 MFidoMontreal
join:2012-10-19 |
to resa1983
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 ContinuedYou'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 ... |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
1 edit |
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. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca |
hm to AkFubar
Anon
2013-Jan-24 2:30 pm
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. |
to ontarian
said by ontarian :Everyone - boycott voltage's "works"
That's easy. Their films are pap. |
|
| |
ontarian to TSI Marc
Anon
2013-Jan-21 8:38 am
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 Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
to hm
Have to wait now.. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca |
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 |
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 Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
to resa1983
Yep. CIPPIC formally applied to intervene. Voltage responded... We posted those on our web site here: » www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· ormationWe 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. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
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. ··· -2058-12 |
|
hm
@videotron.ca |
hm to hm
Anon
2013-Jan-20 12:40 pm
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 |
hm to hm
Anon
2013-Jan-19 6:54 am
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 to resa1983
Anon
2013-Jan-18 11:56 pm
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 |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON |
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. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
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 |
|
| |
to peterboro
said by peterboro:dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,
Those curly girly wigs make me laugh. |
|
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON |
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. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
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. |
|
| |
to resa1983
I stand corrected then...  |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
to hm
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. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca |
to resa1983
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
1 edit |
to hm
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 |
to rednekcowboy
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. |
|
| |
to sbrook
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. |
|
 sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
to rednekcowboy
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. |
|
TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
to rednekcowboy
Sure but, dude. That just makes you captain obvious...
I knew the minute I got dealt this hand how it would be. |
|
| |
to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, "Men are flat." After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.
Gotta love Wikipedia
Very wise words.......however there is a flipside. The majority deem it so, so that's how it is regardless of what the actuality is. Just saying that you have to realize what the public perception is. I'm not saying it's right or wrong as that makes little difference in the real world and I'm sure, being the savvy (pun intended) business man that you are that you are absolutely aware of this and not dismissive of it in the least.... |
|
TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
to rednekcowboy
Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, "Men are flat." After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.
Gotta love Wikipedia |
|
