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.

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.

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.

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!"

$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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Massive-Stakes-for-Online-Privacy-in-Teksavvy-Vs-Voltage-27859609 Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:19:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Massive-Stakes-for-Online-Privacy-in-Teksavvy-Vs-Voltage-27857357 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Massive-Stakes-for-Online-Privacy-in-Teksavvy-Vs-Voltage-27857357 Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:53:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Massive-Stakes-for-Online-Privacy-in-Teksavvy-Vs-Voltage-27857005 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/2012/12···se-pt-2/

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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)

. 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.

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---

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,

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.

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.

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?

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.