dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30926
share rss forum feed

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

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10

1 edit

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

Mike



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

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,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10

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

Fixed.

Mike


prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply 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

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
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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
reply 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

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
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply 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
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Post from David Ellis on the affidavits from CIPPIC.

»www.davidellis.ca/cippic-posts-2···y-fight/
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

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.

I think the court will find these cases to almost entirely be represented by pro se defendants. As for the extortion letter, I would answer with "I will offer $100 in the interest of not wasting the court's time, on the understanding that I've not done anything but respect the court has better things to do. Since this is the recommended amount of penalty per the Canadian government, I am certain the court will recognize my attempt to deal in good faith with you. The offer stands until you choose to pursue the matter in court."

But that's just me, and if I had to risk $5k on defending myself by myself, I would because I'm crazy like that.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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....


Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON

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....

Right. An idea would be to...
•get a lawyer to write a letter denying the allegations.
•ask them to pay your lawyer's bill, plus any time you took off from work to talk to the lawyer during the workday
•if they don't pay up, go after them in small-claims court

When they get hit with multiple claims for a couple of hundred dollars each, it might wake them up. While you might not get any money from small-claims court, it'll hurt the trolls just defending themselves. War of the courts they want, war of the courts they get.

fazeTO

join:2011-03-22
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to rednekcowboy

EVERY Lawyers worst nightmare is a self-represented defendant. The court has an obligation to "walk" you through the protocol. That would eat up Voltages time and end up costing them more. I asked my friend who is a lawyer about it. It would be like an SNL skit.

Technically the case is sort of already being built up with the argument of how a IP is NOT a person, so you could reference other court affidavits. etc.. no?



giggles

@videotron.ca

said by fazeTO:

EVERY Lawyers worst nightmare is a self-represented defendant. The court has an obligation to "walk" you through the protocol. That would eat up Voltages time and end up costing them more.

heh I saw this happen before when a bud of mine went to court. Judge was telling him what he was going to do, and my bud had no clue what was being said. Judge yelled like no tomorrow. Screaming. Asking why he doesn't know. He layed into the lawyers calling them idiots. Blamed all the lawyers in the room, called my bud every conceivable name possible for the word idiot, went into some sort of 15-minute soliloquy questioning the use of the legal system and lazy lawyers who eat his important and valuable time, then explained what certain terms meant.

Then it happened again with some other legal term. Judge lost it. Rise, repeat. I was just sitting there and almost shat myself with the way the judge screamed and went ballistic. No one in that room even moved or breathed. Everyone was scared.

Now imagine this happening a few hundred times.

It doesn't seem so much as a lawyers worse nightmare, as you said, but rather a judges. After what I witnessed, I can see a judge either forcing voltages lawyers to educate people who self-represent themselves, holding some sort of mass education meeting, or jumping over his desk thingy and killing everyone w/o a lawyer who says, "What does that mean", "I don't understand"?

heh that was my one and only time I was sitting in a court room watching a show. And it freaked me right out.

So any other news on Voltage?

Anything else filed?

Did Voltage finally send the cease and desist letter to TSI so TSI could forward it?

Did they skip town w/o paying TSI?

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

Nothing filed as of yesterday. I doubt there will be a c&d sent out.

Voltage has not skipped.... Yet.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



gruntbuggle

@ustomer-incero.com

Not sending out the C&D certainly sends out a message that they really aren't worried about their movies being shared.

It does feel like Voltage has withdrawn for now but I have no doubt the idiots will try and take another whack at it, perhaps with a BC court under a different name? That seems to be the troll pattern in the States.



TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to hm

Court cases like these are often long drawn out affairs, with actual court dates far apart from each other. Seeing now news for weeks, or even months is not a sign any side has backed off.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by TypeS:

Court cases like these are often long drawn out affairs, with actual court dates far apart from each other. Seeing now news for weeks, or even months is not a sign any side has backed off.

You are correct for the most part, however not sending out the C&D while claiming to the courts that it was an absolute emergency and that it was imperative that Tek's alleged infringers received it immediately, may very well be a sign....


Shrug

@videotron.ca
reply to gruntbuggle

Maybe they will sue everyone here at DSLr for defamation!

Woot!