dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
reply to resa1983

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

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.