dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
8201
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to LuRk_wAtChEr

Premium Member

to LuRk_wAtChEr

Re: Voltage v. Does

I was told that most likely the Toronto courthouse was full for the day or didn't have sufficient judges/etc to hear the issues, so it was moved to Ottawa.

LuRk_wAtChEr
@95.211.190.x

LuRk_wAtChEr

Anon

hi Resa, are you going to attend the hearing? Looking forward to live reports if anyone is going to Ottawa for this show.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by LuRk_wAtChEr :

hi Resa, are you going to attend the hearing? Looking forward to live reports if anyone is going to Ottawa for this show.

I will be in Ottawa the day before to visit my sister & her family with my munchkin, but not the day of.

I emailed David Ellis, and he said he's going to attempt to go.

I think this is one that Marc should get an audio recording of.

oh hm
@184.162.4.x

oh hm

Anon

What's the date of this? Place? Room? Allowed some sort of recording device?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

Monday December 8
9:30 am
Lasting all day

Location should be:
90 Sparks Street, Ottawa

I assume it'll be like Toronto's court... You go to the lowest floor with the federal courts, they'll have a daily printout of which hearing is in which courtroom.. You go to the floor the hearing is on, you go through security (metal wand and all), and you're in.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck

Member

i'll likely be there.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

I was told that most likely the Toronto courthouse was full for the day or didn't have sufficient judges/etc to hear the issues, so it was moved to Ottawa.

I suppose that makes a bit of sense but you'd think they'd re-schedule rather than move at such a late date.

Has Voltage submitted ownership information yet? All the info I can find is that they have no ownership in Canada for any of the titles I've looked into.

Generation Um - Was not commercially available in Canada until May 28th, 2013. Phase 4 Films exclusive license since Feb 5th, 2013
Tucker & Dale vs Evil - hard to find info on but appears to be Entertainment One via Alliance Films.
The Whistleblower - Entertainment One exclusive license since 2012
Brotherhood - Alliance Films again, wasn't commercially available in Canada until October 22, 2013.
Magic of Belle Isle - Exclusive license granted to VVS Films

This is really important information to get due to this:

2.7 For the purposes of this Act, an exclusive licence is an authorization to do any act that is subject to copyright to the exclusion of all others including the copyright owner, whether the authorization is granted by the owner or an exclusive licensee claiming under the owner.

I only looked into the first 5 as they take a while to research but nothing I've found supports them having any rights in Canada - they sold them off already. LOL

Edit: I went back to look at Voltage's claim again... something hit me:

Their claim is for unauthorized distribution - which as mentioned they've sold off those rights... If they can't sue for distribution then 38.(5) applies "Nothing in this Act entitles the copyright owner to damages in respect of the possession or conversion of the infringing copies or plates." Their only viable claim is for distribution so it's just a matter of subpenaing their distribution deals.

so many holes in their case it's hilarious.

Zappy
@198.103.152.x

Zappy

Anon

They're not into making cases, they're into extortion.

They've already done more court stuff than any trolls like to do and so far all they've gotten is a bill of 250k.

Which I hope the court hands back to them with a curt "pay it".

Should be fun to see what they do then.

Oh also didn't they start out in their first court visit insisting that time was of the essence? Yet here he is wasting more of it trying to whittle the cost down because it's all about copyright protection and not profit.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

LOL - I'd forgotten about that claim. I just really hope TSI gets the money then hands them a motion bringing their claim of ownership into question on a good chunk of them. In my mind that's a reasonable action for Marc to take, simply because the law is structured that the defendant must call it into question - otherwise the court is required to presume that they have ownership. If TSI doesn't examine the ownership claims they're not really doing proper due diligence to ensure our info isn't handed off needlessly. I'm highly bias though.

Normally it should be:

Troll - "I want info on people who copied X!"
TSI - "Prove you own X"
Troll - "uhh... maybe later"

Due to the "modernization" it has to be:

Troll - "I want info on people who copied X!"
TSI - "You sold X to Co LLC 2 years ago"
Troll - "...fuck"

Otherwise it's effectively:

Troll - "I want info on people who copied X!"
TSI - "Pay me for my costs"
Troll - "OK"
TSI - "Here ya go"

Edit: This is not meant to minimize the efforts TSI has gone to, it's a drastic oversimplification to make a point

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero

Premium Member

said by JMJimmy:

Edit: This is not meant to minimize the efforts TSI has gone to, it's a drastic oversimplification to make a point

I maded a point once. Yup I whittled a sharp pointy end on a stick and I use to poke trolls with. Yup. Like I said, I made a point once.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by TwiztedZero:

said by JMJimmy:

Edit: This is not meant to minimize the efforts TSI has gone to, it's a drastic oversimplification to make a point

I maded a point once. Yup I whittled a sharp pointy end on a stick and I use to poke trolls with. Yup. Like I said, I made a point once.

Pointy sticks work? Hrm, maybe I can roast some marshmallows first.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

said by resa1983:

I was told that most likely the Toronto courthouse was full for the day or didn't have sufficient judges/etc to hear the issues, so it was moved to Ottawa.

I suppose that makes a bit of sense but you'd think they'd re-schedule rather than move at such a late date.

Its been rescheduled multiple times already. I think they're tired of the reschedules due to multiple issues.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Monday December 8
9:30 am
Lasting all day

Location should be:
90 Sparks Street, Ottawa

are you sure this is the right address?
iamhere
join:2013-01-26
canada

iamhere

Member

If you are looking for the Federal Court of Canada it's the right address.

Edit: They have courtrooms there and 200 Kent Street though.

BoosterBust
@185.8.238.x

BoosterBust

Anon

hi peeps. Curious, is anyone going to cover this?
Joshua35
join:2014-06-02

Joshua35 to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy
Been googling to see where things are at with this case.
I'm not clear what is being discussed in court today. Can someone clarify?

BozoISP
@162.219.2.x

BozoISP

Anon

Hello. Does anyone know what's going on at the hearing? Has it already started? I remember last hearing was covered by several people right here at DSLR. No coverage this time? Not even Twitter?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to Joshua35

Premium Member

to Joshua35
said by Joshua35:

Been googling to see where things are at with this case.
I'm not clear what is being discussed in court today. Can someone clarify?

Today is costs for Teksavvy's IP correlation. They're in line with other ISPs in the US, but Voltage doesn't how much it cost, so is disputing them.

Teksavvy gets paid their costs before info is given to Voltage.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I wish I knew what was going on... sadly no one is there tweeting (that I know of). Strange Marc has gone silent of late as well - I suppose he's just busy with all the proceedings on his plate.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
the optics in this is pretty sad. i know the cat is already out of the bag and TSI has to give the customer info, but unless they get paid a small amount of money they won't, and Voltage is struggling to get this small amount of money.

anyways, i didn't end up going today. does anyone have a link to gc.gov site for this case so I can known which building/room it's in going forward?

trolls_BS
@185.8.237.x

trolls_BS

Anon

It's EOD in Ottawa. Anyone knows anything about outcome of today's hearing? Are there any sources of information on that yet?
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

jkoblovsky

Member

said by trolls_BS :

It's EOD in Ottawa. Anyone knows anything about outcome of today's hearing? Are there any sources of information on that yet?

Copyright lawyer Howard Knopf was in the court room today following the proceeding:

»twitter.com/howardknopf/ ··· 19879168


$346,000 for disclosure costs TSI is arguing? Can't wait to see the breakdown of these costs, and what happened in court today!
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

CIPPIC has posted the info (on homepage). Nothing on outcome though

Parsnippy
@184.75.213.x

Parsnippy

Anon

»cippic.ca/en/node/129381

Teksavvy has submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $346,480.68. voltage opposes the amount as "outrageous".

And they would know a thing about lawyer's making outrage amount demands.

Funny, I thought it was all about the copyright protection, didn't the trolls start out insisting that time was of the essence? And here they are haggling over the bill while their precious movies are being traded this very second!

It's almost like money is really what it's all about.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

1 edit

jkoblovsky

Member

said by Parsnippy :

It's almost like money is really what it's all about.

It is for both TSI and Voltage, very much so. It has nothing to do with copyright or TSI's customers privacy at this point. Don't think I agree at all to the IT costs, and TSI's explanation from them, but that won't be a topic I will be discussing on this forum with TSI's paid PR staff active on DSLR threads.

trolls_BS
@37.220.35.x

trolls_BS to Parsnippy

Anon

to Parsnippy
said by Parsnippy :

It's almost like money is really what it's all about.

It is about frigging money alright. It was never about "protecting copyright at any cost", these BS "works" are shared on Torrent network right this second. But... that is what trolls do - EXTORT MONEY any way posisble giving seemingly "valid" resaons. This time its no different. However, it feels like Voltage did not authorized travel expences to Ottawa for a "very important matter" of their "copyright protection" hence lawyers from troll's side were attending this hearing via videoconference (probably saving on expences).

Anyway, what is the outcome of today's hearing? Is there a timeline on Judge's decision as it was given last time?
trolls_BS

trolls_BS to jkoblovsky

Anon

to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

It is for both TSI and Voltage, very much so.

Jason, wouldn't you agree that money should not be an object for THe Noble Protectors of The Copyright Cow? If punishing of "evil pirates" is the main objective of this sharade I'd say - pay expences and show the world that you (The Temple of Eternal Copyright) for real do "protect the weak - a poor, poooor, and... and... starving... movie producers". Otherwise, GTFO and go back to your talentless holywoody extortion hole, make another stupid flick.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

1 edit

jkoblovsky

Member

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with TSI advocating to the court to cover business expenses of brand new SQL and CRM systems (which appears to have been the case even after reading TSI's explaination on those costs) at the expense of consumers right to privacy. Some will disagree. Voltage looks to be not the only guilty party taking advantage of the judical system here, imo.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by jkoblovsky:

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with TSI advocating to the court to cover business expenses of brand new SQL and CRM systems (which appears to have been the case even after reading TSI's explaination on those costs) at the expense of consumers right to privacy. Some will disagree. Voltage looks to be not the only guilty party taking advantage of the judical system here, imo.

I completely agree with them. TSI has no need for such a system without Voltage.
Expand your moderator at work