dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30782
share rss forum feed

Teksanta

join:2012-12-17
reply to funny0

Re: Voltage-Hurt Locker Lawsuit Round 2 Against Teksavvy Users

non commercial file share

can that be used as a defence? like at least im not selling , its for personal use.



hm

@videotron.ca

TekSanta,
I would ask that to a lawyer. Not the people here. Maybe call cippic and ask.


funny0

join:2010-12-22

1 recommendation

reply to Teksanta

said by Teksanta:

non commercial file share

can that be used as a defense? like at least im not selling , its for personal use.

you don't admit to non commercially filesharing YOU say that the ip address alone cannot prove commercial filesharing and thus giving peoples names and addresses wont make any difference.

unless they have video evidence of you at some street corner sellign dvdrs then it should not fly as commercial.
the action should then be tossed , let em refile for the max 5 grand for all infringements based on non commercial and that means all they can get max wise is 5 grand with judges having already been told that undue hardship is part of this and that for one movie you really should only get 100$ ....thats not gonna be worth suing you for...
unless i don't pay for lawyers myself and sue you as an example PLUS under 7000$ you can get legal aid.

remember im not saying anyone is or isnt guilty im looking at a fact of knowing how bittorrent works ( i actually designed a file sharing protocol 6 months before bittorrent and the reason you got rsa encryption is i threatened to make a client with encryption and made a sourceforge.net project and showed what iw as gonna do. )

so the movement of data doesn't require money ONLY money really invlve dis you paying your electricity bill, as well as the person sharing and having hardware ...
so your not profiting ....RCMP will tell you make one buck off anything and they will come for you....in fact they do and every so often you hear of raids on shop owners selling counterfeit dvdrs or some flea market....
THATS WHO they want to go after with this law...
that is what conservatives said anyhow....


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to Teksanta

>non commercial file share

That sounds like "I am guilty, but..." plea in court that might get you to the $100 - $5000 (cap) instead of the $10k these sneeze balls are asking for.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by random :

>non commercial file share

That sounds like "I am guilty, but..." plea in court that might get you to the $100 - $5000 (cap) instead of the $10k these sneeze balls are asking for.

It's people like you that will screw this up for everyone! Why admit to anything? All they have is an IP address, they still have to prove that it was you that did the downloading. Live with anyone else? Ever had visitors in and they used your wifi? If they want to come after you, make them try and prove that it was you, yourself that committed the infringement.

I'll tell you how it will turn out, the case will get tossed cause they can't meet their burden of proof.


random

@teksavvy.com

You do realize that you are referring specifically to "Teksanta" when you said "It's people like you that will screw this up for everyone!" not me.



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

said by rednekcowboy:

I'll tell you how it will turn out, the case will get tossed cause they can't meet their burden of proof.

It won't even get that far. They'll drop the case themselves after they've managed to make a handsome profit on the extortion letters that they'll send out shortly after they get the names...

... and it may not even get that far if the judge adjourned the case despite Voltage's objections. This entire request may be denied. We'll have to wait and see.

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

Actually, I just looked at C-11...

quote:
Infringements not involved in proceedings

(1.12) If the copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) with respect to a defendant’s infringements that are for non-commercial purposes, they are barred from recovering statutory damages under this section from that defendant with respect to any other of the defendant’s infringements that were done for non-commercial purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.

No other statutory damages

(1.2) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) with respect to a defendant’s infringements that are for non-commercial purposes, every other copyright owner is barred from electing to recover statutory damages under this section in respect of that defendant for any of the defendant’s infringements that were done for non-commercial purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.
Essentially, if Voltage sues someone for non-commercial, they can't sue for statutory dmgs.. And, if there was another infringement before Voltage files, the other copytroll can't sue for it either.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by rednekcowboy:

I'll tell you how it will turn out, the case will get tossed cause they can't meet their burden of proof.

It won't even get that far. They'll drop the case themselves after they've managed to make a handsome profit on the extortion letters that they'll send out shortly after they get the names...

... and it may not even get that far if the judge adjourned the case despite Voltage's objections. This entire request may be denied. We'll have to wait and see.

Exactly the point I was trying to make though. Who, in their right mind, would get the letter and say "OK ya got me, here's $5000?" I know I would tell them to go pound sand and I'll see ya in court......I would think anyone with half a brain should do this.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by rednekcowboy:

[
Exactly the point I was trying to make though. Who, in their right mind, would get the letter and say "OK ya got me, here's $5000?" I know I would tell them to go pound sand and I'll see ya in court......I would think anyone with half a brain should do this.

Except "Teksanta" (ie Teksavvy-Santa) who posted here for the first time yesterday spamming that Troll/shill/socket-puppet website owned by the people suing you (and is a reg'd PI running it apparently). His links were apparently moderated.

Don't fall for people leading you.

It's not often I dawn my tinfoil hat, but... tis very strange for someone w/ half a brain to be doing these things. Asking if one should settle for plain infringement instead of commercial infringement and linking to the PI website.

Someone is playing. Either for fun, or for other. I suggest the person be ignored. And that's my 2 cents. He can ask his question to a lawyer and let it be part of his free 30-minute consultation.


onetwothree

@rogers.com
reply to resa1983

so if i sue you for a dollar, that means they cant sue you?


Stan3

join:2012-12-18
reply to funny0

said by funny0:

you don't admit to non commercially filesharing YOU say that the ip address alone cannot prove commercial filesharing and thus giving peoples names and addresses wont make any difference.

But what if I did do it? Wouldn't it be better to just throw myself on the court's mercy and hope for a $100 fine than to fight? Can't I be charged with perjury if I lie and say I did nothing and it's later proven that I actually did do it, like if they demand to see my computer?

Baraka

join:2012-12-11
Toronto, ON

It's perjury if a party lies and that lie is later proven as such. It's "spoliation" if a party tries to destroy evidence and that is later proven as such. This includes erasing incriminating files which could prove the party's guilt.

Remember, in civil proceedings the courts don't go by the standard of reasonable doubt. They go by the standard of the balance of the probabilities, which essentially means a greater than 50% chance that the defendant wronged the plaintiff. If the plaintiff can show that the defendant did anything to lie or destroy evidence, then they can request even greater damages. Plus, it'll really anger the judge who will be gunning for whoever made a mockery of his courtroom.

See Rambus v. Micron in the case which Rambus lost based on spoliation. The judge in that case was absolutely furious and his judgement pretty much ruined Rambus, which had something like that coming for more than a decade.

*I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

said by Stan3:

said by funny0:

you don't admit to non commercially filesharing YOU say that the ip address alone cannot prove commercial filesharing and thus giving peoples names and addresses wont make any difference.

But what if I did do it? Wouldn't it be better to just throw myself on the court's mercy and hope for a $100 fine than to fight? Can't I be charged with perjury if I lie and say I did nothing and it's later proven that I actually did do it, like if they demand to see my computer?



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Stan3

said by Stan3:

Can't I be charged with perjury if I lie and say I did nothing and it's later proven that I actually did do it, like if they demand to see my computer?

Well that's the thing.

They are claiming the account holder (ie. the ISP's accounts receivable) is the one who did it.

Who knows who did it.

If the account holder didn't, maybe, just maybe one of the kids did, maybe the significant other, maybe a friend of the kids, maybe a nephew when he came over to visit, or your sister or brother. Who the hell knows.

Do you know?

What if *your* computer showed no voltage picture? Will they go after your kids computer next? Your sisters? your nephews? the significant others? your lovers? your nephews?

Where does it end?


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to Baraka

said by Baraka:

It's perjury if a party lies and that lie is later proven as such. It's "spoliation" if a party tries to destroy evidence and that is later proven as such. This includes erasing incriminating files which could prove the party's guilt.

Remember, in civil proceedings the courts don't go by the standard of reasonable doubt. They go by the standard of the balance of the probabilities, which essentially means a greater than 50% chance that the defendant wronged the plaintiff. If the plaintiff can show that the defendant did anything to lie or destroy evidence, then they can request even greater damages. Plus, it'll really anger the judge who will be gunning for whoever made a mockery of his courtroom.

See Rambus v. Micron in the case which Rambus lost based on spoliation. The judge in that case was absolutely furious and his judgement pretty much ruined Rambus, which had something like that coming for more than a decade.

*I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

said by Stan3:

said by funny0:

you don't admit to non commercially filesharing YOU say that the ip address alone cannot prove commercial filesharing and thus giving peoples names and addresses wont make any difference.

But what if I did do it? Wouldn't it be better to just throw myself on the court's mercy and hope for a $100 fine than to fight? Can't I be charged with perjury if I lie and say I did nothing and it's later proven that I actually did do it, like if they demand to see my computer?

No one has to perjure themselves, simply ask the plantiff to prove that it was you, yourself that committed the infringing act. As you say, the balance of probabilities. I live in a house with 4 other people, but the account is in my name. There is nothing saying, by even a "more likely than not" burden of proof, that I had anything to do with it.

As far as destroying evidence, before it even gets to that point, the plantiff has to show that it was more likely me. They cannot simply just point the finger at someone and confiscate their PC and even if they could, with my above example, everyone in the house has access to said PC and all login with the same account. There is no way to know who did what on that machine.

A little common sense goes a long way.

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

said by onetwothree :

so if i sue you for a dollar, that means they cant sue you?

Essentially it looks like this:
If they file commercial, they can elect to just take Statutory damages (5000-2000) after proving the infringement, so they don't need to prove how much they've lost from your actions.

They could also file for commercial (or non-commercial, doesn't matter), but later elect to take non-commercial Statutory damages (100-5000) instead. However, if they do this, all infringements prior to the company filing, whether additional infringements with this company or another company, HAVE TO PROVE DAMAGES AND CANNOT ELECT TO TAKE STATUTORY DAMAGES AGAINST YOU.

Now, the main problem with that is, it's verrrrry difficult for a company to prove how much they're out due to your actions. There are music sharing cases in the US which are ongoing for 5+ years due to appeals galore and damages getting halved, and reinstated, and dropped, and reinstated, etc.

But anyways, its all moot cuz Voltage would have to actually file suit against you, which they won't do cuz they don't want to initiate suits, but want the subscriber info for the much cheaper settlement offers.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


mike1

@concordia.ca

Canipre is collecting IP by sharing files and then is selling them to studios? Is this activity considered file sharing for commercial purposes and is illegal? If this is the case can an illegal activity be used to sue peoples?

May I open a similar company and download/upload files, collect IP but because my prices are to high I will have no clients? Maybe this is the perfect camouflage to avoid the copyright law.


cog_biz_user
i ruin threads apparently

join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

But anyways, its all moot cuz Voltage would have to actually file suit against you, which they won't do cuz they don't want to initiate suits, but want the subscriber info for the much cheaper settlement offers.

Would it be considered extortion if they mailed letters to the supposed filesharers asking for more than $5k? Sortof like a "pay us $15k now, or we'll see you in court" kind of thing? I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.
--
Myth: It's only fair to pay for quality first-run movies.
Fact: Most movies shown on cable get two stars or less
and are repeated ad nauseum.

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

said by cog_biz_user:

said by resa1983:

But anyways, its all moot cuz Voltage would have to actually file suit against you, which they won't do cuz they don't want to initiate suits, but want the subscriber info for the much cheaper settlement offers.

Would it be considered extortion if they mailed letters to the supposed filesharers asking for more than $5k? Sortof like a "pay us $15k now, or we'll see you in court" kind of thing? I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.

The amounts have always been under 5k in the US... Less than it costs to actually go through a trial, and much less than a default judgement against you. But some judges in the US are wising up, and denying the orders to convert the IPs to subscriber info because they're now calling the entire thing extortion.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


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

said by cog_biz_user:

Would it be considered extortion if they mailed letters to the supposed filesharers asking for more than $5k? Sortof like a "pay us $15k now, or we'll see you in court" kind of thing? I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.

That's exactly what happens. Those who ignore the letter and let it go to court usually end up better off - if not outright unscathed - than those who freak out and pay.

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

said by Gone:

said by cog_biz_user:

Would it be considered extortion if they mailed letters to the supposed filesharers asking for more than $5k? Sortof like a "pay us $15k now, or we'll see you in court" kind of thing? I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens.

That's exactly what happens. Those who ignore the letter and let it go to court usually end up better off - if not outright unscathed - than those who freak out and pay.

They've gotten default judgements from people in the US who've done that.. 250k default judgements against them.

If you make a fuss however, they'll file you in a named suit.. :\

Safest for all, is keeping everything anonymous - making sure Voltage doesn't get the sub info.

--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


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

1 recommendation

There's a difference between a mere letter demanding settlement and an actual statement of claim served to you by hand. One is safe to ignore, the other is not.

You are not going to have a default judgement rendered against you unless you receive a statement of claim first certified by a clerk of the court first.


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

said by Gone:

You are not going to have a default judgement rendered against you unless you receive a statement of claim first certified by a clerk of the court first.

Depending on the court and rules of procedure the plaintiff will serve you then file an affidavit of service with the court clerk and then it will be accepted by the court.


hm

@videotron.ca

It's not something that should be ignored. Either reply back saying, "see you in court", or reply back with a cheque, or reply back asking for payment methods that would work for you/them.

In the US, Voltage has been adding 1000$ to the amount if you don't reply or don't pay within 3 weeks. heh I can't see that flying here.


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

1 recommendation

Best to reply back advising you deny liability and intend to pursue a vigorous defence should they proceed to file suit.



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by peterboro:

Best to reply back advising you deny liability and intend to pursue a vigorous defence should they proceed to file suit.

I'd argue this is the best route as well, by doing so you've shown that you're not the lowest hanging fruit, and the trolls will most likely go away in this case.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

I agree. A vigorous $2,000,000.00 3 to 5 year court battle through all 3 levels of the judiciary culminating in an appearance before the Supreme Court of Canada and a further 2 year wait for a decision is definitely the way to go.........money is no object. Bring it on Voltage.........



hm

@videotron.ca

said by elitefx:

...money is no object. Bring it on Voltage.........

YAH!
We will crowd source legal strategy and legal filings!

So umm... I only know how to put a stamp on an envelope to say, "see you in court", I'll let others fill in the blanks...


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

said by hm :

I only know how to put a stamp on an envelope to say, "see you in court", I'll let others fill in the blanks...

In most cases I'd argue that will suffice. The point of the letters is to get you to settle not to get you to fight.

"Legal Chicken" if you will...
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

Correct.

quote:
We will only accept letters properly certified by a court official and handed in person via an officer of the court