 hm
@videotron.ca
3 edits | Voltage-Hurt Locker Lawsuit Round 2 Against Teksavvy Users First some background info on Voltage and the Hurt Locker lawsuits in Canada:
» Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
Another lawsuit (diff producer and movie) against Canadians a few weeks ago that involved Distributel:
»New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil"?
It should be noted that it appears Distributel did not notify their customers (*it appears*) so that their customers can seek legal advice to quash a court order for their private information which subjects them to the extortion letters and an extended "retention file" held by their ISP.
New now is Teksavvy is getting bombarded with "significant" legal requests for their customers info for copyright infringement as seen here:
»Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Figured this should be posted here since some people don't look at other forums and it's significant of things to come.
Personally, if I received one of Teksavvy's warning I would be seeking legal advice with CIPPIC, The Quebec Consumers Union, or a lawyer.
On another note, TSI deserves a big thumbs up for informing their customers *first* so their customers have the option of seeking legal advice to quash, or other. It's up to the individual to fight and this option is on the table for them thanks to Teksavvy taking a stance that should be the default across the board for all ISP's.
This makes TSI stand out IMO.
If you received any notifications from your ISP, or Voltage, or other, please post your letter or Email here. YOu can create a diff user account on DSLr to hide your identity, or you can post anonymously via sites like »anonymouse.org/anonwww.html or »hidemyass.com/ or similar.
If you contacted CIPPIC or the Quebec Consumers Union (and yes Ontario people can contact the Quebec Consumers Union), and if it's ok with them/you to speak, please do so and let us know what they had to say (though sometimes it isn't wise to speak, but it's unlikely these are going to court anyhow).
If anyone has court doc's, please upload them.
If you are with a different ISP and did or didn't receive prior notice before your info was released to Voltage (or another company) please let us know the details and which ISP you are using. |
|
| Mod,
dunno if you can fix the title. I wrote "Votlage". Should be "Voltage".
If someone does a search, google or other, for info it may not show up..
:/
my bad. Doh. |
|
 statestress magnetPremium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Purgatory
kudos:6 | Of course I can.  |
|
ty
@videotron.ca | TY! |
|
 Dones
join:2008-02-14
Toronto, ON | reply to hm
Shit's getting real. I think I'm just going to buy a Tomato compatible router and use a VPN for the whole house. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
I made another typo. The Teksavvy link is here:
»Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
lack of coffee i guess |
|
|
|
statestress magnetPremium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Purgatory
kudos:6 | you know, with an account, there are edit buttons. just sayin' |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
The damages they are asking for is higher then the maximum allowable under the new law, strange...
Also they do not mention a single work downloaded by each person, but a list, this is very imprecise. Not sure this would stand in court, but we all know the idea is not to go to court, but extorsion... |
|
| reply to state
said by state:you know, with an account, there are edit buttons. just sayin'
 ah the small fine print...
Thanks again. |
|
| reply to Cyborg994
Voltage is hoping that most of their targets aren't aware of the new copyright law which caps damages at $5000 for all copyrighted files. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Cyborg994
said by Cyborg994:The damages they are asking for is higher then the maximum allowable under the new law, strange...
Sued for more due to: "making available".
Not sure if this would be the same as being labeled an "enabler" or "enabling" in the new copyright system.
I do believe "enabling" makes you liable for higher damages.
"enabling" = making available. Like allowing upload, or allowing others to leech off of you.
But to my understanding this "enabling" clause was for something else. Like if you ran some commercial website with links to warez. Or a distro ftp, or even a site like isohunt.
This takes the basic functions of an app and brings it to a whole new level of liability here.
Geist warned of this a couple of years ago under the old system. But is it the same under the new system? I thought it wasn't.
I believe being labeled an "enabler" opens the doors to $20K liability. Not $5K for simple downloading. I would have to reread all that to be sure, and to clarify what the legal diff's are between being labeled "making available" and being labeled an "enabler". If there is a diff. Dunno really. That is one for Geist. Doubt I will find an answer.
So that's is my simple understanding of it.
But I guess this will be argued in court by lawyers. At least I hope. |
|
 xsbell
join:2008-12-22
Canada
kudos:1
 ·Primus Telecommu..
| said by hm :I believe being labeled an "enabler" opens the doors to $20K liability. Not $5K for simple downloading. I would have to reread all that to be sure, and to clarify what the legal diff's are between being labeled "making available" and being labeled an "enabler". If there is a diff. Dunno really. That is one for Geist. Doubt I will find an answer.
No. The difference is, one is for commercial infringement ($20K max), the other for non-commercial. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by xsbell:No. The difference is, one is for commercial infringement ($20K max), the other for non-commercial.
Yeah that's my understanding of it as well. But I'm unsure about the "enabling" clause:
»balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site···l#record
Why has the Government introduced a provision targeting "enablers" of copyright infringement, and how will it affect ISPs and Internet search engines?
The Bill introduces a new civil remedy for copyright owners against those who knowingly enable infringement of copyright. This new remedy supplements existing criminal powers to deal with pirate sites with new stronger tools for copyright owners that make liability for enabling of infringement clear.
Search engines and ISPs will be unaffected by this provision, to the extent that they act as true intermediaries.
and
Canada is also among the first jurisdictions in the world, if not the very first, to provide in its copyright legislation a new civil liability explicitly targeting those who wilfully and knowingly enable online piracy.
This seems to be different than just the consumer downloading and the 5000$ cap.
This is what i'm saying I don't know about, and if this is why they are seeking damages in excess of $5,000.
I'm under (or was under) the impression that this was limited to sites type thing. Not consumer p2p. Also this enabling clause doesn't specify that is has to be "commercial" in nature. At least, not that I can tell off the bat.
I'm just trying to find reason (grasping at straws) of how/why this is exceeding the $5,000 cap that the gov is stating on their website (link above).
Gov is saying one thing, court filing is saying another. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
Something else that also bothers me that I'd like to know an answer to.
In TSI's blog they stated they found errors and so forth that require correction/clarification with voltage.
Also given the sheer size of this, 2000+ IP's, what if many of these are in error? What if the American Hollywood extortion machine just doesn't care that some are in error? Shouldn't the one coming under these extortion attacks also have a legal remedy to go after voltage for costs incurred should voltage fail in this extortion scam? Seems very one sided, but this lopsidedness is what the Harper gov has allowed on request of american lobbyists and copyright trolls. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to xsbell
Just started reading the voltage doc's.
Yeah they are claiming these 2000+ IP's are "enablers" as I thought. "Distributing and aiding in theft".
They are also claiming these people profited off of them (ie. commercial theft).
I only read a few pages so far but voltage is going for broke and tossing every single thing possible in this.
Only conclusion I can come up with is someone is paying/funding their lawyers (read: MPAA and the American copyright trolls/extortionists/lobbyists) to put max strain on the court and the likes of cippic type people, max fear into people, and to test the new laws on what will stick and what won't in order to pave the way for the American extortionists to roll in and work with what the courts will give them, or allow them.
Anyone have the scoop on this Toronto btzlaw.ca law firm acting on their behalf?
Seems the data was again gather by Canipre.
The whole thing reads like a wild test and fishing expedition. Anyone else draw the same conclusion?
By stating all the above in the court documents (ie how all these people profited and are commercial infringers etc), what this extortion company is doing is trying to scare people into paying the fee in their extortion demand letter.
The fear of:
Over 15,000$ in court, as filed.
Or
Pay our extortion demand of say, $3,500 or whatever.
Man what a racket. This company should be sued by the people. There should be a class action against voltage and this Canipre "extortion enabler" as well as the law firm btz.
Oh man I would love for someone to sue these people for extortion. |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by hm :Just started reading the voltage doc's.
Yeah they are claiming these 2000+ IP's are "enablers" as I thought. "Distributing and aiding in theft".
They are also claiming these people profited off of them (ie. commercial theft).
I only read a few pages so far but voltage is going for broke and tossing every single thing possible in this.
Only conclusion I can come up with is someone is paying/funding their lawyers (read: MPAA and the American copyright trolls/extortionists/lobbyists) to put max strain on the court and the likes of cippic type people, max fear into people, and to test the new laws on what will stick and what won't in order to pave the way for the American extortionists to roll in and work with what the courts will give them, or allow them.
Anyone have the scoop on this Toronto btzlaw.ca law firm acting on their behalf?
Seems the data was again gather by Canipre.
The whole thing reads like a wild test and fishing expedition. Anyone else draw the same conclusion?
By stating all the above in the court documents (ie how all these people profited and are commercial infringers etc), what this extortion company is doing is trying to scare people into paying the fee in their extortion demand letter.
The fear of:
Over 15,000$ in court, as filed.
Or
Pay our extortion demand of say, $3,500 or whatever.
Man what a racket. This company should be sued by the people. There should be a class action against voltage and this Canipre "extortion enabler" as well as the law firm btz.
Oh man I would love for someone to sue these people for extortion.
I agree. This is untested in Canadian courts. I wouldn't be surprised if some of our hot shot lawyers jump forward with pro bono opportunities to challenge this. In any case this has the possibility of significant impact to the court system if people decide to challenge it. I can't see this going on for too long without sanity returning. Judges and Attorney's General will soon get tired of seeing these pop up and bogging things down.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility. |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to hm
It would be interesting to see what evidence they have to substantiate "commercial theft"? The vast majority of downloaders are only using the downloads for personal entertainment.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility. |
|
| reply to hm
Seriously, why would anyone download the sort of garbage these people produce..Hurt Locker, US govt backed propaganda crap. |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by hagbard72:Seriously, why would anyone download the sort of garbage these people produce..Hurt Locker, US govt backed propaganda crap.
I would imagine most people were probably expecting a decent movie and didn't find out until they watched it that it was really sh!t and drivel.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility. |
|
 c2rothPremium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
That list of movies they produced is pure garbage. I didn't see one good film in the bunch. I actually had to imdb most of them because I have never heard of them 
This sounds like abuse of our new laws.
1) Make crappy film
2) Put crappy film onto Torrent sites
3) Track everyone who downloads and seeds the torrent
4) Go to court and sue
5) Extort money from the plaintiff outside of the court
6) Make Bank
7) Make more Bank
8) Get rich off the system off of some poor smucks who downloaded some C list movie |
|
