dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54605
share rss forum feed

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to The Mongoose

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by The Mongoose:

said by jedi :

And what about commercial infringement claim? Money changing hands or accounts? It is clearly a BS designed to raise the extortion sum bar and has to be challenged.

This might be the most glaring weak point of Voltage's case. Even if they do get past this hearing and start suing people, there's virtually no way they can make this stick.

Or you know, CIPPIC/TSI could bring up the fact that the program that Canipre uses is extremely flawed, and have lots of proof.. There's been plenty of evidence as to how flawed that program is.

Expect that Monday's hearing will be full of twists and turns people.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

d_source

join:2011-01-18
In order for their to be twists and turns, the people affected need to show up and represent themselves, so at a minimum i'm hoping they are smart enough to do that.

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

In order for their to be twists and turns, the people affected need to show up and represent themselves, so at a minimum i'm hoping they are smart enough to do that.

You're assuming the judge won't allow CIPPIC to intervene?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

d_source

join:2011-01-18
If I were one of the people affected, i definitely wouldn't rely on that! I'd have my own lawyer in there for sure! I'm not even with TSI and I am going to support the funds being collected to stop this mess. It NEEDS to stop on Monday.

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

In order for their to be twists and turns, the people affected need to show up and represent themselves, so at a minimum i'm hoping they are smart enough to do that.

Wrong.
They need to have counsel represent them.

Voltage knows nobody's names/addresses now. You want to be an idiot and show up to represent *yourself* - and go on the record with your name & address - fine, be a fool and do that. Next thing you'll be looking at is a subpoena to seize your computer & backups to look for evidence of infringement. That's what I'd do to anyone who *gave up* their identity as you've proposed.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

said by d_source:

In order for their to be twists and turns, the people affected need to show up and represent themselves, so at a minimum i'm hoping they are smart enough to do that.

You're assuming the judge won't allow CIPPIC to intervene?

There is no guarantee that the judge will allow CIPPIC to intervene.

TSI made a deal with Voltage to allow TSI to allow time for TSI to contact those alleged to have infringed to allow them to represent themselves (hopefully via counsel) in court. The 14th is that date.

If no counsel shows up for individuals, and Voltage says "Your Honour, TSI and us had a deal, and now there's there is this CIPPIC thing trying to force their way in - when no counsel of record for anybody showed up, come on - give us a break. We did everything we said we would. The alleged infringers were notified and chose not to represent themselves. Please grant us the order requiring TSI to hand over the names."

If that's the way the 14th played out, and I were the judge, I'd be inclined to agree with Voltage.


amik

@bahnhof.se
reply to resa1983
Noone seems to mention commercial infringement filed by trolls. There is not a shred of evidence of commercial infringement in a first place - where are records of transaction and money changing hands, records of personal financial gain by 2000+ IPs? Correct - there is NONE.

d_source

join:2011-01-18
reply to MaynardKrebs
Yes, sorry, when I say represent themselves, I meant anonymously by sending counsel on their behalf, you are correct.

And you have a very good point. If no counsel appears from the ~2300 affected, why would the judge allow CIPPIC to intervene? Again, if it were me, there's no way I would let this go unfettered.

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

1 edit
reply to amik
said by amik :

Noone seems to mention commercial infringement filed by trolls. There is not a shred of evidence of commercial infringement in a first place - where are records of transaction and money changing hands, records of personal financial gain by 2000+ IPs? Correct - there is NONE.

Perhaps all this is true of all ~2000 individuals.
But there is no way of knowing for sure without going to trial, doing examinations for discovery, and forensic analysis on every computer/backup, and bank records.

Voltage isn't going to do that because it would cost them tens of thousands for EACH person to do that, and then when they couldn't prove commercial infringement each defendant would claim $20-$100k in costs against Voltage.

If I were the judge on the 14th and did in fact let Voltage have the names, I would make it a condition that Voltage sue each named person in Federal Court and incur the costs of making their case, rather than simply sending extortion letters. There is NO a priori way of knowing who of the ~2000 actually infringed without going to trial.

----

FYI

The Criminal Code of Canada says this:

346. Extortion

346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Extortion
(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

yada yada yada

Saving
(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.


In other words....
346(2) gets Voltage off the criminal hook.


Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to d_source
>why would the judge allow CIPPIC to intervene?

I think CIPPIC makes an argument for that in their latest letter? The judge did read their first one so that's could be taken as a positive sign.

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
reply to MaynardKrebs
I keep hearing this "deal" is made. Isn't there a law that ISP is required to inform the customer a third party is requesting private information? I think it is the "Notice to Notice" or something? So I'm don't know what is this "deal" all about.

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

>why would the judge allow CIPPIC to intervene?

I think CIPPIC makes an argument for that in their latest letter? The judge did read their first one so that's could be taken as a positive sign.

We won't know *what* it means until the 14th.
Right now all it means is that he's read the letter and is considering what comes next.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
The motion to intervene by CIPPIC was filed on the 21st last month, and served to both Voltage & Teksavvy. I linked it before I think...

Either way, it'll be decided on on Monday, with additional arguments CIPPIC has held in reserve, as well as plenty of evidence. I know I've been tossing a few things off to CIPPIC to help them out...

One thing I'm wondering... Has CIPPIC ever been denied on a motion to intervene?

The Judge seemed open to hearing CIPPIC, until Plaintiff's counsel brought up the fact that CIPPIC hadn't formally filed to intervene.. But still read the intent to intervene, which he didn't need to do.

I think its encouraging.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


amik

@snydernet.net
reply to MaynardKrebs
So, basically its an extortion attempt under a false pretenses then. Lovely


Zing

@beanfield.net
I wonder if we could class-action their asses after all this is done.

d_source

join:2011-01-18
reply to resa1983
What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that CIPPIC will be able to win this on their own. Is everyone putting their eggs into that basket only? I see a lot of people posting here about what could/should be done, about what TSI should do, and CIPPIC, but I haven't read anyone's post that they have contacted a lawyer and that their lawyer will be present on Monday. Unless that happens, I see this as an easy victory for Voltage, sadly. And then the extortion letters will begin and other companies will follow the leader. This is so wrong in so many ways and yet I don't see anyone defending themselves properly.


Zing

@teksavvy.com
It would cost that brave person hundreds of dollars to bring a lawyer in for the hearing. Are you willing to put down 500$ for the good of everyone ?

Also, not everyone lives in Toronto.
So you can add travel cost and time to that.

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

What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that CIPPIC will be able to win this on their own. Is everyone putting their eggs into that basket only? I see a lot of people posting here about what could/should be done, about what TSI should do, and CIPPIC, but I haven't read anyone's post that they have contacted a lawyer and that their lawyer will be present on Monday. Unless that happens, I see this as an easy victory for Voltage, sadly. And then the extortion letters will begin and other companies will follow the leader. This is so wrong in so many ways and yet I don't see anyone defending themselves properly.

The case can't continue on until CIPPIC's motion to intervene is ruled on by the Judge, which may or may not happen on Monday.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to d_source
said by d_source:

This is so wrong in so many ways and yet I don't see anyone defending themselves properly.

I haven't kept up on the entire thread, however, a lot of people posting here were not on the list of IPs. Those that are, if they have consulted a lawyer, were probably first told not to talk about it publically.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by A Lurker:

I haven't kept up on the entire thread, however, a lot of people posting here were not on the list of IPs. Those that are, if they have consulted a lawyer, were probably first told not to talk about it publically.

QFT, discussing your legal strategy in an area where your opponents could find out what it is, is a bad idea.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


citizenkane

@bell.ca
reply to d_source
i would not call it extortion.
i mean they broke the law.
it's either you settle outside of court or you take your chances with the law. simple as that. don't like it.. don't pirate.

said by d_source:

What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that CIPPIC will be able to win this on their own. Is everyone putting their eggs into that basket only? I see a lot of people posting here about what could/should be done, about what TSI should do, and CIPPIC, but I haven't read anyone's post that they have contacted a lawyer and that their lawyer will be present on Monday. Unless that happens, I see this as an easy victory for Voltage, sadly. And then the extortion letters will begin and other companies will follow the leader. This is so wrong in so many ways and yet I don't see anyone defending themselves properly.


Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
We don't like the settle price they are asking, so we will see you in court. However, I have not seen one case where someone file defense in court and then they take the person to court.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to citizenkane
said by citizenkane :

i would not call it extortion.
i mean they broke the law.
it's either you settle outside of court or you take your chances with the law. simple as that. don't like it.. don't pirate.

1. The last time I check you are innocent until proven guilty. The motion is against Teksavvy to hand over the Does information. Maybe you should try to read carefully and thoroughly before you make a ridiculous post.

2. It is extortion and it seems all the professionals disagree with you.

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON
reply to citizenkane
said by citizenkane :

i would not call it extortion.
i mean they broke the law.
it's either you settle outside of court or you take your chances with the law. simple as that. don't like it.. don't pirate.

That's a somewhat ignorant statement on your part. Because you don't know if "they", being ALL the people being accused, broke the law.

And even if "they" did, if you've been reading this thread you should know that it's not the point. This situation is like doing 10 km/h over the speed limit on an empty road and then later, based on a picture taken by a 3rd party, receiving a summons for dangerous driving. Speeding 10 km over the limit is about a $50 fine. A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year license suspension (for a first offense). The charges are ridiculous, the evidence to support them even more so, but now you have to spend thousands of dollars appearing in court and fighting the system. You are of the opinion that there would be nothing wrong with such a situation, and those who don't like it, shouldn't drive. All I can say is, wow.

cynic10

join:2011-02-05

1 edit
reply to citizenkane
said by citizenkane :

i would not call it extortion.
i mean they broke the law.
it's either you settle outside of court or you take your chances with the law. simple as that. don't like it.. don't pirate.

Please go educate yourself further on the matter before making such statements. You come off as very ignorant and I'm trying to be nice here.

God forbid, if you or your family members ever get mistakenly accused of pirating, I'd like to see you eat your words and put your money where your mouth is, assuming you or they can even afford to settle.

banishtrolls

join:2013-01-11
Montreal, QC
reply to TSI Marc
Marc - You really need to decide that you will not be a "sell-out" and you really need to fight this as hard as you can, for your sake and your customers. Don't set a precedent by simply rolling over.

Do you think the 2000 will still want to be your customers? What about the next batch of 2000, and the next after that? What about the people like me who recommend TSI to their customers and shun companies who willingly hurt their own customers? Don't expect any business from me if you continue on the road of indifference (not my problem.)

Privacy is a huge unresolved issue vis-a-vis the Internet. Ask Facebook.
If you have a good conscience, you should already know you're making a mistake. Don't take the easy road. Don't be evil. Listen to what the majority view here says (you are wrong.)

Even if you don't win, at least you will be able to hold your head up high and say "I did my best."


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to citizenkane
It is a civil court not a criminal court. It is not like the RCMP caught these people, but the plaintive claimed that they do.

At this point, it is their word vs everyone else. This first part is the release of users information. Until the actual trial case(s) (if at all) on the infringement, can't even say they have broken the law or not.

These 2000+ people from an ISP are being sued for "commercial" copyright infringement which is highly unlikely.


shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
An interesting column on the lack of representation in court:
»www.financialpost.com/m/wp/legal···entation

d_source

join:2011-01-18
What a great article. That's exactly the way I see it. Of 2300+ invloved, no one will be there to quash this. CIPPIC will not be granted to intervene and TSI will just sit there and do nothing even though they very well could. And all those names, most of which i assume are not guilty, will be fed to the dogs. I feel Monday will be a sad sad day to be a Canadian.

Jaxom

join:2012-03-10
East York, ON
reply to TSI Marc
Civil court issues should not be grounds for personal data to be disclosed.

Unfortunately the Conservatives are trying to make it possible that cops don't even need a search warrant any more to get our personal information. Absolutely offensive fascist laws.