dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed

Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12

3 recommendations

reply to Tx

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

Interesting read, even in my eggnog induced stupor.
There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation flying around. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what my reading of the changes to the Copyright Act tell me:

For one thing, the Act requires that the ISP notify its customers as soon as feasible once it has received notice in writing in a format that meets the criteria of the Act. Not once a motion is filed with the court. Once notice in writing is received by the ISP. Teksavvy's claim that it provided notice even though not required is bunk. They were required to provide notice all the while.

Also, people seem to think they are not being sued yet. Wrong. The John Doe statement of claim was filed with federal court November 14, 2012. According to Federal Court rules, Voltage has 60 days, not counting holidays, to serve the John/Jane Doe defendants. The purpose of the Motion involving Teksavvy that was to be heard Dec/17 was just so that they can effect service against those defendants. In other words, as soon as TSI releases those names/addresses, Voltage willl be serving people. There's no need to file another, separate Statement of Claim, as far as I know. Once served (can be done by mail), a defendant has 30 days to file a defense. Those who don't file a defense risk having default judgement granted against them.

People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. Only after you defend yourself will Voltage offer any form of settlement or choose to discontinue.

People think TSI has not choice but keep logs for 3 months. Not true, there's no mandatory data retention period, otherwise many anonymous VPN providers wouldn't be located in Canada. What TSI can't do is destroy the logs they already have once they are notified of infringement. And they have to retain them for up to a year for those included in the notification.

People think they are not affected if they didn't get a notice until now or if they are with a different ISP. Not true, these are only 2,000 of the one million IP's that Canipre claims to have collected in the past 6 months for rights holders. They will come knocking on other doors.

Now, back to the eggnog.

cynic10

join:2011-02-05

1 edit
Bravo. Thx you for summarizing it and going straight to the points. Some parts escaped me until this posts, especially these parts which are highly important.

"For one thing, the Act requires that the ISP notify its customers as soon as feasible once it has received notice in writing in a format that meets the criteria of the Act. Not once a motion is filed with the court. Once notice in writing is received by the ISP. Teksavvy's claim that it provided notice even though not required is bunk. They were required to provide notice all the while."

"People think TSI has not choice but keep logs for 3 months. Not true, there's no mandatory data retention period"

"People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. "

" these are only 2,000 of the one million IP's that Canipre claims to have collected in the past 6 months for rights holders. They will come knocking on other doors."

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Fuzzy285
said by Fuzzy285:

Interesting read, even in my eggnog induced stupor.
There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation flying around. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what my reading of the changes to the Copyright Act tell me:

For one thing, the Act requires that the ISP notify its customers as soon as feasible once it has received notice in writing in a format that meets the criteria of the Act. Not once a motion is filed with the court. Once notice in writing is received by the ISP. Teksavvy's claim that it provided notice even though not required is bunk. They were required to provide notice all the while.

Also, people seem to think they are not being sued yet. Wrong. The John Doe statement of claim was filed with federal court November 14, 2012. According to Federal Court rules, Voltage has 60 days, not counting holidays, to serve the John/Jane Doe defendants. The purpose of the Motion involving Teksavvy that was to be heard Dec/17 was just so that they can effect service against those defendants. In other words, as soon as TSI releases those names/addresses, Voltage willl be serving people. There's no need to file another, separate Statement of Claim, as far as I know. Once served (can be done by mail), a defendant has 30 days to file a defense. Those who don't file a defense risk having default judgement granted against them.

People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. Only after you defend yourself will Voltage offer any form of settlement or choose to discontinue.

People think TSI has not choice but keep logs for 3 months. Not true, there's no mandatory data retention period, otherwise many anonymous VPN providers wouldn't be located in Canada. What TSI can't do is destroy the logs they already have once they are notified of infringement. And they have to retain them for up to a year for those included in the notification.

People think they are not affected if they didn't get a notice until now or if they are with a different ISP. Not true, these are only 2,000 of the one million IP's that Canipre claims to have collected in the past 6 months for rights holders. They will come knocking on other doors.

Now, back to the eggnog.

thats the rub the notice rules haven't been formalized on how hte govt wants it done , AND instead of going ot the govt and saying they want this done NOW or soon or wait they jumped the gun and tried to bypass that part. NOW they even borked the part about non commercial and commercial up and ill say it this should get tossed UTTERLY and to the rails...too much of this "evidence" has no proof that any commercial aspects could have been done. SO in that regard i'd say in my opinion your name and address mean zero other hten to try and find a numb nut dummy that has no clue and threaten them....that actually is extortion when you dont have any right to be doing it as well as black mail.

these goons called voltage better be careful.hackers already outed all there details.

cowwoc

join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL
reply to Fuzzy285
said by Fuzzy285:

People think they'll get away with only a $100 fine. Not true, once served they MUST file a defense, and that costs money. Only after you defend yourself will Voltage offer any form of settlement or choose to discontinue.

I've read in a couple of places that because the penalty is capped at $5000 that the suing company must go to small claims court. If that is indeed the case, it won't cover the defendant much of anything.

The question remains: is the suing company allowed to bring this to a normal court? Or are they required to bring it to small-claims court?

Thanks,
Gili

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON
You can't. Small Claims only allows payments of money or return of personal property, which are not the remedies being sought by Voltage (statutory damages + punitive damages + a declaration from defendants), you'd have to respond to their claim and quash those portions before asking that it be moved to Small Claims, but by then the federal court judge might as well rule on the merit of the rest of the claim. They need to rewrite the law to allow respondants to file a simple defense saying that in the absence of proof of commercial infringement that those portions of the claim should be denied and that the venue should be moved to Small Claims regarding the balance of the claim. That would definitely take the wind off the sails of the trolls.

cowwoc

join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL
said by FatBastid:

You can't. Small Claims only allows payments of money or return of personal property, which are not the remedies being sought by Voltage (statutory damages + punitive damages + a declaration from defendants), you'd have to respond to their claim and quash those portions before asking that it be moved to Small Claims, but by then the federal court judge might as well rule on the merit of the rest of the claim. They need to rewrite the law to allow respondants to file a simple defense saying that in the absence of proof of commercial infringement that those portions of the claim should be denied and that the venue should be moved to Small Claims regarding the balance of the claim. That would definitely take the wind off the sails of the trolls.

Okay. So what happens if you opt to represent yourself in court? Do individuals really run the risk of a judge labeling such infringement as commercial without any proof?

Alternatively, couldn't the plaintiffs opt to use the same law firm in exchange for lower hourly fees? This would be similar to a class-action lawsuit but in reverse.

Gili