dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27353
share rss forum feed


rednekcowboy

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

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

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.



J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
reply to dillyhammer

said by dillyhammer:

The new paradigm for movie studios small and large, foreign and domestic.

1. Make a shit movie.
2. Lower marketing and distribution budget to $0
3. Set up honey pots by uploading their own torrent.
4. Sue unsuspecting users based on an IP address that can be spoofed with trivial knowledge and tools.

Mike

1. True
2. True, never heard about this movie until this court case.
3. True...and they better have not received a dime of funding from our Canadian government...(although it was filmed in the US of A, eh)
4. True.

My guess they they'll send these people demands for $5,000, but they'll settle for $500 if they want to avoid court.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Content

This is back to the Geist post; but this is what the government is stating:

quote:
Similarly, Conservative MP Ron Cannon stated:

Our government also understands the difference between a large-scale violator and an ordinary consumer. The legislation introduces the concept of proportionality in statutory damages. It revises current provisions for statutory damages to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement. That is very important. This bill reduces an individual's potential liability in cases of non-commercial infringement to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5,000 for all infringements that took place prior to any lawsuit being launched.

With rights holders are obviously entitled to pursue their claims in court (and seek either actual or statutory damages), the statutory damages provisions in Canada are clearly designed to dissuade them from pursuing lawsuits against individuals in non-commercial cases. If Canadians begin to receive settlement demand letters, they should be aware of the recent changes that limit their liability in light of the government's view that huge payment demands for non-commercial infringement are "way out of line."

At first glance it looks like they're going to treat copyright infringement like a speeding ticket...
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


xsbell

join:2008-12-22
Canada
kudos:8
reply to Content

What I find odd, not one IP from Rogers, Bell, Cogeco, Shaw, Telus, Videotron, etc., was submitted in this case. I can pretty much guarantee they had 90% of the [Canadian] IPs downloading/sharing that movie.



rednekcowboy

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

Proof--WTF are you talking about?? There is a burden of proof in both civil and criminal cases. The other side still has to prove that it was you that infringed the copyright of whatever was downloaded. The bar isn't "who is responsible", the bar is who is the person that committed the infraction. The law is still the law, whether it be civil or criminal and while the rules may be a bit more relaxed in civil court, there is still a burden of proof that has to be met in order to win the case and you can't do that by IP address alone. An IP address doesn't give you a picture of the person committing the offence, doesn't give you a name of the person downloading the torrent, doesn't give you anything but an address and an account.

And watch your attitude, if you can't have a civilized discussion then maybe it's time you kept your opinions to yourself.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by rednekcowboy:

Proof--WTF are you talking about?? There is a burden of proof in both civil and criminal cases. The other side still has to prove that it was you that infringed the copyright of whatever was downloaded. The bar isn't "who is responsible", the bar is who is the person that committed the infraction. The law is still the law, whether it be civil or criminal and while the rules may be a bit more relaxed in civil court, there is still a burden of proof that has to be met in order to win the case and you can't do that by IP address alone. An IP address doesn't give you a picture of the person committing the offence, doesn't give you a name of the person downloading the torrent, doesn't give you anything but an address and an account.

Except they don't have to prove it was you who committed the offense, only that you are responsible for it, which your ISP's ToS clearly spell out.

And the "rules" aren't "a bit more relaxed in civil court", they are completely different. Criminal responsibility must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil responsibility must be proven based on a balance of probability. That means if they can prove it's more likely to have been your account than any other that was used to commit the infraction, then the judgement goes in their favour.

Just like red light cameras issue tickets to the owner of the vehicle, whether they can prove he was driving or not.

said by rednekcowboy:

And watch your attitude, if you can't have a civilized discussion then maybe it's time you kept your opinions to yourself.

Boo hoo. If you can't make the difference between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings you shouldn't be discussing legal matters.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by IamGimli:

Except they don't have to prove it was you who committed the offense, only that you are responsible for it, which your ISP's ToS clearly spell out.

And the "rules" aren't "a bit more relaxed in civil court", they are completely different. Criminal responsibility must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil responsibility must be proven based on a balance of probability. That means if they can prove it's more likely to have been your account than any other that was used to commit the infraction, then the judgement goes in their favour.

Just like red light cameras issue tickets to the owner of the vehicle, whether they can prove he was driving or not.

Both sides have to make the case with a strong burden on the extortionist who will have logs and hash tags etc etc.

Reminds me of the time my bro-in-law got a videotron copyright notice. Time stamps on videotrons "proof" that was passed on to them showed both parents were at work and the kids at school, and it was for some ipod thing and no one in the family had any apple product... Was interesting..


rednekcowboy

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

4 edits
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

Proof--WTF are you talking about?? There is a burden of proof in both civil and criminal cases. The other side still has to prove that it was you that infringed the copyright of whatever was downloaded. The bar isn't "who is responsible", the bar is who is the person that committed the infraction. The law is still the law, whether it be civil or criminal and while the rules may be a bit more relaxed in civil court, there is still a burden of proof that has to be met in order to win the case and you can't do that by IP address alone. An IP address doesn't give you a picture of the person committing the offence, doesn't give you a name of the person downloading the torrent, doesn't give you anything but an address and an account.

Except they don't have to prove it was you who committed the offense, only that you are responsible for it, which your ISP's ToS clearly spell out.

And the "rules" aren't "a bit more relaxed in civil court", they are completely different. Criminal responsibility must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil responsibility must be proven based on a balance of probability. That means if they can prove it's more likely to have been your account than any other that was used to commit the infraction, then the judgement goes in their favour.

Just like red light cameras issue tickets to the owner of the vehicle, whether they can prove he was driving or not.

said by rednekcowboy:

And watch your attitude, if you can't have a civilized discussion then maybe it's time you kept your opinions to yourself.

Boo hoo. If you can't make the difference between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings you shouldn't be discussing legal matters.

I don't normally lower myself to name calling in this forum, however, seeing as you are such an ignoramus--you sir, are a complete idiot.

1. Your agreement between you and your ISP has no relevance in a lawsuit that they are not party to. If the copyright holder sued the ISP and won, the ISP could then turn around and sue you based on the TOS to recoup whatever damages they lost. However I'm not sure they would even win that. The agreement between you and your ISP is a private contract between you and them and offers no protection to any third parties, IE copyright holders.

The only party that can bring action against you in regards to the contract you signed with your ISP is your ISP. It is an agreement between you and them with no other parties involved. So unless your activities have caused damage to your ISP in some, way shape or form it holds no relevance for anyone else. Even if your actions caused damages to your ISP, I think the most they can do, as per the agreement, is terminate your services and charge you whatever applicable cancellation fees might be included in that.

You really need to learn the basics of contract law.

2. The rules aren't completely different, in civil matters, the rules are the same, but as you said (with the exception of your account--moron, they aren't suing your account, your account would not be a named plantiff--YOU would be a named plantiff) they have to prove it was more likely than you, yourself downloaded the infringed material. How exactly do they do that with an IP? Short answer, they can't.

3. Red light cameras, interesting point. However many cases have been thrown out when the prosecution could not meet the burden when faced with an appointment schedule, etc.

For someone who claims to know the law, you really are extremely clueless. Must be one of those mindless "yes men" that work for the movie companies.

Everything you are trying to argue about has already been debunked in a court of law. You don't have a leg to stand on and you are starting to show what a true buffoon you really are with these constant imbecilic statements that hold no value in the real world and only exist this way in your imagination.

Let me tell you exactly how this would play out in court:

Judge: Did you sir download this movie?
Me: No sir, I did not. I realize that someone at my IP may have but I live with my wife and two daughters all of whom have access to this network
Judge to Plantiff: Can you prove that sir is the one who downloaded your movie/that it was not 1 of the other three people in that household?
Plantiff: No, your honor, we just know that the offender used this IP to commit the infringement
Judge: Seeing as the person you accused is 1 of 4 possibilities, I have no choice but to dismiss your case. 25% likliehood that the defendant committed the offence nowhere near meets a preponderance of the evidence.

If I lived by myself, they might have a case or even if it was just myself and my wife, then they would at least meet the 50% burden, unless of course, I had visitors on the day in question....


Les12

@columbiawireless.ca
reply to xsbell

If you search for Docket: T-2062-12 on the Federal Court website, there is no record of that case. (to early?)

However the site “copyrightenforcement.ca” lists a pdf file with the court order for disclosure of the Isp’s customers. However this order is not signed.

copyrightenforcement.ca/wp-conte···real.pdf)

Something is really weird.

The HurtLocker case showed all activity at Federal Court.

Anyone find any court documents?



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to xsbell

said by xsbell:

What I find odd, not one IP from Rogers, Bell, Cogeco, Shaw, Telus, Videotron, etc., was submitted in this case. I can pretty much guarantee they had 90% of the [Canadian] IPs downloading/sharing that movie.

Bell, Rogers et al charge 200 to 300$ to give the info of someone behind an IP address, per IP.

ACN and distributel may charge nothing, and may have not even bothered to show up in court to defend their own customers. IN which case, per privcom when I called this on this issue, the customer can hold them liable for the negligence and disregard to protection.

So it looks like there were reasons.


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to Les12

Someone would have to go to the court house, get the documents, scan them, and put them online. *If* the clerk gives you what you want. Seems they with-hold stuff.

The above can also be seen in the hurt locker topic where people went to the MOntreal court house to get the documents. In one case a "secret" Email communication was given in error and posted here.

Having a open, and online system in is not in the federal courts best interest it appears. And as we saw in the hurt locker case.

Also, copyrightenforcement.ca is an AstroTurf site for the lowlifes like this canipre extortion company. Check it out...


kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to Content

Never heard of that movie... IMDB says it's a 4.9, now I know why.


IamGimli

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

said by rednekcowboy:

I don't normally lower myself to name calling in this forum, however, seeing as you are such an ignoramus--you sir, are a complete idiot.

Yet I'm not the one who can't tell the difference between criminal and civil court.

said by rednekcowboy:

1. Your agreement between you and your ISP has no relevance in a lawsuit that they are not party to. If the copyright holder sued the ISP and won, the ISP could then turn around and sue you based on the TOS to recoup whatever damages they lost. However I'm not sure they would even win that. The agreement between you and your ISP is a private contract between you and them and offers no protection to any third parties, IE copyright holders.

Actually the agreement with your ISP matters very much because the evidence that they gather (i.e. IP addresses) only points to the ISP as the party responsible for the damage. The ISP then offloads that responsibility to you by proving to the complainant, using their records and the terms of their ToS, that you are solely responsible for all access to their service through your account.

said by rednekcowboy:

The only party that can bring action against you in regards to the contract you signed with your ISP is your ISP. It is an agreement between you and them with no other parties involved. So unless your activities have caused damage to your ISP in some, way shape or form it holds no relevance for anyone else. Even if your actions caused damages to your ISP, I think the most they can do, as per the agreement, is terminate your services and charge you whatever applicable cancellation fees might be included in that.

Which again only shows how legally clueless you are. The actions aren't brought against the customer "in regards of the contract", they're brought against breaches of the Copyright Act. The Contract signed can be brought in as proof that you are responsible for the damage done using that service.

said by rednekcowboy:

You really need to learn the basics of contract law.

Why, it's not the contract that's being breached, it's the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

2. The rules aren't completely different, in civil matters, the rules are the same, but as you said (with the exception of your account--moron, they aren't suing your account, your account would not be a named plantiff--YOU would be a named plantiff) they have to prove it was more likely than you, yourself downloaded the infringed material. How exactly do they do that with an IP? Short answer, they can't.

Except your account (and your contract with the ISP) is what allows the ISP to single you out as the user of their service that is responsible for the damage. They do NOT have to prove that you committed the offense, only that you are RESPONSIBLE for the damage.

said by rednekcowboy:

3. Red light cameras, interesting point. However many cases have been thrown out when the prosecution could not meet the burden when faced with an appointment schedule, etc.

Please provide reference to even a single case where a red light ticket was thrown out solely because the owner of the vehicle identified said he wasn't the one driving the vehicle.

said by rednekcowboy:

For someone who claims to know the law, you really are extremely clueless. Must be one of those mindless "yes men" that work for the movie companies.

Right back at you buddy.

said by rednekcowboy:

Everything you are trying to argue about has already been debunked in a court of law.

If it has why don't you provide references to those cases and educate us all? Shouldn't be hard after all, right?

said by rednekcowboy:

You don't have a leg to stand on and you are starting to show what a true buffoon you really are with these constant imbecilic statements that hold no value in the real world and only exist this way in your imagination.

Let me tell you exactly how this would play out in court:

Judge: Did you sir download this movie?
Me: No sir, I did not. I realize that someone at my IP may have but I live with my wife and two daughters all of whom have access to this network
Judge to Plantiff: Can you prove that sir is the one who downloaded your movie/that it was not 1 of the other three people in that household?
Plantiff: No, your honor, we just know that the offender used this IP to commit the infringement
Judge: Seeing as the person you accused is 1 of 4 possibilities, I have no choice but to dismiss your case. 25% likliehood that the defendant committed the offence nowhere near meets a preponderance of the evidence.

You clearly haven't spent any time in a courtroom if you think that's how it goes.

said by rednekcowboy:

If I lived by myself, they might have a case or even if it was just myself and my wife, then they would at least meet the 50% burden, unless of course, I had visitors on the day in question....

Doesn't matter if there's a hundred people living with you. The person who has the contract with the ISP is the one responsible for everything that happens with that service.


rednekcowboy

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

2 edits

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

I don't normally lower myself to name calling in this forum, however, seeing as you are such an ignoramus--you sir, are a complete idiot.

Yet I'm not the one who can't tell the difference between criminal and civil court.

said by rednekcowboy:

1. Your agreement between you and your ISP has no relevance in a lawsuit that they are not party to. If the copyright holder sued the ISP and won, the ISP could then turn around and sue you based on the TOS to recoup whatever damages they lost. However I'm not sure they would even win that. The agreement between you and your ISP is a private contract between you and them and offers no protection to any third parties, IE copyright holders.

Actually the agreement with your ISP matters very much because the evidence that they gather (i.e. IP addresses) only points to the ISP as the party responsible for the damage. The ISP then offloads that responsibility to you by proving to the complainant, using their records and the terms of their ToS, that you are solely responsible for all access to their service through your account.

said by rednekcowboy:

The only party that can bring action against you in regards to the contract you signed with your ISP is your ISP. It is an agreement between you and them with no other parties involved. So unless your activities have caused damage to your ISP in some, way shape or form it holds no relevance for anyone else. Even if your actions caused damages to your ISP, I think the most they can do, as per the agreement, is terminate your services and charge you whatever applicable cancellation fees might be included in that.

Which again only shows how legally clueless you are. The actions aren't brought against the customer "in regards of the contract", they're brought against breaches of the Copyright Act. The Contract signed can be brought in as proof that you are responsible for the damage done using that service.

said by rednekcowboy:

You really need to learn the basics of contract law.

Why, it's not the contract that's being breached, it's the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

2. The rules aren't completely different, in civil matters, the rules are the same, but as you said (with the exception of your account--moron, they aren't suing your account, your account would not be a named plantiff--YOU would be a named plantiff) they have to prove it was more likely than you, yourself downloaded the infringed material. How exactly do they do that with an IP? Short answer, they can't.

Except your account (and your contract with the ISP) is what allows the ISP to single you out as the user of their service that is responsible for the damage. They do NOT have to prove that you committed the offense, only that you are RESPONSIBLE for the damage.

said by rednekcowboy:

3. Red light cameras, interesting point. However many cases have been thrown out when the prosecution could not meet the burden when faced with an appointment schedule, etc.

Please provide reference to even a single case where a red light ticket was thrown out solely because the owner of the vehicle identified said he wasn't the one driving the vehicle.

said by rednekcowboy:

For someone who claims to know the law, you really are extremely clueless. Must be one of those mindless "yes men" that work for the movie companies.

Right back at you buddy.

said by rednekcowboy:

Everything you are trying to argue about has already been debunked in a court of law.

If it has why don't you provide references to those cases and educate us all? Shouldn't be hard after all, right?

said by rednekcowboy:

You don't have a leg to stand on and you are starting to show what a true buffoon you really are with these constant imbecilic statements that hold no value in the real world and only exist this way in your imagination.

Let me tell you exactly how this would play out in court:

Judge: Did you sir download this movie?
Me: No sir, I did not. I realize that someone at my IP may have but I live with my wife and two daughters all of whom have access to this network
Judge to Plantiff: Can you prove that sir is the one who downloaded your movie/that it was not 1 of the other three people in that household?
Plantiff: No, your honor, we just know that the offender used this IP to commit the infringement
Judge: Seeing as the person you accused is 1 of 4 possibilities, I have no choice but to dismiss your case. 25% likliehood that the defendant committed the offence nowhere near meets a preponderance of the evidence.

You clearly haven't spent any time in a courtroom if you think that's how it goes.

said by rednekcowboy:

If I lived by myself, they might have a case or even if it was just myself and my wife, then they would at least meet the 50% burden, unless of course, I had visitors on the day in question....

Doesn't matter if there's a hundred people living with you. The person who has the contract with the ISP is the one responsible for everything that happens with that service.

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Furthermore, if what you claim to be true is true, then what you are saying is that I can go to McDonald's and download a torrent on their open wifi and then they will be sued? C'mon, use your head!!

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by rednekcowboy:

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

So now not only can't you make the difference between criminal and civil court, but you can't even tell the difference between the USA and Canada.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

said by rednekcowboy:

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Except they only have to prove damages, and that you're more than likely to be responsible for those damages, which wouldn't be hard using that evidence.

said by rednekcowboy:

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

It would be nice if you could find relevant evidence of your claims instead of irrelevant cases out of irrelevant jurisdictions.

I'd like to remind you that this thread is about CANADA.

said by rednekcowboy:

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I agree, it must be hard for you to find arguments in a field you know so little about.


rednekcowboy

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

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

So now not only can't you make the difference between criminal and civil court, but you can't even tell the difference between the USA and Canada.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

said by rednekcowboy:

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Except they only have to prove damages, and that you're more than likely to be responsible for those damages, which wouldn't be hard using that evidence.

said by rednekcowboy:

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

It would be nice if you could find relevant evidence of your claims instead of irrelevant cases out of irrelevant jurisdictions.

I'd like to remind you that this thread is about CANADA.

said by rednekcowboy:

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I agree, it must be hard for you to find arguments in a field you know so little about.

OK, one last time. Your ISP can only testify that you are the account holder and while they may be able to hold you accountable to them for any damages they incur, this does not prove that YOU did anything nor does it mean some third party can hold you accountable. It also does not show that YOU infringed or committed anything, it shows your account was used to commit the act. So we come full circle, there is nothing that ties YOU directly to anything, and without that, a case cannot be won against you.

As far as US vs Canada. I can find more if I want to, however I don't have the time to spend doing it. You asked for cases, I provided cases.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
reply to IamGimli

double post


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

That only forms the contractual relationship between you and your ISP via their TOS (contract) as they mandated them to their consumers.

The TOS are really just a "wish list" by the ISP on how they believe the world should work and contract is open to interpretation by the courts.

It does not form the basis for any responsibility in a copyright infringement case other than identifying who registered and pays for an account with an ISP that assigned a particular IP at a particular moment in time material to the claim for damages.

Until we get some more case law under our belts the whole concept of responsibility for an IP is fluid currently.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by peterboro:

That only forms the contractual relationship between you and your ISP via their TOS (contract) as they mandated them to their consumers.

The TOS are really just a "wish list" by the ISP on how they believe the world should work and contract is open to interpretation by the courts.

It does not form the basis for any responsibility in a copyright infringement case other than identifying who registered and pays for an account with an ISP that assigned a particular IP at a particular moment in time material to the claim for damages.

Until we get some more case law under our belts the whole concept of responsibility for an IP is fluid currently.

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.

I'm quite certain that a car's owner would still get the ticket if he decided to leave his car unlocked, keys in the ignition, for anybody to use and one of those users ran a red light using the car (as the unsecure router argument goes).

BTW it's much easier to spoof a license plate than it is to spoof a routable IP, yet it's still perfectly acceptable to Canadian courts.

This won't be settled for sure until an actual judgement in a piracy case comes down in Canada but there is no relevant evidence to the contrary.


well hm

@videotron.ca

Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Perfect example to bring to court with you.


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Content

The red light camera case is not the same. In those situations it can be concluded, unless you have filed a police report otherwise, that the person in control of your vehicle is either you or known to you and had your permissions to take the car. If in the situation you outline you called the police to report your car stolen, no court is going to charge you with the actions taken by the criminal. I find it odd that anyone would think that they would.

The same can not be said for someone who uses your open wi-fi connection. It's a nice analogy, but it doesn't hold up.