dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
8

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to El Quintron

Anon

to El Quintron

Re: Voltage - still no cease and desist letter?

said by El Quintron:

said by hm :

heh they aren't going bankrupt. Also if they win, they can show the court the costs it took to get this far, thus it won't be a lousy 100$ payout per person as some are saying. Or that will be another fight and they will drag people to court to recoup costs.

I don't get nor understand why you think they will auto lose and go broke...

It's all in the approach they took, they entered this as a fishing expedition, now they're looking at a court battle, with a $5000 cap on damages, I'm aware that they're trying to show commercial damages, but the burden of proof for this will be much higher, and they're already being kneecapped out of the door, with CIPPIC being granted intervenor status.

The success of this endeavor relied on getting these letters out as quickly as possible, with little time given to potential defendants to prepare, that's all gone now, so they have no other option but to begin an expensive court battle, which I doubt they'll do.

Law of diminishing returns...

I'd like to think that Voltage and their **AA allies are a psychotic Captain Ahab like construct that would gladly rush headlong into and sheer destruction, but they aren't.

What's most likely going to happen is that they're going to drop this, and try again with a different approach, and different IPs later on.

This is a possibility. But it wouldn't be a wise one. The courts themselves would see it for what it is, which i'm sure they don't want.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by hm :

This is a possibility. But it wouldn't be a wise one. The courts themselves would see it for what it is, which i'm sure they don't want.

If they had to go again, they could just license the rights out to a 3rd party corporation in order to litigate, and yeah the judge would see through it, but seeing as another party was litigating they couldn't be accused of gaming the system.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by El Quintron:

said by hm :

This is a possibility. But it wouldn't be a wise one. The courts themselves would see it for what it is, which i'm sure they don't want.

If they had to go again, they could just license the rights out to a 3rd party corporation in order to litigate, and yeah the judge would see through it, but seeing as another party was litigating they couldn't be accused of gaming the system.

Ask how well that worked for Righthaven.
abcjak
join:2012-12-18

abcjak

Member

I forget if i asked here or mentioned it to a friend, but if logless vpn's and proxies are available, why can't an ISP operate the same manner or partner up with such a business and offer a combined in-house type service for a nominal add-on fee?

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Ask how well that worked for Righthaven.

Point being, Rightraven (or it's Canadian incarnation) takes all the risk, and the real copyright holder gets to continue without being bound by any judgement.

It may have been a poor attempt, but the actual content owners get to fight another day.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by El Quintron:

said by JMJimmy:

Ask how well that worked for Righthaven.

Point being, Rightraven (or it's Canadian incarnation) takes all the risk, and the real copyright holder gets to continue without being bound by any judgement.

It may have been a poor attempt, but the actual content owners get to fight another day.

The result of the case was that you can't "assign" copyrights like that without transferring the full rights. If you sue and lose you lose your copyright as well - they lost everything though their entire database ended up being worth $0 at auction.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by JMJimmy:

The result of the case was that you can't "assign" copyrights like that without transferring the full rights. If you sue and lose you lose your copyright as well - they lost everything though their entire database ended up being worth $0 at auction.

I truly hope history repeats itself, but having worked in the content industry for a couple of years, I can tell you that shell games are a forte in the industry, so there's no reason they won't be trotting out Rightraven 2.0 this time around.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by El Quintron:

said by JMJimmy:

The result of the case was that you can't "assign" copyrights like that without transferring the full rights. If you sue and lose you lose your copyright as well - they lost everything though their entire database ended up being worth $0 at auction.

I truly hope history repeats itself, but having worked in the content industry for a couple of years, I can tell you that shell games are a forte in the industry, so there's no reason they won't be trotting out Rightraven 2.0 this time around.

The laws are quite specific about it in Canada to prevent that type of situation. There can be only 1 author of a work. Individual interests may have claims on revenue from that work but there's only 1 who has ownership/copyright of a work and they are the ones with standing to sue. I honestly believe in at least 3-4 of the works cited Voltage is committing fraud by claiming they are the rights holders. (Example: The Magic of Belle Isle for which the copyright is held by BCDF Pictures)