dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 recommendation

reply to dillyhammer

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by dillyhammer:

Their reaction to all this is a real headscratcher. I would have thought they'd be front and center battling this - and the only real effort I'm seeing is ensuring their asses are covered with as much teflon as possible.

The problem is that they need to function as a service provider. The more involved they get the more likely they'll become a target. I don't believe in Voltage's tactics. I don't believe they have any intention of suing the holders of the 2300 IPs (not sure what number of people this is). Like they've done in the past, they're hoping to scare people into paying them money for movies that few people went to see in the theatres.

The other problem is that a certain percentage of the 2300 may have participated in torrents that seeded these movies. I'm a little suprised to see so many in a short period of time (just based on the specific movies). The problem is that we don't know the percentage... could be 99.99 or could be 50%.

Teksavvy simply cannot afford to get in between someone violating the law and the rights holder. Honestly, I don't think it's fair to expect them to. It will take a lot of resources, and they can't fight the batttle. They're simply the wrong person. It's unfortunate that this then pushes the onus on to the users. Hopefully CIPPIC will make enough headway in January to stop this kind of crap. Unfortunately with the previous request in Quebec, I think the request will have precendent behind it. It's going to be a tough fight. Especially as I suspect this initial large request will be used to extort money from this first group... to go after the next (even larger) group.

And back to that percentage, it does mean that somewhere in the middle of this will be people who have never distributed a Voltage movie but may end up with the letters after all. It will be very difficult to prove a negative without it sounding like a kid saying 'the dog ate my homework'. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it's not always the reason.

funny0

join:2010-12-22

said by A Lurker:

said by dillyhammer:

Their reaction to all this is a real headscratcher. I would have thought they'd be front and center battling this - and the only real effort I'm seeing is ensuring their asses are covered with as much teflon as possible.

The problem is that they need to function as a service provider. The more involved they get the more likely they'll become a target. I don't believe in Voltage's tactics. I don't believe they have any intention of suing the holders of the 2300 IPs (not sure what number of people this is). Like they've done in the past, they're hoping to scare people into paying them money for movies that few people went to see in the theatres.

The other problem is that a certain percentage of the 2300 may have participated in torrents that seeded these movies. I'm a little suprised to see so many in a short period of time (just based on the specific movies). The problem is that we don't know the percentage... could be 99.99 or could be 50%.

Teksavvy simply cannot afford to get in between someone violating the law and the rights holder. Honestly, I don't think it's fair to expect them to. It will take a lot of resources, and they can't fight the batttle. They're simply the wrong person. It's unfortunate that this then pushes the onus on to the users. Hopefully CIPPIC will make enough headway in January to stop this kind of crap. Unfortunately with the previous request in Quebec, I think the request will have precendent behind it. It's going to be a tough fight. Especially as I suspect this initial large request will be used to extort money from this first group... to go after the next (even larger) group.

And back to that percentage, it does mean that somewhere in the middle of this will be people who have never distributed a Voltage movie but may end up with the letters after all. It will be very difficult to prove a negative without it sounding like a kid saying 'the dog ate my homework'. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it's not always the reason.

and you never read the statement of claim in lawsuit that voltage claims under hte new law to be able to sue people without any possible way to prove money changed hands that , just the file itself being moved about is commercial...that is wrong and false...you realize that would mean 6 million people are guilty possibly of infringements that could range up to 20K per infringement

disability that means for hte next 16.6 years id be paying FOR ONE infringement commercial that i never gained any money for....
its one thing to accuse someone say of one thing they actually did its another to game the system and gather your names and addresses using false and misleading and representative tactics , harper knew when he drew up the law that a balance had to be made if our economy was to push forward , if were sending 5-10% of all our incomes south of the border that's a tax that destroys the economy and when it affects the poorest ....well whatever and don't give me that bs oh you should not do it....i can guarantee in this environment ANYONE i repeat anyone on the net will have infringed something. you have 80 years now to screw yourself up over where we had 50....no kid born now will ever get to use anything made in his lifetime to create something new...perfect to grow the economy to no where as rich people clammer to show off how much there useless non used money bank accounts are.