dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
20

AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.

AkFubar to hm

Member

to hm

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by hm :

It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).

»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 784/125/

Coincidence? I think not.

That goes to show it is not about protecting copyrights but all about the money. It should be noted that they have not been very successful recently in recovering the big $ they seek in US courts either.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

An Aussie economist put out a paper a couple of years ago showing that it's only a money funnel system to the USA.
hm

hm

Anon

So What's going to happen now?

Does CIPPIC have to draft and submit what it plans to examine?

Or do they wait for a judge to pick it up and it hit court right away?

What is to happen now?
When?

Any other info besides this latest news?
hm

hm to TSI Marc

Anon

to TSI Marc
Marc,

During the last court hearing your lawyer brought up the fact that (I'm paraphrasing), Voltage dropped their lawsuits in Quebec against people, stating they only intended to send the extortion letters.

Voltages lawyer turned around and claimed they did not and wanted to know where he heard that.

Your lawyer stated it was in the press.

Voltages lawyer never replied on the subject again at the hearing.

So my Question:

Do you, or your lawyers, or CIPPIC know the status of the Quebec lawsuits? Was it indeed dropped?

I seem to recall this as well. Pretty sure it would have been in this topic with a link, if it were true (the one where I found one of the IP's belong to the Montreal Canadians): »Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada, but, a quick look shows nothing, unless I missed it in that books of comments.

Any info on that one? Or any ref to the press release and/or media story your lawyer referred to?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

This is about the confirmation of the settlements:

»www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 810.html

Someone from Voltage or the lawyer's office blabbed to Huffington Post.

As for Voltage's Quebec lawsuit, here's the docket, translated to English:
»translate.google.com/tra ··· -1373-11

These are the main points though:
Aug 24, 2011: Filed
Aug 29, 2011: First hearing - court granted order for subscriber info release
Oct 4, 2011: Order from the court to file a schedule for the upcoming lawsuit, in by Nov 4, 2011
Nov 4, 2011: Plaintiff files schedule as ordered.
Nov 18, 2011: Court orders plaintiff stick to their own schedule, and name defendants, and give progress report on Dec 16, 2011
Dec 16, 2011: Plaintiff asks for more time
Dec 28, 2011: Court grants more time - has til Mar 2, 2012
Mar 5, 2012: Plaintiff tells court they're waiting for directions from client.
Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by resa1983:

Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.

TY!. Didn't see that.

So now I wonder, why did the Voltage lawyer bitch back at Teksavvys lawyer about this?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

Mar 28, 2012: Plaintiff withdraws lawsuit.

TY!. Didn't see that.

So now I wonder, why did the Voltage lawyer bitch back at Teksavvys lawyer about this?

Either they (Voltage's laweyers) didn't know about the settlements, or didn't think TSI had the previous Voltage court docket in front of them to prove to the judge right then that the previous case went nowhere.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

I hope TSI's lawyers are looking into seeing if there are any Voltage assets in Canada.

Or at the next hearing (which may or may not occur) demand payment due to their hit & run style.

random
@teksavvy.com

random

Anon

If Voltage don't pay up, Distributel and any future victim ISP in Canada could invite them to their court hearing as witness.
Expand your moderator at work
Tong
join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

Tong to random

Member

to random

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

I just found funny, there are no mentioning of this decision on the »copyrightenforcement.ca website and it seems they also don't allow people comment anymore either.

I wonder why...... hmm..

mazhurg
Premium Member
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

mazhurg

Premium Member

Oh, you can comment. They just "moderate" them

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

Update Via Marc:
CIPPIC Submitted two affidavit's from expert witnesses:

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdf

»www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· mall.pdf

Haven't read them yet.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

First is from CIPPIC's articleing student - He dug up every single Voltage case in the US, and submitted the first page of each as evidence, and referenced the earlier Voltage suit here in Canada, stating the courts can pull that case themselves.

Second is from a professor who has studied p2p systems. Gives quite a few reasons why "An IP is not necessarily the subscriber", along with reasons why someone can be using another's connection without the subscribers' knowledge.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

dillyhammer

Premium Member

That's a salvo fired right across Voltage's ass stern bow.

Mike

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

I hope you mean across their bow, since across their stern means that they missed and if they carry on in the direction they're heading all subsequent shots will miss too!

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

Yeah, that's what I meant. The other stern.

Fixed.

Mike