 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to xdrag
Re: Well written article about TSI and the copyright deal 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·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. |
|
| 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. |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
 ·FreePhoneLine
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
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"
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. |
|
|
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 | 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.. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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 |
|
| 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.. |
|
| 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.
i'd argue your wrong especially in this case
voltage wants 10K per infringement for commercial infringement
prove how you can show someone made money off your stuff with just a list of ip addresses sir...no really...should be tossed out of court on those grounds alone and TSI should have said that....
you have to be selling something for it to be commercial last i checked
if i take my diablo2 cdr and give it to you its not a commercial sale...its a gift....non commercial and in that case non infringing
argue later if someone infringed when they refile with the non commercial where they might show up and get 100$ per each of there movies infringed up to the max of 5K...hardly worth paying your lawyers isnt it.
thats why they are trying it. to game the system ....and once they get peoples names and addresses regardless of the fact its non commercial there gonna try and extort more they they should be allowed. thats wrong totally. |
|
| reply to resa1983
Re: Well written article about TSI and the copyright deal said by resa1983: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.
yea the law changed to add commercial and non commercial damages
so when you file in court and say commercial and it isnt it should be tossed and you refile for non commercial damages and the govt told judges to error on the low ball side of the 100-5000 so as not to cause undue hardship....
and the main diff here is that commercial infringement can get you up to 20K per each infringement while NON commercial gets you 100-5000 FOR ALL INFRINGEMENTS , the idea was to not have mass lawsuits like this going on...
and regardless of the notice and notice that has not been put into place the rest of the law has achieved ascent....and they filed after the law came into affect and you cant plead ignorance of the law. |
|
| reply to eots
said by eots: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.
tell me how seeing someones ip address in batch of others equates to commerical gain for that ip address?
haha .... |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by funny:said by eots: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.
tell me how seeing someones ip address in batch of others equates to commerical gain for that ip address? haha .... They've done that so they can attempt to sue for statutory damages..
If THEY sue for non-commercial, they give up statutory damages, and then any infringement of OTHERS' copyrighted works done before Voltage's filing automatically waives statutory damages as well.
They're leaving the door open for other suits by others against Teksavvy customers.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
4 edits | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983: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.
Not that any of what I'm about to say matters in this specific case, since the CIPPIC is protecting users interests here, but for other examples that are sure to come up after this test, here are a few thoughts.
Businesses are required to test the validity of requests for account and consumer info. It's part of being a business in Canada and also LAW. If not, all anyone has to do to obtain your name and address is get a lawyer and threaten an ISP. We have checks and balances in law for this, but it's increasingly apparent that private companies find the risk of infringing on consumers privacy to basically be non-existent. I spoke with the BC Civil Liberties Association earlier this year about lawful access and privacy in which that concern came up:
»canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/···a-ep-01/
The position TSI has presented legally to not validate these requests under law is especially disconcerting when almost exactly a year ago Canadians spoke out in numbers on lawful access information in which Government wanted to obtain your account info without a warrant. For TSI supporters, why is this acceptable for TSI to allow basically that to happen here?
Teksavvy is a great company. They have had a history of sticking up for consumers. Marc is an awesome dude. But some need to put that aside and look at the broader implications of this. I speak with Christopher Parsons on what some of the implications are not just on consumer rights, but also on Democracy when privacy is threatened:
»canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/···a-ep-02/
Yes TSI did what it had to do to protect itself, but at what costs to Canadians going forward? This could have profound impacts well beyond the scope of this case. The new safe harbor provisions DO NOT say anything about exempting an ISP on its responsibility under privacy laws to its consumers.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
|
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to eots
said by eots: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.
Exactly! |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Well before taking any action against TekSavvy I need to hear more public discussion of the law. I am particularly confused if any laws compel or even allow an ISP to ensure the privacy of their customers when that privacy is challenged vs they ought not to be a safe harbor behind which customers can hide. |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
| reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:Businesses are required to test the validity of requests for account and consumer info. It's part of being a business in Canada and also LAW. If not, all anyone has to do to obtain your name and address is get a lawyer and threaten an ISP. We have checks and balances in law for this, but it's increasingly apparent that private companies find the risk of infringing on consumers privacy to basically be non-existent.
Your statement does not address the requirement by law for an ISP not to be a safe harbor behind which customers can hide. I need help to understand. If its a case of new law then I am worried that CIPPIC is standing alone. I know little of them. Are they the best defense to this invasion of privacy that we have? |
|
| said by QuantumPimp 
Your statement does not address the requirement by law for an ISP not to be a safe harbor behind which customers can hide. I need help to understand. If its a case of new law then I am worried that CIPPIC is standing alone. I know little of them. Are they the best defense to this invasion of privacy that we have?
Basically what the new safe harbor provisions do, is exempt an ISP from being held liable when a *copyright* claim is made against their customers as long as they pass the *information* along to its consumers Specifically, ISPs under law can only pass the intent of litigation or warning of infringement to consumers. That's where the safe harbor provisions stop.
However when someone like Voltage comes across and is demanding the release of consumer information, that's different and subjected to Canadian privacy laws not safe harbor provisions.
For instance and as an example, if any information is released to Voltage (that at a later date presumably a defendant in the case argues) was released without merit (meaning against privacy legislation) and the court agrees, any case Voltage brings against individual down loaders could be thrown out, and Teksavvy made liable for the release of that information.
However, the CIPPIC is involved in testing the merits of the requests for user information in *this case only*, which means most likely no information will be released due to it quite possibility be not standing up to the legal merits needed to release account information within privacy law.
What TSI has basically done, is misused the *safe harbor* provisions in the new legislation to save from the costs of ensuring users privacy is protected. That probably won't mean very much in this case, but going forward if other ISPs take the same legal stance, users have to be aware of what their rights are to ensure an adequate defense is presented on their behalf.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
|
|
