resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to Fresh Meat
Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 ContinuedActually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.
I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs. |
|
|
said by resa1983:Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.
I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs. So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!! Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Feb-2 10:56 am
said by rednekcowboy:said by resa1983:Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.
I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs. So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!! Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good. Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100. |
|
|
said by resa1983:said by rednekcowboy:said by resa1983:Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.
I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs. So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!! Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good. Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100. So roughly a 10% margin of error, or am I over-simplifying it? |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
to resa1983
said by resa1983:I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs. Yeah. I agree with that. |
|
hm |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-3 8:46 am
So back to the question posed further up...
Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied, is there supposed to be a date issued now where the Judge will decide to allow or disallow the intervention by CIPPIC? If so, any info on when the Judge will sit down to decide this?
What goes on now? When?
Any info at all? |
|
|
JohnDohnut
Anon
2013-Feb-3 10:03 am
said by hm :Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,
Voltage has replied ? Where, when ? |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to hm
I don't think anyone knows right now.
I *think* any judge at this point can pick up & make the decision on CIPPIC's intervention, and I think that's what we're waiting on now. |
|
resa1983 |
to JohnDohnut
said by JohnDohnut :said by hm :Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,
Voltage has replied ? Where, when ? Voltage objected to CIPPIC's intervention. CIPPIC responded to the objection. » www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· ormationNewer stuff at the top, older stuff at the bottom. Voltage's response is 1 of 2 and 1 of 2 |
|
|
Gorgonzola
Anon
2013-Feb-6 8:36 pm
So any news this week?
I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution".
TSI was order to send the notice out upon receipt of the Voltage draft.
So.. um.. have these voltage vultures given TSI a draft yet? Anyone know?
Has the new Email gone out yet?
Marc, any news on anything? |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Feb-6 9:03 pm
I posted an update in the TSI thread, but I'll repost here:
On Monday, the case was released to have CIPPIC's motion to intervene decided. No clue as to time frame.
Yesterday Judge Mandamin (the judge who recommended a 1 day special hearing for hearing the evidence), wrapped up a major case - most likely the major case he stated he thought would get in the way of him being able to take over the Voltage case.
Its very possible that now that Judge Mandamin's case is resolved, he will take over the Voltage case.
I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue. |
|
|
Gorgonzola
Anon
2013-Feb-7 6:35 pm
said by resa1983:I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue. If there's no Email by tomorrow then CIPPIC is going to have call bullshit on voltage. As well as TSI's lawyers. 3 weeks is more than enough. |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six Premium Member join:2011-03-31 Toronto, ON |
|
|
|
And south of the border... "IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model."" » www.techdirt.com/article ··· ns.shtml |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-9 8:26 am
said by bullwinkle:And south of the border...
"IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model.""
»www.techdirt.com/article ··· ns.shtml That's quite a nice analogy the judge makes. This snapshot allegedly shows that the Defendants were downloading the copyrighted workat least at that moment in time. But downloading a large file like a video takes time; and depending on a users Internet-connection speed, it may take a long time. In fact, it may take so long that the user may have terminated the download. The user may have also terminated the download for other reasons. To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence... .... |
|
hm |
to Gorgonzola
said by Gorgonzola :So any news this week?
I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution". Marc, I believe this now makes it one month. Any news at all? Get the draft yet to send to people? |
|
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2013-Feb-14 10:08 am
Still no draft. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-14 10:12 am
:/
Ty For the reply Marc.. |
|
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to TSI Marc
Not surprising. We all know they don't want people to stop sharing, cuz it means they might be able to sue more people. That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol. |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-14 10:19 am
said by resa1983:That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol. OoOoOhH I'm sure they will. heh It shows volumes. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2013-Feb-14 10:22 am
We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning.. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2013-Feb-14 10:25 am
said by TSI Marc:We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning.. Especially considering they wrote the original letter that went out to customers.. They could have added it to that. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2013-Feb-14 10:29 am
Exactly! |
|
hm @videotron.ca |
hm to TSI Marc
Anon
2013-Feb-14 10:44 am
to TSI Marc
Yup. I recall the lawyer bringing that up. Think he even raised his voice at them if I recall right.
Yet, they continue to not bother... |
|
hm |
hm
Anon
2013-Feb-14 11:31 am
The link/PDF: CIPPIC Intervenor Status Granted » www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· nted.PDF |
|
hm |
hm to hm
Anon
2013-Feb-14 11:57 am
to 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$). » www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 784/125/Coincidence? I think not. |
|
|
Dunlop
Member
2013-Feb-14 12:25 pm
said by hm :It should also be noted, since Teksavvy submitted their costs *to date*, American lobby groups are now attacking Canada for their statutory damages being to low (5,000$).
»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 784/125/
Coincidence? I think not. wow lol |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
to hm
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
2013-Feb-14 1:13 pm
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
2013-Feb-15 9:47 am
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? |
|