dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3365
share rss forum feed

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

I highly suggest you read and comprehend what is happening before you make your ridiculous points. You seem delusional to what is happening...


funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Nice to see I'm not the lone voice here. I absolutely 100% agree to this following statement from Knopf's blog post:

It is a legitimate question to ask whether an ISP, rather than categorically deciding a priori not to resist disclosure motions, should at least be expected to review the supporting documentation, to get an expert opinion as to whether it meets the requirement of the law as laid down by the courts and Parliament, to notify all of its customers of the proceeding (if it is too burdensome to notify only those whose IP address has been singled out by the would-be plaintiff), to post copies of these documents, and to explain why, if it is the case, that it believes that there is no reasonable basis to challenge the disclosure motion on privacy grounds.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!

in a way i hope cippic cant be an intervenor then it will show you why you want an isp to have a hammer rather then a revolving door.
i warned rocky that on top of the caps issue that copyright will be a game killer for them....

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:

Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material.

ya god forbid they have to actually have some facts and evidence ...who needs that right?

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to dillyhammer

said by dillyhammer:

said by apvm:

I am confuse here. Does that mean Teksavvy never ask how Voltage obtained those IP address and if the method used is accurate enough etc?

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

as a party to a contract with TSI for services i would like to see how they are entering such a contract with a 3rd party that may alter my rights and obligations and privacy....ergo show me the deal and ill decide if i want to be a TSI customer/contracted verbally or otherwise.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to apvm

said by apvm:

said by dillyhammer:

said by apvm:

I am confuse here. Does that mean Teksavvy never ask how Voltage obtained those IP address and if the method used is accurate enough etc?

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

This is quite unfair, since only Teksavvy can contest the motion.

Did Teksavvy disclose how much administration fee they will charge Voltage per IP for the customer information?

I heard Rogers usually charge $200 per IP.

then goto the court and bring up CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT , chapter six of the charter of rights and freedoms that this unfairness unduly harms you perhaps in the future or at some other time as a TSI customer

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

4 - FORCING A COURT ORDER ISSUANCE VS. BEING A WEASEL
And I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who went to court to force the plaintiff to justify their actions to a judge BEFORE my ISP handed the plaintiff any of my info.

In the past 4 months or so, only one ISP has met all four of the foregoing, and that's Teksavvy. All the other weasel ISP's who were presented with demands from Voltage caved in and did ZERO for their customers.

TSI is NOT my lawyer, nor do I expect them to be. You shouldn't either.

TSI is not going to force Voltage to justify their motion. In fact, they agreed not to do that.

I don't expect TSI to be my lawyer. That's absurd. There's more ways to help a defendant than to be a lawyer. TSI would play a few roles. Expert witness, and party to an agreement - the privacy policy - between TSI and its customers.

It's important to note that the defendant in the motion to disclose proper is not TSI's customers, but TSI itself. TSI is the one being asked to disclose information. TSI is the one defending against this motion. However, the information being requested does not concern TSI itself, but its customers, therefore allows any of those to become defendant on their own behalf. Only if TSI's customers do this are they defendant in this motion, and only if Voltage sues TSI's customers afterwards do TSI's customers become cited defendants. Otherwise, TSI is sole defendant in this motion.

It's also important to note that the duty of TSI in this motion is not to defend on behalf of its customers, but on TSI's own behalf, since TSI must abide by the policy agreement as well, which governs the information being requested. The motion to disclose is a challenge to this privacy agreement.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

said by JonyBelGeul See Profile
TSI is not going to force Voltage to justify their motion. In fact, they agreed not to do that.

Depending on the legal risks, it might be a good idea for TSI to re-evaluate the terms of that agreement. Anything at this point is still very much a possibility.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


JoinDoes

@voxility.net
reply to jkoblovsky

I did write to CIPPIC and offer them the chance to be my authorized representative in court so they could have guaranteed standing.

They turned me down.

Which was nice.


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

2 edits
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Good argument however unnecessary when you look at what the CIPPIC has challenged the evidence on, the position not to oppose has actually put TSI's business at greater risk than what would be stipulated if they opposed right away. I have a hard time believing that they would put the business at risk and call in the CIPPIC only to challenge the technical specs at a later date, when that may not even be necessary due to the arguments the CIPPIC has made.

But I do believe in the end TSI will challenge, this, and the reason why is because they are obligated under law to do so, and if they don't there's going to be a huge backlash from not just TSI customers, but the privacy community as well I would suspect.

I think TSI can oppose anyway. I have a few ideas how this can be done.

The privacy agreement. This agreement is an extension of privacy laws, therefore is bigger than an out-of-court agreement, especially one that basically breaks the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. So, an argument can be made that TSI was in error to agree not to oppose in the first place, as it puts them in a bad position with their own customers, and with privacy laws (probably much worse position to be in).

TSI did oppose motion to disclose by the mere act of verifying accuracy of information being requested by Voltage, i.e., arguing the merit of the motion, the merit being technical accuracy of the information requested by the motion. If TSI already argued the merit of the motion, then the out-of-court agreement is rendered nul and void, thus there's no obstacle to oppose in court.

The sole defendant in motion to disclose is TSI. If TSI keeps their agreement with Voltage not to oppose, then the motion is most likely to be granted without much fuss. That's bad justice. Agreeing not to oppose basically forces the court to fulfill the defendant's duty. That's not the court's duty.

The actual targets of the motion is not TSI, but TSI's customers, and Voltage is known not to prosecute, but instead to threaten with "pay or else" only, for the obvious purpose of taking advantage of the disparity between a payoff and the costs of fighting in court, therefore for the obvious purpose of extortion. TSI has a duty to protect their customers from abuse by a third party.

Defendant in motion is TSI, not TSI's customers. Yet TSI's customers are most likely the ones who will defend, at their own costs. Agreeing not to oppose basically transfers TSI's duty to fulfill their obligations defined by the privacy agreement, to their customers. In other words, TSI's customers are now acting as TSI's counsel in defending TSI against a challenge to the privacy agreement, challenge which opposes TSI's duty to abide by this privacy agreement. Yet like I said, at TSI's customers costs. Basically, TSI gets legal representation from their own customers for free. That's quite a convoluted solution.

For all these reasons, TSI can convince the court that they must oppose the motion in spite of out-of-court agreement not to oppose. In other words, if they don't oppose, they'll be doing much more harm on all fronts, to themselves, to their customers, to the court.

In fact, that last bit about transferring legal duty to their customers can be used by the court to force TSI to oppose the motion, and fulfill their duty to abide by the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. Otherwise the court is basically saying it's OK to abandon one's duty and break the law.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to JoinDoes

said by JoinDoes :

I did write to CIPPIC and offer them the chance to be my authorized representative in court so they could have guaranteed standing.

They turned me down.

Which was nice.

The CIPPIC as a non-profit organization can not deviate from it's mandate. The CIPPIC doesn't offer individual representation as part of it's mandate. What is in their mandate is pro-bono advice to individuals, but from the looks of the size of this case, maybe virtually impossible to do. What is also in their mandate is to represent the public interest with respect to digital policy, which is currently what they are doing here.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

Which is currently what they're trying to do here. But there's no guarantee they'll be heard or even considered. Hence the need for at least one defendant to ask CIPPIC to join them at least as expert witness.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul See Profile

I think TSI can oppose anyway. I have a few ideas how this can be done.

The privacy agreement. This agreement is an extension of privacy laws, therefore is bigger than an out-of-court agreement, especially one that basically breaks the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. So, an argument can be made that TSI was in error to agree not to oppose in the first place, as it puts them in a bad position with their own customers, and with privacy laws (probably much worse position to be in).

You are on the right track, however there is going to be a financial penalty if they break this agreement. There may be a financial penalty if they don't and if consumers decide to follow up on their rights on this. Either way they made a deal with the devil and are screwed as a result. The agreement while I firmly believe was well intentioned, really put TSI in a very interesting position. Question becomes, which is a greater risk to the business. That's something that only Marc can decide because fundamentally the answer to that question may very well determine whether his business survives through this.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

An argument can be made that an agreement - a contract - is nul and void if it breaks the law, therefore frees all parties from the obligations therein. I think I made a pretty good list of arguments that this is the case here.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to jkoblovsky

In fact, TSI could say they agreed not to oppose out-of-court, knowing that this agreement broke privacy laws therefore was nul and void a priori, but only for the purpose of filling a legal hole - notice-and-notice - which had not yet been implemented, but most likely will be. In other words, TSI played a trick on Voltage.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

An argument can be made that an agreement - a contract - is nul and void if it breaks the law, therefore frees all parties from the obligations therein. I think I made a pretty good list of arguments that this is the case here.

To some extent, Voltage will most likely file suit against TSI if they do break their agreement, which means TSI would be hit up with more legal fees as a result of having to defend in a separate court hearing. On the flip side TSI could be on the hook for much more having to defend itself against multi suits from customers. It's really a risk assessment right now. As a result of the decision to agree to Voltages terms, really put the company at severe risk of litigation well intentioned or not in my view.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


No Faith

@ubiquityservers.com
reply to El Quintron

Teksavvy in my opinion will be doing nothing but hand over the info. It's a shame that it has came to this and most people were lead to believe Teksavvy is some heroic company with its customers best interest in mind but at the end of the day they will look out for #1 (themselves) and their profit margins. This could be a game changer for everything, TSI included. Good luck to us all. F* TSI...time to cancel your Internet with them!

Expand your moderator at work

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to No Faith

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Tekavvy Vs. Voltage and Effects on Political Discourse

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···scourse/



TraderOne

@teksavvy.com

Just waiting to see what Teksavvy will do on next Monday. If Teksavvy rolls over, I will roll over to other company as well.


Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON
reply to jkoblovsky

If you have opinions/discussions in relation to this please keep it on this forum, and save your personal blog links for somewhere else maybe?


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to shikotee

I was thinking the other night and something occurred to me:

VDSL customers - they're forced to rent Bhell modems correct? Since they are Bhell property and merely being rented (in the same way TSI "rents" the last mile) does this not make it part of their network and subject to the ISP protections as a result?


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to Arcturus

said by Arcturus:

If you have opinions/discussions in relation to this please keep it on this forum, and save your personal blog links for somewhere else maybe?

I'm linking to my personal blog so that I don't fill threads up with my opinions, and it's a lot easier to format those opinions (which are multimedia) in blog form. Those interested in my opinions can click on the links I provide. Those who are not, are not forced to scroll down lengthy posts and are forced to load up multimedia links while doing so. When I do post both the post and link, it's forum edicate to link back to the source article.

Just trying to be forum friendly, however what I'm commenting on is not just for TSI customers, which is why they are blog posts as well. Copyright and copyright trolling is a national and international topic. And I will continue to post my oppionions on both this forum and my blog.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


lleader

join:2011-01-01
Mississauga, ON

said by jkoblovsky:

it's forum edicate to link back to the source article.


Umm, maybe "etiquette" ? If you aspire to be a wordsmith, get the right ones in your arsenal.