dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
74757
share rss forum feed

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Gone

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

said by Gone:

A single block is not substantial on its own in any way. In fact, with the way the Act is worded, that tiny non-substantial piece - remember, the Act requires a substantial part to be made available - in of itself isn't even a violation of the Copyright Act. Knowing this, a single unsubstantial block not only is of itself not an infringement of copyright, but also does not prove that copyright in of the entire work was made available for infringement by any specific user who may be named in a claim.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

So my next question is whether "substantial" has been defined (elsewhere in the act, in previous court cases, or whatever). It seems like the same thing I mentioned above could apply, but instead of sharing n-1 blocks, you share substantial-1. Not that I'm advocating this, just pointing out that it's a pretty big loophole.

And another question. If I make all 1000/1000 blocks available, but nobody ever downloads them, is that still a copyright violation? The reason I ask is because if Voltage (or whoever) only downloaded one block to prove what I was sharing was really their copyrighted material, and that's not substantial enough for a copyright violation conviction, is it enough to ask the courts to identify me so they can investigate further (seize my PC to check if I had the whole file, or just the 1 block)?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

The issue is that unless they obtain all 1000 blocks from you specifically and reassemble them into a working form, they have no way to verify that all 1000 blocks you made available in the swarm are actually a working version material they're claiming you infringed upon. Merely listing 1000 blocks available does not in itself constitute infringement as there's no way to verify the information was actually what you said it is. Without 1000 correct blocks of that infringed-upon material, you don't have a working copy of the file, and therefore aren't infringing on anything.

They can make whatever claim they want, there is still no way for them to prove that all 2000 of the IPs actually served up anything useful unless they downloaded a complete movie from each and every individual 2000s IPs at one specific point in time.

Now, hypothetically, even if they did do exactly that, then you get into the whole issue of being unable to prove that the person named in the suit was the one who actually made the material available for infringement.

This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.


JMJimmy

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

said by funny:

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...

This is so wrong. It's 100% legal to download in Canada because a) we pay a tax on all storage to compensate authors for it b) the supreme court ruled that because we as users are unable to determine if the source we are downloading from is legitimate or not (could be a promotional copy, could be from a country without copyright laws, could be downloading from ourselves, etc) and as a result we can't be held liable.

The most significant change to copyright laws in Canada was the digital lock rules. They create a catch 22 and are likely unconstitutional but until they're challenged that'll be the big cloud over Canadian's heads.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to Gone

Said by Gone See Profile
This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.

More like threat of lawsuits as by now we're aware these are extortion attempts. And if Prenda Law is any indication it could get even stickier down the road, they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

Said by Techdirt
So we move on to the next trick, which is that Guava / Prenda then sued all of the same people in ten different federal district courts. Yes, they basically filed identical lawsuits in ten different courts, all asking for discovery on the same exact list of 34 IP addresses.
---
The attempt to sneak through discovery without even naming the IP addresses as defendants failed in Cook County, so just file repeat federal lawsuits everywhere they can think of, perhaps hoping / figuring that at least one of the judges would agree to discovery, leading to the identities associated with those 34 IP addresses being passed over.

The article goes on to list several types of "tricks" they're employing. Its something of a bother. We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.
--
----|- Crazed Techie Crossing -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

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........

OH and one might see if they updated there license cause last year or so they updated what one needs to hold a security guard and PI license ergo tightened the rules.


WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been

join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to TSI Marc

It's been a while since I used Bit Torrent for Linux Distros, honest ; but if I remember, the client software I was using would show the IP address of all the seeders, and the percentage of the file that they had available to share. You could even monitor how much data you were receiving from each seed. A little flag popped up beside each IP address to show the country that IP address was in. I don't remember the name of that software.

Would it not be a simple matter for the copyright agent to use similar software and record the IP address of any 100% seeder for a period of time to say they "made available the copyrighted work"?


funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

WRONG downloading is now illegal BUT i'll quote the RCMP
"they won't go after non commercial file sharing"
-------------------------

Please show me your sources.

I believe you are wrong.

The RCMP quote is in relation to FILE SHARING, not downloading. In fact you even say that in your own quote.

Downloading, without sharing, is still legal.

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

JMJimmy

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

said by WhaleOilBee:

Would it not be a simple matter for the copyright agent to use similar software and record the IP address of any 100% seeder for a period of time to say they "made available the copyrighted work"?

That's not proof of uploading, it's not proof of uploading more than 10% (fair use), and it's not proof of the contents just hashes (can be faked), etc.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

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...
----------------------

Are you confident that saying "they can't prove it's commercial" to a judge this morning would have led to dismissal?

Care to put your life's work on the line? Care to make a sizeable bet with me?

Because Voltage's lawyers would simply declare they need disclosure to proceed and prove. At which point, boom. Disclosure.

YES
if you file a lawsuit incorrectly for the wrong reasons then there should have been a motion to dismiss( or anothe rmotion to talk about how ips are able to commerically infringe) as they cant prove any of the ip addresses were economically infringing...go on how much did xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx make? no really what's your logic just a download without any proof of cash being handed around is called non commercial infringement....you need to show they are beyond a reasonable doubt that they are profiting form your precious ip.

i'll say this is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx took your stuff and was caught by the rcmp selling it at a fea market they could get smacked with up to 20000 per each sale....and that is what the RCMP go after folks and why file sharing is being left alone....no money no bother...judges were also instructing in the case of non commercial file sharing to err on low side for undue hardship ( also a clause directly mentioned on welfare and disability sections of govt pages that limits to 29/50 respectively the monthly they can pay ) on low side of the 100 of the 5000 unless you got loads a files you prolly would get 100$ for a movie.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to TSI Marc

God damn I just made a pot and went into limbo.


JMJimmy

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

said by funny:

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

The CBC also says windmills are bad for your health, it doesn't make it true. It's just their typical bad reporting.

Rest assured, so long as the tax on storage is in place there is no way they can make downloading illegal.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

quote:
Without having that info I'd guess maybe. LinkedIn for him lists under education:

Canadore College of Applied Arts & Technology
Law & Security Administration
1990 – 1992

The Canadian Private Investigators' Resource Centre lists that course as training.
»www.cpirc.com/training.html
Oh, I concluded that Logan himself used to be a private investigator. This much we can come to, him having worked for King Reed and Associates years ago.

Think about persons and corporations or businesses as seperate things.

If an individual has a PI license, and owns a company which sells PI services, the individual would be working legally, but the company would not be, because the company is not registered or licensed as a PI as a business or an agency.

And Logan is might be the slimiest crooked investigator out there. Read his thoughts about interogation (by a private investigator at that!)
»www.cosmicscribbler.com/to%20cat···liar.htm
Read under Keep the Heat High and his quotes on his techniques. He's a slime ball if I ever saw one.

you cant work for a company then contract yourself again that sounds fishy in and of itself
maybe a fifth estate with wendy mesly at the helm might send the right message....

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

Here's food for thought.

Take it back 20 years technology.

A bunch of kids all record part of songs off the radio, and all take individual bits, all get together and their teacher helps them splice the tape together in their film studio class.

Who commited the crime? Each of the kids for providing a part of the song, or the teacher for helping them splice it all together?

no one we only had radio back then and cassete taping no one cared about and still dont

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by racer123:

Here's food for thought.

Take it back 20 years technology.

A bunch of kids all record part of songs off the radio, and all take individual bits, all get together and their teacher helps them splice the tape together in their film studio class.

Who commited the crime? Each of the kids for providing a part of the song, or the teacher for helping them splice it all together?

It's the argument that the NRA uses in the USA - guns don't kill, people do. Only in this case it's the people & the software.

I really don't have a big problem with copyright *owners* protecting their economic interests - I write software and I'm pretty protective of what I do too. But I'd never seek ridiculous damage amounts as Voltage is seeking - just the actual value of the lost sale and my costs in seeking restitution.

The technical "methodology" Canipre used is flawed and deserves to be trashed. The claim of 'commercial infringement' is so ludicrous that Voltage deserves to be laughed out of court, with costs awarded against them.

I disagree with TSI's log retention policy and hope that they see the light and reduce the amount of data and timeframe they hold on to them. That said, TSI did pretty much all they could in court given the hand they were dealt at the time.

I hope that come January 14th that TSI will strongly advocate for CIPPIC to be permitted to join the case, because it isn't a slam dunk that CIPPIC will be permitted to do so by the Court. TSI also had better be prepared to advance large parts of CIPPIC's case in the event that CIPPIC is denied the opportunity by the Court.

and with 2.4 billion people on the net
do you think you might make more money suing kids or putting your stuff up for a buck a movie....
and as a person that creates animated stuffs i can say i don't mind people file sharing my stuff , if feel an urge to gain some money and my stuff is good enough ill put a donate button someone and make it all known to people. i bet you'll do far better then sitting on your butt for 80 years trying to squeeze every darn dime out of anyone...

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to Ree

said by Ree:

said by Gone:

said by Ree:

Does it matter if they're making the entire material available for infringement? Honest question, I have no idea. I can't see why it would matter though, whether you share 1%, 50%, 99% or 100%, you're still sharing something you don't have the rights to share.

It does matter, because without the full material available the data is just a useless series of 1s and 0s that can't be used for anything. It would be like someone blaming you for infringing on the copyright of a book when all you have is a page of random letters.

There are different formats that can be viewed in partial pieces, but the vast majority of the stuff out there uses container formats which will not function without the full file. You are unable to prove that the infringing material was available for use - a requirement under the law - when all you do is grab a few paces of "random letters," if you will.

Yes, if they just grab a few pieces that proves nothing. But somebody mentioned that they will download the entire file (from hundreds if not thousands of seeds/peers) and watch it to confirm that it's an infringing work.

So if a given movie was made up of 1000 pieces, and each piece was downloaded from a different seed/peer, then now they know that 1000 people were making at least 1 piece of a copyrighted work available.

Which is where my question about percentages comes in. Each person only shared 1/1000th of the file. Does that suddenly make it OK?

doesnt matter its still non commerical file sharing in my opinion no one is also handing out bills with each piece last i checked....

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by funny:

doesnt matter its still non commerical file sharing in my opinion no one is also handing out bills with each piece last i checked....

Except that If a bill isn't at least 50% intact it's no longer considered valid currency. And add to that, it's not copyright infringement it's counterfeiting.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

...

We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.

The "layout" and procedural rules of our court system is different, so employing this kind of tactic would be impossible in Canada.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny:

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

The CBC also says windmills are bad for your health, it doesn't make it true. It's just their typical bad reporting.

Rest assured, so long as the tax on storage is in place there is no way they can make downloading illegal.

»yro.slashdot.org/story/07/11/11/···esharers

"The RCMP announced that it will stop targeting people who download copyrighted material for personal use (Google translation). ((Their priority will be to focus on organized crime and copyright theft that affects the health and safety of consumers, such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, instead of the cash flow of large corporations.)) Around the same time that the CRIA successfully took Demonoid offline, the RCMP made clear that Demonoid's users don't have to worry about getting prosecuted, at least not in Canada. 'Piracy for personal use is no longer targeted,' Noël St-Hilaire, head of copyright theft investigations of the RCMP, said in an interview. 'It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it.'"

you can also ready the darn wiki
it states right on it how the RCMP tolerate non commerical file sharing... that's up down sideways and any other thing you can dream up asl long as one does not PROFIT...

see the (()) thats darth vader speak ((-)) and they been saying that same thing since 2007 as noted on the slashdot link that has a link RIGHT TO THE RCMP STATEMENT

hope ye can speak french my dear compatriot

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny:

doesnt matter its still non commerical file sharing in my opinion no one is also handing out bills with each piece last i checked....

Except that If a bill isn't at least 50% intact it's no longer considered valid currency. And add to that, it's not copyright infringement it's counterfeiting.

what i meant was with each piece of a file they aren't handing you any money you got no money from it or gave any thus its NON COMMERICAL sorry does sound off the way i wrote that.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

The issue is that unless they obtain all 1000 blocks from you specifically and reassemble them into a working form, they have no way to verify that all 1000 blocks you made available in the swarm are actually a working version material they're claiming you infringed upon. Merely listing 1000 blocks available does not in itself constitute infringement as there's no way to verify the information was actually what you said it is. Without 1000 correct blocks of that infringed-upon material, you don't have a working copy of the file, and therefore aren't infringing on anything.

That's true, it's entirely possible someone may be sharing 1 good piece and 999 junk pieces. So at what point do they have enough pieces to say "ok court, we think they're infringing, we'd like their name so we can check out their PC to see if they had the complete infringing file or not".

Or can they only gain access to the PC as evidence after a lawsuit is actually filed (which as others have pointed out, isn't likely to happen since it won't be as profitable as scaring people into settling)?

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny:

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...

This is so wrong. It's 100% legal to download in Canada because a) we pay a tax on all storage to compensate authors for it b) the supreme court ruled that because we as users are unable to determine if the source we are downloading from is legitimate or not (could be a promotional copy, could be from a country without copyright laws, could be downloading from ourselves, etc) and as a result we can't be held liable.

The most significant change to copyright laws in Canada was the digital lock rules. They create a catch 22 and are likely unconstitutional but until they're challenged that'll be the big cloud over Canadian's heads.

if you download and put on a levid cdr yes , any other actions you do like share the file = non commercial infringement

nice how they word crap and do crap to people

DOWNLOAD to HD to cdr ONLY if you burn to dvdr your breaking law as hollywood whined about the levy and thus its not on dvdrs and hard drives.

if it was we would not have any reason to have a non commercial aspect in the law. YOU'D have a contractual license to do as you wished.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny:

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

The CBC also says windmills are bad for your health, it doesn't make it true. It's just their typical bad reporting.

Rest assured, so long as the tax on storage is in place there is no way they can make downloading illegal.

funny cause hte last two pcs i bought have dvdr burners along wiht the cdr burning ability
do you actually burn to levied cdrs, WHY? when you get 7 times the space on a dvdr. BUT doing so breeches said law right? proving it is hard if i have levied cdrs on hand...

funny

join:2010-12-22

said by funny:

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny:

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

The CBC also says windmills are bad for your health, it doesn't make it true. It's just their typical bad reporting.

Rest assured, so long as the tax on storage is in place there is no way they can make downloading illegal.

funny cause hte last two pcs i bought have dvdr burners along wiht the cdr burning ability
do you actually burn to levied cdrs, WHY? when you get 7 times the space on a dvdr. BUT doing so breeches said law right? proving it is hard if i have levied cdrs on hand...

one of the reasons major ones any of this activity i htink goe son is money savings....and im not talking abut a free movie im tlaking about putting them in sotarage for later viewing...think of the bulky vhs tapes, then 700 megabyte cdrs , then 4.7 followed by dual layer 9 gb dvdrs and then the blu ray 40 or is it 30 gb....

NEXT UP kiddies is h265 coming by end of next year and it can at same quality half the file sizes...

standard def movie for old school tv will be 95-100 megabytes 4 to a cdr or 48 per dvdr or ...now ask yourselves even at double that resolution they could be giving out a poor mans disk of "14 classic horror flicks at double SD" only 14.99 and make a killing ...but they dont were not using tech to make stuff affordable. THEY are using tech to control and rip everyone off to support them and there lazy ways.

with bittorrent distribution costs are now zero
so the addage that a muscian got a buck an album for top notch and that to pack make and ship then sell at a store cost X dollars is not required....bandwidth is sick cheap and we learned form bibbic at the very end of the throttling hearings that the 9.99 25 megabit IPTV they offered uses the internet if you recall. THAT is with all the markup and profit ....

people got smart somewhere and realized how badly were being gouged...voltage should smarten up and just drop the case cause you have the entire world lending a hand to screw your case up...you aint got that great a set a lawyers sorry ....

myself in the coming months im going to make animated videos and add in sounds form local friends and even finish my game...then ill let it out to everyone freely and put up a donate button....

if it goes well ill keep going if not i still will ....thats an artist not a money grubbing lawyer crazy nut ...

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

Said by Gone See Profile
This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.

More like threat of lawsuits as by now we're aware these are extortion attempts. And if Prenda Law is any indication it could get even stickier down the road, they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

Said by Techdirt
So we move on to the next trick, which is that Guava / Prenda then sued all of the same people in ten different federal district courts. Yes, they basically filed identical lawsuits in ten different courts, all asking for discovery on the same exact list of 34 IP addresses.
---
The attempt to sneak through discovery without even naming the IP addresses as defendants failed in Cook County, so just file repeat federal lawsuits everywhere they can think of, perhaps hoping / figuring that at least one of the judges would agree to discovery, leading to the identities associated with those 34 IP addresses being passed over.

The article goes on to list several types of "tricks" they're employing. Its something of a bother. We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.

i'd be careful in canada doing that , your lawyer might get disbarred and you countersued....
loads a case law to prevent that and you aren't allowed in canada to basically sue me for the same thing twice let alone ten times at same time....you'd still have to alert the isp whom then could let everyone know and a serious class action for fraud could start on ya making you spend tons a cash you dont have...that is the game of these , use little cash and be a maffia style blackmail artist.

also filing hte cheapest court in cnada requires 120$
so thats 1200 bucks and you arent even in court for that 5 grand yet and then get juries on you asked by the defendant and its not financially smart to even bother...its why a load a lawsuits dont happen unless its fair chunk a money cause the time and effort and money is better spent.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.


funny

join:2010-12-22

2 edits

said by JMJimmy:

Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.

on this type a suit in canada COULD have a mass lawsuit BUT Must apply to make it so....and thats up to the judge and i cold find no such case law or examples of copyright joinder for mass lawsuits like this cause no one has tried i suppose?....so
its not the usa

ontario quebec and bc have the most types a class actions and this is not listed ....enjoy....

that's if it were small clams ---120 just to file and if judge awards you and your lawyers costing you per day about 3 grand
you show up and ill ask you what if all 2300 want to be hear din court , law states they have the right
2300 half days
1150 days ?
at 3240 per day to get 100-5000 back that's awful risky business on non commerical and when this was files as commercial and it isn't and cant be proven....the joinder issue is moot.

btw its the provincial courts that do class action lawsuits perhaps someone needs to teach a lawyer WHERE TO FILE.They have filed for federal courts.One might argue that by doing so they cant mass sue people.BUT then they might at least be heard about there commerical aims bit which should still fail .

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Canada

OH BUT in may we had a decision that raises the bar on cases of class action and if you look down a bit to this section you will see the following which may apply to this type a case

The claim failed to specify which of the four corporate defendants had committed which impugned acts. Instead it improperly conflated them all as one entity, such that no defendant had sufficient information to know the acts alleged against it.

- does the ip address specifiy for sure it was a specific person?

THEY also to get class action status according to this ruling need to show evidence that these ips did the same thing....

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that "two or more" persons asserted the common claim. The Court cited an absence of evidence that others who had taken the drug were interested in pursuit of the claim. In any case, the class was defined too broadly in that it was not limited to any time period.

my example here would be if IP A downloaded 20% of file 1 , that is nto same as IP B downloading 30% of file 3 and so on...

also all i see is provinces that allow for class actions NOT federal courts...they filed in federal court for this information on mass to sue on mass .....i see no federal judge ever certifying them....and whatever province does do it usually would then make them all in one place....that might also fall under cruel and unusal punishment charter violation to do if a disabled ontario person cant afford to travel to defend themselves ....and thus is penalized more harshly then otherwise would happen..if at all saying they might even be innocent.


DSF2

@teksavvy.com

Just curious for those affected, did voltage target a specific torrent site/tracker ?


funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.

i bet the rules on that would also allow all 2300 and there lawyers to have a say as most class action lawsuits have taken years i doubt that once that happens and everyone poor gets legal aid
voltage will drop it cause htey know it will drag on for a long time.

personally you have a right to hear the charges against you...
in most class actions that are the other way around the mass of people get ONE lawyer and speak for them against ONE defendant usually some big evil mean corporation.... imagine if tomorrow there was a class action versus 2300 corporations they stuff there lawyers into court and make it take 50 years....you get the hint mister voltage....

people need get tactical and go HEY YEA if they want a mass lawsuit then lets all gets lawyers and show up NOT ONE for all, but each get one lawyer ergo 2300 lawyers and make this last ten years and cost voltage millions in court fees and the legal aid system millions of tax payers dollars and i'll bet the law gets changed right darn fast cause tax payers dont want to be screwed Voltage woud go bankrupt....JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO SCO UNIX.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to DSF2

said by DSF2 :

Just curious for those affected, did voltage target a specific torrent site/tracker ?

no evidence of voltages has been presented other then a list of ips they claim with a 3rd party to have gathered....


TableTurner

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread, but:

I tried doing some searches on Quebec's Bureau de la Sécurité privée for Canipre or its listed workers without any luck.

" In Québec, you are obliged to have an Agent Licence to exercise private security activities, which means :

to be a private security agent; or
to be the immediate supervisor of one or more private security agents.

You can obtain a licence in one or several of the following 6 security activities :

Guarding
Transport of Valuables
Investigation
Electronic Security Systems
Locksmith work
Security Consulting Services
"

As for Ontario:

"The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services regulates Ontario’s private security industry.

This includes licensing all security guards, private investigators and agencies and registering businesses that directly employ in-house security staff."

If Canipre is on Ontario's registry, I can't find it. I'm not sure how much this matters since they appear to be based in Quebec, but their whois data suggests otherwise, the lawsuit was filed in Ontario, Tek is in Ontario, and you may be in Ontario too.

»www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/···nts.html to submit your no-cost-complaint in Ontario.

For Ontario: "Complaints about individuals or agencies not licensed by the ministry may also be reviewed."