 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to MaynardKrebs
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.
To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets. |
|
| said by hm :Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.
To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets.
Send me your money, I'll be the bookie! LOL |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | No money for you. You must accept virtual non-money.
Knopf just called out David Ellis' puff piece (which I agree with).
Update re Voltage & Teksavvy
»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···vvy.html
For a whole lot of reasons, I don’t have a whole lot of time to spend on David Ellis’ lengthy and largely inaccurate posting about the Voltage case and Teksavvy’s role – or lack thereof - in the current case. Let me simply say: ...continues... |
|
Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| I'll probably add to this post as I go, but I do find this section very interesting:
quote:
A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter
So if I'm using my account to provide internet to my family or tenants then I cannot be held responsible and therefore cannot be named in the suit, should it come to that. One could also stretch this to cover open wifi...... |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
A prominent Privacy advocate in the States caught wind of this one.
It's up on the pogowasright.org website here:
A decision by Teksavvy not to fight a motion puts subscribers’ privacy at risk
»www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666
A Canadian reader alerted me that there’s a hearing scheduled in a Canadian court tomorrow (Monday) that will likely be of interest to this blog’s readers.
Copyright lawyer Harold Knopf provided the background on the case, in which Voltage Pictures’ filed a motion to compel an ISP, Teksavvy, to disclose the names and addresses of 2,000 subscribers who are currently identified only by IP address. The lawsuit is based on P2P filesharing via BitTorrent, and Voltage’s claim states that once it has obtained the Doe defendants’ names and addresses, it will seek a financial accounting of how much they profited by distribution of their works. Because most people are seeding but not actually obtaining direct financial remuneration, I’m not clear where Voltage is going with this, unless they intend to argue that someone who seeds X movies Y times owes them $$$ based on a per movie cost?
Disturbingly, to privacy advocates, subscribers, and Howard, the ISP decided not to fight the motion. Knopf wrote: ...
..... continues over at »www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666
Tomorrows court date sure is going to be interesting to follow. So many people have eyes on this one. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | As far as I can tell, the three links to follow for today's court hearing will be:
»twitter.com/pandersen
»twitter.com/RessyM
»twitter.com/johnDowntownTO
I am unsure if any of these people will be allowed to live-tweet during the court proceedings (Requires the court to identify you as a journalist).
Anyone know of any other feeds to follow?
Good luck to all, and thanks Ressy for taking time out of your life to head over to the court to keep us all informed! Much appreciated.
Privacy Versus Piracy Starts at 11-am. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | John said he wouldn't be here for this one, that he'd be following me.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.
In addition, there might be more added costs.
---
Good for them! |
|
|
|
 dillyhammerA. Good. Start.Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9
·Start Communicat..
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| said by hm :Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.
In addition, there might be more added costs.
---
Good for them!
Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?
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 |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by dillyhammer:Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?
Mike
190k is well beyond what they can get out of these lawsuits after their costs are factored in.
I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
Reviews:
·TELUS
| reply to El Quintron
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued Barry Logan is quoted as saying "Rumour has it that some ISPs are asking anywhere from $40 to $200 per address for IP address reconciliation. For even a modest request for 1,000 records is going to cost a fortune. At $40 per address it’s absurd. At $200 it’s impossible."
So... yeah  |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.
And by my guesstimate of accountings, that is letting them off cheap.
Only comes to around 95$/IP. I was stating since the beginning it should be above $100-150.
But TSI also added there could be more costs. So good.
So at least we know Voltages legal team wants about $2000 per court appearance.
So guess that brings them up to $4,000 dollars now, then a hearing to see if CIPPIC should be granted, so $6,000. And that's just to get the ball rolling in regards to what the judge said, "to try and get this right".
Unless Voltages lawyers are working pro-bono (or accepting a cut from the extortion), voltage will be out of pocket an easy $215k before they get a name.
But voltage will still make a nice profit if they get those names. |
|
Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal | Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by Nitra:Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.
That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.
1. Voltage will leave owing money
2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.
3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine". |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by hm :said by Nitra:Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.
That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out. 1. Voltage will leave owing money 2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person. 3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine". The issue of whether or not Voltage is going to sue should also be a matter argued before the courts. If there is no intention to sue then they have no right to the names in the first place. Why is no one arguing PIPEDA in this case? |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by rednekcowboy:said by hm :said by Nitra:Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.
That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out. 1. Voltage will leave owing money 2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person. 3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine". The issue of whether or not Voltage is going to sue should also be a matter argued before the courts. If there is no intention to sue then they have no right to the names in the first place. Why is no one arguing PIPEDA in this case? Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| said by resa1983:Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.
How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA? This is what we are talking about, correct? Customer's privacy and whether or not to disclose this information? If it doesn't meet the guidlines outlined in the act itself it most definitely has merit. |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by rednekcowboy:How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA?
Precedent: As in it's already been argued, and it was not seen as valid then.
Remember these proceedings are about Voltage seeking damages, as far as Voltage sees it the courts are probably not their only recourse to seek damages. (eg: Extortion letters)
Teksavvy, I think, by setting a bill of 190K for IP lookups is trying to make this route as unappealing as possible to Voltage, but to say that Voltage's only option is to sue you in a court of law is probably the legal equivalent of walking across the street without looking both ways.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
