dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
75898
share rss forum feed

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny0:

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.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

said by funny0:

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...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
said by funny0:

said by JMJimmy:

said by funny0:

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 ...

funny0

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.

funny0

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 ?

funny0

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.

funny0

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."

qewey

join:2007-10-04
reply to TSI Marc
»Piracy Continues Inside DOJ, Homeland Security

would be nice to get some of Voltage or Canipre trolls caught with some dirt on them.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to TSI Marc
So CIPPIC officially filed a motion to intervene in the case back on the 21st (along with multiple other documents), served them on Voltage, and emailed them to Teksavvy.

Judge will have to rule whether they can intervene or not (which'll probably be the reason for the submitted documents), and will probably happen at the next court date on the 14th.

This is the docket:
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2058-12

Curious though that there's no links to the documents and such filed, so they're scattered all over the place on CIPPIC & TSI's websites.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
CIPPIC's motion to intervene:
»cippic.ca/uploads/Voltage-Intervene.pdf

Their main arguments will be made in court Tamir is saying.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
reply to TableTurner
@TableTurner I've already done that leg work.

No, Canipre is not a Quebec company - their website, contact information etc are all false, in an effort to hide their identities from the general public. Canipre is a Stratford Ontario base company, operating likely from the directors house.

Canipre is not a licensed or registered Private Investigation business in Ontario, I have confirmed this verbally with a call to the Ministry. Unknown if director Logan is a registered individual, need his date of birth to confirm.

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
reply to qewey
qweloo Yes, it does exist. Logan, Director of Canipre and signor of the affidavit plays in a band which has played copyrighted music for commercial purposes in public and has published it with intent to profit. I think the term is when a band cover's another band's works without permission?


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to racer123
said by racer123:

No, Canipre is not a Quebec company - their website, contact information etc are all false, in an effort to hide their identities from the general public. Canipre is a Stratford Ontario base company, operating likely from the directors house.

This is true.
But I documents I saw places the owner of Canipre in Ottawa.

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
The sworn affidavit says otherwise.

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON

1 edit
said by racer123:

The sworn affidavit says otherwise.

Any chance you could post a link to that affidavit? I'd like to see how Mr. Logan presented himself, because I've done some research and there is no such company as Canipre Inc.
The only record I found in Ontario is of an unincorporated business, a sole proprietorship registered by the name "Canipre" in November/2007 and based in New Hamburg, Ontario (which is near Waterloo). I searched Quebec's enterprise registry and also found no record of Canipre Inc. I searched Industry Canada's database and there is no Canipre Inc.

Oddly enough the WhoIs record for www.canipre.com says that the domain was registered by Canipre Inc. with an address in Waterloo. See below:

Registrant

Canipre inc.
bethel rd
waterloo, Ontario n3v4l7
Canada

Administrative Contact

admin, web
Canipre inc.
bethel rd
waterloo, Ontario n3v4l7
Canada
Telephone: +1.51946526xx
Fax: +1.51946526xx
Email:

There's a couple of problems if this indeed is a sole proprietorship. One, the sole proprietor does not enjoy the limited liability offered by a corporation: him and the business are one and the same, and his personal assets are on the line to satisfy any claims against the business. Two, using a name that is different from that registered is in contravention of the Business Names Act (Ontario). Adding "Inc." at the end of the name contravenes the Act because it is both different from the name registered and also misleading, in that it purports the business to be something it is not (a corporation). Now, maybe "Canipre Inc." is formed in a foreign (non-Canadian) jurisdiction, but in that case they are contravening other Ontario laws by operating here without being registered. Finally, the WhoIs record needs to be corrected, as ICANN requires that all information provided be valid, and if there is no such corporation as Canipre Inc., the record is...well...registered to a ghost company.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Unless you paid the few bucks to do a business name search with the MGS, you probably would have no way of knowing if they were a numbered corporation operating under a trade name.

They would be violating the Business Names Act if they were numbered but operating under a trade name, but the penalties for doing that are ziltch. Still, wholly unprofessional to do it regardless.

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON
I checked and they are not a # company operating under a business name, unless they registered in the last 2 weeks. The Ministry of Government Services is pretty bad about enforcing the Business Names Act, but it's not like it is completely toothless. First, you need to bring yourself into compliance and ask for leave of the court before you are allowed to maintain a proceeding in an Ontario court (they're not the ones doing the suing, but might as well share this with the public):

Ability to sue

7. (1) A person carrying on business in contravention of subsection 2 (1), (2) or (3) or subsection 4 (4) or (6) is not capable of maintaining a proceeding in a court in Ontario in connection with that business except with leave of the court. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17, s. 7 (1).



From the Regulations, you can't use the words Limited, Inc. etc. in a business name registration (again, the majority of the public is ignorant of this):

Prohibited Usage

7. A name shown in a registration must not use a word or expression that would suggest that the registrant is a form of organization that the registrant is not. O. Reg. 122/91, s. 7.

As for penalties, they are small, but are not zilch, basically $2,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation:

Offence

10. (1) Every person who, without reasonable cause, contravenes section 2 or 2.1 or subsection 4 (4) or (6) or submits a statement in an application for a registration under this Act that is false or misleading with respect to any material fact is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or, if the person is a corporation, to a fine of not more than $25,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17, s. 10 (1); 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 37.

Idem

(2) If a corporation is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), every director or officer of the corporation and every person acting as its representative in Ontario who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in such an offence is also guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.17, s. 10 (2).


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
All of those are related to the actual registration. Operating under something different is an entirely different set of rules. There are all sorts of rules related to having legal names on cheques and contracts and all sorts of stuff like that which many businesses are rarely ever in compliance with. The enforcement, and even the penalties, are next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

If you're going to try to go down this route, you will find the results outright uninspiring and not at all worth anyone's time.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
Teksavvy Appears to Have Failed to Address Privacy Responsibilities In Today’s Hearing:

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···hearing/

While watching 3 twitter feeds today it appeared as though Teksavvy did directly challenge some of Voltages evidence, or signaled it’s intention to do so. I even tweeted with respect to that. Todays media reports paint a completely different picture. While I was not in the court room, it seems the calls that Teksavvy has come out from hiding behind rocks and sticking up for customers may be a bit premature. I don’t think in today’s hearing they have completely satisfied their responsibility in that regard. The CIPPIC has been granted intervention status, but that should not absolve Teksavvy’s legal responsibilities to its customers under privacy law, and in order for anything that’s done by the CIPPIC moving forward to stick in other cases, Teksavvy must get involved in directly challenging the evidence. If a precedent is set by the CIPPIC, and ISPs are still hiding under rocks, it’s not going to be used going forward. I’ll explain in my forthcoming comments.

I’m going to be taking a few days off on blogging on this to watch, read and learn. I’ve sparked off a national debate on the subject, and would ask all consumers interested to keep informed and up to date. There’s a lot to digest including some very important points for the future of digital policy going forward.

I’m also currently editing my podcast due up on Wednesday on a completely different and fun topic, last weeks Consumer Electronic Show. Once that’s done I’ll have some time to write a bit more on this, and by then I’ll have a clearer picture on what transpired in the court room today.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

said by jkoblovsky:

I've sparked off a national debate on the subject ......

Wow!! One guy did ALL that?? Whodda thunk it.
You know that without your personal plea I'm certain that we all would have let this matter drop from our collective minds as being merely inconsequential.

Will you be going on a personal appearance & book signing tour any time soon?
Please let us all know - we're waiting with bated breath.
Expand your moderator at work

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to jkoblovsky

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

said by jkoblovsky:

While I was not in the court room, it seems the calls that Teksavvy has come out from hiding behind rocks and sticking up for customers may be a bit premature. I don’t think in today’s hearing they have completely satisfied their responsibility in that regard.

I wasn't in the court room either but since Marc has stated that he made a deal not to oppose Voltage Picture's motion it's clear that Teksavvy's position won't change.

Teksavvy must get involved in directly challenging the evidence.

I agree. In my opinion, an ISP's challenge holds more weight than a third party's challenge. The problem seems to be that Marc believes that the new copyright laws prevent an ISP from doing this, but as Howard Knopf has pointed out in his blog, this is not true. There is nothing in the new copyright laws that states an ISP can't challenge these types of motions.

If there is a next time, hopefully Teksavvy will oppose these trolls.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile
Wow!! One guy did ALL that?? Whodda thunk it.
You know that without your personal plea I'm certain that we all would have let this matter drop from our collective minds as being merely inconsequential.

Will you be going on a personal appearance & book signing tour any time soon?
Please let us all know - we're waiting with bated breath.

If I was interested in that that would have been done a some time ago. This is a debate within academics mostly right now, and not very well publicized in media. I wouldn't be able to argue at the academic level anyway. I'm too dumb
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by jkoblovsky:

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile
Wow!! One guy did ALL that?? Whodda thunk it.
You know that without your personal plea I'm certain that we all would have let this matter drop from our collective minds as being merely inconsequential.

Will you be going on a personal appearance & book signing tour any time soon?
Please let us all know - we're waiting with bated breath.

If I was interested in that that would have been done a some time ago. This is a debate within academics mostly right now, and not very well publicized in media. I wouldn't be able to argue at the academic level anyway. I'm too dumb

Actually it's beyond academic - it's a real world legal issue with real consequences for thousands of people now, and probably with respect to how Canada is perceived by our US masters on the copyright infringement front.

Don't believe for an instant that the issue will permanently go away if the Court rules that IP address !== a person. Soon enough IPV6 will both crucify or set people free copyright-wise - depending on how ISP's allocate addresses, and several other factors.

Academics are mostly interested in this case because eventually they're going to have to teach the outcome to their students.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile
Actually it's beyond academic - it's a real world legal issue with real consequences for thousands of people now, and probably with respect to how Canada is perceived by our US masters on the copyright infringement front.

Don't believe for an instant that the issue will permanently go away if the Court rules that IP address !== a person. Soon enough IPV6 will both crucify or set people free copyright-wise - depending on how ISP's allocate addresses, and several other factors.

I agree, and to a large extent information is needed for those thousands of people to help educate them on the issues. The questions I'm asking when I comment seem to be answered by the academic community. It's all about getting useful information out to those effected. You have to keep in mind though, that everyone has their own sometimes strong opinions on the matter.

The group here that seems to be commenting seem to be very good and civil people. I hope that the debate remains that way, and consumers get a lot of useful information going forward.

»openmedia.ca/blog/update-voltage···-crusade

--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

ezebob2

join:2008-06-06
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TSI Marc
Have any of you heard the saying
"Like lamb to slaughter"
You are witnessing it right now, Voltage, their troll lawyers, Canipre, and their principle owners have been and continue to be led down the garden path. We now have sworn statements in court that can be used against them. Their little get rich quick scheme has already bankrupted several former partners, including lawyers representing them, and others who represented themselves as "experts" in forensics for internet downloading. These poor bastards have a long and dirty tract record worldwide. They have been found guilty in at least two countries, are in multiple legal cases in the US as DEFENDANTS.

Lets give them just a little more rope to properly hang themselves.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

2 recommendations

David Ellis posted his thoughts, and a really great play by play of everything that happend in court yesterday.

If you want to read his thoughts, read the entire thing. If you just want to read the summary, scroll down to "What happened in the courtroom today".

»www.davidellis.ca/teksavvy-custo···t-today/
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP