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.

hmm don't think so..

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

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....

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..

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!

@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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

>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.

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

That probably would be a violation of the Canada Interest Act.

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.

Correct.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.