dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
11960
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0 to Gimli

Member

to Gimli

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

said by Gimli:

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........

this is about a privacy act to protect citizens of canada and there data and information from predatory uses. Ask yourself why did voltage after finally getting data from bell drop the case?

Also in siting the above case law one also needs to understand the rule of said law has changed dramatically.

and this is easy to show in court
you get 5 people 1 dressed up like a girl and all wearing masks that completely cover there faces
put one of the offending ips on there front sweater
and say can you tell which is fred
( and have fred the one thats actually dressed up in a skirt )
then you can say and thus sir you cannot reasonably tell me any ip address can be said to be without reasonable doubt one is doing anything.
AINT law grand....

cause thats how it is police need a warrant to enter a specific room in a rooming house they dont just get one warrant and search the whole house.
The Mongoose
join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

The Mongoose to Voltage

Member

to Voltage
said by Voltage:

i dont mean to lower the level of discussion or anything, but i just got into this. i am under the impression even if there was copyright infringement, we would get warnings/notices from the ISP BEFORE all this court stuff.

is that not what the new copyright laws say? (as well as the limit cap, which Voltage is going FAR over btw.....)

That's not lowering the level of discussion, those are valid questions.

My understanding is there is no legal requirement for notification. TSI got the time to notify everyone affected in exchange for a promise not to oppose Voltage's motion for a court order. In the future, other ISPs might choose to fight such a motion, but if they lose and such an order is issued, those named won't find out until after their privacy has been violated.

As for the cap, Voltage is trying to sue under the commercial statute, which has caps far exceeding the $5,000 limit for non-commercial infringement. To do this, however, they would have to show that the defendant(s) intended to profit financially from the sale of the stolen works. This is ludicrous, of course, but Voltage's strategy is to extort money through threatening letters, not through actual lawsuits. The higher the threat, the easier the extortion. This will likely be a key point of attack in tomorrow's hearing if CIPPIC is granted intervenor status.

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero

Premium Member

quote:
Voltage's strategy is to extort money through threatening letters, not through actual lawsuits.
^ This ^

And to do that they need to scare the living 5#17 outa you first!

TraderOne
@teksavvy.com

TraderOne to The Mongoose

Anon

to The Mongoose
said by The Mongoose:

That's not lowering the level of discussion, those are valid questions.

My understanding is there is no legal requirement for notification. TSI got the time to notify everyone affected in exchange for a promise not to oppose Voltage's motion for a court order. In the future, other ISPs might choose to fight such a motion, but if they lose and such an order is issued, those named won't find out until after their privacy has been violated.

Where do you get this info about "In the future, other ISPs might choose to fight such a motion, but if they lose and such an order is issued, those named won't find out until after their privacy has been violated." ?

Can you fight such a motion and notify your customers at the same time ?
Voltage
join:2013-01-13

Voltage to The Mongoose

Member

to The Mongoose
said by The Mongoose:

said by Voltage:

i dont mean to lower the level of discussion or anything, but i just got into this. i am under the impression even if there was copyright infringement, we would get warnings/notices from the ISP BEFORE all this court stuff.

is that not what the new copyright laws say? (as well as the limit cap, which Voltage is going FAR over btw.....)

That's not lowering the level of discussion, those are valid questions.

My understanding is there is no legal requirement for notification. TSI got the time to notify everyone affected in exchange for a promise not to oppose Voltage's motion for a court order. In the future, other ISPs might choose to fight such a motion, but if they lose and such an order is issued, those named won't find out until after their privacy has been violated.

As for the cap, Voltage is trying to sue under the commercial statute, which has caps far exceeding the $5,000 limit for non-commercial infringement. To do this, however, they would have to show that the defendant(s) intended to profit financially from the sale of the stolen works. This is ludicrous, of course, but Voltage's strategy is to extort money through threatening letters, not through actual lawsuits. The higher the threat, the easier the extortion. This will likely be a key point of attack in tomorrow's hearing if CIPPIC is granted intervenor status.

oh so customers dont get warnings before all this legal action? that sucks. even draconian US laws are giving some 6 strike system or w/e. but Canadians can just get blindsided like this?
Voltage

Voltage to The Mongoose

Member

to The Mongoose
dp/mybad
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to Voltage

Premium Member

to Voltage
said by Voltage:

i dont mean to lower the level of discussion or anything, but i just got into this. i am under the impression even if there was copyright infringement, we would get warnings/notices from the ISP BEFORE all this court stuff.

is that not what the new copyright laws say? (as well as the limit cap, which Voltage is going FAR over btw.....)

Our new copyright law needs to have regulations attached to it. We have the law itself (about 6 months ago), but the regulations have yet to be published. The notice-and-notice part is supposed (we hope) to be in the accompanying regulations. So insofar as the action in court today, we're operating in a twilight zone as far as the *whole* law/regulation thing is concerned.
Voltage
join:2013-01-13

Voltage

Member

imo, it looks like Voltage is trying to take advantage of that technicality. just to get money. in doing so, blatantly flying in the face of Canadian law and what it intended...i am even more astonished by this entire issue.

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
Following feed... TSI giving Voltage the straight arm... lol
Dunlop
join:2011-07-13

Dunlop

Member

yeah following it on Twitter, better than a TV drama ; )

MFido
Montreal
join:2012-10-19

MFido

Member

a telenovela with Canadian flavor
Bugblndr
join:2010-03-02
Burlington, ON

Bugblndr to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
Adjournment granted. It seems to me that TekSavvy fought pretty hard for the privacy of their customers.

MFido
Montreal
join:2012-10-19

MFido

Member

after following all the tweets ... agree with you 100%
The Mongoose
join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

The Mongoose

Member

Yup. TSI might not be technically "opposing" the motion but they're doing everything they can to enable CIPPIC and make Voltage's life miserable and expensive. Adjournment is definitely good news, as is the judge's statement that unopposed motions are dangerous. Sounds like CIPPIC will get a fair crack at this.
Voltage
join:2013-01-13

Voltage to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
i agree. i didnt feel let down by teksavvy at all.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to JohnDoe187

MVM

to JohnDoe187
Unless I'm reading this wrong, TekSavvy did raise in court the issues with the validity of Voltage's evidence. At this point you could say pretty conclusively that TekSavvy is opposing the motion, despite their earlier statement that they would not.

I'm note sure why they've changed their minds. Perhaps due to the public pressure they've been getting over this, perhaps they looked deeper into it and realized how flimsy Voltage's request is, perhaps they're worried that the motion being granted would be a slippery slope situation or invite other trolls to do the same?
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
It would be a slippery slope for them to all of a sudden oppose it. It would open them up to breach of contract. As I mentioned way back when, they can still express their concerns and support an adjournment without opposing the motion.

It's sort of what I expected to happen which was for them to run interference without getting involved and opening them up to lawsuits from voltage.
The Mongoose
join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

The Mongoose to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
I'm not sure about this Gus, but I think perhaps there is a technical definition of "opposing" a motion (ie you have to declare your opposition to the court). It seems that TSI hasn't done this since the judge did mention that the motion is unopposed. But yes, they are definitely putting up walls designed to slow Voltage down and prevent or at least delay the release of customer information.

MFido
Montreal
join:2012-10-19

MFido to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
Should the title of this discussion be changed?

Suggestion: "A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers"
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by MFido:

Should the title of this discussion be changed?

Suggestion: "A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers"

"A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers, including Notice-and-Notice where it isn't actually in the full legislation yet, the taking on of the nasty Troll of Hollywood, and how Marc looks hot in tights (or so I've been told)"
MoreFaxes
join:2002-09-27
United

MoreFaxes to The Mongoose

Member

to The Mongoose
said by The Mongoose:

I'm not sure about this Gus, but I think perhaps there is a technical definition of "opposing" a motion (ie you have to declare your opposition to the court). It seems that TSI hasn't done this since the judge did mention that the motion is unopposed. But yes, they are definitely putting up walls designed to slow Voltage down and prevent or at least delay the release of customer information.

Does "unopposed" mean "silently agreed by default"?

I see many people posting celebratory messages... but the same thing may happen in March 2013, the information may still be released at that time because it was not opposed or dismissed. It is simply postponed.

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
In the context of the relatively new Copyright Act the judge said it is important to get this right because the Act is new. Having arguments heard from both sides allows the judge to come to better informed decision. One side missing, could be some important details overlooked.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by AkFubar:

In the context of the relatively new Copyright Act the judge said it is important to get this right because the Act is new. Having arguments heard from both sides allows the judge to come to better informed decision. One side missing, could be some important details overlooked.

A correct interpretation.
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON

Gami00 to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Unless I'm reading this wrong, TekSavvy did raise in court the issues with the validity of Voltage's evidence. At this point you could say pretty conclusively that TekSavvy is opposing the motion, despite their earlier statement that they would not.

I'm pretty sure TSI did this to have it on "record" on how in-accurate the data that voltage got, and crossing referencing even to their simple IP logs actually is.

It makes really good valid point that using IPs to solely identify someone is woefully inept.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to MFido

Premium Member

to MFido
said by MFido:

a telenovela with Canadian flavor

But where were the bare-breasted women?
Cue JF