hm @videotron.ca |
hm to TSI Marc
Anon
2013-Feb-14 10:44 am
to TSI Marc
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 ContinuedYup. 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
2013-Feb-14 11:31 am
The link/PDF: CIPPIC Intervenor Status Granted » www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· nted.PDF |
|
hm |
hm to hm
Anon
2013-Feb-14 11:57 am
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$). » www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 784/125/Coincidence? I think not. |
|
|
Dunlop
Member
2013-Feb-14 12:25 pm
said by hm :It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 784/125/
Coincidence? I think not. wow lol |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
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
2013-Feb-14 1:13 pm
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
2013-Feb-14 1:14 pm
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. |
|
|
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
2013-Feb-15 9:47 am
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 |
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
2013-Feb-15 1:55 pm
This is about the confirmation of the settlements: » www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 810.htmlSomeone 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 ··· -1373-11These 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
2013-Feb-15 4:17 pm
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
2013-Feb-15 4:20 pm
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
2013-Feb-15 4:27 pm
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
Anon
2013-Feb-15 7:08 pm
If Voltage don't pay up, Distributel and any future victim ISP in Canada could invite them to their court hearing as witness. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Other reason
|
Tong join:2012-12-11 r3t 38x |
to random
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 ContinuedI 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
2013-Feb-16 12:00 am
Oh, you can comment. They just "moderate" them |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-28 3:35 pm
Update Via Marc: CIPPIC Submitted two affidavit's from expert witnesses: » www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdf» www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdfHaven't read them yet. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Feb-28 3:46 pm
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. |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up Premium Member join:2010-01-09 Scarborough, ON 1 edit |
That's a salvo fired right across Voltage's ass stern bow.
Mike |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
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! |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up Premium Member join:2010-01-09 Scarborough, ON |
Yeah, that's what I meant. The other stern. Fixed. Mike |
|
|
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? |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
2013-Mar-2 12:43 pm
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 |
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 |
to hm
Post from David Ellis on the affidavits from CIPPIC. » www.davidellis.ca/cippic ··· y-fight/ |
|