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

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/cont ··· 710/125/

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?

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$?

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

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.

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.