 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·FreePhoneLine
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to jkoblovsky
Re: Well written article about TSI and the copyright deal said by jkoblovsky: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.
This is exactly why most state that Teksavvy is setting a very bad precedence on this matter for the future of consumers in Canada. For voltage i think they came in expecting a fight from TSI, now it's a slam dunk, guaranteed they'll become best of buds monthly |
|
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983: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. NO they haven't Show me where they PROVED BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that they showed that commercial gain was had by any of the ip addresses YOU CANT
and thats part im talking about....voltage screwed up they are trying to use the new law in the wrong way...and it don't take a lawyer to know this...geist himself even mentioned it...
this isn't the trial NOR a hearing on evidence YET before any evidence is pruned OR discovered properly other then some list of ips your saying it equates to commercial infringement?
HOW does an Apache Web Server log at a church full of ip addresses then differ from a bit torrent swarm list....in your opinion it doesn't and both equate to some weird notion of commercial use?
NO your utterly wrong and if you want to press the issue put up some intellectual property pm me ill dl it without permission and you can try and sue me for commercial copyright infringement ....i wish i was part of this case and perhaps ill file like cippic to make sure this issue is brought up.
Ya see dear sir the new law makes it quite clear there are two variations of infringement commercial and NON commercial.
a kid downloading a music tune is not the same as one selling the tune on a dvdr at a street corner....
ONE does real harm the other does far far less.
feel free to look up what commercial means ...one you read it your gonna go back to your voltage company and realize you filed wrong....and that it wont be worth the time and money to file this type a suit as NON commercial.THAT also allows every poor person legal aid...
and waiving those what rights? they don't have the right to waive statutory damages in the way you think...this isn't the broke states of america buddy. THE law is clear the max i can get for all infringements for non commercial infringement is 5000 dollars...
Believe you me you never will get 5000 for a single or a few movies either..so go on keep paying those troll lawyers lets see whom the scum bag lawyers are in Canada so we can look at deporting economic terrorists. |
|
|
|
4 edits | reply to Tx
Just to further this a bit, and using this as an example (but not the case with Teksavvy, it's different now with the CIPPIC involvement) but had the CIPPIC not been involved here, a couple of things.
It's businesses that assume any and all legal risk when it comes to their consumers privacy. A motion in court to not oppose, sends the message to the judge that the business agrees with the legal merits of the request.
Judge's very rarely look at the merits of the request unless the businesses oppose that requests, because businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date.
The problem here and what several privacy advocates including the BCCLA have alluded to in the past is that it's much cheaper for a business to get away with that, because consumers rarely know what their rights are on the subject and because penalties for infringing on these rights are small right now, to the point that many businesses factor privacy violations into the costs of doing business. That's a direct argument the BCCLA has made on record:
»canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/···a-ep-01/
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
|
|
| reply to KPaul
What people seem to not understand here, is TSI can challenge the served warrant about release of user names.
MAnyMany companies have done that. When the plaintiff has a warrant in hand does not automatically mean it can be used on the spot to get subscriber information. The warrant can be challenged(even if it is the police serving it, in a non-time sensitive serving) for validity of evidence that was used to procure the warrant.
ex... We got a warrant for that rabbit farm[imaginary] in your apartment that your upstanding neighbor[crazy] said you have, so either comply or we will beat you to a pulp to gain entry.
ex...We the police got a warrant to search your grow-op[imaginary] cause you use to much electricity(that your hydro authority freely gave to us) since we made an unlawful law that says they can not contest us gaining that information, so let us in or we will steal your fully paid for hydro meter to terminate service and cause you hardship[freeze to death].
Challenge of the warrant is a basic need to assure the TSI/defendants that the warrant was gotten by legitimate means.
If the warrant was gotten by illegitimate means, that is perjury. Punishable by 2 days in lockup or some type of monetary fine.
TSI could be held liable for giving out subscriber information without checking for validity of the warrant.
CIPPIC argued that there had been insufficient time from the filing of the motion to yesterday’s hearing date for defendants to “learn of the motion, retain, be advised by and instruct legal counsel,” and insufficient time for “CIPPIC to prepare and file an application to intervene in the motion.” |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | said by notaloyer :What people seem to not understand here, is TSI can challenge the served warrant about release of user names.
They already did last Monday when they declared certain things have just come to light...
I think what people *don't understand* is that Teksavvy has very well just done what you are stating.
They have flipped and stated their customers require due process. This got things pushed back a month.
Now what happens next month is something else. |
|
Reviews:
·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. Yes, they have the business to lose. If the court says "give us that data" and you say "no" they dont just go away.
They come seize your shit and put your management in cuffs.
Good plan....
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png |
|
 MJB
join:2012-01-29 | reply to KPaul
will tube based downloader's be monitored ? youtube, etc |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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.
This is a misconception. Teksavvy chose not to oppose Voltage Pictures. It had absolutely nothing to do with the new copyright law. Nothing in the law states that an ISP can not oppose a motion to reveal their customer's information.
When an ISP doesn't oppose these types of requests, a judge is probably more likely to allow this information to be given to 3rd parties, even copyright trolls. |
|
| reply to TwiztedZero
said by TwiztedZero: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.
so does this mean most people who got similar letters before just ignored them and nothing happened? I've read in a few comments of users here who received letters in the past, one regarding software (maybe 3DStudio), did they just toss the letter and the cases eventually went away also?
I didn't get one, btw, but i'm curious how this develops and turns out. |
|
| reply to MJB
said by MJB:will tube based downloader's be monitored ? youtube, etc
Interesting question, but probably moot. A 3rd party can't tell the difference between watching a youtube video (perfectly legal), and downloading the video for later personal use (I'm not sure if that's legal or not).
For example, you can download a music video and extract the audio to play it on your mp3 player. Is that legal? I'm not sure, but no 3rd party can tell that's what you're doing unless they seize your mp3 player.
So, legal or not, you have nothing to worry about if you're downloading stuff from youtube. (Other than ethical dilemmas.) |
|
| reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:Just to further this a bit, and using this as an example (but not the case with Teksavvy, it's different now with the CIPPIC involvement) but had the CIPPIC not been involved here, a couple of things.
It's businesses that assume any and all legal risk when it comes to their consumers privacy. A motion in court to not oppose, sends the message to the judge that the business agrees with the legal merits of the request.
Judge's very rarely look at the merits of the request unless the businesses oppose that requests, because businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date.
The problem here and what several privacy advocates including the BCCLA have alluded to in the past is that it's much cheaper for a business to get away with that, because consumers rarely know what their rights are on the subject and because penalties for infringing on these rights are small right now, to the point that many businesses factor privacy violations into the costs of doing business. That's a direct argument the BCCLA has made on record:
»canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/···a-ep-01/
Exactly. You said it better than I could, but that's what I'm getting at.
--
Cheers! |
|
xdrag
join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
2 edits | said by drjp81:said by jkoblovsky:Just to further this a bit, and using this as an example (but not the case with Teksavvy, it's different now with the CIPPIC involvement) but had the CIPPIC not been involved here, a couple of things.
It's businesses that assume any and all legal risk when it comes to their consumers privacy. A motion in court to not oppose, sends the message to the judge that the business agrees with the legal merits of the request.
Judge's very rarely look at the merits of the request unless the businesses oppose that requests, because businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date.
The problem here and what several privacy advocates including the BCCLA have alluded to in the past is that it's much cheaper for a business to get away with that, because consumers rarely know what their rights are on the subject and because penalties for infringing on these rights are small right now, to the point that many businesses factor privacy violations into the costs of doing business. That's a direct argument the BCCLA has made on record:
»canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/···a-ep-01/
Exactly. You said it better than I could, but that's what I'm getting at. Agreed, IMO TSI is taking the easy way out. As customers, we built TSI from the indie IP it once was to the "alternative" for Robellus. Our privacy should be protected and they shouldn't just roll-over at the first sign of trouble.
Once again, it's not whether these 2000 people allegedly downloaded copyrighted material. It's the fact that TSI isn't contesting the legitimacy of the court order. If Voltage has a fail-proof system to say person A has my movie on their computer then sure, hand the information over. This is about a company who is using shady, unproven methods to possibly extort 2000 IPs that may or may not be the right person.
Imagine when an average family who has no idea this is going on gets a letter from Voltage that they are getting sued. The shock of the letter alone will probably just make settle rather than find a costly lawyer even if they never downloaded the movie.
On the other hand, if the police came to TSI and said "we found evidence that so-so is uploading child pornography" that's a totally different ballgame.
This is a company that is picking on end-users as a revenue stream. (and already got thrown out in US courts) |
|
| said by xdrag:On the other hand, if the police came to TSI and said "we found evidence that so-so is uploading child pornography" that's a totally different ballgame. That doesn't make any sense to me. You either want TSI to fight tooth and nail for your privacy, or you want them to roll over.
A lot of the discussion here talks about how some people can be wrongly accused of copyright infringement, even with some examples of how it can be done. Well those same methods can be used to make someone appear guilty of uploading child pornography too.
The difference here is that being wrongly accused of copyright infringement is a "who cares" situation (in the grand scheme of things anyway). On the other hand, being wrongly accused of child pornography could be life ending.
So maybe by "totally different ballgame" you mean that TSI should fight even harder for your privacy in child porn cases, to ensure that your life isn't ruined over something you didn't do? |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| said by Ree:The difference here is that being wrongly accused of copyright infringement is a "who cares" situation (in the grand scheme of things anyway). On the other hand, being wrongly accused of child pornography could be life ending. If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading child pornography then the police will get a search warrant, will come and pay you a visit, take all of your computers and hard drives, do very exhaustive forensic analysis on them that will confirm you are innocent, return your property, and apologise.
If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading Barry Munday then you will get a letter in the mail telling you that you are about to be sued for $10,000 but if you act soon on their one-time offer and send them a cheque for $3,500 they will forgive you. So you pay them to go away or you spend much more than $3,500 to stand before a judge who hears them say you did it and present paid expert witnesses who confirm you did it and then hear you say "nuh uhh, my wireless was hacked" before the judge hands you a $100 fine and tells you to be good from now on.
Both situations would suck, but for many people a few weeks without a computer is preferable to having to pay money that they don't have. |
|
| said by tired:said by Ree:The difference here is that being wrongly accused of copyright infringement is a "who cares" situation (in the grand scheme of things anyway). On the other hand, being wrongly accused of child pornography could be life ending. If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading child pornography then the police will get a search warrant, will come and pay you a visit, take all of your computers and hard drives, do very exhaustive forensic analysis on them that will confirm you are innocent, return your property, and apologise. If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading Barry Munday then you will get a letter in the mail telling you that you are about to be sued for $10,000 but if you act soon on their one-time offer and send them a cheque for $3,500 they will forgive you. So you pay them to go away or you spend much more than $3,500 to stand before a judge who hears them say you did it and present paid expert witnesses who confirm you did it and then hear you say "nuh uhh, my wireless was hacked" before the judge hands you a $100 fine and tells you to be good from now on. Both situations would suck, but for many people a few weeks without a computer is preferable to having to pay money that they don't have. In the end, yes a few weeks without a computer for something you didn't do is probably favourable to paying money you don't have for something you didnt' do.
The problem is it takes time to get there, and all the while people will be assuming your guilty. And like I said one is a "who cares if you're guilty" offense, and the other is "I hope someone kills you" offense. And it's quite likely that after all is said and done, people will still think you're guilty even if the evidence (or lack thereof) says otherwise.
But that wasn't my point. I just wanted to show that it's silly to demand that TSI fight Voltage, but then to say they should roll over for the police. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Ree:said by tired:said by Ree:The difference here is that being wrongly accused of copyright infringement is a "who cares" situation (in the grand scheme of things anyway). On the other hand, being wrongly accused of child pornography could be life ending. If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading child pornography then the police will get a search warrant, will come and pay you a visit, take all of your computers and hard drives, do very exhaustive forensic analysis on them that will confirm you are innocent, return your property, and apologise. If somebody hacks your wireless and your IP is associated with uploading Barry Munday then you will get a letter in the mail telling you that you are about to be sued for $10,000 but if you act soon on their one-time offer and send them a cheque for $3,500 they will forgive you. So you pay them to go away or you spend much more than $3,500 to stand before a judge who hears them say you did it and present paid expert witnesses who confirm you did it and then hear you say "nuh uhh, my wireless was hacked" before the judge hands you a $100 fine and tells you to be good from now on. Both situations would suck, but for many people a few weeks without a computer is preferable to having to pay money that they don't have. In the end, yes a few weeks without a computer for something you didn't do is probably favourable to paying money you don't have for something you didnt' do. The problem is it takes time to get there, and all the while people will be assuming your guilty. And like I said one is a "who cares if you're guilty" offense, and the other is "I hope someone kills you" offense. And it's quite likely that after all is said and done, people will still think you're guilty even if the evidence (or lack thereof) says otherwise. But that wasn't my point. I just wanted to show that it's silly to demand that TSI fight Voltage, but then to say they should roll over for the police. Exactly right and during this time you know what happens to those (even innocent) labeled a child pornographer? (if this was the accusation... That's a hard label to dust off when you're in the end proven innocent... These stories are usually broadcasted to the media as well.
Floodgates open and it's really a game of whose next and what will be the charge... |
|
| reply to DarkStar33
said by DarkStar33:said by eots:I think Teksavvy stands to lose a lot of customers over this if they hand over customer info. Yes, they have the business to lose. If the court says "give us that data" and you say "no" they dont just go away. They come seize your shit and put your management in cuffs. Good plan.... Voltage can't seize Teksavvy's servers or have them arrested, this is not a criminal matter, it's civil and you've completely taken my comment out of context. I'm just saying Teksavvy will lose customers by not opposing Voltages request for a court order and handing over private info if the court order is granted. Everyone including Teksavvy knows full well that Voltage is just abusing the law to extort money out of customers and Teksavvy is aiding them with this by not opposing their request. 2000 customers is a lot of business to lose, not to mention collateral damage by losing other customers who feel their personal info is up for grabs to anyone who wants to file a court order and Marc won't oppose it and will just hand it over without question. |
|
| reply to Tx
said by Tx:Exactly right and during this time you know what happens to those (even innocent) labeled a child pornographer? (if this was the accusation... That's a hard label to dust off when you're in the end proven innocent... These stories are usually broadcasted to the media as well.
That's certainly one bad outcome, but that outcome is likely anyway, because the police could easily get a warrant to get the info they need. They'll arrest the accused before they ever analyze his computer, and then he's all over the news.
But I have a different concern...
If the police really have evidence that someone is involved in child porn, then it is very simple for them to get a search warrant from a justice of the peace and present that to Teksavvy. They can get that any time of the day or night. That ensures the evidence is vetted by a neutral party. (It's probably just rubber stamped, but it ensures that there's a paper trail.)
If Teksavvy is handing over customer's info just because a police officer CLAIMS he's got evidence, then that opens the door to abuse from a rouge cop that may simply have a grudge against someone that posted something bad about him.
There are plenty of police officers that get reprimanded for using police resources for personal grudges (against ex's, enemies, etc.) It's not a stretch that a bad cop would claim child porn just to get a name of someone that flamed him on a message board or something.
Please, Teksavvy, confirm that you NEVER hand over private information without a court order or search warrant. |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to Ree
said by Ree:The problem is it takes time to get there, and all the while people will be assuming your guilty. Nope. The police won't issue a press release saying they have launched an investigation to find out if Neighbour Bob is uploading child porn just because he pays the bill attached to an IP address that was associated with it. They'll gather real evidence and if they find it will lay charges and then Neighbour Bob will be outed as a creep. Nobody will be assuming anything unless charges are actually laid.
On the other hand Voltage are acting like the IP address is real evidence and will use that to punish you.
said by Ree:But that wasn't my point. I just wanted to show that it's silly to demand that TSI fight Voltage, but then to say they should roll over for the police. The difference is how these two parties treat IPs that are released by ISPs. The police rightly treat it as a lead while copyright trolls treat it like it's conclusive proof. |
|
| reply to RobOutback
said by RobOutback:[
Please, Teksavvy, confirm that you NEVER hand over private information without a court order or search warrant.
In this Voltage matter, they have confirmed that they don't just roll over and had the info out. |
|
