dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3285
share rss forum feed


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

[News] Judge Grants Adjournment: TSI vs Voltage.

Judge grants new adjournment in TekSavvy illegal downloading case
By:Christine Dobby | Jan 14, 2013 2:21 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 14, 2013 2:29 PM ET @christinedobby

quote:
"Federal Court judge Leonard Mandamin made the order to allow enough time for a public interest group to have its own motion to intervene in the case to be heard before proceeding with the motion for disclosure on its merits."
quote:
“Hearing a motion on a one-sided basis is risky,” Judge Mandamin said Monday.
Read The whole article at FP Tech Desk via Financial Post
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2
Pretty sure Voltage is firing whoever advised them to go after Teksavvy as opposed to the incumbents(aka content providers) who would just happily give over the information.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to TwiztedZero
She was in the first row, taking a ton of notes today.. Then adjourned to Starbucks on the first floor.. I saw her there when David & I were having a drink and chatting.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Kinda sad she titled it "illegal downloading case" since it's about uploading not downloading.

Poser

join:2002-07-28
And it has not been proven that anyone in particular has done anything illegal, correct? Stupid title.


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Kinda sad she titled it "illegal downloading case" since it's about uploading not downloading.

I understood this was filed as "commercial infringement", Voltage is going after people for allegedly downloading copyrighted material and then selling the works for profit.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Kinda sad she titled it "illegal downloading case" since it's about uploading not downloading.

wrong again
the legal term is
file sharing and even the rcmp wont bother you as long as your not making a counterfeit item and trying to sell it....
ergo you give a disc to your buddy it costs about 1$ ( cdr ) charge that only and there is no profit
if its a bluray thats 3$
if you make the sleeve , put a lalbel on it that looks like the store and then put it in case with a store like cover and sell in a store well that's commercial and the rcmp will get you

so you have
non commerical file sharing
commerical file sharing

pirate is not used as thats a term for robbery cases at sea.
in fact i'd say anyone saying that is slandering and defaming ones character...no one stole the original nor did anyone use robbery to take said item.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Atticka
said by Atticka:

said by JMJimmy:

Kinda sad she titled it "illegal downloading case" since it's about uploading not downloading.

I understood this was filed as "commercial infringement", Voltage is going after people for allegedly downloading copyrighted material and then selling the works for profit.

and one of the parts of the new law states that to get punitive dmaages they have to prove there losses
and i'd quickly argue put 5 people dressed up and faces covered with differant ip addies on a shirt facing the judge, then ask can you tell which of these people is making a profit from the plaintiffs IP?
Can you even tell me who they really are?
have two of each ip , and then ask can you tell me the owner is that one or that one?

that really hits home how you SHOW the entire court how wrong the process is.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to Poser
said by Poser:

And it has not been proven that anyone in particular has done anything illegal, correct? Stupid title.

I don't think that part is in question (or at least not enough to apply the term when referring to the case), just if the people who stand to be identified are among those who participated in the illegal activities.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to funny0
funny - please, read the legal filings before replying to any of my comments.

a declaration that the Defendants’ unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the Plaintiffs Copyrighted cinematographic Works, listed in Schedule “A” (the “Works”), constitutes an infringement of the rights contrary to sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the Copyright ACI;

Unauthorized reproduction = alleged infringement
distribution = uploading

And Atticka: You are partially correct in that part of their statement of claim alludes to damages for commercial infringement. This can be viewed in a couple ways 1) They are covering their bases 2) They intend to make a case for P2P = commercial infringement

The latter would be really hard to do since there's no monetary gain in P2P. The thrust of their statement of claim is about the damages incurred due to the distribution of their works. If they made their case on the downloading of a film the most they would likely get is $100 + costs. By making it about uploading (distribution) they are trying to maximize their potential return to be closer to the $5,000 + costs.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to TwiztedZero
Downloading is an act of unauthorized reproduction, which is one of the claims Voltage is making here.

IANAL, but just because the old "only uploading is illegal" argument worked under the old copyright laws doesn't mean the same argument works under our new copyright laws.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Guspaz:

Downloading is an act of unauthorized reproduction..... "only uploading is illegal"

The only uploading is illegal was overturned on appeal - it's still somewhat of an open question (I didn't know this until recently either).

Downloading is an act of unauthorized reproduction, however, in their statement of claim 1c they want damages related to uploading (statutory damages related to section 27 (2.3) of the copyright act). 1d is that if 1c is denied then they want damages for downloading (section 35... $100-$5000). 1f also relates to uploading if 1d is denied (if 1d is granted 1f is automatically denied).

Note: I need to amend my previous comment about P2P and monetary gain as it relates to commercial infringement:

Freaking sneaky ass conservatives added this little gem:

38 (1.11) For the purpose of subsection (1), an infringement under subsection 27(2.3) is deemed to be for a commercial purposes

27 (2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person, by means of the Internet or another digital network, to provide a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.

If they successfully argue running a P2P client = providing a service primarily for enabling copyright infringement... then damages could be MUCH higher ($500-$20000)


davegravy

@iasl.com
said by Guspaz:

27 (2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person, by means of the Internet or another digital network, to provide a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.

If they successfully argue running a P2P client = providing a service primarily for enabling copyright infringement... then damages could be MUCH higher ($500-$20000)

Arguably a valid interpretation of that text, but clearly counter to the intent of the legislation.


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
I wouldn't say its counter to the intent as this is the conservatives legislation.The puppets of the US.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
reply to davegravy
said by davegravy :

Arguably a valid interpretation of that text, but clearly counter to the intent of the legislation.

I agree 100% - but there's always a chance the judge won't.


No Chance

@rogers.com
Not applicable. You have to be providing a service, and by simply being a peer you do not qualify. Even if being a peer causes you to upload, that is incidental to the inner workings of the protocol, you're not providing a service as the term is normally interpreted by a reasonable person to mean to be carrying on a business. This section is meant to go after aggregators the likes of sites like The Pirate Bay, maybe you could also make a case against anyone running a tracker. If they push for another interpretation they will lose, badly, since in commercial law the concepts of carrying on business and providing services are pretty well defined by both common law and statutes.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to TwiztedZero

[T-2058-12] VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC v. JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE

Oral Directions received from the court: T-2058-12 videoconference will be held the week of January 28th

Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mandamin dated 14-JAN-2013 directing that I have no difficulty with the change to the schedule involving the opening statement. As it will be useful to review matters before court resumes, a trial management videoconference will be held the week of January 28th to dicuss the trial schedule to the end of August and any other matter the parties wish to discuss. At the trial management conference on 27-NOV-2012, the Plaintiffs submitted a trial calendar and agred to circulate an updated version which incorporated the changes to the schduel that were discussed during that conference. Please provide an updated trial calendar by January 18, 2013." placed on file on 14-JAN-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

RECORDED ENTRY(IES) FOR T-2058-12
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

ezebob2

join:2008-06-06
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to JMJimmy

Re: [News] Judge Grants Adjournment: TSI vs Voltage.

Hopefully the judge will see through these trolls. Interestingly the
software that was used to gather this so called piracy, namely
"GuardaLey v1.2" has been shown both in Germany, and in the US, by independent review to be totally unreliable in identifying uploading and downloading. The company GuardaLey has been successfully sued in Germany by one of it's former law firms for knowingly failing to disclose the problems with it's software. University of Washington conducted their on test and found the same thing. Several lawsuits are now underway in US courts against GuardaLey and their lawyers as a result. Another former lawyer of GuardaLey in Britain has had his licence to practice law revoked, and the lawyer is now bankrupt.
Several lawsuits that GuardalyLey and their lawyers have been thrown out of court worldwide. Hard to imagine our system accepting this info when all those other judges worldwide have said that it is useless.

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

27 (2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person, by means of the Internet or another digital network, to provide a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.

"But Your Honour, I just downloaded it for my own use. I didn't know that it would automatically upload - my brother/cousin/friend installed the software. Besides, the movie was so crappy I wouldn't want MY name associated with any upload."