dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11704
share rss forum feed


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

reply to BigVe

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

said by BigVe:

Privacy, Pirating....in your case it all boils out to same answer.By the way... I was just suggesting something that would maybe help You out in the future.Call me a fool if you like but in this case you are THE Fool

C'mon now, lets not resort to school yard antics. Name calling resolves nothing.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to BigVe
said by BigVe:

Quit whining and use VPN & a Seedbox/server that will take care of (most) of your problems.Hard to understand why so many Teksavvy customers blame them for your own piracy.Grow up and get on with life

And the 42 mistakenly notified must be pirates since afterall they were notifiedof their activities. Those mistakenly 42 could be none next tine or maybe 300. As long as they use a seedbox right

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to zinc
@Zinc:

In this case, TSI is wading into dangerous territory with their decision to not oppose. The real can of warms is when TSI has to obligation to PIPEDA and does something that violates it (i.e giving information away without consent). This gets even more slippery since the data being requested is definitely intended not for the purpose of legal remedy by third parties and is not mandated by law to be retained for that purpose. If you were one of the 2000, I would have consulted a lawyer and gone the route of seeing if you were being wronged by TSI's motion to not oppose / filing a complaint against them for not doing their due diligence with respect to PIPEDA.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to Atticka
said by Atticka:

Now this, Copyright and privacy. This is not what Teksavvy is in business for, they have no reason for being pro or against Copyright notices and a decision either way does not affect their business model.

Privacy is a sticky situation, its a massive fight, much bigger than UBB or throttling that has MUCH wider consequences across Canada. I don't think Teksavvy has the resource or the fortitude to fight this fight, as a result they have backed down.

You're right. TSI isn't in the business of protecting every Canadian's privacy. It's not their job, and I don't expect them to do that. But it is their business to protect their customers' privacy, according to the conditions set forth by the privacy agreement. I'm a TSI customer, and I'd like it if TSI protected my privacy.

Whatever comes Monday, what's done is done. No use crying about that. But now that all the arguments have been said, it's clear that TSI's decision was a mistake. In a way, the fact that Voltage only asked for 2,300 names as a test of the new laws is a good thing for TSI. It means if there's backlash for TSI, it's going to be limited to those 2,300 people. Imagine if Voltage had asked for every IP's they collected, and TSI made the same decision they did here. Backlash for that kind of volume would have meant outright bankruptcy literally. No option to do different in the future. But now, TSI has the option to do different in the future, if there's a follow-up motion by Voltage for the rest of the collected IP's, or by any other troll. Then, TSI can finally set this thing straight.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to BigVe
I'll play the part of the polite Canadian and say the following;

BigVe,

Please don't take offense to people being offended to your post. It was a little offensive / accusatory to those you intentionally or unintentionally offended. I highly recommend you read about why people are so angry about their rights being violated and how this really has nothing to do with piracy. Pirates will also find a way to pirate things but even a pirate has basic legal rights that must be observed by all parties seeking to bring them to court.


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
reply to Tx
I think we can all agree, Voltage is the copyright troll starting this mess in the first place.

Rather than raging against TSI we should be focusing our efforts on Voltage and their missuse of our court system. Who let them in the country in the first place? How do we stop them from trolling fellow citizens?


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Atticka:

I think we can all agree, Voltage is the copyright troll starting this mess in the first place.

Rather than raging against TSI we should be focusing our efforts on Voltage and their missuse of our court system. Who let them in the country in the first place? How do we stop them from trolling fellow citizens?

Problem is things in this country move so slow that how many people will now have to defend themselves. This was only a motion to disclose. It should have been challanged. Truly innocent people will now have to hire a lawyer.

We shouldnt need a rainy day fund incase if you really are innocent get extortion letters

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to JohnDoe187
One last point about TSI's decision and their reasons for it.

The reason TSI gave for their decision was to give its customers time to prepare for the motion to disclose. Doesn't make sense. Like I said, it's not TSI's customers' duty to uphold TSI's part of the privacy agreement by opposing the motion to disclose. So why give us time to prepare? Doesn't make sense. If motion to disclose is granted to Voltage, then all names cited will get notified by Voltage, and they'll have time to prepare. It's not like once the "pay-or-else" notices go out to all those people, it's for the very next day or something like that. And it's not like if those people refuse to pay, they'll have to present themselves in court the very next day. They'll have time to prepare no matter what decision TSI makes. And TSI could have sent notices to all their cited customers anyway, for whatever good that would have done, and still opposed the motion. It's not like TSI was prevented from sending out notices to their customers.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
reply to Tx
said by Tx:

said by Atticka:

I think we can all agree, Voltage is the copyright troll starting this mess in the first place.

Rather than raging against TSI we should be focusing our efforts on Voltage and their missuse of our court system. Who let them in the country in the first place? How do we stop them from trolling fellow citizens?

Problem is things in this country move so slow that how many people will now have to defend themselves. This was only a motion to disclose. It should have been challanged. Truly innocent people will now have to hire a lawyer.

We shouldnt need a rainy day fund incase if you really are innocent get extortion letters

I completely agree, there is no reason an innocent should be forced in to court to defend themselves. Unfortunately this happens often and why we award court fees to the wrongfully accused (and acquitted).

Hopefully it won't come to this, but I believe it will.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to m3chen
said by m3chen:

Giving away data without making damn sure that those accused actually did the deed is going to be something that will come back to haunt TSI and their existing customer base.

And just how would TSI know THAT unless they logged every site you went to and instituted an ALL-DPI all-the-time regime??

Be careful what you wish for.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

1 edit
reply to JohnDoe187
One last detail about all of this.

Who's duty is it to verify that the information requested is accurate? It's a trick question. Let me make it clear how tricky it really is.

Who's duty is it to make sure the right person is accused? If you answered "the prosecution", you win a timbit. Therefore, the duty to verify that the information requested is accurate lies with Voltage. So why did TSI verify the information requested, and in doing so became the de facto agent of Voltage? This is truly f'ed up.

In fact, the only reason TSI would have to verify the information requested would be to have the opportunity to notify those customers who's information is inaccurate first so they can prepare an appropriate response "No, we won't pay. Take us to court.", and second to notify their customers who's information was accurate so they can prepare an appropriate response "No, we won't pay. Take us to court." But in no way no how does TSI have the obligation to reveal the results of their own verification of the information to Voltage at any point in time from now to the end of time, and in fact has the obligation to keep these results secret unless to be used for the purpose of cross-examination.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to Atticka
said by Atticka:

I think we can all agree, Voltage is the copyright troll starting this mess in the first place.

Rather than raging against TSI we should be focusing our efforts on Voltage and their missuse of our court system. Who let them in the country in the first place? How do we stop them from trolling fellow citizens?

Legal trolls will ALWAYS find a way. So it's up to those who have our private information to keep it private.

Outside this field, let's say.........if someone comes in and wants me to sell something on consignment, and I did sell it to another person, I'm not going to give you their name just because you said it's yours. If you go to court to get it, I'm not going to simply hand it over unless there is reasonable proof you own it and not just your word. I'm going to put up a reasonable fight to protect someone privacy. Where is your receipt and serial number? You don't have any? Why should I disclose that information to you? You have to have some bona fide proof you were wronged. At the very least, I'm going to ask the judge to ask you for that proof.

What TSI said in this case, here is the customer who bought it, you and him, go figire it out.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

One last detail about all of this.

Who's duty is it to verify that the information requested is accurate? It's a trick question. Let me make it clear how tricky it really is.

Who's duty is it to make sure the right person is accused? If you answered "the prosecution", you win a timbit. Therefore, the duty to verify that the information requested is accurate lies with Voltage. So why did TSI verify the information requested, and in doing so became the de facto agent of Voltage? This is truly f'ed up.

Yep. Difficult to know who to believe.

»Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to JonyBelGeul
In total agreement it's ridiculous for TSI to oppose for time... It's not a pay the next day or else letter. That's I've been saying ppl were mislead to believe TSI is some sort of heroic ISP... They opposed because their own IT team f* up the discovery.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to BigVe
Actually you are the fool f you think you are completely safe with a VPN.. Keep pirating fool.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to TSI Marc
You've got to find a way, man. I'm no expert and I find all kinds of ways, and then I read the experts repeat the same arguments I found.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

cynic10

join:2011-02-05
reply to JohnDoe187
I'm always curious to know.

Why don't ISP charge those copyright trolls who request information a fee? As it takes resources and man power of ISP to gather all those information requested. It's like ISPs just bend over and give those trolls what they want at their own expense, I never get that.

I'm sure that would greatly reduce the cases sent out. I remember some ISP in some country did that and the effects was fewer request by the trolls since it costs them money to spam those ridiculous request.

Trencher

join:2007-02-12
Etobicoke, ON
reply to John Doe 188
Copy, the word is copy... to steal something would require the original owner to no longer have the item.

Secondly, its perfectly legal to "download" a file.. the illegal part is the uploading of the file.

Trencher

join:2007-02-12
Etobicoke, ON
reply to JohnDoe187
Actually if we lived in a communist society then everyone would have the right to have it... hence what "socialism" is. Communism works on an "all or nothing" way of thinking... there are no haves and have nots.. there are either all haves or all nots.

Trencher

join:2007-02-12
Etobicoke, ON
reply to mattvmotas
Except in that analogy the cop in this case has no info regarding the driver except for the colour of the car and how fast it was going.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to cynic10
said by cynic10:

I'm always curious to know.

Why don't ISP charge those copyright trolls who request information a fee? As it takes resources and man power of ISP to gather all those information requested. It's like ISPs just bend over and give those trolls what they want at their own expense, I never get that.

I'm sure that would greatly reduce the cases sent out. I remember some ISP in some country did that and the effects was fewer request by the trolls since it costs them money to spam those ridiculous request.


--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to cynic10
said by cynic10:

I'm always curious to know.

Why don't ISP charge those copyright trolls who request information a fee? As it takes resources and man power of ISP to gather all those information requested. It's like ISPs just bend over and give those trolls what they want at their own expense, I never get that.

I'm sure that would greatly reduce the cases sent out. I remember some ISP in some country did that and the effects was fewer request by the trolls since it costs them money to spam those ridiculous request.

Bet they charge them but they will recover the sum from the 2000+ .

Say if Teksavvy follows Rogers...$200 a piece....that is more than $400,000 ...no wonder they are not against the motion.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Trencher
said by Trencher:

Except in that analogy the cop in this case has no info regarding the driver except for the colour of the car and how fast it was going.

Good way to look at that analogy... It's pretty damn compariable to "it was a white audi looked about 2006-2010".... Pull over the first 10, in the area it'll be good enough.

Either way, it's a weird analogy. I love when people compare this stuff to cars or worst of all food lol


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to JohnDoe187
You should update the link OP... it doesn't work.

I'm assuming this is the one you wanted?
»business.financialpost.com/2013/ ··· ntation/

I never had a chance to read it until now since i've been typing off the phone all day. Home now and so far an interesting read.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to apvm
said by apvm:

said by cynic10:

I'm always curious to know.

Why don't ISP charge those copyright trolls who request information a fee? As it takes resources and man power of ISP to gather all those information requested. It's like ISPs just bend over and give those trolls what they want at their own expense, I never get that.

I'm sure that would greatly reduce the cases sent out. I remember some ISP in some country did that and the effects was fewer request by the trolls since it costs them money to spam those ridiculous request.

Bet they charge them but they will recover the sum from the 2000+ .

Say if Teksavvy follows Rogers...$200 a piece....that is more than $400,000 ...no wonder they are not against the motion.

Cash cow if that's the case for all parties involved except the individuals accused. NOT guilty yet, but accused. Have fun account holders. I don't expect it to be a smooth ride.

quote:
“Right now it’s interesting that the focus has shifted at least for the moment from Voltage over to TekSavvy and why they’re not opposing the motion for mass disclosure when Shaw and Telus did,” said Howard Knopf, a copyright lawyer with the Ottawa firm Macera & Jarzyna LLP who also operates the Excess Copyright blog.
quote:
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.”

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

2 edits
reply to JohnDoe187

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

said by JohnDoe187:

...... but I pay good money for the service.

You'd pay even more money to Bell or Rogers for less protection. Perhaps that would make you happier?

TSI may not be perfect.
TSI may not be getting the legal advice you think is appropriate, or pursuing a strategy you think appropriate.
But you are getting more concern and consideration from TSI than Rogers or Bell would EVER show you.

Whatever you may think, TSI has made it possible for you to have your own legal representation - representing no one else's interest but yours to the Court -- BEFORE any possibility of your PI information being handed over to a troll.

The incumbents of today would sell you out so fast it would make your head spin, and that my friend is a fact of life.
TSI has not done that to you, whatever you may think.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by JohnDoe187:

...... but I pay good money for the service.

You'd pay even more money to Bell or Rogers for less protection. Perhaps that would make you happier?

TSI may not be perfect.
TSI may not be getting the legal advice you think is appropriate, or pursuing a strategy you think appropriate.
But you are getting more concern and consideration from TSI than Rogers or Bell would EVER show you.

Whatever you may think, TSI has made it possible for you to have your own legal representation - representing no one else's interest but yours to the Court -- BEFORE any possibility of your PI information being handed over to a troll.

The incumbents of today would sell you out so fast it would make your head spin, and that my friend is a fact of life.
TSI has not done that to you, whatever you may think.

According to copyright lawyer Howard Knopf, Telus and Shaw did defend their customers privacy.


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
It looks like whenever someone question Teksavvy's decision on protecting customers' privacy. Fan boys answer is always Teksavvy should not protect customers' piracy. Was it just typo mistakes or Fan boys' ignorance?

According to Howard Knopf : “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.”
Expand your moderator at work


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to apvm

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

said by apvm:

According to Howard Knopf : “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.”

But it's right for Knopf to assume.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy