dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
28674
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

1 edit

resa1983 to bigdaddio5

Premium Member

to bigdaddio5

Re: Copyright violation - CEG TEK

Michael Geist is currently tweeting about CEG TEK right now.

»twitter.com/mgeist/statu ··· 25838592
quote:
Every day, I get several emails from people who received CEG TEK copyright notices. Some are paying, only to face more demands…
So yes, it does look like after paying up the first time, they bypass the ISP altogether, and start harassing you directly.

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

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

said by resa1983:

So yes, it does look like after paying up the first time, they bypass the ISP altogether, and start harassing you directly.

Really unfortunate for the people who get trapped into this, of course. But, we have to be a little bit thankful they are so crass and stupid about their extortion. Like they say in Better Call Saul (et al), it's always surprising that criminals are so stupid. I mean, the way it is being abused, this notice policy can't possibly stand for long.

Jim Lahey
@ip-5-135-176.eu

Jim Lahey to bigdaddio5

Anon

to bigdaddio5
bigdaddio5, your profile shows you are in Quebec.

Since these creeps are taking money from Quebec citizens and targeting Quebeckers, they are, I believe, carrying out business in the province of Quebec in a legal sense. Thus, by Quebec law, they must have french on their site. They don't.

You have a vaild complaint to submit to the OLF (language cops), and they will have to have their site and legal/privacy docs in french and comply with Quebec language laws if they wish to continue.

Just saying... I do believe you can file your complaint anonymously (or the OLF will treat it as anon).

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

1 edit

El Quintron

Premium Member

A troll working for Voltage was also based out of Quebec, and I know some posters have mentioned this before I'm curious if anything came out of it.

Edit: it was Canpire

GoodQuestion
@videotron.ca

GoodQuestion

Anon

said by El Quintron:

A troll working for Voltage was also based out of Quebec, and I know some posters have mentioned this before I'm curious if anything came out of it.

Edit: it was Canpire

Good Question.

I do recall people went to the OLF with their english notices about the english only films they apparently downloaded. Then it was dropped against the Quebeckers.

That's all I recall of this.

Then there was another bunch sent to Quebeckers, including the Montreal Canadians. That was dropped as well.

If I recall right, my memory is fuzzy on this, when it hit TSI customers, it was made clear they wanted no Quebec residents (to the best of my knowledge). So if an IP was a Quebeckers, it got tossed I believe.

Then Counsil for TSI brought this up during court, but voltages lawyers tried their best to ignore it all so we never found out why this happened really.

This is all I can remember about that. But the OLF complaint was indeed done.

Bram would the the person to ask. Maybe Resa recalls more of the Quebec situations.

But I think the above poster is correct in terms of taking money from Quebeckers, and how that is deemed carrying on a business with the borders of Quebec, and thus language laws applies (both in writing and on phone etc). This is targeted (an entity targeting the people), this is not people going to an out of jurisdiction entity.

Wouldn't mind knowing the reasons myself. Good Question.
CoreM
join:2005-06-29
France

CoreM to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
The other thing I wonder about is, if you pay, is that in fact basically an admission of guilt?

If a court assumes that a payment is an admission of guilt then that scares me a little. If people are in fact sending out fraudulent notices and the recipients are getting scared into admitting guilt by remitting payment then that could be very bad...

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to GoodQuestion

Premium Member

to GoodQuestion
Thank you for keeping me posted, I was wondering what was going on with that complaint.

EQ

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

1 edit

Spike5 to bigdaddio5

Premium Member

to bigdaddio5
I think its ridiculous that ISP's are even forwarding all this completely intact in the first place as it has absolutely no legal basis. Everything settlement/scam related can be stripped out and then forwarded, just like Comcast has done in the past. Forwarding the infringement notice details (it is called NOTICE AND NOTICE afterall!!) should be enough to be compliant with the law. ISP's are essentially allowing these trolls to scam their own subscribers... I would have thought Teksavvy of all ISP's would have had more thought process on this rather than blindly forward this crap. Either they have no shame or are simply lazy, you pick.

»torrentfreak.com/comcast ··· -131206/
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

said by Spike5:

I think its ridiculous that ISP's are even forwarding all this completely intact in the first place as it has absolutely no legal basis. Everything settlement/scam related can be stripped out and then forwarded, just like Comcast has done in the past. Forwarding the infringement notice details (it is called NOTICE AND NOTICE afterall!!) should be enough to be compliant with the law. ISP's are essentially allowing these trolls to scam their own subscribers... I would have thought Teksavvy of all ISP's would have had more thought process on this rather than blindly forward this crap. Either they have no shame or are simply lazy, you pick.

Canadian ISPs are legally required to forward the complete notice, and nothing less. They are however permitted to add a note to the notice, which is what most do.

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

3 edits

Spike5

Premium Member

said by HeadSpinning:

Canadian ISPs are legally required to forward the complete notice, and nothing less. They are however permitted to add a note to the notice, which is what most do.

But this isn't a notice of infringement, its a settlement scam. I would love to see some sketchy company based out of who knows where take a Canadian ISP to court simply because they butchered their scam letters, ie never going to happen as it would put an end to this mess sooner than later.

Law law, blah blah, the law is how you interpret it, and the entire premise of said law wasn't intended to allow a floodgate opportunity to scam subscribers.

These notices are simply invalid.

EDIT: Furthermore, an ISP is obligated to protect the privacy of their subscribers, if one falls for this scam that was forwarded by their ISP, they could be the ones on the receiving end of a lawsuit from said subscriber.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I think it's because ISPs are in a tough spot... the law says they must forward - no exceptions. Even if they know it's not legal/it's a scam they don't have a choice or they'll be in the hot seat.

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

Spike5

Premium Member

said by JMJimmy:

I think it's because ISPs are in a tough spot... the law says they must forward - no exceptions. Even if they know it's not legal/it's a scam they don't have a choice or they'll be in the hot seat.

By whom exactly will be putting them into the hot seat? We are dealing with another Rightscorp clone, not Time Warner, Disney, et all.

Also don't forget they are putting false claims into these notices, if they can't even follow the law themselves then why should they expect their scam letters to be forwarded?

Continue to just roll over, thats exactly what they want to happen. To hell with subscriber privacy.
Spike5

Spike5 to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

I think it's because ISPs are in a tough spot... the law says they must forward - no exceptions. Even if they know it's not legal/it's a scam they don't have a choice or they'll be in the hot seat.


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

(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 claim of infringement relates;
(c) state the claimant's interest or right with respect to copyright in the work or other subject-matter;
(d) specify the location data for the electronic location to which the claim of infringement relates;
(e) specify the infringement that is claimed;
(f) specify the date and time of the claimed infringement; and
(g) contain any other information that is prescribed by regulation.

Funny, I don't see demanding a settlement printed anywhere in this text. These scam notices do NOT comply with this subsection, period, and as such can be rejected with reason as to why sent to the claiming party.

»www.parl.gc.ca/HousePubl ··· ile=45#7
bigdaddio5
join:2008-01-22
Kirkland, QC

bigdaddio5 to Jim Lahey

Member

to Jim Lahey
This is an interesting point and a new angle to approach it from if I need to. I never would have thought to make the OLF work in my favor. I'm laughing at how genius this is.

cpyrighttek
@rogers.com

cpyrighttek to Spike5

Anon

to Spike5
Spike, have you seen these notices as you seem to assume alot.

They comply, the settlement option is in addition to the standard xml infringement claim. They include everything Canadian law says they must.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to Spike5

Member

to Spike5
I don't disagree, I've made the same argument. Because the language doesn't prohibit anything, it only must include those 7 items, the popular interpretation is that it is permissive to include other information. The ISPs on the other hand have it very clear: if it contains the 7 items, it must be passed along or face consequences.
JMJimmy

JMJimmy to bigdaddio5

Member

to bigdaddio5
said by bigdaddio5:

This is an interesting point and a new angle to approach it from if I need to. I never would have thought to make the OLF work in my favor. I'm laughing at how genius this is.

Or sue them for invasion of privacy by conducting investigations without a license (required in Ontario + Quebec)

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

3 edits

Spike5 to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
There would be no consequences if the *fraudulent* settlement demands were stripped out, as the law clearly states the 7 items, which would remain untouched, thus still complying with the law... so its BS is what it is. Also, no crudhole of a company like CEG TEK would dare sue a Canadian ISP for doing just that as they are still forwarding the notice, thus complying with the law. Can you find anywhere in the text where the notice must remain unmodified? The law is horribly broken but its ridiculous to see ISP's forwarding scams to their subscribers and not doing anything about it, because the government is going to sue them or something. (read: consequences)\
The idiots at CEG TEK will be laughing at how ISP's are rolling over for them.

»boingboing.net/2015/03/1 ··· ort.html
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I suppose they could, but that's a huge expense to undertake.

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

Spike5

Premium Member

Given how this "business model" has failed miserably in the United States, I wouldn't expect them to have any success here, outside of going to court to obtain subscriber details...
Rastan
join:2007-04-25
Canada

Rastan to Spike5

Member

to Spike5
I think the problem is that it's cheaper for Teksavvy to simply forward the notices to customers without inspecting them rather than taking the time to review each one and remove the settlement demands.

These copyright trolls know this and this is why they are able to get away with getting their settlement demands to customers. Teksavvy needs to find a cost effective way to review all these letters and remove the settlement demands.

Here's an idea; randomly review 1% of these letters from each copyright troll. If it's determined that a copyright troll is sneaking in settlement demands or requesting for customers to contact them directly, Teksavvy should immediately report this copyright troll and stop forwarding any notices from them to customers.

If the copyright troll agrees to stop sneaking in settlement demands and requests for people to contact them directly, Teksavvy can then resume forwarding the notices. However, if they are caught a second time, they will be reported again and hopefully, the government puts a mechanism in place that will either, a) fine these copyright trolls or b)bans them from using the notice system.

cpyrightstuf
@rogers.com

cpyrightstuf

Anon

Read the law people. The notices are to be sent unaltered. Preceded with ISP added text if wanted, but whatever they contain is to be forwarded if it matches the minimum criteria.

If they want to add stuff, they can, be it settlement demands or creationist theories or the daily XKCD cartoon. Unaltered.
Sanek
join:2006-08-10
Kanata, ON

Sanek to bigdaddio5

Member

to bigdaddio5
Considering that the penalties for non-commercial copyright violations are in the $100-$5000 range (and more on the lower end of this range, depending on the violation and what court considers just), I would never have any direct communication with any of these companies.

»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· 8.1.html

Thats not a free pass though as they could sue a large group of people together - probably the only way they may actually hope to win any money out of this. Best thing would still be to try to avoid getting these in the first place, but if you already got one, I would just let things play out and not get scared by their threats.

You should also remember that, even though the ISP has forwarded the email to you, they did not provide any of your information to the claimant, so any communication with them directly would simply make you an easier target.
Pharaoh11
join:2011-02-01
Toronto, ON

Pharaoh11 to bigdaddio5

Member

to bigdaddio5
I received one for a file you couldn't download in the first place.

These guys are just firing off letters with no actually investigation being done in the hopes of scaring people into paying.
I had my lawyer fire off a letter as he was laughing reminding them that you actually have to do something in the first place before you can break any laws.
Sanek
join:2006-08-10
Kanata, ON

Sanek

Member

said by Pharaoh11:

I received one for a file you couldn't download in the first place.

These guys are just firing off letters with no actually investigation being done in the hopes of scaring people into paying.
I had my lawyer fire off a letter as he was laughing reminding them that you actually have to do something in the first place before you can break any laws.

Again though, I would recommend not even acknowledging them unless they escalate (i.e. request your information from the ISP via a court order) and contact you directly. There is a big difference between an IP address and contact details.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

2 edits

resa1983 to bigdaddio5

Premium Member

to bigdaddio5
Bad news...
Word through the grapevine is CEG-TEK has retained an attorney here in Canada, plans to litigate, and attempt to make it so that the $5000 statutory cap, that applies to ALL studios/infringements, only applies to a single studio.

»torrentlawyer.wordpress. ··· letters/

EDIT: CEG-TEK is also claiming there's been 6 months of notices which have gone out, all without the settlement requests. Cashman is requesting confirmation of that point.

EDIT2: CEG-TEK's lawyer (if true) is the lawyer for Voltage.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to HeadSpinning

Member

to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

The IP address does them no good, as they're dynamically assigned. They still need to go through the ISP to get the notice sent to the user who had that IP assigned to them at the time the alleged infringement took place.

The OP seems to indicate that they provide a link in the email to take you to their website to settle the claim. If these were legit, how hard would it be to customize the link. IE we sent a link to ip address 101.6.156.10 and the clicked on it and provided is the following info: name, sin #, address, phone, job, etc..

Following those links in the email (assuming they were customized links) could link them with your ip address by filling out the info.

Maybe the links aren't customized but that's how I'd do it if I was trying to link the data. Unique link for every warning notice sent out.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

said by zod5000:

If these were legit, how hard would it be to customize the link.

echo $url .'?uid='. md5($ip);

About that hard.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to zod5000

Premium Member

to zod5000
Every email that goes out is unique and has a different identifier for settling.
Expand your moderator at work