dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31082
share rss forum feed


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to hm

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

Still no draft.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

NICE!

Any link to the judges ruling? Shake Geist up a bit to get a link.

And still no Draft given to Teksavvy?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

Still no draft.

Not surprising. We all know they don't want people to stop sharing, cuz it means they might be able to sue more people.

That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

:/

Ty For the reply Marc..



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to hm

We'll have the doc up shortly on our site: »www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol.

OoOoOhH I'm sure they will.
heh
It shows volumes.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

TY!



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to hm

We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning..
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by TSI Marc:

We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning..

Especially considering they wrote the original letter that went out to customers.. They could have added it to that.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

Exactly!



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

Yup. I recall the lawyer bringing that up. Think he even raised his voice at them if I recall right.

Yet, they continue to not bother...



hm

@videotron.ca

The link/PDF:

CIPPIC Intervenor Status Granted
»www.teksavvy.com/Media/Default/C···nted.PDF



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.


Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Bell Fibe
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by hm :

It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.

wow lol


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to hm

said by hm :

It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.

That goes to show it is not about protecting copyrights but all about the money. It should be noted that they have not been very successful recently in recovering the big $ they seek in US courts either.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.


hm

@videotron.ca

An Aussie economist put out a paper a couple of years ago showing that it's only a money funnel system to the USA.


booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to hm

Great news involving CIPPIC's right to intervene. Here's hoping some of the blowback TSI got from their position in this case will diminish.


dad_of_3

join:2004-05-31
SE Ontario

said by booj:

Great news involving CIPPIC's right to intervene. Here's hoping some of the blowback TSI got from their position in this case will diminish.

agreed...Although things are far from over yet, I'm sure this was part of "the plan" from the start


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

So What's going to happen now?

Does CIPPIC have to draft and submit what it plans to examine?

Or do they wait for a judge to pick it up and it hit court right away?

What is to happen now?
When?

Any other info besides this latest news?



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

Marc,

During the last court hearing your lawyer brought up the fact that (I'm paraphrasing), Voltage dropped their lawsuits in Quebec against people, stating they only intended to send the extortion letters.

Voltages lawyer turned around and claimed they did not and wanted to know where he heard that.

Your lawyer stated it was in the press.

Voltages lawyer never replied on the subject again at the hearing.

So my Question:

Do you, or your lawyers, or CIPPIC know the status of the Quebec lawsuits? Was it indeed dropped?

I seem to recall this as well. Pretty sure it would have been in this topic with a link, if it were true (the one where I found one of the IP's belong to the Montreal Canadians): »Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada, but, a quick look shows nothing, unless I missed it in that books of comments.

Any info on that one? Or any ref to the press release and/or media story your lawyer referred to?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

This is about the confirmation of the settlements:

»www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/29···810.html

Someone from Voltage or the lawyer's office blabbed to Huffington Post.

As for Voltage's Quebec lawsuit, here's the docket, translated to English:
»translate.google.com/translate?h···-1373-11

These are the main points though:
Aug 24, 2011: Filed
Aug 29, 2011: First hearing - court granted order for subscriber info release
Oct 4, 2011: Order from the court to file a schedule for the upcoming lawsuit, in by Nov 4, 2011
Nov 4, 2011: Plaintiff files schedule as ordered.
Nov 18, 2011: Court orders plaintiff stick to their own schedule, and name defendants, and give progress report on Dec 16, 2011
Dec 16, 2011: Plaintiff asks for more time
Dec 28, 2011: Court grants more time - has til Mar 2, 2012
Mar 5, 2012: Plaintiff tells court they're waiting for directions from client.
Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.

TY!. Didn't see that.

So now I wonder, why did the Voltage lawyer bitch back at Teksavvys lawyer about this?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.

TY!. Didn't see that.

So now I wonder, why did the Voltage lawyer bitch back at Teksavvys lawyer about this?

Either they (Voltage's laweyers) didn't know about the settlements, or didn't think TSI had the previous Voltage court docket in front of them to prove to the judge right then that the previous case went nowhere.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca

I hope TSI's lawyers are looking into seeing if there are any Voltage assets in Canada.

Or at the next hearing (which may or may not occur) demand payment due to their hit & run style.



random

@teksavvy.com

If Voltage don't pay up, Distributel and any future victim ISP in Canada could invite them to their court hearing as witness.

Expand your moderator at work

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
reply to random

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

I just found funny, there are no mentioning of this decision on the »copyrightenforcement.ca website and it seems they also don't allow people comment anymore either.

I wonder why...... hmm..



mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

Oh, you can comment. They just "moderate" them



hm

@videotron.ca

Update Via Marc:
CIPPIC Submitted two affidavit's from expert witnesses:

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/Default/C···mall.pdf

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/Default/C···mall.pdf

Haven't read them yet.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

First is from CIPPIC's articleing student - He dug up every single Voltage case in the US, and submitted the first page of each as evidence, and referenced the earlier Voltage suit here in Canada, stating the courts can pull that case themselves.

Second is from a professor who has studied p2p systems. Gives quite a few reasons why "An IP is not necessarily the subscriber", along with reasons why someone can be using another's connection without the subscribers' knowledge.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP