| 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. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| 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 |
|
| 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. " |
|
|
|
| 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? |
|
| reply to Boop
Forgot the article....
»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ll.shtml |
|
| The law has changed since 2004. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| 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....... |
|
| 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. |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
 ·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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 |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| 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....... |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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 |
|
| 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? |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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 |
|
| reply to Boop
isn't the issue at hand uploading, not downloading? |
|
| 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". |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| 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 |
|
| >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! |
|
