dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
22
ByteMaster
join:2012-12-22
Halifax, NS

ByteMaster to nanook

Member

to nanook

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by nanook:

3. (...) If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted.

Over my dead body!

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

said by ByteMaster:

Over my dead body!

That's what people said about the principle of fining the car owner even when someone else actually committed the red light/speeding infraction. Yet even though the notion offends us, cash-strapped cities and lazy police departments managed to convince provincial politicians to make that the law.

The same sort of thing could happen with IP addresses. With people like [barf] Vic Toews making the legislation we have to be particularly vigilant not to let that sort of "principle" become copyright law through the efforts of MAFIAA lobbying.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

1 recommendation

elitefx to ByteMaster

Member

to ByteMaster
Seriously people. I'm starting to wonder what planet some of these comments are coming from. Anybody that thinks a Federal Court judge isn't going to hold the registered owner of an IP liable is delusional. If you think otherwise you've never been to court.

Just like somebody said about cars. You own it. It's yours. You're liable.

Let's all try to forget about the daydreaming and the "It wasn't me, I wasn't there" attitude and get back to the real world.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

1 edit

Tx

Premium Member

said by elitefx:

Seriously people. I'm starting to wonder what planet some of these comments are coming from. Anybody that thinks a Federal Court judge isn't going to hold the registered owner of an IP liable is delusional. If you think otherwise you've never been to court.

Just like somebody said about cars. You own it. It's yours. You're liable.

Let's all try to forget about the daydreaming and the "It wasn't me, I wasn't there" attitude and get back to the real world.

Uh bud, it's not the "daydreamers" making shit up. Courts are starting to see another side to these stories.

For a second answer my question truthfully and as best you can.

Detectives knock at your door with a search warrant for your computers. Why ? "Child pornography".

Firstly, let's say we're talking about you elitefx. Your house, your family, you. It's you who owns the account but let's also say you and i both know you're a stand up guy and know 100% you didn't do it.

Your argument is "You own it, your liable. Period!"

Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.

Edit:

It's not about letting pirates off the hook. It's about delaying these tactics until a better system is in place to better identify the person responsible, routers becoming a legal requirement to be secured. A law that requires people to further protect themselves. Without that, everyone is at risk.
Expand your moderator at work

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx to Tx

Member

to Tx

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by Tx:

For a second and answer my question truthfully and as best you can.

Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.

We're talking apples and oranges. Kiddie porn is a Criminal Code offense and Copyright Infringement is under the Trade-marks Act and the Radiocommunication Act. These statutes deal with three types of crime:

•Copyright infringement
•Trademark infringement
•Theft of telecommunication service

You can't compare the two in any way, shape or form because of the reverse onus clause that comes into effect in certain criminal code statutes and situations.

IMHO What you're saying is more likely to apply in criminal code offenses where the liability lies with the perpetrator.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

said by elitefx:

said by Tx:

For a second and answer my question truthfully and as best you can.

Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.

We're talking apples and oranges. Kiddie porn is a Criminal Code offense and Copyright Infringement is under the Trade-marks Act and the Radiocommunication Act. These statutes deal with three types of crime:

•Copyright infringement
•Trademark infringement
•Theft of telecommunication service

You can't compare the two in any way, shape or form because of the reverse onus clause that comes into effect in certain criminal code statutes and situations.

IMHO What you're saying is more likely to apply in criminal code offenses where the liability lies with the perpetrator.

Actually I can, it's very relevant. It's regarding IP being a person and your bold statement that an account holder should be held liable. It's to those facts. Doesn't matter what code each law falls under. That's for later down the line. The methods used to locate are the ones under scrutiny.

You stated: "Account holder is liable for all activity"

It's not apples and oranges. The law about their activities comes in after the fact, not prior. Just because you have a different department hunting for you the methods used to accuse you are where the issue lays.

Tong
join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

Tong to nanook

Member

to nanook
You missed a point here from the start.

You own your car, you bought it, registered the car. You put the plate on your car. You can sell or buy an car.

You DON'T own your IP address, your ISP or AT&T does if you are in North American. You have no control who is using your IP or what your IP is, your ISP could have a incorrect reporting who actually have the IP address. They can't hold you responsible for something you don't own.

You might able to buy a specific IP address, but you still don't own the IP address.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

You guys can argue till hell freezes over. What I said about the judge ruling on registered IP owner liability is true. Unless you're willing to go to court and testify against a family member or friend then the IP owner will take the fall period.

This isn't my opinion. It's the way things are done in court. Unless parliament specifically addresses this issue and changes the way liability is determined.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

said by elitefx:

You guys can argue till hell freezes over. What I said about the judge ruling on registered IP owner liability is true. Unless you're willing to go to court and testify against a family member or friend then the IP owner will take the fall period.

This isn't my opinion. It's the way things are done in court. Unless parliament specifically addresses this issue and changes the way liability is determined.

lmao!!

Exactly the answer i expected. The answer of someone who cannot answer, you have no answer to it and you know i have a point but you cannot answer it without agreeing to it. It may suck, it's not pretty, but it's the truth.

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

Right now i have a few neighbours. 2 with WEP, 1 with nothing and another on basic WPA. I can crack all the basic WPA in an hour and WEP in 30 seconds or so. I can get each one screwed because, well they're liable.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

1 recommendation

elitefx

Member

said by Tx:

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

You missed your calling. You should have been a lawyer. I truly hope legislation is written to bring your views to life in our justice system..........

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

said by elitefx:

said by Tx:

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

You missed your calling. You should have been a lawyer. I truly hope legislation is written to bring your views to life in our justice system..........

Again, i have to say, it's not about the law... it's about what's right and wrong. Feel free to go back and answer my question that you avoided to answer knowing there is no "right" answer to it because it's a shit end of the stick kind of deal.

Your statement that an owner of an account should be held liable then goes out the window should this owner be you. It's a scary real life situation that no one wants to be in (those who are innocent that is) and being liable under your claims is unjust.

As i said previously as well, many judges are starting to see the other side of this IP is not a person argument.