dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2075
share rss forum feed

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

Voltage vs TSI Applies to ALL TSI Customers

The logic is simple, so is the argument.

The current motion to disclose concerns 2,300 TSI IP's. However, those are not the only TSI IP's Voltage has. Think of it as a prelude. Item: Some TSI customers targeted by Voltage were wrongly targeted for the simple fact that they were not TSI customers at the time of the allegations. For those two reasons, any TSI customer is a potential target - and a wrong potential target - for future motion to disclose by Voltage. Consequently, any and all TSI customers have reason to oppose the current motion to disclose by Voltage on January 14th, 2013.

The alternative is that as-of-yet unknown TSI IP's - therefore as-of-yet unknown TSI customers - will become targets (whether rightly or wrongly) of future motion to disclose by Voltage, without a say now, even as any and all TSI customer can reasonably anticipate being targeted by such future motion to disclose.

A good analogy is to sit and wait, in spite of knowing there's a tornado coming there, and if it hits there, it will invariably hit here. IOW, we know its entire path in advance, if it goes through here first.

I don't know, but I doubt there is no legal precedent for such things.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23

If Voltage wins on the joinder challenge CIPPIC plans to use there's nothing stopping them from adding the rest of TSI's non-Ontarian customers to the claim as well.


Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12

1 recommendation

reply to JonyBelGeul

Actually, it concerns Customers from ALL ISP's. Voltage's strategy was to target TSI initially, but I can guarantee you that they, through Canipre, gathered IP's from all other ISP's in much greater numbers. Canipre made news a few weeks back when it announced it had collected data on 1 million (1,000,000) IP's. The motion to request customer names from the other providers is probably already drafted. Voltage is just using this as a test case to measure the profitability and effectiveness of their scheme.



derekm

join:2008-02-26
kudos:1

said by Fuzzy285:

Voltage's strategy was to target TSI initially, but I can guarantee you that they, through Canipre, gathered IP's from all other ISP's in much greater numbers. ... Voltage is just using this as a test case to measure the profitability and effectiveness of their scheme.

Not to mention they are trying to set a precedent against someone who isn't going to have the resources (cash), and the PR (with cabinet) to fight them directly.

There is little pressure TSI can bring to bear on our 'hairy lump', while Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus basically whisper sweet lullabys in his ear to put him to sleep.

Once the precedent is set, the larger players are easier pickings, as in patent suits.

Let's not forget how justice works.

Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON

said by derekm See Profile

Once the precedent is set, the larger players are easier pickings, as in patent suits.

Let's not forget how justice works.
[/BQUOTE :

Well the one thing with TSI not contesting it, is they aren't setting any precedent. (at least that is my understanding).

With that said I would have trusted Rocky to fight tooth and nail for us, obviously his brother is not up to task on it, and choose to more passively fight it.


funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

The logic is simple, so is the argument.

The current motion to disclose concerns 2,300 TSI IP's. However, those are not the only TSI IP's Voltage has. Think of it as a prelude. Item: Some TSI customers targeted by Voltage were wrongly targeted for the simple fact that they were not TSI customers at the time of the allegations. For those two reasons, any TSI customer is a potential target - and a wrong potential target - for future motion to disclose by Voltage. Consequently, any and all TSI customers have reason to oppose the current motion to disclose by Voltage on January 14th, 2013.

The alternative is that as-of-yet unknown TSI IP's - therefore as-of-yet unknown TSI customers - will become targets (whether rightly or wrongly) of future motion to disclose by Voltage, without a say now, even as any and all TSI customer can reasonably anticipate being targeted by such future motion to disclose.

A good analogy is to sit and wait, in spite of knowing there's a tornado coming there, and if it hits there, it will invariably hit here. IOW, we know its entire path in advance, if it goes through here first.

I don't know, but I doubt there is no legal precedent for such things.

like i said should voltage on such flimsy evidence actually win here , im going to say you all took my stuff and ill get all your names and addresses and phone numbers for a mere 120 bucks in small claims

WHO cares ill drop suit later claiming im now to poor to continue
haha
oh the humanity and i can jsut see real convicts walking out a jail cause hte courts so backlogged they cant get trials in proper times.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

If Voltage wins on the joinder challenge CIPPIC plans to use there's nothing stopping them from adding the rest of TSI's non-Ontarian customers to the claim as well.

lets nail htis one and here is why its great TSI got you a warning
lawyer up ask for a donation i dont care how you do it do it.

then request to the court that you be read aloud your charges
2300 people having that read to them will take a long long time
this is how you make even the ten grand issuance not get so worthy and when you get to evidence yu can easily get this crashed into mars, as there is no way on earth they can prove any of these 2300 profited form there precious movies by sheer file sharing.

I use the term file sharing as that also might entire you seeding it to get ratio so you can then get another movie elsewhere at some other time.

the fact is most joined cases also known as class actions are brought agaisnt ONE defendant
NOT 2300
the courts allow everyone whom is accused to have charges read to them....that alone times 2300 is gonna mean years...before voltage gets even past that bit.

and then your not even at the evidence to which as i said is awful. if they had files non commerical then some people might have a problem BUT again see above...it goes from 10000 per infringement to
5000 max for all and its a range of 100-5000 and judges were told to error on low side so that "undue harm" to the defendant is not done as well. Imagine if judges give 100$ for all your infringements....

now instead one company wants to mass sue 2300 people
well a corporation that gets sued will ask to have charges against it read so if they out your name and address drag it out as long as you possibly can. make voltage pay through the ears as a message to the next silly company that this action won't be tolerated.

and show me any of you where i am wrong that a defendant has no right to hear his charges read against him/her ....

if it takes 30 minutes to an hour per person
that's 2300 hours that's saying lunch and breaks and a few hours for setups etc along way you could be looking at 400 days to just get the charges read.

long time to wait to not even get to real trial yet
every tsi user should buy a guy falks mask and show up to court....

oh and last i checked there has never been one person mass sue a mass of people so this is new ground to even allow it...


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
reply to JonyBelGeul

Can I apply to have a change of venue? Note: I'm not one of the customers affected, I looked at the list of movies...who would even think of downloading these things...

Since it would cause me economic hardship being in Sudbury to travel to Toronto....would this be a sort of legal loophole?

I feel sorry for those affected...I'm glad my parents know nothing about P2P since if they did I technically own their account (they pay me and I pay TSI, just easier for them) I'd be on the hook for something they did....

Is that legal? Is it like car insurance? Just because the service is in my name if someone else uses it I'm on the hook?? Seems also unfair...

Anywho, just my thoughts.