dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
18857

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Notice of claimed copyright infringement

Hey all,

Some of you may be aware that there is a new requirement for ISP to pass on notices of alleged copyright infringement.

As we receive these requests, we have to pass them on by law. Below is a sample email that we might send. It gives you an idea.

After that, we prepared a FAQ. We'll post it on the site soon. See inline.

*******************
Subject: Notice of claimed copyright infringement

Body:

Hello,

TekSavvy has received what the Copyright Act calls a "notice of claimed infringement". It listed an IP address and time. Our systems indicate that the IP address listed in the notice was likely assigned to your account at the specified time. We are therefore legally required to forward the notice to you. The notice is reproduced, unaltered, below.

First, though, there are some things you should know:

(a) We haven't told the sender who you are. Your privacy is paramount to us. We don't track, or know, what you do. We do know what IP address we assigned to you within the last 30 days. But we don't provide personal information like that to anyone unless a court orders us to -- and we have not done so here. The notice was simply received by us, and we have forwarded it electronically on to you.

(b) We are an intermediary that is required to forward this notice to you. We do not, and cannot, verify its contents or its sender. However, a private party’s notice does not mean there has been any legal ruling. Only a court can do that.

(c) It is good practice to make sure you secure your account. Your wireless router should be password-protected; the password should be changed regularly; and those who have the password should maintain good virus protection. Your MyAccount allows you to check your bandwidth usage: do so regularly, and make sure what is happening and what you think is happening line up.

(d) We retain IP address information for 30 days. If your modem has not been powered off during that period, then we may have IP address information going back to the last time you did. In addition to requiring us to forward this notice, the Copyright Act also requires us to retain the records matching the IP address and time to your account for six months. If the people who sent the notice apply to a court, they can require us to hold it for longer.

We have provided some links below. The notice, which we are required to forward unaltered, follows.

Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ts/C-42/

TekSavvy:
»teksavvy.com/en/why-teks ··· y-policy
»myaccount.teksavvy.com/

Automated translation (you may need to copy and paste):
»translate.google.com/?hl=fr
»www.bing.com/translator/

--- Forwarded Notice of Infringement follows:

*snip this is where their notice is added*

**********************

FAQ

Privacy Basics

1. What is TekSavvy doing to protect its customers’ personal information?

Subscriber information, individually-issued Internet Protocol addresses, and the link between them are all personal information. Our users have a strong privacy interest in it. TekSavvy has always fought for our users’ rights. We take that privacy interest very seriously.

We will not provide your personal information to any copyright claimant unless we are ordered to do so by a court. And we will take every opportunity to make sure that our accountholders receive notice when a court is asked to disclose their personal information.

2. What are IP address logs?

The Internet is federated by a common system for Internet Protocol addresses coordinated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the Regional Internet Registry it has designated for our portion of the Americas, has assigned certain ranges of IP addresses to TekSavvy.

TekSavvy, in turn, leases the use of IP addresses to TekSavvy accounts that log on to our network, so that the associated modem can access the Internet through TekSavvy. Except where the user has purchased use of a static IP address, these addresses are assigned dynamically. The typical TekSavvy IP addresses is therefore assigned to different accounts at different times.

IP address logs keep track of these assignments. They are very automatically generated by our routing and authentication equipment. They are very large text files generated at high volume. In order to meet its legal obligations, TekSavvy now exports most of its IP address logs daily to a database system. The raw logs are then purged to make room for more. All raw log and database processing and storage takes place within our facilities in Canada.

3. How long does TekSavvy store IP address log information?

Log information remains within the database system for 30 days. We have no purpose for that information beyond that point, so it is automatically deleted, on a rolling basis.

In isolated cases, we are required to extract certain information from that system in order to preserve it for longer than 30 days. In some instances, we are required to do this by a court order in a criminal cases. However, the most common reason for a longer preservation period is to comply with the Copyright Act.

Since January 2, 2015, we have been required to forward notices of claimed copyright infringement to the account information that matches the IP address and timestamp indicated on the notice. When we do so, we are also required to retain that IP-address-to-account correlation information, and the associated accountholder’s identity, for six months. If the copyright owner who sent the notice commences court proceedings, we may be required to retain it for more than six months.

4. So does this mean you can look up who has a certain IP address?

Yes. We use this information for 30 days. It is deleted on a rolling 30-day basis. However, if you maintain a single session for longer than 30 days, and do not power-cycle your modem during that period, then we may have more than 30 days’ worth of information.

5. If TekSavvy forwards a notice of claimed copyright infringement, does that mean it has given someone else my personal information?

No. We forward the notice, based on a database lookup as to which account was associated with the relevant IP address at the relevant time. We do not provide any information about you back to the sender.

6. How will I know if TekSavvy has received a request for my personal information?

When we become aware of any legal proceeding which contemplates the provision of your personal information to a third party, TekSavvy will notify you by email and provide as much information it has available about the legal proceeding under which the request is made.

7. How will I know if TekSavvy has disclosed my personal information?

TekSavvy will notify affected account-holders if we receive a court order compelling us to disclose their personal information, unless explicitly prohibited from doing so by law.

Notices of Claimed Infringement

8. How did TekSavvy handle copyright infringement notices in the past?

TekSavvy had no involvement with copyright infringement notices in the past. We were not a part of the voluntary notice-and-notice scheme developed by copyright owners and incumbent ISPs. As a result, compliance with the new Copyright Act provisions on notice-and-notice that came into force on January 2, 2015, has been a significant and expensive undertaking.

However, TekSavvy was required to take action on copyright infringement allegation in a matter that began in 2012. Then, U.S.-based Voltage Pictures LLC filed a lawsuit demanding we disclose personal information of approximately 2,000 subscribers who Voltage said had infringed its copyright.

As an intermediary, TekSavvy did not take any position on copyright matters. However, we insisted that the court balance Voltage’s rights as a copyright holder against our users’ privacy interest. The court’s ruling limited Voltage’s request. It introduced conditions designed to protect subscribers’ privacy and discourage copyright trolling, and maintained strong court oversight on how this information is used and when it is disclosed.

No customer information will be provided to Voltage unless and until all conditions of the court order are met. Among the court’s requirements are that any subscriber notice “clearly state in bold type that no Court has yet made a determination that Subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages.”

9. What does the “notice-and-notice” regime require TekSavvy to do?

“Notice-and-notice” is the nickname for the regime put into place by sections 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act, which came into force on January 2, 2015. The rules require digital network providers, like ISPs and VPNs, to handle notices sent by copyright owners to users whose electronic location, like an IP address, the copyright owner claims is the source of possible infringement.

To comply with the regime, the notices must identify:

• what infringement is alleged;
• the material to which the alleged infringement relates,
• the claimant’s name, address, and right with respect to it, and
• the electronic address, date and time of the alleged activity.

When a network provider like TekSavvy receives such a notice, we must do two things: forward the notice to the alleged infringer, providing a success or failure receipt; and retain the information allowing the accountholder’s identity to be determined for six months. If the copyright owner who sent the notice commences court proceedings, we may be required to retain it for more than six months.

10. How much do copyright owners have to pay to send each notice?

Nothing. The Copyright Act grants the Minister of Industry the ability to fix the fee that can be charged for forwarding notices, sending back receipts, and preserving data. But it also prohibits the charging of any fee if none has been fixed.

The Minister did not fix a fee, so TekSavvy cannot charge one. As a result, the cost to a copyright owner of sending each additional notice, once they have created an automated system for doing so, is zero.

11. I’ve received an emailed notice of claimed infringement, what is going to happen to me?

As an intermediary, TekSavvy has no knowledge of the contents of the notice, nor of what you do on the Internet. We cannot take a position on the accuracy of the notice, and we do not know what further steps its sender will take, if any.

What we can tell you is that a private party’s notice does not mean there has been any legal ruling. Only a court can do that.

12. The notice of claimed infringement that was emailed to me sounds pretty American. It refers to American laws. Does it apply in Canada?

We don’t know, and can’t say.

The Copyright Act requires us to forward the notice and put a six-month hold on your correlation information if the notice meets all of the criteria described above. So if it states the infringement alleged; which material it relates to; claimant’s right, name, and address; and electronic address, date, and time of the alleged activity, then we must proceed.

13. How many customers are affected by this?

In the Voltage matter, we sent out notices to just over 1100 customers that their account information has been requested by Voltage. There were over 2000 IP addresses for which the information was requested.

With notice-and-notice, in early January 2015 we were receiving about 3000 copyright infringement notices each day. Many of them are formatted based on the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) requirements, although we expect that to change over time.

14. Did TekSavvy gather the information for the claimant who is alleging infringement?

No. TekSavvy does not monitor our customers’ use of the Internet. We have no involvement in collecting the IP addresses presented in a claim by Voltage’s, or in a notice of claimed infringement. That is why we are in no position to speculate on the validity of a claim.

Next Steps

15. There’s something funny going on here. Could my account have been hacked?

It is good practice to make sure you secure your account. Your wireless router should be password-protected. The password should be changed regularly. Those who have the password should maintain good virus protection. The accountholder should keep track of who has access to it. Your MyAccount allows you to check your bandwidth usage. Do so regularly, and make sure that what is happening and what you think is happening line up.

16. What is TekSavvy’s role after it has forwarded a notice, sent back a receipt, and preserved the data it is required to preserve?

TekSavvy’s role is to ensure that we fulfill our legal and ethical obligations. We must comply with the Copyright Act. We must also make sure our users’ privacy interests are fully respected:

Our customers must know what personal information we are preserving, for how long, and why. And we must ensure that no information is disclosed to any copyright claimant without a court order. If things progress further, and the claimant goes to court seeking such an order, we must take every opportunity to make sure our customer is aware of this as soon as possible, so that there is an opportunity to address the court before any disclosure is ordered.

17. How will I know if a rights holder intends to pursue a copyright infringement claim?

If things progress still further, disclosure is ordered and takes place, and the rights holder wishes to pursue copyright infringement claim, then you will receive a notification from the rights holder. At that point, the issue will be between you and the rights holder.

18. Where can I go to seek legal advice if I need to?

Many of the provincial law societies provides free lawyer referral services (Lawyer Referral Services - »www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl ··· -ra.html). They will provide you with the name of a lawyer and, depending on the province: a licensed paralegal and, through the referred lawyer or paralegal, a free consultation of up to 30 minutes to help you determine your rights and options.

19. What are the penalties under Canadian law for copyright infringement?

Copyright owners have the ability to sue infringers for the damages they have suffered due to the infringement and the profits the infringer has made. However, they also have the option of electing statutory damages at any time prior to final judgment, even if they cannot demonstrate their damages or prove an infringer’s profits.

If the infringement was for non-commercial purposes, statutory damages are between $100 and $5000. If it was for commercial purposes, statutory damages are between $500 and $20,000.

20. Why can’t TekSavvy provide me with legal advice?

As an intermediary, it’s difficult for us to answer many of the questions that notices of claimed infringement provoke. We are not in a position to advise any third party on the application of the law to their particular situation, or the actions that they should take in response to a notice of claimed infringement, a motion for disclosure, or the defense of potential claims that may be made against you.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

Great read!
With notice-and-notice, in early January 2015 we were receiving about 3000 copyright infringement notices each day.
Wowzers!

What an enormous burden on ISPs this is eh? I mean, it always seemed like a burden, but once it is all spelled out like this..
coolspot18
join:2012-10-23

coolspot18 to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
Looks like it will be a good idea to obtain a new IP address as frequently as possible to minimize log retention.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by coolspot18:

Looks like it will be a good idea to obtain a new IP address as frequently as possible to minimize log retention.

Log retention will be 30 days regardless of how frequently you change your IP. Simply once every 30 days you should reboot.

Marc: I do have 2 problems with your message... first: "We do not, and cannot, verify its contents or its sender" - from my understanding you do need to check the contents to ensure the message meets the requirements set forth in the Act. Messages that don't meet the requirements are not to be forwarded. Second problem, the entirety of (c). It's entirely up to the individual if they want to secure their network, partly or fully. There's no "should" involved.

Otherwise, awesome - very proactive of you and great information for people!
bargepole
join:2001-05-12

bargepole to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
Very informative, but it raises a question.

Is the alleged infringer's ISP required or obliged in some way to determine whether the complaining copyright holder is, in fact, a bona fide complainant? If not, (and I'd be surprised if so), it seems that this mechanism could easily be abused. A Teksavvy user, posting something objectionable in a forum or newsgroup, could be harassed by fake notices, for, as you stated, there's no cost to the complainant to file a notice.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
@Marc

Having not read the amended Copyright Act with respect to the 'Notice of claimed infringement' section in quite some time, I'd don't recall it saying that you can't charge the Claimant for sending the Notice along.

Since there is some work & obligation that you now have to deal with at your end as a result of this, how about sending the claimant an invoice for $25-50 or so for each IP address you have to deal with on their behalf? You have legal review costs, processing & verification costs, software maintenance costs, lost business opportunity costs, salaries, benefits, light, heat, power, costs that are all part of any legit/bogus claim. Who pays you for that?

Maybe you send an invoice stating that you're happy to send the claim notices out upon receipt of payment for your troubles, and then let's see if it goes to Court. The Claimants often seek something for nothing, but why should you incur the costs of their trolling scheme?
BrianON
join:2011-09-30
Ottawa, ON

3 edits

BrianON

Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Having not read the amended Copyright Act with respect to the 'Notice of claimed infringement' section in quite some time, I'd don't recall it saying that you can't charge the Claimant for sending the Notice along.

Since there is some work & obligation that you now have to deal with at your end as a result of this, how about sending the claimant an invoice for $25-50 or so for each IP address you have to deal with on their behalf? You have legal review costs, processing & verification costs, software maintenance costs, lost business opportunity costs, salaries, benefits, light, heat, power, costs that are all part of any legit/bogus claim. Who pays you for that?

Maybe you send an invoice stating that you're happy to send the claim notices out upon receipt of payment for your troubles, and then let's see if it goes to Court. The Claimants often seek something for nothing, but why should you incur the costs of their trolling scheme?

The result would likely be getting nailed for failure to pass on a notice (statutory damages of $5000-$10000)

------
Fees related to notices

(2) The Minister may, by regulation, fix the maximum fee that a person may charge for performing his or her obligations under subsection (1). If no maximum is fixed by regulation, the person may not charge any amount under that subsection.
------
As mentioned the Minister has not set such a maximum fee at this time.

Going by (might be changes since): »laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ext.html as the actual statutes I can find online don't yet contain the amendments.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

So, where are the submissions to the Minister about the financial harm (costs) this Notice system imposes on ISP's in order to get the Minister to get off his fat political ass and do something about it before an indie ISP goes bust as a result of the costs?

Or is this all just a government tactic to help the indumbents - who are in a far better financial position to absorb these costs as indies bleed out?
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

2 edits

JMJimmy to BrianON

Member

to BrianON
said by BrianON:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Having not read the amended Copyright Act with respect to the 'Notice of claimed infringement' section in quite some time, I'd don't recall it saying that you can't charge the Claimant for sending the Notice along.

Since there is some work & obligation that you now have to deal with at your end as a result of this, how about sending the claimant an invoice for $25-50 or so for each IP address you have to deal with on their behalf? You have legal review costs, processing & verification costs, software maintenance costs, lost business opportunity costs, salaries, benefits, light, heat, power, costs that are all part of any legit/bogus claim. Who pays you for that?

Maybe you send an invoice stating that you're happy to send the claim notices out upon receipt of payment for your troubles, and then let's see if it goes to Court. The Claimants often seek something for nothing, but why should you incur the costs of their trolling scheme?

The result would likely be getting nailed for failure to pass on a notice (statutory damages of $5000-$10000)

No it would not. You missed the previous section:

Form and content of notice

(2) A notice of claimed infringement shall be in writing in the form, if any, prescribed by regulation and shall

(a) state the claimant's name and address and any other particulars prescribed by regulation that enable communication with the claimant;

(b) identify the work or other subject-matter to which the claimed infringement relates;

(c) state the claimant's interest or right with respect to the copyright in the work or other subject-matter;

(d) specify the location data for the electronic location to which the claimed infringement relates;

(e) specify the infringement that is claimed;

(f) specify the date and time of the commission of the claimed infringement; and

(g) contain any other information that may be prescribed by regulation.

A message that does not comply with section 2 is not a legal notice and does not need to be forwarded. They structured it very well in this regard, the form/content is itemized/prescribed by regulation not open ended for the likes of Rightscorp (or whoever) to put in what they want.

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

Guspaz to TSI Marc

MVM

to TSI Marc
said by JMJimmy:

A message that does not comply with section 2 is not a legal notice and does not need to be forwarded. They structured it very well in this regard, the form/content is itemized/prescribed by regulation not open ended for the likes of Rightscorp (or whoever) to put in what they want.

Geist is saying they can put whatever they want in there. He's a lawyer specializing in this stuff. You're not.
Guspaz

Guspaz to TSI Marc

MVM

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ts/C-42/

This seems to be a mistake. Because I followed the link you provided, and this is what I see:
said by Copyright Act :

41.25 [Not in force]
41.26 [Not in force]

So pointing users to those two sections is not very useful!

Nighthawk
Premium Member
join:2013-08-30
Canada

Nighthawk to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

said by JMJimmy:

A message that does not comply with section 2 is not a legal notice and does not need to be forwarded. They structured it very well in this regard, the form/content is itemized/prescribed by regulation not open ended for the likes of Rightscorp (or whoever) to put in what they want.

Geist is saying they can put whatever they want in there. He's a lawyer specializing in this stuff. You're not.

They already are...

»www.michaelgeist.ca/2015 ··· demands/
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Geist is saying they can put whatever they want in there. He's a lawyer specializing in this stuff. You're not.

His blog post is like most of his other ones, lots of stuff to get attention but very little legal information/analysis. Besides, it says it right in the Act. It specifically requires compliance with subsection (2) for any obligation to exist on the person forwarding:

41.26 (1) A person described in paragraph 41.25(1)(a) or (b) who receives a notice of claimed infringement that complies with subsection 41.25(2) shall...

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

resa1983 to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

said by TSI Marc:

Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ts/C-42/

This seems to be a mistake. Because I followed the link you provided, and this is what I see:
said by Copyright Act :

41.25 [Not in force]
41.26 [Not in force]

So pointing users to those two sections is not very useful!

Its cuz the gov hasn't updated their site to show its in force.
quote:
Date modified:
2014-12-19
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

1 edit

JMJimmy to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

said by TSI Marc:

Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ts/C-42/

This seems to be a mistake. Because I followed the link you provided, and this is what I see:
said by Copyright Act :

41.25 [Not in force]
41.26 [Not in force]

So pointing users to those two sections is not very useful!

The website hasn't been updated yet but the law has been posted in the Canadian Gazette (as required to bring it into force). Just use »laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ext.html until it is updated.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

1 edit

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Thanks for the feedback gang. We will be making some changes and posting the FAQ to the site soon. I'll update and link to it once we have it up in both French and English.

modemport
join:2013-08-26
Montreal, QC

modemport to TSI Marc

Member

to TSI Marc
torrentfreak mentions tsi

»torrentfreak.com/canadia ··· -150109/

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

TOPDAWG to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
Sucks ISP's now have to deal with this crap. They'll have to eat the cost of it now too. Can't wait till the false outrage with folks yelling about my privacy when you know maybe they need to be smarter about pirating to not get busted or at least try and make it so you can't be busted as easy.

To be open I pirate like a mofo if I get an email I got nobody to blame but myself.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to TSI Marc

Premium Member

to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Thanks for the feedback gang. We will be making some changes and posting the FAQ to the site soon. I'll update and link to it once we have it up in both French and English.

Please please make sure to add the max damages in court to the email, and not just the FAQ. Even if it is a "Some US rightsholders persist in providing US damages of $150,000.00 in their notices - they don't apply to you. Maximum damages of $5,000.00 will apply if and only if you are sued by the rightsholder."
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by resa1983:

said by TSI Marc:

Thanks for the feedback gang. We will be making some changes and posting the FAQ to the site soon. I'll update and link to it once we have it up in both French and English.

Please please make sure to add the max damages in court to the email, and not just the FAQ. Even if it is a "Some US rightsholders persist in providing US damages of $150,000.00 in their notices - they don't apply to you. Maximum damages of $5,000.00 will apply if and only if you are sued by the rightsholder."

They're not allowed to modify the notice.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by JMJimmy:

said by resa1983:

said by TSI Marc:

Thanks for the feedback gang. We will be making some changes and posting the FAQ to the site soon. I'll update and link to it once we have it up in both French and English.

Please please make sure to add the max damages in court to the email, and not just the FAQ. Even if it is a "Some US rightsholders persist in providing US damages of $150,000.00 in their notices - they don't apply to you. Maximum damages of $5,000.00 will apply if and only if you are sued by the rightsholder."

They're not allowed to modify the notice.

They won't be modifying the notice. They'll be modifying their information ABOVE the notice.
Expand your moderator at work

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

Guspaz to TSI Marc

MVM

to TSI Marc

Re: Notice of claimed copyright infringement

It's not just $150,000 vs $5,000...

It's $150,000 per EACH infringement, versus $5,000 for ALL infringements.

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

TOPDAWG

Premium Member

wow really? seems at that amount it's not even worth to take a cdn to court over this stuff. I'll guess they'll do like in the states pick a few people try and make exps of them even if they lose money to scare folks who download and get themselves a few headlines while doing it.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by TOPDAWG:

wow really? seems at that amount it's not even worth to take a cdn to court over this stuff. I'll guess they'll do like in the states pick a few people try and make exps of them even if they lose money to scare folks who download and get themselves a few headlines while doing it.

It's not necessarily just that amount. Exemplary & Punitive damages can be added to the amount as well as the possibility of costs. There is a potential for a larger down side for anyone who fights and loses.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Historically speaking, Canadian courts have not been particularly generous when allowing exemplary and punitive damages.

That said, considering that so far even in the litigious USA, noone has actually been successfully sued for copyright infringement by not for profit file sharing from my understanding.

So, would YOU as a rights holder want to take someone to court unless you had an open and shut case? No you'd hope for the speculative invoicing ... settlement out of court.

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

Guspaz to TSI Marc

MVM

to TSI Marc
Nope. Exemplary damages can only be applied when the actions committed are "malicious, oppressive and high-handed [such] that it offends the court’s sense of decency" and copyright infringement for personal use really doesn't qualify. They may be applied in cases of public infringement (where you're distributing stuff), but it should be impossible to argue successfully for them in the case of private copying. Punitive damages are also exceedingly unlikely, and guidance from the government indicates they're far more likely to award closer to the $100 minimum than the $5000 maximum.

Court costs, on the other hand, are another matter.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Historically speaking, Canadian courts have not been particularly generous when allowing exemplary and punitive damages.

That said, considering that so far even in the litigious USA, noone has actually been successfully sued for copyright infringement by not for profit file sharing from my understanding.

So, would YOU as a rights holder want to take someone to court unless you had an open and shut case? No you'd hope for the speculative invoicing ... settlement out of court.

Very true. The likelihood is low, just saying the possibility exists. Costs would be the bigger issue, those are more commonly granted and as TSI has shown they can grow rapidly. At least one advantage of the reverse class is costs could be distributed.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to coolspot18

Member

to coolspot18
That's only going to help you if the notice comes 31 days after the alleged infringement took place.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to JMJimmy

Mod

to JMJimmy
Chosing the right lawyer is how you keep costs down if you do end up in court. Pick a lawyer without experience in copyright and technology and they could dance forever racking your costs up and up and up. You want one who is wanting to protect Canadians from copyright trolls and not one who just wants the time in court to add to his bottom line. Not suggesting that lawyers actually do that ... but sometimes you do have to wonder!