Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs - TekSavvy

Author	All Replies
apvm join:2003-02-14 London, ON kudos:1	reply to shikotee Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs 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?
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 09:27:04 ·
dillyhammer A. Good. Start. Premium,MVM join:2010-01-09 Hamilton, ON kudos:9 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·Cogeco Cable ·TekSavvy DSL ·Caneris	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 -- Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 09:42:27 ·
apvm join:2003-02-14 London, ON kudos:1	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 09:44:38 ·

El Quintron Resident Mouth Breather Premium join:2008-04-28 Etobicoke, ON kudos:2 Reviews: ·TekSavvy DSL ·WIND Mobile ·voip.ms	reply to dillyhammer said by dillyhammer: 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 I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk. You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on. -- Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 09:53:41 ·
Tx bronx cheers from cheap seats Premium join:2008-11-19 kudos:3 Reviews: ·FreePhoneLine ·Rogers Hi-Speed ·TekSavvy DSL	said by El Quintron: said by dillyhammer: 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 I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk. You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on. I may be wrong, but isn't this considered "gambling" with your customers information on the line?
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 09:57:38 ·
dillyhammer A. Good. Start. Premium,MVM join:2010-01-09 Hamilton, ON kudos:9 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·Cogeco Cable ·TekSavvy DSL ·Caneris	reply to El Quintron said by El Quintron: I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk. Shrewd idea, if that is in fact the case. I'd like to think that was the case. If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag. 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 10:00:16 ·
El Quintron Resident Mouth Breather Premium join:2008-04-28 Etobicoke, ON kudos:2 Reviews: ·TekSavvy DSL ·WIND Mobile ·voip.ms	said by dillyhammer: If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag. Mike If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that. -- Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 10:11:02 ·
Tx bronx cheers from cheap seats Premium join:2008-11-19 kudos:3 Reviews: ·FreePhoneLine ·Rogers Hi-Speed ·TekSavvy DSL	said by El Quintron: said by dillyhammer: If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag. Mike If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that. I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 11:53:41 ·
dillyhammer A. Good. Start. Premium,MVM join:2010-01-09 Hamilton, ON kudos:9 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·Cogeco Cable ·TekSavvy DSL ·Caneris	said by Tx: I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped. Well, if they have an agreement with Voltage NOT to oppose the motion then this whole thing backfires big time. The optics of it all is awful. Really awful. As EQ mentioned - I hope it doesn't come to that. 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 12:00:35 ·
jkoblovsky join:2011-09-27 Keswick, ON kudos:2	reply to Tx I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly. -- My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/ My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 13:13:24 ·
hm @videotron.ca	said by jkoblovsky: I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. Yup, and Howard Knopf called out both Teksavvy and Teksavvy's legal counsel on this. But if you ask me, in my personal opinion, I get the feeling this is what Geist told TSI to do, and this is all Geists and CIPPIC's doing. It's Geists and cippics wet-dream to be running to the rescue in this type mass-p2p lawsuit. But if this is really TSI's doing, then we will see... As you said it could come back to bite them hard on the ass instead of them standing their ground and challenging it all from the beginning. Monday will tell. Maybe. If it isn't pushed back again. It will either be (in my un-expert opinion): A) Disclose. End of story. B) Cippic granted, date set for the future C) Disclose, TSI & TSI's lawyers finally grow a pair and pipe up "C" will have two out-come (as I see it in my un-expert opinion) C1) Per agreement, blah blah blah, disclose it. End. C2) or, Judge accepts the fight put forth (if they grow a pair). Date set for future. Any other chess moves?
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 15:43:37 ·
Tx bronx cheers from cheap seats Premium join:2008-11-19 kudos:3 Reviews: ·FreePhoneLine ·Rogers Hi-Speed ·TekSavvy DSL	reply to jkoblovsky said by jkoblovsky: I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly. Oh trust me, i don't disagree with you. I'm sure a few around here can confirm my very passionate view on this matter. I've been a pretty loud voice on here about it. Enough so that Marc got upset with me. I'm caught between a rock and a hard place... i truly respect and like Marc and some of his staff (especially the ones that roam these forums).... honestly good people, but then my issues become far more serious when it comes to handing this information over.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 14:59:00 ·
JohnDoe187 join:2013-01-04	reply to hm Why would you think TSI is in bed with CIPPIC or Giest? I mean it just looks bad on them from a customer's point of view to not challenge the motion and let someone else handle the situation. In my opinion it's just a bad business decision and will hurt TSI more than help. This whole ideal is ridiculous in the first place (commercial infringement) and TSI is slapping all their customers in the face for not opposing.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 15:53:16 ·
Who join:2012-12-18	TSI will not be able to hide from a backlash if the thing sails through for the trolls. You can't build a business on reputation for the little guy that cares.....and then screw 2000 peoples privacy to trolls. I for one will move even if there is no advantage to it.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 16:00:06 ·
JohnDoe187 join:2013-01-04	Primus is offering unlimited DSL 7 Mbps @ $40 or so advertises Iam moving to them. So they advertise anyways.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 16:05:02 ·
MaynardKrebs Premium join:2009-06-17 kudos:4	reply to jkoblovsky said by jkoblovsky: I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly. My stance as of now: 1) TSI got a delay to inform customers and to try and ensure that the IP's were accurate as they could determine. Score: +2 for TSI 2) TSI bought time for CIPPIC to get involved. Add +1 for TSI 3) Everything else TSI related ..... Add +/- 0 as it's too early to tell 4) Knopf & others...... Blogging is one thing. For not jumping in pro bono to either assist TSI or volunteer to represent at least a couple "John Doe's" on the 14th if they feel so strongly on the matter. Score: -2
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 17:06:42 ·
dillyhammer A. Good. Start. Premium,MVM join:2010-01-09 Hamilton, ON kudos:9 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·Cogeco Cable ·TekSavvy DSL ·Caneris	reply to Who said by Who: TSI will not be able to hide from a backlash if the thing sails through for the trolls. You can't build a business on reputation for the little guy that cares.....and then screw 2000 peoples privacy to trolls. I for one will move even if there is no advantage to it. Agreed. Agreed. And yep, me too. Might anyway, waiting for Teksavvy's cable offering Cogecoland (Hamilton) for far too long. This is just the straw. 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 17:28:22 ·
JonyBelGeul join:2008-07-31	reply to MaynardKrebs I've just re-read that thread "why we don't oppose". I found something that didn't occur to me before. You made me think of it just now. TSI's argument is that the best way to not get involved is to just not do it in the first place. Good and all, but that's besides TSI's main argument. And this is that they will not argue the merits of the motion. But here's the problem. In checking whether the IP's were assigned to the same persons as they are now, this is part of "arguing the merits of the motion". Sure, we could say that's just a technical detail. But here's the problem again, the motion itself is wholly technical, and the accuracy of the allegations/IP/persons association is an integral part of the merit of the motion. Consequently, TSI did argue the merit of the motion by the mere act of checking the accuracy of the IP/persons association. They didn't do so in court, but it's the same act. In order for TSI to abide by their agreement not to argue the merit of the motion, TSI should have left their logs as they were, not verified them at all, and disclosed them as is to Voltage, by court order of course. This way, the agreement between TSI and Voltage is intact. But this way, innocents are indeed targeted by the motion - as the act of verification demonstrated. This is a bit of a paradox. TSI cannot in good conscience continue to say they will not argue the merit of the motion, after they did just that by checking the accuracy of the information being motioned for disclosure. Yet they can't break their agreement with Voltage either by opposing the motion in court through arguing the merit of the motion further. Also, TSI's argument that the best way to not get involved is to not do it in the first place is refuted by the very act of verification, which proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very best way to not get involved is to not be a TSI customer in the first place, and then later on to not be a TSI customer once a motion to disclose is made. Because even if a TSI customer did not do it in the first place, he can still get involved due to inaccurate or obsolete logs. And even a TSI customer did do it, he can still avoid getting involved for the same reason. That thing with verifying log accuracy being an act of arguing the merit of the motion didn't occur to me before. Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, not an expert. But it did occur to me just now. So I have to wonder just how good TSI's counsel was when they decided not to oppose. As good as me? Hehe. -- My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 17:40:56 ·
jkoblovsky join:2011-09-27 Keswick, ON kudos:2 2 edits	reply to MaynardKrebs Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs said by MaynardKrebs My stance as of now: 1) TSI got a delay to inform customers and to try and ensure that the IP's were accurate as they could determine. Score: +2 for TSI 2) TSI bought time for CIPPIC to get involved. Add +1 for TSI 3) Everything else TSI related ..... Add +/- 0 as it's too early to tell 4) Knopf & others...... Blogging is one thing. For not jumping in pro bono to either assist TSI or volunteer to represent at least a couple "John Doe's" on the 14th if they feel so strongly on the matter. Score: -2 That's all and good, but it's TSI's responsibility under law to directly protect it's customers privacy, not the CIPPIC, Knopf or any others. Why should anyone step up to the plate here to protect your privacy when under law that's TSI's legal and direct responsibility here. If I had it my way the CIPPIC would not be involved to protect TSI's business interests here. That can end up being a lot more unethical than what Voltage is trying to do. By commenting and blogging actually does help TSI. I've been very vocal about the fact that the legal advice and stance given actually puts TSI at much more legal risks as a result of how this went down. The business risk comes when the privacy community starts to realize that due to the stance TSI has taken, proves that there is very much a lack of oversight on your privacy by both parties, directly by TSI and Voltage. Both have a direct responsibility under law, and regardless if the CIPPIC is involved, TSI could still be made liable for not directly putting cross-examination on the evidence to ensure it's responsibilities under law around privacy are fulfilled. Something Knopf also hinted too in his post. I understand both sides of the legal arguments on how TSI has handled this. Both as a business person myself, and as a consumer advocate. Both parties Teksavvy and Voltage may have very well acted in a way that is self serving. It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation. -- My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/ My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-09 18:39:27 ·

O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs