TekSavvy → CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status

»www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· ormation

JF tweeted this:
"Now I know why Tamir abruptly left the room a while back and left his laptop here"
Tamir's the staff lawyer for CIPPIC, and is at the wireless hearings right now - he presented with Lindsey from OpenMedia.

How significant is this?

Voltage's job just got a whole lot more complicated and expensive.

Very.

They have full intervenor status. CIPPIC got partial intervenor status in the BMG case.

As InvalidError said, this is going to cost Voltage a lot more money, and frankly, it's looking like Voltage won't get subscriber info.

Voltage has 2 options:
1. Pay off Teksavvy's costs, and run.
2. Go to the evidence hearing, and with the lack of good solid evidence, get it (and all of Canipre's evidence), thrown out.

If this case goes to evidence, and the evidence gets tossed, Distributel's case is going to get tossed as well.

2) Add pay TSI's costs, CIPPICs costs, and run the risk of a bona fide defense being that much stronger next time they poke their heads out.

They're really between a rock and a hard place legally.

The Distributel case won't get tossed if Voltage turns tail and runs though... in that case Distributel will have to fight but they can use all the arguments that were to be presented by CIPPIC.

Very.
They took a gamble.
They got lucky.
It will pay off.
Rejoice.
Break out the wine.
Sing, dance and...

No, Distributel's case won't get tossed if Voltage runs. It will get tossed if Voltage sticks around, gets their evidence tossed, and loses.

Both companies used Canipre, and Barry Logan.

w00t!!!! thats great news \o/

I thought that's what I said...

This is good news but I really want this to get in front of a judge, we need these laws to be tested and everyone's roles and responsibilities from user to ISP clearly defined.

Copyright violation and bittorents is a legal issue in an uncomfortable grey area and legit right's holders shouldn't be forgotten.

Voltage of course is none of that, they're just a pack of slimy trolls trying to make their worthless movies profitable (hint guys; make good movies that people want to pay for). The lack of a C&D after how many months now? makes that painfully obvious.

What I would love to see is Voltage bullheadedly plugging on and a judge telling them in no uncertain terms that they have nothing and will get nothing creating a precedent that kills trolls dead in Canada.

Like the judge in California who destroyed one of those John/Jane Doe cases, citing something like a dozen reasons why the plaintiff's case was invalid including some illegal and potentially criminal actions (some of the copyrights the lawfirm was trying to defend was from owners who never agreed to join their case, which the judge said could be perceived as conspiring to commit fraud) from the lawfirm.

That ruling will make blanket copyright defense as a business model a whole lot more complicated, expensive and dangerous in the USA if it gets upheld by other courts if/when challenged.

So more less, voltage attempted to extort money but most likely will end up paying money.

Yup.. That was after the judge asked for information on "Alan Cooper", them trying to recuse the judge off the case, denied having judge recuse, withdrawing the case, and the judge going "nono, we're not done here. Show up to this hearing or else."

Feb 19, Pietz (defendant lawyer) gets to do a brief about why there should be sanctions, and then the hearing is Mar 11 I think? At which point I hope the Judge recommends disbarrment, and tosses Gibbs in jail so he can't take off to Mexico, like Lutz did.

That entire this is going to be popcorn-worthy.

Who has said they have to pay anything?

»www.cippic.ca/en/donate

They will need to pay Teksavvy costs.

Is it a given they will be directed accordingly at some point?

wow...wasn't TSI's cost's to date $190,000? The voltage number crunchers will be working overtime, weighing the possible advantages of continuing on. will be interesting to see what their next move will be.

It may have been part of the deal beforehand: Give us time to inform our customers, and pay our costs, and WE won't fight it.

If that's so... *snickers*

Do they? I don't see that stated there.

CONSIDERING that the record before me justifies the intervention of CIPPIC on the Plaintiff's discovery motion, but at this time, on no other aspect of the Plaintiffs action against the Defendants, ...

They should be paying more then Teksavvy's costs. The should be paying for Teksavvy's time on this as well as anything else their lawyers can come up with

yes. they do. page three at bottom.. 1 - a & b.

The second response wasn't quite so sure.

The CIPPIC has been granted full intervenor status is because no one else is stepping up to the plate that should be. That's quite clear in the judges order on this:

UPON considering the motion record of CIPPIC, the responding motion record of the Plaintiff, and the reply of the CIPPIC, and noting that the Respondent TekSavvy Solutions Inc. has not taken a position on this motion.

and

CONSIDERING that the issues raised on the Plaintiff's motion, if determined without opposition, will not likely be contested or revisited by the Court at the request of the newly identified and served Defendants, since, by then, their identity will have been communicated to the Plaintiff and the issue might be moot.

In other words judge realizes the evidence will be tested by potential defendants due to issues raised by the CIPPIC, which should have been raised by TSI directly in this case. If the motion stood unopposed, defendants (and TSI's customers) could very much shoulder the legal costs associated with defending against spotty evidence that should have been tested at the beginning of the case.

While this development is a win for TSI customers, TSI is well within it's rights to oppose this motion at minimal costs.

»excesscopyright.blogspot ··· isp.html

Keep in mind currently it's not TSI defending consumers right to privacy under spotty evidence here. It's the CIPPIC. TSI should not be getting a pat on the back just yet. They have yet to show any responsibility to their customers on this. A statement echoed by the court order today!

Howard Knopf is a "I know better, I know it all" person. I do not have any confidence in this type of people.

And it is easy for Distributel to oppose now, AFTER Teksavvy stepped in and some things are more clear AFTER Distributel fails to do so in November ...

Just saying it is not all black and white ... So far Teksavvy did the part they suppose to do!

First the order did not come from a judge, but a court prothonotary. Second you are reading things into the order that are not there. There is nothing there that says these issues should have been raised by TSI. As has been stated, TSI is potentially in a position of aiding and abetting these copyright violations. They could well have been threatened with a suit if they didn't take a neutral stance - we just don't know.

This is not really Copyright Holder vs John and Jane Doe at this stage, it's a petition of Copyright Holder vs the Crown, therefore it should be the crown seeking expert witnesses and asking questions. In this case, as an intervenor, CIPPIC will essentially be the crown's expert witnesses. TSI plays a side role in this.

It's not up to TSI to protect your privacy rights, it's up to the Crown. They set the rules, now it's up to them to enforce them.

I forgot about the Crown on my posts. My stance who protects privacy rights is much like your sbrook. But we'll slandered for it unfortunately. Like environmentalists that shove their green energy agendas in your face.

I don't see that at all, in fact quite the opposite. Knopf has a very long history of sticking up for consumers on copyright related issues. What he has been writing about is specifically on consumers rights, and the legal rights private companies have under privacy laws under circumstances like this.

And regardless of linking to Knopf here, it seems the judge also recognizes problems that could arise in this case if the motion remained unchallenged. It's not just Knopf, it's now also federal judges that have taken issue with TSI's stance and problems that would create.

Again it's the CIPPIC representing consumers here, not TSI.