| |
qwerty654321 to AppleGuy
Anon
2014-Feb-21 11:14 pm
to AppleGuy
Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decisionRead courts decision. Such extortion action will punishable. Trolls are on the hook on this one. Let them crawl back to their Hollywood hole. |
|
| |
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 |
|
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
to HiVolt
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. |
|
| |
ChuckcZar to JMJimmy
Anon
2014-Feb-22 12:46 am
to JMJimmy
Guzpas just dreams up non-existent figures off the top of his head. |
|
| |
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 Member
join:2013-09-08
Kitchener, ON |
to HiVolt
In other words, 8 words or less: Teksavvy customers have nothing to be worried about. |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden :
|
 Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal |
to JMJimmy
Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decisionsaid by JMJimmy:it used to be 5k - not interested in personal attacks Some people make everything personal. |
|
| |
shrugs
Anon
2014-Feb-22 8:48 am
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 |
hmm to JMJimmy
Anon
2014-Feb-22 9:10 am
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
MVM
2014-Feb-22 9:56 am
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. |
|
| |
to motoracer
said by motoracer:Even more reason everyone should use a VPN. What is affordable and reliable VPN for Canadians? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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-v ··· -111007/» torrentfreak.com/best-vp ··· -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 to JMJimmy
Anon
2014-Feb-22 11:07 am
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 |
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. |
|
| |
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 |
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 Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
to resa1983
|
|
| |
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 |
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 Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2014-Feb-22 12:03 pm
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. |
|
| |
Slightlyborg
Anon
2014-Feb-22 12:54 pm
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. |
|
 GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
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? |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
to hmm
Thats how I read it. |
|
| elwoodblues |
to Guspaz
They can, but it will end up costing them more then they'll ever recoup. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
to resa1983
|
|
| |
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. |
|
