dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30940
share rss forum feed

nickvca
Premium
join:2011-09-28
reply to hm

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

I saw this link a few days ago, it was written in the UK for people that had Troll problems over there.
Very interesting document
Had a lot of denial letter templates to respond to settlement demands.

How To “Fight Copyright Trolls”

»www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9···olls.pdf


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone
Never thought of it that way. Then again, I never got a Quebec parking ticket that gave me such a reduction in cost if paid early. You only pay more when the time exceeds "X", but the base ticket cost is never decreased.

So this is an Ontario thing?

Makes me wonder if certain prov's regulate things like this. Quite possibly.

Makes me also wonder why Voltage pulled out of the QC lawsuits.

Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Bell Fibe
reply to nickvca
said by nickvca:

I saw this link a few days ago, it was written in the UK for people that had Troll problems over there.
Very interesting document
Had a lot of denial letter templates to respond to settlement demands.

How To “Fight Copyright Trolls”

»www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9···olls.pdf

nice guide.

This should be sent to the 2300 teksavvy customers should TS give out their informatoion

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to nickvca
@nickvca:

Very interesting document; I wonder if any thing like that could be written for a Canadian audience! Here is an tidbit from that pdf I found intriguing:

"The burden of proof remains with the claimant. They must
demonstrate that you either did, or authorised someone else to copy or share the whole or a
substantial part of the copyright work. There has never been a case in the UK where someone
has been found guilty of this type of infringement using solely IP address evidence."

Has there been a case in Canada where someone was found guilty based solely on IP evidence?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to random
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.

did you read what i said
NO ther eis no admission is stating that a platiniff has inccorrectly filed a suit go back spend money on your legal team and try again...
like i said i really dont think that they will if all they can hope for is 5 grand and yet might get a lot lot less like 100$ per person...the legal fees and court filing fees wont cover that....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
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.

CIPPIC Might actually get this quashed because it is quite clear this is not a commercial claim of copyright infringement thus its tossed out and they wont bother if all they are gonna get is 100$ a movie with a max for everything one infringes to 5000 dollars.

and as it then would be under 7 grand you can get legal aid so why not fight....you have zero to lose and everything to gain...
then there is undue hardship on welfare and disability cases where at best you cant get more then 50$ /month and its very very risky to try and game this system....

UNLESS you get everyone's names and addresses and can find out what incomes they have and threaten the more better off ones....and then in a reverse way that is like discrimination....


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Legal aid is rarely granted for criminal cases unless you have a significant threat of jail time. Knowing this, you can completely and totally forget about it for a civil case, regardless of your income or the amount you're being sued for.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Stan3
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?

so if i sue you for wrecking my car and you didn't your reasoning is to goto court cause you think its cheaper to just plead guilty cause i said 100$ or ill sue you for ten grand? NO this is about making sure that in a civil case the proper lawsuit is at least addressed and not some one trying ot game a system because people are poor.

i'd rather get ten year sin prison then plead guilty to anything i did not do or was not guilty of.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

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.

nice try the fact is in other sections they actually spell out what commercial and NON commercial is and you cant bascially ask for commercial damages UNLESS you prove the person was doing commercial aspects and in this the courts, and the govt will say this is non commercial i am very confident of that ....

THUS if they want to ask for NON commercial damages they must first prove it was a commercial copyright infringement....which they cant do form jsut a list of ip addresses ...no more then you can tell who and what i am atm even if you really did it would not change either fact.

in fact the govt has said that the reaosn for the very aspect of a maximum for all infringments for non commerical is the very reaosn the govt says it put that in to stop this kinda of lawsuit...ergo they don't want USA/BRITISH style mass copyright lawsuits....

also due to vagueness of the term "all infringements" one might argue that if your going down for one you might as well admit to them all ....and i mean millions of them and make sure you ask the court to read them all out taking days and days. might bring a smile ot peopels face to know its costing a troll money for lawyers each day...again make sure you run everything by legal counsel...i'm going to add this at end of every post form now on...just so people get the HINT...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

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.

and again this is not THE USA
please dont even start ...its nto same country and not even same laws THUS you nor i should care about what happens there in so far as our wanring of the types a trolls we could face and why this law has the terms in it NON COMMERICAL and commerical spelled out for damages...and it has a max 5 grand for non commercial...FOR ALL YOUR INFRINGMENTS.

funny0

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

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.

which in small claims court costs like 120$ to file...higher court more cost....and then add lawyers...UNLESS your being sued and its under 7 grand then you can get legal aid.

funny0

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

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...

THINK SCO vs LINUX and how groklaw.net worked
very very interesting idea....
you might even get PJ to pick up on this and get some people going!!!!

funny0

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

did not RMCP not once say they would not go after pirates? this is not like the US where you can clog up the courts like crazy with BS and have the government spend well into the millions going after people.

What I want to know how can a US company can come into Canada and demand cdns info of any type unless it's a serious crime. Did the company demand the info themselves or hire a company in Canada to do it for them or use their cdn bunch if they got one to request the info?

the rcmp said that they would not go after non commerical file sharing....which cause there are millions of them you can see why ...interestign take is the charter of rights and freedoms says if a law is unenforceable then it should not become a law....

funny0

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

Ever looked at a parking ticket?

The ticket is $30 or whatever. Pay it within seven days and it's $10 or whatever. If you don't pay it within that seven day period, it's the $30 the ticket was originally for. They're discounting the fine for early payment, not increasing the fine for not paying it quick enough.

With these extortion letters it's the same deal and all good and legal if they word it as the settlement being $7000, but reduced to $5200 if paid within x period of time. Again, it all comes down to how they word it, and they don't need to justify anything in that regard.

Alas, this is a completely separate issue from the core of this discussion.

no its not the ticket cost is for you not fighting what you are guilty of after all in this case a cop saw your car , at a place without meter money in the machine ergo you aren't paying ot be there..

you get a nice thing by paying ahead a time and if you decide to goto court and lose you pay more cause your costing the system more money...

HERE they are claiming first off your doing something you are not and cant prove via ip addies alone , and on that false premise they will try and get your names and addesses and then tell you are guilty and need to pay up for face 10 grand....

One its easy to see how the system works and is fair the other is just a scam and dare i say it fraud...cause they having experience in courts should know better then to try this...

funny0

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

I saw this link a few days ago, it was written in the UK for people that had Troll problems over there.
Very interesting document
Had a lot of denial letter templates to respond to settlement demands.

How To “Fight Copyright Trolls”

»www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9···olls.pdf

let me ask you if i were a judge and suddenly i get to see a lot of these generic letters as evidence at some point ...do i feel your trying to defend yourself or being lazy? IF i were you id make it nice n personal and in your own words has more weight in my opinion in a court just look at those and see your own words ....and again run such stuff by a lawyer THIS IS CANADA NOT THE UK....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to m3chen
said by m3chen:

@nickvca:

Very interesting document; I wonder if any thing like that could be written for a Canadian audience! Here is an tidbit from that pdf I found intriguing:

"The burden of proof remains with the claimant. They must
demonstrate that you either did, or authorised someone else to copy or share the whole or a
substantial part of the copyright work. There has never been a case in the UK where someone
has been found guilty of this type of infringement using solely IP address evidence."

Has there been a case in Canada where someone was found guilty based solely on IP evidence?

and i'd like to see any of you tell me when my ip address is making money so that one could prove its commercial or non commercial in nature at any given time no matter what protocol i am using!


Shrug

@videotron.ca
said by funny0:

and i'd like to see any of you tell me when my ip address is making money so that one could prove its commercial or non commercial in nature at any given time no matter what protocol i am using!

Don't you worry. If ever you got nailed they would drop anything and everything against you since it's very clear you are not responsible for your actions.

*shrug*
...and such is life.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

no its not the ticket cost is for you not fighting what you are guilty of after all in this case a cop saw your car , at a place without meter money in the machine ergo you aren't paying ot be there..

Bzzt. Take a look at the following document: »www.welland.ca/ByLaws/bylaw_sect···2000.pdf

In the above example, the parking fines are discounted if you pay within seven days. Most municipalities offer this kind of incentive. If you take the ticket to court not only do you pay the set fine forfeiting any discount, but you pay court costs which often times are more than the set fine. Furthermore, in most municipalities it isn't cops who write parking tickets, it's parking enforcement bylaw officers.

This is all good and legal and happens all the time.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

the rcmp said that they would not go after non commerical file sharing....which cause there are millions of them you can see why ...interestign take is the charter of rights and freedoms says if a law is unenforceable then it should not become a law....

The RCMP only deal with criminal copyright infringement. A rights holder is still entitled to file a civil suit if they so desire.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by Gone:

The RCMP only deal with criminal copyright infringement. A rights holder is still entitled to file a civil suit if they so desire.

hmm don't think so..

»www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/nouv-news/···-eng.htm
The RCMP takes action and investigates this type of crime if there are grounds to believe that material has been copied for the purpose of commercial distribution, or to such an extent as to be prejudicial to the copyright holder. Every person who copies or reproduces a video game for the purpose of commercial distribution or sale commits an offence under the Copyright Act.

The RCMP could go after these people, and they have in the past 2 years for what voltage is claiming in their court filing (ie. commercial distribution). But I can't see the RCMP even touching this one, the way it is, with a 10-foot pole since we all know there is no commercial distribution here.

More like a trick for people to say they only downloaded it for themselves and not for commercial distribution.

In regards to the games that were copied above by this french guy, most none of the title were available in Quebec due to them only being available in English. So again what financial harm is there when the product is banned from a prov and people can't even buy them. heh.

Different for these Ontario people charged though...

So one must wonder, if voltage is so adamant that these people committed commercial distribution, they could have involved the RCMP. But for some reason chose not to. And we all know the reason why.


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

hmm don't think so..

You think wrong. The RCMP - or any police service for that matter - only deals with criminal matters. Your own reference that you used to try and dispute that only further proved you wrong by containing the word "crime."

Everything we're discussing here are civil remedies to copyright infringement, not criminal. The RCMP nor any other police service are involved in any way, shape or form on issues of civil infringement.


hm

@videotron.ca
The copyright holders are "encouraged" to seek remedy via legal civil action, however "commercial distribution" of pirated goods can be reported to and handled by the RCMP.

Says so right on the RCMP website.

Mass "commercial distribution" and profiteering of pirated goods is indeed what voltage is charging here in their court filing.


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

The copyright holders are "encouraged" to seek remedy via legal civil action, however "commercial distribution" of pirated goods can be reported to and handled by the RCMP.

Sure, you can call the RCMP, or even the OPP, SQ or your local police service. I never disputed that. Whether or not they do anything about, or whether the Crown proceeds in laying criminal charges, is a completely different story all together.

Everything we are discussing right now, however, is civil infringement. This is not a criminal case. The RCMP - nor any other police service - are not involved in civil cases. Even attempting to bring them up in this discussion or used words like "crime" is completely irrelevant to this discussion and, quite frankly, only makes you look foolish.


hm

@videotron.ca
What I'm getting at is that what Voltage is charging in court does fit this, per the RCMP.

Thus the reason why they want to look at all your financial history (as stated in the claim). All your tax records, Bank accounts, all your banking history, what your house and car are worth, your salary etc to build a financial picture of you to see if you are living beyound your means (or to see what kind of money they can get from you, who knows). Just like the RCMP would do to you.

Would the RCMP touch this? No. Because the reality of it isn't what voltage is claiming, on a mass scale. Voltage is fishing.

Which leads to the next question...

Can someone make up things like this that they know aren't even true (if it were true RCMP would get involved).

Can they make this claim, claiming that all 2300 people are the same (this is called joinder), when in fact they aren't.

Or is voltage just trying to make stuff up to show why all 2300 should be joined and treated as one, even though we all know it isn't true?

Going back to Marc's points:
»Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

(a) the applicant must have a bona fide case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer;

They are claiming mass "commercial distribution and profiteering" of their movies.

Is this true? If it were, surely the RCMP and even Revenue Canada would be on these people licking-split.

Is the case of, "all 2300 people getting rich of their works", a bona-fide case so that Voltage will get their entire financial history (not just their names and addresses).

Is it even justified to lump all these people as one (joinder)?

Doesn't even seem realistic that all 2300 are "commercial distributors profiting"?

(e) the public interests in favour of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate privacy concerns.

Does public interest really favour the disclosure of peoples info and financial records for what is clearly not a case of mass "commercial distributing and profiteering"? Or is it more of a case of a fishing expedition?

Voltages court filing (as they state it) meets the criteria for the RCMP to be involved, and also that of Revenue Canada inspectors.

I mean if the RCMP or even Revenue Canada won't step in, does Voltage thus meet the criteria of points A & E?


Ress

@shawcable.net
reply to hm
Check this out, these cases are DEAD in the US because of this, that's why they are trying to move the cash cow over to ignorant Canadian courts...

»forums.beyond.ca/showthread/t-353386.html

I hope our judges (who barely have time to hear real criminal cases that are all delayed for years) can shove this garbage back to the US where it came from!


hm

@videotron.ca
Ress,

Kinda like what I'm saying, sort of.

Aside from standing out on its own merits, this is just one of the reasons why all these people shouldn't be lumped in as one (ie. Joinder).

If you read volatages filing, as I understand it, these people are being brought to court for, "commercial distribution and profiting". And all the people are being treated as the same, as one unit (ie Joinder).

However, we all know this is just nonsense. All these people are not "commercial distributors who are profiting". Voltage is just cutting their court costs by making the claim they are all the same, thus to treat everyone the same so they don't have to make multiple court filings.

This is where your part comes in...

All these people are not the same though. You have your spoofed IP's (hacked and exploited machines having their IP used by others), neighbour using your wireless, a room-mate using it, on and on.

Thus, how can all these people be joined as one giant "commercial distributors who are profiting"?

I've had a bud get nailed for commercial distribution and profiting of goods before. Trust me, Revenue Canada bean-counters swooped in lickity-split for their cut. Would Revenue Canada touch these people? heh, no.


random

@teksavvy.com
It would only make sense if the 2300 people run a for profit private torrent with them being the ones to seed it 24/7.

It is laughable to seed torrents from a residential internet connection with largely asymmetrical (read too low upload speed). Even if they are, the profit divided by 2300 people would not be worth the effort nor even pay their ISP monthly fees.

There is a such a thing as a server that is much cheaper and offers much higher bandwidth connection than residential ISP can offer as they are on the backbone and not having to pay for last mile. This law suit isn't about a server nor a seedbox nor a group operating a private torrent tracker. These people are probably on a free public torrent tracker and that's why the troll can also use the server. How do they get paid?