resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued They'd filed a schedule (like TSI, CIPPIC & Voltage did, which is what's driving these potential dates now), and didn't stick to it. They were told to stick to schedule to name defendants, got an extension, missed it, lawyers filed on last date stating they were waiting to hear from their clients, who then dismissed it. Google translate of the docket for those (like me) whose french stinks: » translate.google.com/translate?s···-1373-11--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:due to lack of filing suit against named individuals within a reasonable amount of time.
Was that the reason? The time frame, or amount of time? Official reason? |
|
|
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
Oh that one.. That was over & done with in 2012 due to lack of filing suit against named individuals within a reasonable amount of time. They kept getting extensions with court approval, til finally the last deadline came & went, and the lawyers hadn't heard from Voltage.. Few days later, it was dismissed.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:said by hm :Guess Voltage isn't backing out.
Wonder why they did in Quebec? Anyone know? Or best educated guess as to why they did?
As for Quebec: NGN put the case on hold, pending the trying of the evidence in the Teksavvy case. If the evidence is tossed in the TSI case, lawyers for Distributel/Acanac/3web can bring up the TSI case and show how Canipre did evidence for both, and that it should be tossed in Distributel's case as well. No point in trying evidence in both places at the same time, doubling the costs. I meant the other Quebec case involving Canipre & Voltage that they dropped. The one which included the Montreal Canadiens, and I believe the Airport Hilton in Dorval, along with a handful of individuals. Not the NGN one on hold.
I expect CIPPIC to bring this up. But I don't ever recall hearing why they dropped this Quebec lawsuit. The demand letters went out when they got the names, and then they (Voltage) filed to drop it. Which is the M.O. of these troll lawsuits as TSI's lawyer brought up (and to which Voltages lawyers claimed was never dropped, but court records show otherwise). |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to throll
Not surprising really..
This schedule was agreed upon by TSI, CIPPIC & Voltage's lawyers back in January.
Voltage will only make money if this continues.. If they withdraw now that the evidence is going to be tried, it'll signal that they know it's bad, and lawyers can bring it up in any future suits. They *have* to let this play out and have the evidence tried. They'll be hoping to get a judge who doesn't understand technology, and who won't question their half-truths (some might say lies) given in their affidavits.
said by hm :Guess Voltage isn't backing out.
Wonder why they did in Quebec? Anyone know? Or best educated guess as to why they did?
As for Quebec:
NGN put the case on hold, pending the trying of the evidence in the Teksavvy case. If the evidence is tossed in the TSI case, lawyers for Distributel/Acanac/3web can bring up the TSI case and show how Canipre did evidence for both, and that it should be tossed in Distributel's case as well. No point in trying evidence in both places at the same time, doubling the costs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to throll
Guess Voltage isn't backing out.
Wonder why they did in Quebec? Anyone know? Or best educated guess as to why they did? |
|
| reply to hm
Update on a case. Source: COURT INDEX AND DOCKET
2013-03-18:
"Letter from Plaintiff (the troll) dated 15-MAR-2013 "A special sitting is required pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Order of the Honourable Justice Mandamin, dated Jaunuary 18, 2013....Counsel for all parties are available to atten on the following dates: June 20, 21, 24, 25, and 26." received on 18-MAR-2013"
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2058-12
Looks like Affidavit of Barry Logan goes under scrutiny. May the anti-troll force be with the Honourable Justice Mandamin, CIPPIC, Janes + Johns Doe and maybe TSI if they want to come around and fight for customers as they should. Its a great chance to tear a new one to Barry Logan and trolls. |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 | reply to hm
Hopefully google news dumps the National Post, it's not uncommon for a headline to be 11 words long, after all. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Another interesting copyright troll case is also going on in Canada. Last week Geist wrote of how the National Post wants to be paid if you copy a singe sentence from them (which goes against what the new copyright states about fair use).
Now the National Post is going after the Fourniers (their saga is well documented by Geist and other sites) for copying 11 words from their news site.
Knopf on it:
»www.excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/···nal.html
All this is contrary to what the new copyright laws states about fair dealing.
So this will also be a big one to watch out for. But I expect nothing to come of this till the end of the year, or even next year.
So in effect, if someone on this forum were to paste a paragraph on an interesting news item from the National post, they can/may/will go after both this site and the person (or try to) who quotes them, as they are doing with the Fourniers. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Makes me wonder if someone like the Consumers Union could possibly start a class action for this against all of these clowns for all the stress, financial worries, and the extortion racket they gave people in both Quebec and Ontario. |
|
| reply to hm
No C&D letter means that trolling dickwads are not interested in stopping so called "piracy". They are interested purely in extortion. If courts are going to allow it it is going to be a proof that democracy is BS and the only law is the law of money and corporations. |
|
| reply to resa1983
Now we get to see if the courts (ie Canada) will allow this to go on. If it does, I'm quitting the chemistry field to troll and sue people on p2p-networks. More money. Easier life w/o the need to think. |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | reply to cog_biz_user
said by cog_biz_user:e]
If Canipre has access to "first version uploads", then they should be shutting it down at the source (the rippers and uploaders), instead of suing all the little guys at the bottom (the downloaders). What a bunch of dicks.
But but, how would they make extra money from the rich subscribers stealing all their B movies and content?
They are not dicks, just savvy trollers.  |
|
cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON | reply to hm
“We’ve penetrated a number of underground groups and invite-only FTPs,” Logan says. “That’s typically where we see a lot of the first-version uploads transacting.” While Canipre’s film-noir website paints the company as the scourge of pirates, the truth is murkier. Logan says adversarial relationships with pirate site operators are generally counterproductive; working amicably to get illegal content removed produces better results. Canipre could seek to shut down illegal sites, but doesn’t. “It’s best to know where your enemies are and what they’re doing,” he says. “The intelligence value far exceeds the enforcement value.”
--
Myth: It's only fair to pay for quality first-run movies.
Fact: Most movies shown on cable get two stars or less
and are repeated ad nauseum. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to resa1983
Did Canipre just seriously weaken Voltage's case? Am I reading that right? |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
Canipre Admits It's Behind Voltage-TekSavvy File Sharing Lawsuits With Speculative Invoicing Scheme
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6805/125/
Really should read this.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
1 edit | reply to hm
Full update from Ars:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013···to-hide/
Popehat will be posting on his own site, and cross-posting on techdirt, very soon.
EDIT: 8pm PDT - 11 EDT
The best writeup:
»www.popehat.com/2013/03/11/brett···he-star/
Way better than Ars'
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | reply to resa1983
Small update from Ars Tech »arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013···lawyers/ |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to shepd
Gotta watch "without prejudice" because it does mean that the matter is not considered over. For example, if you offer to settle without prejudice, it only means that the offer to settle cannot be brought up as evidence in court, but it must contain a good faith offer of settlement.
What is necessary in this case is not only "without prejudice" but also terms to indicate that the offer of settlement is not an admission of guilt but a means to limit your costs in defending yourself. |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 | reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:Offering to settle, no matter how you word it would be an admission in the eyes of the court and if they refused your offer and took you to court, you would most likely be forced to pay something (might be $100, might be more).
You'd be better off saying you did nothing wrong and see you in court....
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Courts generally respect a defendant that doesn't want to waste their time by going to court when they could have settled and in as much, want to encourage them to do that by *not* using offers of settlement as evidence against the defendant (otherwise lawyers would never even offer to settle, as it would be a waste of their time, since nobody would as they'd then get sued anyways). Be sure you offer the settlement "without prejudice".
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_···tiations
"The term 'without prejudice' is used in the course of negotiations to settle a lawsuit. It indicates that a particular conversation or letter cannot be tendered as evidence in court. It can be considered a form of privilege. This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation."
Of course, this is why I say *I* would represent myself. Unfortunately, most people stare into a court room like it's some kind of mysterious black box and make the wrong choices. |
|
