dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
9
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

4 edits

jkoblovsky to JMJimmy

Member

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

JMJimmy

Member

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

hmm to jkoblovsky

Anon

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

rednekcowboy

Member

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

hmm

Anon

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

rednekcowboy

Member

"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

hmm

Anon

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

rednekcowboy

Member

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

JMJimmy

Member

- 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 Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

dillyhammer to rednekcowboy

Premium Member

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
Expand your moderator at work

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to JMJimmy

Anon

to JMJimmy

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by JMJimmy:

- 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.

Yup. TSI did all that. Which put them above every other ISP, as stated.

But, I think some people don't see that. Or they can't grasp it.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy to dillyhammer

Member

to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:

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

That's an awesome suggestion. Thanks Mike!!

Bill