dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
28

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to philip83

Anon

to philip83

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by philip83:

My take on this is, the judge allowed them to have the subscriber information but not to use any of their well known troll tactics to extort money which is great news for people but also we have to see how creative Voltage can go with their demands

yes, part of the payola scheme is not to even touch court since it costs too much. This was what the judge stated last year (something along those lines). They have to be ready to actually bring people to court if they are going to use the Canadian court system in such a manner.

So really what the court is doing is calling out the bluff of a troll saying you better damn well sue each person if that's what you originally filed for. None of these scare-tactic fear letters to extort people.

Geist states:
it calls into question whether copyright trolling litigation is economically viable in Canada.

Let's assume 2,000 people (it was actually less I believe)
Let's assume Voltage has to pay $200,000 to get the names (the going rate of 100$/IP, Ball park)
Let's assume Logan gets 30% of any money as the middle man
Let's assume the bay-street lawyer cost $20k (I have no clue what that lawyer cost)
Let's assume they toss some junior fresh out of law school kid at the "special managed case" against each individual. Put it at 100$ per TSI individual he fights against.

What do the numbers work out to be that they need to get on each individual just to break even?

$520,000.00???
(seems inflated, but that's what I get)

That means they only need to extort 260$ per IP to break even, and for Logan to walk away with $100+grand.

Is Geist right?

I think Geist is wrong. But the trolls aren't getting a free ride to abuse the court system

The other question:
Would you pay 260$ in extortion fee's to make them go away, guilty or innocent?
Or would you pay 1000$ (absolute minimum) for a fresh out of school lawyer, guilty or innocent?
Ree
join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0

Ree

Member

said by hmm :

The other question:
Would you pay 260$ in extortion fee's to make them go away, guilty or innocent?

If guilty, do you even need a lawyer? Can't you just walk in on your court date, admit your guilt, and hope your penalty is closer to the $100 end than the $5000 end?
philip83
join:2013-09-25

philip83 to hmm

Member

to hmm
said by hmm :

Would you pay 260$ in extortion fee's to make them go away, guilty or innocent?

I do not suggest to anyone to pay anything just because somebody decided to use scare tactics to get money out of you. Its very popular these days to extort money from people, Getty Images, Masterfile are big companies and they resort to such tactics to make more money. This is not just morally wrong, it should be outlawed. You just do not give money to any stranger that knocks on your door demanding money for whatever reasons.

They only see you as walking dollar signs and nothing more. Think of what people think of North Americans when they go abroad for tourism. Same idea really

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to Ree

Anon

to Ree
said by Ree:

If guilty, do you even need a lawyer? Can't you just walk in on your court date, admit your guilt, and hope your penalty is closer to the $100 end than the $5000 end?

That is option #3. Walk in and hope for the best. Roll the dice, take a gamble that the court fine is less than 260$ (and hope there are no costs added on to that).

Option #4, take a gamble say it wasn't you, maybe a kid did it, open wifi, whatever the excuse is. Another gamble, no?
said by philip83:

I do not suggest to anyone to pay anything just because somebody decided to use scare tactics to get money out of you.

Easy to say, but the sad reality is that it may affect whether a person will make their mortgage payment that month.

trolls_f_off
@torexit.info

trolls_f_off to hmm

Anon

to hmm
said by hmm :

That means they only need to extort 260$ per IP to break even, and for Logan to walk away with $100+grand.

It's a taxable income so... these f....rs need more beans in their basket...
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to hmm

Member

to hmm
said by hmm :

said by philip83:

My take on this is, the judge allowed them to have the subscriber information but not to use any of their well known troll tactics to extort money which is great news for people but also we have to see how creative Voltage can go with their demands

Geist states:
it calls into question whether copyright trolling litigation is economically viable in Canada.

Let's assume 2,000 people (it was actually less I believe)
Let's assume Voltage has to pay $200,000 to get the names (the going rate of 100$/IP, Ball park)
Let's assume Logan gets 30% of any money as the middle man
Let's assume the bay-street lawyer cost $20k (I have no clue what that lawyer cost)
Let's assume they toss some junior fresh out of law school kid at the "special managed case" against each individual. Put it at 100$ per TSI individual he fights against.

- Closer to 1,100 people for the final count I believe
- Logan would not get a percentage - he'll likely get a flat fee per IP regardless of settlement. Otherwise the defense really does have a case that he's financially motivated to get the maximum possible award.
- Bay street lawyers will start with a 5k-10k retainer generally and they will get a % or $1,000+ per hour up front.
- junior lawyer? Not if I have anything to say about it. Also, this case is too prime for Canadian law - an up and coming lawyer can make a career out of this case.

The other thing is that do these costs mean anything to Voltage? Costs are generally paid by the loser in Canada so that $100 minimum could easily balloon.
Rastan
join:2007-04-25
Canada

Rastan to hmm

Member

to hmm
Their lawyer fees will be significantly higher if they decide to take 100+ people to court. Voltage will only go that far if they're sure that the person is guilty. If they receive a response back from someone who admits to being guilty of copyright infringement but refuses to pay, they might take him to court to get an easy win. They will use this verdict to scare other people into paying their fine. However, if they don't feel their case is air tight, they will just pursue other targets.

Although I think the judge's decision is fairly reasonable, if they allow Voltage to send letters asking for a payment of up to $5000 then they'll find a way to make this scheme profitable even with all of the fees they'll have to pay to Teksavvy. In addition to this, other ISP's might see this as a way to generate more income as well. Why should they oppose copyright trolls and protect our privacy when they can charge $200-300K and give our information away to any copyright troll who's willing to pay?

trills_f_off
@afo-tm.org

trills_f_off to JMJimmy

Anon

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

The other thing is that do these costs mean anything to Voltage? Costs are generally paid by the loser in Canada so that $100 minimum could easily balloon.

That is in case trolls are willing to pay TSI expenses up front. Their bean counters are hard at work and vulture's head office has to approve the number before anything happens.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

said by trills_f_off :

said by JMJimmy:

The other thing is that do these costs mean anything to Voltage? Costs are generally paid by the loser in Canada so that $100 minimum could easily balloon.

That is in case trolls are willing to pay TSI expenses up front. Their bean counters are hard at work and vulture's head office has to approve the number before anything happens.

Well that's it, the bean counters are at work now to see how advantageous it will be to continue, if it is.

That half a million dollars might even be low-balled when I think more about it. As, JMJimmy, stated, it's was 1,100 people.

So lets just put it at 1-million dollars to move forward and the minimum and 910$/per person required to break even (+/-).

To defend yourself, it will still take more than 910$ for a lawyer.

But anyhow, as Marc states, they require 200K up front before even going forward at this point in time.

In regards to Resa's mention of 3 months, this may now kick in (not sure someone could clarify this maybe). If TSI doesn't get anything in 3 months, then I would assume they ran away with their tail between their legs.

Marc, do you know if there is a time frame for you to get paid before you dump the list of people in the shredder? How long are you supposed to retain this info?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

The 3 months is roughly from collecting bittorrent log, to suing. Teksavvy has to keep all records until the case is closed I do believe.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

said by resa1983:

The 3 months is roughly from collecting bittorrent log, to suing. Teksavvy has to keep all records until the case is closed I do believe.

Yes, true. You are right.

But it has to move forward Voltage just can't sit and wait forever.

I think the new law requires TSI to retain records of people accused for 6 months or a year (I recall two specific time frames in the new copyright law, but would have to re-read it all, and i'm too lazy for that).

So it is possible that TSI and all these people may be waiting up to 6 months to know what is going on. Or 6 months to find out if TSI got paid for this to move forward.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I could also be argued that TSI's costs have already been incurred regardless of whether Voltage wishes to proceed they're on the hook.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

I could also be argued that TSI's costs have already been incurred regardless of whether Voltage wishes to proceed they're on the hook.

For sure. TSI could be out of pocket 200K in all this. It was a lot of time, effort, resources and man-power (which for some strange, odd, and twisted reason certain people think this is all free, or should be).

If they run away, TSI should go after them for costs. If they don't, then on the next attempt TSI can show proof and demand money upfront before any ruling to get names or not. One can't be expected to work for free for some American trolling payola scheme.

Lots of situations develop depending on what goes down. Either way it goes, TSI put in real and big money here.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

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

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

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.

trolls_f_off
@mit.edu

trolls_f_off to elwoodblues

Anon

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

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

There is a window to fold up troll's shop. Small window was given by a Judge. Otherwise, risk to spend more then trolls are planning to extort out of people is very high.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to hmm

Anon

to hmm
Court tells Canadian company to reveal customers who downloaded movies
»www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 7025513/

Mr. Zibarras said users who infringed copyright could face a maximum financial penalty of $5,000 under Canadian law, depending on how many movies they downloaded.

So they gave some of their strategy here. The bean counters will group people by profitable and non-profitable and try and make the system work by how many movies you DL'd. I don't see the Max of 5K happening. Someone would have to be a mouthy ass in court to get the max.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to trolls_f_off

MVM

to trolls_f_off
While this sucks for TekSavvy, it would effectively indicate that copyright trolling was dead in Canada. I'd like to think Marc (owner of TekSavvy) would consider that money well spent.

AppleGuy
Premium Member
join:2013-09-08
Kitchener, ON

AppleGuy to trolls_f_off

Premium Member

to trolls_f_off
said by trolls_f_off :

said by hmm :

That means they only need to extort 260$ per IP to break even, and for Logan to walk away with $100+grand.

It's a taxable income so... these f....rs need more beans in their basket...

Taxable income for who? If someone wins a case in court, it's not taxable.
pickles02
join:2011-04-19

pickles02 to trolls_f_off

Member

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

pickles02 to hmm

Member

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.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to hmm

Premium Member

to hmm
Thats how I read it.
BrettD
Premium Member
join:2009-12-26
Ottawa, ON

BrettD to hmm

Premium Member

to hmm
said by hmm :

But it has to move forward Voltage just can't sit and wait forever.

Limitations Act. You generally need to file a claim with the court within 3 years.

I myself filed a photographic copyright / moral rights claim (as one of a related number o infringements by the same party). I had to file my court claim (in Ontario Small Claims Court) earlier than I might have otherwise, to protect that first claim.
BrettD

BrettD to hmm

Premium Member

to hmm
said by hmm :

said by JMJimmy:

I could also be argued that TSI's costs have already been incurred regardless of whether Voltage wishes to proceed they're on the hook.

For sure. TSI could be out of pocket 200K in all this. It was a lot of time, effort, resources and man-power (which for some strange, odd, and twisted reason certain people think this is all free, or should be).

If they run away, TSI should go after them for costs. If they don't, then on the next attempt TSI can show proof and demand money upfront before any ruling to get names or not. One can't be expected to work for free for some American trolling payola scheme.

...Either way it goes, TSI put in real and big money here.

To be clear TSI's CUSTOMERS - WE are paying for this.

And as customers we should expect TSI to pursue this so OUR monthly payments are not stolen.

You hearing, Marc?

Who
@pppoe.ca

Who

Anon

WE are and very soon, I wont.

I am not affected directly by the trolls but as a matter of principle, I'm activly searching for an alternative and leaving Techsavvy. Unlike Distributel, they failed miserably on securing the privacy of it's customers. All this "master plan" has dropped the problem on the customers and no amount of bs is going to change that.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

2 edits

resa1983

Premium Member

delete

Canaca
Premium Member
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON

Canaca

Premium Member

I am assuming he is referring to this case.

Indie ISP Distributel sticks up for Canadians – and wins!

"Instead of simply handing over the private information of its customers, Distributel fought back against the motion, accusing NGN of copyright trolling, misrepresenting potential liability, targeting smaller ISPs in order to threaten residential Internet access, and failing to provide accurate evidence about the amount of copyrighted work that was infringed or how the company obtained subscriber information. Distributel also fought hard against what it saw as a significant infringement of its customers’ privacy, noting that there was no other way for NGN to have received information about its subscribers without having violated their privacy."

»openmedia.ca/blog/indie- ··· and-wins

Reality Chek
@videotron.ca

Reality Chek

Anon

said by Canaca:

I am assuming he is referring to this case.

Indie ISP Distributel sticks up for Canadians – and wins!

"Instead of simply handing over the private information of its customers, Distributel fought back against the motion, accusing NGN of copyright trolling, misrepresenting potential liability, targeting smaller ISPs in order to threaten residential Internet access, and failing to provide accurate evidence about the amount of copyrighted work that was infringed or how the company obtained subscriber information. Distributel also fought hard against what it saw as a significant infringement of its customers’ privacy, noting that there was no other way for NGN to have received information about its subscribers without having violated their privacy."

»openmedia.ca/blog/indie- ··· and-wins

What open media wrote is 100% total bullshit.

Distributel did hand over their customers information. I even spoke to the guy from distributel here in this forum.

However they were under the impression it was just for a notice, not extortion letters. One of distribetels customers showed the extortion letter to distributel and then distributel fought back. *AFTER* they gave away their customers info.

So what you quoted above is total and complete bullsh*t put out by open media. I swear the people from Open Media would lie to their own mothers if they could make a nickel off of it.
Samgee
join:2010-08-02
canada

Samgee

Member

said by Reality Chek :

said by Canaca:

I am assuming he is referring to this case.

Indie ISP Distributel sticks up for Canadians – and wins!

"Instead of simply handing over the private information of its customers, Distributel fought back against the motion, accusing NGN of copyright trolling, misrepresenting potential liability, targeting smaller ISPs in order to threaten residential Internet access, and failing to provide accurate evidence about the amount of copyrighted work that was infringed or how the company obtained subscriber information. Distributel also fought hard against what it saw as a significant infringement of its customers’ privacy, noting that there was no other way for NGN to have received information about its subscribers without having violated their privacy."

»openmedia.ca/blog/indie- ··· and-wins

What open media wrote is 100% total bullshit.

Distributel did hand over their customers information. I even spoke to the guy from distributel here in this forum.

However they were under the impression it was just for a notice, not extortion letters. One of distribetels customers showed the extortion letter to distributel and then distributel fought back. *AFTER* they gave away their customers info.

So what you quoted above is total and complete bullsh*t put out by open media. I swear the people from Open Media would lie to their own mothers if they could make a nickel off of it.

This may help you out.

»www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 781/125/

Canaca
Premium Member
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON

Canaca to Reality Chek

Premium Member

to Reality Chek
said by Reality Chek :

said by Canaca:

I am assuming he is referring to this case.

Indie ISP Distributel sticks up for Canadians – and wins!

"Instead of simply handing over the private information of its customers, Distributel fought back against the motion, accusing NGN of copyright trolling, misrepresenting potential liability, targeting smaller ISPs in order to threaten residential Internet access, and failing to provide accurate evidence about the amount of copyrighted work that was infringed or how the company obtained subscriber information. Distributel also fought hard against what it saw as a significant infringement of its customers’ privacy, noting that there was no other way for NGN to have received information about its subscribers without having violated their privacy."

»openmedia.ca/blog/indie- ··· and-wins

What open media wrote is 100% total bullshit.

Distributel did hand over their customers information. I even spoke to the guy from distributel here in this forum.

However they were under the impression it was just for a notice, not extortion letters. One of distribetels customers showed the extortion letter to distributel and then distributel fought back. *AFTER* they gave away their customers info.

So what you quoted above is total and complete bullsh*t put out by open media. I swear the people from Open Media would lie to their own mothers if they could make a nickel off of it.

You may thinking of another case. This was covered by multiple news organizations including Toronto Star and the

»www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 464.html