 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
to JonyBelGeul
Re: Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltagesaid by JonyBelGeul: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.
Oh boy, that'd be great huh? Put me right on Canada's DNTL (Do Not Troll List) and problem solved!  If only it were that easy. |
|
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON |
to jkoblovsky
I envision an increase in ISP customers taking actions commensurate with burners in the cell phone industry in which the only tangible identifiers will be the physical address which will be even negated in that context with WISPs and satellite. |
|
 A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
to qewey
said by qewey: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.
Sorry, you're wrong there. I've been watching Stargate SG-1 again (something I actually plunked out the money and bought). Nobody will be making something like this for free, just to entertain you. Actors aren't going to work for nearly free forever you know. They do it because of the potential payout. It's like people who start work at a lower rate of pay. They hope for raises over the years. It's a nice fantasy, but without potential for making money the only stuff you're going to see is low budget stuff shot by students. Once people need to pay for things like rent, food, clothing, kids, etc. they want a more realistic salary. A better distribution model where all viewers pay a smaller fee might be the future (hitting a larger viewing base). However, looking at commercial TV, a fair amount of the money made is from advertising. That might make it tough to replace with ad-free distribution. |
|
 HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON |
to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:I checked and we haven't had anything to do with CAIP for more than two years and probably closer to three.
I'm pretty sure there is a CAIP logo in the banner in MyWorld... It's not clickable though... But perhaps its better to be removed if you have nothing to do with them anymore... Are they still active anyway? Seems that most of the recent stuff with UBB/CBB has been done with CNOC. |
|
| |
said by HiVolt:said by TSI Marc:I checked and we haven't had anything to do with CAIP for more than two years and probably closer to three.
I'm pretty sure there is a CAIP logo in the banner in MyWorld... It's not clickable though... But perhaps its better to be removed if you have nothing to do with them anymore... Are they still active anyway? Seems that most of the recent stuff with UBB/CBB has been done with CNOC. Just a quick note, the quote from the CAIP I used was from the Toronto Round Table on August 27, 2009 @ 3:00 p.m » www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/00 ··· 034.htmlThat puts that quote at more than 3 years old. |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
Tx to HiVolt
Premium Member
2012-Dec-23 2:24 am
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:said by TSI Marc:I checked and we haven't had anything to do with CAIP for more than two years and probably closer to three.
I'm pretty sure there is a CAIP logo in the banner in MyWorld... It's not clickable though... But perhaps its better to be removed if you have nothing to do with them anymore... Are they still active anyway? Seems that most of the recent stuff with UBB/CBB has been done with CNOC. lol that would be a good idea since Marc said they haven't had anything to do with them in over 2 years |
|
| Tx |
Tx to qewey
Premium Member
2012-Dec-23 2:32 am
to qewey
said by qewey: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. You really do have a "perfect world" ideal in your head. Now for reality. Artists do not just do it for the art, if that was the case the 2.5 million per year income for example, more then half would be donated. Same goes for actors. Though several donate, they sure as heck do not donate enough. lol, look at some of their homes, for something that is for the art, it sure comes with perks. 11 cars in the drive way a "gift wrapping room" a "shoe room" and let's add 18 full bathrooms. Its like hockey was for the love of the game, and though you may still enjoy playing, the love of the game, the art goes out the window when you start negotiating contracts for millions more because you feel you earned it. Now if we woke up tomorrow and artists were making a modest pay for their efforts with paid travel and expenses at let's say 50-70k a year. Sure, that's for the love of it, it's a job but doing what you love. Add a disgusting amount of money on top of it, you're now doing it for the money. There was a band in my wife's school who BMG offered a contract while they were still in grade 12 years ago. They declined because they didn't want to do anything more then what they are and concentrate on school. Not all of them agreed, 3 band members were kicked out remaining two sold themselves out and signed, they are now signed with BMG and very successful. That example there is Money VS Love of the art |
|
|
1 edit |
qewey
Member
2012-Dec-24 1:54 am
So what is your point ? People like having money especially for doing something they love ?
Yes if you throw money at people, they will take it.
My point is if you dont throw money at them, most will still do it. Some will be good at it and some will not be as good at it, like it always has been whether money is involved or not.
Same with hockey ... if the NHL did not exist, do you think people would stop playing hockey ? hockey have been played 60 years ago when there was no multi-millions dollars contracts attached to it. People will still be playing it even if the infrastructure to monetize it disappears.
Saying that with no money or, more realistically, less money, creators will stop doing what they enjoy doing is a false argument made by the "monetization" industry (ie the giant media conglomerates and their lobbies) in order to protect its interests and influence laws in its favor. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
Tx
Premium Member
2012-Dec-24 2:07 am
said by qewey:The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money
This was my point. You implied they do it for the love of the art. They may have once. You implied it's not about the money. Indeed it is, that's why hockey is on strike. Several examples. You are now contradicting what you said. "It's not about the money" then "People like having money for doing something they love" Pick one. I was simply commenting on your original post. |
|
| |
qewey
Member
2012-Dec-24 2:30 am
said by Tx:said by qewey:The creators will still create ... for them its about their art and not all is about money
This was my point. You implied they do it for the love of the art. They may have once. You implied it's not about the money. Indeed it is, that's why hockey is on strike. Several examples. You are now contradicting what you said. "It's not about the money" then "People like having money for doing something they love" Pick one. I was simply commenting on your original post. I said not ALL (of it) is about money. You forgot the "all" in your interpretation. "People like having money for doing something they love" is not my point ... its more me summarizing the point of your reply ... My point is expressed more clearly in my second reply. You misunderstood me or I didnt expressed myself clearly. No matter as it is not really relevant to the main thread. |
|
| |
I've done a follow up post to this. There are links and embedded video, so rather than making the entire post a forum post, I'm just going to link it out here. Anybody interested in reading my Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage Court Case PT. 2 can find it here: » jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· se-pt-2/ |
|
| |
Who7
Member
2012-Dec-26 3:49 pm
said by jkoblovsky:I've done a follow up post to this. There are links and embedded video, so rather than making the entire post a forum post, I'm just going to link it out here.
Anybody interested in reading my Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage Court Case PT. 2 can find it here:
»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· se-pt-2/
Very interesting article. What we as consumers need to do is be proactive with our money to change the providers model. We need to make privacy the third leg of the sales issues so as to force providers to take it seriously. How many gigs per month? How reliable? How much protection? Market will then reward the boldest and the most pro-active. I'm concerned that this is not a fight about revenue loss of copyright holders as much as it may be a profitable business model for third hand rights holder and under-employed lawyers. |
|
| |
safe tested
Anon
2012-Dec-26 5:53 pm
said by Very interesting article.
What we as consumers need to do is be proactive with our money to change the providers model. We need to make privacy the third leg of the sales issues so as to force providers to take it seriously. How many gigs per month? How reliable? How much protection? Market will then reward the boldest and the most pro-active.
I'm concerned that this is not a fight about revenue loss of copyright holders as much as it may be a profitable business model for third hand rights holder and under-employed lawyers.
[/BQUOTE :That's an interesting way to do it. I believe ISPs should add another service to their setup, like $75 to $100 per month for legal services so that they can fight these types of IP fishing scams (other similar)for their users that pay into it.
let's face it, the current pricing doesn't work out to having any funds to have lawyers "on-tap" to do any kind of valid work. 60% to 70% of the current IISP prices go to the incumbents, so that won't be enough. |
|
| |
Who7
Member
2012-Dec-27 2:19 pm
said by safe tested
That's an interesting way to do it. I believe ISPs should add another service to their setup, like $75 to $100 per month for legal services so that they can fight these types of IP fishing scams (other similar)for their users that pay into it.
let's face it, the current pricing doesn't work out to having any funds to have lawyers "on-tap" to do any kind of valid work. 60% to 70% of the current IISP prices go to the incumbents, so that won't be enough.
[/BQUOTE :$75 or $100 A MONTH? If TSI has 100,000 customers, that would be $120 million a year. LOL!
How about 1 dollar per month and that would be a more reasonable $1.2 million a year. And then charge $200 per disclosure added to the fund. Not much of a trolling business model to pay for a service that in itself pays for legal fees against it. |
|
| |
to jkoblovsky
Looking at what they have made. The only thing I ever watched is the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car! when it was on TV. Must have something to do with The Magic of Belle Isle, staring Morgan Freeman, and low box office numbers. |
|
| |
Openmedia.ca supporting my last post on this: » openmedia.ca/blog/massiv ··· age-case |
|
| |
to jkoblovsky
I find it pretty odd that no one mentions the government that enacted this legislation in all this teeth gnashing and wringing of hands. That would be the "Business friendly" Conservatives. The opposite of business friendly is most often consumer unfriendly. Which is why we have the telecom mess we have in this country. You voted for them? As they say in Cuba, " Enyoy!" |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Dec-30 5:49 pm
said by jdoe71:I find it pretty odd that no one mentions the government that enacted this legislation in all this teeth gnashing and wringing of hands. That would be the "Business friendly" Conservatives. The opposite of business friendly is most often consumer unfriendly. Which is why we have the telecom mess we have in this country. You voted for them? As they say in Cuba, " Enyoy!"
Probably because there's a separate forum for Canadian Politics, and thats generally where that sorta stuff should stay.. My only comment however is the following: Harper got less than 40% of the popular vote (39.6%), but still got his majority. |
|
| |
jdoe71
Member
2012-Dec-30 5:59 pm
said by resa1983:said by jdoe71:I find it pretty odd that no one mentions the government that enacted this legislation in all this teeth gnashing and wringing of hands. That would be the "Business friendly" Conservatives. The opposite of business friendly is most often consumer unfriendly. Which is why we have the telecom mess we have in this country. You voted for them? As they say in Cuba, " Enyoy!"
Probably because there's a separate forum for Canadian Politics, and thats generally where that sorta stuff should stay.. My only comment however is the following: Harper got less than 40% of the popular vote (39.6%), but still got his majority. Right, excellent points, both. And if there wasn't another forum for politics, which I wasn't aware of, I'd be tempted to say the fact you point out is proof of what a dysfunctional political system we have. But since there's another forum I won't say that here. |
|
| |
I don't get why so many people seem to be on TSI's case. The law says that ISPs have to turn over the information if they are ordered to by the court. That is likely what TSI will do. They really dont have any other position to take.
In this day and age people think that everything is free and anything can be shared but in reality that's not how it works. If you are sharing a copyrighted item for others to download you are breaking the law. Almost everyone speeds when driving their vehicle and this is also breaking the law. Of course copyright holders have very rarely gone after folks before but they always can - just like the cops can pull you over for speeding. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Dec-30 6:35 pm
said by darrylr:I don't get why so many people seem to be on TSI's case. The law says that ISPs have to turn over the information if they are ordered to by the court. That is likely what TSI will do. They really dont have any other position to take.
In this day and age people think that everything is free and anything can be shared but in reality that's not how it works. If you are sharing a copyrighted item for others to download you are breaking the law. Almost everyone speeds when driving their vehicle and this is also breaking the law. Of course copyright holders have very rarely gone after folks before but they always can - just like the cops can pull you over for speeding.
CIPPIC's going to fight it. The problem isn't so much paying for the copyrighted material, but the outright extortion these companies pull.... $3-5k for an item worth less than $50 is extreme to me.. And then in the letter essentially saying "settle or face a named suit where we'll go after you for even more." Especially as if they had've offered it legally, people probably would have bought the movies.. Even if they're crap (like all of Voltage's movies are). |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
1 edit |
Tx to darrylr
Premium Member
2012-Dec-30 6:46 pm
to darrylr
said by darrylr:I don't get why so many people seem to be on TSI's case. The law says that ISPs have to turn over the information if they are ordered to by the court. That is likely what TSI will do. They really dont have any other position to take.
In this day and age people think that everything is free and anything can be shared but in reality that's not how it works. If you are sharing a copyrighted item for others to download you are breaking the law. Almost everyone speeds when driving their vehicle and this is also breaking the law. Of course copyright holders have very rarely gone after folks before but they always can - just like the cops can pull you over for speeding.
Maybe you should do some more reading then before commenting you don't know why. Oh to be this naive. |
|
| |
to darrylr
said by darrylr:I don't get why so many people seem to be on TSI's case. The law says that ISPs have to turn over the information if they are ordered to by the court. That is likely what TSI will do. They really dont have any other position to take.
In this day and age people think that everything is free and anything can be shared but in reality that's not how it works. If you are sharing a copyrighted item for others to download you are breaking the law. Almost everyone speeds when driving their vehicle and this is also breaking the law. Of course copyright holders have very rarely gone after folks before but they always can - just like the cops can pull you over for speeding.
The law also says TSI must uphold their contract - which includes a privacy policy - with their customers. Doing so includes fighting a third-party request for information regarding TSI customers, whether in court or otherwise. Only after this has been done does the law says TSI must comply with the request, if ordered by the court. Even then, TSI can appeal, thereby continuing to uphold their contract with their customers. Bear in mind, the court is not the party that requested the information. The court is only the stage where the request was made. The request was made by a third party, who is not the court, who has yet to prove they have good reason to make the request. Copyright holders have always gone after folks directly. Proof is Voltage motion to disclose, for the express purpose of going after folks. But why, is the real question? Because Voltage has no hook to go after TSI. If that's true, then why is TSI so willing to give out their customers information, and invoking the excuse that if they don't do that, then Voltage will go after TSI? Voltage can never go after TSI. Ever. That's why so many people seem to be on TSI's case. |
|
