dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to sanc5

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by sanc5:

Well you watch what Bell, Rogers and the other indies do. I can almost guarantee if they are targeted they will not inform their customers and simply pass on their records.
==============================================
... on the other hand they could be watching what's going in here and decide to oppose any motion to disclose when they get targeted. And if they win? More customers to them? No?

Of course, you could be right, they may just cave in right away! Oh well..

No one wins.. the ISP would have to take on the enormous legal fees for their own motives which these days would only result in short term gain and even if they end up winning the case, there goes an increase on your bill so in the end you still pay.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.


johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

said by sanc5:

Well you watch what Bell, Rogers and the other indies do. I can almost guarantee if they are targeted they will not inform their customers and simply pass on their records.
==============================================
... on the other hand they could be watching what's going in here and decide to oppose any motion to disclose when they get targeted. And if they win? More customers to them? No?

Of course, you could be right, they may just cave in right away! Oh well..

No one wins.. the ISP would have to take on the enormous legal fees for their own motives which these days would only result in short term gain and even if they end up winning the case, there goes an increase on your bill so in the end you still pay.

Confused. What "enormous legal fees"??? We are talking about opposing a motion. This is not a trial. Nobody is asking Tek to defend its customers in a trial. This is one heck of a cheaper deal than a trial. Beside, there is a huge upside to the ISPs. If this kind of bull is nipped at the bud, others won't even try it and then the ISP's won't have to spend time ratting on their customers and getting bad press. Instead, they could spend their time and energy in their business.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms

Voltage and all of the other copyright trolls are not the law. If Bell, Rogers & Shaw can stand up for their customers then so can Teksavvy.

If you aren't familiar with how copyright trolls operate then you should look into it. Then you'll realize how bad those comparisons you made are.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

said by Rastan:

If Bell, Rogers & Shaw can stand up for their customers then so can Teksavvy.

Well I'd certainly like to see the last case where Bell and Rogers represented their customers.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.


johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

Again, nobody is asking Tek to protect anybody against the law. All we are saying is that Tek will take NO action and will hand Tek's logs, that were collected by Tek's systems, containing Tek's customers' names (and probably addresses) to a third party. Technically speaking, we are talking about Tek handing over IT'S OWN property (i.e. the documentation) to a third party. This documentation was instigated and collected by Tek, for Tek usage WITHOUT the customer having ANY other option.

Geee.... don't you think that customers have the right to expect at least SOME opposition? Even a token effort? Even something that may be used at a latter time by an affected customer's legal counsel?

No. Marc decided to CYA.

Fine. There you have it.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

The laws just changed. This is a test case by the trolls. Rogers and Bell are the big fish...they'll get hit, and hit hard, in 2013 if this shakedown pays off.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

Technically they did with the Hurt Locker case last year with Bell being the ISP but then they dropped it.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to The Mongoose

In terms of ISP's opposing these types of requests, the law hasn't changed. I'm not so sure they'll go after the big ISP's unless they are sure they won't encounter opposition.

If Voltage pulls the same stunt against Rogers and Bell customers and they meet opposition, they will incur significant legal fees if they are tied up in court for an extended period of time. These are copyright trolls we are talking about. Linking a name to an IP so that they can extort money is their business model.

They won't be able to maximize their profits if ISP's do not give them a clear path.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to johansmith

said by johansmith:

said by mlerner:

said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

Again, nobody is asking Tek to protect anybody against the law. All we are saying is that Tek will take NO action and will hand Tek's logs

Well no, they won't release the logs with a court order in any case and TekSavvy will there on Monday. They just won't be "making a case against the merit of what they are alleging" which is a seperate thing. In other words, they won't release logs unless legally compelled in terms of privacy but if the case goes through subscribers will be proceeding on their own.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
reply to mlerner

You're right - »www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201···024.html

Did the ISP's oppose this?


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

Well no, they won't release the logs with a court order in any case and TekSavvy will there on Monday. They just won't be "making a case against the merit of what they are alleging" which is a seperate thing. In other words, they won't release logs unless legally compelled in terms of privacy but if the case goes through subscribers will be proceeding on their own.

In other words, Tek has decided not to say "our customers didn't do any of this so screw you," which I have to admit is smart. The privacy argument, however, is more important and more valid. It seems TekSavvy has decided they're not the right party to present that legal argument. I am not sure about that, but if CIPPIC or a similar group can get intervenor status, it will actually be a better outcome for privacy advocates.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

You're right - »www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201···024.html

Did the ISP's oppose this?

Just have to read through it - short answer, no. Not sure how the new laws would change this.

Long answer:

Relevant info of disclosure.

Subsection 7(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5

[12] Voltage Pictures LLC is asking the internet service providers to disclose the names and addresses of some of their customers who have allegedly infringed its copyright.

[13] Subsection 7(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, allows for the disclosure of personal information on a court order:
7. (3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is



(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;

[15] These principles also apply to the case at bar.

Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106

[16] To obtain the name and address of a customer of an internet service provider, plaintiffs must prove that they have a bona fide claim against that customer and that they meet the criteria of Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules (BMG, above, at paras. 33 and 34).

[17] Voltage Pictures LLC has a bona fide claim against the defendants: it has brought an action against them for having infringed its copyright when they copied and publicly distributed the film Hurt Locker.

And the judgement/conclusion.

IV. Conclusion

[29] The Court grants Voltage Pictures LLC’s motion without costs given that the plaintiff’s motion is not contested by any of the internet service providers.

JUDGMENT
Further to the analysis undertaken, the Court orders that:

Voltage Pictures LLC proceed with a written examination for discovery of Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in order to obtain the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A attached to the Notice of Motion.

Within two weeks, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP disclose to Voltage Pictures LLC the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A. This disclosure shall be in Microsoft Excel format, with publishing rights, encrypted on a compact disk or any other electronic medium.

Voltage Pictures LLC reimburse any reasonable expenses incurred by Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in collecting the personal information identified in paragraph 1 of this order.

Without costs.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

No, but that's not a comparable scenario. In the ISP case, you've got the concern that the plaintiff is making an overly broad request for massive disclosure of private information without having to prove the merits of their case; they could in fact have put any random IP on the list even if not relevant to their case, because there is no penalty for making an error. All they have to do is allege infringement and, if their motion is granted, they've got free access to your private information.

There are cases in the US of the copyright trolls sending extortion requests to babies, the dead, those who don't know how to use computers, even those who don't even own computers. With such a terrible track record with even their extortion requests, and presumably these requests were sent out AFTER they had been granted discovery, how can it be reasonably argued that they have a reasonably belief that the owners of the ISP account the IP address is associated to committed the alleged infringement?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

said by Guspaz:

No, but that's not a comparable scenario. In the ISP case, you've got the concern that the plaintiff is making an overly broad request for massive disclosure of private information without having to prove the merits of their case; they could in fact have put any random IP on the list even if not relevant to their case, because there is no penalty for making an error. All they have to do is allege infringement and, if their motion is granted, they've got free access to your private information.

Again Gus hits it on the head. I just can't shake the idea from my head, that the word troll is so appropriate. (as per the fishing technique).

If they manage to get 10000$ out of this whole thing without a fight, it's enough for them to keep at it forever. This is why they need to be opposed. It's a matter of checks and balances. If anyone, single one, capitulates before checking the facts and fighting, perhaps even while being innocent or for whatever reason, we ALL LOST a very important fight.
--
Cheers!

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
reply to Guspaz

you've got the concern that the plaintiff is making an overly broad request for massive disclosure of private information without having to prove the merits of their case; they could in fact have put any random IP on the list even if not relevant to their case, because there is no penalty for making an error. All they have to do is allege infringement and, if their motion is granted, they've got free access to your private information.
----------

Yup, just posted similar on the other thread re: logs.

»Discussion about log retention



drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

There are cases in the US of the copyright trolls sending extortion requests to babies, the dead, those who don't know how to use computers, even those who don't even own computers. With such a terrible track record with even their extortion requests, and presumably these requests were sent out AFTER they had been granted discovery, how can it be reasonably argued that they have a reasonably belief that the owners of the ISP account the IP address is associated to committed the alleged infringement?

Let us say, for sheer speculative and hypothetical sake, that this scenario is BOUND to happen again, here this time. And oh I don't know, someone with some tech-savvy already knows this.

Then this person would be able to sit back, relax (ok maybe not relax) but at least look forward to a nice show, where the accuser is taken to the cleaners and the business model fails once and for all.

That tek-savvy guy will sure look regal then.

In other words, for Voltage and Canpire, there is much as stake. They could just as well shoot themselves in both feet. They cannot afford a single mistake in this entire proceeding or they will get crucified in the press and set a precedent against themselves and perhaps even damages. And my gut feeling tells me they are headed that way full steam.
--
Cheers!