dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30
share rss forum feed


Content

@videotron.ca
reply to Content

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

Company collects data on millions of illegal downloaders in first step to crack down on piracy in Canada
»www.vancouversun.com/technology/···ory.html

Case marks beginning of crackdown on Internet piracy in Canada

The company collecting info on Millions of Canadians is called Canipre. Operated out of Montreal for the entertainment cartels and those who hold Entertainment rights in Canada (Bell, Rogers, Cogeco Videotron etc) "to maximize their revenue streams and market opportunities".

Canipre also recently opened "an end user remediation system". Which I guess means that they will allow you to settle a claim... say for 5000$ instead of you wasting money going to court costing you tens of thousands. So now you can just pay them instead and they will keep a cut for grabbing your IP and what you do on the net and holding you ransom to their blackmail.

How quaint.

So millions of Canadians are in their system now.

Funny how I see nothing on Geist about this... Or nothing from PrivCom about this business model of blackmailing someone based on an IP which may not even be correct. ...So much for them.

Kind of sad how the content providers themselves in Canada are also the ones also holding your IP address, eh.


random

@teksavvy.com
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.
Expand your moderator at work


MJB

join:2012-01-29
reply to random

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

Everything is downloading..
Email, web surfing, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook, Google.
YouTube is next for copyright claiming idiots. Riaa and mpaa
. The Internet is going to be ****** in the next couple of years.
Thank corporations...

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
Keep your wifi open and keep a cheap netbook on hand to download what you want. They come a knocking you don't know anything and for all you know it could have been someone in the neighbourhood.


um

@videotron.ca
said by analog andy:

Keep your wifi open and keep a cheap netbook on hand to download what you want. They come a knocking you don't know anything and for all you know it could have been someone in the neighbourhood.

Umm yeah.

Seriously do you think some school yard trick like this is going to get you off?

1. Legal letter spelling out they have your IP and got your name from your ISP.

2. In the letter they demand 3,500$ or they will bring legal action on you.

3. Don't pay and they will bring you to court for the full legal amount of 5,000$

4. You don't get to plead ignorant at this point. You pay or go to court. End of story.

5. You don't pay, so you have to hire a lawyer. A minimum of a few grand there. Minimum.

6. In court you can play dumb. No one cares. Burden of proof will be on you to prove your innocence while they slap down paperwork showing your IP and name associated to the IP given to them from your ISP.

7. What? You need an expert witness on your behalf to say what flaws if any exist in their methods? That's a few grand more.

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.

The system is now set-up like the states. Pay now or pay more later. It's an entire payola blackmail scheme like in the states.

So when you get your letter, are you really going to play dumb and go to court instead of paying 3500$?

What if you are really innocent? Doesn't matter. We now have a payola blackmail scheme in place. You will pay 10-grand or more to fight it.

Meanwhile Bell and Rogers charge ~ 200$ for each IP request (info associate to the IP). Bell and Rogers are now making good money to give your info away (sell your info, that is).

The article states a nice lawsuit is coming against thousands of Canadians. Let us assume 20,000 people.

Teksavvy 5,000 People
Bell, 5,000 people
Rogers 5000 people
Videotron 5000 people

Each of these companies will get 5000x~200$ each for your info.

Do you think it's in a companies best interest to fight and protect your info at their cost? However, privacy laws say they are supposed to protect your info to a certain extent. But that isn't exactly happening. And at what cost to them are they to protect it? You aren't worth ten grand to them. Not even 1-grand for your 500$/yr service. They don't care.

heh.

Win-Win for everyone, except for you. Guilty or innocent.

This is called a payola scheme. It's legal blackmail. This is what has been happening in the states for a good decade.

So tell me again how you are going to tell someone it must have been some thief sitting in a car outside your house downloading Debby Does the Gang Bus. And to who are you going to tell this to at no cost to you again?

Umm Hope you are on welfare so you can get legal aid at least to plead this for you. And I hope you have zero assets (like a car or kitchen table) that bailiffs are going to come and take when the verdict goes against you.

Better hope the first few cases do end up in court and some precedence is set.

The law-firm behind this payola blackmail scheme is going to be making hundreds of thousands very soon.

Mass lawsuits and mass legalized blackmail is where the money is at. Ask the Americans, who also happen to be the ones who pushed and lobbied our Gov for these new Canadian laws. It opens a whole new payola blackmail market for them.

heh open wifi. Can't wait to see the first lawsuit to plead that one. Even if true.


NameAnon

@teksavvy.com
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?


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to um
And how are they going to go after the people who live in the streets after all that? If one has zero assets and zero cash, do they get conscripted into the military or something or be forced to shuffle paperwork for these extortionist trolls?


russel

@electronicbox.net
reply to um
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.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to um
said by um :

Seriously do you think some school yard trick like this is going to get you off?

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.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
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.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to um
Um, I think you're off on pretty much every single point you tried to make. The law put is place isn't going to make ISP's rich for handing over your information, or rights holders hundreds of thousands for their claims either.

For anyone concerned, Michael Geist addressed this today.

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/


MJB

join:2012-01-29
would a youtube downloader be consider bit torrent example type the address of the video from youtube and download it as a .mp4
will they go after that next?

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to IamGimli
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.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Samgee
said by Samgee:

Um, I think you're off on pretty much every single point you tried to make. The law put is place isn't going to make ISP's rich for handing over your information, or rights holders hundreds of thousands for their claims either.

For anyone concerned, Michael Geist addressed this today.

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/

No one is going after anyone if they can't make a profit.

While it's nice that the system in Canada is going to be based on what you can afford, unlike the states, it is still going to cost you more than the 100$ Geist is talking about.

Let's look at the economics of it.

Bell and Rogers charge ~$200+ just to give your info away. This isn't coming down in price. Examples of this can be found in the hurt locker lawsuit and some other lawsuits with the states. And also found on Geists site.

THe demand letter isn't going to be for 25$ when they have to pay for:
1) this Canpire company costs
2) Some sort of lawyer to bring this to court to get peoples info from IP's
3) The 200$+ to Bell and Rogers per IP
4) Notarized/Legal demand letters
5) the Costs to the Company who hired Canpire to go after you
6) The stamp on the letter.

Geist makes it sound as if you will be charged 100$ if it goes to court. This is just an example of the proportionate fines you can get... *if* you were on welfare.

The Demand letter isn't going to be for 100$ when Bell alone charges 200$ for your info. Does that even make sense?

And if you aren't on welfare to get a free lawyer and you have to pay your own lawyer, Will the lawyer be free like Geist is implying? Will CIPPIC represent each person for free? How much is the lawyer? 3$?

Sorry. This isn't going to be 100$ like what is written there. I think he's playing this down.

I'm no lawyer, clearly, but there is no way someone is getting away with this for 100$. Unless they are on welfare.

Do you honestly think a company is going to pay 500$ minimum, so they can sue you for 100$?


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to NameAnon
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.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to hm
um and hm have the same FUD posting style. Probably a Canpire employee who apparently knows more then a real lawyer.

LOL on the news it stated Canpire is located in a secret warehouse location. What have they got to worry about? If you're a legitimate business you shouldn't need to hide your location.

Canipre website »canipre.com/contact.html


Um n hm

@videotron.ca
said by analog andy:

um and hm have the same FUD posting style. Probably a Canpire employee who apparently knows more then a real lawyer.

Yes. I work for CRIAA and I'm the one who set up Canpire. Cat is out of the bag now. I am just testing everyone to put fear in you. Please click on my ads at Canpire. I get 3-cents a click.

BTW, if we read the comments on Geists blog, you will see people saying the same. This isn't going to cost some 100$. Only way possible is if you are on welfare.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to hm
said by hm :

Do you honestly think a company is going to pay 500$ minimum, so they can sue you for 100$?

No company in their right mind would do that, and I think that's the point.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by Samgee:

said by hm :

Do you honestly think a company is going to pay 500$ minimum, so they can sue you for 100$?

No company in their right mind would do that, and I think that's the point.

Well I guess those are the chances Canpire and whatever law firm behind them are going to take.

I know if I got a call or letter from these people I would say I am on welfare with 9 kids. Make them think twice about going after you. This is the only thing I can think of as a way to intimidate them back. By making them think you are a losing candidate to sue.

A game of chicken.

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....

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 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.......

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 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.

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.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
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."


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.


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.

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.