dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
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.

Hi Mike.

An interesting post as always if I may say.

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.

Maybe Marc's legal advice was:

"If you oppose it, you're accepting it's substantive data and hoping to get a result of no-disclosure. Humbly accept your own failure to deliver notices, and get a postponement."

Dave


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
said by UK_Dave:

"If you oppose it, you're accepting it's substantive data and hoping to get a result of no-disclosure. Humbly accept your own failure to deliver notices, and get a postponement."

Nah. We're talking about the disclosure of personal identifying information to an virtually unknown entity with shady dealings and associates that are basically on a fishing trip, and it's plain as day.

This should be opposed by any reasonable person. But in particular, by those who are caretakers of said information.

The more I think about it, the more pissed about it I get.

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

UK_Dave

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

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

1 recommendation

reply to UK_Dave
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.


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.

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.