dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
32194

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to TSI Marc

Anon

to TSI Marc

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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

hm

Anon

The link/PDF:

CIPPIC Intervenor Status Granted
»www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· nted.PDF
hm

hm to hm

Anon

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/cont ··· 784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.
Dunlop
join:2011-07-13

Dunlop

Member

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/cont ··· 784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.

wow lol

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar to hm

Member

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/cont ··· 784/125/

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.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

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

booj to hm

Member

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
Ingleside, ON

dad_of_3

Member

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

hm to hm

Anon

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

hm to TSI Marc

Anon

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 Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

This is about the confirmation of the settlements:

»www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 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/tra ··· -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.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

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 Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

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.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

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

random

Anon

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

Tong to random

Member

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 Member
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

mazhurg

Premium Member

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

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

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

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdf

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdf

Haven't read them yet.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

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.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

dillyhammer

Premium Member

That's a salvo fired right across Voltage's ass stern bow.

Mike

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

I hope you mean across their bow, since across their stern means that they missed and if they carry on in the direction they're heading all subsequent shots will miss too!

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

Yeah, that's what I meant. The other stern.

Fixed.

Mike
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to hm

Member

to hm
One of the arguments that came up in the case was that an IP is not a person.... But in the Tek TOS, as well as every other TOS, the account holder agrees to take responsibility for the connection, if they know it or not....

• Acknowledge that the acts or omissions of all persons who use Services under your Account or with your authorization will be treated for all purposes as your acts or omissions;

Doesn't this imply that by being the account holder, you're signing up to take responsibility should someone hack your wifi or use your open wifi? I've often heard people say there's no law against not securing it. And there may not be, but isn't that a dumb thing to do if you acknowledge that you will be responsible for their actions?
stevey_frac
join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON

stevey_frac

Member

It means the account holder is liable to Teksavvy for charges even if they weren't the one who incurred them directly.

It doesn't mean that i'm legally responsible if someone hacks's my WIFI and downloads kiddie porn or copyrighted material.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

said by stevey_frac:

It means the account holder is liable to Teksavvy for charges even if they weren't the one who incurred them directly.

It doesn't mean that i'm legally responsible if someone hacks's my WIFI and downloads kiddie porn or copyrighted material.

Exactly!! A third party cannot claim rights to an agreement that they were not a party too. As well as the fact--that part of the agreement is in regard to billing, and would not be extendable to cover liability for actions with the account.
HammerofGawd
join:2012-06-30
23332

HammerofGawd to hm

Member

to hm
Oh the SWEET irony as the litigious tables are turned>

For decades, the cost of defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits have been prohibitive for many and so were easily blackmailed into bogus settlements.

Now, with a limit on damages in Canada, that equation now turns against the trolls and frivolous lawsuit generators. Those stupidly high court and dirtbag lawyer costs now work against the troll.

Suck it, voltage.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by HammerofGawd:

Oh the SWEET irony as the litigious tables are turned>

For decades, the cost of defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits have been prohibitive for many and so were easily blackmailed into bogus settlements.

Now, with a limit on damages in Canada, that equation now turns against the trolls and frivolous lawsuit generators. Those stupidly high court and dirtbag lawyer costs now work against the troll.

Suck it, voltage.

hunh? what? Nothing changed about the costs of defending yourself. Nothing changed at all.

You either pay the extortion fee they mail to you (~two to five thousand), or you pay a lawyer 10,000$ or more to defend yourself.

Nothing changed in the real world.

Not sure what changed in your dream world though. Care to share it with us?

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to hm

Mod

to hm
even with a $5000 cap on damages, and "costs", defending a case is still potentially prohibitive. I certainly don't have cash in hand to defend a case. Add to that the worry, sleepless nights, time off work. It all adds up to be an expensive toll on any defendant.

All the cap has done is reduce the risk of the plaintiff going from an extortion letter to taking the case actually before a judge. But you can be sure he will use the court system to scare the daylights out of you with a "Pay this fee and we'll drop the case" after scaring the crap out of you with a filing notice. Remember, the risk hasn't gone. So, still a lot of people will pay up. It may reduce the extortion demand though.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to hm

Premium Member

to hm
Post from David Ellis on the affidavits from CIPPIC.

»www.davidellis.ca/cippic ··· y-fight/