dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
32190

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to rednekcowboy

Mod

to rednekcowboy

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

I chose anti to refer to exactly what you were referring to.

They could have rolled over from the get-go and not given the people on the hitlist any warning at all.

An ISP has by themselves no legal grounds for refusing to surrender this information to the court for passing it on the Voltage whether the people are associated with the IP addresses or not.

They have no legal protection to not disclose to the court unless the order results from an error in the application of law. It's like a journalist and his sources. The journalist has no protection, unlike the lawyer who, if retained can claim privilege. Whether you did it or not is not something that an ISP is privilege to, so they can't make an argument on that basis. That eliminates their standing in raising all manner of questions.

This is why CIPPIC is more appropriate in an intervenor status to demonstrate to the court that there are potential errors in the application of law if granted, such as the information that the assignment of an IP address does not equate to one individual; that Voltage et al have little intention of actually bringing these to court; that if Voltage et al use joinder to file against all defendants collectively then people so enjoined may not all be culpable; and that Voltage et al have a record of flawed identification of the IPs they are using. None of these are in the ISP's scope.

Makes perfect sense to me.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

said by sbrook:

I chose anti to refer to exactly what you were referring to.

They could have rolled over from the get-go and not given the people on the hitlist any warning at all.

An ISP has by themselves no legal grounds for refusing to surrender this information to the court for passing it on the Voltage whether the people are associated with the IP addresses or not.

They have no legal protection to not disclose to the court unless the order results from an error in the application of law. It's like a journalist and his sources. The journalist has no protection, unlike the lawyer who, if retained can claim privilege. Whether you did it or not is not something that an ISP is privilege to, so they can't make an argument on that basis. That eliminates their standing in raising all manner of questions.

This is why CIPPIC is more appropriate in an intervenor status to demonstrate to the court that there are potential errors in the application of law if granted, such as the information that the assignment of an IP address does not equate to one individual; that Voltage et al have little intention of actually bringing these to court; that if Voltage et al use joinder to file against all defendants collectively then people so enjoined may not all be culpable; and that Voltage et al have a record of flawed identification of the IPs they are using. None of these are in the ISP's scope.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry but you are incorrect on so many points, it's laughable.

First, they have every legal recourse they need in PIPEDA in not only challenging the evidence on hand but also refusing to provide the information if certain stringent requirements are not met. They cannot simply pass over a customer's private information without having certainty that the information being requested actually pertains to that person. There is no better entity in this to challenge the evidence other than the ISP as this is their bread and butter. They ARE the experts. This is, of course, forgetting that they are obligate to do so under PIPEDA.

Second, they did roll over. The "heads up" that you are championing--they are required by law to do this.

I would agree with you on that CIPPIC is probably better suited to challenge Voltage's intentions and the validity of those intentions.

Again, if you chose to take my words at face value rather than trying to spin them into an anti-teksavvy argument, you would see exactly what I'm saying is true. In fact, I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing, I'm simply stating what has gone on so far in the public eye and what's to be perceived from that. It makes no difference if it's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by rednekcowboy:

Second, they did roll over. The "heads up" that you are championing--they are required by law to do this.

I don't believe so.

Don't think there is a law that requires them to give notice. At least, not yet. This is part of the new copyright legislation that has yet to pass or even come into force.

In addition, Voltage could have done like what they did in Quebec, demand of the court to put this on the rocket-docket and be heard in a week giving everyone involved zero time for anything, let alone a notice to be sent out. TSI bought that time (almost literally).

This is the second time I see someone state there is a law that requires ISP to give notice. I wouldn't mind someone pasting the link to this law.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 edit

resa1983

Premium Member

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 692/125/
quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 686/125/
quote:
First, the Internet service provider "notice-and-notice" rules will not take effect. The implementation has been apparently been the subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber information. The public has not been included in these discussions and more open policy process is needed in developing the notice-and-notice regulations.


hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by resa1983:

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 692/125/

quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,

Correct.

This is *supposed* to come into effect sometime in 2013.

As it stands now, the Bill C-11 notice-and-notice, is still on hold. Seems to be some "lobby groups" with a keen interest in not letting this happen.

Unless he is taking about some other notice law?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 692/125/

quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,

Correct.

This is *supposed* to come into effect sometime in 2013.

As it stands now, the Bill C-11 notice-and-notice, is still on hold. Seems to be some "lobby groups" with a keen interest in not letting this happen.

Unless he is taking about some other notice law?

I just edited my post with another link as to why it's not in effect, just as I saw you post.

A consultation is needed before it'll go into effect.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

I stand corrected then...
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

I just edited my post with another link as to why it's not in effect, just as I saw you post.

A consultation is needed before it'll go into effect.

Current government doesn't care about consultations..... at least not with anyone that doesn't donate to them.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to rednekcowboy

Member

to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

First, they have every legal recourse they need in PIPEDA in not only challenging the evidence on hand but also refusing to provide the information if certain stringent requirements are not met.

TSIs liability is defined by case law from the UK and recently brought to Canada in the last few years and called an Norwich Order which comes from the Norwich Pharmacal Company case in 1974 where one of the dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

"A person who gets mixed up in the tortuous acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing may incur no personal liability
but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers."

All TSIs actions to date seem to demonstrate that they are trying to "appear" as if they are following that doctrine.

shrug
@videotron.ca

shrug

Anon

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

Then you would have laughed walking into the federal building here in Toronto... They have a few of those curly wigs bronzed, and on display. :P
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to shrug

Member

to shrug
said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

I don't know why as they are part of your heritage being in New France and all.

I just realized Voltage's lawyer will use these posts as evidence that we are disrespectful to the bench on top of being scofflaw pirates. Cue Johnny Depp.

shrug
@videotron.ca

shrug

Anon

said by peterboro:

said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

I don't know why as they are part of your heritage being in New France and all.

Hate to break the news to you, but I'm Italian. Nothing of my heritage here.. well... except maybe the construction corruption scandal... and a few people encased in cement at the bottom of the St. Laurence

I'm about as french as capicola is kosher.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to peterboro

Anon

to peterboro
said by peterboro:

All TSIs actions to date seem to demonstrate that they are trying to "appear" as if they are following that doctrine.

I think most of us see that.

But, it still isn't the only way to go. It's one way to go. Nothing more.

I'm still firmly planted in the Knopf group.
hm

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

The implementation has been apparently been the subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber information.

That's interesting.

We know right now that part of the new copyright law requires TSI to keep records (retention).

Why do they not include destruction? These files would have to be handled separately from the rest and follow different destruction dates/procedure.

So X cost right there no matter what for retention

Zero consideration given to the work of segregation.

Zero consideration given to destruction.

X cost for notice.

But the judge in this case told TSI to send a second notice for *free*. WTF. In other words the judge told TSI to work for Voltage for free due to Voltages own fault and own incompetence. That doesn't seem right. But by telling TSI to do this at no cost the judge acknowledges the previous notice work deserves cost.

I am guessing that Bells and Rogers figure of 300$ per IP covers segregation, retention, destruction, and work to get subscriber name.

Bell and Rogers 300$ fee does not include notice at all since Bell et al never gave notice. Something I just realized.

So in effect that 300$ fee by Bell and Rogers is set to increase to include notice. So even their 300$ figure is low-balled now with the coming of the new notice-and-notice law.

TSI should be above 300$.

But, I don't know if TSI charged voltage for notice. Don't think they did. I seem to recall Marc stating part of the compromise/deal was to give people notice at his cost (I could be wrong). Thus maybe why their cost is a lot lower than Bells. Anyone know?
hm

hm to hm

Anon

to hm
Another way Voltage is set to be screwed is by the MLPPP users.

Let's assume Voltage gets the 1000 IP that were able to be associated.

Let's assume 30% of TSI's IP's are MLPPP users.

So odds are Voltage will think, "Great 1000 people to extort"! But in reality, with MLPPP in the picture, they are really only going to get 700 names since 30% of the people will show 2 different IP's for the same single infringement. Some people may show 3 IPs for the same single download (if I understand mlppp correctly).

I can hear them now... "WTF is this MLPPP thing that is cutting our extortion profits"!

Also, since the IP look-ups are the same work for TSI, TSI gets to charge them for 2 or 3 IP's. Yet Voltage only gets one single name.

heh Voltage is going hate Canada. Poor them.

Any other scenario's I missed?

I wonder if Voltage will even give a damn? Makes me wonder if an MLPPP user will get 2 or 3 extortion letters even though it was one single download/p2p-session. hmm...
hm

hm

Anon

hm So what happens now?

As far as I understood the twitter-streams, TSI, Voltage and CIPPIC and supposed to get together on the 22nd (in two days) to discuss CIPPIC intervening.

And something about Voltage having to respond to CIPPIC about this intervention on the 22nd (in two days).

I am guessing this is all outside of court and all parties are getting together to hammer something out.

Are we going to be hearing/reading of what goes down? All secret?

Anyone "in the know" care to explain what exactly is going down in two days?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

No. There is no meeting on the 22nd.

The 22nd was the date that CIPPIC had til to respond to the Intervention, but they've already done it on the 17th. The 28th was *supposed* to be a video conference, but it looks like that's been cancelled. Its possible it'll be rescheduled for after a judge decides on CIPPIC's intervention

After that, a special 1-day hearing of the evidence, and reasons why/why not this court order should be ordered.

No idea as to dates yet though. Marc would probably be best to get that info from.

This is the Docket for the case:
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj. ··· -2058-12

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Yep. CIPPIC formally applied to intervene. Voltage responded... We posted those on our web site here: »www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· ormation

We are still waiting for draft of what Voltage wants us to send to our customers.

Now we wait to see if CIPPIC is granted to intervene and under what conditions.. I.e. they may have full ability to cross examine or not.. That will dictate how long and when the next court date may be.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

Hey ty for the reply, Marc.

How odd... Voltage was complaining in both their original court filing, and again in the last court show how important it was, and how fast they needed these people off line and to stop in order to stop world wide copyright infringement of their films.

Yet here we find out they haven't even bothered to give you the draft of what they want.

*head-slap*

Must be very critical and important to them, ay.
hm

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

The 28th was *supposed* to be a video conference, but it looks like that's been cancelled. Its possible it'll be rescheduled for after a judge decides on CIPPIC's intervention ...

No idea as to dates yet though. Marc would probably be best to get that info from.

Ah that's it.

Didn't know it was cancelled. Didn't notice it on the docket.

TY!

Marc, Any info to add?

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Have to wait now..

ontarian
@torservers.net

ontarian to TSI Marc

Anon

to TSI Marc
hi Marc,

thank you for information on second round of this trolling charade. Voltages documents that are trying to oppose CIPPIC intervention is not more then a load of chutzpah. Literally - a lot of BS in order to get to sending extortion letters as soon as possible. They do not want and cannot drag that through courts as costs will raise and make this BS fishing expedition harder then trolls imagine.

Keep up good work protecting your customers. This will pay out tenfold in a feature.

Everyone - boycott voltage's "works"

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar

Member

said by ontarian :

Everyone - boycott voltage's "works"

That's easy. Their films are pap.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

So did the new Voltage cease-and-desist letter go out yet?

Anyone have a copy they can put online?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 edit

resa1983

Premium Member

said by hm :

So did the new Voltage cease-and-desist letter go out yet?

Anyone have a copy they can put online?

Last I heard, Voltage still hadn't sent anything to TSI.

You'd think if they were truly genuine in wanting people to stop, they'd get that letter out pretty quickly - especially considering most companies will have a standard form written up which they can quickly edit for the circumstances.

At my office, we have standard forms and faxes set up so if something needs to go out ASAP, it takes 10-20 mins to fix it up and send it out.

MFido
Montreal
join:2012-10-19

MFido

Member

You'd think if they were truly genuine in wanting people to stop, they'd get that letter out pretty quickly - especially considering most companies will have a standard form written up which they can quickly edit for the circumstances.

This SHOULD be mentioned in court next time

It shown they don't care about people sharing their movies as they pretended ... they just care bout suing people ...
Marbles_00
join:2005-02-14
Hacketts Cove, NS

Marbles_00

Member

said by MFido:

It shown they don't care about people sharing their movies as they pretended ... they just care bout suing extorting people ...

I fixed your quote for you
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

Hey ty for the reply, Marc.

How odd... Voltage was complaining in both their original court filing, and again in the last court show how important it was, and how fast they needed these people off line and to stop in order to stop world wide copyright infringement of their films.

Yet here we find out they haven't even bothered to give you the draft of what they want.

*head-slap*

Must be very critical and important to them, ay.

They must WANT more people to 'see' their crappy movies.

No way that Voltage can now use the "Time is of the essence" card.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

Well Voltage told the judge how important it was to get these people to stop ASAP and something about how these people are somehow the only ones feeding the rest of the world (not exact words, but close to it), and how teksavvy failed to stop people.

But as was pointed out, it was Voltages own letter. Judge ordered a new draft be sent to TSI for these people to cease activities.

Voltage never bothered. So yeah, it isn't very important to them. They clearly don't give a F themselves since they themselves know this won't stop anything like they told (or tried) to tell the judge. Goes to show they are in it for the money scam and nothing else.