dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


NameAnon

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

said by hm :

said by NameAnon :

What I would like to know is how is it possible to sue a person today based on a law that did not exist when the supposed breach happened. In other words, laws are not retroactive. So, if a person downloaded something before the law came into effect, shouldn't this person be immune from such law?

There never was a law that made you "immune".

Also, if we look at the hurt locker lawsuit, Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, videotron et all seems to keep all IP related info (telling who the IP belong to) for a minimum of 3-months. That is why the hurt locker case was expedited in a real hurry. Practically same day.

I'm not sure if the new laws forces IP's to keep records for a year, or just an "infringers" info for one year. ONe of the indie owners here can answer that.

But up until a month ago, records for IP traceability was limited to 3 months from what we can tell from the hurt locker lawsuit.

So no immunity. Not sure about the big telco's record retentions now. Something must have changed if they are going back 5-months yet hurt locker shows 3 months was the limit.

You are missing the point. The point was that technically a person may have downloaded or shared copyrighted stuff let's say in July this year when C-11 wasn't in force. My question is this, considering that when the alleged breach occurred, said person is immune from C-11 since laws are not retroactive. So, how would it be possible for a company to sue said person under C-11 in such a case? Answer: not possible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with IPs. It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by NameAnon :

It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.

Previously, prior to C-11, you could be sued for up to 20,000$ instead of the 5,000$ now. That is, if such a lawsuit even stood a chance.

But as far as I know you can be sued. Maybe ask this on the Geist forum? Or maybe the actual law states something?

Haven't read it in its entirety yet. You?


NameAnon

@teksavvy.com
said by hm :

said by NameAnon :

It has to do with the facts that laws are not retroactive.

Previously, prior to C-11, you could be sued for up to 20,000$ instead of the 5,000$ now. That is, if such a lawsuit even stood a chance.

But as far as I know you can be sued. Maybe ask this on the Geist forum? Or maybe the actual law states something?

Haven't read it in its entirety yet. You?

That's my point. In this scenario such a person cannot be sued by the old law since has been deprecated; and cannot be sued by the new law since it did not have any effect at the time the alleged breach occurred. And no, I have not read the law in its entirety. There is no need either. There is a general legal principle that states that laws cannot be retroactive.... except under dicatorships....


hm

@videotron.ca
said by NameAnon :

That's my point.

Maybe you are right? I haven't a clue about that.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_fa···w#Canada

It states this is applicable only to criminal law though.

In these cases i do believe they are all civil proceedings (including the last hurt locker one), thus it is allowed. But, is it "enacted ex post facto"? I don't know the answer to your question. You really should post this to Geists website and see what comes of it.

If what you stated is true, then that 5 months of data they collected is indeed junk. But that still doesn't stop them from bringing civil proceedings against you. But it should stop any C-11 crap they toss at you dead in its' tracks, as applicable, and don't think there is much applicable other than a reduced dollar amount.

C-11 seems more harsh towards Canadian sites like ISOhunt, or ring sites, or servers, since C-11 goes after "enablers".

You are also forgetting that 5 months ago it wasn't exactly legal to download movies, just as it isn't now. I don't think that much has changed. C-11 or not.

Post it to Geist anyhow... It has me curious as well.

But anyhow I think the business model here is one of intimidation.
Lawyer letter --> Pay or else --> maybe nothing comes of it if you do nothing. Or you gamble and might have to pay more in just lawyer fees alone. But I would consult with a lawyer just the same. Would be dumb not to.

For all we know someone can sue this clown collecting the IP info to intimidate people with and turn the tables on him. Since, as well know, this business model is just a fishing expedition and does not equal the person belonging to the account payable of the ISP in question.

W/ hurt locker their intimidation and extortion bluff was called. They only sent letters demanding money "or else" and backed off on any court proceedings. I believe this is what this clown is. A plain old extortionist w/ the porn industry that won't go to court. Only time will tell...

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
said by hm :

But anyhow I think the business model here is one of intimidation.
Lawyer letter --> Pay or else --> maybe nothing comes of it if you do nothing. Or you gamble and might have to pay more in just lawyer fees alone. But I would consult with a lawyer just the same. Would be dumb not to.

1. This is the same model used by some collection agency bottom feeders and scam artists. Send out a thousand letters and a percentage will pay up.

2. In Ontario small claims is up to $25,000.00. The cost for the prevailing litigant are capped a very low levels. It's court costs of $275.00 to get a judgement.

3. Advise that you will defend vigorously and get a local computer nerd to testify as an expert about IPs. File numerous motions during the proceedings for disclosure and other procedural issues. It will cost them tens of thousands to recoup less than a thousand in awarded costs even if they prevail.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by peterboro:

3. Advise that you will defend vigorously and get a local computer nerd to testify as an expert about IPs. File numerous motions during the proceedings for disclosure and other procedural issues. It will cost them tens of thousands to recoup less than a thousand in awarded costs even if they prevail.

I've seen this happen in Quebec civil divorce where the other side represents themselves and drives the others lawyers fee's through the roof. As long as income tax records show the other spouse can't afford their own lawyer the lawyer of the other spouse can not refuse anything to the low income spouse.

So if they call 10x a day for 2 months, that's all billable hours. Any fax, call, piece of paper requested, any phone call to ask a question no matter how stupid. All billable per the minute to the one with the lawyer.

Not sure if you can do that in these cases though. No clue. Just know you can drive someones costs to triple with this during a Quebec divorce.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to peterboro
What is going to be interesting...

This creepy extortion company stated the porn industry is behind them as well.

If ever a kid is implicated or named, both that creepy company and the porn producer outing a kid can be sued to oblivion. Laws and privacy laws seem to have some case examples on this (as ref'd near the end of that 30-page hurt lock topic).

We might see some interesting action if this creep follows through on his threat to sue thousands.