dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


eh wut

@videotron.ca
reply to MrMazda86

Re: Bravo Distributel!

said by MrMazda86:

1. I have serious doubt on the credibility of the source.

2. It's posted on a BlogSpot, with no published source reference, which means that anyone could have written it and made this claim, but it isn't necessarily accurate, and there's no way of being able to provide recourse for error.

3. Further, it makes NO mention about Distributel having rolled over and forked out information upon the first request that they received.

4. I suggest you check your facts and follow-up with your sources before trying to make a claim about a product or a service (or service provider), when the information contained within contradicts MANY other credible sources.

5. (EDIT: Upon closer examination, it seems that there are actually statements against TSI within this article that are inconsistent with proven fact, as cited within the publicly accessible court documents... It's sad really.)

heh wow.

1 & 2: The source is one of the most highly regarded copyright lawyers in all of Canada. The sources (which can be seen on his page since he links to them) are the actual court documents. In addition, the CEO of Distributel even posted there.

3. It does, you just didn't bother reading. It is within Distributels court filing.

4. Sadly, I think you are the one in need to check.

5. Nothing is inconsistent. Unless you wish to say the facts presented there by one of the biggest names in copyright law don't jive with whatever perception you dreamed up.

Do you think it's one of Canada's top law blogs because of fabricated and made up stuff? Or could it be that you lack the comprehension skills to follow it?

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit
Where exactly does it say that Distributel forked over a LOT of customer information? It doesn't... That's the problem. The article in and of itself contains certain claims that are not entirely accurate, while "conveniently" omitting other key elements of the case to try and make the situation appear better than it is.

Further, it's not a matter of "perception" as you put it. I have read the actual court documents and have found a number of things contained within those documents to either be missing from the article, stated differently to make it seem different than it shows in those documents, or otherwise missing from the article.

(EDIT: I also forgot to mention... TekSavvy had to be ordered by the courts to disclose any such customer information prior to having done so... This was not the case with Distributel originally. That's another key difference to be pointed out there)


eh wut

@videotron.ca
said by MrMazda86:

The article in and of itself contains certain claims that are not entirely accurate, while "conveniently" omitting other key elements of the case to try and make the situation appear better than it is.

You are right. It's a conspiracy started by the biggest name in copyright law in Canada.
*shrug*


eh wut

@videotron.ca
reply to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:

(EDIT: I also forgot to mention... TekSavvy had to be ordered by the courts to disclose any such customer information prior to having done so... This was not the case with Distributel originally. That's another key difference to be pointed out there)

Yes, of course, NGN Productions never went to court. The court never told Distributel to hand over their customers info.

*shrug*