MFido
join:2012-10-19
kudos:1 | reply to resa1983
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued 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. 
It shown they don't care about people sharing their movies as they pretended ... they just care bout suing people ... |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
1 edit | reply to hm
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.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to AkFubar
So did the new Voltage cease-and-desist letter go out yet?
Anyone have a copy they can put online? |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to ontarian
said by ontarian :Everyone - boycott voltage's "works"
That's easy. Their films are pap.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility. |
|
|
|
| reply 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" |
|
 TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | reply to hm
Have to wait now.. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply 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? |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to TSI Marc
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. |
|
TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | reply to resa1983
Yep. CIPPIC formally applied to intervene. Voltage responded... We posted those on our web site here: »www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···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.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
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.gc.ca/In···-2058-12
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
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? |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply 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
@videotron.ca | reply 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
@videotron.ca | reply 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. |
|
| reply to peterboro
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. |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply 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. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to shrug
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
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,
Those curly girly wigs make me laugh. |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply 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. |
|
| reply 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. |
|
