| If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them. So I have been doing some reading. A lot of reading.
At first I thought that Tek were great, with sending notices
and all, being here on the forum. At first I thought that a court
order is, you know, an ORDER, and they have to comply.
Now I know more. Now I know that a company can
and should fight against an unjust court order. It is legal
to fight a court.
I've been a happy client for 4 years.
If TekSavvi stays dormant on Jan 14th I'm leaving.
I don't think the alternatives are any better, but I
will be leaving none the less. |
|
| reply to Boop
Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them. me too. I'll give them one more chance. If they decide not to do anything, I'm going. |
|
| Where are you two going to? |
|
koreybReplace the CRTC NOW
join:2005-01-08
East York, ON Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·voip.ms
1 edit | reply to Boop
Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them. Bye cause no ISP will fight it if ordered by the court. Good luck. Best to cancel and don't have the internet at all. The facts are the laws in Canada on copyright have changed... Teksavvy has not handed over any info yet but asked the court to rule if they should. Teksavvy if ordered to hand the info has no legal right to refuse and if they do they can be sued. The laws have changed and fighting against it at this point is pointless. The judge will rule based on the current new Canadian laws. All isps are the same.. And have Min required log retention requirements set by the new laws |
|
| reply to Hi Ho Hi Ho
Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them. No idea, probably somewhere worse.
But I just can't not do it. |
|
| reply to Boop
perhaps you should go with the ISP the omnipotent king of all the world and Canada, Harper is with. |
|
| reply to koreyb
said by koreyb: All isps are the same.. And have Min required log retention requirements set by the new laws
Could you please point us to what the new mandatory time is for data retention? I'm having trouble finding anything other than references to it being discussed as part of the upcoming notice to notice system. |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Fuzzy285:said by koreyb: All isps are the same.. And have Min required log retention requirements set by the new laws
Could you please point us to what the new mandatory time is for data retention? I'm having trouble finding anything other than references to it being discussed as part of the upcoming notice to notice system. I've asked him for this also and i was never answered. There is no minimum. This is giving the wrong and incorrect information out to people.
Also have a read: »www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ll.shtml |
|
|
|
| reply to Boop
Boop
Why wait until Jan 14? Teksavvy has already stated many times what their position is in this matter. Your threats are meaningless. Vote with your actual call to cancel service.
And please let me know which ISP you have moved to that, in writing, will act as you see fit. They will either disobey a court order, or, spend money on lawyers to defend your rights. How much money do they need to spend before you will be satisfied? Do their officers need to risk their personal finances/freedom to protect your rights? How much money have you personally contributed to help them fight?
How far do they need to go? Provincial Court? Supreme Court?
What ISP promises that they will not give up any IP address until it’s a Supreme Court case? If the Supreme Court orders the release of IP’s, should they release them? I’d love to know of an ISP who will commit business suicide on my behalf. |
|
| reply to Tx
Interesting read, even in my eggnog induced stupor.
There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation flying around. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what my reading of the changes to the Copyright Act tell me:
For one thing, the Act requires that the ISP notify its customers as soon as feasible once it has received notice in writing in a format that meets the criteria of the Act. Not once a motion is filed with the court. Once notice in writing is received by the ISP. Teksavvy's claim that it provided notice even though not required is bunk. They were required to provide notice all the while.
Also, people seem to think they are not being sued yet. Wrong. The John Doe statement of claim was filed with federal court November 14, 2012. According to Federal Court rules, Voltage has 60 days, not counting holidays, to serve the John/Jane Doe defendants. The purpose of the Motion involving Teksavvy that was to be heard Dec/17 was just so that they can effect service against those defendants. In other words, as soon as TSI releases those names/addresses, Voltage willl be serving people. There's no need to file another, separate Statement of Claim, as far as I know. Once served (can be done by mail), a defendant has 30 days to file a defense. Those who don't file a defense risk having default judgement granted against them.
People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. Only after you defend yourself will Voltage offer any form of settlement or choose to discontinue.
People think TSI has not choice but keep logs for 3 months. Not true, there's no mandatory data retention period, otherwise many anonymous VPN providers wouldn't be located in Canada. What TSI can't do is destroy the logs they already have once they are notified of infringement. And they have to retain them for up to a year for those included in the notification.
People think they are not affected if they didn't get a notice until now or if they are with a different ISP. Not true, these are only 2,000 of the one million IP's that Canipre claims to have collected in the past 6 months for rights holders. They will come knocking on other doors.
Now, back to the eggnog. |
|
1 edit | Bravo. Thx you for summarizing it and going straight to the points. Some parts escaped me until this posts, especially these parts which are highly important.
"For one thing, the Act requires that the ISP notify its customers as soon as feasible once it has received notice in writing in a format that meets the criteria of the Act. Not once a motion is filed with the court. Once notice in writing is received by the ISP. Teksavvy's claim that it provided notice even though not required is bunk. They were required to provide notice all the while."
"People think TSI has not choice but keep logs for 3 months. Not true, there's no mandatory data retention period"
"People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. "
" these are only 2,000 of the one million IP's that Canipre claims to have collected in the past 6 months for rights holders. They will come knocking on other doors." |
|
| reply to Boop
Fuzzy285 is right and should dispel how TSI is any way is "doing the right thing". They are looking after their own interest and they are hoping that by looking like they "care", they avoid the bad publicity......or the exodus.
I will also look for whichever service respects my privacy the most. It starts with minimum days of log retention. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Who:Fuzzy285 is right and should dispel how TSI is any way is "doing the right thing". They are looking after their own interest and they are hoping that by looking like they "care", they avoid the bad publicity......or the exodus.
I will also look for whichever service respects my privacy the most. It starts with minimum days of log retention.
Nail on the head. Marc is out to run his business, make money... profits. Made a few friends along the way but at the end of the day they're interests are not about our well being.
So many people will still defend TSI even knowing they wouldn't return the favor. It's odd. If this was real life and my bud didn't help me in a "bar fight" i sure as hell wouldn't have his back next time around.
Like everyone says, vote with actions and your mouths. Next election is a great start. Choose the ISP who has our interests in mind, not to pirate, rather to protect us from trolls.
To be quite honest, if this was an "untitled" company going after 3 people for piracy of their software (which so many dumb people will pirate their software, enter the registration information with real info.) well then go for it.
When it comes to businesses that's new model is to sue the world with what is guaranteed hundreds of anonymous backers then i have an issue with it, especially when it's known for extortion-like practices. This is the issue, not what criminal activity is behind the users. Simply that it's a business like model going after everyone in the masses, exploiting the courts time to scare people in to settlements.
|
|
| reply to Boop
In one of the posts in another thread, I saw that broadlinenetworks keeps 30 days logs. Which needless to say, I bookmarked.
30 days is a START, not the end yet.
So who keeps less then 30 days? |
|
| reply to koreyb
said by koreyb:Bye cause no ISP will fight it if ordered by the court. Good luck. Best to cancel and don't have the internet at all. The facts are the laws in Canada on copyright have changed... Teksavvy has not handed over any info yet but asked the court to rule if they should. Teksavvy if ordered to hand the info has no legal right to refuse and if they do they can be sued. The laws have changed and fighting against it at this point is pointless. The judge will rule based on the current new Canadian laws. All isps are the same.. And have Min required log retention requirements set by the new laws
yea they changed and if you or they actually read them you and tsi would know this is a bad motion to get the ids of people on account its not proper cause no ip addy can be said to be doing commercial aspects just form being in a torrent swarm.
HOWEVER it was nice to see the process early so people could prepare and ask a judge for time. MY bet is voltage might pull back ... |
|
