peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to El Quintron
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued said by El Quintron: If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer. No your defence should be TSI gave the plaintiff the wrong IP...it was a log mistake...a spoof etc.
In the alternative if they gave the plaintiff the right IP it wasn't me it was an open wifi...my tenant...my brother-in-law visiting etc.
In the further alternative even if it was me the movie is shit and you didn't lose any money as a result of my actions.
In the further alternative even if you lost money, and I put you to the strict proof therein, it was of such a small amount that this suit is frivolous.
This is all premised on the fact my first motion to Federal Court is to strike the proceeding and have the suit filed in Small Claims. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:said by rednekcowboy: I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on...... He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day. Thank you for saying out loud what most people with *some* exposure to the legal system are thinking.
@ rednekcowboy  discussing a legal strategy in plain sight of your opponents is a bad idea, because, uh, they can use it against you.
I'm sure TSI would love to tell its side of story, but it can wait until this whole mess is over.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:No your defence should be TSI gave the plaintiff the wrong IP...it was a log mistake...a spoof etc.
(...)
All great suggestions, but my post simply stating the privacy isn't the only avenue under which this can be pursued. At the time I posted there was an almost religious zeal surrounding a privacy defence, and I didn't feel that was the only option or even a correct one in certain cases.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
| reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:said by rednekcowboy: I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on...... He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day. I find it amusing that some people feel entitled to know the details of Teksavvy's legal strategy whilst still in the courts. Speculate all you like, only a fool would go against their counsels recommendation to keep their mouths shut. IMHO
I reserve my Judgement on Teksavvy's stance in all of this once the books are open. Until then I'll just sit back and enjoy the show. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......
Come on. Cut some slack. He replied to an obvious math and reading error I made. It's plain for all to see.
I have a whole list of questions for both Marc and Voltage, but no one is going to respond now.
In regards to what you and some others *perceive* to be profiting off of privacy, really all I can say without spelling it all out time and time again is to look at it with blinders off, or from another point of view.
So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).
Keep in mind, TSI will also have to retain all this data separately for 6 months to a year due to voltages request. Data retention, record retention, and date destruction in 6 months to a year. This is legislated and now voltage will have to pay this as well since they made the request for this. This may not have been costed in yet.
Prices are set to rise yet again.
TSI, as said in court, wanted 190K for work performed *to date*. I hope TSI realized that work performed, under the new copyright law, includes the retention for 6-12 months + destruction. I hope Voltage read the copyright law and some of the costs they will incur for their request.
Search the forum for costing and I think you may find a whole lot of itemized things that have to be costed. Real world costs. You work for free?
In six months maybe they will get a request for another 10,000 IP's. Retention and destruction will require a person. Has to be costed right so TSI isn't paying peoples salary for voltage for free. And the costing of will take a bean counter who doesn't work for free.
Lots of real world costs, rednekcowboy. Try and look beyound the pain old myopic view of "selling off privacy". It's far from it in the real world of accounting. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to hm
To everyone jumping all over me--take a step back and relax.
My point is simple and I make no apologies for it. Instead of fighting the motion for the IP's, they didn't even contest it and they stated that it was not their fight to protect pirates. Their statement, not mine.
The fight begins when it comes time to tally how much money they are going to receive for the information. I'm not making stuff up, I'm just stating the facts with no bias either way. Then they make a one-liner about costs in a thread when they haven't said anything else since the above comment. If you want to get upset with someone for what has transpired, take the task to Mark, not me.
I will say that I don't know what their strategy is, but it looks pretty clear from where I'm sitting. I also agree they should not discuss it here or anywhere, however then they need to sit back and read and avoid what is most certainly a very sore subject for a great number of their customers.
Marc, if you want to get upset with me for simply stating what has transpired publicly so far, then you're going to be red in the face a lot as I'm not the only one saying this very exact thing. You have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people and while I understand you can't do that at this point and time, I would suggest that you chose what you say, what you comment on and when you say it very carefully because by the end of it, it may not matter what your explanation is. That is how ticked off the people are right now. They simply may not care what you have to say at the end. |
|
|
|
 TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | said by rednekcowboy:To everyone jumping all over me--take a step back and relax.
My point is simple and I make no apologies for it. Instead of fighting the motion for the IP's, they didn't even contest it and they stated that it was not their fight to protect pirates. Their statement, not mine.
The fight begins when it comes time to tally how much money they are going to receive for the information. I'm not making stuff up, I'm just stating the facts with no bias either way. Then they make a one-liner about costs in a thread when they haven't said anything else since the above comment. If you want to get upset with someone for what has transpired, take the task to Mark, not me.
I will say that I don't know what their strategy is, but it looks pretty clear from where I'm sitting. I also agree they should not discuss it here or anywhere, however then they need to sit back and read and avoid what is most certainly a very sore subject for a great number of their customers.
Marc, if you want to get upset with me for simply stating what has transpired publicly so far, then you're going to be red in the face a lot as I'm not the only one saying this very exact thing. You have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people and while I understand you can't do that at this point and time, I would suggest that you chose what you say, what you comment on and when you say it very carefully because by the end of it, it may not matter what your explanation is. That is how ticked off the people are right now. They simply may not care what you have to say at the end.
I'm not upset with you. You are simply wrong. You just dont know it.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:I will say that I don't know what their strategy is
You sure don't, but you feel free to assign blame anyway.
There have been replies by people who are legal professionals giving you exact reason why Teksavvy (and others) should not be addressing any of this on a public forum.
said by rednekcowboy:To everyone jumping all over me--take a step back and relax.
You're on a public forum, so if you're going to go against grain you should be ready to dig your heels in and defend yourself.
Or are you only willing to engage in bullying when the room is cheering you on?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:To everyone jumping all over me--take a step back and relax.
Not jumping on you. Maybe my use of english comes across that way... dunno.
But there are quite a few people accusing the ISP of "privacy selling" in different topics. Just pointing out it isn't and these are real world costs.
If I jump on you, you will see bad french swearing words to get it past the English mod so he doesn't realize  |
|
 statestress magnetPremium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Purgatory
kudos:6 | thank you, google translate.. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca |  Damn |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to hm
said by hm :If I jump on you, you will see bad french swearing words to get it past the English mod so he doesn't realize
"Tabernac" isn't swearing it's punctuation. 
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:Instead of fighting the motion for the IP's, they didn't even contest it and they stated that it was not their fight to protect pirates. Voltage are trolls and they're ethically challenged. There's no reason to believe their approach to ISPs would be any different than it is to individuals. So I would bet a beer that the opening salvo of this involved Voltage approaching TekSavvy threatening with some very considerable damages and a very tight deadline in which to make a choice between agreeing not to oppose the motion or something along the lines of being charged with 4000 (or more) counts of commercial copyright infringement, a trial that would last many years through multiple appeals and would face statutory penalties of ~$80 million.
At that point TekSavvy had a very difficult decision to make and it seems like they ended up formulating a cleever strategy that both allowed them to continue to survive as a company and serve their customers' best interests -- they would agree not to oppose the motion on the condition that they would have the time to notify their customers and give them (or a keen public interest clinic) the opportunity to fight before they became victims of extortion letters. As we can see that wasn't a cheap option either: TekSavvy are currently out of pocket $190,000 that may or may not be recoverable.
How this strategy will work out in the long run is yet to be seen, but so far it's not going too badly for everyone (except for the trolls). And everyone has to concede that unlike any other Voltage suit in Canada, thanks to TekSavvy there is actually an opportunity now to fight this thing before names are released. It may not be the ideal solution and it may not work in the future, but what we've got now is a hell of a lot better than we would have had if they had just stood by and watched a judge rubberstamp a court order, which is all the law required of them.
said by rednekcowboy:The fight begins when it comes time to tally how much money they are going to receive for the information. Being reimbursed for out of pocket expenses is completely different than being paid. Anyone who's dealt with their insurance company or the taxman knows this. |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:pfft! fuddle duddle.
You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.
+100
Don't take the bait, Marc. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to tired
tired, this makes sense ... go after a small ISP rather than Bell or Rogers customers and get the legal weight or either of them involved (and you know that as soon as Rogers or Bell lawyers get involved that 190,000 would be more like 1.9 million! The risks are just too high to go after them! |
|
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:said by hm :If I jump on you, you will see bad french swearing words to get it past the English mod so he doesn't realize
"Tabernac" isn't swearing it's punctuation. and the coffee sprays all over... |
|
| reply to hm
said by hm :So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).
It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.
TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.
If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money. |
|
| reply to state
said by state:thank you, google translate..
Actually it'll be more like Ikea instructions - the original Swedish instructions, translated into some Chinese dialect, reduced to a line drawing, and then put through Google Translate, which will come up with the only possible translation: "How the fuck should I know? There are parts missing, things don't line up, goddamn particle board shit. to hell with it." |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| reply to ah crap
said by ah crap :said by El Quintron:said by hm :If I jump on you, you will see bad french swearing words to get it past the English mod so he doesn't realize
"Tabernac" isn't swearing it's punctuation. and the coffee sprays all over... I'll take it for the many, many times you've gotten me. 
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by hm :So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).
It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up. TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks. If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money. Original 2300 IPs? The original number was 4k sent by Voltage in Nov. Voltage then gave an updated list with only ~2300.
Whether TSI got to any/all of the removed IPs, who knows, but that would count towards the 190k in costs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
