dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17412
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to Epiralawler

Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them.

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario.

Nor would it seem that you are fully versed in the indisputable facts....

It's Voltage, not Vonage.
It's the 14th, not the 13th.
Nor is it a foregone conclusion that CIPPIC will be granted standing in this case.

No, its not a foregone conclusion. However, considering the past suits CIPPIC has intervened in, as well as all the information in the motion to intervene (ie CIPPIC already knows what's going on and doesn't need an extension to catch up on the case), chances are the Judge will allow it. The only reason the Judge didn't allow CIPPIC's lawyer to talk on the 17th, was because a formal motion to intervene hadn't been submitted to the courts, and Voltage's lawyer got cranky about that and pointed it out..

The judge didn't have to read CIPPIC's notice of intent to motion to intervene on the 17th with additional background info on Voltage and take it's information under advisement before making his adjournment ruling, but he did.

Anyways, attached is CIPPIC's motion to intervene. Major arguments have been saved for further filings/in court.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

thm655321

join:2003-09-01
Canada
reply to Boop

See this new article from Michael Geist predicting what will happen in the new year: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6740/135/

Under March, he says:

"March. Thousands of Canadians begin receiving letters alleging copyright infringement from file sharing activities with demands to settle the claims for $1,500. Rights holders do not sue those that refuse to settle, however, effectively acknowledging that a court would be unlikely to award much more than the $100 minimum now found in the Copyright Act. "



Concerned

@allstream.net
reply to Boop

Sorry if this has been posted already, but has Teksavvy read this and responded?

There is already a legal precedent set in 2004 to not disclose private user information.

Where does Teksavvy stand on protecting it's customers?



Concerned

@allstream.net
reply to Boop

Forgot the article....
»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ll.shtml


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

The law has changed since 2004.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to Boop

said by Boop :

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.

It has, we have a dictator in power that has acquiescence to his American(soon to be serving 2 asters with Europe being the other) Master demands.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Concerned

said by Concerned :

Sorry if this has been posted already, but has Teksavvy read this and responded?

There is already a legal precedent set in 2004 to not disclose private user information.

Where does Teksavvy stand on protecting it's customers?

I'm sure TSI is WELL aware of the BMG case, in addition to all similar actions since 2004. At this time I am fully confident that TSI will do all that is legally possible for them to do under the circumstances -- at considerable expense to them - to achieve a legally *correct* outcome in the current case. That said, the law is different now vs. in 2004 and even TSI's efforts - seen & unseen - may not be enough to shoot Voltage down at this stage of the proceedings.

But everyone here MUST be adult about this and realize that a legally *correct* outcome may not be what we hope for but it may be all that we get on the 14th.

Unless CIPPIC is granted standing on the 14th there may not be 'knockout blow'. Even if CIPPIC is granted intervenor status, the judge may decide that there NEEDS to be a real court case between Voltage and an alleged infringer, so it may come to pass that the Court decides that Voltage should be given an opportunity to attempt to recover 'damages' from those it thinks did what it alleges. A court decision like that would fly in the face of all rational argument that we have collectively discussed in these forums, and that those party to the current court action will try to get the Court to consider -- sometimes the law and lawyers & judges are asses -- and there's probably nothing that can be done about that except to try to educate them in our way of thinking.

Remember that if the judge *orders* TSI to release the names of the *billing* customers corresponding to the IP addresses Voltage alleges infringed that there is really NOTHING TSI can do past that point.

Hypothetically, say TSI is required by a court ruling to cough up names on January 14th (or thereafter). There will no doubt be a large number of extortion 'settlement' letters sent by the troll. Hopefully somebody (CIPPIC or maybe an enterprising law firm, at low cost) will be able to help co-ordinate the legal response to the troll - including using all the arguments we/CIPPIC/TSI have made to make one or two test cases sufficient to make the troll go back the land of the not-so-free anymore and the home of the illegal wiretap.


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

I think the thing that bothers me most about this whole ordeal now, isn't even Teksavvy's stance on the matter. It's the people who sit around stating nonsense like "don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine"

At this point, that is what drives me nuts the most. TSI's decisions are not ours. If it's a wrong decision they'll pay for it down the line.. if it's the right one, it'll benefit them, maybe not us? Who knows.

Let's all wait and see what happens on the 14th

Expand your moderator at work


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: If TekSavvi doesn't fight on Jan 14th, I'm leaving them.

I don't think so, judges in Canada seem to have a better head on their shoulders then the ones to the south. They don't have to answer to the people in the next election, or rely on the "party" to advance their careers.

So they'd rule with the law, not with those who they seek to curry favour with.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by elwoodblues:

I don't think so, judges in Canada seem to have a better head on their shoulders then the ones to the south. They don't have to answer to the people in the next election, or rely on the "party" to advance their careers.

So they'd rule with the law, not with those who they seek to curry favour with.

You'd be surprised, as the judges in the US have been starting to wise up since fall 2012 or so..
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

I don't think so, judges in Canada seem to have a better head on their shoulders then the ones to the south. They don't have to answer to the people in the next election, or rely on the "party" to advance their careers.

So they'd rule with the law, not with those who they seek to curry favour with.

Iz just sayin' that the judge could rule in favour of Voltage despite the the numerous reasons that he shouldn't - most notably that the named *billing* customer has a high degree of probability of NOT being a 'commercial' or other infringer of Voltage's works.

The judge may want/require Voltage to commit to actually launching court cases against individuals in order to get test cases into the record with actual evidence on both sides.

So my read is 3-value logic on the 14th:
a) judge tells Voltage to get lost.

b) judge tacitly sanctions extortion letters by compelling TSI to hand over all 2k names.

c) IANAL and I don't know if a judge could legally allow something like the following to occur, but it does provide test cases, it protects 1990 names until Voltage can demonstrably prove that they can win based on the evidence a majority of the time, and it ends the extortion cycle. The judge tells Voltage to pick 10 numbers between 1-2000, tells TSI to hand over those 10 customers (picked from an ordered alphabetic list), and requires Voltage to actually sue those ten TSI customers within 14 days or he tosses ALL 2000 requests (including the 10 picked at random). If Voltage wins a majority (six or more) of the test cases in open court then the judge orders the release of the remaining 1990 names on condition that they are all sued. If Voltage does not sue ALL the remaining 1990 within 14 days then those cases will be quashed and Voltage prevented from ever suing those people for the alleged offenses....... Or something to that effect.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

said by MaynardKrebs:

c) IANAL and I don't know if a judge could legally allow something like the following to occur, but it does provide test cases, it protects 1990 names until Voltage can demonstrably prove that they can win based on the evidence a majority of the time, and it ends the extortion cycle. The judge tells Voltage to pick 10 numbers between 1-2000, tells TSI to hand over those 10 customers (picked from an ordered alphabetic list), and requires Voltage to actually sue those ten TSI customers within 14 days or he tosses ALL 2000 requests (including the 10 picked at random). If Voltage wins a majority (six or more) of the test cases in open court then the judge orders the release of the remaining 1990 names on condition that they are all sued. If Voltage does not sue ALL the remaining 1990 within 14 days then those cases will be quashed and Voltage prevented from ever suing those people for the alleged offenses....... Or something to that effect.

That actually wouldn't be a bad idea. But yeah I doubt Mister High and Mighty Judge Dredd would do that but heres wishing.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs

c) is an intriguing idea but I doubt Voltage would go for it. After all if it gets to a judge I imagine it would go like this (and as always, not a law talking guy here):

Voltage: That guy downloaded our movie! This destroyed our production company... SHUT UP LAUGHING THEY WERE GOOD MOVIES! Anyway we want $10,000.

John D'oh: No I didn't, I never heard of this movie until this case.

Voltage: Well this other company bought this software that they showed us says you did.

John D'oh: Oh. Well I can't help that, I didn't. And how many false-positives does that software produce anyway?

So at that point Voltage would need more, like John's hard drive with the movie on it (or a whole bunch of other copied movies in the same genre) or TSI handing over John's complete internet history including him going to bittorrent sites or someone saying they say John watching the movie or perhaps a post on a forum from John saying that he saw the movie he never heard of an damn did it suck!

Can Voltage get any of that stuff without some major court orders?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by Dr Facts :

c) is an intriguing idea but I doubt Voltage would go for it. After all if it gets to a judge I imagine it would go like this (and as always, not a law talking guy here):

Voltage: That guy downloaded our movie! This destroyed our production company... SHUT UP LAUGHING THEY WERE GOOD MOVIES! Anyway we want $10,000.

John D'oh: No I didn't, I never heard of this movie until this case.

Voltage: Well this other company bought this software that they showed us says you did.

John D'oh: Oh. Well I can't help that, I didn't. And how many false-positives does that software produce anyway?

So at that point Voltage would need more, like John's hard drive with the movie on it (or a whole bunch of other copied movies in the same genre) or TSI handing over John's complete internet history including him going to bittorrent sites or someone saying they say John watching the movie or perhaps a post on a forum from John saying that he saw the movie he never heard of an damn did it suck!

Can Voltage get any of that stuff without some major court orders?

TSI doesn't have a customer's internet history. They don't do DPI. They have total amounts downloaded & uploaded per month, and thats it.

What Voltage could do however, is do depositions, and forensic analysis of your computer..

However, after years of this racket in the US, they've only STARTED doing depositions within the last few months ("We're trying to find the downloader."), and they haven't done forensic analysis of systems, even if you say you're innocent & offer to hand your system over to them.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to Boop

isn't the issue at hand uploading, not downloading?



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to resa1983

>TSI doesn't have a customer's internet history.

Ah, well that's one avenue closed.

Not sure how I feel about that, I dig privacy and all that but when the cops come with a child porn case and a court order I'd like to think that an ISP can help. Tricky line there.

>forensic analysis of your computer.

And if they don't find it then what? They can say you deleted it with some super military grade disc-wipe utility.

And John could say it was never there.

And I suspect the balance of probability between the two still wouldn't be enough to convince a judge to the tune of $10,000.

> even if you say you're innocent & offer to hand your system over to them.

Which I would cheerfully do and fill the hard drive beforehand with all the negative reviews of Voltage "films".


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by Dr Facts :

>TSI doesn't have a customer's internet history.

Ah, well that's one avenue closed.

Not sure how I feel about that, I dig privacy and all that but when the cops come with a child porn case and a court order I'd like to think that an ISP can help. Tricky line there.

Cops come to ISPs with an IP address. Teksavvy maintains IP logs for 3 months (which they've said is usually long enough for one of these investigations) due to billing concerns, so its easy enough for them to convert the IP to customer name provided its in the 3 month window.

said by Dr Facts :

>forensic analysis of your computer.

And if they don't find it then what? They can say you deleted it with some super military grade disc-wipe utility.

And John could say it was never there.

And I suspect the balance of probability between the two still wouldn't be enough to convince a judge to the tune of $10,000.

That's why Teksavvy's notice to users said to maintain evidence, and not wipe systems.
If there was a full disc wipe, you'd still reinstall your OS.. Which would show a date of installation.. They would be able to see you tampered with it, and that you're trying to hide something. Of course, if you had a legitimate system crash requiring reinstallation of the OS.. You'd probably be screwed unless you documented it well.

As well, if it got to the forensic analysis stage, you could always have your own analysis done of your system.

As for judgements... You might get a few big ones at the beginning, but they'd probably be dropping as more suits are filed, as the judges would start getting tired of these useless suits filling up their dockets.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Dr Facts

@gc.ca

>If there was a full disc wipe, you'd still reinstall your OS.. Which would show a date of installation.

Which only proves that you reinstalled your OS and nothing more. It certainly looks suspicious but again enough for a judge to hand down a $10,000 judgement? Of course to get that information Voltage would have to have your hard drive.

And someone who is guilty could just go onto Craig's list, buy a used computer and hand that over.

Plot twist: The used computer was owned by an enthusiastic pirate who loved Voltage films!


Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON
reply to Epiralawler

said by Epiralawler :

First of all I am not a lawyer, nor am I certified to practice law in the province of Ontario. Neither is anyone so far in this thread that I can identify. Please take everything heard here with a grain of salt and seek the proper advice if its needed.

If tek fights this like poeple want it will mean Tek is actually incriminating itself (as a company) for wilful commercial infringement (because they are profiting off of the data).

Remember there is no 3rd party exemption for ISPs in Canada (or anyone else). If an ISP (or IP owner/poster) doesn't bend over and negotiate--it gets held responsible for 3rd party usage of the assets it is responsible for.

In essence, the ISP is responsible not you, unless the ISP sides with the plaintiff completely. This is going to either have to be modified in an amendment to the Copyright Act, or through case law (as it has not been tested yet) but this is how the law works here.

>In essence, the ISP is responsible not you, unless the ISP sides with the plaintiff completely.
That is last part is not in the law, the ISP is responsible regardless if they co-operate or not. There is nothing in the law that abides an infringer of the law because they co-operated to find other infringers.

So, Teksavvy should be fighting for our privacy. (If they lose this case, they could be the ones sued for all 2000 cases). Just as much as any individuals.
No-one is expecting them to show up and fight for people in a piracy case in court. This isn't a piracy case in court. This is a privacy case in court. On if they should release customer information based on flimsy/incorrect evidence. For a company that has shown in the past the abuse such information.
No-one wants Teksavvy to stand up in court and say these customers didn't do X, we want them to stand up in court and point out to the judge that 1. The information Voltage has is a. inaccurate at best, b. not proof of commercial copyright infringement,(the case in my understand was entered as a commercial infringement case against all 2000 IPs) and 2. Point out the history of court abuse Voltage has, and say it is likely this case is going to lead to that same abuse.

Doing any of the above does not leave them anymore vulnerable under copyright law than not fighting this aspect of the case. Other than trusting the word of Voltage that if Teksavvy lets them eat their customers and they promise not to sue Teksavvy. or perhaps they even have a backdoors contract signed to hand over their own customers on behalf of Voltage for immunity. It seems to be a possible explanation...givin all consideration to the above

OR

Tell us in actual factual language, and information provided by their lawyers as to WHY this is not the case. So far I have no seen this provided from us as to why Teksavvy is not fighting for our privacy.

IANAL

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
reply to Boop

So, one less stupid customer for Tekavvy ....



apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1

said by MFido:

So, one less stupid customer for Tekavvy ....

Leaving or staying is a freedom of choice. IF there were another ISP offered the same service at a cheaper price, wouldn't it be a wise choice.


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

said by MFido:

So, one less stupid customer for Tekavvy ....

Oh the irony in your ignorant response as you spell Teksavvy "Tekavvy".

It's one thing to make regular spelling mistakes and such but when you call someone stupid, be sure you don't look stupid in the process.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by Tx:

said by MFido:

So, one less stupid customer for Tekavvy ....

Oh the irony in your ignorant response as you spell Teksavvy "Tekavvy".

It's one thing to make regular spelling mistakes and such but when you call someone stupid, be sure you don't look stupid in the process.

Maybe he meant the customer was "less stupid". Editor's Note: - ambiguity and awkward construction.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

1 recommendation

reply to Arcturus

To Op, your free to go to wherever you want to go for your Mandated; non essential telecommunications service. But, wherever you do the law is the same and this can happen to ANY ISP in Canada--big or small.

Its just the bigger ISPs have more money and resources to deal with frivolous claims related to legislative cross conflicts due to poorly planned and implemented amendments.

said by Arcturus:

Tell us in actual factual language, and information provided by their lawyers as to WHY this is not the case. So far I have no seen this provided from us as to why Teksavvy is not fighting for our privacy.

Let me weigh in on the anonymous posting. Though without actual case law references and direct references to the legislation itself--it's hard to prove. Without skirting the definition of "Legal Advice without a Law Licence in Ontario" at least.

Of course no lawyer actually involved with the case (or persons involved) are going to be giving out information subject to client-attorney privilege publicly. Naturally, that means they wont be jeopardizing the case by weighing in on this thread.

So in reality your proof is impossible to give, making you un-convinceable. That is fine.

I suggest you speak to a qualified legal professional if you so wish to for more details. It is clear you probably should be pursuing your own claim against them for your perceived privacy violations.

I also suggest anyone reading this post and is a concerned TekSavvy Customer file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. It is clear there is potentially enough risk for them to become involved.

said by Arcturus:

>In essence, the ISP is responsible not you, unless the ISP sides with the plaintiff completely.

That is last part is not in the law, the ISP is responsible regardless if they co-operate or not. There is nothing in the law that abides an infringer of the law because they co-operated to find other infringers.

[...](If they lose this case, they could be the ones sued for all 2000 cases). Just as much as any individuals.

3rd Party Liability. In the eyes of Canadian Common Law, Tek Savvy can be held responsible for the actions of its subscribers who use its infrastructure. It gets very complicated but because of its status under the Telecommunication's act 'the buck stops' at Tek as the primary 3rd party. There is nothing in the amendments or other rulings to suggest common law doesn't apply to copyright legislation.

The workings of 3rd party liability would suggest that providing the requested information would be in "good faith" but it depends on the claim as originally structured as to what Tek's further responsibilities are (in relation to the "dumb pipe" claims in CTRC rulings).

3rd-hand discussion about the details would suggest that Tek would be released from liability if it disclosed the information as requested without dispute. Though this would be a matter of case law, not legislation (neutral 'dumb pipes' don't dispute requests for data, just provide connection and billing data on court ordered request -- without discussing case mechanics or validity).

said by Arcturus:

...So, Teksavvy should be fighting for our privacy...

As you know privacy in Canada is governed by the Privacy act and a few pieces of related legislation (Electronic Documents act, for example). Per the the regulations enforced by that legislation the request is for Tek to "disclose" to Voltage sufficient enough information to identify the primary infringers--as presented in its copyright lawsuit. That act says nothing about the quality of evidence presented in the source claim or the practices of the entity making the request; only what can or cannot be disclosed and how when a claim is made.

See the issues with the risk of 3rd party Liability above as well. Tek cannot weigh in on the "validity of evidence" (Disputing the disclosure request in this way actually means arguing against Prima Facie) without exposing itself to 3rd Party Liability. That is in Common Law.

Remember, it is co-defendant in a Lawsuit with the 2000 users as a 3rd party (facilitator) there are specific requirements it has to meet as such.

Its hands are tied as expectations are for Tek to comply with its Common Law obligations while honouring the Privacy act. That means if it has conflicting obligations it is outside of the current case to deal with.

No-one is expecting them to show up and fight for people in a piracy case in court. This isn't a piracy case in court. This is a privacy case in court. On if they should release customer information based on flimsy/incorrect evidence. For a company that has shown in the past the abuse such information.

No-one wants Teksavvy to stand up in court and say these customers didn't do X, we want them to stand up in court and point out to the judge that 1. The information Voltage has is a. inaccurate at best, b. not proof of commercial copyright infringement,(the case in my understand was entered as a commercial infringement case against all 2000 IPs) and 2. Point out the history of court abuse Voltage has, and say it is likely this case is going to lead to that same abuse.

Tek Savvy is a 3rd party co-defendant in a copyright infringement (piracy) lawsuit filed by Voltage Pictures, under the most current version of the copyright act. Tek is the identified 3rd party that has sufficient enough information to identify the 2000 who carry the primary liability (secondary privacy issue). If tek discloses this information without disputing any part of the claim (abusive/bad faith/poorly constructed, etc) then it is probably no longer liable.

For them to meet their customer's expectations as you have explained means going after both Voltage's Prima Face (evidence as presented, court history) and Bona Fide (commercial infringement claim, method of data collection, source of data) in open court. US case law would suggest most of the customer issues discussed here are actually closer to Bona Fide then Prima Facie which makes the argument more difficult in a Canadian court. Either way, disputing those is something you deal with in your Statement of Defence.

Filing that that Means Tek is openly defending against the claim levied against it (for its users), or if Voltage listed all 2001 defendant's involved individually... In conjunction with them.

For Tek to actually file anything in court at all (dumb pipe or not) they are potentially exposing themselves to negligence. Because they did not take better precautions to protect their equipment from infringing use (also from the CTRC Rulings).

Its no different in a libel suit where Tek would refuse to provide appropriate IP information of a user who is being accused of libel in an internet posting. In fact, standard procedure for such a situation suggests that you accuse the ISP with 3rd Party Liability in order to force them to comply with disclosing the identity of your John or Jane Doe. Should they comply in the same way as requested here, they are released from the claim with prejudice. Technically as well, the Privacy act requires such a situation before compliant disclosure can be made. That also means the winner could be responsible for an ISP's costs in making that identification.

Though it sounds like Voltage didn't take this approach. More like their argument is that, Tek benefits from heavy data use as profit. Tek heavily advertises unlimited data usage for the purpose of heavy traffic and has designed packages to facilitate this. That is more then enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Tek commercially benefited from its customer's infringement activities.

That is probably why Tek is such a big target for this right now. Its also why CIPPC is involved given the internet buisness culture and the other uniquely Canadian mitigating factors.


GermanVPN

@leaseweb.com

As a seperate note I see today the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that two ISP's have to hand over personal information on two clients for file sharing.

Interestingly they both fought, one ended up losing and just riding it out, the other went out of business during the fight.


funny

join:2010-12-22
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

ummmm they aint been ordered to do anyhitng but they have an agreement already that to warn you all they wont oppose tossing your names , addresses and other data about you to them....
perhaps a class action lawsuit for misrepresentation on voltage and slander and defamation of character might be in order.

no commerical infringment took place that can be proved
calling thusly a person a thief and criminal is unjust and the pain and suffering one ahs to go through is also unjust.

an injunction in mean time on any extortionist activities until the counter suit can be fully heard and have all 2300 people show up in court.
ALL ....lets see if voltage can afford that or have its own settlement shoved at it.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to aks_canada

said by aks_canada:

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.

lets see
30 minutes of lawyer time to quite easily point out that there motion to have said information is in an incorrect filing as the mere fact is no one can possible tell me or you that a commercial infringment has happened. GO away refile for non commercial and we'll see again if we wish to comply.
THEN to enjoy there selves better they go make logs 1 week from then on.....

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

said by funny:

marc did answer that as did one of his techs and i agree that for loads a reasons you need some time to make sure that if crap happens then you can get to it faster however 3 months is excessive and ill add anythng past a month should be tossed no reason ohter hten your info gathering ....did you pay me for stats gathering? NO then don't do it unless you get me a reduction in cost. im cheap lets make a deal. its my data of my habits.

Absolutely agree... ideally i'd like to see an ISP with 14 days. It's a good diagnostic time, but 30 days as you said would be fair.

Marc i know answered it and that's the issue is that koreyb keeps saying there is a minimum by law which is false and curious where he is getting his info.

He's been asked by a few people now.

i checke dup on that min law stuff and had vic toews got his way that was a part of it. and it might be why a lot of isps started keeping longer laws not thinking that law would get the boot. NOW you have voltage taking advantage of it before possibly people get smart and start dropping more logs.

HERES my question then if i run a network and you get my ip , does that mean i show up prove i have a network and then tell you to screw off? playing the isp card cause i dont keep any logs?

haha they say they get protection under new law then people running home networks would too then....where is that section of law lets look at it.