dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18494
share rss forum feed

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
reply to Reality Chek

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

Indeed. In addition Voltage has no interest in going to court because of the technical flaws in their evidence. They want settlements not a trial.


HSR

@rogers.com
reply to JMJimmy
"Now that the info has been ordered to be released, assuming they pay, I've arranged for a lawyer to deal with any communications that come my way."

As a business if I have to get a lawyer because my internet provider is handing my business information out at free will, I would hire the most expensive lawyer I could find to fight whatever I was being accused of, then send the bill to my internet provider. If my lawyer wants to get paid, he'd find a way through the courts to ensure the internet provider pays.

To me this would be an expense which businesses can not afford, and from what I've been told from my IT guys, a lot of the problem business communications are at risk online, is due to internet providers rolling over on frivolous requests. I don't know enough about the situation here since I'm not a PHD in legalalese, but if I was faced with something similar with my ISP, this is how I would handle it. I think most businesses would do the same.

RobOutback

join:2011-07-18
said by HSR :

As a business if I have to get a lawyer because my internet provider is handing my business information out at free will, I would hire the most expensive lawyer I could find to fight whatever I was being accused of, then send the bill to my internet provider. If my lawyer wants to get paid, he'd find a way through the courts to ensure the internet provider pays.

Yeah, I'm sure your lawyer would be fine with that.

Get real. You'd soon find a lean on anything of value you owned. Plus a ruined credit history. And a ton more legal bills when he turned around and sued you.

But before that, he'd make you pay a retainer. There's no way a high-priced lawyer would ever take your case.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to HSR
said by HSR :

"Now that the info has been ordered to be released, assuming they pay, I've arranged for a lawyer to deal with any communications that come my way."

As a business if I have to get a lawyer because my internet provider is handing my business information out at free will, I would hire the most expensive lawyer I could find to fight whatever I was being accused of, then send the bill to my internet provider. If my lawyer wants to get paid, he'd find a way through the courts to ensure the internet provider pays.

To me this would be an expense which businesses can not afford, and from what I've been told from my IT guys, a lot of the problem business communications are at risk online, is due to internet providers rolling over on frivolous requests. I don't know enough about the situation here since I'm not a PHD in legalalese, but if I was faced with something similar with my ISP, this is how I would handle it. I think most businesses would do the same.

You obviously don't have a solid grasp of the legal issues at play here. Especially as it relates to common carrier status in Canada (which all ISPs have).


Reality Chek

@videotron.ca
reply to HSR
said by HSR :

As a business if I have to get a lawyer because my internet provider is handing my business information out at free will

Let us assume TSI was your provider and you are involved in this copyright case.

Would it not be your own fault for not trying to quash disclosure when the ISP originally notified you? Would it not be *you* who choose not to exercise your own rights?

hmm

In the case of Bell and Distributel, yeah I can see people being upset. Heck, I would be. And those with money could hire a lawyer and could make an issue of not being informed in order to exercise their rights.

TSI doesn't fall within this category of ISP though. They informed people and they covered the topic of their liability issues with the court.

So maybe you might want to consider a change in ISP? Just saying...


HSR

@rogers.com
reply to JMJimmy
No I don't. That's what really expensive lawyers are for. This forum has been absolutely no help for people like me. This tread was recommended by my staff.

There are a few people that are nice, but others seem hell bent on attacking those who don't have a PHD in legalese. Obviously this is no place for people like me to understand the complexity of all of this.


HSR

@rogers.com
reply to Reality Chek
We were thinking of switching to Teksavvy, but not now especially if I have to hire a lawyer just to understand all of this. Complete waste of my time here to even attempt to figure all of this out. We're staying put for now.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to HSR
said by HSR :

No I don't. That's what really expensive lawyers are for. This forum has been absolutely no help for people like me. This tread was recommended by my staff.

There are a few people that are nice, but others seem hell bent on attacking those who don't have a PHD in legalese. Obviously this is no place for people like me to understand the complexity of all of this.

What legalese are you having trouble with?


Reality Chek

@videotron.ca
said by JMJimmy:

What legalese are you having trouble with?

In my belief, I think he is having trouble wrapping his head around the fact that is someone comes trolling for what he (or someone on his internet) did TSI more or less said, it's not my problem. I will give people a fighting chances to quash. That is my responsibility and the end of my responsibility (aside from record keeping etc).

Basically that's about the nutshell of it all.

Up to the people to take care of their own business.

N'est pas?


hmm

@videotron.ca
reply to JMJimmy
Jimmy (or anyone else), you seem pretty wrapped up in all this yourself, i'm only now getting into reading it (had no time really, on skimmed it).

I was reading pages 10 to 16 (»cippic.ca/uploads/Voltage_v._Doe ··· C161.pdf), and it seems to me there are no statutory damages that can be awarded.

Is this correct?

Also, unless someone acts in bad faith and goes in this with a pretty bad attitude, it seems to me there is a cap that is less than 5,000$ for people who fall into a category of having an open wifi (as an example) where the defendant (that would be you or me) had no knowledge of anything.

This cap is not less than 200$ and not more than 500$.

Is this correct?

In Geists topic he had going, Geist said it won't be more than 10x the retail cost (300$). But after reading it, that is for *royalties to a collective society* (i.e. CRIAA, as an example, where they can go for 10x missed royalties. And royalties are far less than retail value). This doesn't fall into that. Voltage isn't a collective society. Did Geist make an error here? Or am I misreading something?


Reality Chek

@videotron.ca
reply to HSR

copyright act
 
Click for full size
cippic faq
said by HSR :

We were thinking of switching to Teksavvy, but not now especially if I have to hire a lawyer just to understand all of this. Complete waste of my time here to even attempt to figure all of this out. We're staying put for now.

laff. This applies to any ISP. cippic even has a faq on it that I just noticed.

Max of $200 to 500$. Unless the person is an ass. The court can add more if you act in bad faith.

the above "fines" depends on what category of infringer you are, this example is the "innocent infringer" example. They will indeed be grouping people, as even voltage stated they would be.

So if you have a company (like what "HSR" claims he has), and although he did nothing and just pays the bills, he is on the hook for 200$ to 500$.

Same would happen if you pay the internet for your kid who is away at school and the bill comes in your name. You are on the hook for 200$ to 500$. At least this is what it appears to be.

Someone above trolled jimmy cuz he may just pay up if/when the time comes. But the reality is, pay $200 to 500$, or pay over a grand for a lawyer. Your choice.

People seeding more than one Voltage works (unless you are an "innocent infringer") will be coughing up more than 500$, as I see it.

I can see ways to make this business model work, even with the controls in place.


yay

@66.49.129.x
And all those whom accidently observed, someones else work, the mkv. not origional work of voltage of proftting off of acting out of crimes. is no diff then driving by , a drive in movie, then later , them tracking the licence plates. to charge everyone that drove by.


bananarama

@videotron.ca
umm what?
You are equating this to driving past a drive-in movie? Seriously?

When you download Hunger_games.mkv you are saying you accidentally observed it? Seriously?

And you saying you are watching the ripping groups work, not voltages? Seriously?

You are going to be one of those people the court will hand down extra fines to for being an... i forget the word now... what is it?
Expand your moderator at work

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

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by HSR :

"...... CIPPIC fears that any ruling in this case could have a detrimental effect on whistle-blowers and others who leak documents in the public interest."

Go to an internet cafe and use a Live CD to boot your machine, then use TOR to reduce the chance of being identified.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to hmm
said by hmm :

Jimmy (or anyone else), you seem pretty wrapped up in all this yourself, i'm only now getting into reading it (had no time really, on skimmed it).

I was reading pages 10 to 16 (»cippic.ca/uploads/Voltage_v._Doe ··· C161.pdf), and it seems to me there are no statutory damages that can be awarded.

Is this correct?

This is incorrect. The $100-$5000 in damages that could be awareded is a statutory damage award.

said by hmm :

Also, unless someone acts in bad faith and goes in this with a pretty bad attitude, it seems to me there is a cap that is less than 5,000$ for people who fall into a category of having an open wifi (as an example) where the defendant (that would be you or me) had no knowledge of anything.

This cap is not less than 200$ and not more than 500$.

Is this correct?

Open WiFi would not be considered an "innocent infringer". Unaware of infringement would be someone who downloaded something and claims they were not aware it was a copyrighted work. It gives the courts an option for the civil equivalent of a nolo contendre plea.

If you read the text of what Reality Chek posted:

...the defendant was not aware and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had infringed copyright

Note the bolded bit - the defendant was not aware of their actions - not that the defendant was unaware of a 3rd party's actions.


hmm

@videotron.ca
hmm. Maybe you are right. I read it differently.

What is “innocent” infringement?
»cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Copyright_Troll ··· rolls#is

“Innocent” infringement describes situations in which you were unaware and had no reasonable grounds to believe you were infringing copyright. Individual misunderstanding or ignorance of copyright law is not considered innocent infringement.

Typically, innocent infringement involves actions by third parties without your knowledge or consent. For example, if you hired someone to build a website and they used copyrighted images without getting the necessary authorization, you may have a claim of innocence

Again, lack of awareness will not affect the finding of infringement but does allow the court to reduce the amount of damages awarded


Actions by 3rd parties w/o your knowledge or consent.

I know when all the kids friends are here, there is no controlling what they do. Or when they jump on the neighbours open wifi.

hmm but maybe you are right.

Let us use the trolling company Canipre for example.
Recall when their website had an unlicensed graphic on it? It hit the press. Logan blamed the web developer and that he had no knowledge of anything. Logan claimed "Innocent infringer" (similar to the example above by cippic).

He gave full access to his net/web. He knew what that could lead to.

Guy next door to me with his open wife (and who has a few apt building with net included for students) would it not be similar?

hmm

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

2 edits
CIPPIC's faq is at best misleading, and I believe wrong.

If you hire someone to perform an action on your behalf that is a first party action, regardless of whether or not the third party performs it. If you are held liable in such a case you turn around and sue the third party.

If I go to a website claiming that all torrents posted there are public domain, and am sued for downloading one I could claim I had a reasonable belief that I was not infringing on copyright.

A parent could also claim that on behalf of a younger child, though in this particular case that would be hard to prove due to the titles involved.

The question is whether or not it is reasonable for an individual to monitor the all the actions of others on their network at all times. The answer is no, it's not. Even a secured network with you watching from the time they enter the password you could have no idea that a background process is downloading something illegally.

How is that different than the web developer? It is reasonable for you to do due diligence to find out if the images/etc you contracted for have proper permission to use. Even then a copyright holder may not even request a judgement against you because you could claim to be an innocent infringer. If you provide proof that you did your due diligence and the developer lied then the copyright holder will likely want to go after the developer to get a bigger award.

Here's a simple example: lets say you're my neighbour and I lend you a book. That book has my name in it. You then take that book and throw it through the window of the person across the street. Would a judge award a judgement for the cost of replacing the window against me simply because it was my book that went through the window? No, because it's not reasonable to assume that someone is going to perform an illegal act with access to an item which has many reasonable uses. I shouldn't say carte blanche though, as it does depend on the likelihood of the use for the item. Like a gun - if I lend someone a gun and I know they are not into hunting, the likelihood is that they are going to perform an illegal act with that item.

Edit: I forget the name of the case, however, there was a case where a bar was sued in a car accident involving a DUI. If memory serves, the argument was that the bar should be held liable, by the actions of it's employee (the bartender), for serving an individual enough alcohol to get drunk knowing that this individual had a car in their parking lot (he was a regular). ie: They sold him access to the means to perform an illegal act, knowing that it was likely he would drive home. The judge ruled in favour of the bar because, despite the individual's diminished capacity, it was the individual who made the choice to drive when other legal options were available.
Expand your moderator at work

jkoblovsky

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

4 edits
reply to JMJimmy

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by JMJimmy:

CIPPIC's faq is at best misleading, and I believe wrong.

Sad thing to see those that have lost their way start attacking CIPPIC. We're all entitled to our opinions granted, but I'm glad I have differing opinions after this remark which is representative of supporting an ideology the "pro-internet" community has long but abandoned. Unfortunate, but considering the ideology here, understandable. JMJimmy's ideology looks to me like a counter argument against safe harbor provisions currently protecting ISPs from copyright liability.

Second, it would probably be a lot more helpful when responding to posters who need "reassurance" that those who are supportive of Teksavvy recognize that "reassurance" is needed and Teksavvy has stated:

"TekSavvy will maintain a role in the court process moving forward to ensure that our customers’ rights continue to be at the forefront of these proceedings."

Instead of going full court press on how it's not ISPs job to protect it's subscribers rights (at a time when that's in question regarding government access to sub info across the industry), and bringing up points of law no one seems to care about to make that point. That all seems counter to what has come from Teksavvy has come forward stating.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Quite the opposite jko, just because CPPIC is doing the right thing doesn't mean they have the correct interpretation of every point of law. As to my argument's regarding TSI, it is exactly the safe harbour provisions that I am espousing. TSI has to be very careful that it does not appear to be supporting copyright violators to both maintain its safe harbour protection and more importantly to avoid any bad press/attract the wrong type of customer to their business.


hmm

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

... and Teksavvy has stated:

"TekSavvy will maintain a role in the court process moving forward to ensure that our customers’ rights continue to be at the forefront of these proceedings."

Instead of going full court press on how it's not ISPs job to protect it's subscribers rights (at a time when that's in question regarding government access to sub info across the industry), and bringing up points of law no one seems to care about to make that point. That all seems counter to what has come from Teksavvy has come forward stating.

hmm, well it's all in interpretation, eh?

It took a page (or a page and a half) for some people to even realize that they themselves have a right to be informed prior to release of their info, and a right to quash.

Lots of people just don't grasp it.

Many, many people think they pay 30$ to an ISP and that comes with a 20,000$ lawyer.

TSI stated:
We believe that our customers have a right to:

- Have their privacy safeguarded.
- Be notified that a request for their personal information has been made by a third party.
- Have an opportunity to defend themselves when claims are made against them.


While TSI opposed nothing (but their lawyer raised some policy/social issues and maybe liability issues) is the above true?

Seems to me it is.

It's weak (in my own opinion) but those 3 points held and those rights are rights that the likes of Bell, videotron, Rogers and distributel ignored, even though they knew you had a right to know. Well maybe Distributel didn't know. In their court filing they stated "we thought the court would protect the rights of people" (or something like that).


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
said by hmm :

said by jkoblovsky:

... and Teksavvy has stated:

"TekSavvy will maintain a role in the court process moving forward to ensure that our customers’ rights continue to be at the forefront of these proceedings."

Instead of going full court press on how it's not ISPs job to protect it's subscribers rights (at a time when that's in question regarding government access to sub info across the industry), and bringing up points of law no one seems to care about to make that point. That all seems counter to what has come from Teksavvy has come forward stating.

hmm, well it's all in interpretation, eh?

It took a page (or a page and a half) for some people to even realize that they themselves have a right to be informed prior to release of their info, and a right to quash.

Lots of people just don't grasp it.

Many, many people think they pay 30$ to an ISP and that comes with a 20,000$ lawyer.

TSI stated:
We believe that our customers have a right to:

- Have their privacy safeguarded.
- Be notified that a request for their personal information has been made by a third party.
- Have an opportunity to defend themselves when claims are made against them.


While TSI opposed nothing (but their lawyer raised some policy/social issues and maybe liability issues) is the above true?

Seems to me it is.

It's weak (in my own opinion) but those 3 points held and those rights are rights that the likes of Bell, videotron, Rogers and distributel ignored, even though they knew you had a right to know. Well maybe Distributel didn't know. In their court filing they stated "we thought the court would protect the rights of people" (or something like that).


How did TSI not follow through on those 3 points?


hmm

@videotron.ca
said by rednekcowboy:

How did TSI not follow through on those 3 points?

Did I state that?
Or did I state the complete opposite?
Re-read it?


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
"While TSI opposed nothing (but their lawyer raised some policy/social issues and maybe liability issues) is the above true?"

Is completely untrue and considering you said that directly after those points, it reads like you think they are full of crap.

It's not my reading, it's your writing....maybe a re-write is in order.


hmm

@videotron.ca
said by rednekcowboy:

Is completely untrue

What is?
That TSI did not oppose?
That TSI did not follow those 3 points?
Care to elaborate what it is that you construed to be untrue?


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
said by hmm :

said by rednekcowboy:

Is completely untrue

What is?
That TSI did not oppose?
That TSI did not follow those 3 points?
Care to elaborate what it is that you construed to be untrue?

I've learned not to debate with fanatical anon posters when they say one thing and then twist it around when they are called on it.

Want a debate sure, but state what you mean, don't beat around the bush about something then reverse your opinion after the fact.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
- Have their privacy safeguarded.

Yup, TSI did this, as is evident by the Judge's order limiting what info Voltage gets and how they can use the information they get

- Be notified that a request for their personal information has been made by a third party.

Yup, TSI did this, as is evident by the fact that we knew about it from the start.

- Have an opportunity to defend themselves when claims are made against them.

Yup, TSI did this, as is evident by the court record in which they requested a delay. This gave people a chance to fight back - they didn't take it (yet) but there was the opportunity.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I've learned not to debate with fanatical anon posters

I just add them to my blocked list. I can't be bothered with anyone that won't sign their work.

My Christmas wish every year is that the blocking mechanism on DSLr gets some smarts. For example, when I block someone, I want their shit to disappear (which already happens), but my wish is THEY can't see my shit either.

If those 2 mechanisms applied to quoted text too, that would make me deliriously happy.

edit: It's a global block: all anon posts are ignored with one click. works great.

Mike
--
I've picked on Cogeco long enough. Who's next? Any volunteers?
Expand your moderator at work