O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

reply to hm

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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.

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

reply to random

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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

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

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

Mike

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!

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

Fixed.

Mike

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?

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.

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.

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.

reply to hm