dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
67
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 edit

resa1983 to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

A good read from David Ellis.
»www.davidellis.ca/why-is ··· voltage/
EDIT: I so can't type today.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

said by resa1983:

A good read from David Ellis.
»www.davidellis.ca/why-is ··· voltage/
EDIT: I so can't type today.

This guy does more quoting of other articles that it makes it really boring to read his blog. He's ranting about everything and in the end lost interest.
quote:
Meanwhile, the role TS has allegedly chosen to play was still news as of Thursday in the Financial Post. Legal reporter Christine Dobby writes that TekSavvy has no plans to challenge the film studios motion material as others have in the past. Does she mean no plans ever to challenge? If so, how would she know? Yes, Marc posted a long item on DSLreports about why TekSavvy was not planning to oppose the Voltage motion. But he wrote that almost a month ago and life has moved on since.
So because Marc publicly announced their plans on blog, email, CBC, that means what Christine Dobby assumes is wrong? Cause "so much time has passed" ? lmao.

This blog is a mess. So Marc lied to the courts about an extension to go to court monday with a 007 trick up his sleeve? Give me a break. Marc was transparent about it for a reason. He flat out said the plan.

As i said this blog is an absolute mess
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Tx:
Let me just state that I didn't see this Christine Dobby in the court room for the first hearing. 2nd or 3rd hand information is notoriously suspect. David however was in the courtroom sitting beside me, and taking a TON of notes.

As for Teksavvy's plans not to fight the court order... Marc may have publicly announced not to fight it before the first court date, but circumstances changed, and they did fight it a bit during the first court hearing. Teksavvy's lawyers gave multiple reasons as to why they were fighting it as well. The judge also gave multiple reasons as to why he was adjourning it, all of which were Teksavvy's reasons for fighting the court order.

There were multiple reasons as to the extension. Circumstances changed from between when the original post was made, and the court date. None of which were lies.

I really would read David's post and think about it..

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
Linksys WRT1900AC
SmartRG SR505N
Huawei HG612

apvm

Member

said by resa1983:

Tx:
Let me just state that I didn't see this Christine Dobby in the court room for the first hearing. 2nd or 3rd hand information is notoriously suspect. David however was in the courtroom sitting beside me, and taking a TON of notes.

As for Teksavvy's plans not to fight the court order... Marc may have publicly announced not to fight it before the first court date, but circumstances changed, and they did fight it a bit during the first court hearing. Teksavvy's lawyers gave multiple reasons as to why they were fighting it as well. The judge also gave multiple reasons as to why he was adjourning it, all of which were Teksavvy's reasons for fighting the court order.

There were multiple reasons as to the extension. Circumstances changed from between when the original post was made, and the court date. None of which were lies.

I really would read David's post and think about it..

They did not fight for their customers but fight for themselves because they made a mistake and send the notice to more than 40 of their customers.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by apvm:

said by resa1983:

Tx:
Let me just state that I didn't see this Christine Dobby in the court room for the first hearing. 2nd or 3rd hand information is notoriously suspect. David however was in the courtroom sitting beside me, and taking a TON of notes.

As for Teksavvy's plans not to fight the court order... Marc may have publicly announced not to fight it before the first court date, but circumstances changed, and they did fight it a bit during the first court hearing. Teksavvy's lawyers gave multiple reasons as to why they were fighting it as well. The judge also gave multiple reasons as to why he was adjourning it, all of which were Teksavvy's reasons for fighting the court order.

There were multiple reasons as to the extension. Circumstances changed from between when the original post was made, and the court date. None of which were lies.

I really would read David's post and think about it..

They did not fight for you but fight for themselves because they made a mistake and send the notice to more than 40 of their customers.

Which they didn't need to do. They could have started the IP -> customer name, and had it ready & waiting for when the court order was handed out. By law, Teksavvy doesn't even need to inform you until after the court order's signed because Notice and Notice isn't law yet.

That has happened twice now with other copytroll suits in the last 1 1/2 years.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Tx:
Let me just state that I didn't see this Christine Dobby in the court room for the first hearing. 2nd or 3rd hand information is notoriously suspect. David however was in the courtroom sitting beside me, and taking a TON of notes.

As for Teksavvy's plans not to fight the court order... Marc may have publicly announced not to fight it before the first court date, but circumstances changed, and they did fight it a bit during the first court hearing. Teksavvy's lawyers gave multiple reasons as to why they were fighting it as well. The judge also gave multiple reasons as to why he was adjourning it, all of which were Teksavvy's reasons for fighting the court order.

There were multiple reasons as to the extension. Circumstances changed from between when the original post was made, and the court date. None of which were lies.

I really would read David's post and think about it..

Unfortunately for Marc and his transparency model with TSI, he has not publicly stated any other plans other then to give up the information. Doesn't matter who was in the courtroom. Customers go by the 1, the only public announcement the CEO posts.

Sorry, i tried reading David's post, he over quotes. He may not normally write like that, but that post is as i said a mess. I enjoy a good read, don't get me wrong. Both sides of the fence but that blog wasn't a blog. It wasn't very different then quoting someone on here and answering it.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by Tx:

Sorry, i tried reading David's post, he over quotes. He may not normally write like that, but that post is as i said a mess. I enjoy a good read, don't get me wrong. Both sides of the fence but that blog wasn't a blog. It wasn't very different then quoting someone on here and answering it.

If you're dissatisfied with the efforts of others, perhaps you could write something which clearly articulates the position of each party to this saga - from day 1 through to the present, including citations of the relevant laws and their interpretations through your own lens, and critique those whom in your opinion have failed miserably, failed moderately, done neither good not evil, or perhaps have the clearest understanding of the correct way forward in this matter. Please elucidate on your efforts to bring superior litigators to the table, including minutes of the calls you made and the discussions therein. I smell "Pulitzer" in this for you.

If, on the other hand, if you're just blowing Bronx cheers from the cheap seats........ kindly let those who are actually paying for legal representation. at great expense, have their say in court before you ride to the rescue.

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

2 edits

Tx

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Tx:

Sorry, i tried reading David's post, he over quotes. He may not normally write like that, but that post is as i said a mess. I enjoy a good read, don't get me wrong. Both sides of the fence but that blog wasn't a blog. It wasn't very different then quoting someone on here and answering it.

If you're dissatisfied with the efforts of others, perhaps you could write something which clearly articulates the position of each party to this saga - from day 1 through to the present, including citations of the relevant laws and their interpretations through your own lens, and critique those whom in your opinion have failed miserably, failed moderately, done neither good not evil, or perhaps have the clearest understanding of the correct way forward in this matter. Please elucidate on your efforts to bring superior litigators to the table, including minutes of the calls you made and the discussions therein. I smell "Pulitzer" in this for you.

If, on the other hand, if you're just blowing Bronx cheers from the cheap seats........ kindly let those who are actually paying for legal representation. at great expense, have their say in court before you ride to the rescue.

Wow dude, you seriously need to take a step back. I was commenting that i could not continue reading a blog and you go on like this?

Take a step back because your version of a allegorical quote from wiki was rather odd, to then this post over my thoughts on a blog.

Get over yourself. I at least remain objective to this ISP unlike others who feel like the love of their life is being attacked.

I commented on a blog and you blow smoke like i just shot Teksavvy's dog.