dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5415
share rss forum feed


KPaul

join:2007-02-08
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed

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:2
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..............



eots

join:2003-02-04

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.


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

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
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.



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·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.



drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
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!

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

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



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

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

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.


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

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!

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

1 recommendation

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


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

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

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

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·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.


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

1 edit

1 recommendation

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



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to xdrag

said by xdrag:

I understand TSI position but they should be fighting along with the cippic rather than throwing the ball to them.

They can *both* attack this from different angles. Which is what I'm assuming is happening.

They didn't just toss this at cippic as far as I can make out.

cippic had an argument and so did TSI's lawyers.

Two diff entities w/ two diff angles from which to attack.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

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.

By my understanding of reading the FAQ and the bill, the absolution of liability has to do with actually handling the copyrighted file in question. It has to do with "communication, caching and hosting activities".

There's no liability with other activities of an ISP that don't involve the network -- whether it's troubleshooting connections, accepting bill payments, dealing with other ISPs for upgrading connections, or questioning the validity of the claim of some copyright troll who wants you to hand over information.

But if there's a lawyer out there who would like to correct my understanding, then please do.


eots

join:2003-02-04
reply to bt

said by bt:

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.

I'm just saying TSI should oppose the release of customer information in civil matters. The courts should also require the plaintiff to prove their claim is legitimate before they order any release of private information. In this case it's pretty clear the plaintiff is not legit.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
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 think the argument you're missing is, marc's statement about "The law is the law" We do not abide by illegal activity.

This statement already brands these users guilty. As the ISP i believe should be protecting these users until some sort of proof is provided to a person, not an account. I think TorrentFreak wrote it exactly how it is.

Other ISP's are fighting what Teksavvy is allowing.


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

1 edit
reply to eots

said by eots:

said by bt:

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.

I'm just saying TSI should oppose the release of customer information in civil matters. The courts should also require the plaintiff to prove their claim is legitimate before they order any release of private information. In this case it's pretty clear the plaintiff is not legit.

Considering Voltages reputation for this. They have already basically stopped filming and decided it's a better revenue stream to go after people. Toss a shit film online, let the internet swallow it and bring it a better revenue then the film would have made in theaters... especially coming from them.

Then i see shit like this happening...
This is how it's going to be in the future...

Voltage: Hey Marc, how was the ball game?
Marc: good, 6-1 we lost
Voltage: Got a list of IPs here
Marc: Happen to have the court papers so i can hand it over
Voltage: Yup, judge didn't even look it over, just signed it
Marc: here and don't forget about the game on saturday
Voltage: see you again next month bud

Obviously not exactly like that, i'm being rather over the top but words that come to mouth are "floodgates"

said by KPaul:

Lot's of non-Canadians seem to be angry too

»torrentfreak.com/canadian-isp-de···-121218/

Seems a lot of people non-canadian and canadian are pretty furious at Marc's decision to stand back and wash his hands clean of it. I usually ignore reading the comments on TorrentFreak but wow, a lot of idiots on there but a lot of valid points.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to KPaul

oops


xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
reply to hm

said by hm :

said by xdrag:

I understand TSI position but they should be fighting along with the cippic rather than throwing the ball to them.

They can *both* attack this from different angles. Which is what I'm assuming is happening.

They didn't just toss this at cippic as far as I can make out.

cippic had an argument and so did TSI's lawyers.

Two diff entities w/ two diff angles from which to attack.

From what I read, TSI is buying time for the CIPPIC. they're not opposing the order. At this point in time, the 2000 customers can only look to CIPPIC to defend them.

The biggest issue right now I have is that everyone thinks, including TSI, these 2000 IPs are "guilty" of piracy. That's simply not true. In most of the world, they are innocent until proven guilty. TSI is willing to hand over private information of 2000 innocent customers without contesting their accusers. It's been discussed many times here but "how does voltage know these people are "guilty"?", "why should TSI hand over private info to a private company aimming to extort these customers (which may be based on false/wrong information".

For all we could know, it's a made-up list of IPs of low-income people who can't afford legal fees and forced to settle the costs. (guilty or not)

perhaps when this plays out, TSI may turn out to be the genius with the silent but deadly strike but right now, they're not doing much..


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

said by xdrag:

said by hm :

said by xdrag:

I understand TSI position but they should be fighting along with the cippic rather than throwing the ball to them.

They can *both* attack this from different angles. Which is what I'm assuming is happening.

They didn't just toss this at cippic as far as I can make out.

cippic had an argument and so did TSI's lawyers.

Two diff entities w/ two diff angles from which to attack.

From what I read, TSI is buying time for the CIPPIC. they're not opposing the order. At this point in time, the 2000 customers can only look to CIPPIC to defend them.

The biggest issue right now I have is that everyone thinks, including TSI, these 2000 IPs are "guilty" of piracy. That's simply not true. In most of the world, they are innocent until proven guilty. TSI is willing to hand over private information of 2000 innocent customers without contesting their accusers. It's been discussed many times here but "how does voltage know these people are "guilty"?", "why should TSI hand over private info to a private company aimming to extort these customers (which may be based on false/wrong information".

For all we could know, it's a made-up list of IPs of low-income people who can't afford legal fees and forced to settle the costs. (guilty or not)

perhaps when this plays out, TSI may turn out to be the genius with the silent but deadly strike but right now, they're not doing much..

There is no "silent but deadly strike"... i can near guarantee that.. Action is now, not after names are public
Expand your moderator at work

tedrampart

join:2011-12-13
London, ON
reply to KPaul

Re: Well written article about TSI and the copyright deal

i can see this from both ends, as a tek customer, I pay and have a contract of agreement with teksavvy.. I don't however have a contract with CIPPIC when it comes to protecting my private information.

I also understand that tek doesn't want to portray to the courts that they're in any way enabling illegal file-sharing..

however, given the massive involvement of voltage in other jurisdictions, I'd think tek's stance would have been making a point in court that while they condemn any illegal acts, and would gladly release the info of those that do engage in it, given it's knowledge of the technology, and inaccurate depiction of it in the court filing, they stand up and say the motion for disclosure is lacking enough for them to feel confident they aren't selling their customers down the river and face litigation from future former clients..

given the many statements before Monday's hearing, posted here by some very informed individuals, you'd think they'd have enough to question the motives and practices of voltage to ensure their clients privacy is in fact protected.. and if voltage wants to push the issue, teksavvy should demand more evidence to support the claim.. before passively mass incriminating a large portion of clients.

ESPECIALLY since this is a precedent setting situation... either way, people won't forget this, nor will they forget what emotions they felt about it one way or another...

me personally I'm disappointed, not shocked, but it does leave a bit to question teksavvy and how their view of their customers are swayed so easily by a list of IPs and a claim from an illegitimate entity.... end of the day, my payments goto TSI under the agreement laid out by my contract with them... not CIPPIC or whomever else steps up to intervene..

just my uneducated epinion.. obviously there's a lot more to this that most of us aren't privy to..