dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
75596
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work

Teksanta

join:2012-12-17

1 edit
reply to tired

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

wow, i learned a lot from this site.

good info and very passionate people.

I also liked this article:


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

@Eh - the bigger thing is that the forensic company is not a registered or licensed private investigative business with the Ministry in the province of Ontario.

Still unconfirmed if affidavit individual Logan is a licensed private investigator.

Further, an individual does not have access to the data that Teksavvy has to cross check or verify if an IP address did upload sufficient data to correspond with the affidavits claim of a whole upload of a complete working copy of a film. If one occurrence out of 2300 does not verify, the affidavit is false and fails.

Unfortunately, this data is in the hands of Teksavvy, and we the people have no clue now what Teksavvy intends to do, intends not to do as going into today they were not going to oppose the motion, and coming out of it, Teksavvy pushed for an adjournment, and noted an issue with the motions affidavit but that Teksavvy did not have sufficient time to create and swear an affidavit to his effect. The nature of the issue with Voltages' affidavit is unknown. But, the affidavit is highly suspicious on its own, as anyone can see.

So, we all enjoy our holidays, and wait to see what Teksavvy is, or isn't going to do in January, if CIPPIC will be able to get involved at or by that time, and who hires representation etc etc.

Kudo's to Marc for not doing what he said he was going to do. The adjournment helps.


RobOutback

join:2011-07-18

said by racer123:

Further, an individual does not have access to the data that Teksavvy has to cross check or verify if an IP address did upload sufficient data to correspond with the affidavits claim of a whole upload of a complete working copy of a film.

I hope that customers will have access to the detailed info that Teksavvy has on them, if they are on "the list". Right now, I think customers only have access to monthly aggregated stats, but that's not enough to show you didn't upload enough during a session to actually have infringed copyright.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Teksanta

wow, i learned a lot from this site.

good info and very passionate people.

I also liked this article:

»copyrightenforcement.ca/teksavvy···ng-case/

-------------------------------

That one reads like it came straight out of a customer profile of Canipre.

Very loaded language.

If there are any legal - and I stress the word LEGAL - methods that the very technically minded here might know to find out anything about this site, it could be worth checking out.

I'd be interested.

EDIT. I've googled the guy Trevor Paetkau and CANIPRE. I hit a lot of common ground.

Over to you bloodhounds for more.

Cheers,
Dave


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to RobOutback

@Roboutback

No, I'm not saying that everyone should try and obtain the data from Teksavvy, so they can make an argument like "I did not upload xxx amount of data so therefore I could not have uploaded a whole copy of the movie".

I'm thinking more along the lines of Teksavvy, or someone it trusts, could analyze user and IP data and see if one or two people are in such a position, and compare that to the file size data of the copyrighten works being contested. It's just another way to blast a hole in the overall affidavit. For example. If one part of an affidavit is clearely proven not true, the rest of the affidavit is moot. Therefore the motion could not stand on its own.

However, Teksavvy has stated that it is not opposing the motion. It delayed it today, and has indicated that there is a discrepancy in the Motion's affidavit, but it has stated clearly it is not opposing the motion directly in its previous releases.


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON

2 edits
reply to UK_Dave

@UK_Dave

Who is this Trevor Paetkau guy? Is he an employee of Canipre?

Anyways, I have his personal information, address, phone number etc if I need it.


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Read the website - he looks like the Editor.

I've had the so called "comments" on the TSI article looked at by an ex-colleague. There's a quite high chance they're written by the same person - which is just bloody hilarious. Similar reading index levels, similar style characteristics, very low individual trait scores.

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the bull of privacy scum.....


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
reply to Teksanta

Hey, Teksanta.

I know you only joined today, but are you still around?

Would you care to share what you liked about the article?

I think I'd like to discuss this with you - I found it fascinating too. For all sorts of reasons.



CrazyCat

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc

Does anyone know if the misidentified or missed people have been notified yet?



TS_user

@teksavvy.com

Mark - if you're reading this still, can you explain what was meant by what is being reported elsewhere, that some clients were mistakenly notified? I have been notified, and I have never heard of this movie, let alone downloaded/uploaded it. I know everyone protests their innocence, but I know the truth - when will people who were mistakenly identified find out?



S15

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc

From what you are saying, you will not challenge the merit's of Voltages evidence/case, but you do seem to be already convicting your own clients by what you say. Nothing has been proven yet, but you seem to assume guilt. Is that the case?


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to TSI Marc

@UK_Dave Trevor's interesting. He's posting all over in the media, everywhere the Canipre information has been mentioned. Following up in a way. He's also from stratford. Too much a coincidence he's related via all these articles to Logan and Canipre.


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit

Racer - thanks for thoughts.

I'm starting to come to the same conclusion....

This guy is a paid cheerleader. Nothing wrong with that of course.

Let's be really careful here - these are slippery eels and they want to portray us in a particular way.

We need to be seen as being as squeaky clean as we know we are.


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON

1 edit

@UK_Dave We are squeeky clean. I have to try very hard not to refer to them as "Subject" or "Suspect" when I am investig er looking into them.

Expand your moderator at work

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TS_user

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Mark - if you're reading this still, can you explain what was meant by what is being reported elsewhere, that some clients were mistakenly notified? I have been notified, and I have never heard of this movie, let alone downloaded/uploaded it. I know everyone protests their innocence, but I know the truth - when will people who were mistakenly identified find out?
--------------------------------------

Hey TS user.

There are two issues as I understand it. Some people who WERE notified are actually NOT on the list of IP's Voltage provided.

Also, some people who WERE NOT notified, actually ARE on the Voltage list.

I'm sure one of the guys at TSI will be addressing this once they are back at camp.

I can understand they need time to get this next notification done properly. After all, they've just gone to court and said that the amount of time pressure they were under, led to mistakes. That was enough for adjournment till Jan 14th.

It is possible you may have been notified in error.

It is also possible you have been CORRECTLY identified by TSI as being on Voltage's list. But that Voltage's list is wrong.

This is the basis of what is being fought for here.


analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

1 edit
reply to TSI Marc

Speaking of a Trevor there's a pretty pro Voltage/Copyright Trevor in on this site »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view···comments

and he was also linking the the copyrightenforcement site. Now we know who he is.

Here's an interesting google cache »webcache.googleusercontent.com/s···nk&gl=ca

Expand your moderator at work

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to S15

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

From what you are saying, you will not challenge the merit's of Voltages evidence/case, but you do seem to be already convicting your own clients by what you say. Nothing has been proven yet, but you seem to assume guilt. Is that the case?
----------------------

S15. Teksavvy put up a fight today. Check the twitter feed for the history.

I'm still formulating this - but there is a magic window forming in my mind. Remember the new laws help grant ISP immunity. But of course, not for events prior to the deadline - what was that - November 7th?

Cases before that still allow for ISP liability. If I were Marc, I'd be focussing on that before all other concerns. And if I were him, I wouldn't be here answering questions like "Do you feel your customers are guilty?".

And you know what, it would kill me. I'm sure it's hurt him like hell because he believes in what he's doing. It's already cost him a load of cash I'm sure - and right now we don't even know how much he will be compensated for doing their dirty work under pressure. That is still to be determined.

Canipre have learned from the last defeat, built a software product, and have come back with guns blazing. They are confident. All they want to make their money, is disclosure.

We can come up with huge reasons why if "we" were in court, we'd shout it down. But right now, all this lot want is names and addresses.

They are asking the court to provide them with a list of people to target with speculative invoices.

I'm glad to see people preparing defences. Raising awareness. Raising money. Improving education. That's the time Marc earned for us.


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
reply to analog andy

Thanks Andy.

I wonder if they'd publish comments against their stance on their website.

Just like we allow that here.

You know what - that's the difference between them and us.


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to UK_Dave

Just posted the following on the site:

Sir,

With all due respect to your business model, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Do you believe Voltage will be looking to take these people to court? Or is it an exercise in speculative invoicing?

2. How do you think Voltage reconciles those actions to pursue such claims, when they cannot reconcile IP addresses to the people responsible?

3. Finally - do you have an opinion as to whether the privacy issues this raises outweighs the very limited non-commercial revenue being sought?

I'd be interested in your thoughts - especially given your website demonisers downloaders, downloaders that are currently legal in Canadian Law.

----------------------------

Wonder if they let any debate take place there. I posted with the same name as here. So fellas, if you want to come and talk, I told you - you know where I am.

Dave



joe1967

@bell.ca
reply to TSI Marc

Hey folks, I've got a quick question for ya'll. I have been keenly following these two topics on here for the last two days, trying to make sense of everything, but since I am not as knowledgeable in this department as many of you bright folks are, I thought I clear this up.

From what I understand, if Voltage is successful in obtaining a court order to force Teksavvy in handing over the personal information of those alleged, will that decision mean that it's all over? There is no more fighting left to do? That the can of worms has finally been opened in Canada, so to speak. As I understand, once Voltage has the personal information linked to the IPs of those alleged, they pretty much won their case - suing those alleged, extortion, etc.

This is actually a very interesting topic and I have learned a lot in the past two days, lots of smart folks on here.



TS_User

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

said by sgould:

Marc: your own clients are asking why there was no attempt to mount a legal defense.

Let's cut to the chase here: IF on monday the judge allows a delay, will Teksavvy mount a serious legal defense for its clients or not

Your own clients are now questioning why Teksavvy isnt even trying. After the delay is approved, there is either Teksavvy will mount one or it will not after Monday???

Verizon in the USA did. Why wont you guys?

If the answer is no, then a lot of your own customers will be asking what happened to the teksavvy that fought for the little guys. Teksavvy for a long while played the angle that it cared about its clients, and are not like Bell or Rogers, or Videotron. The actions of Teksavvy as a company in the next few days will show everyone what Teksavvy really is about.

PR aside, people are looking at action, not what is said.

No. We do not endorse Copyright infringment. It's agasint the law. This is not a small guy thing. It's a - it's against the law thing!!!!!

If anybody here can show me that a massive amount of errors has been made (or any error in fact) in the evidence that Canipre has presented, please contact me. I *will* gladly look at that very carefully.

Veizon is doing that after getting a massive flood of these requests. Here, it's literally the first one of any size!! I can't point to any past history of theirs here.. there's no track record of shoddy data...

Let me be clear here. TekSavvy has *never* endorsed illegal activity. We have never done anything like that. The laws here are clear.

Marc - I can't show you what their error was, but I know there's been an error. I am on the list (apparently, unless I'm one of hte mistaken ones) as sharing a specific movie at a specific time. I have never heard of the movie, was at work 80km away when they say it happened, with my only my wife, 4 year old son and 5 month old daughter at home at the time.

I don't know if it's possible that someone hacked into my network and was downloading/seeding this movie through my IP, or whether it's a mistaken identity on your part or a mistake on their part, but I know what happened in my house, and we did not do what they're saying.

I'm not sure what I'm asking you - I will hire a lawyer and I will fight this even though it won't be cheap. But I did want to let you know that there are some mistakes somewhere in this process. You said if anyone can show you any error. I can't show you the mistake, but I can tell you there is one. I'm likely not the only one in this boat.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

Because the bit torrent case is about people UPLOADING.

Downloading is legal, uploading isn't - broadly speaking.

WRONG downloading is now illegal BUT i'll quote the RCMP
"they won't go after non commercial file sharing"
ergo they want to target counterfeiting and people ripping people off making money off others stuff...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

From what you are saying, you will not challenge the merit's of Voltages evidence/case, but you do seem to be already convicting your own clients by what you say. Nothing has been proven yet, but you seem to assume guilt. Is that the case?
----------------------

S15. Teksavvy put up a fight today. Check the twitter feed for the history.

I'm still formulating this - but there is a magic window forming in my mind. Remember the new laws help grant ISP immunity. But of course, not for events prior to the deadline - what was that - November 7th?

Cases before that still allow for ISP liability. If I were Marc, I'd be focussing on that before all other concerns. And if I were him, I wouldn't be here answering questions like "Do you feel your customers are guilty?".

And you know what, it would kill me. I'm sure it's hurt him like hell because he believes in what he's doing. It's already cost him a load of cash I'm sure - and right now we don't even know how much he will be compensated for doing their dirty work under pressure. That is still to be determined.

Canipre have learned from the last defeat, built a software product, and have come back with guns blazing. They are confident. All they want to make their money, is disclosure.

We can come up with huge reasons why if "we" were in court, we'd shout it down. But right now, all this lot want is names and addresses.

They are asking the court to provide them with a list of people to target with speculative invoices.

I'm glad to see people preparing defences. Raising awareness. Raising money. Improving education. That's the time Marc earned for us.

lol so confident they cant understand what the diffferance between 10K per each commercial infringement ergo counterfeiting and 5K FOR ALL INFRINGEMENTS for non commercial....ya that's showing smarts...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to joe1967

said by joe1967 :

Hey folks, I've got a quick question for ya'll. I have been keenly following these two topics on here for the last two days, trying to make sense of everything, but since I am not as knowledgeable in this department as many of you bright folks are, I thought I clear this up.

From what I understand, if Voltage is successful in obtaining a court order to force Teksavvy in handing over the personal information of those alleged, will that decision mean that it's all over? There is no more fighting left to do? That the can of worms has finally been opened in Canada, so to speak. As I understand, once Voltage has the personal information linked to the IPs of those alleged, they pretty much won their case - suing those alleged, extortion, etc.

This is actually a very interesting topic and I have learned a lot in the past two days, lots of smart folks on here.

this is a hearing to hand over identities NOT the end trial...
i seriously doubt they will proceed myself just based on what the statement of claim is trying to say because ( and im not a lawyer ) no commercial gain can be said form just an ip address or having your name and address....

jonny7

join:2008-09-22
Sault Ste Marie, ON
reply to TSI Marc

Hi Marc

Great updates on latest status of the lawsuit. I hope all goes well with TekSavvy. You guys are great!

I wanted to ask you how a Landlord who provides TekSavvy internet to customers would protect them selves?

Also how should a tenant protect them selves as well?
Thank you in advance.

j


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to joe1967

Hi Joe.

If the court orders the addresses and personal details turned over - TSI will have to do it. There is a world of pain out there if they got involved in anything. else. at. all. Put it this way, there's been talk of accidental server crashes and the rest of it - but if that happened even accidentally right now - there would be huge grief.

Once that happens, a couple of thousand people will receive letters threatening fines unless they settle. It is my opinion that this is the purpose. There will never be court cases, because those who choose to stand and fight will be left alone.

This will prey on a % of the population, and relies on them paying up without a day in court.

The almost impossible task for Marc, is how the hell does he defend this when Voltage have learned from the last failure, and come back with their new method that they hope will persuade the court to force Tek to disclose.

I'm still looking for clarification like we all are, but I'm wondering if fighting this disclosure makes TSI a lot more liable than if they "roll over" and let a University organisation like CIPPIC take up the fight.

On a seperate subject - is there anyone on the software side of things who can pull some LEGAL strings and get me something on the software used to gather the IP addresses in the first place.

Cheers,
Dave


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 edit
reply to TSI Marc

Marc can attack this head on, quite simply, and I've stated it before.

Attack and destroy the credibility of the Affidavit which supports the motion. Without it the motion has no strength or merit or grounds. Blow holes through it.

To start, Canipre is touted as the forensic investigation company. Canipre is not a licensed or registered private investigator under the law in Ontario. Barry Logan is the sworn "Owner" and "Principal Forensic Consultant" to Canipre. Canipre is the retained (hired) agent by Voltage.

What is the difference between an individual sneaking around the internet looking for personal information and Identifiers on individuals, regardless of end intent, if one is or is not a properly licensed investigator? Its criminal, that's the difference. And his affidavit has no credibility.

Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005
business entity” includes a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship; (“entreprise”)

“employee” includes a person, whether or not employed under a contract of employment, who performs work or services for another person for remuneration on such conditions that he or she is in a position of economic dependence upon, and under an obligation to perform duties for, that person more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor; (“employé”)

“licensee” means an individual or business entity that holds a licence under this Act, and “licensed” has a corresponding meaning; (“titulaire de permis”)

Private investigators
(2) A private investigator is a person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of conducting investigations in order to provide information. 2005, c. 34, s. 2 (2).

Soliciting or procuring services
(6) A person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of acting for or aiding others in soliciting or procuring the services of a private investigator or security guard shall be deemed to be in the business of selling private investigator or security guard services. 2005, c. 34, s. 2 (6).

PROHIBITIONS
Individual licence
6. No person shall act as a private investigator or a security guard or hold himself or herself out as one unless the person holds the appropriate licence under this Act and,

(a) is employed by a licensed business entity, a registered employer under section 5, or an employer that is not required to be registered; or

(b) is the sole proprietor of a licensed business entity or is a partner in a licensed business entity. 2005, c. 34, s. 6.

Penalties
Individuals
45. (1) Every individual convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both. 2005, c. 34, s. 45 (1).

Business entity
(2) Every business entity convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000. 2005, c. 34, s. 45 (2).

»www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/···list.asp

I've called and confirmed that Canipre and Canipre Inc are not licensed or registered agents or businesses respectively. Logan on the other hand, I need his personal DOB and address........