|
Proud of TSI for it's actions in Jan 14th hearingYou stood up for our privacy.
Thank you Marc. |
|
|
+1 |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six Premium Member join:2011-03-31 Toronto, ON |
to JMJimmy
|
|
MFidoMontreal join:2012-10-19 |
to JMJimmy
as I am a fanboy .... +10 |
|
|
to JMJimmy
Where can we find out what happened today? Is it still going on? |
|
|
This is the link for the tweets about the court hearing: » [Twitter] Ressy | PAnderson| MGeist | SVILaw |
|
|
to d_source
said by d_source:Where can we find out what happened today? Is it still going on? » [Twitter] Ressy | PAnderson| MGeist | SVILawAdjourned for today |
|
Jaxom join:2012-03-10 East York, ON |
to JMJimmy
That is a lot of money Teksavvy has spent fighting these copyright trolls. Much thanks.
I am not one of the defendants but I still appreciate the fact that Teksavvy didn't just hand over our personal information. |
|
|
to JMJimmy
|
|
kahhnn join:2003-07-16 North York, ON |
to JMJimmy
Way to go! You sure had a lot of folks worried TS but at the end of the day you certainly did go to bat to protect customers privacy.
Big thanks to folks like Jason K, TX and others for your decent posts on this forum, I found most of it very informative.
Cheers! |
|
EHTL join:2002-10-31 Canada |
to JMJimmy
Thank you TSI. |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
to JMJimmy
WOOT TSI! A nice measured response to Voltage. Just enough pressure. I do hope the court will allow you to recover costs in this fiasco tho. |
|
|
|
They still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion. |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
to JMJimmy
Well TSI counsel did demand assurances of privacy from Voltage. |
|
|
True, they earned some points with me today but the lack of being willing to oppose the motion, Lost them alot of points p:) |
|
|
to morisato
said by morisato:They still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion. As Ak said, they did request assurances of privacy. They also backed up CIPPIC, took issue with the affidavit from Barry Logan, but more than that they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. If TSI was able to associate 75% or more the odds are heavily in Voltages favour - at 50% it makes it that much harder for Voltage to claim their information is accurate. Combine 50% with all the arguments against IP info that means they've got a serious uphill battle that they're probably not prepared to fight. |
|
|
to JMJimmy
The techdirt article seems to say as much as the battle is not going to be easy for Voltage and the judge seems to actually concerned with the issues. That is the most important. |
|
|
to JMJimmy
Why celebrating? I don't see it.
1. The lawsuit is not terminated. It is simply postponed. 2. TSI's log is inaccurate and incomplete, by their own admission. Any TSI customer can potentially be wrongfully accused. Weren't there 40 mistaken ID from the last count? So anyone is at risk, including the law abiding netizens that never ever used a P2P.
So why are we still celebrating again? |
|
|
drjp81
Member
2013-Jan-14 2:42 pm
said by MoreFaxes:Why celebrating? I don't see it.
1. The lawsuit is not terminated. It is simply postponed. 2. TSI's log is inaccurate and incomplete, by their own admission. Any TSI customer can potentially be wrongfully accused. Weren't there 40 mistaken ID from the last count? So anyone is at risk, including the law abiding netizens that never ever used a P2P.
So why are we still celebrating again? Because we made progress towards real justice. Which is what anyone wants. |
|
|
to morisato
said by morisato:They still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion. This....The only good news that I saw coming out of court today is that at least TSI is working with CIPPIC and advocating for them to intervene in the case. Come to think of it, isn't that a little better actually? While I still wish TSI simply opposed the motion which would have stopped it dead in the water, at least an expert and pro-internet group such as CIPPIC is now involved in the case and in TSI's corner... |
|
|
Dr Facts to MoreFaxes
Anon
2013-Jan-14 2:49 pm
to MoreFaxes
said by MoreFaxes:So why are we still celebrating again? Because Voltage, once again, has not gotten what they wanted. Their game plan was simple, slip into court, get the names and numbers, send off their letters of extortion, sort through the responses and collect the windfall. Quick, clean and cheap. Now they've opened up a can of worms, they have at least one more court date that has gotten a lot more complex. Complex = more time and money spent = less easy troll profit. They're not beaten but they've just gotten a shot to the nose and I promise you it's stinging them. |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON
1 recommendation |
HiVolt
Premium Member
2013-Jan-14 2:53 pm
It would be hilarious if their request is eventually denied, and they are forced to pay up the costs TSI incurred in looking up these IP's and notifying customers, not to mention loss of business due to those customers potentially cancelling, and potential new customers not deciding to sign up. |
|
|
to MoreFaxes
said by MoreFaxes:Why celebrating? I don't see it.
1. The lawsuit is not terminated. It is simply postponed. 2. TSI's log is inaccurate and incomplete, by their own admission. Any TSI customer can potentially be wrongfully accused. Weren't there 40 mistaken ID from the last count? So anyone is at risk, including the law abiding netizens that never ever used a P2P.
So why are we still celebrating again? 1) TSI openly supported CIPPIC to aid them in gaining intervener status 2) TSI didn't roll over. While they didn't officially oppose the motion, they opened up several legal avenues for CIPPIC, requested protections for our information in the event of disclosure, openly opposed Voltage's "evidence", and made it clear that it's going to be damn expensive for trolls to get subscriber info (while costs pre-disclosure was denied the door isn't shut on costs - if they are grated costs... $80-95/claim is a nice value to set on future attempts) |
|
|
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. The reason(s) why 50% of IPs could not be resolved to an account are important too and may not necessarily have any negative impact on the accuracy of the other 50% that were resolved. If the main reason IPs were not resolved is due to lost/corrupted logs or logs lost to normal file rotation, they have little to no bearing on accuracy. This is what people demanding shorter log retention are banking on and if TSI fails to get their costs paid by Voltage, they might decide to do just that so next time Voltage or other troll comes with 2+ months worth of IP logs starting weeks ago, TSI will be able to tell 'em they cannot do anything with logs older than 21 days and chuck the whole thing out instead of wasting $200k again. |
|
kabes join:2010-05-14 Kitchener, ON |
to JMJimmy
I'm glad the Judge brought up the problems with tying an IP address to a person, and the logistical issues of having 1000 defendants.
Suck it, Voltage. |
|
|
to MoreFaxes
said by MoreFaxes:So why are we still celebrating again? The court will be reserving possibly over a day to address this case, Voltage does not want deep scrutiny on the Copyright Troll issue and the fact they have been pretty much thrown out of the UK/US legal systems which is what brought them here in the first place. They were hoping for a quick payout and this just blew up in their face |
|
|
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:It would be hilarious if their request is eventually denied, and they are forced to pay up the costs TSI incurred in looking up these IP's and notifying customers, not to mention loss of business due to those customers potentially cancelling, and potential new customers not deciding to sign up. Right on. OT: Nice call on the new avatar. Hooked up my season tickets the day of the Marlins trade. Awwwwwwww yeah. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to Dunlop
said by Dunlop:said by MoreFaxes:So why are we still celebrating again? The court will be reserving possibly over a day to address this case, Voltage does not want deep scrutiny on the Copyright Troll issue and the fact they have been pretty much thrown out of the UK/US legal systems which is what brought them here in the first place. They were hoping for a quick payout and this just blew up in their face Whats happening now, is that the Judge decided not to write the decision TOGETHER based on his 4 points made in court. He stated that since all 3 parties had been experiencing communication issues, the 3 parties can draft the decision themselves, and submit it to the court for approval. |
|
Sanek join:2006-08-10 Kanata, ON |
to JMJimmy
As expected, the court knew nothing of "IP Number" (lol). Thats ok, as long as there are experts that will speak on the subject matter and not just go with whatever voltage says.
I would say well handled, Teksavvy. You did as much as I think we could have expected from you and did not just sit back quietly - for that I thank you!
I'm not actually on the list of people covered by the voltage motion, but I feel the concern here is far beyond that point. Everyone is affected by the decisions made in that courtroom and I'm glad the judge realizes that it will not be in a 1-hour meeting. |
|
|
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by JMJimmy:they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. The reason(s) why 50% of IPs could not be resolved to an account are important too and may not necessarily have any negative impact on the accuracy of the other 50% that were resolved. If the main reason IPs were not resolved is due to lost/corrupted logs or logs lost to normal file rotation, they have little to no bearing on accuracy. This is what people demanding shorter log retention are banking on and if TSI fails to get their costs paid by Voltage, they might decide to do just that so next time Voltage or other troll comes with 2+ months worth of IP logs starting weeks ago, TSI will be able to tell 'em they cannot do anything with logs older than 21 days and chuck the whole thing out instead of wasting $200k again. Do we know this is the case for sure? Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question. |
|