dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

1 recommendation

reply to rednekcowboy

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by rednekcowboy:

To everyone jumping all over me--take a step back and relax.

My point is simple and I make no apologies for it. Instead of fighting the motion for the IP's, they didn't even contest it and they stated that it was not their fight to protect pirates. Their statement, not mine.

The fight begins when it comes time to tally how much money they are going to receive for the information. I'm not making stuff up, I'm just stating the facts with no bias either way. Then they make a one-liner about costs in a thread when they haven't said anything else since the above comment. If you want to get upset with someone for what has transpired, take the task to Mark, not me.

I will say that I don't know what their strategy is, but it looks pretty clear from where I'm sitting. I also agree they should not discuss it here or anywhere, however then they need to sit back and read and avoid what is most certainly a very sore subject for a great number of their customers.

Marc, if you want to get upset with me for simply stating what has transpired publicly so far, then you're going to be red in the face a lot as I'm not the only one saying this very exact thing. You have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people and while I understand you can't do that at this point and time, I would suggest that you chose what you say, what you comment on and when you say it very carefully because by the end of it, it may not matter what your explanation is. That is how ticked off the people are right now. They simply may not care what you have to say at the end.

I'm not upset with you. You are simply wrong. You just dont know it.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

As is why I said "publicly." Remember that perception is everything (yes I do understand that it works both directions as well). While I agree that I do not know, how can I? I can only base what I'm saying on what is going on in the public eye by what has transpired in the public courtroom and by your original statement. Even you have to admit the situation is not a rosy one from a customer's perspective.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:12
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

Come on Rednek, even you have to admit that the tide of anti-teksavvy sentiment has changed. So really, you're only setting up a straw man to shoot him down trying to rekindle that anti-tsi sentiment.

Nothing about these situations is rosy, no matter what way the parties go about it.

Time to focus on the real enemy ... the trolls.

The patent system is also full of trolls, trying to slap patents on things that shouldn't get patents and then going after people who supposedly break them. It happens because it's too easy and cheap to claim patent rights and the patent offices are overloaded so things get through all too easily.

Copyright is exactly the same You just have to sit back.



hm

@videotron.ca

Well, I don't know if there is anti-TSI sentiment. Hm, guess there is. But there were certainly different ways to go about what has been going down.

I do find myself sitting in the Knopf camp.

Where-as in the Teksavvy/CIPPIC camp I found there to be rhetoric spewed by them. Such as, "they can't oppose the motion to disclose in order to remain neutral", among other things.

There are definitely different camps where people are sitting. I wouldn't call this anti-teksavvy.

And there are those who just don't see anything and calling TSI out for "selling privacy". This group, I would imagine, just need a bit of a slap upside the head to adjust their vision. Doesn't mean they're anti-teksavvy.

Different strokes for different folks.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

2 edits
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

Come on Rednek, even you have to admit that the tide of anti-teksavvy sentiment has changed. So really, you're only setting up a straw man to shoot him down trying to rekindle that anti-tsi sentiment.

Nothing about these situations is rosy, no matter what way the parties go about it.

Time to focus on the real enemy ... the trolls.

The patent system is also full of trolls, trying to slap patents on things that shouldn't get patents and then going after people who supposedly break them. It happens because it's too easy and cheap to claim patent rights and the patent offices are overloaded so things get through all too easily.

Copyright is exactly the same You just have to sit back.

I'm not anti-Teksavvy in the least, in fact I am glad there are companies like Teksavvy around, however that does not change public perception.

They have tripped over words, called customers pirates, said they don't have to challenge a motion in order to protect customers privacy and when they started to fight, in the public eye, it was in regards to how much they should collect for turning this information willingly over without any scrutiny to the "evidence" provided by Voltage or the intentions behind the request, let alone completely hanging out customers out to dry who have done no wrong whatsoever because, in their own words, "they do not have to fight a piracy lawsuit on behalf of their customers, that is the account holders responsibility" when it has nothing to do with piracy up to this point. It's all about privacy.

The latest move, in an effort to hope that the amount will be too large for Voltage pursue the matter is unbelievably weak as well. What if, at $95/IP, Voltage decides rather than 1000 IPs they only want 10? I mean they have already dropped from 4000 to 1000 because of extremely shaky evidence and incorrect IP's. This alone should be enough for Tek to challenge the court order/request for info, but instead they roll over and decide to argue how much they should be paid.

What have I gotten wrong here? This is what is known to the public, regardless of what is going on behind closed doors....

I may be critical of Tek for what has transpired but that is totally different from being "anti-Teksavvy." I should also add that I don't think that they are "selling privacy" in the least. I'm simply saying, as far as what's public knowledge, they haven't put up a fight at all in regards to their customers or their privacy but rather just to ensure that they get money owed. I also don't believe that they are making any profit on anything they would collect nor did I ever say that.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, "Men are flat." After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

Gotta love Wikipedia
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by TSI Marc:

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, "Men are flat." After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

Gotta love Wikipedia

Very wise words.......however there is a flipside. The majority deem it so, so that's how it is regardless of what the actuality is.

Just saying that you have to realize what the public perception is. I'm not saying it's right or wrong as that makes little difference in the real world and I'm sure, being the savvy (pun intended) business man that you are that you are absolutely aware of this and not dismissive of it in the least....


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

Sure but, dude. That just makes you captain obvious...

I knew the minute I got dealt this hand how it would be.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:12
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to rednekcowboy

I chose anti to refer to exactly what you were referring to.

They could have rolled over from the get-go and not given the people on the hitlist any warning at all.

An ISP has by themselves no legal grounds for refusing to surrender this information to the court for passing it on the Voltage whether the people are associated with the IP addresses or not.

They have no legal protection to not disclose to the court unless the order results from an error in the application of law. It's like a journalist and his sources. The journalist has no protection, unlike the lawyer who, if retained can claim privilege. Whether you did it or not is not something that an ISP is privilege to, so they can't make an argument on that basis. That eliminates their standing in raising all manner of questions.

This is why CIPPIC is more appropriate in an intervenor status to demonstrate to the court that there are potential errors in the application of law if granted, such as the information that the assignment of an IP address does not equate to one individual; that Voltage et al have little intention of actually bringing these to court; that if Voltage et al use joinder to file against all defendants collectively then people so enjoined may not all be culpable; and that Voltage et al have a record of flawed identification of the IPs they are using. None of these are in the ISP's scope.

Makes perfect sense to me.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by sbrook:

I chose anti to refer to exactly what you were referring to.

They could have rolled over from the get-go and not given the people on the hitlist any warning at all.

An ISP has by themselves no legal grounds for refusing to surrender this information to the court for passing it on the Voltage whether the people are associated with the IP addresses or not.

They have no legal protection to not disclose to the court unless the order results from an error in the application of law. It's like a journalist and his sources. The journalist has no protection, unlike the lawyer who, if retained can claim privilege. Whether you did it or not is not something that an ISP is privilege to, so they can't make an argument on that basis. That eliminates their standing in raising all manner of questions.

This is why CIPPIC is more appropriate in an intervenor status to demonstrate to the court that there are potential errors in the application of law if granted, such as the information that the assignment of an IP address does not equate to one individual; that Voltage et al have little intention of actually bringing these to court; that if Voltage et al use joinder to file against all defendants collectively then people so enjoined may not all be culpable; and that Voltage et al have a record of flawed identification of the IPs they are using. None of these are in the ISP's scope.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry but you are incorrect on so many points, it's laughable.

First, they have every legal recourse they need in PIPEDA in not only challenging the evidence on hand but also refusing to provide the information if certain stringent requirements are not met. They cannot simply pass over a customer's private information without having certainty that the information being requested actually pertains to that person. There is no better entity in this to challenge the evidence other than the ISP as this is their bread and butter. They ARE the experts. This is, of course, forgetting that they are obligate to do so under PIPEDA.

Second, they did roll over. The "heads up" that you are championing--they are required by law to do this.

I would agree with you on that CIPPIC is probably better suited to challenge Voltage's intentions and the validity of those intentions.

Again, if you chose to take my words at face value rather than trying to spin them into an anti-teksavvy argument, you would see exactly what I'm saying is true. In fact, I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing, I'm simply stating what has gone on so far in the public eye and what's to be perceived from that. It makes no difference if it's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by rednekcowboy:

Second, they did roll over. The "heads up" that you are championing--they are required by law to do this.

I don't believe so.

Don't think there is a law that requires them to give notice. At least, not yet. This is part of the new copyright legislation that has yet to pass or even come into force.

In addition, Voltage could have done like what they did in Quebec, demand of the court to put this on the rocket-docket and be heard in a week giving everyone involved zero time for anything, let alone a notice to be sent out. TSI bought that time (almost literally).

This is the second time I see someone state there is a law that requires ISP to give notice. I wouldn't mind someone pasting the link to this law.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

1 edit

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6686/125/
quote:
First, the Internet service provider "notice-and-notice" rules will not take effect. The implementation has been apparently been the subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber information. The public has not been included in these discussions and more open policy process is needed in developing the notice-and-notice regulations.

--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,

Correct.

This is *supposed* to come into effect sometime in 2013.

As it stands now, the Bill C-11 notice-and-notice, is still on hold. Seems to be some "lobby groups" with a keen interest in not letting this happen.

Unless he is taking about some other notice law?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

Notice and Notice not in affect:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

quote:
There are several other notable provisions and exclusions. First, although the notice-and-notice provisions for Internet providers have not taken effect,

Correct.

This is *supposed* to come into effect sometime in 2013.

As it stands now, the Bill C-11 notice-and-notice, is still on hold. Seems to be some "lobby groups" with a keen interest in not letting this happen.

Unless he is taking about some other notice law?

I just edited my post with another link as to why it's not in effect, just as I saw you post.

A consultation is needed before it'll go into effect.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21

I stand corrected then...


MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

I just edited my post with another link as to why it's not in effect, just as I saw you post.

A consultation is needed before it'll go into effect.

Current government doesn't care about consultations..... at least not with anyone that doesn't donate to them.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Ormond Beach, FL
reply to rednekcowboy

said by rednekcowboy:

First, they have every legal recourse they need in PIPEDA in not only challenging the evidence on hand but also refusing to provide the information if certain stringent requirements are not met.

TSIs liability is defined by case law from the UK and recently brought to Canada in the last few years and called an Norwich Order which comes from the Norwich Pharmacal Company case in 1974 where one of the dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

"A person who gets mixed up in the tortuous acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing may incur no personal liability
but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers."

All TSIs actions to date seem to demonstrate that they are trying to "appear" as if they are following that doctrine.


shrug

@videotron.ca

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

Then you would have laughed walking into the federal building here in Toronto... They have a few of those curly wigs bronzed, and on display. :P
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Ormond Beach, FL
reply to shrug

said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

I don't know why as they are part of your heritage being in New France and all.

I just realized Voltage's lawyer will use these posts as evidence that we are disrespectful to the bench on top of being scofflaw pirates. Cue Johnny Depp.


shrug

@videotron.ca

said by peterboro:

said by shrug :

said by peterboro:

dudes with the funny wigs in Britain wrote,

Those curly girly wigs make me laugh.

I don't know why as they are part of your heritage being in New France and all.

Hate to break the news to you, but I'm Italian. Nothing of my heritage here.. well... except maybe the construction corruption scandal... and a few people encased in cement at the bottom of the St. Laurence

I'm about as french as capicola is kosher.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to peterboro

said by peterboro:

All TSIs actions to date seem to demonstrate that they are trying to "appear" as if they are following that doctrine.

I think most of us see that.

But, it still isn't the only way to go. It's one way to go. Nothing more.

I'm still firmly planted in the Knopf group.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

The implementation has been apparently been the subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber information.

That's interesting.

We know right now that part of the new copyright law requires TSI to keep records (retention).

Why do they not include destruction? These files would have to be handled separately from the rest and follow different destruction dates/procedure.

So X cost right there no matter what for retention

Zero consideration given to the work of segregation.

Zero consideration given to destruction.

X cost for notice.

But the judge in this case told TSI to send a second notice for *free*. WTF. In other words the judge told TSI to work for Voltage for free due to Voltages own fault and own incompetence. That doesn't seem right. But by telling TSI to do this at no cost the judge acknowledges the previous notice work deserves cost.

I am guessing that Bells and Rogers figure of 300$ per IP covers segregation, retention, destruction, and work to get subscriber name.

Bell and Rogers 300$ fee does not include notice at all since Bell et al never gave notice. Something I just realized.

So in effect that 300$ fee by Bell and Rogers is set to increase to include notice. So even their 300$ figure is low-balled now with the coming of the new notice-and-notice law.

TSI should be above 300$.

But, I don't know if TSI charged voltage for notice. Don't think they did. I seem to recall Marc stating part of the compromise/deal was to give people notice at his cost (I could be wrong). Thus maybe why their cost is a lot lower than Bells. Anyone know?


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

Another way Voltage is set to be screwed is by the MLPPP users.

Let's assume Voltage gets the 1000 IP that were able to be associated.

Let's assume 30% of TSI's IP's are MLPPP users.

So odds are Voltage will think, "Great 1000 people to extort"! But in reality, with MLPPP in the picture, they are really only going to get 700 names since 30% of the people will show 2 different IP's for the same single infringement. Some people may show 3 IPs for the same single download (if I understand mlppp correctly).

I can hear them now... "WTF is this MLPPP thing that is cutting our extortion profits"!

Also, since the IP look-ups are the same work for TSI, TSI gets to charge them for 2 or 3 IP's. Yet Voltage only gets one single name.

heh Voltage is going hate Canada. Poor them.

Any other scenario's I missed?

I wonder if Voltage will even give a damn? Makes me wonder if an MLPPP user will get 2 or 3 extortion letters even though it was one single download/p2p-session. hmm...



hm

@videotron.ca

hm So what happens now?

As far as I understood the twitter-streams, TSI, Voltage and CIPPIC and supposed to get together on the 22nd (in two days) to discuss CIPPIC intervening.

And something about Voltage having to respond to CIPPIC about this intervention on the 22nd (in two days).

I am guessing this is all outside of court and all parties are getting together to hammer something out.

Are we going to be hearing/reading of what goes down? All secret?

Anyone "in the know" care to explain what exactly is going down in two days?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

No. There is no meeting on the 22nd.

The 22nd was the date that CIPPIC had til to respond to the Intervention, but they've already done it on the 17th. The 28th was *supposed* to be a video conference, but it looks like that's been cancelled. Its possible it'll be rescheduled for after a judge decides on CIPPIC's intervention

After that, a special 1-day hearing of the evidence, and reasons why/why not this court order should be ordered.

No idea as to dates yet though. Marc would probably be best to get that info from.

This is the Docket for the case:
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2058-12
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

The 28th was *supposed* to be a video conference, but it looks like that's been cancelled. Its possible it'll be rescheduled for after a judge decides on CIPPIC's intervention ...

No idea as to dates yet though. Marc would probably be best to get that info from.

Ah that's it.

Didn't know it was cancelled. Didn't notice it on the docket.

TY!

Marc, Any info to add?


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to resa1983

Yep. CIPPIC formally applied to intervene. Voltage responded... We posted those on our web site here: »www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation

We are still waiting for draft of what Voltage wants us to send to our customers.

Now we wait to see if CIPPIC is granted to intervene and under what conditions.. I.e. they may have full ability to cross examine or not.. That will dictate how long and when the next court date may be.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



hm

@videotron.ca

Hey ty for the reply, Marc.

How odd... Voltage was complaining in both their original court filing, and again in the last court show how important it was, and how fast they needed these people off line and to stop in order to stop world wide copyright infringement of their films.

Yet here we find out they haven't even bothered to give you the draft of what they want.

*head-slap*

Must be very critical and important to them, ay.



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to hm

Have to wait now..