dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54472
share rss forum feed

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to dillyhammer

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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/She_Stoops_to_Conquer

Cheers,
Dave

DMFlek

join:2011-02-10
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

reply 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.
Expand your moderator at work

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply 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).

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

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


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply 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
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


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

The next court date will be (90% CIPPIC / 10% TSI) vs. Voltage.

+1 Fer Sure!
--
IF TREE = FALL AND PEOPLE = ZERO THEN SOUND = 0
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 recommendation

reply 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.


lleader

join:2011-01-01
Mississauga, ON

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc
I think you guys badmouthing TSI were sucked in just like the bad guys. I believe TSI knew what cards they were going to play today - they just weren't about to discuss it here in the forum and tip their hand. How many times were they asked if all the notices were out to all the affected people? They never answered directly. They said they weren't going to fight it - but lo and behold they came armed.


get it

@videotron.ca
reply to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:

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.

They played voltage at their own game, as best as I see it.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to lleader
said by lleader:

I think you guys badmouthing TSI were sucked in just like the bad guys. I believe TSI knew what cards they were going to play today - they just weren't about to discuss it here in the forum and tip their hand.

Are you really suggesting that Teksavvy deliberately misinformed some people that they were targets when they weren't, and at the same time not inform people who were? I don't believe it.

In fact, it's more than a little disturbing. How many other mistakes are there in the data that haven't been noticed -- either made by TSI or by CaniPre? One of Shaw's objections for not wanting to reveal the owners of IP addresses back in the BMG case was that they didn't want to open themselves up to lawsuits from their customers if there were mistakes made: "Moreover, if Shaw were asked to speculate or required to guess at this type of conclusion
about the identity of users or subscribers, Shaw is concerned that it would be required to assume a liability for incorrect information. Shaw might well find itself having to respond to a financial or other type of claim or to a complaint under PIPEDA by a subscriber if the conclusions or guesses were incorrect."

Which all leads me to wonder... If somebody is falsely accused and they can prove their innocence, do they have the right to sue TSI and/or Voltage for costs and damages? I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for Teksavvy and the unenviable position where they've been placed.

Bhruic

join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to lleader
said by lleader:

I think you guys badmouthing TSI were sucked in just like the bad guys.

I honestly have no idea why so many people think that no one from Voltage is reading this forum. It's almost guarunteed that they are. People should be acting accordingly.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
said by Bhruic:

I honestly have no idea why so many people think that no one from Voltage is reading this forum.

Stop blaming your losses on piracy. If you want to make more money then make films that people would actually want to go see at first-run cinemas instead of taking great actors and putting them in films that leave people wondering if it's worth taking a chance before dropping $1.50 in a RedBox.


lleader

join:2011-01-01
Mississauga, ON
reply to tired
said by tired:

Are you really suggesting that Teksavvy deliberately misinformed some people that they were targets when they weren't, and at the same time not inform people who were?


I am absolutely NOT impling this. I am saying that at some point they realized this was happening and that they needed more time. But to have discussed that in this forum would have allowed the bad guys to prepare a more detailed challenge to this.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to tired
Agreed. I tend to think piracy is a by-product of poor offering. Whether it be low quality production or limited options to buy (i.e. no digital distribution)

Threatening to put people in jail at best will stop a few people from torrenting but it won't encourage anyone to pay for the product. Many Corporations have learned that the hard way.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to lleader
said by lleader:

I think you guys badmouthing TSI were sucked in just like the bad guys. I believe TSI knew what cards they were going to play today - they just weren't about to discuss it here in the forum and tip their hand. How many times were they asked if all the notices were out to all the affected people? They never answered directly. They said they weren't going to fight it - but lo and behold they came armed.

Actually knowing what resulted today, they could have very easily argued they needed more time and been provided that by the courts leaving them to oppose the motion to begin with. Now, they still will not be able to oppose, and leaving it up to the CIPPIC to get involved. They are still not fighting for customers privacy, which is a bit concerning imo.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

fishstix6

join:2012-12-10
Windsor, ON

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc
A very sincere kudos to Marc and Teksavvy. Regardless of what is being said in here, there are those that truly appreciate your efforts and what you have done. You've given those affected the best gift you could have.... more time. Call me a fanboy or whatever, but realize that this is not Teksavvy's fight. They have done what they can without getting dragged into this themselves. My suggestion: take what you have been given and do something.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
While I already have much of my extended family with TSI, I'm going to push to get the rest moved.

fxs

join:2011-10-19
l3r
reply to fishstix6
said by fishstix6:

A very sincere kudos to Marc and Teksavvy. Regardless of what is being said in here, there are those that truly appreciate your efforts and what you have done. You've given those affected the best gift you could have.... more time. Call me a fanboy or whatever, but realize that this is not Teksavvy's fight. They have done what they can without getting dragged into this themselves. My suggestion: take what you have been given and do something.

You and many others are missing the point. This is Teksavvy's fight. The stakes are much larger for them than for us.

Worst case scenario for Teksavvy subscriber:
- wasted time fighting and winning
- loss of whatever they settle for
- maybe some lost sleep

Worst case scenario for Teksavvy:
- their customers lose faith in them (see it playing out right here)
- they lose a lot of subs
- a multi million dollar business goes down the tubes
- many people lose their livelihood

For whatever reason, Teksavvy has become a target.

You say take what we've given (time) and do something with it. Sorry time is worthless to me and to the average Teksavvy user. It's just not worth it for me to do anything. Teksavvy is fighting for it's life. I'm not fighting for my life. This talk of giving John Doe some more time is meaningless rhetoric and sorry to say (like Voltage did) just PR.


Abrakadabra

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc
TekSavvy you disappoint me. Really. No I'm not one of those users who downloaded the movies from Voltage Pictures, I didn't get a notice. But this is really fearing because of the fact that my privacy can be thrown away to any troll threatening to sue. Almost every ISP out there stood up in court to their customers privacy and won the case easily without loses. You guys will give away our privacy just because you feel scared of these trolls who are literally uncapable of winning a court lawsuit.

You guys want a good reputation, that was your chance, but no.

I might as well move to an ISP who will actually protect my freedom of privacy and make my voice heard. I am extremely disappointed especially since half the users will be falsely accused since IP's are highly inaccurate.


DCS

@dsf.ca
reply to TSI Marc
I don't know the law very well but I was thinking why they are not going after Bhell.

James Zibarras

Examples Of Cases Litigated:
DIRECTV, Inc., Bell ExpressVu and Echostar v. John Doe
Acted on behalf of DIRECTV, Inc., Bell ExpressVu, and EchoStar Satellite Corporation in numerous enforcement proceedings involving manufacturers, distributors, and customers of illegal piracy hardware/software for satellite signal theft. Obtained and executed numerous Anton Piller orders across Canada, resulting in the seizure of hundreds of thousands of illegal products and business records, and the shutdown of numerous websites.

Can a lawyer sue a company he has represented before?

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to TSI Marc
I can see both sides of this, but I can understand why TSI is taking this approach.

The copyright laws have all been changed in Canada, which I knew this was going to open this kinda thing up. We didn't scream loud enough and now we have to deal with the aftermath.

TSI could be defiant and refuse to comply, but this could turn into a hugely costly defence, with likely no chance at winning, and end up with TSI being sued for the info. They are letting the courts decide before they hand the info over, which I think is a great approach. They are being very transparent, which is also a great idea, but some people on here who are demanding they go against what the law now lets them do is just not realistic.

I think TSI is doing much more than any other ISP would have done. The BIG 3, would have handed your info over without your knowledge, and you would have been blind sided once your getting sued.

We can sit here and argue the short comings of this approach, or we can ask the government to clear this up.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
or we can ask the government to clear this up.
-----------------------------------

To quote Ronald Reagan:

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to koreyb
And in the comming years if the Trans Pacific Partnership is as bad as we think its going to be... those very copyright laws will likely be "heavily modified" yet again. :|


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to TSI Marc
People keep referring to burden of proof. burden of proof does not apply in a civil suit. It is all about preponderance of evidence.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
Definition: Preponderance of the evidence m'kay?

Nemo888

join:2005-12-25
Canada
reply to TSI Marc
It would be very nice is Teksavvy gave Cippic a big anonymous envelope full of cash and then gave them any technical hints they could think of.

Off the record of course.

You can't publicly be involved. But what Marc and Rocky do with your resources on your own time is your business.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
Latest blog post on the issue with my comments. From: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···voltage/

Questions Remain as Teksavvy Refuses to Oppose Voltage

Today Teksavvy appeared before a federal court judge with respect to handing over 2000 names and address of its customers to Hollywood studio Voltage. Lawyers for Teksavvy argued that an extension was needed due to some errors in tracking individuals down. The judge sided with Teksavvy and the court has been adjourned on this case until January 17th, 2013 (assuming the Mya are not correct and world doesn’t end on Friday December 21st).

Teksavvy though is increasingly under scrutiny for its decision not to oppose the motion to hand over customers information. Teksavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault basically stated in a recent post, that they didn’t oppose the motion in order to give notice to its customer base. Basically they made a deal with Voltage not to oppose the motion so that they have time to notify their customers. Based on the decision from the courts today, in my view Teksavvy could have had a very good chance of obtaining the time needed to give notice as they did today and would still be free to oppose the motion without making a deal in the first place.

Howard Knopf (who was one of the presiding attorneys defending consumers privacy the last time the music industry tried to obtain subscribers information) has also chimed in questioning the decision of Teksavvy to not oppose Voltage’s request for information. Knopf stated:

Despite Teksavvy’s openness concerning this issue, questions are still bound to arise why Teksavvy is not actually opposing this disclosure motion in 2012, as Shaw and Telus actively and successfully did in 2004, with Bell and Rogers taking a similar if less vigorous position. In this regard, it is interesting to compare Voltage’s material with the BMG et al material filed in 2004 that was rejected by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal at that time as inadequate in a very comparable situation, as a result of which we now have clear and binding appellate case law.
Sometimes building a company that is strong on consumer values and rights can be a double edged sword when dealing with the businesses own interests. I get that, however I think the motion to not oppose not just in Teksavvy’s case but in the 50 cases in prior weeks, raises serious concerns on whether any ISP will or even should go to bat to protect its customer base, even from unreasonable requests for information.

Things have changed since 2004. We’ve had a highly charged national debate on copyright policy and highly charge political environment leading up to the new laws. It’s understandable for ISPs now to take a back seat or tuck tail and run every time they deal with the content industry, but what they don’t realize is that they are also an integrated part within law around this debate.

It was truly remarkable to take part in the Canadian copyright consultations myself, and see first hand a unified consensus of our values on democracy and law. Around copyright law consensus was made on NO MASS LAWSUITS, not just from the Canadian public but quite a few content creators as well. Government acted within law around that consensus to ensure Canadians that they were against mass lawsuits as well. When faced with a test that is clearly against that consensus and just flee, does not represent of the majority of the public these ISPs serve, nor do I believe is representative of the Canadian spirit. In the face of oppression, and what we don’t feel is right, Canadians as a society have always banded together. We don’t flee the battlefield.

I think the debate is now just beginning on what role the private industry has to stand up for our Canadian values, and the costs to businesses when they do not. This is especially the case when our privacy laws are being tested by numerous private interests on an almost daily basis online, and public concerns that private industry is not doing enough to secure Canadians information. One expects arguments around users privacy to come from the CIPPIC, and I think many are disappointed to see another private business yet again cave to Hollywood and abandon the very core principles in which the company has been based on.

Strong words I know, however Canadians sent a very strong message on their privacy regarding lawful access legislation. What precedent does this set if/when that system is put into place? Can Canadians expect that unreasonable and unlawful requests for users information will go unchecked at the source? It’s time private industry gets its head out of the sand, and stand up for Canadian values. We are so fortunate to have the CIPPIC to do just that when private industry fails.

Privacy issues aside, there is still no guarantee that the CIPPIC motion of intent intervene in the Teksavvy case was accepted by the presiding judge. The judge read the letter from the CIPPIC, and the CIPPIC was not allowed to speak. The judge ruled on a motion by Teksavvy’s lawyer to adjourn based on some errors in finding people for notification, and they needed more time.

In the CIPPIC’s motion it had requested some evidence to be presented in court at the time of the next sitting of this case if the case was adjourned, so I guess the success of that letter could be judged on if the judge orders Voltage to cough up this evidence before the 17th and be present at the next sitting.

Stay tuned…
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/