dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to resa1983

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by resa1983:

said by d_source:

In order for their to be twists and turns, the people affected need to show up and represent themselves, so at a minimum i'm hoping they are smart enough to do that.

You're assuming the judge won't allow CIPPIC to intervene?

There is no guarantee that the judge will allow CIPPIC to intervene.

TSI made a deal with Voltage to allow TSI to allow time for TSI to contact those alleged to have infringed to allow them to represent themselves (hopefully via counsel) in court. The 14th is that date.

If no counsel shows up for individuals, and Voltage says "Your Honour, TSI and us had a deal, and now there's there is this CIPPIC thing trying to force their way in - when no counsel of record for anybody showed up, come on - give us a break. We did everything we said we would. The alleged infringers were notified and chose not to represent themselves. Please grant us the order requiring TSI to hand over the names."

If that's the way the 14th played out, and I were the judge, I'd be inclined to agree with Voltage.

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
I keep hearing this "deal" is made. Isn't there a law that ISP is required to inform the customer a third party is requesting private information? I think it is the "Notice to Notice" or something? So I'm don't know what is this "deal" all about.