 A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
1 edit |
to UK_Dave
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.said by UK_Dave:Yes, there are a lot of really complicated/convoluted exceptions/opportunities that technology has brought. Agreed. Actually in the examples I used I could still be considered to be breaking the law. Example 2 is more complicated as making a back-up copy is legal, but the software used to do so is likely not. Example 3 (if bypassing the country of origin) is definitely not legal. Sadly, in all examples I've paid for the content, something they seem to think we're unwilling to do. What we want is a better delivery method. It's unlikely that Bell and the cable providers will ever let someone do this. said by UK_Dave:I'm pretty sure I'm setting myself up here, because isn't there issues around public performance? But anyhow, you see where I'm going. I'm not going to watch it on a dodgy internet feed, just because I can't choose to ONLY get a hockey channel from Bell/Whomever.
Agreed. Probably more of an issue with a Pay-per-view where a group of friends may choose to split the cost and watch at one home. They're definitely depriving someone of income.  ETA: Oh, and Stargate SG-1 is available on Netflix Canada, which means if I watch my owned/ripped copy I may be on shaky legal ground, but if I watch it on the service I paid for I'm not. Morally I believe I'm in the clear - hell, I've paid for it in two different ways. However, it's just extremely complicated. (I don't fileshare/upload, but with all that I've mentioned above - what if I didn't want to be bothered ripping the episodes, but wanted to download them? Still okay, not okay?) |
|
| |
to Grappler
said by Grappler:"What is it called" - Infringment of copyright and you are correct it does not remove the original, not even temporarily.
"...after reading my newspaper of choice, return it to the stand..."
This is called theft, Sec. 322(1)(a) CCC - "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it,..."
Yes, this is would be an extreme finding of theft, almost impossible to prove and doubtful it would be prosecuted, yet if that was the last newspaper and other customers left the store because there was no visible paper to purchase, etc. then you have deprived the owner of that sale. At the very least the person would have "morally" committed the theft.
edit - Section of CCC from 322(a) to 322(1)(a)
I was arguing something like that with a friend just the other day. Walking in a store, picking up something, then walking around in that store, then putting it back on the shelf, is not theft, even if that's the only item left in that store, even if doing that prevents another potential customer from buying it. This is due to the try-before-you-buy principle. This is a fundamental aspect of doing business. You let potential customers try it, if they like, they'll be more likely to buy it. However, if this particular customer does the above all the time and never buys anything, then he's proven that he is not in fact a potential customer. But there's tons of potential customers who also do this in this particular store, but then buy something else in another store. So how do you deal with this without throwing out all potential customers who just try without buying now? You can't just accuse everybody of stealing, if that's how you see it. You can't just throw out everybody who doesn't buy even after they tried it. So you deal with it as best and as simply as you can, throw out only those who have proven they'll never buy anything no matter how many times they try it. After all, the purpose of a business is to do business, not to tend to loiterers. I used to visit all kinds of computer stores and motorcycle dealers, just to look at the new stuff, or even to look at stuff I was interested in, but did not want to or could not buy it at the time of my visit. Nobody threw me out. That's the way business is done. Come to think of it, that's the way it's done online too. Potential customers are allowed to try before they buy. From a simple screenshot preview to a full-out whole game complete with everything. And you can return to visit again as many times as you want, nobody will ban you from visiting or sampling the product. Heck, some even give the whole complete product away for free, but then add premium content which you can get by paying money. World Of Tanks is one such example, and there's tons of those things. |
|
| |
to TSI Marc
Yikes, you guys are getting a little off topic here. We're not trying to justify or demonize copyright in this thread, we're more interested in privacy issues.
Of course, if you're interested in my libertarian take...
Intellectual Property (IP) is a misnomer. It is not property in the first place. Going back to first principles, property rights are assigned to tangible, scarce assets in order to prevent interpersonal conflict by multiple human actors. It is this possibility of conflict, in fact, that renders a good scarce in the first place. My use of this asset conflicts with your use. Therefore, property rights have as their main function the ethical and just treatment of assets.
IP, however, does not meet this definition of property. They are neither scarce nor tangible. If you have a book, and I obtain a digital copy, we are both able to enjoy it without conflicting with the other's use. Contrast this with the medium of a physical book, (the item, not the content). If I take your physical book from you to read it, you cannot read it at the same time. The physical medium is real property over which the owner has rights. The content within, reproduced as a digital copy, is not scarce and does not introduce conflict.
Anyway, I could write about this stuff for ages (a thorough discussion might take that long), but suffice it to say that IP is not property. Back to the court case! |
|
| |
to JonyBelGeul
Some good stuff coming out.
But so far, I see lots of free consultancy for rights holders about why and how and what a new business model should, or could, look like.
.Advertising.
.Try before buy.
.Better distribution.
Putting that aside for a little later - if the rights holder rejects that model for whatever reasons they may choose to do so (and I'm guessing its financial, else they'd be doing it) - what is the "moral" pirates response?
We'll force you?
Or am I giving too much credit? If movies were available for $3, with some advertising thrown in - do you think some people would still crack it and post a commercial-free, cost-free, download somewhere online?
|
|
1 recommendation |
"Pirate" is also a misnomer. Allow me to illustrate.
Pirates are criminals who, first shoot you with a big cannon to disable your ship, then board your ship with sabers and pistols, then shoot and cut you with those weapons, rape your women, abduct your children to be raised as slaves, kill you in the end, but before they go back to their ship, rummage through your cargo, steal your CDs and DVDs, make copies, which they then sell for profits.
But seriously. |
|
A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:Or am I giving too much credit? If movies were available for $3, with some advertising thrown in - do you think some people would still crack it and post a commercial-free, cost-free, download somewhere online?
Some would, just because they could. fasteddy is right though, we've dragged this way off topic. Just pointing out that those using torrents may not feel it is as black and white. I know (and appreciate) the difference between upload and download, but not all do. |
|
| |
to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:So how do you deal with this without throwing out all potential customers who just try without buying now? You can't just accuse everybody of stealing, if that's how you see it. You can't just throw out everybody who doesn't buy even after they tried it. So you deal with it as best and as simply as you can, throw out only those who have proven they'll never buy anything no matter how many times they try it. After all, the purpose of a business is to do business, not to tend to loiterers.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, this is the business model for many. The example given is that of a newspaper and I was just trying to show that technically, if not morally, it is a theft. As for the simple movement of an item constituting theft, this has been prosecuted and convictions obtained. Albeit I am talking about seasoned professional shoplifters being outdone by a seasoned professional member of law enforcement (tag switching, wearing apparel under clothing, etc) all without leaving the premises and being arrested once the act of concealment or the switch has been completed. By law enforcement I do not mean the private security/investigators. As someone just recently posted this is getting way off topic  , a good discussion but let's get back to the initial topic. |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden :
|
| |
to Grappler
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.I think it's not so far off-topic. It was prompted by the argument that Voltage needs to prove loss before they can be awarded statutory damage, and this is also a requirement to convince the court to order disclosure. Otherwise, a suit won't result in statutory damages, wasting the court's time then. Thus, we're back with Voltage's true intent, which is not to sue, but to intimidate TSI's customers for the purpose of extortion. Simple logic. If not A, therefore B. |
|
|
| |
to TSI Marc
I'll accept that . Then on the assumption as to Voltage's true intention they will definitely have an uphill battle based on previous case law, as documented in this forum. The court can decide and impose conditions (checks & balances) on the release of the information. They can impose the confidentiality provision, identification by initials for one. The court may also be able to go so far as to order a summons to be served on each identified individual, thus taking away Voltage's ability to intimidate by way of a demand letter. (this would be an extreme, but faced with an actual court cost, Voltage may back down). I admit I have never seen or heard of this being done, but the courts themselves do have a fair amount of leeway and I would not put it beyond the realm of possibility. |
|
2 edits |
to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:Sure thing, JK.
Could we possibly say that pirating is an attempt to "force" change via *market dynamics? We force them to adopt by making any other business model unprofitable?
Thanks for indulging me.
Dave
EDIT. *Removed the word "illegal".
It's not an attempt to force change, it is forcing change. The market dynamics of this are pretty much inevitable and that's showing up in a large portion of the actual numbers and economics of this. I've come to a conclusion that a lot of the reasons why there is such a push back from the inevitable is due to the loss of market share from incompetents to competitors. That's pretty much what this is all boils down too. What's hurting creators pocket books is not piracy, but the protectionist behaviors of a few incumbents that pretty much are unsuccessfully trying to push back a more profitable scheme because they will lose control they once had. Creators, consumers and politicians often only get a very small piece of the pie from incumbents for a reason. But increasingly those looking upon the economics of the situation are looking at the much broader picture and the whole pie, rather than a slice, and there's significant economic evidence in the numbers to prove what I've just mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt in court. There's a ton of evidence now. This has been going on for over a decade. This is also a reason why we are seeing "copyright trolling" They have already lost the economic evidence part of this. There's absolutely no evidence to prove that non-commercial infringement is causing any economic harm. What is, is the protectionist behaviors of the copyright lobby due to it's own agendas. That's pretty much widely accepted, and from the wording of the new legislation our Government pretty much agrees with that. For political reasons we can't completely legalize it, but we can make it pretty much impossible for the copyright lobby to do anything but troll consumers. This is one of the main reasons why I left Geist's Fair Copyright For Canada group. I was the head of a local chapter, and strongly opposed a notice to notice approach due to specifically what TSI customers are dealing with now. We should have just legalized non-commercial infringement, since any argument against legalization wouldn't stand up to even the basic economic evidentiary thresh hold in court. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:I think it's not so far off-topic. It was prompted by the argument that Voltage needs to prove loss before they can be awarded statutory damage.....
Now the Chapters-Indigo defense.... a) I buy a book at the store, take it home, read it, commit it to memory, and return it for a refund within 7 days. No problem. It's commonly done with no questions asked. b) I buy a video at the store, take it home, watch it, commit it to memory, and return it for a refund. No go. In both instances I have acquired knowledge/entertainment. In both instances I have deprived the copyright owner of their 'fair' revenue. Yet in case a) I'm well within my rights to do as I have done but in case b) I am not -- I'm treated like a criminal because of the difference in the medium and, more importantly, who lobbied the government for different treatment of the media/content. |
|
| |
UK_Dave
Member
2012-Dec-17 11:52 am
That's a really thought provoking point, MK. At least for me anyhow.
Are the two cases (book and video) dealt that way differently in law, or just because of historic practice?
Are bookstores legally obliged to give a refund?
Are videostores legally obliged (by rights holders) not to?
Cheers
Dave |
|
1 recommendation |
to TSI Marc
Dave, One would have to look closely at the company's refund policy; here is Chapter's: Simply bring the item(s) you wish to return in its original condition (CDs/DVDs/ must be in their plastic wrap), along with the packing slip (which is your receipt) that came with the order within 30 days of the shipment date. The shipment date of your order can be found on your packing slip. Now that is their online store so the appropriate phrasing is probably changed to reflect an in store purchase - clearly states original condition - can be hard to read a book without showing signs of it having been read. Best Buy - Due to copyright laws, Computer Software, CDs, DVDs, Video Games, and Music in opened packages may only be exchanged for the same item. When Windows ME first came out I was able to obtain a refund on the product, I did however make sure that the store guaranteed, in writing, that the product would be compatible with my system and the various software I had installed. We all know how compatable Windows ME actually was. . I did however exchange for Windows 2000. |
|
 dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
to dad_of_3
said by dad_of_3:CIPPIC is getting involved.
»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270
As much as TSI is known to "fight the good fight", I would rather have CIPPIC at court on Monday to stand up for the John/Jane Does. (no offense TSI
Hmmmm, maybe this was part of the plan from the beginning 
My biggest fear was that this was going to go through with no one speaking up for the "Does". Although CIPPIC's letter to the court basically asks for a postponement to the new year, they also make all the points as to why this request for information should be denied.
The letter CIPPIC sent to the court is the letter I would have thought and hoped TSI would have sent. I'm sorry that I've taken such a dim view of TSI's posture on this, but that's the way it is. I don't pay CIPPIC a thin dime. IMHO, regardless of the outcome (and I think Voltage it going to get handed its hat at some point), TSI is going to get bit on the ass by this. Not opposing the release of the information is the same as supporting it, and when and if we discover that TSI is entitled to costs for doing so, it's the same as selling it. How do you spell 'backfire'? I've already seen several posts saying if the info is released the poster will cancel. I'm of like mind, sorry to say. Quite frankly, I'm thinking about cancelling just because of the "no contest" posture. Mike |
|
| |
Samgee
Member
2012-Dec-17 12:17 pm
said by dillyhammer:Not opposing the release of the information is the same as supporting it, and when and if we discover that TSI is entitled to costs for doing so, it's the same as selling it.
If you read the posts made by Teksavvvy, there are very specific and valid reasons why they did not oppose the release themselves. |
|
| |
to dillyhammer
Hi Mike.
An interesting post as always if I may say.
I wonder if not opposing it was part of the play to buy more time and oppose it later with more preparedness?
This is pure guesswork by me, but TSI did seem to be quite active this morning. The email, the mistakes due to undue haste and volume of data.
Maybe Marc's legal advice was:
"If you oppose it, you're accepting it's substantive data and hoping to get a result of no-disclosure. Humbly accept your own failure to deliver notices, and get a postponement."
Dave |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
to Samgee
said by Samgee:If you read the posts made by Teksavvvy, there are very specific and valid reasons why they did not oppose the release themselves.
I read them all. Perhaps they are valid in your view, but not in mine. I wouldn't have posted what I did otherwise. Thanks for playing though. Mike |
|
| |
to TSI Marc
I still find it disappointing that TS is not standing up to this gangsterism. |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:"If you oppose it, you're accepting it's substantive data and hoping to get a result of no-disclosure. Humbly accept your own failure to deliver notices, and get a postponement."
Nah. We're talking about the disclosure of personal identifying information to an virtually unknown entity with shady dealings and associates that are basically on a fishing trip, and it's plain as day. This should be opposed by any reasonable person. But in particular, by those who are caretakers of said information. The more I think about it, the more pissed about it I get. Mike |
|
| |
UK_Dave
Member
2012-Dec-17 12:34 pm
I accept your point and feelings completely, Mike. Personally, and for now, I'm happy to "feel" that there was a battle to consider, and a war to consider. Maybe not fighting the battle today, will be seen in the future as the path to victory in the privacy war? But that's just something of which history will be the arbiter. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh ··· _ConquerCheers, Dave |
|
DMFlek
join:2011-02-10
Toronto, ON
1 recommendation |
to TSI Marc
The big question now is will TSI be opposing the motion now that they have more time? Also, CIPPIC is looking to get actively involved, so maybe you guys should be talking to each other? Clearly TSI's legal counsel is not as adept at this as CIPPIC is. If they were able to put together such a motion on short notice, that's exactly what your legal counsel should be looking to emulate. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
hidden :
hidden :
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17
1 recommendation |
to UK_Dave
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.said by UK_Dave:I wonder if not opposing it was part of the play to buy more time and oppose it later with more preparedness?
This is pure guesswork by me, but TSI did seem to be quite active this morning. The email, the mistakes due to undue haste and volume of data.
Earlier in this thread (maybe another one) I took Marc to task for not opposing...on the grounds that CIPPIC might not be granted automatic standing today. Not being there, it seems to me that the prinicpal reason CIPPIC lives to fight another day is that TSI finally grew some stones today and finally put up some objection towards immediate judgement in favour of Voltage. Barring TSI's stepping up today, I'm reasonably confident that the judge would have ruled in favour of Voltage, notwithstanding the CIPPIC letter - which really carried little weight - until TSI slowed things down and gave the judge some time to think. The next court date will be (90% CIPPIC / 10% TSI) vs. Voltage. My read on TSI is that while they generally have good intentions, they are sometime misdirected and governed by flawed strategy. Their/CNOC's initial handling of the UBB situation is a great case-in-point. It was up to JF to step into the breach to force the case to a different level (even if we are still arguing about the numbers). |
|
1 recommendation |
Not being there, it seems to me that the prinicpal reason CIPPIC lives to fight another day is that TSI finally grew some stones today and finally put up some objection towards immediate judgement in favour of Voltage. Barring TSI's stepping up today, I'm reasonably confident that the judge would have ruled in favour of Voltage, notwithstanding the CIPPIC letter - which really carried little weight - until TSI slowed things down and gave the judge some time to think
-----------------------------------
Yes. I wasn't there either but as the tweets came in, I started to think it was heading south when the refusal to let CIPPIC speak came out.
For what it's worth - and you don't strike me as the type who needs validation in any shape or form - but your comment that "CIPPIC lives to fight another day because of TSI growing some stones" could be the Occam's Razor on all this.
Namely they jumped in to protect and preserve what they achieved last time - maybe worried it could be pissed away right there and then by TSI (*for their reasons, which we also know only from public postings). It seems from the timings and the rush job, that they were certainly caught off guard by TSI's stance.
Right now, it's as valid as any other possibility.
Cheers,
Dave
*EDIT |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:My read on TSI is that while they generally have good intentions, they are sometime misdirected and governed by flawed strategy.
Yep. I don't get it. Their reaction to all this is a real headscratcher. I would have thought they'd be front and center battling this - and the only real effort I'm seeing is ensuring their asses are covered with as much teflon as possible. There's a lot of TSI goodwill left in me, but it sure as hell it taking a pounding right about now. I'm really torn up about this. At a minimum though, we need to ensure that another copy of any Voltage movie (pieces of shit that they are) never gets paid for on this fucking continent ever again. Mike |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:The next court date will be (90% CIPPIC / 10% TSI) vs. Voltage.
+1 Fer Sure!   |
|
A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
1 recommendation |
to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:Their reaction to all this is a real headscratcher. I would have thought they'd be front and center battling this - and the only real effort I'm seeing is ensuring their asses are covered with as much teflon as possible. The problem is that they need to function as a service provider. The more involved they get the more likely they'll become a target. I don't believe in Voltage's tactics. I don't believe they have any intention of suing the holders of the 2300 IPs (not sure what number of people this is). Like they've done in the past, they're hoping to scare people into paying them money for movies that few people went to see in the theatres. The other problem is that a certain percentage of the 2300 may have participated in torrents that seeded these movies. I'm a little suprised to see so many in a short period of time (just based on the specific movies). The problem is that we don't know the percentage... could be 99.99 or could be 50%. Teksavvy simply cannot afford to get in between someone violating the law and the rights holder. Honestly, I don't think it's fair to expect them to. It will take a lot of resources, and they can't fight the batttle. They're simply the wrong person. It's unfortunate that this then pushes the onus on to the users. Hopefully CIPPIC will make enough headway in January to stop this kind of crap. Unfortunately with the previous request in Quebec, I think the request will have precendent behind it. It's going to be a tough fight. Especially as I suspect this initial large request will be used to extort money from this first group... to go after the next (even larger) group. And back to that percentage, it does mean that somewhere in the middle of this will be people who have never distributed a Voltage movie but may end up with the letters after all. It will be very difficult to prove a negative without it sounding like a kid saying 'the dog ate my homework'. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it's not always the reason. |
|
, a good discussion but let's get back to the initial topic. 
