dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54337
share rss forum feed

fxs

join:2011-10-19
l3r
reply to fishstix6

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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/

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker:

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.

and you never read the statement of claim in lawsuit that voltage claims under hte new law to be able to sue people without any possible way to prove money changed hands that , just the file itself being moved about is commercial...that is wrong and false...you realize that would mean 6 million people are guilty possibly of infringements that could range up to 20K per infringement

disability that means for hte next 16.6 years id be paying FOR ONE infringement commercial that i never gained any money for....
its one thing to accuse someone say of one thing they actually did its another to game the system and gather your names and addresses using false and misleading and representative tactics , harper knew when he drew up the law that a balance had to be made if our economy was to push forward , if were sending 5-10% of all our incomes south of the border that's a tax that destroys the economy and when it affects the poorest ....well whatever and don't give me that bs oh you should not do it....i can guarantee in this environment ANYONE i repeat anyone on the net will have infringed something. you have 80 years now to screw yourself up over where we had 50....no kid born now will ever get to use anything made in his lifetime to create something new...perfect to grow the economy to no where as rich people clammer to show off how much there useless non used money bank accounts are.
Expand your moderator at work

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TwiztedZero

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by TwiztedZero:

Definition: Preponderance of the evidence m'kay?

so
two people stand out front of you
one hands one a dvdr and walks away
was that a commerical act?
NO
in fact you could get charged for taking a quarter for a ciggarette cause you aren't doing taxes and lisences and fees etc. BUT if you just give it away it is not commerical

thats my take and its why the motion for your names and addresses would mean nothing other then there ability to harrass and attempt to intimidate people for not reason then to be bad citizens.

In other words if instead of ip addresses you used your name and addresses in grabing or sharing these files would it have mad eit commercial

commercial:: adjective business, businesslike, economic, engaged in commerce, financial, in the market, industrial, jobbing, manufactured for sale, mercantile, merchandising, monetary, pecuniary, perraining to business, pertaining to merchants, pertaining to trade, prepared for sale, skilled in commerce, supplying, trade, trading

oh and rule out trade as i did not give something to get something ....

fishstix6

join:2012-12-10
Windsor, ON
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.


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

said by koreyb:

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

We're going to get Harper signing on to the TPP anyway - which is about as consumer friendly as the Einsatzgruppen were to the Jews of Eastern Europe & Russia.

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

1 recommendation

reply to Nemo888

said by Nemo888:

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

Rocky is no longer associated with Teksavvy.
This is all Marc.


teksavvyuser

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Marc

I've been a customer with teksavvy for a long time. Time to change companies i guess... Willing to give info to anyone without resisting...


abcjak

join:2012-12-18
reply to TSI Marc

I have not been a customer for long, and this pretty much sealed the deal for me to leave also. Don't call this rolling if you don't want to but that's what it is. When just about every other case worldwide is contested in some way, and this ends without even a whimper, something smells bad. There was no sticking out of any necks here, as suggested. All voltage had to do was agree to a delay of 3 weeks before getting everything they wanted, of course they would agree to those terms, the wait is not even an inconvenience. The real problem is how correct is the methodology in collecting that list of users, that's the kind of thing that needs to be put to the test which it will not be...here you go, all the names you asked for. What if the list was compiled under false pretenses for some other purpose? Here they are, thanks, come again. I'll bring a list of IP's, some with some sort of curious activity, and i'll throw in a few that I want info on for some other reason. Here you go...

Before the switch, i was trying to think of things that might be a disadvantage of leaving the large company as my provider and going with a smaller ISP/reseller . all i could really think of at the time was lesser customer support (which really does stink, btw), it wasn't until the news of the similar case with 3web, distributel, and acn with the Recoil movie that it dawned on me. ...and then a few weeks later this situation came up with TSI. It's all too obvious now that there are huge disadvantages to being with a smaller provider. i.e. price is not the only thing that drops when you switch.


Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

People keep referring to burden of proof. burden of proof does not apply in a civil suit. It is all about preponderance of evidence.

With all due respect to your past knowledge, excellent posts, etc. do not confuse the two terms yourself.

"Burden of Proof" is the duty imposed on any given party, and as I stated in a earlier post, the plaintiff has the initial "burden of proof". After this, if required, the defendant has the "burden of proof". I say "if required" because there is always the chance that the defendant can shoot enough holes in the plaintiff's case, during cross examination, to have the matter dismissed without having to present their side.

"Preponderance of Evidence" is the standard that is then applied to the evidence in its totality after all parties have had their say whereby the courts then make their decision based on that evidence. Yes, it is a much lower standard than required in criminal law.

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

TS's lack of resolve and not telling the Troll to get stuffed is very disappointing. Precedents are being set here, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS TS>>???

And BTW as a Rogers ISP customer, I have no faith that they will put up anymore resistance either even with all of their money.

Really, the Big Three should SMARTEN UP and start sending TS wads of cash to hire a first rate legal team to contest this garbage.

Voltage: go straight to the NINE HELLS.


ju1ce

join:2012-09-09
Richmond Hill, ON

I think it's pretty simple.

Don't pirate and you most likely won't have any issues. It's a very simple solution really.


HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332

"Most likely" ... LOL... and what of the wrongfully accused?



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to HammerofGawd

It's not really TekSavvy's place to challenge the law as they said. But you can't say they didn't help as them showing up on Monday got it delayed until January. The alternative was TekSavvy could say no issue and the court would issue the ruling same day saying to hand over the data.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

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

said by abcjak:

I have not been a customer for long, and this pretty much sealed the deal for me to leave also. Don't call this rolling if you don't want to but that's what it is. When just about every other case worldwide is contested in some way, and this ends without even a whimper, something smells bad. There was no sticking out of any necks here, as suggested. All voltage had to do was agree to a delay of 3 weeks before getting everything they wanted, of course they would agree to those terms, the wait is not even an inconvenience. The real problem is how correct is the methodology in collecting that list of users, that's the kind of thing that needs to be put to the test which it will not be...here you go, all the names you asked for. What if the list was compiled under false pretenses for some other purpose? Here they are, thanks, come again. I'll bring a list of IP's, some with some sort of curious activity, and i'll throw in a few that I want info on for some other reason. Here you go...

Before the switch, i was trying to think of things that might be a disadvantage of leaving the large company as my provider and going with a smaller ISP/reseller . all i could really think of at the time was lesser customer support (which really does stink, btw), it wasn't until the news of the similar case with 3web, distributel, and acn with the Recoil movie that it dawned on me. ...and then a few weeks later this situation came up with TSI. It's all too obvious now that there are huge disadvantages to being with a smaller provider. i.e. price is not the only thing that drops when you switch.

You can and no doubt will be targeted even with another company. Remember pretty much any ISP in Canada is using Rogers, BHell and Telus last mile or are a direct reseller or their services so good luck with your move if trying to avoid being a target.. People need to consider the rationale before they make a rash move. Hopefully after the troll gets severely beaten up from these cases there won't be a next time but anything can still happen.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to ju1ce

Pirating is downloading movies and then selling them, sharing is downloading the movies and then watching them and deleting.

Voltage should be going after the former but I guess their movies are so lousy that the pirates don't bother so they go after the latter.

It's an important distinction.


Teksanta

join:2012-12-17

I agree. there movies are too bad to go after the people making money from the pirating.

lowest common denominator says they have to go after the average joe.


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

Its very possible that Teksavvy is worried about losing their neutral status in this issue. Carriers have to walk a fine line between neutral and being complicit. Stepping over that fine line (which no one knows where its at yet due to new laws) could be disastrous for them.

I mean, just look at Verizon. Copytrolls sued them after they fought the court over telling them to hand over subscriber info. They would have received their costs to get subscriber info back from the Copytroll, but with them directly being sued, who knows.

Think about how much this has probably already cost Teksavvy.. They've done almost all the work already (tracking down the sub names for those 92 accounts now), so they're already out the time and money... Which they'll get back as long as they remain a neutral party..

UK_Dave said in IRC earlier that its probably cost them at least $100,000 already. Based on Comcast's $45/per IP (thanks to @fightcopytrolls for that), that $100k amount might not be too far off.. And thats with Comcast just receiving the order after the fact, and not fighting it. Teksavvy's been in contact with them for over a month during the draft period of the order, and even appeared in court yesterday...

Teksavvy may not be able to afford to keep dragging this out on their own dime (ie fighting the orders), stay solvent and keep the ISP running. The sooner Teksavvy is out of it and gets costs back, the sooner the company is financially stable (I'm not saying they are or aren't stable as I just don't know either way), but these costs have to be hurting them at least some.

Which may be why CIPPIC is stepping up now. A new precedent needs to be set (other than BMG), so that this doesn't move on to additional ISPs as well, and we get the crazy and constant copytroll lawsuits up here that the US has right now.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


UK_Dave

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

1 recommendation

+1 resa. really. +1

We would all like to have seen Marc stand up and fight this. We're used to following that banner and banging our drums.

We would all like to suddenly see Marc turn around now and say "OK, I bought you time under extreme duress, but now I can fight it".

Truth is. I don't think they can.

TSI was chosen for this case, because they have the shallowest pockets and least resources.

Forget the nuanced discussions on finer points of law or opinion for a moment - these guys want one thing, and one thing only.

A mailing list of people to threaten, knowing some will pay up.

The costs to fight disclosure, could quite literally be terminal to TSI.

...and the bully's know it.

We need to find a way to fight this from an oblique angle. And a CIPPAC approach might be that way.

I know, we've covered this before, and the same folks will come back and say how it could be challenged.

Well you know what. Do it. Become a hero. Because you will be if you succeed.

"There's none so bent on violence in a conflict, as the armchair General."


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to Grappler

said by Grappler:

"Burden of Proof" is the duty imposed on any given party, and as I stated in a earlier post, the plaintiff has the initial "burden of proof". After this, if required, the defendant has the "burden of proof". I say "if required" because there is always the chance that the defendant can shoot enough holes in the plaintiff's case, during cross examination, to have the matter dismissed without having to present their side.

Think of this as the onus or requirement to show something happened. The defendant rarely has this requirement only the requirement to raise doubt that it did. To confuse the matter there are reverse onus proceedings like one I am doing now where one need only present a prima facie case on its face in the pleadings and the defendant now has the burden of proof to demonstrate the event did not happen.

said by Grappler:

"Preponderance of Evidence" is the standard that is then applied to the evidence in its totality after all parties have had their say whereby the courts then make their decision based on that evidence. Yes, it is a much lower standard than required in criminal law.

Think of this as a threshold or a prerequisite to "win" or prevail that different courts and quasi-judicial bodies want. Like "on the balance of probabilities" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" or " more likely than not" or “in the absence of evidence to the contrary”. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently upheld that in civil cases there is only one standard of proof being "on the balance of probabilities"