O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

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.

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

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.

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........

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.

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"?

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.

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

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

---

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?

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

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 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.