dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17485
share rss forum feed

Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON
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. 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.


funny0

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.

funny0

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.....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

said by funny0:

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.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

An added note. It's not the DOWNLOADING as you say "License to steal" though it's NOT theft. It's the distribution of the content. Uploading it after.

You're allowed to so far in Canada download the content. So before you go calling people a burglar lol, please understand the differences and what the current law so far states.

you dont even get how its done or are trying to reword it
NO
commerical infringment is making a profit or money off somehting you have counterfeited or copied and sold to another.
NON COMMERCIAL is the above when your not selling or for personal use.

any one can tell you that.
and thats even how the rcmp worded it carefully

no one is using a word distribution cause to get a file you have to give back one thats how it works thus your not burdening everyone by take take take its a real sharing thing.IF your the first uploader well then you may have issues that person is the one costing sales supposedly but are they , this then gets into some stuff like im poor on welfare or disability and i hav eno cash to buy so if i do get stuff there is no lost sale. and i never sold it to anyone else and thus ....

this whole thing to me is you fight one battle at a time.
THE easiest one here to win is the fact that knowing there was a new law they went ahead and mis filed this civil lawsuit.

NOW you really get lots a time to prepare dont ya .....and as others have said there are cases where a john doe goes to trial without need of the plaintiff knowing whom he/she is
you really have to ask if i handed you what looks like a screen shot of a torrent client with lists of teksavvy ips in it can you honeslty with no reaosnable doubt prove they profited off your stuff?
my opinion and im not a lawyer is NO YOU CANT.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker:

said by noemails :

if a precedent is set by a judge in this case its going to take all the bell lawyers to tell voltage to f off and get a judge to overturn the previous judges rulling
they picked on the little guy to see what they could get... face it teksavvy has about 6 persont of the clients bell has..why not go where the real money is...cause bell will kill them in the courts

Wrong, if precendent is set, Bell will just hand over the info. Although it's possible they might have fought it, more likely that the first people would know about it was when people started getting their extortion letters.

and that passing of costs on to people will mean more and more people will not bother to get internet regardless of what they are doing
and the future means retarded people for all....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

Isn't Bell and Rogers creating content? Why would they have any interest in saving or fighting for those who they would see as possibly sharing their content?

I suspect that picking on TSI was deliberate.

bingo and thats why i resist idea of tsi getting iptv stuff going unless its actually done by indies....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to BellACancer

said by BellACancer:

said by elitefx:

said by dillyhammer:

The court order was meant to be fought. That's how our judicial system works.

What I'd like to know is would all customers like to see their Internet bill increase to $250 or more per month so a small outfit like Teksavvy can pay a $1,000,000 plus legal bill to fight a long drawn out battle to get the information disclosure laws of Canada changed?

Appeals and Supreme Court challenges cost massive amounts of cash. How big of a price hike are you willing to pay to support your views???

Would everybody be willing to pay Teksavvy hundreds of dollars per month to fight this battle for you?

Sell your house. Sell your car. Clean out your bank account and "Let's Get Ready To Rumble".....

Utter lies. Let's say that Tek has about 100 000 customers. Now, put an increase of 1 $ every month. That's about 12 $/year for all users. That gives Tek their million dollars. Enough to pay full time 6 lawyers (200 000 $ each) to fight copyright trolls.

I'm sure people would be more than willing to give Tek this dollar knowing that their privacy will be fought. Moreover, some other isp customers might be willing to join for this value.

i would

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

said by sourtimes:

This thread is ridiculous. Yes they are a business, they are not a facilitator and advocate of piracy, something that is against the law. Yes these copywrite trolls are bull, but piracy is illegal.

It is asinine to expect your ISP to financially back the cause of you breaking the law on the internet. It is your responsibility to cover your bases. You think Rogers and Bell will ? ?............

Be sensible about what you use the internet for. Teksavvy has my business because they give me unlimited bandwidth for a reasonable price. A hell of a lot more than what the other companies out there do. They are an isp, not my retained counsel. People who got these letters were stupid enough not to play smart.

It is my problem to account for my usage habits. I have a seedbox i use SSL to ftp from and a usenet account I also use SSL for. I suggest everyone else do the same. The $20 combined monthly cost for both is more than reasonable for what it provides.

Get real.

Bud, you get real. Listen to what you're saying for a second. Get your head out of the sand for just one minute.

"Yes they are trolls but piracy is illegal".... Really you had to use a 'but' in that sentence as if piracy is worse then what the trolls are doing? Sure it's illegal, but sometimes they're worse evils to deal with first.

To people like you, it only matters when it's you in the crosshair holding the smoking gun when you did absolutely nothing wrong.

Are this many people really that naive to their internet connections being abused by outside sources? Logs being misread or wrongly notified and someone like Voltage now has your info by mistake? You think they give a damn if it's by mistake, you bet your ass you'll get a pay up or else paper.

You think you're safe because you use SSL ? LOL

I'm just blown away at how naive people truly are about this whole thing. People are so wrapped up in the "OH MY GAWD YOURE DOWNLOADING ILLEGAL SOFTWARE. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD"

lol Get your head out of the sand for a second and do your research bud. You're not as safe as you may think. hundreds of people every month are wrongly accused, but i guess that's ok because it's not you yet. Until it is, well it's the law and piracy is piracy..

Get real.

last i heard piracy was like a form of armed robbery at sea?
anyone here got proof these 2300 used weapons of any kind?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

said by sourtimes:

This thread is ridiculous. Yes they are a business, they are not a facilitator and advocate of piracy, something that is against the law. Yes these copywrite trolls are bull, but piracy is illegal.

It is asinine to expect your ISP to financially back the cause of you breaking the law on the internet. It is your responsibility to cover your bases. You think Rogers and Bell will ? ?............

Be sensible about what you use the internet for. Teksavvy has my business because they give me unlimited bandwidth for a reasonable price. A hell of a lot more than what the other companies out there do. They are an isp, not my retained counsel. People who got these letters were stupid enough not to play smart.

It is my problem to account for my usage habits. I have a seedbox i use SSL to ftp from and a usenet account I also use SSL for. I suggest everyone else do the same. The $20 combined monthly cost for both is more than reasonable for what it provides.

Get real.

Would you like a link on how to break into your WIFI? It's a complete video course and you can learn how too at your pleasure. Thousands if not tens of thousands already have. Every pedo is probably an expert on it.

Or how about being accused in error?

Do you know what time you logged on and off 7 weeks ago?

Here is the problem with all this, it's not a criminal matter so all the accuser has to provide is "reasonable" evidence. Good luck with the legal costs trying to prove it unreasonable. I bet you will find that paying them $1000 to be cheaper then fighting.

So before you start on a holier then "thou evil downloaders", there is more to it. As for TSI. if they retain three month records and the next IP I go to is a week or less, then I'm going to thank you for being the low hanging fruit.

i see a pedo needs to break into your home compiter to get what?
you act like they are looking aournd everyones home pcs for sicko stuff and its so ambundant....nice try vic get a life thats not the case they are off in nations that dont care downloading it. and i'll add eventually the cops find out and when they do they go get a warrant and arrest you.
as we see about once a year 20 people in all of canada of 35million get busted for.

i was once accused of a robbery in london , lucky for me i never been there for one and two i was at work that day , i had lagged a day in reporting a stolen id. see what happened ....i got careless and lazy doing what i should have and the consequences could have been awful.

NOW lots a ways you can prove errors if you are truthful start a thread and we'll go there.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Leathal

said by Leathal:

Back in the 1980 and 1980s the Canadian Copyright Law allowed you to make a copy for your own person use. I bet you didn't know this did you? The law become more relaxed with CD burners started to flood the market place because the board of the Canadian Copyright decided to charge a small fee on record able digital media to try and recover some of the cost (if not all of it) from people pirating stuff.

Now that we have evolved to where we are now piracy has increased 100 fold the hidden fees aren't covering 1% of the figured amount of music, movies and software that is being pirated. So the have to take extra steps now...do I blame them? NO. You shouldn't either.

So your complaint really doesn't hold any water, the internet is a place that has grown over the years that its become more easier to track people through the IP's and such which why every person that has been suspected to be a pedophile is one. They track them the same way they now are tracking you downloading those pirated warez, movies, and songs to your computer every night.

and they still are collecting that and even expanded what they collect on....bring some blank cdrs covered by the media levy

MEDIA LEVY look up word media and what it entails and last i read its not just music as mister geist liked to claim.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

said by AkFubar:

IMO the benefits of staying with TSI far out weight those for leaving. Always had good service, the price is right and I'm good with TSI's stance on net neutrality and fairness to customers. Really don't think there would be many if any alternatives out there. Under the same or similar circumstances any Canadian ISP would do pretty much exactly the same as TSI.

What benefits? Bandwidth? lol... You know why TSI was a target right? Any billy joe bob knows TSi stood up for it's customers rights for a fair internet back in the day and fought to keep "unlimited" a reality, but really... is unlimited needed?

That question is a tough one. For me our house uses netflix a lot. For $8 a month, we push bandwidth to it's limits and still come under a cap.

Not saying caps are right, because their not, considering what bandwidth really costs them, it's chump change.

That said, Teksavvy put a target on their foreheads long ago fighting for customers rights to download/upload (aka bandwidth) and now when things get tough, where is this fight?

There is a reason TSI was target #1. Rogers has a much higher customer base... why not them?, why not bell? Why not Telus? You're pretty well known for being very biased towards Teksavvy, so your opinion isn't really an opinion when it's not objective or subjective to certain criteria, such as right to being fairly treated.

Handing my IP over is copping out and leaving me to the wolves. To fend for myself. Now where most naive people seem to get lost in themselves is "Don't do anything illegal and you're fine". Furthest thing from the truth.

1. Teksavvy screws up the process of who to contact based on IPs handed over. 42 people for example
2. IP is spoofed. Far more common then anyone knows and you'll never know unless you become falsely accused, but hey... keep it legal.
3. Wifi is being hacked/shared by an neighbor and while he/she is laughing while downloading the next twilight you're on the hook because companies like Voltage don't care who in the house, just that it's that account holder.

I'm not a gambler so playing with those odds are not for me. I don't want to be brought up on possible charges based on something as silly as being one of the next 42 mistakenly notified but missed next time.

Why is the burden up to me, to defend myself? I've kept it legal. I'm a legit guy. I like supporting things i like. Thus i've supported TSI but not this decision. People are so ignorant to the simplicity of sharing a connection that because it hasn't happened to them, it never will.

It's as naive as saying i've never been mugged on the streets before, so i don't mind going out at 1am anyway. Until it happens a new perspective arises. Problem is why are people waiting until it happens to then bitch and moan?

Biggest problem with this country when it comes to our prices (retail, internet, cable, telephone, cell) is we wait just accept it rather then question it.

Hey it's cool though, it hasn't happened to bob. probably never will...

ya know back in "the day" there was actually stuff people wanted to download...

if you gave me a free apss to pick any 3 tv shows and 3 movies a month free a charge...i think i'd have a hard time now a days.
IT really is crap and its cause lawyers are running it all. LOL MAKES ME LAUGH...what happens when they cant do these suits no more and have to GET CREATING....well lawyers dont make good art do they...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
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.

An ISP can argue during discovery (like others have) that the evidence is flawed but again that is as a defendant not an innocent 'dumb pipe'. If the ISP loses that battle, then it is now defending a full blown-out corporate lawsuit.

Vonage has filed the suit to say "give us the data Tek Savvy or were suing you Tek Savvy for the commercial infringement claimed herein. They are suing Tek for the data to go after the individual, or for the money from Tek itself.

Essentially it means Tek could be liable for a minimum of 40 million dollars. (or 2 billion depending on the Judge's decision). That would kill the ISP off completely, assets and all.

Tek isn't going to destroy itself for 2 or 3 percent of its client load, privacy or not. Why is it so hard for some people to get that....

Also few comments on worst case scenario:

-- CIPPC filed amicus to ensure privacy and charter rights are going to be respected when (and if) the data is to be transferred. That includes ensuring due process is given. Neutral evidence was presented to suggest Vonage's Request was not in compliance with the law. CIPPC did not comment on the validity of the claim just the method of handling it.

-- What is reasonable will be determined on the 13th. This will include (if allowed) a reasonable grace period for Tek to pursue requisite disclosure per privacy laws.

-- The case is being heard in Superior Court. That means the trial process is more complicated and detailed. It is more then likely a Part 13 trial as well, that means you have a full variety of defence strategies. This includes cross examination of everything including the validity of a commercial claim against you.

(FYI this costs an additional $200 or so and 1 form. For both forms in your Statement of Defence, your looking at $600, plus 2-3 hours of legal assistance to structure your argument properly. All of this can be recovered if you are successful)

-- You cannot be held liable as a "Jonn/Jane Doe" in Canadian court. You have to be identified by your legal name when being accused of something. You can Motion to dismiss ($200) if, by any chance your account with TekSavvy has errors in proper identification.

-- This also means that Vonage will have to file a claim in each region where the individuals reside. You can be accused with 20, 30, or more but it has to be filed in your region of residence listed in the (valid) information from Tek Savvy.

-- Because of this you will be given plenty of time (30 days) before you have to appear in court. Remember this will have to be a new claim for due process to be followed, so the clock resets.

This is also why CIPPC intervened.

-- If you are identified and for some odd reason were not notified per the ruling on the 13th you can hold Teksavvy liable for causing you distress and violating your privacy rights. This can be handled in small claims. I'm surprised that with of this aggressive language in this thread no one has looked at this angle already...

lol nice try and i see why your not a lawyer....
TSI can merely stand up and say there is no proof of commerical infringment and ask voltage to show how ( and hand them a ip addy any one of the 6 billion ) and ask how they can tell that ip made money or a profit ....when they say they cant its a gotya moment ....
case dismissed and have a nice day refile for non commericla which they wont cause htey be lucky to get 100/file.

the new law already protects them also as they are effectively already a dumb pipe which is another reason i was dumb founded as to why they'd make a deal like this and state it the way they did. THEY have no liability here other then if they have data to hand it over if ordered and to uphold user privacy and charter rights.
Voltage cant sue teksavvy under the new law...they have options to refile for non commercial and prove at a hearing that the method and way that data was shown to them was accurate enough to pass a hearing of probable cause to continue.
AGAIN Voltage could no more sue bell canada for what a bell user does then they can regarding a tsi user.
the new law gives isps immunity period. so why is tsi bending over is my question.
AGAIN voltage has to show that a lsit of ips showing that they have your file not a video of said user grinning as he gets it and plays it and then burns it and sells to 50 people....

2 differant things there one is non commerical the other quite commerical and impossible to prove the new law makes a distinction
and the rcmp said they themselves arent going after file sharing
they go after counterfeiting and people selling at flea markets and in stores what commerical is supposed to be for.
you want to start pissing off judges this is exactly how you try and muck around. even harper said to the legal community
error on low side for non commerical infringments so you do not do undue harm....the charter has CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT section for a reason.
harper knew that , voltage does not.

voltage wants the cases joined into one
voltage wants one case in one area
federal court.
non commerical would be provincial and small claims. ergo each province you'd have to file ....and you cant join

simply put TSI screwed up not knowing the immunity the new law gave them and voltage is gaming the system based on the old law and everyone not paying attention ( only thing TSI did good was let everyone know )

but if im not guilty of a crime letting me know 3 weeks ahead im about to get accused ( im not one of the named )and get my name slandered and defamed and im too poor to get legal counsel for federal court then whats the point , sounds to me like the internet is becoming too much a legal risk and we all should do a strike across the nation to get the laws fixed....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to MaynardKrebs

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.

and if Cippic gets no standing its game over for your data and privacy.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

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.

lets play pretend why would i as judge when both parties agreed to pass the data form one to other allow you to take my time and effort to hear this....argue away and then ruling....dont put your eggs all in one basket people say and that's what has happened ask yourself what rulings has that judge mad ein past that gives you a clue.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

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.

harper may be a lot a things BUT a dictator not quite yet.
A) he backed off the legislation form vic toews when he saw 464000 signings in 4 days. A part of that legislation would have required ISPS to log for X time
B) he said publically for judges to error on the low side for non commercial infringements ergo 100 per file up to the max 5000 dollars.

C)everyone knows voltage is out to lunch on this being a commercial infringement we just have to get a judge to think this way.

D) was the data collection process proper , legal and sound?
E) does this mean if i call up teksavvy tomorrow and file a lawsuit on all tsi's users for infringement will they then hand over all your names addresses and data ? Scarey...IF this is the precedent i might be calling bell canada ....and every isp....
muhaha

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Dr Facts

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?

and he then adds your suing me cause of commercial infringement

i never made any money from your movie and YOU CANT PROVE IT...
what's it called again ? ( hears more laughing )

case dissmissed.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

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.

ooops sorry that computer died and i beat it with a sledge hammer last week.....got this new shiney one here

oh and this hacker told me to run this program cleans up stuff on my pc ...nice kid turns out it also gave me a back door virus awful stuff those are. doing all kinds a weird stuff .....

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Dr Facts

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.

>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".

no proof you have said file
well possessin is 9 tenths of the law....
i know you stole my hammer dammit just caus eyou got no hammers anywhere i know you stole it though....
see this guy had a computer program that saw you do it...says so right here , what ya mean its not a video of him doing it....it jsut says man at this house took my hammer.
ya that will fly as far as a turd as in case dissmissed

i can fake that data pretty darn good being into 3d special affects and video creation myself.
i could even given a lil time make a video of you that would look pretty darn damning till it got real well looked at.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Dr Facts

facts are facts without evidence there is no spoon


funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to neochu

said by neochu:

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.

go read the new copyright law ISPS are given immunity period.
what your saying is for any reasons anyone can pester a company and sequester information on the customers or employees
FALSE. don't need to be a lawyer to know that ( see privacy law and charter of rights and freedoms for a start , this aint america eh )
teksavvy is NOT a 3rd party to the actions here by the new copyright law they are effectively a transmission , the liability falls on the actions of the individual.

we also have a bc ruling on that based on the fact that linking to infrimging is not illegal its up to the person doing it and they get liability.

the case was wildly heralded as a sane response or tons a websites would go poof and news sites would have been screwed.

THIS IS NOT A LIBEL SUIT
its a commercial copyright infringement lawsuit.
its aim is to say these people profited from the use of someone's creation without authorization or license.

ITS BEEN ( in my opinion ) Wrongly filed as it should be princial matter not federal and small claims action of non commerical infringment. THEN in fact the actual names dont matter to be had also. a judge could have the list and rule and a judgement be passed on to the users. a way to keep privacy there and follow not only the spirit of the law but its intent.

Again TSI didn't read the new copyright law they are given immunity.

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

said by Arcturus:

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.

Common carriers (Bell, Rogers, Telus, TSI) are NOT held responsible for aiding & betting when a terrorist makes a phone call or sends an e-mail plotting an act of mass destruction. Nor are they held responsible when a gang of bank robbers use cell phones to communicate with one another. Canada Post isn't held responsible when extortion letters are sent by Voltage.

Oh....I forget....we're talking about Hollywood and US interests...... Of course, Bell Rogers, Telus, TSI, Acanac all are accessories to heinous criminal acts of copyright infringement and must be held accountable. Bring on the black helicopters & Seal Team 6.


Good One

@videotron.ca

IP/Copyright Lawyer, Howard Knopf, put up another post that includes Teksavvy.

Basically, it's Predictions for 2013, but he just lays it out w/o making predictions because Teksavvy has the ability to write their own outcome of this whole Voltage affair.

See:

What to Watch for in Canadian Intellectual Property Law in 2013
»www.excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/···-in.html

Here are a few things to look out for this year. These are essentially in the form of questions – for most of which there is no easy answer to predict. So, I’ll refrain from predicting.

COPYRIGHT

The year will no doubt kick off with the Voltage Pictures “mass litigation” campaign. It might be noted that a similar effort by Voltage involving Quebec based ISPs that did not oppose the motion to disclose their clients’ identities fizzled last year for unknown reasons – and with no individuals actually being sued. This time around, some seem to think that Voltage is more determined. Will feisty, progressive Teksavvy, the ISP that has built its reputation on being customer-friendly, actually stand up and fight for its customers’ “privacy” without taking sides on “piracy”? That’s what Shaw and Telus did vigorously and successfully in 2004, with Bell and Rogers onside if not quite as actively. What should/will Teksavvy do if it turns out to be relatively easy for it to challenge the adequacy of Voltage’s material for the motion that seeks disclosure of the names and addresses of potentially thousands of Teksavvy’s customers? The law on this, including the evidentiary concerns that could arise, was clearly laid out in the BMG case by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2005 and the background is all there on CIPPIC’s website. If Voltage’s widely circulated current material is indeed inadequate (upon which I make no comment) and an ISP as savvy as Teksavvy doesn’t challenge its adequacy at the outset, what signal will this send to future potential mass litigators and copyright “trolls”? And to Canadian ISP customers generally and Teksavvy’s customers in particular? What could CIPPIC do if it is permitted to intervene? Is this something that CIPPIC will have to do on a regular basis? What will happen if the names and addresses are eventually provided to Voltage? Will there actually be lawsuits, or will there simply be high pressure settlement demands en masse? To be continued on January 14, 2013 in the Federal Court.


Continues...

He is saying Teksavvy has the ability to write their own future (and history) here.

Now, I think many of us get the feeling that Teksavvy is just moving aside in order to let CIPPIC handle this. But, my faith isn't with CIPPIC, though they bring a lot to the table, as academics.


Arcturus

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

I don't personally think TSI or any carrier should ever be responsible (and I don't believe Canada laws does either), I was discussion with someone who said that was the case, and entertaining that even if it were the case TSI should still be fighting for people's privacy and rights.

As for the person I gave the benefit of the doubt for then assume for some reason TSI is giving out *my* information (as far as I am aware they are not), nor should they be unless it is a mistake (that I would be unable to prove as a mistake).

He told me I should be suing TSI and whatever for giving out my information, only they are not giving out my information! Why on earth would you assume that?!? Oh right if I argue for privacy I'm a child raping, pirating murderer.