Reviews:
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Cable
| Well written article about TSI and the copyright deal Lot's of non-Canadians seem to be angry too
»torrentfreak.com/canadian-isp-de···-121218/
--
I hate rogers and their CRAP tech. support... But, MAJOR kudos to the TekSavvy team! |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | That isn't a very flattering piece they wrote there, eh.
But, it could also have been the card teksavvy is playing. Won't know till later on for sure, if ever. |
|
 elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1 | reply to KPaul
Teksavvy has clearly made a sound logical decision regarding their position in this case. They are upholding their civic and corporate responsibility while maintaining a position of transparency to their customers.
As innocent involuntary participants in this matter, Teksavvy were clearly were left no other choice.............. |
|
| I think Teksavvy stands to lose a lot of customers over this if they hand over customer info. Anyone can collect IP addresses and file a request for a court order to access private customer info without requiring any proof that they have a valid claim. The burden of proof needs to be on the plaintiff. Teksavvy should only be required to provide customer info to law enforcement under a court order, not to any joe blow in a civil matter. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Courts can order the information released regardless of whether the case is civil or criminal. TekSavvy has made it very clear they will never release such information without a court order, but if the court order is issued of course they're going to comply with it. They're not going to break the law. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to eots
said by eots:Teksavvy should only be required to provide customer info to law enforcement under a court order, not to any joe blow in a civil matter.
That's not how the law works, though. Fact is, they are required to turn it over if there is a court order. It doesn't matter if it's a civil or criminal case. |
|
|
|
Bhruic
join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to KPaul
I really wish they'd stop with the "why aren't they doing what Shaw and Telus did in 2004" angle. The reason they aren't doing it is precisely because the law changed. I suspect that if Shaw and Telus get hit today, they won't fight it any more than TekSavvy has. |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
·TekSavvy DSL
2 edits | reply to KPaul
Well when you have an entire floor of an office building filled with Mirko Bibics like the big three you fight in court and probably win. Seems simple enough.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility. |
|
| reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:Teksavvy has clearly made a sound logical decision regarding their position in this case. They are upholding their civic and corporate responsibility while maintaining a position of transparency to their customers.
As innocent involuntary participants in this matter, Teksavvy were clearly were left no other choice..............
I tend to disagree.
Mostly because Voltage is has a known bad track record for trying to leverage the difficulty there is in mounting a defense against them to extort money from the would be defendants.
If not clear: they do all that is possible to create a scenario where people cannot mount a decent defence against them, it is the less likely outcome.
Their track record is awful not to say ridiculous, at correctly allegating who did what. And they are often forced to abandon persuit altogether when asked for proof or evidence (when actual opposition is made).
At which point it's not longer a question of privacy or piracy. It's rapacious capitalistic bullying. A business model, if you want to be polite.
Most people have little if no time left in their lives to deal with a lawsuit. Most are just a few weeks a year away from working a full year without any variance for these issues. So again, this is something the trolls count on. We are so busy trying to make ends meet, that a fairly small monkey wrench in our daily activities is often worth throwing money at, to make it go away.
And it starts not with a trial... but before the subjects of the allegations can act.
The trolls know it. But we assume TSI also knows it.
i.e.:
It's been said here by fairly level headed people before on these forums. It's not about justice for Voltage but money. And that issue has been sidestepped entirely, from TSI. Many have noticed even if it hasn't been articulated.
One could argue it a case for privacy for where we could say, TSI is on the hook, but I think it is not. If anything it's kin of "due process".
And in this case, "the process" is somewhat left at the hands of TSI and Voltage. The outcome of which didn't seem quite "fair" to most, last time around, if I'm sensing it right.
Surely TSI's customers would have preferred a bit of due dilligence as in actually asking for proof that support the allegations, instead of a list of IP addresses. But of course it is not up to TSI to decide the value of that proof (merits of the case etc...), it is better to have a court evaluate it. It is the proper channel.
But court will not evaluate it, if it is not challenged! And it was not.
Hence, I believe, the ire of some TSI customers.
At least that's how it appears to me.
--
Cheers! |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| We all know what Voltage is doing. No its not right, but theres unfortunately nothing to be done about it AT THIS POINT. To bring up history, has to be done further down the line.
As for why TSI isn't fighting:
The law changed. If TSI attempts to fight it, they risk no longer being neutral, and could possibly become liable themselves for their customers' alleged infringement.
Getting CIPPIC in on this is in everyone's best interests.. TSI's as they're no longer potentially liable, and all of Canada, because if CIPPIC wins they'll set precedence for other ISPs to follow if any other suits come to Canada.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by resa1983:The law changed. If TSI attempts to fight it, they risk no longer being neutral, and could possibly become liable themselves for their customers' alleged infringement.
Totally wrong, they would never be found liable. This has been tried before in Canadian courts and failed.
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting
|
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| said by d4m1r:Totally wrong, they would never be found liable. This has been tried before in Canadian courts and failed.
Not since the new laws took effect. At least not that I've heard of. |
|
| said by bt:said by d4m1r:Totally wrong, they would never be found liable. This has been tried before in Canadian courts and failed.
Not since the new laws took effect. At least not that I've heard of. We're "before" the Copyright laws. We don't even know if Voltage actually has a case! That's kind of the point. Which means: can an judge coerce an ISP to hand over names, before a bona fide case is made?
In short: It makes no sense that a judge makes users become prey to a scam before it passes some kind of legal review.
No matter the article of law cited. IMHO
--
Cheers! |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by drjp81:said by bt:said by d4m1r:Totally wrong, they would never be found liable. This has been tried before in Canadian courts and failed.
Not since the new laws took effect. At least not that I've heard of. We're "before" the Copyright laws. We don't even know if Voltage actually has a case! That's kind of the point. Which means: can an judge coerce an ISP to hand over names, before a bona fide case is made? In short: It makes no sense that a judge makes users become prey to a scam before it passes some kind of legal review. No matter the article of law cited. IMHO Voltage doesn't give a damn whether they have a case or not - they won't actually file it (unless someone causes them a ton of trouble Voltage'll file against them as revenge), and frankly, Voltage doesn't have to. The IP to subscriber is 'only so they can know who to file suit against'. Which is bullshit of course, but its allowed. Its been allowed in the US, and its been allowed here.
Let me say this now: NOBODY GIVES A DAMN ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A CASE OR NOT AT THIS POINT. That entire part comes up during a trial after they follow suit against named defendants.
The fact that CIPPIC is attempting to nip this in the bud before people are named will be big.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3
·TekSavvy Cable
| Voltage's only goal here in reality is to get a name to go with the IP so they can send them "pay or else" letters to scare them into settling out of court. The liklihood of them taking anyone to actual court is next to NIL. Its just a spectulative extortion scheme.
--
IF TREE = FALL AND PEOPLE = ZERO THEN SOUND = 0
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by TwiztedZero:Voltage's only goal here in reality is to get a name to go with the IP so they can send them "pay or else" letters to scare them into settling out of court. The liklihood of them taking anyone to actual court is next to NIL. Its just a spectulative extortion scheme.
That's what's going on here, they're purposely looking to harvest funds from parties they perceive as being unable to defend themselves. This is a revenue stream, masquerading as a legal proceeding.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to Bhruic
said by Bhruic:I really wish they'd stop with the "why aren't they doing what Shaw and Telus did in 2004" angle. The reason they aren't doing it is precisely because the law changed. I suspect that if Shaw and Telus get hit today, they won't fight it any more than TekSavvy has. Um, please find me somebody familiar with the law who actually believes that no ISP is allowed to challenge the validity of a requested court order before it's issued. I don't believe it.
The FAQ - »balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site···l#status - states "The Bill establishes that ISPs and search engines are exempt from liability when they act strictly as intermediaries in communication, caching and hosting activities."
That means when it comes to communication, caching, and hosting activities that the ISP is exempt from liability if they only act as intermediaries. Opposing a legal motion by doing what Shaw and Telus did in 2004 instead of just rolling over has nothing to do with communication, caching, and hosting activities. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:This is a revenue stream, masquerading as a legal proceeding.
You mean, after-market cost recuperation, as they state it 
It's kinda like, "Market Forces". |
|
xdrag
join:2005-02-18
North York, ON | reply to KPaul
Quite disappointed in this decision. I understand TSI position but they should be fighting along with the cippic rather than throwing the ball to them. Voltage doesnt even have a legit case yet!
Im not one of the ones affected but in the future, ill know TSI will not stand their ground when it comes to my privacy. Opens the floorgate for the rest of the copright trolls. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
1 edit | reply to tired
And where in that list of three requirements which absolves them of liability does legally representing customers fall under exactly? If they begin questioning the validity of the orders, they are no longer just an intermediary in the proceeding and could become liable themselves...
Intermediary is just a go-between. Nothing more.. Passes info along. Not butts their nose into things.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
