dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6871
share rss forum feed

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage

From: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···rt-case/

Over the past several weeks I’ve been aware of the debate surrounding ISPs handing out costumer account info on copyright infringement. Media reports are full of “illegal downloaders” “you will get sued if you download” “ISPs ordered by courts to provide information on file shares.” Canadians are concerned and for the most part even those not effected by the copyright trolls or who don’t download feel violated. I know several businesses and consumers are writing to their ISPs on privacy concerns through this, and some ISPs have responded vowing to take their customers privacy seriously. This post explains some interesting developments I think everyone needs to be aware of.

The privacy implications currently being debated in court on the Teksavvy Vs Voltage case will have a tremendous impact on everyone’s online privacy rights, not just Teksavvy customers, and not just on downloaders, but businesses, consumers, politicians, everyone will be affected by this in one form or another. I can see why the CIPPIC involvement here is essential, but so is how we got here. That’s going to take some explaining.

So let’s try to unravel the pandora’s box so it makes some sense. For that lets start with what the actual law, the new copyright law states:

“38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.”

There are 2 types of civil damages. Punitive; which means pay because you broke the law, and statutory meaning you pay a set penalty the if the plaintiff can prove financial harm. In Canada the judges are more likely to award damages more closer on what the actual harm has been to the plaintiff rather than award damages to punish people. In the US however punitive damage awards are offered up more. As one of my American family members put it “We sue everyone and everything because if you have a dispute this is how we settle it.” In Canada we settle things usually over beer, or a peace pipe and leave the courts out of it for the most part.

Now for the interesting twist to all of this. In copyright cases in the US, there has never been a case I am aware of, where actual economic harm has been determined. In 2010 the US accountability office couldn’t even come up with numbers on how piracy and online piracy is effecting the US economy if at all. In over a decade this has been studied and there is no conclusive evidence that economic harm has been created by a non-commercial infringement. There’s an economic reason for that. It’s called Creative Destruction, which is now widely excepted as fact when looking at the economic numbers from the media industry. I will have a later post after the Q 4 profits are announced, that will bring up some independent economic research to everyone’s attention, and further explain what Creative Destruction is, but short answer, there’s like a 0.1% chance of being held liable for non-commercial infringement in Canada due to the requirement of proving economic harm to obtain those penalties. Yes there are some that will starkly disagree, because they hold the “ideology” that downloading is bad or stealing, rather than looking at the economic facts which strongly do not support that way of thinking.

During the copyright consolations the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) which represents several indie ISPs provided this statement on the importance of a notice to notice approach (it’s important to note Rogers, and Bell supported this approach as well) Jay Thomson from the CAIP stated this in the Toronto Round table in 2009:

“Notice-and-notice has always made more sense than any other proposed regime because it addresses the primary vehicle for on-line infringement, P-to-P file sharing. And it does so directly, efficiently, and proportionately while respecting due process. It does not take much to imagine how a parent will react when he or she receives a notice advising them that activity by a family member — dare I say a teenaged son or daughter — has exposed the family to possible and very expensive legal action.”

To an extent, the notice to notice approach would facilitate an ideological form of copyright trolling so it’s not surprising knowing this, that this would be exploited somehow by rights holders. Now it’s worthy to note the notice to notice approach is not in place in law right now, however other than the legalization of non-commercial infringement, or the flip side getting your internet cut off for infringing, trolling is their only option under the new legislation and the balanced approach many experts fought for and was agreed upon by Government and your ISPs.

Now that we understand why we are in this position, as the pandora’s box opens even more, things are becoming much worse than some kid downloading a movie, or tune and that is that ISPs are currently not challenging the court orders on subscriber information to ensure due process they fought on consumers behalf to get in the consultations. This is creating an environment where your right to privacy is basically being thrown out the window on copyright infringement accusations. And the reason why, because it costs ISPs money to ensure due process is respected.

Teksavvy went as far as to say they can’t get involved in defending due process because the new copyright laws say they have to remain neutral. In fact nowhere in the new copyright legislation does it mention ISPs, service providers, neutral or safe harbor. It was however supported in the copyright consultations that, ISPs should be exempt from copyright infringement liability simply because they act as intermediaries. Basically under notice to notice, this would mean all they had to do was to pass the information from a plaintiff off to their consumers to be exempt from copyright damages. Safe Harbor was the term coined to that policy. To my understanding, safe harbor provisions do not and would not exempt an ISP in ensuring due process prior to handing out requests for account information from plaintiffs assuming these provisions currently exist in the first place.

To explain further; It’s businesses that assume any and all legal risk when it comes to their consumers privacy. If a motion to obtain account information is not opposed in court, it 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. All ISPs thus far over the past few weeks have not opposed the legal merits of the request coming from rights holders. This is how consumers information is being handed to the copyright owners. However one party has, which in my mind brought up questions and serious concerns as to why ISPs are not opposing the legal merits of these requests thus ensuring due process.

The CIPPIC has an excellent submission to the court on its intent to intervene calling into question the evidence submitted, the intent of the Hollywood studio to bring these cases to trial. Remember no economic evidence exists to prove economic harm to even be qualified for the statutory damages in the first place. I will have more on this in a later post. The CIPPIC goes then into a description of copyright trolling. So why haven’t ISPs taken this stance in opposing motions for a court order for account information? Remember defending due process costs money, in this case it might be big money. Here’s what’s at stake:

There are several rules that a court looks at when a motion for information is opposed. One of them is Federal Court Rule 238. Basically judges weigh whats in the public interest, the case going forward or the right to privacy which is what Voltage is trying to get to happen. Think of it as the scale of justice. Whichever holds more weight, wins. And excellent discussion on this can be found here, and the differences between what happened in 2004 to what’s going on now. The last paragraph is concerning. It states:

“Even though these types of lawsuits started off on the wrong foot in 2004, there appears to be a current upswing in their popularity, both in the US and now in Canada. The results of these preliminary cases will determine the legal landscape for equitable discovery of Internet infringement cases in the future. Since it is almost certain that the goal is to obtain names and addresses of the individual infringers and then settle with them, the results of these very earlier cases will be absolutely determinative of individual privacy rights on the Internet.”

This has Supreme Court written all over it, with consumers screwed on both sides of this. Civil liberties, privacy and consumer advocates are now left to pick up the pieces because ISPs won’t. The sad part is, this is all over an ideological argument that doesn’t even have enough evidence behind it to even have a successful day in court, and that those advocating for the notice to notice approach somehow want to social engineer Canadians into thinking it has? Non-commercial infringement should have been legalized, and I’m sorry ladies and gents, will be down the road and after these attempts of copyright trolling are dealt with, that might just happen.

But one thing I’m certain is going to happen, when the copyright lobby loses they always get a severe ass kicking on the way out. SOPA is just one example. They will lose here because we’ve already had the “individual privacy rights on the internet” debate on a national scale around lawful access exactly one year ago. It is incomprehensible that Canadians would find it acceptable to give those rights up over a copyright infringement accusation, when we won’t even let government near that information. The public interest is on internet privacy, it’s too bad ISPs don’t see this past their own self interests, and politicians can’t see past their own pocket books. Settle in folks, it’s going to be a while before this is dealt with. In the mean time, know what your rights are and get ready to fight.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
said by jkoblovsky:

From: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···rt-case/

Over the past several weeks I’ve been aware of the debate surrounding ISPs handing out costumer account info on copyright infringement. Media reports are full of “illegal ...

How I wish I could write like that!
--
Cheers!


shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky
This is all stuff we have already stated in the various other topics.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
said by shrug :

This is all stuff we have already stated in the various other topics.

Not all of it, and if so it needs to be stated again, and again, and again!
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

reply to jkoblovsky
I dont think anybody should use this as a substitute for sound legal advice.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
said by TSI Marc:

I dont think anybody should use this as a substitute for sound legal advice.

I agree, however this post should be considered if not handed over to legal council when individuals are seeking legal advice.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc:

I dont think anybody should use this as a substitute for sound legal advice.

I agree, however this post should be considered if not handed over to legal council when individuals are seeking legal advice.

I would not recomend that at all.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

1 edit
One thing I to strongly agree with though is that people do get independent legal advice. I'm pretty sure that Teksavvy was represented in the copyright consultations by the CAIP. It's my understanding that they are members of the CAIP.

Regardless of what Marc, myself or anyone says, know what your rights are. Information is key, and there's no harm in asking questions posed in this post to legal council to ensure individuals have an adequate legal defense.

I'm also expecting several people, even legal experts who have financial stakes in all of this to disagree quite strongly with what I've posted. Independent legal council is in a way better position to inform you of your legal rights and defense, than any information posted by any party online. There are a lot of people, even good people who have financial stakes in all of this.

The reason why I've posted this, is so that individuals can ask certain questions this post raises, to ensure that your rights are protected going forward.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
To my knowledge, we have no association with CAIP.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

I think his reasoning is the case you make that non-commercial copying should be legal. You're trying a different approach, when our government has already decided it isn't.

My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

Edit: corrected an incorrect statement.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

To my knowledge, we have no association with CAIP.

I find that hard to believe Marc, considering your past involvement.

»www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···rtc.html

[blockquote]We're bracing for a worst-case scenario, as Bell has a lot to lose if this doesn't go their way," said Rocky Gaudrault, chief executive of TekSavvy, a CAIP member. [/blockquote]

Where's Teksavvy's copyright consultation submission?
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


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

1 recommendation

reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

I think his reasoning is the case you make that non-commercial copying should be legal. You're trying a different approach, when our government has already decided it is.

My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

Maybe then the content creators will learn a lesson and stop milking the market. Maybe it's what it will take for a serious change. (not to stop paying for content) but for the content creators to suffer losses enough to financially stumble and embrace what is right in front of them.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker See Profile
My personal opinions is that one way (or another) we do need to pay for our content. It's just the delivery system that needs to change. If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

That's completely fine to believe that, and I respect that, and I respect that view. However when it comes to defending yourself legally, all cards need to be thrown on the table, especially if ISPs are not coming to bat for their consumers privacy, and what that could mean for consumers on whole.

Questions do need to be posed. I have my own beliefs, which is based on independent economic research I've done. There are a lot of people who have financial stakes in all of this, which is the reason why questions need to be posed to ensure your rights are being protected.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

Well, I think you mean well.

so for example:

"Judge’s very rarely look at the merits of the request unless the businesses oppose that requests"

In the last Voltage case, without any opposition from the ISP, the judge wrote a 6 page decision analyzing and setting out why the test was met.

...

"businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date"

That's just not true at all.

...

"In fact nowhere in the new copyright legislation does it mention ISPs, service providers, neutral or safe harbor"

31.1(1) - “A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter.”
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc:

To my knowledge, we have no association with CAIP.

I find that hard to believe Marc, considering your past involvement.

»www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story···rtc.html

[blockquote]We're bracing for a worst-case scenario, as Bell has a lot to lose if this doesn't go their way," said Rocky Gaudrault, chief executive of TekSavvy, a CAIP member. [/blockquote]

Where's Teksavvy's copyright consultation submission?

Dude. That article is from 2008 and talks about throttling... not copyright. If CAIP was involved with Copyright consultations.. we didn't have anything to do with it.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
Marc,

There were a lot of people hiding behind lobbies in the copyright consultations. Sometimes interested parties were represented 4 to 5 times.

Regardless, can we at least agree here that no matter what has been said, the appropriate place to ask questions to ensure your own customers rights are being respected, is for them to contact a lawyer for independent legal advice.

I'm not out to "get" Teksavvy. My main concern here throughout all of this is to ensure people get sound advice from their legal council, and that they question their council to ensure their rights are respected through this process.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

said by jkoblovsky:

Marc,

There were a lot of people hiding behind lobbies in the copyright consultations. Sometimes interested parties were represented 4 to 5 times.

Regardless, can we at least agree here that no matter what has been said, the appropriate place to ask questions to ensure your own customers rights are being respected, is for them to contact a lawyer for independent legal advice.

I'm not out to "get" Teksavvy. My main concern here throughout all of this is to ensure people get sound advice from their legal council, and that they question their council to ensure their rights are respected through this process.

If people were hiding behind lobbies and represented multiple times.. you're just as guilty for assume we were one of them. We were not. If Rocky had something to say.. he just came out and said it.

When were these consultations you're talking about anyway?

I do agree that you should know your rights you should speak to a lawyer for that. I dont think people should use your post to know their rights.

For the "get" TekSavvy. With comments like "especially if ISPs are not coming to bat for their consumers privacy". It appears to me that that is exactly what you're doing. Whether intended or not, that is the net effect.

We've actually done a lot in fact. Maybe if you said something like: "They've done everything possible except do what a dedicated Privacy advocacy group does", that might be closer to what's actually going on.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

said by TSI Marc See Profile
If people were hiding behind lobbies and represented multiple times.. you're just as guilty for assume we were one of them.

That's why it's extremely important Marc for consumers to question their independent legal council.

Yes you are right, I could be hiding behind a lobby pushing for an agenda. And from following the consultations, people should be concerned on that, no doubt. At least I'm in good company, with testimony from Governments own independent sources (which do not have a financial stake in this) to back up my position. That testimony will be used in a forthcoming economic post on the subject.

I welcome any scrutiny, and I think my record on standing up for consumer issues over the past year, speaks for itself.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to Tx
said by Tx:

Maybe then the content creators will learn a lesson and stop milking the market. Maybe it's what it will take for a serious change. (not to stop paying for content) but for the content creators to suffer losses enough to financially stumble and embrace what is right in front of them.

The problem is that you see way too many people talking about cutting their cable, and how they can get their content other ways. Few are talking about paying for it. I personally agree that the cable companies are out of control. Once you've paid for your basic cable, try getting 3 or 4 specialty channels. There's almost no chance that they're in the same bundle.

I pay for my cable (grudgingly), pay for Netflix, and have a TV capture card on my old desktop. I also have a DVD recorder. So I can record what I want, and don't feel the least bit guilty if I forget to do so and end up using Usenet to download something. I've paid for it already. Under the law it's not legal though, primarily because someone had to upload it for me to download it.

The Toronto Star, yes jumping media for a moment, will go pay sometime next year. However, as a newspaper subscriber, I'll have access to the online content for free. How cool would it be if the cable companies could do the same. I pay my X amount of dollars a month and can download anything I've missed. They could even limit it to some extent so you don't download simply everything.

No, if you want to do that you need to buy/rent a DVR from them. Ones, that I understand from complaints across many forums, that don't always work. There's very little chance that the cablecos and/or Bell will ever really seriously consider changing their delivery model.

I'm not sure how Netflix is doing in Canada. With content like the US (a season behind) it could be a decent competitor to cable. Although I'm not sure if the next year model will support people making new content. If it does, that's great. However, as more people decide to go to cheaper Netflix again, how do you support new stuff?

Then there's a certain percentage of the population who think that the moment they pay their internet subscription that everything should be free. Oh, and that their bandwith should be unlimited at the same time.

This last, usually quite vocal, group is why you get people in other threads saying 'don't pirate and you'll be okay'. They think everyone accused is guilty. And we all know that not everyone is. However, you see tons of threads talking about 'how many bytes and what percentage' - and boy, it looks like a huge amount of backpeddling.

I'm seriously surprised that 2000+ people would even be interested in the list of movies posted. That makes it way more suspect than anything else.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
Sorry I misread what you wrote, very eager to defend my position on what I've written.

Okay, I'll take you to task on this. If Teksavvy doesn't agree with the notice to notice approach, it's still before government with ISPs being represented, is Teksavvy willing to oppose such an approach publicly?

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

So I can record what I want, and don't feel the least bit guilty if I forget to do so and end up using Usenet to download something. I've paid for it already. Under the law it's not legal though, primarily because someone had to upload it for me to download it.

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

What's the solution? Don't know... But what we have now isn't working and unless our judges are much smarter than our politicians things are about to get much, much worse.

One bright ray of hope though is that the recording industry seem to have gotten it though. They moved from the SUE EVERYONE!!! model, Metallica's Napster Bad angst, and DRM everywhere years onto "Hey, people who are our fans will buy our stuff if we just price it reasonably and make it easy to use. So why don't we just try that?"

Hopefully the TV and Film industries will figure it out soon too.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
said by tired:

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

Well, I don't upload, so legitimately being picked up in a sweep is lower. Note, I didn't say none. The problem is as you raised: reasons.

A - pays for cable, movie network - downloads movie XYZ because they taped it but set recorder wrong, missed ending.

B - buys a DVD and rips it to their media player, to keep the original pristine.

C - thinks paying $12.25 x 2 (plus the overpriced drinks and stuff) is way too much so downloads it instead.

A & B - I get, C - I don't. The first two result in some amount of money going to the producer for each viewer/purchaser, the last one doesn't. All three are technically illegal, all probably think what they're doing is okay.

There does have to be a better way, but I honestly think we're likely decades away from a better model.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by A Lurker:

said by tired:

That's exactly it, isn't it? There is a law out there that you're breaking just as heartily as somebody out there who doesn't pay anything and if you're picked up in a sweep you'll receive exactly the same extortion threats as everyone else. But you feel justified because of X reason just like others feel justified in doing it because of Y reason. That's the symptom of a Bad Law.

Well, I don't upload, so legitimately being picked up in a sweep is lower. Note, I didn't say none. The problem is as you raised: reasons.

A - pays for cable, movie network - downloads movie XYZ because they taped it but set recorder wrong, missed ending.

B - buys a DVD and rips it to their media player, to keep the original pristine.

C - thinks paying $12.25 x 2 (plus the overpriced drinks and stuff) is way too much so downloads it instead.

A & B - I get, C - I don't. The first two result in some amount of money going to the producer for each viewer/purchaser, the last one doesn't. All three are technically illegal, all probably think what they're doing is okay.

There does have to be a better way, but I honestly think we're likely decades away from a better model.

Unfortunately tho those reasons are not an excuse for downloading a copy that you did not purchase. I doubt the court would except any of those as a defense since the Act is quite explicit.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit
said by AkFubar:

Unfortunately tho those reasons are not an excuse for downloading a copy that you did not purchase. I doubt the court would except any of those as a defense since the Act is quite explicit.

That's my point about needing a better distribution model. The middle one is probably the only one that has the lowest potential to get you in trouble. Heck, iTunes lets you put your owned CDs on your iPod, which is the equivalent of example B. Why wasn't Apple* hauled into court?



*brain fart - changed to correct company


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

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

1 edit
reply to jkoblovsky
Yes that's true. It's also true for vidz or music you purchase in hardcopy from a store. But remember you paid for those legit in a store which grants you a limited license.

--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

Sorry I misread what you wrote, very eager to defend my position on what I've written.

Okay, I'll take you to task on this. If Teksavvy doesn't agree with the notice to notice approach, it's still before government with ISPs being represented, is Teksavvy willing to oppose such an approach publicly?

Jason,

I'm really not sure what you mean. Take me to task? Isn't that what you were already doing? You're talking all cryptic. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I checked and we haven't had anything to do with CAIP for more than two years and probably closer to three.

I'm not trying to cut you down, you clearly care about these issues and that's good.

For Notice and Notice, i don't know much about it at this point other than it hasn't yet come into effect and a consultation is to start at some point soon. If it were into effect now, it still wouldn't prevent this Voltage situation since it's meant as an alternate method not a replacement path to the one Voltage has opted for.

In general, as I'm sure you can imagine by everything that's gone on so far, I'm pretty fond of the notion of giving our customers notice ahead of these things. We have quite literally flipped the bill for all of this at this point even when there is no such requirement and we may not even recover our costs depending on what the court may order. In fact as I stated before, we will almost surely be out of pocket.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to A Lurker
Ripping a commercial DVD involves breaking a digital lock, which is illegal and so I don't believe any respectable dvd ripping software will do this for you.

Ripping a CD doesn't require breaking any locks, so you're just using a tool. The assumption is that you know your legal rights (or lack thereof) and will only use the tool when it is legal and you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your actions if you are wrong in the unlikely event that you're caught.

Fyodor

join:2012-08-13
said by tired:

Ripping a commercial DVD involves breaking a digital lock, which is illegal and so I don't believe any respectable dvd ripping software will do this for you.

Ripping a CD doesn't require breaking any locks, so you're just using a tool. The assumption is that you know your legal rights (or lack thereof) and will only use the tool when it is legal and you bear the responsibility of the consequences of your actions if you are wrong in the unlikely event that you're caught.

breaking digital locks isn't illegal in every country... plenty of fine software lets you do that.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to TSI Marc
Marc,

I understand your position on distancing yourself from all of this. In your position I would do the same. I know you didn't ask Voltage to come walking up to your office with legal threats, and for the most part do recognize in part the decision to get consumer advocates involved with this, as noted in the OP.

Whether or not at this point ISPs have acted in the correct manner over the past few weeks, is something that needs to be questioned by defendants in this and other cases including future cases, and that's a conversation that needs to happen with their respected lawyers, and I'm sure will be and currently is subjected to debate, not just on my personal blog, but others and that has already started long before this post.

What I've posted up on my personal blog, are my personal thoughts . Right or wrong, the post raises legal questions, neither you or I are qualified to answer in this case. I think we've both agreed to that point earlier in this thread.

With that, I wish you and your staff a very Merry Christmas.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/