dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54475
share rss forum feed


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

reply to resa1983

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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:28
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:28
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:28

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:28
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:28
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:28
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
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.

I edited my previous post to add a couple of things. Please take another look at it.

Voltage is claiming commercial copyright infringement. We both know this is ridiculous but out of the 2000+ people who will receive threatening letters, there will be a significant amount who will be scared into paying thousands of dollars. This is the main issue.

Teksavvy has to take a stronger stance against these types of requests from copyright trolls. The judge is far less likely to deny Voltage this information if Teksavvy does not oppose them.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

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?

regarding the 10K THEN WHY ARE YOU NOT BRINGING UP THE ISSUE?
IF i file a lawsuit for the wrong law and wrong reasons im pretty sure a motion to dismiss shuld occur. ya don't nee dto be a lawyer for that and they have to drop the suit to refile properly and doing so cost them money .....


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

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.

I'm saying that its not our place to do so. As soon as we do so, we are now fighting your fight. Our place is to raise awareness and to provide notice so that those who want to show up and defend against this can...

I mean. look, pick up your socks and make your way to court on Monday if you want to defend against this. This is why we chose to go this route. If we went the other route, this would already have been to court. We had to fight to get the time and get Voltage to agree to give us the time in order to provide notice. Odds are this would all be done already had we not have gone this route.

I'm telling you I've looked at this from all angles. You need to wrap your head around it and get in line with what the new laws are saying. All of this effectively amounts to wasted time for those who want to prepare to do something about this if they feel it's the right thing to do.

I'm doing everything I can. I hope that can be seen. I really am.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

I edited my previous post to add a couple of things. Please take another look at it.

LOL, crap. hehe I just wrote a novel.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

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

I mean. look, pick up your socks and make your way to court on Monday if you want to defend against this. This is why we chose to go this route. If we went the other route, this would already have been to court. We had to fight to get the time and get Voltage to agree to give us the time in order to provide notice. Odds are this would all be done already had we not have gone this route.

Wow... Not surprising I guess.. Good on you guys then for getting the time to inform people so they could at least have a chance to quash the order.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

I edited my previous post to add a couple of things. Please take another look at it.

Voltage is claiming commercial copyright infringement. We both know this is ridiculous but out of the 2000+ people who will receive threatening letters, there will be a significant amount who will be scared into paying thousands of dollars. This is the main issue.

Teksavvy has to take a stronger stance against these types of requests from copyright trolls. The judge is far less likely to deny Voltage this information if Teksavvy does not oppose them.

To my understanding what we're talking about here is non-commercial. I'm not even sure they knew the new laws were in effect yet.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
reply to TSI Marc
Can you direct me to a link that says the new copyright law prevents ISP's from opposing parties who are trying to obtain IP addresses through a court order? Is this your interpretation or does it specifically state this?


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
said by Rastan:

Can you direct me to a link that says the new copyright law prevents ISP's from opposing parties who are trying to obtain IP addresses through a court order? Is this your interpretation or does it specifically state this?

Section 31.1 of the Copyright Act now provides:

"A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter."

That was not true before. So anybody faced with these requests also had to prove that they themselves were not also somehow involved. This makes sense.. clearly we're not involved in anything our customers are doing.

If we start wading into the stuff on the other side. We then need to also prove we are not involved somehow. That's what was going on in the previous cases.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
I think you're making a leap by linking that paragraph to the notion that an ISP can't oppose someone from obtaining an IP address.