 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to El Quintron
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued 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. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
 ·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 MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:15 | reply to hm
just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
|
|
 dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9
 ·Start Communicat..
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| 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). |
|
| 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 |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | 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$, case closed. If they aren't so lucky.. well all the better then. But unlikely.
Knopf, no clue.
But the meat and potato's of his posts seem to be on how TSI should oppose on the merit of the filing since they are in a unique position as an ISP.
Obviously two ways to go about it, the CIPPIC way and the Knopf way. Which is better? What are the risks of each? What precedent differences exist in each? Knopf states the risks are greater with the CIPPIC way, as I understand it.
And I am being led to believe the CIPPIC way leads to no precedent of an ISP having to be involved, where-as the Knopf way will see precedent set where an ISP must be involved. Off the top of my head this is the only thing I can see in the game of differences.
Less cost, responsibility, and less resources needed for the ISP. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by hm :said by sbrook:It should be remembered that these costs which are put back on Voltage will simply be included in the demands from the people, so the per IP cost is not an issue if they go after people if granted the names.
Yeah, that's what I was saying in another topic. Geist is saying the courts will likely award 100$, 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 |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by resa1983: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 $100 from everyone, they'll still be out money.
Yeah, that's the gamble on Voltages part. And the gamble all 1000 people are going to have. Will it indeed be 100$ or will the judge award costs to date and everyone pays a minimum of say 500$ to 5,000$
But it can get even worse for voltage if CIPPIC (a few court hearings from now) can show why it shouldn't all be joined as one (Joinder).
The judge made reference to 1000 people standing in his court. In other words, seems to me the judge is expecting (if it ever went so far) that all cases would be joined together (Joinder). One mass court appearance, one mass lawsuit. Voltage will ask this of the court (like in the states) in order to save the money on 1000 different lawsuits. That is the meat and potato's of their trolling, right?
But the extortion letters would go out before it got to this part. But yeah, could get worse for them on a couple of different fronts. But it could also bite people back.
This 100$ doesn't sit nor fly with me. I can't see it happening. |
|
3 edits | 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.
It looks like it was the costs to identify one (1) person who appears to have used the same e-mail address to send potentially libelous information. It appears that the person sent the e-mail via a Gmail account, from both Bell & Rogers IP's, a GRAND total of three (3) times.
Thus the total costs of $900 between the two IP's are essentially for tracking down three (3) IP addresses in total.
[aside: Cost to Voltage for 2,300 IP's at those rates would be $690,000 - cite that as precedent TSI  ]
»www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20···447.html
(see paragraphs 6-9)]
Edit: Sorry guys - I didn't look at the Geist source article when I first did the math - $300/IP is the correct amount as per Geist.
Note in the CanLII post that "The costs of compliance, which are nominal in this case,....." can definitely be interpreted as costs per IP. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | 3 IP's in total would likely make it as I said above. 2 for Rogers, 1 for bell. Thus 2x 300/IP for Rogers (600), 1x 300/IP (300) for Bell.
Thanks for finding that!
So $300/IP for both. Hmm |
|
| never mind |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
pfft don't be sorry, typo's happen.
And yeah, TSI under-costed themselves. But like they said in court, it wasn't finished yet and costs could increase.
CNOC, as an industry group (as said above), should be behind them and every ISP under their banner to study this and come out with a bare minimum range to help their members out in trolling suits.
ISP's don't work free for trolls. |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to SeanDeMarco1
said by SeanDeMarco1: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 Yup. But the problem with the current system is that before any legal action is actually taken against you, you will receive a letter offering to settle the dispute for $X where $X is less than the costs you would expect to pay to defend yourself in court. So in other words, it doesn't matter if you're innocent or guilty. Once they have your name you are on the hook for a substantial amount of money. If nobody looks at this, then for all we know they have a lotto machine spitting out random IP addresses assigned to particular ISPs. Where's the proof that the person who pays the Internet bill did anything wrong?
So before these names are handed over to Voltage some due diligence must be done to ensure that the collection methods are solid and there aren't any innocent parties who have been included in the thousand people who are part of this.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that due diligence is done?
As seen in the 3 minute review of the Recoil motion, the courts aren't going to do it by themselves. They'll just take what is claimed at face value.
Is it the owners of the IP addresses? Those targeted by the suit? Possibly, but again the cost to oppose this motion would be less than any offer of settlement. Plus as TekSavvy have shown the ISP will have to spend a ridiculous amount of money up front, and possibly uncovered by the Voltage, just to let their customers know which of them are targets.
Is it the ISP? That's my personal opinion, but of course I don't run one so I don't have to face the costs and risks associated with that course of action.
In the current action, CIPPIC are trying to insert themselves and ask the right questions. If that happens, great. If not then I guess it sucks to be the 1000 defendants, guilty and innocent.
The whole situation just plain sucks for everybody. Because the only ones who win are the Trolls. The rest of us, ISPs and subscribers alike, are on the hook to be scammed out of money whether we've done something wrong or not.
Clearly the system as it currently exists is broken. |
|
| said by tired:The whole situation just plain sucks for everybody. Because the only ones who win are the Trolls. The rest of us, ISPs and subscribers alike, are on the hook to be scammed out of money whether we've done something wrong or not.
Clearly the system as it currently exists is broken.
MP's, their Hollywood lobbyists, and a bunch of government lawyers sat in a room. Sounds like it's the start of a joke, right? Only it isn't....it's what we got.... and we can thank the Conservatives - who limit debate on everything -for this abortion of a law as a result.
Who was in the room doing the "if, then, else" figuring out how it actually worked for those on the front lines - the ISP's?
Nobody.
Who followed the money as far as what any self-respecting ISP would do to protect their customer's privacy --- (this is where we exclude Bell, Rogers, Videotron, Acanac, and some others who recently 'shat' [not the Shatner-esque definition of the verb] on their customer's privacy)?
Nobody.
Why nobody?
Because the ISP's weren't invited to Hollywood's legislation party. |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| 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.
I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......
While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else.
Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP.
I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for. |
|
TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:15 | said by rednekcowboy:said by TSI Marc:just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.
I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on...... While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else. Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP. I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for. pfft! fuddle duddle.
You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy: I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on...... He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day. |
|
