dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6873
share rss forum feed

jkoblovsky

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

Re: Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage

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/

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to Fyodor
Oh, well in that case "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." applies and if you're in Canada then you're a copyright infringer because the only difference between ripping a DVD you legally purchased and downloading a copy from the Internet that you haven't purchased is that you're less likely to get caught.


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

1 recommendation

reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

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.

All good Jason. We haven't done this though:

"I understand your position on distancing yourself from all of this. In your position I would do the same"

We actually did the opposite. We made sure to raise all of these issues to the forefront and make sure it was well heard and noticed.

...no demand letters do make for a Merrier Christmas. Happy Holidays.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to TSI Marc

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, why are you once again citing this section of the copyright law to argue that an ISP can't oppose requests to divulge personal information? This is clearly not what it says.

Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12
reply to jkoblovsky
If ISP's retained only 2-3 days worth of logs, all these issues would become moot, at least until new law is passed forcing them to keep logs. Good luck legally forcing a private business to protect the interests of a 3rd party who is neither government nor law enforcement.

"You want the logs? Sure. From when? Oh, sorry, we do not have logs for that date. But you're welcome to a free mint on your way out".


shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

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!

But what you are stating is pure bullshit. The opposite is actually true.

quote:
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.
Teksavvy fought and got an extension in order to give people "due process".

You are stating the opposite to what actually happened in court.

Sorry, but, your puff piece and chest thumping is all wrong.

People should take this with a grain of salt and actually consult with someone who knows what they are talking about. Like maybe privcom.

And again you are stating stuff everyone already talked about. Nothing new here except your lack of knowing and understanding what actually happened in court.


Pedant

@teksavvy.com
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

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.

That's counsel not council. Sorry, but it was starting to bug me.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

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

yea know what marc be easier to jsut edit all that speech out and say ...."GET A LAWYER"

lol

funny0

join:2010-12-22
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 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.

fact non commerical is not legal....100-5000 dolalrs for all your infringments

share a movie get fined 100$ prolly. share 100000000000 movies get 5000 dollars . MY advice is to save up 5 grand and go get about 10 - 10 megabit dsl accounts and get one of everything off the net then pay 5 grand ....then you can sit back for life enjoying everything....


Oakville_Ont

@teksavvy.com
reply to jkoblovsky
US copyright trolls facing opposition in court are now trying alternative reasons for getting at IP data, see

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ry.shtml

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

said by jkoblovsky:

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

Of course you wouldn't.

"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.

Allow me to correct you on that:

From »teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy/pol···y-policy

quote:
Principle 1 - Accountability
The TekSavvy Companies are responsible for personal information under their control and shall designate one or more persons who are accountable for compliance with the following principles.

Principle 2 - Identifying Purposes for Collection of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall identify the purposes for which personal information is collected at or before the time the information is collected.

Principle 3 - Obtaining Consent for Collection, Use or Disclosure of Personal Information
The knowledge and consent of a customer or employee is required for the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

Principle 4 - Limiting Collection of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall limit the collection of personal information to that which is necessary for the purposes identified. The TekSavvy Companies shall collect personal information by fair and lawful means.

Principle 5 - Limiting Use, Disclosure and Retention of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall not use or disclose personal information for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. The TekSavvy Companies shall retain personal information only as long as necessary for the fulfillment of those purposes.
As I understand it, one of the purposes for collecting personal information is to abide the Laws as required. However, in this case, TSI is not abiding the Laws, but trading their responsibility to protect the personal information in exchange for the opportunity to notify their customers that their personal information was requested by a third party that was not the court.

I understand TSI's argument, "...otherwise, we'd wonder what hit us!".

That argument is weak in my opinion. That's because the true argument is, "...otherwise, our customers would have wondered what hit them!"

Wasn't that the intent of obtaining notice-and-notice, to make sure TSI customers were aware of what's about to happen? Yet further arguments point to TSI trying to protect themselves instead, "...we refused to argue the merits of the claims." Claim is accepted by the court, order to disclose is given, TSI customers now face the totality of legal costs. Nice way to get out of a jam. However, in doing so, TSI now faces lawsuits by their own customers, as TSI had to breach the privacy agreement, by refusing to uphold their responsibility to protect the personal information that is now made freely available to the claimant.

IANAL, but look, if some chump like me can think of the above, what do you think an actual lawyer will come up with? I got no money for court stuff. But come to think of it, if it ever comes to that, none of TSI's customers will need any. It will become a class action suit, since it's one action from TSI against 2,300 of its customers. Ask your own lawyers how that's gonna play out.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
In fact, TSI's privacy policy should now include a caveat describing exactly the actions that TSI took in this matter.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

. It will become a class action suit, since it's one action from TSI against 2,300 of its customers. Ask your own lawyers how that's gonna play out.

very bad PR. hopefully it'll never get to that.
Expand your moderator at work

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to JonyBelGeul

Re: Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage

Jony, this has been gone over in several different threads and I keep bringing up this fine caveat that's in the privacy policy:

The Privacy Policy does not impose any limits on the collection, use or disclosure of the following information by the TekSavvy Companies:

(i) information that is publicly available, such as a customer's name, address, telephone number and electronic address, when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance; or

(ii) the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

Voltage is not asking for the logs themselves, just the names/addresses/etc which can be disclosed based on the above.


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 jkoblovsky
Edit: @JMJimmy - You're absolutely correct, and after reading what i posted, i can tell the lack of sleep over the last 40 hours has clearly shown in the confusion of my post.

I've redacted it and will address it if i ever go to sleep another time

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
I think you're confusing jko with Jony. The discussion has been between Marc and jko, not Jony. Jony's arguments have been made before by others and they're simply not valid. By using the service we agree to the ToS & Privacy Policy. That section I quoted translates to: "Any information we can find on you in a public medium means we can disclose that information without limitation" - it sucks but there it is. TSI protected it's ass legally, it's what lawyers do when writing these things.

If Voltage was asking for more than just name/address & possibly phone/email then Jony's arguments carry weight. TSI cannot disclose the logs themselves or any of our usage information. Voltage is saying "we saw Z IP perform X act on Y date/time - who was using Z IP then?"

At best you could argue that Canipre violated PIPEDA (especially since they're not licensed to do investigations), however, you'd have to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. That would be hard to do since the info was gleaned from a public swarm.

There are many ways to attack this but the PP is not one (I wish it were cause then I could just say "no, I don't consent" and forget the whole affair)


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

I think you're confusing jko with Jony. The discussion has been between Marc and jko, not Jony. Jony's arguments have been made before by others and they're simply not valid. By using the service we agree to the ToS & Privacy Policy. That section I quoted translates to: "Any information we can find on you in a public medium means we can disclose that information without limitation" - it sucks but there it is. TSI protected it's ass legally, it's what lawyers do when writing these things.

If Voltage was asking for more than just name/address & possibly phone/email then Jony's arguments carry weight. TSI cannot disclose the logs themselves or any of our usage information. Voltage is saying "we saw Z IP perform X act on Y date/time - who was using Z IP then?"

At best you could argue that Canipre violated PIPEDA (especially since they're not licensed to do investigations), however, you'd have to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. That would be hard to do since the info was gleaned from a public swarm.

There are many ways to attack this but the PP is not one (I wish it were cause then I could just say "no, I don't consent" and forget the whole affair)

I've redacted the post and explained above. Thanks for pointing it out, i laughed when i realized it

qewey

join:2007-10-04
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

If everyone drops their cable subscription and downloads commercial-free files, eventually the creators of the content will stop creating it.

The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money.

The only people that scenario will hurt is the big corporate intermediaries/middlemen/Sony/Vivendi etc.

How many artists do their thing for free or nearly free before being "discovered" or more accurately "promoted" by the corporate giants ? Pretty much all of them ... it will still continue.


legitbusines

@telus.net
reply to jkoblovsky
@tsi marc,

you seem to forget that when 'jo blow' shows up with a warrant(court order) or no warrant for names that match the IP address at a particular point in the space/time continuum, is you have a responsibility(privacy laws for one) to check the warrant for authenticity. Anyone can contest a warrant being served against them anytime. Another major contesting point is where multiple fraudulent lawsuits can bankrupt a company or person in order to get that data, which results in the company being under threat of monetary hardship, resulting in a counter lawsuit.

Data that was presented for the warrant can be contested and , interestingly enough, you can point out fraudulent information to the Judge and get the plaintiff arrested/detained/punished for his lying under oath.

Even go as far to check what the "IP harvesting" computers IP address was. Lots of data online of trolls messing with the Internet. Honeypots by the copyright guild are interesting.

If the plaintiff is saying teksavvy user ip address *.*.*.* uploaded 'failed profit margins movie', you can contest that. An IP is not a person and if the plaintiff did not download the whole movie, then it is more of a phishing expedition which in many of these cases is an attempt for quick payout instead of justice. We all know that this whole operation all over the World is being called(by the educated media) a case of extortion(letter of lawsuit threat with a quick pay address).

Phishing for enough data so jack booted thugs can kick down someones door to confiscate their computers to check for exact matching files, oh wait, thats when the police forget what the law is and just committed a home invasion escorting the copyright guild into your home. Those people were violated and got a large payday under confidentiality. P.S. Only police forensics are allowed to access your computers(or access your home), as the plaintiff is biased.

Heres your new plan for January: Unless this search for information by the plaintiff is 2000 individual lawsuits that have already been filed in court(using the names 'jon doe' 1, 2, 3, etc), you request that the Judge arrest the plaintiff for running an extortion scheme(no intent on actually suing). Hey if the company has hard evidence that is 100% proof in court of guilt, then file all this individually. Tele-court(secure internet long distance court without traveling) is an amazing form of justice to avoid monetary hardship for the defendants.

Do not try to keep pushing this 'we are like neutral here', because you are not neutral. you have a responsibility to prevent entities from routinely sucking up all your customers information based on what could be a false IP and a snippet of data downloaded from the IP, as the only proof of infringement.

>
>

It is a Right to make backup copies of your purchased media. Some people may of accidentally put their backups in their shared folder. Just ask the people who have had their tax returns uploaded to the Internet.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission
FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection
File sharing tips about shared folders and security
»business.ftc.gov/documents/bus46···business

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Jony, this has been gone over in several different threads and I keep bringing up this fine caveat that's in the privacy policy:

The Privacy Policy does not impose any limits on the collection, use or disclosure of the following information by the TekSavvy Companies:

(i) information that is publicly available, such as a customer's name, address, telephone number and electronic address, when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance; or

(ii) the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

Voltage is not asking for the logs themselves, just the names/addresses/etc which can be disclosed based on the above.

If the information Voltage requested was publicly available, they wouldn't have gone to court with motion to disclose. Note item (i), it says "when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance". Voltage didn't ask for a second piece of information based on a first piece of information found in such a directory as described above. Voltage asked for information not found in such a directory, but instead found in logs TSI keeps for internal purposes. Whether they asked for the logs themselves is irrelevant. What matters is that the information requested requires TSI divulge internal logs not publicly available, if only to prove that the information is valid in case a defendant cross-examines this evidence presented by TSI.

This brings up an interesting possibility. Is IP ever going to become like phone and address, and be imposed the same privacy practices? Take a private phone number for example. For a nominal fee, a person can request that his number not be publicly available, i.e., in a public directory and/or through directory assistance. It's customary that private persons don't usually allow others to disclose these information (even when it's publicly available already) unless they want to, like when they're looking for a job and asking others if they have any leads, and yes give them my number for that purpose. So an IP could very well fall into that category, where a TSI customer expressly forbids TSI from divulging it (therefore the association between this IP and the person) to anybody for any reason whatsoever, for a nominal fee of course, unless a court orders so of course, after TSI made reasonable efforts to abide by this privacy agreement of course.

The alternative is that even though the information requested relies on internal logs not publicly available, any and all of it can be disclosed to anybody for any reason. That's one big giant caveat that effectively renders the entire privacy agreement nul and void.

IANAL, but come to think of it, if a TSI customer needs a lawyer or a court to interpret the privacy agreement, it makes this same privacy agreement nul and void by virtue of being incomprehensible to the customer a priori, i.e., I agreed to something I didn't or couldn't understand.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.