dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
41799

grunt
@23.29.120.x

grunt to hm

Anon

to hm

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy progress

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the judge will grant Volgatetrolls their motion but with some sort of limitation.

Which won't mean anything because all the trolls need are the names and numbers, they don't want to go to any court where they have to prove stuff.

They want to send out extortion letters / phone calls and know that a certain percentage will be scared enough to pay up. You can be sure that Voltage will be telling them how expensive it will be, even if you're innocent, it's still going to cost you a lot more than just paying up.

Hopefully there's enough info out there on the trolls that people understand that refusing to settle and saying "See you in court" via a lawyer's letter will scare the trolls off.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by grunt :

Hopefully there's enough info out there on the trolls that people understand that refusing to settle and saying "See you in court" via a lawyer's letter will scare the trolls off.

And that is the part that is going to take lots (if not the majority) of people doing. If it's the only odd one it has no effect.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

2 edits

resa1983 to troll_gohome

Premium Member

to troll_gohome
One of the things TSI made sure to talk about was that they were worried about deliberate misinformation on Voltage's part on any settlement letters sent out, if they get the order for information.

CIPPIC stated that they thought the wording in the original Voltage filing left the door open for commercial infringement, Voltage said no, and that's when McHaffie (TSI) stood up, and read the passage from the Voltage request which did show that they were leaving things open for commercial infringement settlement levels.. The judge said "No. Commercial is out of the question. This is personal." He kept bringing up a scenario where a person were to invite their closest friends over for a friday night movie night, and download a video. He specifically said it's personal, and NOT commercial.

TSI pretty much demanded the Judge put limitations on the order if the Judge gives it - I think I remember they explicitly stated name & address only. If Voltage receives phone numbers, you'll get harassing phone calls - as the Oregon order from the judge there stated.

As well, I think they wanted a copy of the order given to the customer as well. Its actual standard issue now in the US for these copytroll suits - trying to inform the person as much as possible.

I should go back over the Volumes.. They mentioned the Germany decision on Guardaley to Barry Logan (Judge had mostly read the order, but not fully at that point - there was just so much to read which was all filed Thurs/Fri night), but nobody mentioned it in court. Is it in the Volume?

EDIT: Sorry about not a full accounting of the hearing - I'm remembering things as people are asking questions.. It was a long hearing, and right after lunch, my phone wasn't sending tweets properly.. I had about a dozen I tried to send, which refused to send, so finally deleted them.

chit happens
@videotron.ca

chit happens

Anon

said by resa1983:

EDIT: Sorry about not a full accounting of the hearing - I'm remembering things as people are asking questions.. It was a long hearing, and right after lunch, my phone wasn't sending tweets properly.. I had about a dozen I tried to send, which refused to send, so finally deleted them.

Someone buy this lady a quality phone, damn it (and a back-up carrier in case).

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
Thanks for sharing that part. That is good then (in regards to the commercial). Guess one can get only so many words in a tweet. Certainly wasn't stated like that.

But, unless the judge calls for some sort of oversight, or limitations, voltage can play this any way they want (w/o going overboard). And people should be informed enough so that voltage doesn't play them.

grunt
@gc.ca

grunt to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

TSI pretty much demanded the Judge put limitations on the order if the Judge gives it

Sure but what does Voltage care about that? It's like telling Voltage, okay here's the key to their front door but you can only open it a crack and see if your movie is there. If not you have close it up and that's the end.

All Voltage has ever wanted from this was names and numbers, that's it. Once they have that everything else will be white noise. Even if they just get addresses how hard would it be to get the phone numbers? Then they can call, make their threats, point out how much cheaper it would be to pay them off then hiring a lawyer and going to court where they'll get so much more.

And what about the people who are innocent? We know the application Canpire uses makes mistakes so Voltage calls / sends the letter, the persons answers back "Nope, not us." Then what? Voltage takes them at their word? Demands that they see their hard drive? Let's say they do and they don't find their movie. What then? Voltage says "You must have deleted it!".

And so on.

I really hope the judge reads up on the technological side of this whole mess and understands the genie he's going to uncork.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

Voltage cares a LOT about the limitations.

1) Public outing is likely not going to happen (initials only for public documents) this protects people's reputations and gives them less incentive to settle quickly.

2) Will hopefully have court oversight on the wording which will allow it to be clear that you do not have to settle and that damages will be limited to the $100-5,000 range if you lose.

3) With so many using cellphones instead of landlines it will be harder to get the account holder's number. Even if they could, I suspect the judge will also limit them to just written "threats" so the court can monitor what they are doing. In any case, for those that sign on with a lawyer for the case Voltage cannot contact the defendants directly - they must go through the lawyer or it will be considered improper and has consequences. (when you sign on with a lawyer they will inform Voltage's council)

4) The judge let it "slip" that there aren't going to be 2,000 individual cases - there's likely only going to be 1 case which means those (actually 1,200) people can hire 1 or more lawyers to defend them which would be much much cheaper (especially if the defendants win as an order for costs is likely to be made)

5) As mentioned above, TSI has whittled the total number of "matching" IPs down to 1,200. That in and of itself should provide an excellent starting defense as 40% of their IPs didn't correlate to records properly - for what reason exactly it isn't clear but it could make their data appear highly questionable to a non-technical person.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy to grunt

Member

to grunt
said by grunt :

said by resa1983:

TSI pretty much demanded the Judge put limitations on the order if the Judge gives it

Sure but what does Voltage care about that? It's like telling Voltage, okay here's the key to their front door but you can only open it a crack and see if your movie is there. If not you have close it up and that's the end.

All Voltage has ever wanted from this was names and numbers, that's it. Once they have that everything else will be white noise. Even if they just get addresses how hard would it be to get the phone numbers? Then they can call, make their threats, point out how much cheaper it would be to pay them off then hiring a lawyer and going to court where they'll get so much more.

And what about the people who are innocent? We know the application Canpire uses makes mistakes so Voltage calls / sends the letter, the persons answers back "Nope, not us." Then what? Voltage takes them at their word? Demands that they see their hard drive? Let's say they do and they don't find their movie. What then? Voltage says "You must have deleted it!".

And so on.

I really hope the judge reads up on the technological side of this whole mess and understands the genie he's going to uncork.

First off, no one should agree to settle (I accept that people likely will but they are just dolts if they do).

Second, people should absolutely refuse access to hard drives and financial records. These have no scope in this. It is up to Voltage to prove they committed the infringement, not to have the evidence handed to them. Financial Records especially have no bearing on the case whatsoever as this is deemed personal and not commercial from the get go (which is likely the case).

Thirdly, if people feel they are being unduly pressured on either 1 or 2, they should contact a lawyer immediately. If it turns into a fight, the first battle should be to remove themselves from a mass litigation as their situation may not necessarily be similar to the other 1199 defendants. I would most definitely not agree to share the same lawyer as the other 1199 defendants as that would be a violation of my rights and would definitely allow for an appeal if I was forced to do so.

grunt
@gc.ca

grunt

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

1) Public outing is likely not going to happen

Since Voltage doesn't make porn (which would be an improvement to what they make from what I understand) I don't think that's much of a threat to begin with in this case.

But you can be sure the porn versions of Voltage are on Canpire's list of future clients.
said by JMJimmy:

Will hopefully have court oversight on the wording which will allow it to be clear that you do not have to settle and that damages will be limited to the $100-5,000 range if you lose.

Now I can see the judge issuing this order but how would it be enforced? They can't send out the letters until the judge signs off? Let's say they send them off with notes about punitive damages that can exceed the 5k limit will the people who get them know that's not right?

What would be the consequences for Voltage?
said by JMJimmy:

In any case, for those that sign on with a lawyer for the case Voltage cannot contact the defendants directly - they must go through the lawyer or it will be considered improper and has consequences. (when you sign on with a lawyer they will inform Voltage's council)

And right there is Voltage's threat coming true, you didn't download anything yet now you're paying a lawyer, a few months of that and it would have been cheaper to pay the "settlement".
said by JMJimmy:

The judge let it "slip" that there aren't going to be 2,000 individual cases - there's likely only going to be 1 case which means those

Sorry, I thought the idea of it being a "reverse class-action" was something they didn't want but Voltage does? I'm not a lawyer and a lot of this is above me so I may be confused but didn't Voltage in the States try to roll it into one big case so they'd only have to go to court once? And that was them being bad-faith players?
said by JMJimmy:

As mentioned above, TSI has whittled the total number of "matching" IPs down to 1,200. That in and of itself should provide an excellent starting defense as 40% of their IPs didn't correlate to records properly - for what reason exactly it isn't clear but it could make their data appear highly questionable to a non-technical person.

And at the end of it all this is the onion, an IP address is not a reliable witness, an IP address generated by dodgy third party software by a firm whose who financial future depends on harvesting as many as they can it goes from unreliable to deeply biased.

Again I hope the judge understands how many innocent people are going to be swept up for the sake of a get-rich-quick scheme hatched by ambulance chasers.

Asking
@videotron.ca

Asking to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
Resa,
Was there any talk in court about "joinder"? (ie. lumping all those who defy their extortion letter into one big lawsuit in court, instead of bringing each individual to court separately.)

Anything at all to share with us on that topic?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to grunt

Premium Member

to grunt
said by grunt :

Now I can see the judge issuing this order but how would it be enforced? They can't send out the letters until the judge signs off? Let's say they send them off with notes about punitive damages that can exceed the 5k limit will the people who get them know that's not right?

What would be the consequences for Voltage?

I think they were looking at having any settlement letter be drafted with the Judge's, CIPPIC, TSI & Voltage input, to avoid disinformation given by Voltage. At least that was what it seemed to me from what TSI's lawyer was suggesting.
said by grunt :

Sorry, I thought the idea of it being a "reverse class-action" was something they didn't want but Voltage does? I'm not a lawyer and a lot of this is above me so I may be confused but didn't Voltage in the States try to roll it into one big case so they'd only have to go to court once? And that was them being bad-faith players?

Voltage has always done mass groupings - in courts where there are some unfavorable judges, they'll split them up into multiple cases to avoid said unfavorable judges, and if 1 case lands (round robin style) on an unfavorable judge, only 1 case gets dismissed, then refiled - 2 strikes & they're out down there. At 2 dismissals, you're off the hook.

That's part of the reason they split the Oregon cases up into 4, vs having 1 larger case. It was Voltage's bad luck that one of the cases landed on a non favorable judge, who then had the other cases reassigned to him.
resa1983

1 edit

resa1983 to Asking

Premium Member

to Asking
said by Asking :

Resa,
Was there any talk in court about "joinder"? (ie. lumping all those who defy their extortion letter into one big lawsuit in court, instead of bringing each individual to court separately.)

Anything at all to share with us on that topic?

Yes. Nicholas McHaffie (TSI's lawyer) specifically brought that issue up as well, saying it may also be an issue here.

I'm not sure about the laws etc that would apply - not a lawyer, dunno how convincing this is.

I'm not sure whether it applied or not, but the Judge stated something about he didn't want 2000 cases, that 1 person would be handling case management for everyone.

EDIT: If there were issues with the evidence, and lawyers were attacking that, it would make it easier on everyone with 1 case.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to grunt

Member

to grunt
said by grunt :

said by JMJimmy:

1) Public outing is likely not going to happen

Since Voltage doesn't make porn (which would be an improvement to what they make from what I understand) I don't think that's much of a threat to begin with in this case.

But you can be sure the porn versions of Voltage are on Canpire's list of future clients.

Just because it's not porn does not mean there won't be other reasons you want to keep that information private. Examples might include that you work in an IP/copyright related business, the films depict material that is frowned upon by your friends/family/coworkers/religion/etc, you're a public figure, etc.
said by grunt :

said by JMJimmy:

Will hopefully have court oversight on the wording which will allow it to be clear that you do not have to settle and that damages will be limited to the $100-5,000 range if you lose.

Now I can see the judge issuing this order but how would it be enforced? They can't send out the letters until the judge signs off? Let's say they send them off with notes about punitive damages that can exceed the 5k limit will the people who get them know that's not right?

What would be the consequences for Voltage?

If they sent something out that the judge did not approve (if he requires it) might include contempt of court, a bar review for the lawyer(s) involved, refunds/dismissal of any settlements to that point, and possible charges from the RCMP (though the last is highly unlikely)
said by grunt :

said by JMJimmy:

In any case, for those that sign on with a lawyer for the case Voltage cannot contact the defendants directly - they must go through the lawyer or it will be considered improper and has consequences. (when you sign on with a lawyer they will inform Voltage's council)

And right there is Voltage's threat coming true, you didn't download anything yet now you're paying a lawyer, a few months of that and it would have been cheaper to pay the "settlement".
said by JMJimmy:

The judge let it "slip" that there aren't going to be 2,000 individual cases - there's likely only going to be 1 case which means those

Sorry, I thought the idea of it being a "reverse class-action" was something they didn't want but Voltage does? I'm not a lawyer and a lot of this is above me so I may be confused but didn't Voltage in the States try to roll it into one big case so they'd only have to go to court once? And that was them being bad-faith players?

This is actually a good thing for the 1,200 - if they each had to pay their own lawyer then it would be too expensive to bother and everyone would settle. If they make it a reverse class-action then everyone shares the cost of 1-3 lawyers. So lets say a defense runs you $50,000 - that's just a little over $40 per person and if you win then you'll also likely get an order for costs which means Voltage pays a chunk of that $50k (usually not all though). Now, lets say you spend $100 each, you've got a $120k for your defense and you're only paying the minimum you'd have to pay anyway - most people will have to pay a lot more since it's supposed to be on a sliding scale based on income/number of infringements/etc.
said by grunt :

said by JMJimmy:

As mentioned above, TSI has whittled the total number of "matching" IPs down to 1,200. That in and of itself should provide an excellent starting defense as 40% of their IPs didn't correlate to records properly - for what reason exactly it isn't clear but it could make their data appear highly questionable to a non-technical person.

And at the end of it all this is the onion, an IP address is not a reliable witness, an IP address generated by dodgy third party software by a firm whose who financial future depends on harvesting as many as they can it goes from unreliable to deeply biased.

Again I hope the judge understands how many innocent people are going to be swept up for the sake of a get-rich-quick scheme hatched by ambulance chasers.

That's what the defendants will have to prove. I'm in a lucky position that TSI has sent me multiple notices stating I both am and am not one of the 1,200 (so many that I'm not even sure). My computer actually fried between the alleged infringement and the notice to retain materials (it was recycled before the notice), and from what I've been able to gather the copyright for the film I'm being accused of downloading resides with BCDF Pictures not Voltage. Lots of non-technical reasons on top of the technical ones.

I'd still chip in regardless.

grunt
@gc.ca

grunt

Anon

said by JMJimmy See Profilestating I both am and am not one of the 1,200 (so many that I'm not even sure) [/BQUOTE :

That is just ridiculous and I'm sorry to hear you've been swept up in this hot mess.

You know if they drag you to court they'll say that you fried your computer.

What is truly vexing about all this is the reality that downloading hasn't cost Voltage a thing. They're trying to make money off their failures and using our court system as the leverage.

resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to troll_gohome

Premium Member

to troll_gohome
Haven't read it yet, but David Ellis was sitting beside me in court all day taking notes (I think he had about 12 pages on his macbook), and his writeup is up:

»www.davidellis.ca/movie- ··· dilemma/

2nd half to come today.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy
Very informative, but I do have a question:

Why is it based on income? I can understand the number of infringements argument, obviously the more counts of infringement, the more damage done.

However what I earn has no basis on how much Voltage was damaged by me violating a copyright infringement.* These types of lawsuits are supposed to be about the copyright holder losing money because of the activity. Not how much they can gouge someone for downloading their movie. Technically, I believe they should be limited to the price of what the DVD sells for at Walmart if we are talking about 1 person downloading 1 movie and not sharing that download. The real loss is only the $9.99 purchase sticker, which is actually Walmart's selling price, not Voltage's cut of that sale. I have no idea how they get the $100-$5000....

*I maintain that I have not nor will I even download a Voltage Picture/Movie. The above statement is just a hypothetical.

cybersaga
join:2011-12-19
Selby, ON

cybersaga

Member

They probably consider it punitive damages, which are supposed to be punishing to the infringer. Say, $100, isn't going to be much of a punishment to someone who brings in $100+k/year. But it would be to someone making $20k.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

Ok, I get that but exactly what is fair for punitive damages on a $20 or less sale of a DVD?

You certainly wouldn't be able to claim punitive damages of $5000 on something that only cost $20 to begin with, even $100 would sound high. In most cases the "films" we are talking about can be found in the bargain bin.

This is just me trying to wrap my head around this, thinking logically...not trying to argue with anyone.

grunt
@gc.ca

grunt to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Judge's, CIPPIC, TSI & Voltage input, to avoid disinformation given by Voltage

I think the fact that a court would have to take such a step to keep the plaintiff honest speaks volumes about what it's really about.

cybersaga
join:2011-12-19
Selby, ON

cybersaga to rednekcowboy

Member

to rednekcowboy
Someone with legal experience can correct me if I'm off, but I don't think punitive damages have any relation to what the cost would have been if things were done legally. It's simply supposed to hurt so that you don't do it again.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

K, but that would be up to the court then, would it not? I still don't see why Voltage should be allowed access to financial records. Seems like that should be up to a judge to determine.....

Let's be honest here, I can't picture Voltage asking anything less than the maximum allowable, can you?

AND how does it work in Canada? If someone breaks my TV, I'm not allowed to sue them for the cost of a new TV nor punitive damages. I can sue for whatever a 2 year old TV is worth.......is that not correct? This is a Civil case, is it not, so why is this any different?

Maybe we have a lawyer or two on here that can answer theses questions....
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by rednekcowboy:

K, but that would be up to the court then, would it not? I still don't see why Voltage should be allowed access to financial records. Seems like that should be up to a judge to determine.....

Let's be honest here, I can't picture Voltage asking anything less than the maximum allowable, can you?

I think McHaffie said that when Voltage first approached Voltage essentially wanted everything they could on the subscriber, literally everything on the subscriber. And TSI pushed back.

But its up to the Judge as to what is allowed in the order - and currently, TSI is pushing for JUST name & address, and nothing more.

cybersaga
join:2011-12-19
Selby, ON

cybersaga to rednekcowboy

Member

to rednekcowboy
Yeah, as resa said, it's definitely up to the judge. You can ask for anything you want. Doesn't mean you'll get it.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to rednekcowboy

Member

to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

Very informative, but I do have a question:

Why is it based on income? I can understand the number of infringements argument, obviously the more counts of infringement, the more damage done.

This was the guidance from the government when they created the law. The values are meant to be a deterrent not something that will bankrupt someone. As cybersaga said, $5k for someone making $100k/y is a deterrent but it would bankrupt someone making $20k/y - ultimately it will be up to the judge to determine the final amount (if any). That amount, if awarded, would likely come as a single value for everyone then the lawyer for the defense would submit a motion to have certain defendants amounts reduced due to income which could be either submitted to the court privately or an affidavit submitted by one of various possible parties stating that the amount would cause undue financial harm. The judge would then re-evaluate those numbers and the rest would stand.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

@JMJimmy

This is a possibility. But I didn't read it that way. After I read their filing it seems to me they want house hold financial info to see if people are living beyound their means (that is, beyound their declared income).

It's a dragnet. A fishing expedition.

Missing Info
@videotron.ca

Missing Info to JMJimmy

Anon

to JMJimmy
Does anyone know where/who to contact to get/buy the court transcript?

Thanks.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by Missing Info :

Does anyone know where/who to contact to get/buy the court transcript?

Thanks.

»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj. ··· en/FAQ#8

@hm they'll never get that info and it's rather laughable that they'd ask for it. It's not up to Voltage to determine $ values of any possible awards it's up to the judge. The reason they want the info is to help them target/pressure certain individuals over others.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

@hm they'll never get that info and it's rather laughable that they'd ask for it. It's not up to Voltage to determine $ values of any possible awards it's up to the judge. The reason they want the info is to help them target/pressure certain individuals over others.

That could very well be. At least, this is now what they may try and use this for.

But, keep in mind they kept their options open. As was pointed out from the beginning of this troll suit, they left the door open for commercial infringement. Both CIPPIC and TSI's lawyers also brought this up.

How does one gain an insight if potential commercial infringement was indeed the case? By looking if someone is living beyound their means (beyound their declared income and bank statements). As simple as that.

The judge appears to have closed this door on them though, as Resa stated.

Ever have a friend busted for smuggling or selling counterfeit goods? I have. First thing the RCMP demands after they bust you is all financials and they draw a picture of your household wealth to determine if you lived beyound your means (to see the depth of undeclared income, or amount undeclared). If so, that is when they decide to take your house and car(s).

With someone trying to nail you for commercial, your financials have to be opened.

Mind you, in this case, it's possible one out of 2,000 made some sort of profit selling fake DVD's at 5$ each at some chinese flea market. But he would have to have a big.. huge network to make enough money at 5$ a pop to show he is living the good life on stealing (lack of a better word) voltages works.

But this door is now closed (it appears). So it doesn't matter anymore.

If down the road they never ask people for this, then we can likely conclude this was indeed the fishing expedition (or threat) they were looking at to make it appear even more scarey and thus force people to settle. The doors were indeed open for this... Judge closed it.

Now, time will tell.

What you stated is also a possibility, or what can happen now.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

This living beyond your means thing is just silly and you'll never have to worry about it in this day and age for this type of copyright battle. They would need some pretty serious evidence/cause to look into your financials. Commercial infringement would be for things like bootleg DVD shops in Pacific Mall (Markham) or possibly going after groups like "The Scene" (uploaders of a lot of TV content). Even then they would not look at financials because there is no monetary gain for most of them.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

Commercial infringement would be for things like bootleg DVD shops in Pacific Mall (Markham) or possibly going after groups like "The Scene" (uploaders of a lot of TV content). Even then they would not look at financials because there is no monetary gain for most of them.

Just saying, this door was left open, and the wording of the filing hinted at this. Yes.

I would have to reread the filings, but I believe, going by memory, it even stated/alluded to collusion between some file-sharers for profit.