ill go get a copy later....
after all once you guilty of it once can you be sued for it again
because after all its for all infringing material well i admit then i downloaded every thing up and i have a pending list of all things i will download and ill get the court laughing its ass off.

then ill make sure everyone incourt knows that 50 a month is all i am legally bound to pay per month
have a nice day and thanks for all hte fish
its kinda like a net levy.......

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to Content
I don't think any of the companies want this tested in court, since not only are they taking the chance that their costs will be higher than the decision rewarded, there's a chance this could be taken to the supreme court and have it decided that an IP address can not be connected to an individual. They just have too much to lose.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Then you need to read the law again because the illegal acts you commit using your ISPs services very much are a concern of copyright holders and the justice system.

Moreover your ISP is obligated by law to cooperate with any legal proceeding as soon as evidence of their service being used to break the law is presented to them.

sue me then i dont care i can afford the 50 a month im legally bound to pay....
will be grand come election time when all the disabled vote the govt out and remove the law....as well as the rest of us...

84% didnt want this law and now you are gonna see wrath about it...if i were a musician id stay indoors same with actors..you aint popular shits now....bring bodyguards and hide not to mention the tax losses that are gonna start occurring ....with us so wired and so into it all you really get a sad sad feeling that this isnt about musicians its about americans just screwing us...and after all the company has been traced back to california the person listed is american and NOT canadian....and its all american ...at least if your gonna do this have it be a canuck but they cant find a canuck i bet that wants to do it.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Samgee
said by Samgee:

I don't think any of the companies want this tested in court, since not only are they taking the chance that their costs will be higher than the decision rewarded, there's a chance this could be taken to the supreme court and have it decided that an IP address can not be connected to an individual. They just have too much to lose.

not to mention the aspect of gathering data on a private citizen without a warrant ...and they aren't even allowed to use a warrant for search and seizure thus a charter violation could also be said against the unreasonable search and seizure.....

the levy section and then fining me is if you read the charter like saying go ahead cross at the green light we will charge you 26.7 cents but after you cross the street were gonna fine and take you stressfully through a court process for 5000 dollars....that too is one aspect that if one has a real tight lawyer could make some waves on harpers lil hollywood wet dream.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Then you need to read the law again because the illegal acts you commit using your ISPs services very much are a concern of copyright holders and the justice system.

Moreover your ISP is obligated by law to cooperate with any legal proceeding as soon as evidence of their service being used to break the law is presented to them.

so they need to read the law in general to :
A) understand that ONLY law enforcement ahs the right to do search and seizure under the charter of rights and freedoms and without a warrant and unauthorized they are handing private data in self incriminating manner to get someone to commit a crime....again the terrorist laws allow judges to grant law enforcement special rights to break laws BUT those same laws and rights are not grantable to private citizens and this person place in montreal is nothing more then a front his website traces back to the usa....so its yankies stirring up , ya dont see any Canadian artists doing it. THEY know sampling = sales.


Hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Samgee
said by Samgee:

I don't think any of the companies want this tested in court, since not only are they taking the chance that their costs will be higher than the decision rewarded, there's a chance this could be taken to the supreme court and have it decided that an IP address can not be connected to an individual. They just have too much to lose.

Yes.

But we know that it will eventually be tested in court. And that they will pick and chose who to bring to court.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to IamGimli
My ISP contract says nothing about forbidding me from using a router past my modem and keeping it unlocked. If someone decides to download files through it so be it, they are trespassing. No different then someone walking onto my lawn or up to my door and shooting my neighbour. They trespassed, they killed him.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Content
Click for full size
ohh noooozzze


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

1 edit
reply to fishing rod
This from the Michael Geist link you posted:

quote:
Canadians can also take greater advantage of fair dealing, which allows users to make use of excerpts or other portions of copyright works without the need for permission or payment.
That portion of the copyright law bypasses an cases that are brought to trial.

We are allowed to download and store backup copies of original content in Canada as well as download for private use according to the same link you provided.

So, with all that being taken into consideration, I don't even know how this suit didn't get thrown out of court. Before they should be given those names, they should have to prove that the use/download of the movie violated Canadian Copyright Law, which, according to the above statements, would be impossible.

Don't even get me started at how an IP is just that--an IP. It has no direct evidence that the person who holds the account is the actual one who did the "infringing." Without being able to prove who downloaded what in a househould, they have no grounds to bring charges. There is already precedence for this in the states and is also the main reason why that Matt Damon movie case went away.

Also these types of letters were deemed illegal when they tried this a couple of years ago. I would suggest that if you get one, laugh in their faces and tell them to kiss your a$$.


um

@videotron.ca
said by rednekcowboy:

This from the Michael Geist link you posted:

quote:
Canadians can also take greater advantage of fair dealing, which allows users to make use of excerpts or other portions of copyright works without the need for permission or payment.
That portion of the copyright law bypasses an cases that are brought to trial.

We are allowed to download and store backup copies of original content in Canada as well as download for private use according to the same link you provided.

So, with all that being taken into consideration, I don't even know how this suit didn't get thrown out of court. Before they should be given those names, they should have to prove that the use/download of the movie violated Canadian Copyright Law, which, according to the above statements, would be impossible.

What Geist is talking about in the quote you made is portions & excerpts.

Meaning you make a youtube video and in that youtube video you have a partial recording of Elvis (for example). Or an Explosion scene from whatever movie.

This is what an excerpt is. It's a copied and pasted scene type thing. Or maybe half a page copied from some book.

This is different than downloading an entire movie.

If the law allowed downloaded movies for private use (as what you are twisting it into), Canada would be celebrated around the Globe and news of this news found legal loop-hole would be on every torrent/warez site type thing.

But then again, per a post up above, I work for Canpire and the MPAA so fud is my forte.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

1 edit
I'm not twisting anything, that is what the law says. The law also states that if I own a movie, then I'm allowed to have a copy of that movie. You have no way to differentiate by IP if someone owns whatever it is you are accusing them of downloading. In fact you could be slurring many good names by implementing this practice of falsely accusing people. Also, I don't know where you've been, but Canada IS celebrated for it's stance.

What you refer to as "legal loopholes" are actually civil rights that are there to protect Canadian citizens from money-hungry, fiscally irresponsible, Hollywood blowhards who wouldn't have an original idea for a movie combined between every director/actor/producer combined in California.

As far as the "portions and excerpts" I was talking about the uploading part of torrenting. With torrenting, don't know if you are aware, but you never upload a whole movie/song/book--ever. You hand out bits and pieces to various users across the globe.

Seeing as we are in agreement about the pieces and excerpts, technically this falls under that scope and actually fits rather well, then the uploading portion of torrenting is perfectly legal.

I notice you didn't even touch on the whole IP argument whatsoever nor did you touch on the fact that this practice of blackmailing people by sending them threatening letters has already been thrown out of court. Nor did you touch how all of this has already been battled and lost in a court of law in the States and will be here as well, given our much tougher stance on protection of our citizens and their rights here in Canada.

Better yet, let's test it out. I'll download a movie, I will give you the link to the torrent that I'm downloading, I'll give you my name, address and IP and I'll even give you an email saying I'm straight-out, spitting in your face, downloading it. Send me the letter and let's see how far you get with it. We'll get this whole mess shut down right now! Hollywood and all of the rest of their crooks and croonies can go on about their business in some other country and leave us Canadians alone.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:

My ISP contract says nothing about forbidding me from using a router past my modem and keeping it unlocked. If someone decides to download files through it so be it, they are trespassing. No different then someone walking onto my lawn or up to my door and shooting my neighbour. They trespassed, they killed him.

Except it's not your lawn, it's the ISP's and you are responsible for everything that happens on the piece you "lease". It's your responsibility to protect it if you don't want to be responsible for other people's actions.

By knowingly refusing to protect it you are doing what is called "willful ignorance" in legal jargon and that has never been a valid legal defence.

You should post a reference for the Terms of Service of your ISP so I can prove you wrong. For example, here's what the Bell Terms of Service say:
»www.bell.ca/styles/common/en/all···_EN_.pdf

Section 2 begins with:
"2. Conditional Use of the Service. You are solely responsible for all access to the Service through your Account."


shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I notice you didn't even touch on the whole IP argument whatsoever nor did you touch on the fact that this practice of blackmailing people by sending them threatening letters has already been thrown out of court. Nor did you touch how all of this has already been battled and lost in a court of law in the States and will be here as well, given our much tougher stance on protection of our citizens and their rights here in Canada.

Not in this topic. Not worth repeating. But you can find where i do in this topic where I discovered the IP's belonging to the Montreal Canadians (which torrent freak carried) and the Hilton, and other privacy related stuff. Just look for the videotron host mask. That would be me.

All 30-something pages can be found here:
»Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
Knock yourself out.

Have to get back to work for the MPAA now.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

said by analog andy:

My ISP contract says nothing about forbidding me from using a router past my modem and keeping it unlocked. If someone decides to download files through it so be it, they are trespassing. No different then someone walking onto my lawn or up to my door and shooting my neighbour. They trespassed, they killed him.

Except it's not your lawn, it's the ISP's and you are responsible for everything that happens on the piece you "lease". It's your responsibility to protect it if you don't want to be responsible for other people's actions.

By knowingly refusing to protect it you are doing what is called "willful ignorance" in legal jargon and that has never been a valid legal defence.

You should post a reference for the Terms of Service of your ISP so I can prove you wrong. For example, here's what the Bell Terms of Service say:
»www.bell.ca/styles/common/en/all···_EN_.pdf

Section 2 begins with:
"2. Conditional Use of the Service. You are solely responsible for all access to the Service through your Account."

Charging you for going over your cap is one thing. Bringing criminal charges where the burden of proof that the actual owner of the account is the one breaking the law is quite another.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to shrug
said by shrug :

said by rednekcowboy:

I notice you didn't even touch on the whole IP argument whatsoever nor did you touch on the fact that this practice of blackmailing people by sending them threatening letters has already been thrown out of court. Nor did you touch how all of this has already been battled and lost in a court of law in the States and will be here as well, given our much tougher stance on protection of our citizens and their rights here in Canada.

Not in this topic. Not worth repeating. But you can find where i do in this topic where I discovered the IP's belonging to the Montreal Canadians (which torrent freak carried) and the Hilton, and other privacy related stuff. Just look for the videotron host mask. That would be me.

All 30-something pages can be found here:
»Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
Knock yourself out.

Have to get back to work for the MPAA now.

What happened to all that hurt locker nonsense? Oh ya, you quoted me saying what happened to it........


NameAnon

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm
said by hm :

said by NameAnon :

What I would like to know is how is it possible to sue a person today based on a law that did not exist when the supposed breach happened. In other words, laws are not retroactive. So, if a person downloaded something before the law came into effect, shouldn't this person be immune from such law?

There never was a law that made you "immune".

Also, if we look at the hurt locker lawsuit, Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, videotron et all seems to keep all IP related info (telling who the IP belong to) for a minimum of 3-months. That is why the hurt locker case was expedited in a real hurry. Practically same day.

I'm not sure if the new laws forces IP's to keep records for a year, or just an "infringers" info for one year. ONe of the indie owners here can answer that.

But up until a month ago, records for IP traceability was limited to 3 months from what we can tell from the hurt locker lawsuit.

So no immunity. Not sure about the big telco's record retentions now. Something must have changed if they are going back 5-months yet hurt locker shows 3 months was the limit.

You are missing the point. The point was that technically a person may have downloaded or shared copyrighted stuff let's say in July this year when C-11 wasn't in force. My question is this, considering that when the alleged breach occurred, said person is immune from C-11 since laws are not retroactive. So, how would it be possible for a company to sue said person under C-11 in such a case? Answer: not possible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with IPs. It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to IamGimli
The router is owned by me its connects to the ISP. Its my own device that I own and can leave it open all I want.

If someone comes to my house and plugs in their own POTS phone into the dmark and make threatening phone-calls I"m not responsible for it. Yes I'd have to dealt with explaining myself but hey I didn't do it and you have to prove that I did.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to NameAnon
said by NameAnon :

It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.

Previously, prior to C-11, you could be sued for up to 20,000$ instead of the 5,000$ now. That is, if such a lawsuit even stood a chance.

But as far as I know you can be sued. Maybe ask this on the Geist forum? Or maybe the actual law states something?

Haven't read it in its entirety yet. You?


NameAnon

@teksavvy.com
said by hm :

said by NameAnon :

It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.

Previously, prior to C-11, you could be sued for up to 20,000$ instead of the 5,000$ now. That is, if such a lawsuit even stood a chance.

But as far as I know you can be sued. Maybe ask this on the Geist forum? Or maybe the actual law states something?

Haven't read it in its entirety yet. You?

That's my point. In this scenario such a person cannot be sued by the old law since has been deprecated; and cannot be sued by the new law since it did not have any effect at the time the alleged breach occurred. And no, I have not read the law in its entirety. There is no need either. There is a general legal principle that states that laws cannot be retroactive.... except under dicatorships....

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

Charging you for going over your cap is one thing. Bringing criminal charges where the burden of proof that the actual owner of the account is the one breaking the law is quite another.

WTF are you talking about? We're talking Copyright Act infractions here, not Criminal Code infractions. There's only one Criminal Code section that mentions copyright infringement, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what's being discussed here.

No wonder you people spew so much nonsense, you have no idea what it is that you're talking about.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to NameAnon
said by NameAnon :

That's my point.

Maybe you are right? I haven't a clue about that.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_fa···w#Canada

It states this is applicable only to criminal law though.

In these cases i do believe they are all civil proceedings (including the last hurt locker one), thus it is allowed. But, is it "enacted ex post facto"? I don't know the answer to your question. You really should post this to Geists website and see what comes of it.

If what you stated is true, then that 5 months of data they collected is indeed junk. But that still doesn't stop them from bringing civil proceedings against you. But it should stop any C-11 crap they toss at you dead in its' tracks, as applicable, and don't think there is much applicable other than a reduced dollar amount.

C-11 seems more harsh towards Canadian sites like ISOhunt, or ring sites, or servers, since C-11 goes after "enablers".

You are also forgetting that 5 months ago it wasn't exactly legal to download movies, just as it isn't now. I don't think that much has changed. C-11 or not.

Post it to Geist anyhow... It has me curious as well.

But anyhow I think the business model here is one of intimidation.
Lawyer letter --> Pay or else --> maybe nothing comes of it if you do nothing. Or you gamble and might have to pay more in just lawyer fees alone. But I would consult with a lawyer just the same. Would be dumb not to.

For all we know someone can sue this clown collecting the IP info to intimidate people with and turn the tables on him. Since, as well know, this business model is just a fishing expedition and does not equal the person belonging to the account payable of the ISP in question.

W/ hurt locker their intimidation and extortion bluff was called. They only sent letters demanding money "or else" and backed off on any court proceedings. I believe this is what this clown is. A plain old extortionist w/ the porn industry that won't go to court. Only time will tell...

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
said by hm :

But anyhow I think the business model here is one of intimidation.
Lawyer letter --> Pay or else --> maybe nothing comes of it if you do nothing. Or you gamble and might have to pay more in just lawyer fees alone. But I would consult with a lawyer just the same. Would be dumb not to.

1. This is the same model used by some collection agency bottom feeders and scam artists. Send out a thousand letters and a percentage will pay up.

2. In Ontario small claims is up to $25,000.00. The cost for the prevailing litigant are capped a very low levels. It's court costs of $275.00 to get a judgement.

3. Advise that you will defend vigorously and get a local computer nerd to testify as an expert about IPs. File numerous motions during the proceedings for disclosure and other procedural issues. It will cost them tens of thousands to recoup less than a thousand in awarded costs even if they prevail.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by peterboro:

3. Advise that you will defend vigorously and get a local computer nerd to testify as an expert about IPs. File numerous motions during the proceedings for disclosure and other procedural issues. It will cost them tens of thousands to recoup less than a thousand in awarded costs even if they prevail.

I've seen this happen in Quebec civil divorce where the other side represents themselves and drives the others lawyers fee's through the roof. As long as income tax records show the other spouse can't afford their own lawyer the lawyer of the other spouse can not refuse anything to the low income spouse.

So if they call 10x a day for 2 months, that's all billable hours. Any fax, call, piece of paper requested, any phone call to ask a question no matter how stupid. All billable per the minute to the one with the lawyer.

Not sure if you can do that in these cases though. No clue. Just know you can drive someones costs to triple with this during a Quebec divorce.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to peterboro
What is going to be interesting...

This creepy extortion company stated the porn industry is behind them as well.

If ever a kid is implicated or named, both that creepy company and the porn producer outing a kid can be sued to oblivion. Laws and privacy laws seem to have some case examples on this (as ref'd near the end of that 30-page hurt lock topic).

We might see some interesting action if this creep follows through on his threat to sue thousands.