dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
75102
share rss forum feed


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

I've never even heard of any of their movies o_O



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to HiVolt

i also want to know how far back these go



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to TSI Marc

Well, TSI only keeps logs for 90 days, so it can't go back farther than that regardless of how far back the movie company tries to go.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

Marc, do you know the start/end dates of these alleged infringements, it would be interesting how long they were scavenging IP's before going forward...

Those who received emails will have the dates specified.. but it's all from the September and October period.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12

I know i've read it but i wanted to get it confirmed what guz said... 90 day log rotation true?

Lastly are you emailing to the @teksavvy accounts? If so I like so many others don't even use those accounts



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

Well, TSI only keeps logs for 90 days, so it can't go back farther than that regardless of how far back the movie company tries to go.

That's correct. Though, we have been asked to keep the records for the specified IPs... so, for those affected, that info will be kept until this is all resolved or whenever appropriate.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

Those who received emails will have the dates specified.. but it's all from the September and October period.

Yeah thats what i was looking for, a general range... thanks...


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

I know i've read it but i wanted to get it confirmed what guz said... 90 day log rotation true?

Lastly are you emailing to the @teksavvy accounts? If so I like so many others don't even use those accounts

Same email addy as where we send invoices. The emails were sent sent from support at teksavvy dot com.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

sMURF

join:2007-02-27
Toronto, ON
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

I've never even heard of any of their movies o_O

Well of course. They're all bad movies. They're butthurt that they lost money peddling trash, so now they're going to try to extort some money out of people to make up for it.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to TSI Marc

Some may have wondered about this but I figure I'd best just put it out there. We also opted to not use the Infusionsoft tools that we sometimes use for notices. We wanted to be 100% sure not raise any privacy concerns.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


vientito1

join:2009-01-09
reply to sMURF

$10000 ... are they out of their minds?

Probably costs less to build a guillotin


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

i.e. it's not the downloading part they're saying.. it's the making it available to others.

"Making available"

quote:
Canada's Federal Court recently ruled that placing a copy of a downloaded song on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a peer-to-peer file sharing program does not amount to distribution of that copy so as to constitute infringement of copyright under Canada's Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42. (BMG Canada Inc. et al. v. John Doe, 2004 FC 488
(March 31, 2004, von Finckenstein, J.; appeal filed on April 13, 2004)).
Muzak, supra still applies.
quote:
a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law
Marc: Even if a court order is issued, I really hope TekSavvy will not release the information until any/all appeals processes have been exhausted. Give people a chance to fight back (going to be hard to do with 7 days notice around Christmas)

bdoyledimou

join:2002-08-20
Markham, ON
reply to TSI Marc

I am not involved in this suit, (mostly cause i can't be bothered to download stuff that is available on netflix already) but out of the entire list, the only film worth watching would be Tucker and Dale vs Evil -- and that is/was available on Netflix before it was in theaters. If you have a Netflix account during that time, can't you maker a claim of place shifting?

Seems these guys are just trying to use these lawsuits as a revenue stream, as i don't think any of these films would have made any money in a theater.


jmarlatt2

join:2006-09-20
Chatham, ON

For anyone involved, what trackers were you using when you downloaded these movies? I have a couple people interested.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by TSI Marc:

i.e. it's not the downloading part they're saying.. it's the making it available to others.

"Making available"

quote:
Canada's Federal Court recently ruled that placing a copy of a downloaded song on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a peer-to-peer file sharing program does not amount to distribution of that copy so as to constitute infringement of copyright under Canada's Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42. (BMG Canada Inc. et al. v. John Doe, 2004 FC 488
(March 31, 2004, von Finckenstein, J.; appeal filed on April 13, 2004)).
Muzak, supra still applies.
quote:
a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law
Marc: Even if a court order is issued, I really hope TekSavvy will not release the information until any/all appeals processes have been exhausted. Give people a chance to fight back (going to be hard to do with 7 days notice around Christmas)

That ruling was under the old copyright laws...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

That's correct. Though, we have been asked to keep the records for the specified IPs... so, for those affected, that info will be kept until this is all resolved or whenever appropriate.

Obviously, but it means that on the day that TSI gets the initial request, any demands for information on IP ownership more than 90 days in the past cannot be met since that information no longer exists.

You guys obviously can't predict which IPs somebody might one day request, so you can only preserve information that exists at the time of the request.

Is the 90 day window a legal requirement? Is it possible that TSI might shorten that window in the future, if only to reduce the burden of extravagant fishing expeditions such as this one?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Shredda

join:2008-10-28
London, ON
reply to TSI Marc

I'm guessing the movie they're going after is the Hurt Locker... they went after people last year in the U.S. for the same thing. I almost actually rented the movie, but after they started suing file-sharers over it I said screw it. It's available on Netflix now, and even then I couldn't care less to watch it there because of what happened.

EDIT: After looking over the list, I don't see the Hurt Locker on there. So, instead of suing over a successful movie, they're suing over movies no one has heard of. I can't be the only one scratching their head over this one.


taraf

join:2011-05-07
Stittsville, ON
reply to TSI Marc

Well, I'll be amused if they request my details on this one... I was in hospital for a major operation at that time, and can prove it. I also don't even have BitTorrent installed on any of my computers...

For those who have been accused, I would retain a lawyer, and ask the lawyer whether they think it's worth submmitting a motion to split the lawsuit into individual suits rather than one mass lawsuit. $10,000 is still less than the limit for small claims court, which changes the game completely.... Especially when the dates they're claiming to be accusing for are before the law in question went into effect.

It's also worth noting that Canada has a loser-pay legal system. If you successfully defend yourself against the accusation, your legal fees get paid by your accuser.


jibby

join:2008-03-31
reply to TSI Marc

in the states they ruled that an IP address does not equal a person - is it the same in Canada?

i'd like to see a court prove that it was ME behind any IP


voxframe

join:2010-08-02
reply to TSI Marc

This one is bizzare. I'm also shocked as I haven't gotten a notice or heard of any yet. Our network can have almost 1000 users behind a single IP. So I'm just waiting for it lol.

(If it has been sent... Marc you guys got bad addresses for us. I've sent in corrections a few months ago, so hope they made it into the system lol)

As a side note, yep those are all pretty no-name, unheard, shitbox movies lol. Some pencil-neck dweeb over there must have his panties in a twist and wants to compensate for something.


hades_2100

join:2002-09-14
Burnaby, BC
reply to TSI Marc

To confirm, this isn't the "Recent Developments in Canadian Copyright Law" email that was sent out on the 3rd. This is a new email sent out this morning, correct?

Have all the emails been sent out yet?

I'm interested in this as I have a few friends/relatives on TekSavvy (including me). Hopefully this won't impact us, I doubt it, but playing it safe.

Thanks.

hades


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to jibby

quote:
(reply to TSI Marc)
in the states they ruled that an IP address does not equal a person - is it the same in Canada?

i'd like to see a court prove that it was ME behind any IP
Ontario Court of Appeals just ruled that an IP does not equal a person so requesting individual's information based on an IP is highly questionable.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to TSI Marc

I am a landlord with university students in a house.

They have Teksavvy service and I am quite sure that they download less than legal material. The account is under my name.

I have not received a notice, but does anyone know what happens in those situations?

Who will take the heat should their IP come up? It is clear as day that I rarely am in that house (maybe an hour or so a month taking care of small things).

Any other landlords or anyone know how this will be approached under this law?



XoX

join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada
reply to vientito1

said by vientito1:

$10000 ... are they out of their minds?

Probably costs less to build a guillotin

Was it not changed to a max of 5000$ ?


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc

I just checked the list of titles, and I've never heard of a single one of them. This almost sounds like a cash grab for third-rate titles.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live



rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·loclhost.ca
reply to TSI Marc

I hope you're showing up to that court date, and getting a good legal team to ask exactly why Voltage is blanketing your service, and for what reason.

I would also inquire as to what methods they have implemented to determine their information gathered, as well as full disclosure as to exactly who, where and how (packet data) downloaded their information.

Also, same for me Francois, I never heard of any of their movies before.



enzymes

join:2003-11-29
Brampton, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc

Just seems like a scare tactic towards Teksavvy to hand over names

I didn't receive any emails but then again, I don't download trash movies. And I highly doubt 2300 were downloading/uploading those shitty movies from Teksavvy IPs. Looks like a bunch of bullshit in order to get money from us for their failure in producing quality films/ distributing films at fair prices.



rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to TSI Marc

OH FRIG ME

The Hurt Locker comes to Canada yall!

I'm gonna download it right now, then when I go to court, I'm gonna ask for my money back, cause it's shit.

THEN I'm gonna quote this thread as free speech in downloading it.


sMURF

join:2007-02-27
Toronto, ON
reply to taraf

said by taraf:

Well, I'll be amused if they request my details on this one... I was in hospital for a major operation at that time, and can prove it.

As if that would stop them... »www.techdirt.com/articles/201108···ed.shtml


kragop

join:2006-02-15
Scarborough, ON
reply to TSI Marc

Do streaming movies count as downloading?