dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed

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

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

Distributel is now FIGHTING the court order to disclose their customer information!

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6781/125/

Entire previous docket:
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2062-12

Next hearing is Monday morning in Montreal, at 9:30am.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

1 edit

WOW! More ammo for us potentially... and I guess we'll be hearing more cases anytime soon regarding other TPIA's... oh boy here we go people...

For those of you who attend those hearings: plz DO TWEET and find a hashtag so we can follow along! TYVM!



Content

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Wow!
Thanks for posting that.

+1 to Distributel for growing a pair and stepping up to the plate. My view of them has just changed.


MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to resa1983

Ya just gotta love extortion at its finest. What I wonder here is if in either case, it will finally be determined that you may be able to identify the subscriber of the service, but this doesn't necessarily identify the device that the materials were transferred to, nor does it identify the actual end-user who initiated the requests to commit these acts by downloading the content.

In my case for example in St. George, I am in a rather large house with a wireless network setup that covers all 9,000 sq. ft. of space within the house. While the internet bill is in my name, and the IP address is assigned to me, this IP address actually points to a D-Link DIR-615 wireless router and not an actual computer. As there are 3 people here who make use of my connection (myself included), it would be reasonable to argue in such a case that I do not actually have any knowledge of such transfers, especially considering that there are two other people who make use of the connection.

This is why I say that there should be a road-block put in place here. Far too often (such as the case before the superior court of R. vs. Pottelburg on an unrelated matter), the question of the identity of the end-user comes into question. I had to face this challenge myself in this case and only won because I was able to get a screen capture of the end-user's live webcam feed to be able to both identify the physical user of the computer in question, and identify the IP address in that case. Had I not been able to capture a screen shot to validate the identity of the end user, all of the conversation history in that case would have been ruled to be inadmissible because I would not have been able to satisfy the identity of the end-user.

I think here the key is likely going to boil down to this very point because it's already come up in a number of other cases. The reality is that far too often this is the subsequent end result of such investigations.


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

CIPPIC has been sent a ton of US court decisions where Judges have made decisions that an IP address only brings you to the subscriber, and not the actual infringer. I also sent them the latest big decision by a Judge:

»fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02···eration/

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml

If CIPPIC is able to bring in US case law (as they've been seeing these lawsuits extensively, while we've only had a smattering of cases), things will be looking good up here until Canipre changes tactics.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10

"legal asshattery".

Gotta love that. So... apropos.

Mike



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Any clue when this will be back in court at Montreal?



hm

@videotron.ca

So let's try and make a list of what has gone down so far with Distributel.

1. They put up zero resistance to giving out their customers names (which is not necessarily the one doing P2P).

2. Since they acted like Bell and Videotron by not opposing anything, the court ordered that the names of the people paying for Distributel internet be released.

3. These Distributel customers who may not even know what p2p is then got demand letters for $1,500 or risk going to court for $20,000.

4. Distributel made zero comment on anything, and were happy.

5. Now this Company, NGN Production, gave more IP's to Distrbutel in order to extort more of their customers who may not ever of heard of p2p before.

6. Only now does Distributel raise any sort of fuss to be paid for giving info, and only now do they say that their accounts recivable for the IP isn't the person behind a computer. And only after TSI/CIPPIC are involved in another case which is frustrating the extortion trolls.

7. Only now do they state they are concerned that this can look bad for them in their customers eyes and will affect Distributel as being a choice for people.

Hmm.
Hmm....

Up above I stated, "My view of them has just changed". I think I'll retract that now that I read up on this a bit.

Seems to me Distributel is only opposing this new motion for more of their customers info because they realized they will lose business and word is getting out not to go to them since they have zero regard for their customers.

All this is is a move to not lose customers while other ISP's fight. Thus making Distributel look bad.

Hm, yeah. I wouldn't recommend Distributel to anyone, nor any of their resellers like Acanac, 3web, etc since they have already made their bed and showed us what they are all about. Regardless what they do now to try and correct this in order to remain a consumer choice as an ISP.


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

Part of it is also that NGN/new company - added to the complaint courtesy of Canipre - submitted a draft order, which includes costs.

I suspect that they're fighting this in part, so that they can actually recover all their costs up to this point, as I bet that NGN's stated amount is insufficient to cover costs to this point.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


D_Puckett
Premium
join:2013-02-09
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to hm

Actually no. The motivation is that we don't like bullies. Distributel receives requests for private information on a regular basis and our answer had been a standard, 'go see if you can find a court to agree with you'. The problem with these copyright cases, as we have realized, is that the court is not able ascertain on its own what is good technical evidence and what is not. It was only after one of our customers received a settlement offer that we realized that the collection of the info was not for cease and desist letters but for $1500 shakedown letters.