bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to apvm
Re: Ppl need a reality check about leaving due to their stance said by apvm:Well this is all technical IMO, Teksavvy wanted a clean cut and do not want any of this to come back to haunt them (get them involved again) once they released the information. Yeah, but Teksavvy could have argued the timeline for delivery of the information instead of arguing the timeline for the granting of the court order. That the information wasn't ready yet on that day, isn't in and of itself a reason to grant a delay in deciding on the court order. Teksavvy could have just said "Okay, here's our timeline for delivery of the requested information" and left it at that.
They had options. So if you don't think they chose that one on purpose, what do you think they did? Drew it out of a hat?
said by apvm:As for the Court, it was the proper thing to do, it was a fact that there wasn't enough reasonable time for those who are involved to prepare for their defense if a court order were granted on that day.
I agree it was the proper thing to do. But again, it wasn't required of the court. |
|
|
|
 apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1 | Look at it this way, if a court order were granted on Jan 14th, everyone is happy except the accused. Teksavvy is out of this and most likely will be praised that they did their best. The court is good too since they have granted enough time. Voltage is most happy since they can start sending those "paid up or else" letters.
This is a "win win" situation and I must say the lawyers from Voltage was right on, it was only a PR move by Teksavvy. |
|
| reply to kcorscadden
Indies have a limited amount of money, they CAN NOT spend all their money into this lawsuit and let it drag on (and make themselves go under in the process).I think TSI made the Smart move(Of not getting into a Costly Battle,If they did say no to Voltage.). |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to apvm
said by apvm:I must say the lawyers from Voltage was right on, it was only a PR move by Teksavvy.
Either way, it did provide a benefit (albeit small) to those people identified. It gives them time to get someone (a lawyer representing them, CIPPIC, etc) to intervene on their behalf. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | reply to apvm
said by apvm:Look at it this way, if a court order were granted on Jan 14th, everyone is happy except the accused. Teksavvy is out of this and most likely will be praised that they did their best. The court is good too since they have granted enough time. Voltage is most happy since they can start sending those "paid up or else" letters.
This is a "win win" situation and I must say the lawyers from Voltage was right on, it was only a PR move by Teksavvy.
Why in the world would TekSavvy want to see the court order granted? They lose in multiple respects. They'd be compelled to turn over customer information that they've refused to hand over voluntarily. They'll lose customers who feel (rightly or wrongly) that TSI isn't doing enough to protect their privacy. They'll have to do work to cooperate with a company they want nothing to do with (Voltage). Their name will be in the press for all the wrong reasons.
There's nothing good about this court order being granted for TSI. The only actors in all this who want the court order granted are Voltage, their RIAA/MPAA masters, and others who profit from copyright trolling. |
|
Tong
join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x | Just imagine that if this court order is granted, then they will become the testing ground for all other studios to get the names that they can sue. There will be getting nothing but request for names from an IP. |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Tx
said by Tx:I was once accused long long time ago, wasn't any fishing expedition like Voltage but i called their lawyers office right away and i had to fill out a lot of paperwork proving i was innocent. I was lucky back then, that the lawyers believed me and i was off the hook.
Back then you would of got an email that you should of deleted rather than respond to it.That was a fishing expedition.
The burden has been put on you by the current government,not the ISP.The ISP doesnt change laws.
Fact of the matter is the ISP can do nothing unless it a false,then the ISP can state so and does have the obligation to state that you were not using the IP or that their servers screwed up so no ID is possible,etc
The isp should always be a dumb pipe.Anything else we become the US |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to The Mongoose
TSI is not giving up the IP's.They in conjuction? (may not be the right word) with cippic are fighting it on a round about route.An ISP has no grounds to refuse an IP request,but a consumer group has a better chance as they represent the people.An ISP has no "public Interest" to a court so would not do very well. |
|
kabes
join:2010-05-14
Kitchener, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to kcorscadden
The "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" argument is short-sighted and naive.
What other forms of privacy and liberty should we give up since it really only affects the people who did something wrong?
It's called a slippery slope for a reason. |
|
| reply to kcorscadden
I need to agree. Leaving because they are not going to fight seems a little...too much. I guess for some people who are being affected by this I would understand but for people who are not and are just mad I would just be mad and not leave. |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to kcorscadden
|
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to kcorscadden
All that has happened is that TekSavvy asked for more time because they were only given 4 days. 4 day turn around for something like that is insane.
The entire matter of handing over customer records is what CIPPIC's job entails, if the cases do not have merit in court the names will not be handed over period. CIPPIC's job in this is to prevent names being extracted from the legal system so that these "shakedown" notices cannot be sent using information intended for other purposes.
Most importantly one thing at a time, TekSavvy and CIPPIC agreed they needed more time to notify people as they are required to. In the next time in court they could again agree with CIPPIC in regards to how this information is used.
Court is not a place to wage a PR war, keep your arguments on point and trust the judges to rule according to the law.
If the judge agrees with CIPPIC and The Privacy Commissioner it could set an ideal precedent that customer information can only be requested via the courts if legal trial proceedings are intended to take place.
If they dont have a vector to send people these extortion notices then these types of cases will stop dead in the tracks.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png |
|
