dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
41
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Cyborg994

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

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:8
Reviews:
·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 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.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·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.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to hm

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).

Not quite. It looks, to me, like they're claiming people might have profited off of them, and in such cases (on a case by case basis) will pursue higher damages rather than the statutory damages for non-commercial infringement. So basically, they're leaving the option open.

Though I'm sure they'll play that up in any settlement offers to try to scare people.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by bt:

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).

Not quite. It looks, to me, like they're claiming people might have profited off of them, and in such cases (on a case by case basis) will pursue higher damages rather than the statutory damages for non-commercial infringement. So basically, they're leaving the option open.

Though I'm sure they'll play that up in any settlement offers to try to scare people.

Well I hope folks aren't intimidated by the accusations of commercial theft. It is virtually impossible to prove unless someone is caught selling cds in mall by the cops. Besides that is a criminal matter (felony) I think, not civil and requires evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON
Reviews:
·MTS
reply to hm

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.

No one has mentioned this yet, but If I was to receive one of those I would also forward a copy to my trusty MP who stated with confidence in the HOC that Canadians were safe from this type of fishing expeditions.

Bah, lawyers = liars. They are all the same.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to hm

said by hm :

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.

if the 3rd party made available to you and you to others and you took no cash its not commercial teats what i want you to ask a lawyer. Also make sure you explain how torrents work....

my feeling as is most that very few are gonna want to try court cases on non commerical infringements....ergo even the rcmp said they dont want to do it.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to hm

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.

theft is theft , infringement is infringement TWO very different things....i take you car its gone BUT if i made a copy and drive off you still have your car.

star trek is a wonderful example with repudiators....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar:

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.

pretty sure a judge knows the difference between counterfeiting that makes an exact duplicate and makes it available for sale and one where you get some file that doesn't even resemble the boxed edition someone sells ... commercial means for profit
its easy to argue that the cost of all your hard ware plus bandwidth and lack of compensation forthwith means you did not profit....thus it was non commercial you donated al that to receive a copy and that copy is not what they sell in a store...therefore it is not counterfeit. Easy to tell.

you make a claim because something has not been tried in a court that it has a chance of being some way that legally it could never be nor take into account you'd have to rewrite the definition of commercial to do so. IF hollywood thought under current law they could the big boys would be doing this instead of some fly by night gay porn wannbe studio.