dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8157
share rss forum feed


John Doe 187

@5.135.78.x

Teksavvy Voltage motion - Looking for some advice

So I ended up getting one of letters from Teksavvy saying that Voltage is looking to get my info. I realize that the motion is still to be heard Jan 14 and CIPPIC may be given intervene status if not already. My question is that I am obviously planning on taking this to court. There is no way I’m settling so should I be looking for a lawyer right now or wait till the outcome of the motion is decided and also if the motion goes through how long do I have to respond to one of their extortion letters? Thanks in advance.


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

This is not legal advice, just my understanding:

You do not have to respond to any of their extortion letters. You can simply ignore them. You do have to respond to anything related to the court case if it comes to that. This is where a lawyer can help.

As to when you should seek the assistance of a lawyer, the sooner the better. Unfortunately money doesn't always allow for that.

Personally I'm waiting to see what happens on the 14th, however, I'm one of the lucky ones: I have a family member who's a top litigator in Canada who I can ask these questions of. I may still get a lawyer if I can get one pro bono, otherwise I can't afford it and I'd have to accept a summary judgement and not be able to pay it.


morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON

JMjimmy As far as i know at the very least you could represent yourself even if u do so poorly,
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to John Doe 187

You should start looking around for a lawyer now, you can contact the
LSUC:

»www.lsuc.on.ca/index.aspx

They have a number you can call for a free 30 minute consultation.

Odds are all you'll need from the lawyer is a letter of reply to Voltage saying you look forward to seeing them in court and them proving their case.

Which they can't and so they won't and will go away.

The worst thing you can do is ignore it, do not do this. Voltage wants you to so they can go to court and get a judgment against you no fuss or muss. They can then sell the judgment to a collection agency and then you're life will become that much harder. They won't care about right or wrong, they have a legal document that say you owe them money, the end.

The second worst thing you can do is represent yourself, don't ever, ever do that. Not even lawyers do that.


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

said by Dr Facts :

The second worst thing you can do is represent yourself, don't ever, ever do that. Not even lawyers do that.

You'd be surprised.. I just saw a filing yesterday from the US (filed Dec 25th), where a porno copytroll sued a bunch of Does, one of which is a lawyer, who is arguing 'pro se' (ie representing themselves), saying they're innocent, and that the does should be severed.

»ia701208.us.archive.org/12/items···25.0.pdf

A LOT of people file their own motions pro se in US regarding in these copy suits. The judges tend to go easy on them (ie not knowing all the rules, etc), and a lot of the time they do get severed.

Thats not to say it'll work here, but, who knows.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
reply to John Doe 187

I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak with authority on this.

It's my understanding that you could have a lawyer in court on January 14th to represent your interests, without having to disclose your identity, and to challenge Voltage's motion for disclosure. I believe that was the point in Teksavvy's wanting to ensure that proper notice was given to the affected John/Jane Does - to allow them time to obtain proper representation and challenge the discovery request if they so chose.


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

said by bullwinkle:

I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak with authority on this.

It's my understanding that you could have a lawyer in court on January 14th to represent your interests, without having to disclose your identity, and to challenge Voltage's motion for disclosure. I believe that was the point in Teksavvy's wanting to ensure that proper notice was given to the affected John/Jane Does - to allow them time to obtain proper representation and challenge the discovery request if they so chose.

Yes. This is why Teksavvy pushed for the notification.

There are suits here in Canada that an anonymous doe had an entire trial while still being a doe. This would be a good thing to attempt..

It was a libel suit against a university student.. And it was mentioned by TSI's lawyers on the first court date.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

A LOT of people file their own motions pro se in US regarding in these copy suits. The judges tend to go easy on them (ie not knowing all the rules, etc), and a lot of the time they do get severed.

Thats not to say it'll work here, but, who knows.

Apparently, representing yourself can be a gamble, even for lawyers. There was an article about this in the Citizen a few days ago:

»www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Self+···ory.html

thm655321

join:2003-09-01
Canada
reply to resa1983

resa1983, that was some good reading, thanks.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to bullwinkle

>Apparently, representing yourself can be a gamble,

It really is and when you go without a lawyer you're not working within the system and that rarely goes well.

It's like walking into a dark forest without a guide, theoretically you can do it, after all it's just walking! but in reality you'll end up falling off a cliff that a guide with experience could have seen coming.

You have to remember in court there is no undo, when you say something stupid that hurts your case, that's it you're done.

If you've gotten notice from TSI that Voltage has you in their troll-sights start looking at lawyer options now so that if the judge in two weeks gives them your name and number you can hit the ground running.

It can't be said enough, they're bullies they'll only go after the vulnerable and those would be anyone without a lawyer.


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

said by bullwinkle:

said by resa1983:

A LOT of people file their own motions pro se in US regarding in these copy suits. The judges tend to go easy on them (ie not knowing all the rules, etc), and a lot of the time they do get severed.

Thats not to say it'll work here, but, who knows.

Apparently, representing yourself can be a gamble, even for lawyers. There was an article about this in the Citizen a few days ago:

»www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Self+···ory.html

Wow.. That just goes to show the difference between the Canadian and US courts..
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to morisato

said by morisato:

JMjimmy As far as i know at the very least you could represent yourself even if u do so poorly,

I'm sure I could in theory, but I couldn't afford the fees the court charges for doing so. Assuming I could convince the judge to waive those fees, I'd have an uphill battle trying to ensure I follow the rules of the court and not piss the judge off.


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

Dr Facts works for the government folks.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca

said by elwoodblues:

Dr Facts works for the government folks.

Yes, yes I do. That's bad is it?


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to John Doe 187

I live next-door to lawyers who also have streets named after them. A judge previously lived in the same house. This is a civil case not a criminal one. Don't let your emotions come into play. You simply do whatever is cheapest even if paying off Voltage is the cheaper of the two options.


Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2

If you pay them, your name will be put on a nice list and you can expect similar letters every few months.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to ChuckcZar

said by ChuckcZar :

A judge previously lived in the same house.

That's pretty authoritative...

said by ChuckcZar :

You simply do whatever is cheapest even if paying off Voltage is the cheaper of the two options.

I think a better plan would to simply do whatever you lawyer says.

And I somehow doubt that Voltage's offer will be cheaper than getting a lawyer to send a letter of reply. I think that would cost about $250 maybe $500?

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
reply to John Doe 187

If I got a letter (which I won't, because I'm not with Teksavvy and not in ON). I would get lawyer and go to court, even if I had to pay the lawyer. Because:

1. If you go to court, the order or result of the judgement would be on record, so they can't go after you again for the same thing. If you settle, they would go after you again and again probably with the same thing because the settlement most likely is not on record (It will be on their internal record to go after you again and again).

2. I would rather pay a local lawyer some money, help out the local economy than pay the troll or the company that is not even in my city.

3. There will be less chance for Troll go after you again because they realized that you will go to the court, which cost them too much money.


Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms

1 recommendation

reply to John Doe 187

The first thing you should do is read the speculative invoicing handbook.
»www.scribd.com/doc/115443516/The···-Edition

You should also familiarize yourself with how these copyright trolls do business. Here's a good article about a company that uses the same tactics as Voltage Pictures - »torrentfreak.com/o2-be-customers···-121204/

Although Voltage Pictures is attempting to portray this as commercial copyright infringement, they don't have a leg to stand on so if they decide to take anyone to court then you should be able to convince a judge that this should be handled by small claims court.

If you live in Ontario, check out this link - »www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c···/guides/


wiggum

join:2003-05-05
Seattle, WA
reply to John Doe 187

I would contact CIPPIC. I believe they may be looking for people to give them standing to oppose Voltage at the hearing on the 14th, and may be willing to help you out over the long term too.



TSI Jon
Premium
join:2011-08-24
canada
kudos:10

Edit: wrong thread


jamesvca

join:2012-12-13
Fruitvale, BC
reply to John Doe 187

How to fight Copyright Trolls

Speculative Invoicing Handbook, Download PDF

»www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9···olls.pdf


bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
reply to wiggum

said by wiggum:

I believe they may be looking for people to give them standing to oppose Voltage at the hearing on the 14th, and may be willing to help you out over the long term too.

Possibly, but I think it's more likely that they would want to maintain the public interest neutrality that they've asserted in their motion papers, and avoid a direct advocacy role on behalf of one or more individuals identified.


Brandon411

@198.96.127.x

The stance taken by Teksavvy *in my opinion* is a coward's one. This has nothing to do with being guilty or innocent at this stage and everything to do with privacy. How can some company with a history of extortion tactics be granted information base only solely gathered IP? This is the most ridiculous notion I have heard and Companies like Teksavvy should be fighting this instead of taking a neutral side... This case could possibly set a precedence which could open a new can of worms for Canada! So in my opinion Teksavvy taking a neutral stance goes everything they claim to stand for.

Does anyone actually think it's the responsibility of the accused to show up with a lawyer to oppose this initial motion?? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet. This is the JOB of the ISP!


MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2

Luckily it is your opinion ... which doesn't matter ...



bc_jk

@amd.co.at

When they come for your bank account don't act surprised. After all you might be infringing copyrights too, you simply didn't prove it in court... yet.



Dr Facts

@gc.ca
reply to Brandon411

said by Brandon411 :

This is the JOB of the ISP!

No, their job is to provide Internet Service and obey the law.

From what I can tell they've been doing just that.

They also gave their users a head's up which was a great service.

bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
reply to Brandon411

said by Brandon411 :

Does anyone actually think it's the responsibility of the accused to show up with a lawyer to oppose this initial motion??

Note - I am not a lawyer, so take this with a non-lawyerly grain of salt.

If the accused wants to be 100% assured that the privacy issues are raised in court in reference to the motion for disclosure, then, yes, that individual should make sure that he/she has appropriate legal representation at the hearing, who can oppose the motion on some or all of the grounds that have already been raised here and elsewhere. An ISP may choose to oppose on the same grounds - or not - depending on the legal advice they receive. Third parties such as CIPPIC may seek to intervene in order to raise the same issues, but their participation is not an entitlement, and they might not be allowed to participate.

The subject of such a disclosure motion, however, is absolutely entitled to be represented, so again, the only way for the subject of a disclosure motion to guarantee that someone will be able to argue about the privacy implications would be to arrange specific representation themselves.

said by Brandon411 :

This is the JOB of the ISP!

Well, no. The job of the ISP is to fulfill the terms of the contracts they have with their customers. They are not obligated to advocate on your behalf in court. Whether they choose to do so in specific circumstances will be based on the legal advice that they receive with respect to risks, probabilities, potential liabilities, and their own best interests as a corporate entity.

Let's remember, too, that TekSavvy did not simply hand over information to Voltage. They requested that the court postpone the motion hearing to allow enough time to notify those affected - which in turn has allowed CIPPIC to step forward, and given those affected the chance to prepare as they see fit. I don't think that TekSavvy is getting enough credit for that good act.

bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

The first thing you should do is read the speculative invoicing handbook.
»www.scribd.com/doc/115443516/The···-Edition

That's a great read - thanks for the link. My only caveat would be that this is written from the British perspective, and (I think) there's a bit more history there with these issues than we've seen in Canada. I suspect that ISPs and their law firms here may be a little more risk-averse until we've seen the waters tested a few times.
Expand your moderator at work