resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to rednekcowboy
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?
With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by resa1983:You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?
With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.
AND obviously THIS judge does not, this is a very good thing and the way it should be. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?
With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.
That is because the motion went unopposed. Nothing more.
In the Bell, videotron and Cogeco case, they didn't even bother to show up in court. It defaults.
With Distributel (owners of Acanac) and ACN, this was likely the very same thing. Went unopposed and no one bothered to show. Never even made a ripple in the news world or forums because no one knew and they kept their mouths shut.
resa, if anything goes unopposed, it gets granted. That's the way it works. That is the reason why we had what you stated above. It was not based at all on merit. |
|
|
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Front page:
TekSavvy Gets More Time to Battle Copyright Troll
» TekSavvy Gets More Time to Battle Copyright Troll |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | I would have figured that even if it went unopposed, the judge would have to think about a person's privacy.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
m3chen
join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy or an unexpected but pleasant turn of a events for them (and really for us as consumers).
I gotta say though, I'm very happy that the judge is asking about the IP address / account holder issue as it does relate to whether or not this information should be given out in the first place. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by m3chen:It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy or an unexpected but pleasant turn of a events for them (and really for us as consumers).
I gotta say though, I'm very happy that the judge is asking about the IP address / account holder issue as it does relate to whether or not this information should be given out in the first place.
I'm sure that TSI & CIPPIC lawyers will make sure that comment gets into the judge's adjournment & comments when all 3 lawyers write it up together (group communication excerise for being bad & not communicating well). heh
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to m3chen
said by m3chen:It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy
With CIPPIC in the picture, yeah. With CIPPIC not in the picture, no.
But as said above, if this back-fired, which it still could (but doubtful now based on the judges comments), then what? They made a risky move instead of just opposing.
With cippic involved, cippic can examine TSI's info as well without it appearing as collusion (which Voltage is claiming, btw).
This is the only thing I can think of for why TSI made this risky move of not opposing.
Don't think we will ever get an answer to this.
However, if CIPPIC is allowed in (which could still be denied), then the answer will play out and we will then see why TSI & CIPPIC chose this risky move. |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:I would have figured that even if it went unopposed, the judge would have to think about a person's privacy.
Well, let's check out the docket for the unopposed NGN vs Distributel case: »cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2062-12
Pay particular attention to how long it took for the motion to be reviewed and passed: "Duration per day: 19-NOV-2012 from 09:30 to 09:33" So all of 3 minutes... Do you think the judge bothered to look at any of the paperwork, let alone think about anyone's privacy implications?
If the alternative is a 3 minute "Have you paid your court fees? Ok then, here's your court order to print money Mr Copyright Troll" then ISPs MUST stand up for their customers. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
said by hm :With cippic involved, cippic can examine TSI's info as well without it appearing as collusion (which Voltage is claiming, btw).
This is the only thing I can think of for why TSI made this risky move of not opposing.
said by tired:ISPs MUST stand up for their customers.
Since you make the statement, and since I'm trying to find reasons for why TSI decided not to oppose the motion, one thought given to me by "someone" was the the following:
"My bet is that is that Teksavvy doesn't want to set a precedent for having to engage in litigation every time a copyright troll decides to go after subscribers."
Since precedent is being set here in Canada with the troll lawsuits, what is stated above seems to make perfect sense to me when one thinks about why Bell, Videotron, Cogeco, Distributel, ACN, and now Teksavvy struck a deal with Voltage and chose *not* to opposed this.
So far this is the best reason to date.
I wonder if TSI would care to chime in?
So, "tired", I'm getting the feeling they don't want to be in a "MUST" situation, as you stated. Or have precedent set where they "MUST".
Best guess to date.
TSI, or some other ISP in the "know", or even a lawyer like Howard Knopf would have to chime in with their view on this...
Anyone have Howard Knopf's ear? If so, care to shoot this one at him and see if he has a take on this? |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | Howard Knopf (Copyright Lawyer) on what went down in court on the 14th.
Some Clarity on the Voltage and Teksavvy Disclosure Motion to Date
»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···vvy.html
To restate the obvious, there is no “opposing side” in this case at this time. Teksavvy, the Respondent to the disclosure motion, could oppose it and arguably should oppose it. However, for reasons that many find unconvincing, it has chosen not to oppose it.
Goes into much, much more detail. Well worth spending the time to read it. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | Dwayne Winseck (Mediamorphis) has good and balanced viewpoint on everything to date:
Voltage's TekSavvy Subscriber Shakedown, Part II: Big Win for TekSavvy or Room for More?
»dwmw.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/vo···or-more/ |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
I read Howard Knopf's post.. Unfortunately, he gets all his information second hand, as he can't be bothered to go to the hearing itself.
I find it ironic that he says that information coming from the blogosphere is inaccurate.
While David Ellis does have his own thoughts at the beginning of his latest post, the 2nd half of it is a full picture of what happened in the court room, without editorializing. David Ellis was sitting beside me taking copious notes during the hearing.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | Have to admit I can't really read his blog. It's coming across like PR rhetoric. Ellis is way too one sided. To the point that I have to wonder if he is paid PR. Writer-for-hire.
Way overly one-sided with blinders on to everything else. Zero balance. But hey, his blog.
*shrug* |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:I read Howard Knopf's post.. Unfortunately, he gets all his information second hand, as he can't be bothered to go to the hearing itself.
I find it ironic that he says that information coming from the blogosphere is inaccurate.
I think what he was getting at is, peoples analysis and dissection of what was said in court is inaccurate. They aren't lawyers after-all. That is, their *opinion* or *commentary* given as legal fact. Whereas in reality their analysis (ie *opinion* being given as legal fact) isn't that reliable.
Gotta read between the lines.
He isn't stating that what Ellis transcribed is wrong. The *opinion* derived from what he transcribed may be though. |
|
m3chen
join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON | reply to resa1983
I would be interested to see that be noted at the end of this court case and hopefully it'll lead to future evidence being held to higher standards than 51% probability / accuracy to invade the privacy of individuals for "fishing expeditions". |
|
| The battle should and must be about privacy.
I get annoyed every time a poster writes "we're copying, not stealing". With that defense, we are royally screwed. It allows the trolls to make their case on property and losses and take away any defense for privacy.
Fight on your terms and what you can win on, not theirs. So some of you guys who come online with "copying does no harm"......are doing harm. Focus on privacy or STFU. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by Who:Fight on your terms and what you can win on, not theirs. So some of you guys who come online with "copying does no harm"......are doing harm. Focus on privacy or STFU.
Says you.
If someone is willing to take on Voltage with that defense then it's their perogative to do so.
If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer.
Last I checked, privacy wasn't the only tool in my legal defense tookit.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by El Quintron:said by Who:Fight on your terms and what you can win on, not theirs. So some of you guys who come online with "copying does no harm"......are doing harm. Focus on privacy or STFU.
Says you. If someone is willing to take on Voltage with that defense then it's their perogative to do so. If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer. Last I checked, privacy wasn't the only tool in my legal defense tookit. FWIW, that is a god-awful defense strategy but as you said, to each his own. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by rednekcowboy:FWIW, that is a god-awful defense strategy but as you said, to each his own.
It would be, if all you're doing is trying to get out of this without paying damages.
On the other hand if you're trying to make an ass of the law allowing for damages, and the plaintiff it would be a PR disaster for them.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
