dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18393
share rss forum feed


qwerty654321

@snelis.com
reply to AppleGuy

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

Read courts decision. Such extortion action will punishable. Trolls are on the hook on this one. Let them crawl back to their Hollywood hole.

JMJimmy

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

They have to pay TekSavvy for the entire set of IPs, since TekSavvy already incurred all their costs. They can't just pick and choose. And since TSI incurred a few hundred grand in retrieval costs alone (before even paying the lawyers), and considering that it's very unlikely the judges would award anybody $5000, and that Voltage will have to pay the lawyers to sue any infringer individually... I don't see how even multiple movie downloads make it worth it to them.

Is there a rule that says if your damage claims are under the small claims amount, that you need to pursue your case via small claims court? If you sue me for one movie download, and the maximum damage is $5,000, that's less than the $7,000 small claims limit.

Small claims in Ontario is $25,000


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

Here's a good video to watch on the subject.

»www.cbc.ca/player/News/Technolog···9018466/

Rofl , Win7 with Flash Player allready installed eh? And that link is saying to install Flash player ... so nothing is playing ... oh and, I've been watching the CBC Olympic streams just fine all week... I guess that video is FUBAR'd eh?

Just a bit of irony heh.

EDIT: Finally got it to play after a refresh... oddness lol No captions though rofl.
--

!- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -!
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = @TwiztedZero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to JMJimmy
Guzpas just dreams up non-existent figures off the top of his head.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
said by ChuckcZar :

Guzpas just dreams up non-existent figures off the top of his head.

it used to be 5k - not interested in personal attacks


AppleGuy
Premium
join:2013-09-08
Canada
reply to HiVolt
In other words, 8 words or less: Teksavvy customers have nothing to be worried about.
Expand your moderator at work

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to JMJimmy

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by JMJimmy:

it used to be 5k - not interested in personal attacks

Some people make everything personal.


shrugs

@videotron.ca
said by Nitra:

said by JMJimmy:

it used to be 5k - not interested in personal attacks

Some people make everything personal.

The limit is also different in Quebec (where guspaz is). Last time I looked, it was indeed around 7K (unless that changed recently). Guess some people don't know there is life outside of the centre of the universe.

Anyhow.


hmm

@videotron.ca
reply to JMJimmy
Makes me wonder how this will affect things now with the likes of Bell, Rogers and Videotron?

Prior to this court ruling, those ISP did nothing, told the trolls to just get a court order, and they handed peoples info away.

What do we see that is new here?

1) the information given must be limited to:
-Name and mailing address of the account holder, No Email addy, other contact(s), or phone numbers

Would control of the extortion letters also be something new applicable to all?

Anything else that is new and different?

Will the above now extend to the likes of Bell, Rogers and Videotron when trolls come knocking again?


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by hmm :

Prior to this court ruling, those ISP did nothing, told the trolls to just get a court order, and they handed peoples info away.

With a court order. Do you have evidence that they gave out subscriber information without that?

1) the information given must be limited to:
-Name and mailing address of the account holder, No Email addy, other contact(s), or phone numbers

I don't see a problem. Neither e-mail nor phone are valid means for serving legal notice. A registered snail mail letter is. So is physical delivery at residence.

Would control of the extortion letters also be something new applicable to all?

Yes. That's the whole point of the decision. It takes away some of the troll's power to extort using false/exorbitant claims and other misleading practices.

As most of the posters above seem to have concluded, it makes these sorts of trolling practices uneconomical. We won't know for sure until Voltage gives up and goes back to the US.

DeViLzzz

join:2004-07-29
Sarnia, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to motoracer
said by motoracer:

Even more reason everyone should use a VPN.

What is affordable and reliable VPN for Canadians?


eots

join:2003-02-04
reply to nanook
Once they get customer names and addresses it's not difficult to get their phone numbers and I wouldn't put it past Voltage to call people who have a listed phone number.

modemport

join:2013-08-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to DeViLzzz
said by DeViLzzz:

said by motoracer:

Even more reason everyone should use a VPN.

What is affordable and reliable VPN for Canadians?

»torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-provi···-111007/
»torrentfreak.com/best-vpn-proxy-···-110618/

Read the user comments, they're often helpful.
Do NOT use a VPN which is based in North America.

My own opinion on Voltage is they'll go through with paying TSI then see what they can get in court. I seriousy doubt the court would award more than 1k in damages per infringer.

"Gee your honor I didn't know I needed to put a password on my router"

There are any number of situations that could get an infringer off the hook.


Guest

@teksavvy.com
reply to JMJimmy
small clams can be 25000 BUT if your on welfare the max they can recover is 25 dollars a month

thats not very profitable

25 times 2000 = 50 grand and thats a loss to start from.....
you wont get your recovery for 4 months

and ill add they can only get 25BUCKS once

thats right all this does is force everyone to use a welfare case to do downloading


hmm

@videotron.ca
reply to modemport
said by modemport:

"Gee your honor I didn't know I needed to put a password on my router"

I wasn't aware people *had* to put a password on their routers. I know many around my place that keep it open for kids to use.

I know a couple if apartment building owners that rents rooms out to kids at Ottawa U and Carleton U, slapped in connectivity, and tell the kids to share it. That is the extent of that.

So I don't know where the *need* to have a password comes from. The only *need* is if you don't have unlimited and don't want to pay ridiculous fee's.

pickles02

join:2011-04-19
reply to trolls_f_off
Can you show me in the judgement where this "window" is? I see no time limitation imposed by the judge.

pickles02

join:2011-04-19
reply to hmm
said by hmm :

said by elwoodblues:

They can't run away, TSI has to be paid up front according to the ruling.

UP FRONT to *get* the names. No?

Yes, they can run away.

They can run away but they still have to pay. See judge's order on page 56 #3. The requirement to pay TSI's costs is not contingent on Voltage following through. If Voltage does follow through #4 requires it to pay in advance. If it doesn't follow through, it still owes TSI and TSI can apply to the court for an order for payment to be made within a reasonable time. Failure to obey the order could be considered contempt of court.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to resa1983


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to eots
said by eots:

Once they get customer names and addresses it's not difficult to get their phone numbers and I wouldn't put it past Voltage to call people who have a listed phone number.

To what avail? What would phone calls accomplish that letters, written by lawyers and sent by registered mail, could not?

And if they make more than one or two calls, especially after being asked to cease and desist, they open themselves up to charges of harassment.


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc
Thanks Marc. That's very reassuring.

A general comment to those who view this as some sort of defeat or setback, and/or why we should still be scared of Voltage and other trolls. Normally when someone gets an unfavourable ruling they spin all sorts of reasons why the ruling was flawed, why the judge erred, etc. But in this case both TekSavvy's lead counsel Nicholas McHaffie and Internet law expert Michael Geist (Canadian court ruling in Teksavvy file sharing case a blow to copyright trolls) view the ruling in a very positive light. That suggests to me that the threat of further trolling by the likes of Voltage is slim to none.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
CIPPIC also sees it as positive... There's new ground that was broken with this decision. Much more protections against improper behaviour in these types of cases. The judge seemed to basically say, let's do everything we can to make sure we don't see some of the nasty things we've seen in the US and UK.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Slightlyborg

@ustomer-incero.com
Yup, I was wondering why it took the court 8 months but clearly they did their homework and they came up with a decision that reflects that they learned what the trolls are all about.

So if you have a legitimate copyright complaint you can have an exclusive channel to bring it to the courts.

If you're trying to monetize your copyright and using the courts as a weapon you're wasting your time.

What's also cool is TSI walked the line between their responsibility to their customers and the law perfectly and are getting a lot of free publicity as a result.

Not to mention 200k if Voltage wants to try again.

I wonder if they will? Every time they've walked into a Canadian court they've walked out a little less happy.

I imagine this latest Pyrrhic Victory stings something fierce.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to shrugs
said by shrugs :

said by Nitra:

said by JMJimmy:

it used to be 5k - not interested in personal attacks

Some people make everything personal.

The limit is also different in Quebec (where guspaz is). Last time I looked, it was indeed around 7K (unless that changed recently). Guess some people don't know there is life outside of the centre of the universe.

Anyhow.

Indeed, I had quickly googled "small claims court limit" and what popped up was that the limit is $7,000 in Quebec. But it being $25,000 doesn't change my point: Can Voltage really force somebody to go to full blown court to defend a $100 to $5000 damage claim when that's smaller than the small claims amount?
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to hmm
Thats how I read it.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to Guspaz
They can, but it will end up costing them more then they'll ever recoup.
--
My Name is Wiley E Coyote, Super Genius


eots

join:2003-02-04
reply to nanook
I don't think Voltage cares, harassment has always been their primary tactic and unless the judge forbids them from calling customers then I wouldn't put it past them. They could hire a collection agency to do the harassing for them. Voltage is a sleazy company and I'm sure their lawyers are equally sleazy to have them as a client.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by eots:

I don't think Voltage cares, harassment has always been their primary tactic and unless the judge forbids them from calling customers then I wouldn't put it past them. They could hire a collection agency to do the harassing for them. Voltage is a sleazy company and I'm sure their lawyers are equally sleazy to have them as a client.

Any communication from Voltage to any IP holder has to be approved by the courts first.

modemport

join:2013-08-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to resa1983
»business.financialpost.com/2014/···a3a-8350

Good article in the Financial Post.


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to eots
said by eots:

I don't think Voltage cares, harassment has always been their primary tactic and unless the judge forbids them from calling customers then I wouldn't put it past them.

As eots points out the judgement forbids Voltaga from making contact by any non-approved means. Laying harassment charges against Voltage, especially if part of an orchestrated campaign by those who get trolled, would only be icing on the cake.