TekSavvy → If Voltage Take Customers To Court File Sharing Is Legal!

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.

A Politically Correct Post on Copyright in Canada

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· -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.wo ··· ess.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 ··· 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.

A Politically Correct Post on Copyright in Canada

»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· -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.wo ··· ess.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 ··· 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.

Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .

@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)

By the time Voltage takes someone to court here in Canada they'll lose money more then likely.

said by Eriv V

This is incorrect. No proof of economic harm whatsoever is required to prove copyright infringement.

Courts may consider actual harm to the plaintiff, among other factors, when deciding what amount of statutory damages is appropriate.

Unless they target ISP's which hand out customer information without a court order (ie. just about everyone except TSI).

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.

There are a couple who did within the last few months of 2012.

You just contradicted yourself my friend. Please explain further, with your name and position attached.

(s. 38.1). The Act sets out that the Court should consider all relevant factors, including (but not limited to):

(a) good faith or bad faith of the defendant;
(b) conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings;
(c) the need for deterrence (with respect to the copyright in question);
(d) the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringement, including consideration of hardship, whether the infringement was for private purposes, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.

Yes. Those factors are used to determine how the Court exercises its discretion in awarding the amount of statutory damages

The statutory damages section does not allow the Court to use the considerations you've listed to determine whether there was, in fact and in law, copyright infringement. Nowhere does the section allow for an award of $0, or a determination that the infringement alleged is legal because there wasn't economic harm.

Sorry, let me rephrase, it can be argued that if is no economic harm, than damages become punitive. Stat damage awards are based on difficulty in determining actual harm. But if no actual harm has been committed, than damages become punitive as a result.

In any case we wouldn't be able to settle this here. That would have to be for a judge to decide, but essentially that's the legal argument going forward.

Also: "Damages becoming punitive" is neither a real thing, nor a defence to copyright infringement"

That's an ideological point of view, just so readers know what you are currently arguing.