dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7398
share rss forum feed

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

4 edits

If Voltage Take Customers To Court File Sharing Is Legal!

A Politically Correct Post on Copyright in Canada

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···-canada/

Everyone thinks that by supporting Teksavvy’s case here going forward if successful will as David Ellis put it: “Run the Voltage fuckers out of town”. If that happens, that’s only temporary. Our copyright laws now get updated every two years, so every 2 years there’s going to be yet another test case of new law. What’s needed is a permanent solution in which politically, the government paved the path for in the new legislation. Something that has yet to be dared to be spoken of or tried because of social engineering by the media industries who are being politically incorrect. Politicians have already decoded themselves from this, and it’s important we do to and follow the path that’s before us for a more permanent solution.

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been following comments with respect to Jean-Francois Mezei a long-time independent policy expert. Mr. Mezie’s comments are extremely welcomed, and I’m fascinated by a lot of his comments with respect to this case. He does bring up some very good points, and he’s got a very good idea here that needs to be brought to light. In some recent comments on media policy expert Dwayne Winseck's blog, Mr. Mezei stated:

“More importantly, we need one good legal test of the actual copyright infringement aspect. So this requires Voltage sue an individual.”

This may seem harsh, but I 100% agree with that. That’s unlikely to happen though as we all know we’re looking at a troll Voltage. This post will explain the truth on why that is within policy and politics. Why would Voltage be stuck to troll? Why not sue? The government has made it extremely hard for companies to do that. There are questions that if a case got to court, would it actually be successful on behalf of the rights holders, and the reason for that is the economics of the situation. I’m pretty sure that economic harm has to be proven in order to obtain statutory damages.

Now Geist thinks that if a case were to go to court, stat damage awards would likely be around the $100 range because that would be closer to actual losses represented. Geist is pretty much coming to that assumption due to the fact that a download could be viewed as a sale lost. That's an argument that can't be proven because of the economics at play. Geist is being politically incorrect.

Back to Mr. Mezie:

“A real trial is when you not only cross examine Voltage/Canipre and Garda Ley, but also the whole issue of the bittorrent client doing automatic uploads, often without the user intentionally starting an upload.”

So let’s assume we’re looking at an individual trial where Voltage actual does sue. If a precedent was set, the results would pretty much be the same as what I’m about to argue, only the way Mr. Mezie argues it, it would be temporary not permanent. My politically correct comment:

“The economics of non-commercial infringement needs to be brought to light in a court setting. The independent academic view at least globally, supports the notion that media industries are in a cycle of creative destruction. A lot of my research over the years, indicates that it’s not non-commercial infringement that’s the problem, it’s the protectionism within copyright law around this subject due to ideological and political reasons that’s causing economic harm. There’s solid economic evidence that could and most likely would withstand a legal test as being not just credible but should be widely accepted as fact.”

Basically what this all means, is that no one can prove economic harm from a non-commercial download. There's huge amounts of independent research on that now to back that up. So much so it's becoming pathetic. All anyone has to do is ague the economic data, and non-commercial infringement becomes legal in Canada! This is why they are reduced trolling. If it gets to court the Government has made it clear they would legalize it!

My last comment to Mr. Mezie:

"Want to know how much economic data is out there supporting my arguments:

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/

Pertaining to the music industry, however the same relative theory of creative destruction can be applied to video content as well. The difference between the two, is that music has a value chain disconnect, and there are no economic impacts. Video has a viable value chain:

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···rom-p2p/

Politically the government paved the path for this argument to be made in court with the new legislation. I think I helped in developing some of the economic understanding of the situation, during the consultations, and through some advocacy I did through Geist’s Fair Copyright for Canada movement. Politically. the path is there, and it’s meant to be taken and tested. So test it."

Knowing this why would you argue on how bittorrent works in court every 2 years? Why not just end all this and send all those “fuckers” out of town permanently!

Back to Mr. Mezie’s comments:

“Voltage may have no intentions of suing anyone and going to court against individuals. Its intentions may simply to generate scare publicity to make people affraid to view any Voltage products. And Teksavvy, by making the process more public and transparent may have actually played right into Voltage’s hand because everyone is talking about it.”

Because we are now talking about what's actually transpired in law and politics in the new legislation, Voltage just screwed it up for the entire media industry if this post snowballs. What a bunch of twits, seriously. Voltage your pictures suck, go back to the US. Canadians have each others backs, that's how we are up here.

Most of the important people in this debate have to be politically incorrect, unlike me who is politically correct because I have no one to answer too. I could care less about ruining my reputation, because the truth here is more important than that. The ethics of this are more important than me. We need more people like this not just in politics but in the academic world. There are too many egos, financial interests, personal interests in the copyright debates.

Even if Teksavvy sends Voltage packing, we still end up with copyright trolls through notice to notice thanks to those who have “very special” interests who advocated hard for that approach. So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

I think this will be matter of matter of economics. Enforcement needs to focus less on "joe average" and more on those that are "pirating" for profit (true commercial infringement). Although we may not know what's coming down the road legislatively, it is still a waste of the court's time and an expensive proposition to sue en masse ordinary citizens that may be downloading for their own personal use. This does not preclude the need to preserve individual privacy under the law or the need to for proper evidence (i.e. not shadowy methodology).
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


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

said by jkoblovsky:

So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.

Actually I think I'll send them a direct link to JF's or other people's posts, ones that actually raise the issues - rather than sending them a link to a post which principally regurgitates other people's contributions to the process.

BTW, if you are going to continue to self-promote, please learn to spell the names correctly : Mezei
Expand your moderator at work


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: If Voltage Take Customers To Court File Sharing Is Legal!

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by jkoblovsky:

So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.

Actually I think I'll send them a direct link to JF's or other people's posts, ones that actually raise the issues - rather than sending them a link to a post which principally regurgitates other people's contributions to the process.

BTW, if you are going to continue to self-promote, please learn to spell the names correctly : Mezei

About those cheers from the cheap seats...... You really need to nitpick everything people say? This isn't a school essay. Mistakes happen.

Getting on someone over IE instead of EI. Whatever makes you feel better inside.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by Tx:

Mistakes happen.

Yes they do.
Some innocent people get caught up in copyright troll actions.
No doubt some guilty people do too.
But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand.
A technical victory is just dodging a bullet, whereas a just victory is probably a win-win for both sides of the argument.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1

And Copyright trolls need to remember that one download does not equal one lost sale either.

If I download something and I like it I buy it.

Holly feels entitled they keep recording record profits but feel the need to sue old ladies , mothers or people with no money.

What right does Hollywood have to destroy the life of someone over a measly 30 bucks? Sure Hollywood has a legit case if someone is making a profit from their works.

These pay up or else schemes are just extortion plain and simple and if the average joe tried it they would be hauled before a judge and charged with extortion.


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to MaynardKrebs

@MaynardKrebs:

I do respect your position on the rights of Copyright Holders but I would like to hold the copyright "trolls" accountable to the Blackstone ratio as it most certainly applies in this case;

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer." - Sir William Blackstone (1765)



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by Tx:

Mistakes happen.

Yes they do.
Some innocent people get caught up in copyright troll actions.
No doubt some guilty people do too.
But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand.
A technical victory is just dodging a bullet, whereas a just victory is probably a win-win for both sides of the argument.

I do agree to an extent. It ends when Voltage successfully sues an American for an excess of $200,000+. When regular folk sue anyone we must prove damages caused and lost wages etc. We're lucky in Canada to get a maximum of (correct me if i'm wrong) $4000? in Canadian small claims.

These copyright trolls even if they where to send extortion letters, how can one justify $5000 in damages for a $15-20 movie?

I am by no means saying pirating is ok, but the legal justification of $5000-$200k is insane. Music for example. One case had something around $136,000 PER MP3 (12 mp3s) and they won. Single mother working 2 jobs.

End of they day, they should be forced to pay a decent fine, buy the content they pirated and call it a day.

5 people go to a theater to watch "crappy voltage movie" that's $14 x 5. $70 in revenue from those customers.

How they justify if the next 5 pirate the same movie they are entitled to a maximum of $5000 each to a total of $25,000. Just in Canada. It's no wonder they prefer suing people over the revenue a movie makes anymore.

Actually stealing someone's car is a lesser fine/punishment then pirating these days.

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1

Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .


tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand.

I have been giving this much more thought, and I can see where Jason is going with this...

Content creators also had the rights to stop people from using their VHS (or Beta) machines to record movies from the TV. And to record songs off the radio. And to create their own mix tapes. And to format shift their songs onto tape or CD. And to share media with friends.

But that happened, and it happened a lot. Just like the modern-day equivalent does -- Canipre said they were tracking 1 million households out of the ~9 million that CRTC say had broadband last year, so at least 10% of us have been flagged by these guys as pirates.

The big difference I can see here is that it is potentially much easier for the content creators to track down the casual pirates who are still using BitTorrent (let's be honest, the serious pirates aren't going to be caught in this dragnet unless they're included ironically due to an error by Canipre or the ISP.. they've moved on just like they jumped ship from Napster, Kazaa, etc when they became risky) and sue them.

Is that morally right?

My initial objection to this whole mess was one of fairness: that whether you were guilty or innocent, as soon as you were identified you had to pay big $$, either the extortion demand or court costs. All they needed was a name and a mailing address and you were screwed.

Now I'm thinking that in our society personal copyright infringement has always been acceptable and part of fair use, and that it is wrong for us to allow technology to automatically bestow rights on the content creators that they didn't have before.

It makes you think... Well, it makes me think.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to jkoblovsky

I'd rather see old JF in the peanut gallery. We need hired professionals to fight Voltage.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to DanteX

said by DanteX:

Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .

Sad isn't it? Being honest too.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

Stepping Down From Copyright Debate

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···-debate/

I will no longer be commenting or playing an adversarial role in this debate around Teksavvy’s legal tactics. The academics currently at the table really need to look at my most recent post. Most of them should have a clear understanding already of the economics of the situation, and it is now bestowed on them to do the right thing in this current circumstance. This can not be allowed to go any further than it has, I won’t let it. The research is there, and turn your attention to the indie economic data, to fully support my claims.

As a result of the last post, I can no longer comment on Teksavvy, and this blog will no longer be following the current legal situation. Instead I’ll be focusing my efforts with respect to commenting on the current state of digital policy we’re in due to the current copyright legislation.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


stevey_frac

join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON

Why do you think you are in any way influential, or meaningful, or have a voice louder than anyone else?

I've never heard of you, and I don't think i'm the only one in that situation...

Mr. Geist, yes... CIPPIC yes...


ftp1020

join:2007-01-30
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to jkoblovsky

@jkoblovsky

I think you're mixing up 'politically correct' and 'politically incorrect' in your post. "Politically correct" usually implies a form of speaking designed to be as inclusive and non-offending as possible, often to the point of being bland and boring. "Politically incorrect" speech doesn't care who gets offended or why, and often uses incendiary phrases like "run the fuckers out of town".

As for plaintiffs being unable to prove actual economic loss, that hasn't stopped US judges from taking their (the plaintiffs) claims verbatim. So in their eyes, yes, this woman on welfare really did cost the record company a quarter $mil. We'll see how Canadian judges interpret *that* and what final damages are likely to be - but there does have to be a court case, yes.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Stepping Down From Copyright Debate

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···-debate/

I will no longer be commenting or playing an adversarial role in this debate around Teksavvy’s legal tactics. The academics currently at the table really need to look at my most recent post. Most of them should have a clear understanding already of the economics of the situation, and it is now bestowed on them to do the right thing in this current circumstance. This can not be allowed to go any further than it has, I won’t let it. The research is there, and turn your attention to the indie economic data, to fully support my claims.

As a result of the last post, I can no longer comment on Teksavvy, and this blog will no longer be following the current legal situation. Instead I’ll be focusing my efforts with respect to commenting on the current state of digital policy we’re in due to the current copyright legislation.

To be honest, i do enjoy reading your views but your views aren't any more important then 300 others that post on here. Continue with your views and your debate but just because it's not getting the attention you want, don't think your views are any less important.

I value your views as much as i do the next. Not one specific is more important than the other.


nupogodi
Premium
join:2012-07-10
Toronto, ON
reply to jkoblovsky

My god people stop fighting among each other. We're all on the same side here, aren't we?


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to ftp1020

said by ftp1020:

@jkoblovsky

I think you're mixing up 'politically correct' and 'politically incorrect' in your post. "Politically correct" usually implies a form of speaking designed to be as inclusive and non-offending as possible, often to the point of being bland and boring. "Politically incorrect" speech doesn't care who gets offended or why, and often uses incendiary phrases like "run the fuckers out of town".

That's the intended goal of this to make a point.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to Tx

It's not my views that are important in this post, it's the economic information that's embedded in it which adds a very important piece to the puzzle going forward. As people dig into the research of this, it will become more clear.



Eric V

@teksavvy.com
reply to jkoblovsky

Copyright infringement is actionable without any proof of economic harm. That's what the statutory damages section of the Copyright Act is for - a copyright owner may elect to seek statutory damages instead of having to prove actual loss.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

said by Eric V :

Copyright infringement is actionable without any proof of economic harm. That's what the statutory damages section of the Copyright Act is for - a copyright owner may elect to seek statutory damages instead of having to prove actual loss.

No stat damages awards are based on developing a number of compensation when clear economic damages can not be determined, however in order to qualify for those damages they have to show that there has been at least some economic impact. Economic data is showing that it's impossible to prove that any economic impact has occurred.

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.···aring-2/

Judges can't award damages if no economic impact has occurred. For that you would need "punitive" damage awards in which the Government rejected.

--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

To be a bit more specific and from the US accountability report on this:

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.···-piracy/

“Most experts we spoke with and reviewed the literature we observed that despite significant efforts, it is difficult if, not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy as a whole.” (GAO-report, 2010: 15-16)."
That's why we have "trolls". Most cases in the US are based on "punitive" damage awards meant to punish people for breaking the law. Stat damage awards are economic.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

A Politically Correct Post on Copyright in Canada

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···-canada/

Everyone thinks that by supporting Teksavvy’s case here going forward if successful will as David Ellis put it: “Run the Voltage fuckers out of town”. If that happens, that’s only temporary. Our copyright laws now get updated every two years, so every 2 years there’s going to be yet another test case of new law. What’s needed is a permanent solution in which politically, the government paved the path for in the new legislation. Something that has yet to be dared to be spoken of or tried because of social engineering by the media industries who are being politically incorrect. Politicians have already decoded themselves from this, and it’s important we do to and follow the path that’s before us for a more permanent solution.

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been following comments with respect to Jean-Francois Mezei a long-time independent policy expert. Mr. Mezie’s comments are extremely welcomed, and I’m fascinated by a lot of his comments with respect to this case. He does bring up some very good points, and he’s got a very good idea here that needs to be brought to light. In some recent comments on media policy expert Dwayne Winseck's blog, Mr. Mezei stated:

“More importantly, we need one good legal test of the actual copyright infringement aspect. So this requires Voltage sue an individual.”

This may seem harsh, but I 100% agree with that. That’s unlikely to happen though as we all know we’re looking at a troll Voltage. This post will explain the truth on why that is within policy and politics. Why would Voltage be stuck to troll? Why not sue? The government has made it extremely hard for companies to do that. There are questions that if a case got to court, would it actually be successful on behalf of the rights holders, and the reason for that is the economics of the situation. I’m pretty sure that economic harm has to be proven in order to obtain statutory damages.

Now Geist thinks that if a case were to go to court, stat damage awards would likely be around the $100 range because that would be closer to actual losses represented. Geist is pretty much coming to that assumption due to the fact that a download could be viewed as a sale lost. That's an argument that can't be proven because of the economics at play. Geist is being politically incorrect.

Back to Mr. Mezie:

“A real trial is when you not only cross examine Voltage/Canipre and Garda Ley, but also the whole issue of the bittorrent client doing automatic uploads, often without the user intentionally starting an upload.”

So let’s assume we’re looking at an individual trial where Voltage actual does sue. If a precedent was set, the results would pretty much be the same as what I’m about to argue, only the way Mr. Mezie argues it, it would be temporary not permanent. My politically correct comment:

“The economics of non-commercial infringement needs to be brought to light in a court setting. The independent academic view at least globally, supports the notion that media industries are in a cycle of creative destruction. A lot of my research over the years, indicates that it’s not non-commercial infringement that’s the problem, it’s the protectionism within copyright law around this subject due to ideological and political reasons that’s causing economic harm. There’s solid economic evidence that could and most likely would withstand a legal test as being not just credible but should be widely accepted as fact.”

Basically what this all means, is that no one can prove economic harm from a non-commercial download. There's huge amounts of independent research on that now to back that up. So much so it's becoming pathetic. All anyone has to do is ague the economic data, and non-commercial infringement becomes legal in Canada! This is why they are reduced trolling. If it gets to court the Government has made it clear they would legalize it!

My last comment to Mr. Mezie:

"Want to know how much economic data is out there supporting my arguments:

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/

Pertaining to the music industry, however the same relative theory of creative destruction can be applied to video content as well. The difference between the two, is that music has a value chain disconnect, and there are no economic impacts. Video has a viable value chain:

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···rom-p2p/

Politically the government paved the path for this argument to be made in court with the new legislation. I think I helped in developing some of the economic understanding of the situation, during the consultations, and through some advocacy I did through Geist’s Fair Copyright for Canada movement. Politically. the path is there, and it’s meant to be taken and tested. So test it."

Knowing this why would you argue on how bittorrent works in court every 2 years? Why not just end all this and send all those “fuckers” out of town permanently!

Back to Mr. Mezie’s comments:

“Voltage may have no intentions of suing anyone and going to court against individuals. Its intentions may simply to generate scare publicity to make people affraid to view any Voltage products. And Teksavvy, by making the process more public and transparent may have actually played right into Voltage’s hand because everyone is talking about it.”

Because we are now talking about what's actually transpired in law and politics in the new legislation, Voltage just screwed it up for the entire media industry if this post snowballs. What a bunch of twits, seriously. Voltage your pictures suck, go back to the US. Canadians have each others backs, that's how we are up here.

Most of the important people in this debate have to be politically incorrect, unlike me who is politically correct because I have no one to answer too. I could care less about ruining my reputation, because the truth here is more important than that. The ethics of this are more important than me. We need more people like this not just in politics but in the academic world. There are too many egos, financial interests, personal interests in the copyright debates.

Even if Teksavvy sends Voltage packing, we still end up with copyright trolls through notice to notice thanks to those who have “very special” interests who advocated hard for that approach. So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.

what glue are you on the law is nto updated every two years
its a clause that says in fact parliament must have a note on it in osme fashion to be addressed , THAT:
DOESN'T mean a new law every two years
IT doesnt mean court chaos
IT doesnt mean even every 5 years you get a law, its called a sunset clause for the charter cause parts of harpers legislation are deemed unconstitutional and he /they must go before parliament with a majority and allow it to continue. ALSO:
this means if they don't renew the areas then they become null and void
it means YOU then dont have sections like the TPM areas and other aspects that take away citizens rights for 80 years while some lazy person contributes but one thing per 80 years and gets to be the most vile human running around suing people.

I'll say this TALK TO A LAWYER dont listen to this kind of bullshit.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

A Politically Correct Post on Copyright in Canada

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/01···-canada/

Everyone thinks that by supporting Teksavvy’s case here going forward if successful will as David Ellis put it: “Run the Voltage fuckers out of town”. If that happens, that’s only temporary. Our copyright laws now get updated every two years, so every 2 years there’s going to be yet another test case of new law. What’s needed is a permanent solution in which politically, the government paved the path for in the new legislation. Something that has yet to be dared to be spoken of or tried because of social engineering by the media industries who are being politically incorrect. Politicians have already decoded themselves from this, and it’s important we do to and follow the path that’s before us for a more permanent solution.

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been following comments with respect to Jean-Francois Mezei a long-time independent policy expert. Mr. Mezie’s comments are extremely welcomed, and I’m fascinated by a lot of his comments with respect to this case. He does bring up some very good points, and he’s got a very good idea here that needs to be brought to light. In some recent comments on media policy expert Dwayne Winseck's blog, Mr. Mezei stated:

“More importantly, we need one good legal test of the actual copyright infringement aspect. So this requires Voltage sue an individual.”

This may seem harsh, but I 100% agree with that. That’s unlikely to happen though as we all know we’re looking at a troll Voltage. This post will explain the truth on why that is within policy and politics. Why would Voltage be stuck to troll? Why not sue? The government has made it extremely hard for companies to do that. There are questions that if a case got to court, would it actually be successful on behalf of the rights holders, and the reason for that is the economics of the situation. I’m pretty sure that economic harm has to be proven in order to obtain statutory damages.

Now Geist thinks that if a case were to go to court, stat damage awards would likely be around the $100 range because that would be closer to actual losses represented. Geist is pretty much coming to that assumption due to the fact that a download could be viewed as a sale lost. That's an argument that can't be proven because of the economics at play. Geist is being politically incorrect.

Back to Mr. Mezie:

“A real trial is when you not only cross examine Voltage/Canipre and Garda Ley, but also the whole issue of the bittorrent client doing automatic uploads, often without the user intentionally starting an upload.”

So let’s assume we’re looking at an individual trial where Voltage actual does sue. If a precedent was set, the results would pretty much be the same as what I’m about to argue, only the way Mr. Mezie argues it, it would be temporary not permanent. My politically correct comment:

“The economics of non-commercial infringement needs to be brought to light in a court setting. The independent academic view at least globally, supports the notion that media industries are in a cycle of creative destruction. A lot of my research over the years, indicates that it’s not non-commercial infringement that’s the problem, it’s the protectionism within copyright law around this subject due to ideological and political reasons that’s causing economic harm. There’s solid economic evidence that could and most likely would withstand a legal test as being not just credible but should be widely accepted as fact.”

Basically what this all means, is that no one can prove economic harm from a non-commercial download. There's huge amounts of independent research on that now to back that up. So much so it's becoming pathetic. All anyone has to do is ague the economic data, and non-commercial infringement becomes legal in Canada! This is why they are reduced trolling. If it gets to court the Government has made it clear they would legalize it!

My last comment to Mr. Mezie:

"Want to know how much economic data is out there supporting my arguments:

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/

Pertaining to the music industry, however the same relative theory of creative destruction can be applied to video content as well. The difference between the two, is that music has a value chain disconnect, and there are no economic impacts. Video has a viable value chain:

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2012/12···rom-p2p/

Politically the government paved the path for this argument to be made in court with the new legislation. I think I helped in developing some of the economic understanding of the situation, during the consultations, and through some advocacy I did through Geist’s Fair Copyright for Canada movement. Politically. the path is there, and it’s meant to be taken and tested. So test it."

Knowing this why would you argue on how bittorrent works in court every 2 years? Why not just end all this and send all those “fuckers” out of town permanently!

Back to Mr. Mezie’s comments:

“Voltage may have no intentions of suing anyone and going to court against individuals. Its intentions may simply to generate scare publicity to make people affraid to view any Voltage products. And Teksavvy, by making the process more public and transparent may have actually played right into Voltage’s hand because everyone is talking about it.”

Because we are now talking about what's actually transpired in law and politics in the new legislation, Voltage just screwed it up for the entire media industry if this post snowballs. What a bunch of twits, seriously. Voltage your pictures suck, go back to the US. Canadians have each others backs, that's how we are up here.

Most of the important people in this debate have to be politically incorrect, unlike me who is politically correct because I have no one to answer too. I could care less about ruining my reputation, because the truth here is more important than that. The ethics of this are more important than me. We need more people like this not just in politics but in the academic world. There are too many egos, financial interests, personal interests in the copyright debates.

Even if Teksavvy sends Voltage packing, we still end up with copyright trolls through notice to notice thanks to those who have “very special” interests who advocated hard for that approach. So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.

and if i get a notice and have done nothing ill sue the troll right back.... I'LL force them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt i did something and when they cant ill add my pain and suffering so they never bother me again.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to DanteX

said by DanteX:

Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .

no it isnt
you can do federal time for harming physically a person
and there are degrees like "aggravated" and "bodily harm"

Assault also includes rape...Are you saying rape of any kind is a lesser crime...

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1

I think What I said was mis interpreted.

What I meant was punishments for so called copyright crimes are usually more severe then a crime where actually harm is caused to a person.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to funny

said by funny:

said by DanteX:

Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .

no it isnt
you can do federal time for harming physically a person
and there are degrees like "aggravated" and "bodily harm"

Assault also includes rape...Are you saying rape of any kind is a lesser crime...

Read the whole thread and that of which he replied to. On that note, yes murder, rape and so on is sometimes punished far less then those who pirate copyrighted material. No one is dissecting which one is worse. It's what the punishments handed out that are a joke.

You know you can edit your post instead of putting in something you forgot and re-quoting the OP? You can also multi quote fairly easily by copy and pasting.


Eriv V

@teksavvy.com
reply to jkoblovsky


No stat damages awards are based on developing a number of compensation when clear economic damages can not be determined, however in order to qualify for those damages they have to show that there has been at least some economic impact. Economic data is showing that it's impossible to prove that any economic impact has occurred.

»musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.···aring-2/

Judges can't award damages if no economic impact has occurred. For that you would need "punitive" damage awards in which the Government rejected.


This is incorrect. No proof of economic harm whatsoever is required to prove copyright infringement, or for an award of statutory damages. Copyright infringement is still illegal even if it doesn't cause pecuniary loss.

Part of the policy intent of the Copyright Act is not only to allow copyright owners to profit from their works, but to allow for limited control over their works as well.

Courts may consider actual harm to the plaintiff, among other factors, when deciding what amount of statutory damages is appropriate. This does not make statutory damages "punitive", in legal terms (though it may be punitive in your opinion).

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to m3chen

said by m3chen:

@MaynardKrebs:

I do respect your position on the rights of Copyright Holders but I would like to hold the copyright "trolls" accountable to the Blackstone ratio as it most certainly applies in this case;

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer." - Sir William Blackstone (1765)

Yes, I know - I posted exactly that several weeks ago.