| reply to resa1983
Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| 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. |
|
| 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/
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| 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.
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
1 edit | said by InvalidError: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.
What you say rings true. It is useful to make a distinction between information being private and activities being anonymous. As you suggest protecting anonymity can't be the responsibility of the ISP and may be nigh impossible. There should be no expectation for an ISP to keep activities anonymous. That is a very different topic.
For this particular stream of consciousness I've kept my focus on the ISP. There is an especially high level of trust between the ISP and the customer. There is a correspondingly high expectation to keep proprietary information private (which includes more than just IP to account holder data).
What standards are to be applied by the ISP to prevent third party access to information proprietary to the ISP? An unopposed court order, for example, is a pretty low standard (which for the record TekSavvy has not done but other ISPs apparently have). |
|
| 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.
No, but yes, but no, however, but no. No, the information requested by Voltage is not public, otherwise they would not request it through the court. But yes, there's no guarantee that the person using your phone is actually you. But no, what this is really about is not protecting the innocents, but protecting one's privacy, governed by laws, which are opposite copyright laws. However, protecting the innocents from false suits is indeed built into privacy laws, which is why we have them to begin with, by virtue of our fundamental innocent-until-proven-guilty legal system. But no, that's not between me and the court, it's between whomever holds my personal information who is then requested to release it, the whole thing governed again by privacy laws.
There is no such thing as an IP-name directory - an IPbook as it were. If you are aware of such, please share with us. It would help set the facts straight.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot. |
|
| reply to QuantumPimp
Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status said by QuantumPimp: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. Proprietary to them? I disagree. TSI is the legal guardian of our personal information, governed by privacy laws, and by the privacy agreement. TSI is not the legal _owner_ of this information, nor is this information intellectual property. However, were the privacy agreement written differently - for example giving TSI full rights as to its dissemination and monetizing - then it would become intellectual property. But in becoming so, it would put TSI in a hard spot, whereby they could be deemed to facilitate - and even profit from - extortion, through the sale of this information.
As for customer expectations, they are plainly written at length in the privacy agreement.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot. |
|
| reply to Perma
Forgot to say.
Yay for us, the little people! Thank the judge, and the CIPPIC.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot. |
|
| reply to Perma
For those that still think TSI should be the ones opposing. Ask any of the 1100 +/- targeted individuals, who they would prefer to have stand up in court for them. I would say the majority would go with the CIPPIC. The question really isn't who should take the opposing position against Voltage, but who is best suited to do so. I would bet dollars to donuts that if the CIPPIC could not or would not be in a position to intervene, TSI would have opposed. It's all just conjecture at this point, so. My theory would of course indicate a well thought out plan, the details of which no one will ever probably know......meh, who cares, as long as the best people for the job, are on the job... |
|
| reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:TSI is the legal guardian of our personal information, governed by privacy laws, and by the privacy agreement.
Except TSI is far from being the only entity that has your information. If you bought downloadable games from Steam, Blizzard, etc., they have your credit details on record along with the IP you logged in from. If you registered for Google Wallet for your Android device, Google has credit card details for that too along with your IP every time you sign in, same goes for every other place you have an account with contact information and links to other accounts.
ISPs may be the simplest and most reliable way to associate an IP with someone but not the only one by a long shot. Each site you register with and sign into is a potential privacy leak. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by InvalidError:ISPs may be the simplest and most reliable way to associate an IP with someone but not the only one by a long shot. Each site you register with and sign into is a potential privacy leak.
Agreed, except in context, all of the above have privacy policies that govern the use of your ip, email and PIDs *also* it would rather inefficient for a content holder to hit up something like Steam for my personal details, as Steam has even less reason to divulge this than an ISP would.
So although your claim is true on paper, it has little real world application.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
 TigerLordResident pentaxianPremium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Canada
kudos:6
·ELECTRONICBOX
Host:
International Broa..
Videotron
| reply to Perma
said by Perma:So more less, voltage attempted to extort money but most likely will end up paying money.
Music to my ears.
I saw this TED talk yesterday and it made me think of this case. Replace "patent troll" by "copyright troll" and you're pretty much on the mark.
»www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_ho···oll.html |
|
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:Agreed, except in context, all of the above have privacy policies that govern the use of your ip, email and PIDs And most of the above also have countless agreements with 3rd-parties sharing various degrees of information, all of which susceptible of leaking information.
I never claimed it was practical but people who are genuinely concerned about their "IP privacy" still need to realize how hopelessly public their IP really is. |
|
