dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54334
share rss forum feed

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

silentEuphor: how much will it cost someone in civil court to defend their innocence against the Troll? Who will repay that to the innocent person???

THINK MAN.


HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332
reply to resa1983

TS' financial issues are irrelevant: the issue is protecting customer privacy when invalid requests like this Troll's come. TS should have told the Troll to fook off until you have real evidence.



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

said by HammerofGawd:

TS' financial issues are irrelevant: the issue is protecting customer privacy when invalid requests like this Troll's come. TS should have told the Troll to fook off until you have real evidence.

"the issue is protecting customer privacy when invalid requests like this Troll's come."

Right so. your argument to a judge would be: It doesn't matter what evidence they have, Trolling is wrong.

"TS should have told the Troll to fook off until you have real evidence." - this part has nothing to do with it according to you.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332

2 edits
reply to TSI Marc

My argument would have been that Voltage's number of 2300 are inplausible and its cohort that provided them is not reputable and may not even be licensed etc and I would have demanded full diosclosure...that's not my job though, that's YOUR's.

The bottom line is IMHO TS is NOT doing all it can legally to protect its customers' privacy. IMHO that is actionable by your customers against TS on that alone.

I do not use TS, but I tell you what: if you had given out (or give out) my private info without this due diligence to a known Troll, I am gonna sue TS.

This is SERIOUS business.



EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to TSI Marc

Well, Teksavvy has made it to techdirt:
»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ll.shtml
--
~ Project Hope ~



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

said by HammerofGawd:

My argument would have been that Voltage's number of 2300 are inplausible and its cohort that provided them is not reputable and may not even be licensed etc and I would have demanded full diosclosure...that's not my job though, that's YOUR's.

The bottom line is IMHO TS is NOT doing all it can legally to protect its customers' privacy. IMHO that is actionable by your customers against TS on that alone.

I d not use TS, but I tell you what: if you had given out (or give out) my private info without this due diligence again a known Troll, I am gonna sue TS.

ok so, then you're saying that trolling is ok if they have the right evidence?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332

Of course not: the issue is how TS is responding to the Troll.



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

said by HammerofGawd:

Of course not: the issue is how TS is responding to the Troll.

so which is it, make up your mind.

there's a big difference.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy
Expand your moderator at work


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

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by HammerofGawd:

Of course not: the issue is how TS is responding to the Troll.

I can't say they're a troll if a troll is only a troll depending on their evidence.

but if I say, "they're a troll".. then it doesn't matter what they're evidence is.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332
reply to TSI Marc

I am neither a lawyer nor a judge nor a court: you cant corner me on legal arguments. :-P

I am speaking in generics. And my points remain valid.

The details are your affair.



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

said by HammerofGawd:

I am neither a lawyer nor a judge nor a court: you cant corner me on legal arguments. :-P

I am speaking in generics. And my points remain valid.

The details are your affair.


yes. well. thanks for that.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332
reply to TSI Marc

I will also say this though:

if the other ISPs in Canada have any stones they will quickly pony up major $$$ to help TS out in court.

This trolling GARBAGE has to stop here and now.



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

said by HammerofGawd:

I will also say this though:

if the other ISPs in Canada have any stones they will quickly pony up major $$$ to help TS out in court.

This trolling GARBAGE has to stop here and now.

This thing is already well financed. Its the arguments. The ones that lawyers and judges and courts use.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

HammerofGawd

join:2012-06-30
23332

Then I urge you to fight the fight good fight, Sir, the Troll is on the wrong side of history and morally wrong to abuse copyright laws for extortion. Savour the moment...and protect the privacy of your customers.



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

said by HammerofGawd:

Then I urge you to fight the fight good fight, Sir, the Troll is on the wrong side of history and morally wrong to abuse copyright laws for extortion. Savour the moment...and protect the privacy of your customers.

I hear you dude.

The problem is that *at this stage*, we are at the pre-copyright laws stage. i.e. all they need *at this stage* is to pass the test for obtaining production of contact information. The test for proving copyright infringement is not at all in question as this point.

I'll explain more soon. Trying to get together many of the posts and address everything so it can make more sense to everybody.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to HammerofGawd

said by HammerofGawd:

and protect the privacy of your customers.

Which so far they have done so far, I'm sure it would have been easy enough for them to just hand it all over to the trolls and wash their hands of it.

It would be nice if they did try and take them head on but I can't see what obligation they have to do so beyond the law. It seems that CIPPIC is prepared to do just that and they're in a better position to do so.

But agreed all trolls must die.

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

A few questions:

1) Can someone 'splain to me if ANY of the titles Voltage is claiming were infringed were in fact "in theatrical release" (ie. widespread showings in movie theatres) at the time of the alleged infringement?
My sources in the movie biz say that at about 4 weeks into theatrical release the producer/distributor nets about $5 per seat sold - and that amount declines from there.

2) Can anyone identify what the net proceeds of the sale of a DVD is to the copyright holder of movies/shows which are not blockbusters? Or what the net to the distributor/copyright holder is per view on Netflix? I'm guessing $1 max. and probably a lot less than that.

In other words, actual damages if non-commercial infringement is proved is in the order of $0.25-$5.00.

Maybe somebody should take up a collection at Yonge/Dundas to pay the troll off - say $250 should settle all claims in perpetutity.


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
reply to TSI Marc

@TSI Marc:

Can you comment your TS's obligations to PIPEDA and customers who say they do not consent to TS giving away their data?


ep80

join:2008-08-11
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

This need to stay beyond the piracy aspect of the Voltage situation.

The main thing here is: Customer privacy.

I understand that TSI will release information upon a court order, but if no opposition is shown, nothing will make the judge stop and think twice about it.

there is a difference between asking 1 or 2 IP when you have clear evidence that something is wrong, but on 2300 IPs?

The personal information from ISP's customers should never land in copyright trolls hands so early in a process. I might be naive and don't understand the court processing in civil cases, but still, if the plaintiff have good evidence, then the court should summon every designated customers and that's it. If forced to go in court against each individuals, Voltage and such would think twice before going after so many people.

What bugs me is the number of people they are trying to put in trouble to get X amount of money instead of going after the few persons that releases the movies in the first place.



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

1 recommendation

reply to m3chen

said by m3chen:

@TSI Marc:

Can you comment your TS's obligations to PIPEDA and customers who say they do not consent to TS giving away their data?

Legal response:

At TekSavvy, we collect, use, retain and discloses personal information in accordance with PIPEDA. We do not hand over personal information in copyright infringement cases to any one except as required by a court order.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to MaynardKrebs

@MK:

There is surprising little public information on the titled in the alleged suit. I only found Budget / Box Office numbers from wikipedia (which may not be reliable but can help piece together a picture of the money trail). BTW Tucker and Dale vs Evil was only played in a few select theaters (limited release) and that may likely be the case for many of the titles.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to ep80

said by ep80:

What bugs me is the number of people they are trying to put in trouble to get X amount of money instead of going after the few persons that releases the movies in the first place.

Well that's an important part of their plan, they need to cast the net as wide as possible to get a return on investment. They send out 2,000+ extortion demands, 1,000 say "See you in court" 500 say "Okay, here's your money, please leave me alone!" (some maybe guilty and some maybe innocent, when you use fear instead of facts you're not going to get justice so who knows which is which?) and 500 just ignore it (which is the worst thing to do, DON'T DO THIS).

So they get some cash from the ones that pay up, then they take the 500 who didn't respond to court and get a settlement against them. Pretty easy when your opponent isn't there then they sell that judgement to a collection agency for like 50% of the face value. Why not? It's free money and the collection agency can hound the victim forever and run their own legal plays to collect via garnished salaries or whatever.

All the trolls need is a hoof in the door and they can go buck wild.

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
reply to TSI Marc

@TSI Marc:

Many thanks for the answer. It helps clear up what I (and hopefully others) needed to know. Hopefully you won't mind answering this; there is no order from the court as of now correct?


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

1 recommendation

said by m3chen:

@TSI Marc:

Many thanks for the answer. It helps clear up what I (and hopefully others) needed to know. Hopefully you won't mind answering this; there is no order from the court as of now correct?

There is no order right now.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


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

1 recommendation

reply to ep80

said by ep80:

This need to stay beyond the piracy aspect of the Voltage situation.

The main thing here is: Customer privacy.

I understand that TSI will release information upon a court order, but if no opposition is shown, nothing will make the judge stop and think twice about it.

there is a difference between asking 1 or 2 IP when you have clear evidence that something is wrong, but on 2300 IPs?

The personal information from ISP's customers should never land in copyright trolls hands so early in a process. I might be naive and don't understand the court processing in civil cases, but still, if the plaintiff have good evidence, then the court should summon every designated customers and that's it. If forced to go in court against each individuals, Voltage and such would think twice before going after so many people.

What bugs me is the number of people they are trying to put in trouble to get X amount of money instead of going after the few persons that releases the movies in the first place.

Right. ok. so then this is a case of Privacy and Tolls is essentially what you're saying. So that means that their evidence is besides the point.

What would your argument to the judge be? look.. these guys have a clear history of this stuff... I know there is currently nothing in the law but you should change the law or tweak it for these special cases..

p.s. I can't post any of my own opinions here so I'm going to be devils advocate (that's not me stating they are devils, it's just an expression!)
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by m3chen:

@TSI Marc:

Many thanks for the answer. It helps clear up what I (and hopefully others) needed to know. Hopefully you won't mind answering this; there is no order from the court as of now correct?

There is no order right now.

correct
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc

@TSI Marc & Resa:

Thanks (@Marc: I can't being to imagine your troubles, but good on you for doing what you can)!

Just wanted to add; the problem with the law suit is that the evidence they are presenting is being called into question (by many on DSLr). It has not been verified by anyone other than their own lawyers and it is not definitive of concrete proof against any of the alleged copyright infringers.



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

said by hm :

Note to Mods: if you decide to delete this maybe you can pass this off to Marc in case this IP is on the "shit-list" by the extortionists.

Marc, here is another IP of yours that has been exploited. I didn't test this one though, but it's on some Russian website as good.

[redacted, but passed along. --state]

It was added to their list on, "10-dec-2012".

Would be very interesting if one of these IP's were indeed on the list of 2300+ ip's.

blah and now i'm being port scanned and hammered to see if i'm exploitable. Some of these Russian sites really suckass.

Lots and lots of Ontario companies listed. But no clue if a certain company's IP here would be one of yours.

Scary stuff


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

1 recommendation

reply to Dr Facts

said by Dr Facts :

said by HammerofGawd:

and protect the privacy of your customers.

Which so far they have done so far, I'm sure it would have been easy enough for them to just hand it all over to the trolls and wash their hands of it.

It would be nice if they did try and take them head on but I can't see what obligation they have to do so beyond the law. It seems that CIPPIC is prepared to do just that and they're in a better position to do so.

But agreed all trolls must die.

I'm told that even in the BMG case the only reason that the IP addresses weren't ordered was that there was a hearsay issue in their affidavits. All of the other arguments about whether the evidence was enough to show a copyright case, including that you can't infringe just by downloading or by making a copy available in a shared directory, that were allowed by Judge von Finckenstein were overturned by the Court of Appeal as not appropriate at this stage in the case. So Telus and Shaw won the first battle, but the Court of Appeal told BMG to go back and clear up the hearsay and they could come back and they would win the war. But by then the labels had changed their bigger picture strategy so they didn't.

This is not me giving any opinion one way or another on the current situation. I'm merely trying to help ppl understand how the courts and judges and lawyers see these things.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy