dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11622
share rss forum feed

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

2 edits

A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...

This article gives us a nice summary of what has happened and some of the comments by the subject matter experts:

»business.financialpost.com/2013/···ntation/

...In the BMG case, the ISPs also challenged the quality of the evidence and the court held that much of what the record companies submitted was hearsay and dismissed the motion on that basis.

David Fewer, the director of CIPPIC, the public interest clinic based at the University of Ottawa, said he does not think the materials Voltage has filed are sufficient.

If granted intervenor status, the clinic would seek to challenge the film studio’s material, which includes an affidavit from Barry Logan, the owner of a Montreal-based Canipre Inc., the forensic investigation firm that identified the IP addresses.

“It’s hearsay evidence. There’s very little in that affidavit that they’ve filed in support that gives us confidence that they’ve met the legal burden,” Mr. Fewer said.

While Mr. Knopf did not comment specifically on Voltage’s material, he said if it is inadequate, TekSavvy taking a stand against it would be an easy win for the company with its customers and would not sacrifice its status as a neutral party.

“It’s simply not right for anyone to assume that protecting privacy in any way amounts to endorsing piracy,” Mr. Knopf said. “They’re just completely separate issues.”



John Doe 188

@teksavvy.com

I don't see why you and others around here participating in downloading copywrited works thinks Teksavvy should defend/hide you.

If you value the movies and music then pay for them. Don't steal from the people who created them then expect someone else to pay $$ to defend/hide you.

Teksavvy hasn't failed me as a customer as I pay them for internet and they provide it at a very competitive price.

Mind you I don't steal.


Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

I'm sure you have never borrowed a book, a movie or recorded anything from a TV either.

Expand your moderator at work

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to John Doe 188

Re: A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...

It is obvious that you are clueless to the situation.
No one has stolen anything or infringed any copyright material until there is actually a trail so labelling everyone as thieves show how much an education you really have. The motion is AGAINST Teksavvy at this point and it is a privacy issue not pirate issue, known the difference but maybe you belong to a communist society.

Expand your moderator at work

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to John Doe 188

Re: A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...

Also I guess all the subject matter experts are wrong and you... A lonely Doe is right? Lol Get off your high horse buddy...



Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to John Doe 188

said by John Doe 188 :

I don't see why you and others around here participating in downloading copywrited works thinks Teksavvy should defend/hide you.

If you value the movies and music then pay for them. Don't steal from the people who created them then expect someone else to pay $$ to defend/hide you.

Teksavvy hasn't failed me as a customer as I pay them for internet and they provide it at a very competitive price.

Mind you I don't steal.

You miss the entire point of the article and situation.

TSI should not and cannot defend anyone of Copyright infringement, they have no proof, evidence or right to.

On the same token, Voltage also has no concrete evidence or proof to of Commercial copyright infringement, or more importantly ...ANY PROOF that a person associated with a ISP internet account was the person associated with a 3rd party scan of a torrent Swarm.

For this reason alone, TSI SHOULD be fighting for its Customer PRIVACY rights. I was under the impression that this would be the case...

Marc , without a long winded, legally checked and re checked , informal statement, will TSI be fighting to protect its Customers Privacy come Jan 14 and beyond if necessary.

In my opinion, TSI has every right to fight to protect their Customers privacy, especially against a clearly defunk company that has made copyright trolling an established revenue stream ( if not the only revenue stream ) for its business.

Please keep in mind that TSI is the only one named in the current proceeding to reveal Customer Data........

cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to JohnDoe187

Your saying that Teksavvy has failed its customers and itself, in no way makes it so. Not sure how the summary overtly brings one to that conclusion. All I got from that article and some of the ranting going on here, is that the moniker of "bad guy" has somehow shifted away from Voltage to Teksavvy. I personally think that is a result of simplistic black and white thinking more than anything else. That, and some would prefer to utter their "charge" commands from the safety of their own armchair.

There are obviously issues at hand here that affect everyone to some degree. Blaming teksavvy is just dumb.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To be it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to cmotors

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To me it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.


mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

Saying TSI has failed it's customers is like blaming Ford for not defending you against a speeding ticket.

TSI provides a phenomenal service, what you do with that service is not their problem. If you want it to be their problem, then you can expect all kinds of throttling and firewalling to start happening.

You cannot have a wide open unlimited Internet connection and then complain when that very service brings unwanted attention.

I think people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If you downloaded the content, you are guilty and it is not TSI's problem.
--
Matt


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

I have no problem defending my actions when it comes to it at the second stage but as my service provide who should safe guard my private information do you think it is too much to question the validity of the claims before disclosure? Have you fully ready and understood the claims or seem any concrete evidence?



shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to mattvmotas

LOL...

A small town simplistic approach Matt.

Hell - why not make it an epic battle of good VS bad.

Enjoy feeding the copyright trolls - a man's gotta eat, right?


cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

In my opinion, it is dumb to blame teksavvy. Dumb business decision? That's not a simple answer if you are the one running the business. However, it's far, FAR too easy to say that from the outside looking in. Considering the time that TSI spent researching their options, I wouldn't think they were uninformed or had neglected to weigh all options when making that decision.

said by JohnDoe187:

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To be it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.

As far as I can see, being different and customer friendly is not necessarily mutually exclusive to their decision. Now if Teksavvy had said they were the champions of justice, I would give you the slam dunk on that.

There is merit to the problems expressed with giving Voltage that info. As far as I know, Teksavvy is not disputing that. I don't dispute that either. I disagree with saying that Teksavvy is dumb for remaining neutral. That is a bit simplistic.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

Did you read the article about questioning the validity of the claims and still keep their neutral status? I guess not.


cmotors

join:2011-01-28

said by JohnDoe187:

Did you read the article about questioning the validity of the claims and still keep their neutral status? I guess not.

No. Feel free to post a link to it and I'd be more than happy to read it.

avp77

join:2010-07-10
reply to JohnDoe187

This link isn't going anywhere for me.

edit: fixed link: »business.financialpost.com/2013/···entation

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to cmotors

My apologies see below post by avp77



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to John Doe 188

said by John Doe 188 :

I don't see why you and others around here participating in downloading copywrited works thinks Teksavvy should defend/hide you.

If you value the movies and music then pay for them. Don't steal from the people who created them then expect someone else to pay $$ to defend/hide you.

Teksavvy hasn't failed me as a customer as I pay them for internet and they provide it at a very competitive price.

Mind you I don't steal.

1. You clearly don't understand what theft or stealing is. Feel free to look up the meaning.

2. You're either too young 10 years old and have no clue what you're saying or you're older 60-80 and have no clue how the internet works. No one person with a head on their shoulders would paint everyone as a pirate because they got a magic letter.

Maybe try reading for a change. Several articles not just this one referenced over the last month. There are also several articles, blogs etc from regular folk to lawyers and copyright experts that can explain it your terms as to how your way of thinking is wrong.

Grow up or do your research before you paint "us all" as people who "steal" lol.

said by mattvmotas:

Saying TSI has failed it's customers is like blaming Ford for not defending you against a speeding ticket.

TSI provides a phenomenal service, what you do with that service is not their problem. If you want it to be their problem, then you can expect all kinds of throttling and firewalling to start happening.

You cannot have a wide open unlimited Internet connection and then complain when that very service brings unwanted attention.

I think people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If you downloaded the content, you are guilty and it is not TSI's problem.

Speeding ticket = uh oh, i'm behind the wheel. Yup i was driving. Caught red handed.

Copyright/piracy = uh...no. No proof who was the one doing the downloading and if you have wifi in a house, to be quite honest it can be any billy joe bob who did it from in your house to on the street. Don't be so naive.

How does people assuming their privacy is TSI's problem have ANYTHING to do with throttling, Firewalling ? (odd one) Just for that comment alone you have no clue.

said by cmotors:

said by JohnDoe187:

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

In my opinion, it is dumb to blame teksavvy. Dumb business decision? That's not a simple answer if you are the one running the business. However, it's far, FAR too easy to say that from the outside looking in. Considering the time that TSI spent researching their options, I wouldn't think they were uninformed or had neglected to weigh all options when making that decision.

said by JohnDoe187:

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To be it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.

As far as I can see, being different and customer friendly is not necessarily mutually exclusive to their decision. Now if Teksavvy had said they were the champions of justice, I would give you the slam dunk on that.

There is merit to the problems expressed with giving Voltage that info. As far as I know, Teksavvy is not disputing that. I don't dispute that either. I disagree with saying that Teksavvy is dumb for remaining neutral. That is a bit simplistic.

I think you miss the point. Forget my point, let's just point out several copyright experts and lawyers agree with those of us that find TSI is rolling over.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to cmotors

...


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To me it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.

It's not dumb, it's calculating and deliberate. TSI chose not to fight for proof under the fear of of the trolls targeting them. They figure the fallout would be a few thousand customers and they would proclaim their innocence and concern by CLAIMING they are doing what they have to do by law.

After the 16th, if the customers land under the bus, it's up to us, the ones who use to tout how "great" TSI, to change that tune and make sure that TSI pays the price.

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.
--
Matt



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by mattvmotas:

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.

lol

swampboy

join:2012-01-24
Hamilton, ON
reply to Who7

Teksavvy is living in a dream world if they think Voltage will go away after they get the first set of subscribers names. They will be back at the trough on a regular basis until Teksavvy has no subscribers left.The first ISP that offers no logging or the absolute minimum is where I'll be heading. Teksavvy has already indicated log errors and I don't want to be an innocent victim. I also like to use wifi at my house and I don't want to give that up.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to mattvmotas

Oh wow... Breaking the law would mean the court has ordered a disclosure and TSI has not filed an appeal and continue to not hand over the info. Last I checked none of those has happened.

Is opposing the motion base on validity breaking the law or comprise their neutral status? Seems the experts don't think so, so unless you have a law degree or a lawyer you are just making false claims. I for one is just regurgitating what the SMEs are saying...


cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to Tx

I'm not missing the point, contrary to what you seem to believe. I just disagree with you lot who are putting down teksavvy, regardless of title, creed, social stature, expert knowledge of everything, note from mommy, etc... So you've got a bunch of people that agree with you. I'm sure there is a bunch of people that agree with me too. Big whoop, like that really changes things at the end of the day. 1 million people wrong doesn't make them right, but I guess it's more about feeling superior in numbers than actual logic. I disagree with blaming teksavvy, and that's the only point I'm going to be concerned with. You can spin things however you like, I'm still going to disagree with you. So for you, I'm just going to say that we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

... = waste of perfectly good pixels!


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to mattvmotas

said by mattvmotas:

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.

Because the law requires there is bona fide case before doing so.

Because TSI chose not to go down that route.

Because TSI simply chose to sacrifice customers rather then standing up for privacy.

Because TSI made a cold calculating decision that they could afford to lose those customers rather then spending money on legal costs.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

Oh wow... Breaking the law would mean the court has ordered a disclosure and TSI has not filed an appeal and continue to not hand over the info. Last I checked none of those has happened.

Is opposing the motion base on validity breaking the law or comprise their neutral status? Seems the experts don't think so, so unless you have a law degree or a lawyer you are just making false claims. I for one is just regurgitating what the SMEs are saying...

Just ignore Matt. People like that don't care who is thrown under the bus until it's them. THEN the issue becomes real. People are so hung up on "oh muh gawd, you're downloading a movie, how dare you" while missing the very point to this whole process.

42 people mistakenly notified. That absolutely backfired on TSI no matter how innocent the mistake. THIS was why they asked for more time to notify everyone.

Also it seems Voltage has been arguing that Teksavvy was notified of this long before December 11th and argue that TSI waited too long to notify their customers hoping it'd go away.

Don't worry, if Matt was one of the next round of IP's to be mistakenly identified and now requires legal representation which in his case would be unfair i bet we wouldn't hear about it out of pure embarrassment.

Such a true saying "It's not my problem until it's my problem"

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

Yes, the link posted earlier was to the mobile version, which chokes when you try to load it on a regular PC. As others posted, this link works regardless: »business.financialpost.com/2013/···ntation/

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and calm the F down before posting inflammatory comments. Having said that...

Those affected, and those not affected who still want to voice an opinion, should have done their reading and, at the very least, read the materials that CIPPIC filed in its motion for intervener status. There they set out the reasons they should be allowed to intervene, and they are of some importance.

Basically CIPPIC points out to the court that this case may set precedent that will have wide ramifications and WILL affect the general public, including those of expectations of privacy, use of personal information, interpretation of our new copyright laws, etc, etc, and that NEITHER party to this motion has any interest in defending or addressing the issues of public interest. The ISP's only interest is that of a private business, and to remain neutral, and those of Voltage are also of a private business. Someone has to weigh in on the bigger issues that are coming to play.

So to the people who continue to think this is just a matter of whether somebody downloaded and watched a crappy B movie, please, please, either do more reading or refrain from commenting.

To the people possibly directly affected, try to avoid sounding like a whiner, otherwise nobody will be sympathetic to your cause. You have to understand Teksavvy's position. They got legal advice, and followed it. They don't have to defend you. They gave you ample opportunity to get your own legal advice. It is a rotten situation, their customers are indeed getting screwed by copyright trolls, who might in the process obtain legal precedent that will trample on a bunch of the rights of Canadians in general, but TSI DOESN'T HAVE TO CARE. You can't force anyone to care in this world, much less a corporation. Their duty is to their shareholders, not to you, and if the bean counters said it makes more sense to stay neutral and watch you lose your kid's college fund over this, well, it sucks but it is within their right. All you can do is make your own business decision, based on what YOUR principles are. If you decide to leave, tell them why. TSI can get together with their bean counters later and see if it was worth it. As CIPPIC pointed out, there are much, much bigger issues at stake here, and how this case is handled might affect everyone in Canada. Teksavvy has already chosen what role it wants to play. How the public opinion will judge it will depend on how things work out.