dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
30992
share rss forum feed

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



rednekcowboy

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

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


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

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.


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

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.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·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/


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


Who7

join:2012-12-18

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 Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by Who7:

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


rednekcowboy

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

said by El Quintron:

said by Who7:

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 Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

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


hm

@videotron.ca

Slaw (legal Ezine) has a post up from an Ontario Linux group about the case. It's more on how to prevent frivolous lawsuits, what can be done, and what could be looked at to protect people from vultures like canipre and voltage, yet still protect serious copyright suits.

Points 6 & 7 caught my interest.

Copyright Infringement Trolls: An "Appreciation of the Situation"
»www.slaw.ca/2013/01/16/copyright···tuation/

6. Prohibit a particular practice.

Just like barratry, champerty and maintenance of old, legislators could prohibit plaintiff's lawyers from taking particular actions. In this case, the prohibition would be on using a suit to obtain identifying information which one uses for any other purpose. This would have to be carefully defined, however, to allow honest plaintiffs to proceed. Developing such a prohibition would be an “interesting” task for a legal draftsperson. Deciding what to call it might be even harder: engaging in “troglodytarum”, perhaps?

7. Consider the specific undesirable practice professional misconduct.

The Law Society could conceivably declare this kind of use of the courts to be misconduct before it becomes prevalent, or order a disciplinary proceeding to evaluate it if it is found to have occurred. This would ensure that an honest plaintiff's lawyer would be able to defend a proper use of the courts, but would be reluctant to proceed if they were acting for a dishonest plaintiff.
...continues...



hm

@videotron.ca

In various posts I mentioned that Rogers and Bell charged 300$ (rogers) to 200$ (bell) per IP when a troll comes knocking.

I based this on my obviously flawed memory of the York University case a few years back.

The Slaw reference (post above) cites this case as well. So I looked into it and found the case write-up and costs here:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4340/125/

It states:

...in return for ordering the two companies to disclose the names of customers associated with particular IP addresses. First, York University was required to pay the ISPs to compensate them for providing the information - Rogers gets $600, while Bell gets $300.

So as you can see, I erred. oopsie.

Bell charges $300/ip look-up.
Rogers $600/ip look-up

There was also another case where Bell and Rogers costs were viewable, but I no longer recall which case it was. But costs were similar (but memory is telling me a bit lower).

TSI should have charged more to be inline with Rogers and Bell.

Maybe CNOC can/should use it's influence to set a minimum standard in line with Rogers. After-all their mission statement sates: to "influence the development of laws and regulations, regulatory and judicial determinations, as well as public policy affecting communications in Canada".

CNOC should consider this to protect their members from these trolling lawsuits and the cost burden involved, using TSI as the example. Over to Rocca...

These trolling suits affect bottom line and could/will lead to increasing costs on the consumer (which affects their competition price) if they don't stand up to their mission statements and get a consensus on the cost burden that should be used as a minimum guideline for all CNOC members.

Rogers charges SIX HUNDRED BUX PER IP!!
Sure makes trolls think twice.

Would make an interesting industry standard which would force only the most serious cases to seek IP info, and not a mass trolling campaign.

So maybe the Slaw post above should include this as another point.

But pretty sure there was another case and rogers charged over 300 but less than 600. Just can't recall it.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to hm

I am suspicious of Mr Knopf's own analysis / opinion. It also seems tainted.

It seems to me that an intervenor's role in a "no contest" case which this could well turn out to be (since TekSavvy has thus far chosen to not directly oppose but simply seek to monetarily protect its costs) must therefore be to get the judge to dismiss the request on the technical legal aspects of the case.

It should be remembered that these costs which are put back on Voltage will simply be included in the demands from the people, so the per IP cost is not an issue if they go after people if granted the names.

Mind you, if refused, it will be awfully costly for Voltage!



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to hm

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

That is exactly what the order states. Total costs.

So, Rogers, 600. Bell, 300. TSI, 190,000.



(sorry, can't help m'self)

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

Yes, noticed that after I pasted it.

I am assuming that is 2 IP's for Rogers and one for Bell. I could be wrong here, but there was indeed another case where Bell charged ~200 and Rogers ~300 (100 more than Bell for an IP each). For the life of me I can't recall why or for what, or I would search for it.

So guess I wasn't wrong to begin with, just can't find it or recall it.

But still, it is something CNOC should take up and look at to protect their group from this (and protect from a potential rate increase to protect themselves from the costs of not opposing and just showing up in court and giving people notice).

DeViLzzz

join:2004-07-29
Sarnia, ON

blah blah blah ....

bottom line is people if you download anything that is not yours and it is being sold commercially or is owned by someone and they say it is not freeware or whatever then you are stealing and should be punished in a way that will make you stop from doing it in the future


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

The problem is that the courts state costs.. Not prohibitive costs so this doesn't happen again.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

It should be remembered that these costs which are put back on Voltage will simply be included in the demands from the people, so the per IP cost is not an issue if they go after people if granted the names.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in another topic. Geist is saying the courts will likely award 100$, the minimum. And people are running with this. But pretty sure Voltage would include their costs and show the court the costs involved to get this far, if it ever went that far. Thus I can't see a court only awarding 100$.

For example, if it ends up costing voltage 250,000$ to get the names of the 1000 IP's that TSI was able to correlate, I'm sure that cost of 250$ per IP will be in addition to whatever a court awards. So I can't ever see this as being you owe 100$, case closed. If they aren't so lucky.. well all the better then. But unlikely.

Knopf, no clue.
But the meat and potato's of his posts seem to be on how TSI should oppose on the merit of the filing since they are in a unique position as an ISP.

Obviously two ways to go about it, the CIPPIC way and the Knopf way. Which is better? What are the risks of each? What precedent differences exist in each? Knopf states the risks are greater with the CIPPIC way, as I understand it.

And I am being led to believe the CIPPIC way leads to no precedent of an ISP having to be involved, where-as the Knopf way will see precedent set where an ISP must be involved. Off the top of my head this is the only thing I can see in the game of differences.

Less cost, responsibility, and less resources needed for the ISP.

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

said by hm :

said by sbrook:

It should be remembered that these costs which are put back on Voltage will simply be included in the demands from the people, so the per IP cost is not an issue if they go after people if granted the names.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in another topic. Geist is saying the courts will likely award 100$, the minimum. And people are running with this. But pretty sure Voltage would include their costs and show the court the costs involved to get this far, if it ever went that far. Thus I can't see a court only awarding 100$.

For example, if it ends up costing voltage 250,000$ to get the names of the 1000 IP's that TSI was able to correlate, I'm sure that cost of 250$ per IP will be in addition to whatever a court awards. So I can't ever see this as being you owe 100$, case closed. If they aren't so lucky.. well all the better then. But unlikely.

Knopf, no clue.
But the meat and potato's of his posts seem to be on how TSI should oppose on the merit of the filing since they are in a unique position as an ISP.

Obviously two ways to go about it, the CIPPIC way and the Knopf way. Which is better? What are the risks of each? What precedent differences exist in each? Knopf states the risks are greater with the CIPPIC way, as I understand it.

And I am being led to believe the CIPPIC way leads to no precedent of an ISP having to be involved, where-as the Knopf way will see precedent set where an ISP must be involved. Off the top of my head this is the only thing I can see in the game of differences.

Less cost, responsibility, and less resources needed for the ISP.

The courts don't need to make sure that Voltage gets their money back though...

They're well within their rights of awarding $100, despite the fact that if they collect $100 from everyone, they'll still be out money.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP