dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
53862
share rss forum feed


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to AkFubar

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by AkFubar:

IMHO TSI is doing what they have always done, a hands off approach to your account. What you use your account for is up to you. However even Rocky had mentioned that no customer info would be released without a court order. I would imagine if your case went to trial and if your lawyer required it, a technical expert from TSI could be made available to testify. In fact I am almost sure that this would be part of your defense.

You realize what you're saying? You're saying you're almost sure TSi would send out an expert to 2300 different cases... and this is the first round

ultramancool

join:2004-12-22
Schenectady, NY

I'm guessing most people will settle out of court so the really important opportunity to fight this is now.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by ultramancool:

I'm guessing most people will settle out of court so the really important opportunity to fight this is now.

I'd bet less then half will settle out of court quite honestly. This is too new here so no one has really set any standards as to what happens yet.

And the best part, someone thinks Teksavvy has the resources to send an expert to each case that does go to court. I mean, get real.

One sentence, "Teksavvy and hands off approach like they always have" then ends off by saying they will send an expert to your aid in a trial. I get it, people love Teksavvy, but sometimes they love them a little too much and give far too much credit where it isn't due.

I can imagine Marc's head spinning thinking of sending guys to each court case, and as i said, this is the first round lol.... the game just began

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to TSI Marc

IANAL

Marc, consider burden of proof as a fundamental legal principle of Canadian Law.

We're dealing with a minor infraction, not a capital offense. Court resources are assigned accordingly.

The evidence here is not that a person committed a crime, but that a number associated with the alleged commission of a crime, is also associated with a person.

This is a three-way association. Number-crime, number-person, crime-person.

As it stands now, only one of these associations is allegedly established physically. Number-crime.

This is not enough to investigate, i.e., the court likely will not be convinced to issue TSI an order to disclose personal information, let alone prosecute. And this is why Voltage asks for the second association, number-person. However, this is most likely not enough to investigate either, because the third association - person-crime - is not yet established physically, and most likely never will be no matter what.

Consider Voltage's unorthodox behavior. They sent TSI a request before any decision from the court. Such behavior could be construed as intimidation, and in the event TSI complied with Voltage's request, can reasonably be expected to lead to more intimidation, this time directed at TSI's customers cited in the request.

The absence of the person-crime association, and Voltage's unorthodox behavior suggesting intimidation, are enough in my opinion to convince the court to deny Voltage request to disclose personal information, preventing Voltage from realizing this potential intimidation.

However, failing that, if the court issues an order to TSI to disclose its customers' information, and if Voltage subsequently sends "pay or else" notices to those TSI customers, then TSI should notify these customers of their rights to fight this in court. And TSI should then proceed to sue Voltage for abuse of the court for the purpose of extorting TSI's customers, using all the known facts such as Voltage unorthodox behavior in the matter, and the "pay or else" notices sent to TSI's customers. In other words, "we told you so, mr judge".
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.



More2Come

@videotron.ca
reply to hmph

said by hmph:

If you guys don't stand up against this bs now, then there will be much more of this to come from other silly movie studios.

Canipre said the Porn producers are next in line to extort you.

Can't wait to see one of you guys/girls nailed for dl'ing some embarrassing porn title and some sleeze bag demanding 3,500$ from you. heh 3,500$ will buy you a night out that beats any cheap 2$ porn

....and chances are it will be some pimple faced greasy haired kid finding out when mom slaps him around with the extortion letter.

boy o boy, can't wait to see this.

You teens out there better discuss this with mommy ASAP and come clean with what you have done... while you still can.

oh the next one is going to be something alright.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to Tx

Recall the days of istop. They had a proxy you had to go through to connect to the internet. So if Teksavvy had something similar what would voltage do? Either they would charge everyone with an internet connection or charge no one.



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to Tx

Maybe, maybe not things will be quite a bit different in Canada with the $5,000 cap. Cases can be tried in small claims court unlike in America where the maximum is $150,000. Going to small claims court would cost Voltage next to nothing.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

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

said by Tx:

said by AkFubar:

IMHO TSI is doing what they have always done, a hands off approach to your account. What you use your account for is up to you. However even Rocky had mentioned that no customer info would be released without a court order. I would imagine if your case went to trial and if your lawyer required it, a technical expert from TSI could be made available to testify. In fact I am almost sure that this would be part of your defense.

You realize what you're saying? You're saying you're almost sure TSi would send out an expert to 2300 different cases... and this is the first round

Well, people's lawyers may require that as part of their defense. I suppose a defense lawyer would request a summons or subpoena if need be for expert testimony if they feel it will help their case. So there may not be a choice. It is a real possibility.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

1 recommendation

reply to Tx

Tx, I know you're upset.

I have given this a massive amount of energy, resources, money, multiple lawyers and experts. You name it. I've looked at it. This is not me rolling over.

If there was more I could do to protect your privacy, I would do it. I just don't have a hook.

Whatever behavior our customer engage in is not for us to scrutinize. If we wade into that, we are essentially going against Net Neutrality principles that we fought for.

It really boils down to this: If these new Copyright laws are meant to make guilty anybody who intends to distribute Copyrighted works. And if the technology exists to track such activity. Then there is really nothing else we can do. It's the law. The law is the law. I can't defend against the law. The laws are there to defend against bad things. If we defend against laws, that makes us bad. We dont do that. We've never done that.

A few weeks back there was another case where Canipre was involved, it set the precedent.. only thing different here is the number of users requested.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to More2Come

said by More2Come :

said by hmph:

If you guys don't stand up against this bs now, then there will be much more of this to come from other silly movie studios.

Canipre said the Porn producers are next in line to extort you.

Can't wait to see one of you guys/girls nailed for dl'ing some embarrassing porn title and some sleeze bag demanding 3,500$ from you. heh 3,500$ will buy you a night out that beats any cheap 2$ porn

....and chances are it will be some pimple faced greasy haired kid finding out when mom slaps him around with the extortion letter.

boy o boy, can't wait to see this.

You teens out there better discuss this with mommy ASAP and come clean with what you have done... while you still can.

oh the next one is going to be something alright.

I guess it was bound to happen: one of the sleazebag copytrolls has shown up. Any mod wanna get rid of it?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

1 recommendation

Gang, it may be that they were associated with some of that stuff in other countries.. but in Canada, there's really none of that that's happened. at least not yet anyway.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to tired

said by tired:

said by ryangard:

With the lack of these laws, any form of refusal can be considered by the courts to be condoning customers to infringe copyright, as they're alleging teksavvy's users have done in the suit.

This is BS. See BMG vs Does and Shaw, Rogers, Bell, Telus, and Videotron. »reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2005/2005f···193.html All of those ISPs except for Videotron stood up for their customers and they suffered no negative consequences. In fact their customers names were never revealed and to this day Gangsta_Cool@KaZaa remains anonymous. See also »cippic.ca/en/file-sharing-lawsuits

ISPs have a duty to protect their customers' privacy. If the court orders them to hand over names and addresses then they have to, but that doesn't mean that TSI should not oppose the motion on Monday. Read what CIPPIC is saying regarding the motion for some ideas of what TSI could and should say: »cippic.ca/sites/default/files/LT···2012.pdf

My understanding is that CIPPIC will have somebody there on Monday.

This is why we insisted on providing notice. So that those who want to say something, can know ahead of time and do so.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

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

said by TSI Marc:

Gang, it may be that they were associated with some of that stuff in other countries.. but in Canada, there's really none of that that's happened. at least not yet anyway.

Voltage got 30 IPs last year, and got extension after extension til the entire thing was dismissed for lack of filing suit. I think its safe to assume they're going to do the same copytroll nonsense with Teksavvy.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

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

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

said by tired:

said by ryangard:

With the lack of these laws, any form of refusal can be considered by the courts to be condoning customers to infringe copyright, as they're alleging teksavvy's users have done in the suit.

This is BS. See BMG vs Does and Shaw, Rogers, Bell, Telus, and Videotron. »reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2005/2005f···193.html All of those ISPs except for Videotron stood up for their customers and they suffered no negative consequences. In fact their customers names were never revealed and to this day Gangsta_Cool@KaZaa remains anonymous. See also »cippic.ca/en/file-sharing-lawsuits

ISPs have a duty to protect their customers' privacy. If the court orders them to hand over names and addresses then they have to, but that doesn't mean that TSI should not oppose the motion on Monday. Read what CIPPIC is saying regarding the motion for some ideas of what TSI could and should say: »cippic.ca/sites/default/files/LT···2012.pdf

My understanding is that CIPPIC will have somebody there on Monday.

This is why we insisted on providing notice. So that those who want to say something, can know ahead of time and do so.

Just read CIPPIC's letter to the court. Bravo to them! for exposing this sham.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


sm5w2
Premium
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON
reply to TSI Marc

The only real question here is -> why do you log?

Why keep IP logs?

What would have been the legal consequences for you if you didn't keep logs?



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

said by sm5w2:

The only real question here is -> why do you log?

Why keep IP logs?

What would have been the legal consequences for you if you didn't keep logs?

make your case here:

»Discussion about log retention
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to resa1983

Except that TSI do not even name a dollar figure that the trolls have to pay for looking up the IP. If TSi had sunk resource into this, TSI should at least claim for the expenses and bill them.

Mark my words, the trolls will come back time and time again as TSI would be the ISP that hand over their customers info for free. On the other hand had they charged $200 per IP lookup like the Telco/cableco and with the low balling of statue damages, there wouldn't be a business case for the copyright troll.


Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to TSI Marc

Wow. I just bumped my thread asking about this before reading this one. It's been pointed out already in this thread but it's worth repeating that in 2005, under very similar circumstances, Bell, Rogers and Shaw fought for their customer's rights. These are the companies we often compare to the devil and they fought for us. Why can't Teksavvy see how important this is to us?

You claim that Voltage merely wants the IP address to identify who it belongs to but you know exactly what will happen once they obtain this information. They will send intimidating letters demanding $5-$10K if they want to avoid being sued.

By rolling over and remaining silent you are selling out all of us, not just the 2000 or so that will be affected. You are also sending the copyright trolls a clear signal that Teksavvy will not stand in their way. Therefore, there will be a lot more of these notices since, from a business standpoint, it will make much more sense for them to target Teksavvy users rather than take a chance against an ISP that might actually have the balls to stand up to them.

This is very disappointing.



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

1 recommendation

reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by TSI Marc:

Gang, it may be that they were associated with some of that stuff in other countries.. but in Canada, there's really none of that that's happened. at least not yet anyway.

Voltage got 30 IPs last year, and got extension after extension til the entire thing was dismissed for lack of filing suit. I think its safe to assume they're going to do the same copytroll nonsense with Teksavvy.

Also, the Copyright Modernization Act shelters ISPs from liability from infringement based on the fact that they are intermediaries that carry traffic and nothing more. That is the policy "bargain" that is now very clear under the new legislation and was not present in the Copyright Act as it existed when previous cases came up. I think this is important.

These new laws are at the center of all of this.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to random

said by random :

Except that TSI do not even name a dollar figure that the trolls have to pay for looking up the IP. If TSi had sunk resource into this, TSI should at least claim for the expenses and bill them.

Mark my words, the trolls will come back time and time again as TSI would be the ISP that hand over their customers info for free. On the other hand had they charged $200 per IP lookup like the Telco/cableco and with the low balling of statue damages, there wouldn't be a business case for the copyright troll.

No no, that is the one part we play in this. We will be seeking costs. They, however do not believe notice was necessary. We welt it was absolutely critical. Under the law, we dont have any obligation to provide notice. So, at this point, we've got our necks way way out there already. I know it may not seem that way but with these new laws it really is the case.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

Wow. I just bumped my thread asking about this before reading this one. It's been pointed out already in this thread but it's worth repeating that in 2005, under very similar circumstances, Bell, Rogers and Shaw fought for their customer's rights. These are the companies we often compare to the devil and they fought for us. Why can't Teksavvy see how important this is to us?

You claim that Voltage merely wants the IP address to identify who it belongs to but you know exactly what will happen once they obtain this information. They will send intimidating letters demanding $5-$10K if they want to avoid being sued.

By rolling over and remaining silent you are selling out all of us, not just the 2000 or so that will be affected. You are also sending the copyright trolls a clear signal that Teksavvy will not stand in their way. Therefore, there will be a lot more of these notices since, from a business standpoint, it will make much more sense for them to target Teksavvy users rather than take a chance against an ISP that might actually have the balls to stand up to them.

This is very disappointing.

Rastan,

As I posted above, the Copyright Modernization Act shelters ISPs from liability from infringement based on the fact that they are intermediaries that carry traffic and nothing more. That is the policy "bargain" that is now very clear under the new legislation and was not present in the Copyright Act as it existed when previous cases came up. I think this is important.. i.e. they were protecting themselves. They didn't provide notice or do any of the stuff we're doing now.

The state of the law relating to law suits generally is that parties that bring bona fide lawsuits are entitled to know the identities of the defendants so that they can pursue their claims. That's the new law.

The laws have changed.. it's really important to look at the new laws.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy
Expand your moderator at work

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

Are you saying that you are not opposing Voltage's request for these IP addresses because the Copyright Modernization Act will not allow you to do so? Please elaborate because from my understanding, this new law does not prohibit you from opposing Voltage and mounting an attack on them, similar to the way CIPPIC is trying to intervene.

In my opinion, being an intermediary has nothing to do with privacy issues.

edit: Also, regarding this part:

"parties that bring bona fide lawsuits are entitled to know the identities of the defendants so that they can pursue their claims."

2 things; hasn't that always been the law? Is this really a bona fide lawsuit? Is their intention to bring each of these people to court or are they abusing the system in order to obtain these identities so that they can extort money from them? Based on their track record, I think we all know the answer.

Expand your moderator at work


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

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by TSI Marc:

We will be seeking costs.

I hope you charge them enough to get more modems approved as well as cover your legal expenses Yeah I had to wiggle that one in *whistles innocently*

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

Wow... CIPPIC's request to intervene, and extend to the new year is realllllly good.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to Rastan

Rastan, also what's new is that there is no precedent. not a single case yet where a case for personal use has gone to court..

The max they can go after is $5k so dont believe anything you read about $10k or whatever.

But, as I posted in my blog, the law says that the judge has to take many factors into account. The law is there to protect against exactly this thing. Its just that at this stage in the process.. the test is much much lower.. they just have to meet the "bona fide" test to get the info... then, if they want to sue anybody.. that remains to be seen but frankly. that's the one single unknown in all of this. what happens if it goes to court? will the judge award $100?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Expand your moderator at work


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to resa1983

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

+1