dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30885
share rss forum feed


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

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

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?