Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to hm
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued There is no reason to believe that the taking of active, reasonable and responsible steps by an ISP to safeguard and preserve its customers’ privacy would in any way jeopardise the ISPs cherished “neutrality” status.
They should have opposed Voltage Pictures from the beginning. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to activoice
said by activoice:I don't really get why people are so surprised about this lawsuit... I mean anyone who is downloading copyrighted material over a torrent clearly knows that they are breaking the law.
Let me correct your myopic view of things.
The majority of the people who will have their private info given out didn't download diddly-squat.
As shown in another topic, me, on videotron, could easily get a teksavvy user an extortion letter and their info released for something I download. It's quite easy.
The accounts receivable (the billing name) is far, very far from the person who did any downloading of "copyrighted material over a torrent", as you stated.
That is a very myopic view and standing on the issue. |
|
| said by hm :said by activoice:I don't really get why people are so surprised about this lawsuit... I mean anyone who is downloading copyrighted material over a torrent clearly knows that they are breaking the law.
Let me correct your myopic view of things. The majority of the people who will have their private info given out didn't download diddly-squat. As shown in another topic, me, on videotron, could easily get a teksavvy user an extortion letter and their info released for something I download. It's quite easy. The accounts receivable (the billing name) is far, very far from the person who did any downloading of "copyrighted material over a torrent", as you stated. That is a very myopic view and standing on the issue. well if your accused of something falsely sue voltage back for slander and defamation of character and do a class action lawsuit of your own on behalf of everyone for misrepresentation and force voltage onward so they cant run away with your data |
|
| And who's going to pay for the $300/hour lawyers to do that? |
|
| said by sbug :And who's going to pay for the $300/hour lawyers to do that?
It'll be more like $500+ per hour for that.
But in class actions the lawyers will often work for a cut of the action. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.
To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets. |
|
| said by hm :Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.
To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets.
Send me your money, I'll be the bookie! LOL |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | No money for you. You must accept virtual non-money.
Knopf just called out David Ellis' puff piece (which I agree with).
Update re Voltage & Teksavvy
»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···vvy.html
For a whole lot of reasons, I don’t have a whole lot of time to spend on David Ellis’ lengthy and largely inaccurate posting about the Voltage case and Teksavvy’s role – or lack thereof - in the current case. Let me simply say: ...continues... |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| I'll probably add to this post as I go, but I do find this section very interesting:
quote:
A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter
So if I'm using my account to provide internet to my family or tenants then I cannot be held responsible and therefore cannot be named in the suit, should it come to that. One could also stretch this to cover open wifi...... |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
A prominent Privacy advocate in the States caught wind of this one.
It's up on the pogowasright.org website here:
A decision by Teksavvy not to fight a motion puts subscribers’ privacy at risk
»www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666
A Canadian reader alerted me that there’s a hearing scheduled in a Canadian court tomorrow (Monday) that will likely be of interest to this blog’s readers.
Copyright lawyer Harold Knopf provided the background on the case, in which Voltage Pictures’ filed a motion to compel an ISP, Teksavvy, to disclose the names and addresses of 2,000 subscribers who are currently identified only by IP address. The lawsuit is based on P2P filesharing via BitTorrent, and Voltage’s claim states that once it has obtained the Doe defendants’ names and addresses, it will seek a financial accounting of how much they profited by distribution of their works. Because most people are seeding but not actually obtaining direct financial remuneration, I’m not clear where Voltage is going with this, unless they intend to argue that someone who seeds X movies Y times owes them $$$ based on a per movie cost?
Disturbingly, to privacy advocates, subscribers, and Howard, the ISP decided not to fight the motion. Knopf wrote: ...
..... continues over at »www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666
Tomorrows court date sure is going to be interesting to follow. So many people have eyes on this one. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | As far as I can tell, the three links to follow for today's court hearing will be:
»twitter.com/pandersen
»twitter.com/RessyM
»twitter.com/johnDowntownTO
I am unsure if any of these people will be allowed to live-tweet during the court proceedings (Requires the court to identify you as a journalist).
Anyone know of any other feeds to follow?
Good luck to all, and thanks Ressy for taking time out of your life to head over to the court to keep us all informed! Much appreciated.
Privacy Versus Piracy Starts at 11-am. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | John said he wouldn't be here for this one, that he'd be following me.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| reply to An0nym0us
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued Toronto real estate crash in present time.
»guava.ca/
Under over is a 40 percent decline for houses and 65 percent for condominiums. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.
In addition, there might be more added costs.
---
Good for them! |
|
 dillyhammerA. Good. Start.Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9
·Start Communicat..
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| said by hm :Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.
In addition, there might be more added costs.
---
Good for them!
Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by dillyhammer:Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?
Mike
190k is well beyond what they can get out of these lawsuits after their costs are factored in.
I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to El Quintron
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued Barry Logan is quoted as saying "Rumour has it that some ISPs are asking anywhere from $40 to $200 per address for IP address reconciliation. For even a modest request for 1,000 records is going to cost a fortune. At $40 per address it’s absurd. At $200 it’s impossible."
So... yeah  |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to hm
That's not TekSavvy's problem, that's Voltage's problem. Want a mass request of 1000 IP addresses? Well, that's expensive, so you're going to have to pay up.
$200 per IP doesn't sound so silly to me. For each IP address, they have to go through all sorts of checks, and this is not an automated process. They'd have to manually look up the information (and such queries are probably not fast either), it'd have to be verified, they'd have to do the notifications, they'd have to spend time investigating any errors in Voltage's information (to see why half the IPs don't correlate, they'd need to investigate why)... You've got high-paid executives meeting, you've got tens of thousands in legal fees, you've got custom development work done for the myworld notifications, you've got the e-mail stuff and validation they're sent and received correctly... $190k total claimed costs seems reasonable to me.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
