dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
29

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to Rastan

Premium Member

to Rastan

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by Rastan:

I think you're making a leap by linking that paragraph to the notion that an ISP can't oppose someone from obtaining an IP address.

In exchange for the opportunity to provide notice, I had to agree not to oppose.
Rastan
join:2007-04-25
Canada

Rastan

Member

lol. Ok, so that's a different story. You are not opposing them because you made a deal, which I assume you thought would be beneficial to the 2000+ TSI customers affected by this, not because the new copyright laws prohibit Teksavvy from opposing them. You should have said this earlier on instead of making it seem the new copyright laws were to blame.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because, in my opinion, you've earned it through your actions. In the future though, please consider not making these deals. Providing advance notice is great but the cost was too high.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Well, thanks for understanding.

But, without the new laws.. none of this would be happening.
Rastan
join:2007-04-25
Canada

Rastan

Member

Thanks for being upfront about this. I hope that this doesn't lead to many more copyright trolls targeting TSI but if it does, please consider a new strategy.
UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON

UK_Dave to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
In exchange for the opportunity to provide notice, I had to agree not to oppose.
---------------------

What? You had too? You mean you chose to? Or has there been a trip to court already?

Who was this exchange with?

Isn't their providing notice part of the new requirements when the regulation changed?

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

said by UK_Dave:

In exchange for the opportunity to provide notice, I had to agree not to oppose.
---------------------

What? You had too? You mean you chose to? Or has there been a trip to court already?

Who was this exchange with?

Isn't their providing notice part of the new requirements when the regulation changed?

There is no requirement to provide notice. Not for them and also not for us. We chose to insist on providing notice.

Like I said, had we not gone this route, we likely would have been in and out of court already and we'd all be scratchinig our heads wondering wtf just happened!? (pardon my french)
johansmith
join:2012-12-15

johansmith

Member

said by TSI Marc:

There is no requirement to provide notice. Not for them and also not for us. We chose to insist on providing notice.

Like I said, had we not gone this route, we likely would have been in and out of court already and we'd all be scratchinig our heads wondering wtf just happened!? (pardon my french)

What a crock of bull!!!!
Now you are spinning it to seem like you have done so to "protect" your customers.
Look, first off, you did NOT have to negotiate anything. All you had to do was to say to them that it will take you a week plus or two weeks to give them the info. Else, they will incur in extra fees for the "rush" job. That would provide you with:

a) enough time to provide notice
b) extra cash
c) extra legal arguments for the defendants if they were not notified in advance to take action against Voltage.

Secondly, you don't have any idea what would they do or not do wrt court proceedings.

Third, you sold your customers for a bunch of magic beans and in the same process neutered Tek on purpose as to have an excuse not to intervene.

Nicely done!

Machiavelli could not have done it better!
UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON

UK_Dave to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
There is no requirement to provide notice. Not for them and also not for us. We chose to insist on providing notice.

Like I said, had we not gone this route, we likely would have been in and out of court already and we'd all be scratchinig our heads wondering wtf just happened!? (pardon my french)
------------------------------------------

I'm confused now, Marc.

You made a deal, out of court, to not oppose this on the basis you wanted to let affected users know. If you had not gone this route, why would it all be WTF and head scratching?

You would still have had to do the work on the lookups. That takes time. During that time, you notify the affected users as you match their IP address.

I don't see what TSI got out of the no-contest deal that they wouldn't have had without it?

I support you all the way, Marc. I'm not getting at you, or picking nits (pardon my English).

Cheers
Dave

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

said by UK_Dave:

There is no requirement to provide notice. Not for them and also not for us. We chose to insist on providing notice.

Like I said, had we not gone this route, we likely would have been in and out of court already and we'd all be scratchinig our heads wondering wtf just happened!? (pardon my french)
------------------------------------------

I'm confused now, Marc.

You made a deal, out of court, to not oppose this on the basis you wanted to let affected users know. If you had not gone this route, why would it all be WTF and head scratching?

You would still have had to do the work on the lookups. That takes time. During that time, you notify the affected users as you match their IP address.

I don't see what TSI got out of the no-contest deal that they wouldn't have had without it?

I support you all the way, Marc. I'm not getting at you, or picking nits (pardon my English).

Cheers
Dave

Voltage wanted to go sooner. They would have. we wouldn't have had time to do anything other maybe show up to court.
Expand your moderator at work
UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON

UK_Dave to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

Voltage wanted to go sooner. They would have. we wouldn't have had time to do anything other maybe show up to court.

----------------------------------

.... and said.....

"we need time to do this lookup, and we're going to inform the users as we do it."....

Feel free to reply if you want on this one, but I'm going to let this point drop as I feel I'm coming across as partisan against you in pushing it. I'm really not, Marc. I know in my head, I'm not. But I feel sick in my stomach everytime I post.

You're an honourable man. There's better things for me to do.

All the best,
Dave

p.s When you do get time to, I'd appreciate your thoughts in the thread on retention logs, though.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 recommendation

resa1983 to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
In the US, the ISP doesn't have to inform the applicable customers until the court order has already been approved - and the order is sent to the applicable customers, stating they have x amount of time to get an injunction or something to stop the ISP from handing the info over.

Remember that Teksavvy doesn't need to hand the data over immediately on Monday, its usually within a month or two.

It looks like Voltage wants the IPs asap, and so sent the notice to Teksavvy in advance, so Teksavvy could start getting the info ready for them immediately. If Teksavvy hadn't of made this deal with Voltage, people wouldn't be getting notice that their IP was included in the batch, until after Monday, and then people would be fighting to stop the court order after it'd already been issued (which I can only assume is more difficult to do).

Even considering all the ISPs in the US and the copytrolls there, I can think of NO other ISP which has been able to make a deal with the copytroll before the copytroll filed, so that the users could have additional time to prepare a motion to quash the court order before being issued. The fact that Teksavvy did this, is frankly short of amazing.
johansmith
join:2012-12-15

johansmith

Member

said by resa1983:

It looks like Voltage wants the IPs asap, and so sent the notice to Teksavvy in advance, so Teksavvy could start getting the info ready for them immediately. If Teksavvy hadn't of made this deal with Voltage, people wouldn't be getting notice that their IP was included in the batch, until after Monday, and then people would be fighting to stop the court order after it'd already been issued (which I can only assume is more difficult to do).

Not really. From a lawyer's perspective, the same arguments that would have been presented during the request of the motion can be presented for an injunction. No difference. All a lawyer needs to do is to point the judge to the new evidence that was not presented during the motion hearing since the "client" was not advised nor had time to seek legal counsel.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to UK_Dave

Premium Member

to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:

Voltage wanted to go sooner. They would have. we wouldn't have had time to do anything other maybe show up to court.

----------------------------------

.... and said.....

"we need time to do this lookup, and we're going to inform the users as we do it."....

Feel free to reply if you want on this one, but I'm going to let this point drop as I feel I'm coming across as partisan against you in pushing it. I'm really not, Marc. I know in my head, I'm not. But I feel sick in my stomach everytime I post.

You're an honourable man. There's better things for me to do.

All the best,
Dave

p.s When you do get time to, I'd appreciate your thoughts in the thread on retention logs, though.

It's all valid Dave.. we couldn't inform our users until *after* we knew who they were and had done the work. Until the work was done, we didn't know who they were.. as soon as we knew.. we sent notices.. there was no delay on that front.