dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6471
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status

said by resa1983:

said by Perma:

How significant is this?

Very.

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

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, ...
Expand your moderator at work


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to resa1983

Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status

said by resa1983:

said by bbiab:

Who has said they have to pay anything?

They will need to pay Teksavvy costs.

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


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

reply to hm
said by hm :

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

yes. they do. page three at bottom.. 1 - a & b.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

bbiab

join:2004-05-26
reply to Tx
said by Tx:

said by resa1983:

said by bbiab:

Who has said they have to pay anything?

They will need to pay Teksavvy costs.

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

The second response wasn't quite so sure.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to Perma
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.ca/2013···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!
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
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!


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile

1 recommendation

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.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
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.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to MFido
said by MFido:

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!

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.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

swampboy

join:2012-01-24
Hamilton, ON
reply to Perma
Happy Valentine's Day indeed!

Looks like Voltage is in for an interesting and expensive time.

I would urge everyone to donate to CIPPIC to help them offset the costs of this action. All persons interested in preserving and strengthening an open internet, especially a wireless one, should considered giving. Those that have been notified about downloading should view CIPPIC as their best hope to escape the clutches of copyright trolls such as Voltage.

Although I was not notified, I am more concerned about all those innocent persons who will be caught up in this mess if Voltage succeeds. The basis of Wifi is threatened by these trolls, given the general population's lack of knowledge about proper security.

Thanks again to CIPPIC!


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

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.ca/2013···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!

Further, TSI has not had the opportunity to fully explain it's position in this situation because of the pending hearing. They have indicated this is the case previously. I think it would be wise of you to restrain your criticism until you know the details of their stance.
--
BHell... A Public Futility.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

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.

Again, it's the prothonotary who recognizes problems if there is no consideration of all aspects of the matter ... not a matter of "unchallenged". Not the judge.

CIPPIC is not representing consumers alone, they are representing public policy. In other words, things may come out of their presentations and questions that could be in favour of Voltage. This is far more than a simple us vs them matter.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

said by hm :

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

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

ty for clarifying.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to AkFubar

said by AkFubar See Profile
Further, TSI has not had the opportunity to fully explain it's position in this situation because of the pending hearing. They have indicated this is the case previously. I think it would be wise of you to restrain your criticism until you know the details of their stance.

Constructive criticism should always be welcomed. I too believe this has to play itself out, however it is also important to re-enforce what consumers rights are and the roles and responsibilities ISPs have under law regarding your personal information throughout this process going forward. That's very important, not just from a copyright point of view, but from how your online data is used online as well.

I'm looking on this with a different set of eyes then most. There's a lot of abuse of privacy when it comes to your online data.

We have laws in place to help curb abuse. That legal responsibly falls with companies that hold our private information to ensure requests are within legal standard and merit. If private companies don't start doing their part for whatever reason, than this system of accountability and oversight doesn't work, and your online data could be used for pretty much anything, by anyone. That's the threat here.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


swampboy

join:2012-01-24
Hamilton, ON
reply to sbrook
I don't think the prothonotary would have been raising the issues of the "IP address does not equal a person" issue.

That is the key to this case and it seems only CIPPIC is interested is bringing it up. As for other potential judicial hazards, there is less to fear than just rolling over and handing Voltage a list of subscriber's names. Of course, there is no guarantee what direction this will go. This action, IMHO, will make history and help set case law.


Hyrules

join:2006-07-19
Gatineau, QC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Videotron
·ELECTRONICBOX
·FreePhoneLine

1 edit
reply to Perma
Openmedia is a pro privacy non lucrative organisation. This can just mean more troubles for Voltage. They are part of the reason Bill-C30 didn't go thru. This is indeed good news.
--
- Technicien en informatique / Computer tech [A+]
- Chasseur d'orage / Storm Chaser


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to jkoblovsky
The online data that needs protection is far more than simply the name associated with the account that was online at time X on date X.

What matters in this case is verification that someone on a system assigned to IP x at a date and time did in fact violate copyright law and whether the person who supposedly violate copyright was assigned IP x, otherwise the court is potentially ordering the release of a name (I can get anyone's name from a phone book and after all there's no real difference between an IP and a phone number) but in doing so the court may be subjecting them to nothing short of persecution by false suit.

And of course the risk of further persecution and further false suits.

So this is not really about data protection it's all about risk of persecution by releasing names and that is the court's job.

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
I Am Glad someone is standing up for teksavvys customers.. Shame its not teksavvy thou. Does Cippic run a Isp by chance?
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

said by bbiab:

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

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*

Scenario:
Voltage doesn't pay TSI.
TSI sues Voltage.
Judge awards copyright to all Voltage films to TSI.
TSI offers free d/l of all the titles.
Poetic justice.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to jkoblovsky

Dead parrot
said by jkoblovsky:

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

Ok, Keswick lawyer .... oh wait.. you aren't a lawyer, are you?
So what are you?
Lovely plumage you have there.


QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

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.

To which violations are you referring?

It is within the realm of possibility that TekSavvy could become liable. I think Kim Dotcom would agree. Even so, a threatening suit is still possiible. Nothing has stopped that from happening.

said by sbrook:


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.

Are you suggesting CIPPIC is assuming a responsibility normally held by the Crown? I would have expected an outcry against the Crown and not TekSavvy if this were the case. In particular Michael Geist and Howard Knopf haven't said anything that has caught my attention. Like most I am probably lazy and just not looking correctly but where is this view coming from?

said by sbrook:

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.

Yes, it is certainly up to TekSavvy to protect the proprietary information for which they are the source. The crown does not even know that that information even exists. I think the issue is related to how much protection should customers be entitled. Should TekSavvy be trolled fortnightly would they survive?

The question remains are TekSavvy customers currently getting the very best representation and care? I don't see any expert analysis of the campaign or the results.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
Your name is everywhere. The association between your name and your IP address is not neccessarily private information. For many, the IP is nothing more than like a phone number ... quite public. After all there's no guarantee that the person using your phone is actually you. What this is really about is protecting the innocent from malicious lawsuits. That's not the same as privacy and that is between you and the court. Not the phonebook printer.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The online data that needs protection is far more than simply the name associated with the account that was online at time X on date X.

What matters in this case is verification that someone on a system assigned to IP x at a date and time did in fact violate copyright law and whether the person who supposedly violate copyright was assigned IP x, otherwise the court is potentially ordering the release of a name (I can get anyone's name from a phone book and after all there's no real difference between an IP and a phone number) but in doing so the court may be subjecting them to nothing short of persecution by false suit.

And of course the risk of further persecution and further false suits.

So this is not really about data protection it's all about risk of persecution by releasing names and that is the court's job.

You're on the right track, but it's not the court that's to blame. The way our system is set up for to handle cases like this in court, is those holding the information behind that IP number (can be an ISP, can be facebook, can be google) are responsible for overseeing the legal merits of information requests.

The accountability and oversight on your private data comes from the company holding that information. The courts very rarely get involved in oversight unless a motion to oppose is brought before the court. A company that doesn't oppose the motion agree's to the legal merits of it in the courts eyes, thus courts assume legal merits are sound, and personal information is sent possibly without oversight. That's what would have happened here due to TSI not opposing if the CIPPIC didn't get involved.

There was a big discussion by legal experts on this:

»openmedia.ca/blog/update-voltage···-crusade

The problem right now in the system, is that there is such demand for big data, that very rarely is the private sector looking at the legal merits of the requests, and it's pretty much open season right now on personal online information, with little to no accountability. The EU is getting ready to bring in major regulations on their telecom and private sectors as a result. If this trend continues in Canada, I would suspect those here in Canada would be facing the same thing.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Your name is everywhere. The association between your name and your IP address is not neccessarily private information. For many, the IP is nothing more than like a phone number ... quite public. After all there's no guarantee that the person using your phone is actually you. What this is really about is protecting the innocent from malicious lawsuits. That's not the same as privacy and that is between you and the court. Not the phonebook printer.

My understanding is this information is not public otherwise there would be no problem having it published (and without involvement of the courts). It is also why the ISP is involved in this situation as the information is proprietary to them.

The question is to what standard should they be held when releasing proprietary data to a third party? There are legal standards and customer expectations of privacy. My understanding is that legal standards are weak and have minor penalties. As far as I know customer expectations range all over the map. If this becomes an issue then the market will shake out the winning formulae.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to Perma
Nice now we got flaming on this post which is not being removed, my replies are being marked and removed for spam, and now not getting through. Can you say I'm so done with this forum. What a joke. Not the ship I would run. Too bad, good discussion going on here with respect to privacy.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

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 conjecture at best. There has never been a case where a copyright troll (or anyone else) has successfully sued an ISP for aiding and abetting copyright infringement for opposing a motion to reveal their customer's information. In fact, I don't think an attempt has ever been made.

Logically, it wouldn't make sense for a copyright troll to sue an ISP. When an ISP opposes these types of motions, they aren't taking a stance on copyright infringement. They're opposing the methods used by the copyright trolls. The evidence has not been shown. All we know is that they use a company named Canipre to obtain this information. There are many other issues such as the fact that an IP address doesn't equal a person and the fact that Voltage Pictures is citing commercial copyright infringement and higher penalties than the new copyright law dictates.

Since they are accusing these people of commercial copyright infringement, they have to provide evidence to show these people are profiting from the files they are allegedly downloading. Since Voltage Pictures doesn't even know these people's identities they will not be able to prove this, therefore, they will have to change their complaint if they are opposed. This means they can't send demand letters asking for more than $5000 since it would then be easy to prove they are misleading the alleged copyright violators.

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.

Of course it's up to TSI to protect our privacy rights, THEY have our data. When someone requests my information from a company I deal with, I expect the company to provide my information only if the request is legitimate and if the request to obtain my information is more important than my privacy rights.

I'm not happy with how Teksavvy has handled this but I do like the way they've been transparent about most things. I still think they should have opposed this motion themselves. This wouldn't have prevented CIPPIC from opposing it as well.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
reply to Perma
Everyone on that list should be donating to CIPPIC unless they want to pay $1000+ for a settlement.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to QuantumPimp
said by QuantumPimp:

My understanding is this information is not public otherwise there would be no problem having it published (and without involvement of the courts). It is also why the ISP is involved in this situation as the information is proprietary to them.

ISPs are merely the most convenient way but by no means the only one.

Every online service and retailer where you need to provide personal information or piggy-back on another's authentication services has an implicit confirmation of a link between your IP and account every time you sign in. Every advertiser who receives sponsored impressions receives an account ID linking your IP to an account somewhere.

The privacy as far as IP-to-personal-ID goes is only as strong as the weakest link and the chain is cribbed with middlemen who want to extract as much information about you as they can.

So, IPs being "private" sounds like a false sense of security as far as I am concerned... particularly when people are simultaneously logged into FB, GMail, Twitter, DSLR, etc. Every advertiser and middlemen knows your IP and which account it belongs to. They just do not have direct access to the personal info behind that account ID... but much like ISPs, that ID is only one court order/warrant away.