dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31148
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca

Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

Continued from »Voltage-Hurt Locker Lawsuit Round 2 Against Teksavvy Users
(Anon can't add to that existing topic if older than 2 weeks)

Howard Knopf (copyright/IP lawyer) raises and make some very good and interesting points in relation to the Voltage extortion attempt. Many of which have been stated by users here in this forum.

It's a long read, but well worth it.

A small snippet of it...

Mass Copyright Litigation in Canada: Some Observations on the Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs and their Customers
»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···ada.html

quote:
...
Other matters should be also made clear. There is no reason to believe that the taking of active, reasonable and responsible steps by an ISP to safeguard and preserve its customers’ privacy would in any way jeopardise the ISPs cherished “neutrality” status. There is nothing in existing Canadian law or the still un-proclaimed provisions of Bill C-11 that would point to the contrary. What is apparent, however, is that ISPs are subject to PIPEDA privacy law and cannot divulge customer’s private information in a mass copyright litigation case without the customers’ consent or a court order. In the BMG decision in 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) made it clear that:
Pursuant to PIPEDA, ISPs are not entitled to "voluntarily" disclose personal information such as the identities requested except with the customer's consent or pursuant to a court order.
.... continues...
Emphasis his.

Is it just me, or he he basically calling Teksavvy's lawyers and legal consultants a bunch of know-nothing chumps who don't know previous Canadian case law?

He seems to be calling Teksavvy out with everything he wrote (and previously wrote the past few weeks) and telling them to grow a pair and stand up for what's right.

Worth the read.

Riplin

join:2002-05-13
canada

so register



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm

With the present real estate crash this gives owners even more incentive to sell before losing their house/houses and declaring personal bankruptcy. Renting is in and owning is out for probably the better part of the next 25 years. Remember the owner gets the letter not the renter. Renters will be the *new* upper class.



An0nym0us

@acanac.net

said by ChuckcZar :

With the present real estate crash this gives owners even more incentive to sell before losing their house/houses and declaring personal bankruptcy. Renting is in and owning is out for probably the better part of the next 25 years. Remember the owner gets the letter not the renter. Renters will be the *new* upper class.

you're kidding right?


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to ChuckcZar

said by ChuckcZar :

With the present real estate crash this gives owners even more incentive to sell before losing their house/houses and declaring personal bankruptcy. Renting is in and owning is out for probably the better part of the next 25 years. Remember the owner gets the letter not the renter. Renters will be the *new* upper class.

I'm pretty sure if you mortgage for 25 years, your mortgage payment will be $ 0 at the end and your Rent payment will be chugging along.

I'd love to see your math on how that works out though.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by CanadianRip:

I'm pretty sure if you mortgage for 25 years, your mortgage payment will be $ 0 at the end and your Rent payment will be chugging along.

I'd love to see your math on how that works out though.

Straying off-topic, but the math isn't as simple as that. Rent may be cheaper, houses have additional costs (property tax, maintenance, possible to rent with heat and hydro included so that could be extra if you own), home values may depreciate, many people like to upgrade so they end up paying a mortgage for far longer than 25 years...the list goes on.

Personally I still prefer owning to renting, but renting isn't as horrible an idea as some people think.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to CanadianRip

said by CanadianRip:

I'd love to see your math on how that works out though.

I think that would require a couple of hits of acid.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by hm :

said by CanadianRip:

I'd love to see your math on how that works out though.

I think that would require a couple of hits of acid.

I'd like a sprinke of blue microdots on that fantasy ice cream cone please.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to hm

Uhmm back on topic... Teksavvy did take the step of not providing the information without a court order. So they are protecting the user's privacy up until the court tells them that they can not anymore.

And regarding this Voltage lawsuit, (the aspect of whether an IP is a person aside)

I don't really get why people are so surprised about this lawsuit... I mean anyone who is downloading copyrighted material over a torrent clearly knows that they are breaking the law. And anyone using a torrent not through either a proxy or a seed box is naive to think that they have any privacy at all. Anyone can see your IP address on a torrent if you did not take any steps to anonymize yourself. I gave up torrents years ago when Canadian copyright was still a little murky... but I knew that my torrenting was not anonymous.

The people I do have compassion for are parents who don't really know what their kids are up to on the internet, and the kids committed copyright infringement... I don't really think the parents should be on the hook for that.

I'm guessing that this off topic discussion about owning vs renting is possibly regarding a situation where a home owner has a tenant and provides internet to that tenant as part of their rent? In that case I don't think the home owner should be liable for their tenant's activities... it would be like me being connected to a torrent while I was in a coffee shop, or an airport lounge..


Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

Teksavvy will be sued to the nose if they provided personal information without a court order. They are not protecting the privacy, they are just obeying the privacy law.

People are not surprised with lawsuits, but it is same as when you rent a video and make a copy with your VHS or tape a movie from TV with your VHS. You always get the chance of getting sued.

However, this tactic is basically blackmail. If they think I pirated their video and wanted to sue me, go ahead, we will see you in court, show me the evidence and we will fight. In this case, they know they got no evidence and they don't want sue anyone in court, because it will be more costly, they are counting on people don't want pay get their name cleared and making a quick buck. Great way to make money.

Go to court is getting a judgement or at least start a case to getting a judgement, I don't see the troll are doing any of them.


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to activoice

@activoice:

Give me a break; TSI rolling over (not opposing the motion) to get time to inform their customers is not taking the step of not providing the information. BTW there is currently no court order; the matter is simply in court.

As for piracy; you seem to have a similar stance as TSI_Marc but fail to understand one key aspect of this whole shebang: Its actually about privacy. Unless they could prove to TSI / the Court that their evidence was actually valid and not-hearsay, they shouldn't even be allowed 1000 ft near anyone's private information.


activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to Tong

Once Voltage gets the names, I am really curious how many people will just pay and how many will actually say take me to court. It's obvious that Voltage just wants to collect some money and they don't want any of these people to actually go to court...

I really want to see one of these cases actually go to court... if I wasn't working during the day I'd love to be in the gallery at the courthouse every day watching this case.


Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

It would be kind of funny (well for me) that to see all 2000 of them file a defense motion to go to the court and ask Voltage to cover the court cost if they can't prove them as the person who download the file.

Actually, there was a situation in Manitoba/Winnipeg sounds similar, I think like in summer 2008 we had these speed cameras on construction sites were placed at the place where people have no idea when they were actually are in the construction zone.

So, there were like 30,000 people got the ticket and most of them (me included) decided to contest in the court because we did violate the law, but we had no idea or they were caught at night time when no one is working there.

The court was getting slammed because the wait to just appear before a judge was like 8 month waiting and I was one of the first ones (because mine was throw out by the judge and then rest of the cases were dismissed).

If all 2000 people file a defense, it will definitely caught some judge's eye and probably just throw out the cases.

I remembered the company said I have over 1 million people's IP and want to sue all of them, well, we will see how well the judges will feel about them.


activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to m3chen

said by m3chen:

@activoice:
As for piracy; you seem to have a similar stance as TSI_Marc but fail to understand one key aspect of this whole shebang: Its actually about privacy. Unless they could prove to TSI / the Court that their evidence was actually valid and not-hearsay, they shouldn't even be allowed 1000 ft near anyone's private information.

Right but I don't think that's the way the legal system works... you have to identify the defendants first before you can bring a lawsuit against them. The only way to do that it is to get a court order to reveal who they are.

Something similar would be if you were committing mail fraud by using a Canada Post PO BOX.. Canada Post would not be expected to go to court on your behalf... Canada Post would get a court order to reveal the owner of the PO Box, and you would then get contacted by the crown.

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

In the case of mail fraud, there is a The bona fide case of crime be committed and authorities is committed to bring the person(s) to justice.

In the case of these trolls, 1. there is no bona fide case of a crime commit, at most this is a civil matter. 2. they are not committed to bring the person(s) to justice/court, they just want money, they don't care if yo are actually guilty or not.


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to activoice

@activoice:

As Tong states above, these are two very different cases. I think the OP's blog poster says it best in this quote:

"Many would argue forcefully that it’s not only the right thing to do but it’s an ISP’s job and duty to guard against clearly (or even arguably) inadequate attempts to open the door to mass litigation against its customers. That has enormous privacy implications. Shaw and Telus fought hard for this in 2004, with Bell and Rogers at least somewhat supportive. An ISP that stands up in this type of situation is not taking sides in the copyright wars; it is only defending its customer privacy – which is arguably, at the very least, not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do."

*The emphasis is mine and I feel it best represents how most of us (TSI customers) feel.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

4 edits
reply to activoice

said by activoice:

said by m3chen:

@activoice:
As for piracy; you seem to have a similar stance as TSI_Marc but fail to understand one key aspect of this whole shebang: Its actually about privacy. Unless they could prove to TSI / the Court that their evidence was actually valid and not-hearsay, they shouldn't even be allowed 1000 ft near anyone's private information.

Right but I don't think that's the way the legal system works... you have to identify the defendants first before you can bring a lawsuit against them. The only way to do that it is to get a court order to reveal who they are.

Something similar would be if you were committing mail fraud by using a Canada Post PO BOX.. Canada Post would not be expected to go to court on your behalf... Canada Post would get a court order to reveal the owner of the PO Box, and you would then get contacted by the crown.

Yes you are right, but in the case of the post office box, they can get pictures of you using the box, they can get pictures of you signing up for the box. This is all evidence that would have to be gathered prior to going to court. IE There would be an actual investigation, with evidence gathered by means that would have to be explained in court by a professional organization that does this everyday and have done this type of investigation for decades, not some fly by night organization that may or may not still be here by the time this case makes it to court.

Here, they having nothing. They have an IP that is registered to an account with no proof of who is actually using that account. An IP doesn't even come close to meeting the burden of proof in any court, even civil. Before any ISP willingly hands over account information, court order or not, the party requesting the information needs to show proof that the account holder is the one committing the alleged offenses.

If the account holder is the sole occupant of a residence and they can prove this, then sure, they have a case. However, if the account holder has a family or is sharing a residence with more than one other person, the requestor would have to prove that the account holder is, more likely than not (burden of proof in civil court), the one who committed the offense. If they don't provide this proof to the court or the ISP and the ISP hands over this information, they are breaking the privacy law and are making themselves liable for damages to the account holder.

I can tell you one thing, if my ISP turned over my personal account information or account logs without this burden being met, not only would I file complaints with all of the appropriate government agencies (both federal and provincial) but also would not only file suit against the requestor for deflamation but also my ISP for breach of privacy.

Simply put, even with a court order, the ISP still has a responsibility to uphold the privacy act to the best of their ability and scrutinize any request for private information of their customers. A court order does not absolve them of this responsibility and they have more than a duty, they are legally bound to challenge any request that does not meet the burden as per PIPEDA, Bill C-11 and any provincial or federal legislation. I don't think the ISP's here have thought of the situation from this side of the equation. Those 2000 IP's could bring Teksavvy a world of hurt if they decide to turn this back around on them (which is exactly what I would do).

activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to hm

Personally if I had received one of these notices, I would have contacted a lawyer right away to figure out what my rights are...

I would be afraid of Tek's lawyers making arguments on my behalf and maybe making an error that might set some precedent limiting my possibility for a defence.

I would not admit to any fault and would tell Voltage to take me to court. Then my defence would be that I do not dispute that the IP address terminates at my residence, but that I usually leave my WI-FI open for anyone to use, and I am not breaking any laws by doing that. What those people who borrow my internet choose to do with it is not my responsibility. I reside on the same street as a school and my WIFI signal reaches at least that far... I could argue that it could have been anyone in the school using a laptop.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

3 edits

said by activoice:

Personally if I had received one of these notices, I would have contacted a lawyer right away to figure out what my rights are...

I would be afraid of Tek's lawyers making arguments on my behalf and maybe making an error that might set some precedent limiting my possibility for a defence.

I would not admit to any fault and would tell Voltage to take me to court. Then my defence would be that I do not dispute that the IP address terminates at my residence, but that I usually leave my WI-FI open for anyone to use, and I am not breaking any laws by doing that. What those people who borrow my internet choose to do with it is not my responsibility. I reside on the same street as a school and my WIFI signal reaches at least that far... I could argue that it could have been anyone in the school using a laptop.

I agree with you on all points but one. The ISP's would not be fighting "on your behalf" (though this is the spin that they are putting on it so they can try not to uphold their responsibilities and hope you will accept that at face value). They would be fighting to protect themselves from causing damage to themselves by turning over personal information in contravention to both federal and provincial laws.

I also wouldn't contact a lawyer, I would simply reply to the letter stating I plan on hiring a lawyer to provide an answer and plan to fight the accusations every step of the way and see what they say in return.

Also, just because you have "secured wifi" does not mean that it truly is "secured." Anyone with an Android base device only needs a little time and they can get in.

There are tonnes of holes and hoops that any Studio would have to jump through in order to be successful in a case like this, would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions if they have to fight all 2000 cases individually (doesn't take long to add up at $400/hr for a lawyer), to do so and the most they can come out with is $1000000 (that's if they win every case and are awarded the max in every case). Most likely, they'll only be awarded the minimum in most cases, if they win so that number drops significantly very quickly. They may only come out with a couple hundred thousand, which wouldn't even cover the lawyers and expenses.

Part of PIPEDA also states that the requestor has to show that they are going to use the information in a lawsuit in order to be given access to it. I believe the sheer number of plantiffs, ie 2000, shows right of the bat that they do not intend to sue. At the very least, all 2000 people as this would bankrupt a small company such as Voltage so the request should have denied flat out.

There are many grounds that Tek should be fighting this request on in accordance with their responsibilities outlined in the privacy act and choosing not to do so will open themselves up to liability and litigation.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to An0nym0us

said by An0nym0us :

said by ChuckcZar :

With the present real estate crash this gives owners even more incentive to sell before losing their house/houses and declaring personal bankruptcy. Renting is in and owning is out for probably the better part of the next 25 years. Remember the owner gets the letter not the renter. Renters will be the *new* upper class.

you're kidding right?

WRONG
you get a net account you get one in your name
thats yours not suddenly a home owners liability cause if that the case as its his house he can then bar you form allowing cable or phone lines into your rooms ....
and paint the walls to prevent wireless signals.

ME thinks that won't be popular...NOR is the law....

you own a car , i rent it and smash it
your saying the owner of the car is liable?
LOL nope i am....

Rastan

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

There is no reason to believe that the taking of active, reasonable and responsible steps by an ISP to safeguard and preserve its customers privacy would in any way jeopardise the ISPs cherished neutrality status.

This is what I've been arguing too. I don't want to rehash everything I've said in the past but I think it's worth repeating that Teksavvy made a gigantic mistake in making a deal with Voltage Pictures based on an incorrect interpretation of the new copyright laws.

They should have opposed Voltage Pictures from the beginning.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to activoice

said by activoice:

I don't really get why people are so surprised about this lawsuit... I mean anyone who is downloading copyrighted material over a torrent clearly knows that they are breaking the law.

Let me correct your myopic view of things.

The majority of the people who will have their private info given out didn't download diddly-squat.

As shown in another topic, me, on videotron, could easily get a teksavvy user an extortion letter and their info released for something I download. It's quite easy.

The accounts receivable (the billing name) is far, very far from the person who did any downloading of "copyrighted material over a torrent", as you stated.

That is a very myopic view and standing on the issue.

funny0

join:2010-12-22

said by hm :

said by activoice:

I don't really get why people are so surprised about this lawsuit... I mean anyone who is downloading copyrighted material over a torrent clearly knows that they are breaking the law.

Let me correct your myopic view of things.

The majority of the people who will have their private info given out didn't download diddly-squat.

As shown in another topic, me, on videotron, could easily get a teksavvy user an extortion letter and their info released for something I download. It's quite easy.

The accounts receivable (the billing name) is far, very far from the person who did any downloading of "copyrighted material over a torrent", as you stated.

That is a very myopic view and standing on the issue.

well if your accused of something falsely sue voltage back for slander and defamation of character and do a class action lawsuit of your own on behalf of everyone for misrepresentation and force voltage onward so they cant run away with your data


sbug

@teksavvy.com

And who's going to pay for the $300/hour lawyers to do that?


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by sbug :

And who's going to pay for the $300/hour lawyers to do that?

It'll be more like $500+ per hour for that.
But in class actions the lawyers will often work for a cut of the action.


hm

@videotron.ca

Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.

To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1

said by hm :

Monday is sure going to be interesting. A few possible scenario's are at play here.

To bad we don't have a forum bookie to take bets.

Send me your money, I'll be the bookie! LOL


hm

@videotron.ca

No money for you. You must accept virtual non-money.

Knopf just called out David Ellis' puff piece (which I agree with).

Update re Voltage & Teksavvy
»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···vvy.html
For a whole lot of reasons, I don’t have a whole lot of time to spend on David Ellis’ lengthy and largely inaccurate posting about the Voltage case and Teksavvy’s role – or lack thereof - in the current case. Let me simply say: ...continues...



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

I'll probably add to this post as I go, but I do find this section very interesting:

quote:
A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter
So if I'm using my account to provide internet to my family or tenants then I cannot be held responsible and therefore cannot be named in the suit, should it come to that. One could also stretch this to cover open wifi......


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

A prominent Privacy advocate in the States caught wind of this one.

It's up on the pogowasright.org website here:

A decision by Teksavvy not to fight a motion puts subscribers’ privacy at risk
»www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666

A Canadian reader alerted me that there’s a hearing scheduled in a Canadian court tomorrow (Monday) that will likely be of interest to this blog’s readers.

Copyright lawyer Harold Knopf provided the background on the case, in which Voltage Pictures’ filed a motion to compel an ISP, Teksavvy, to disclose the names and addresses of 2,000 subscribers who are currently identified only by IP address. The lawsuit is based on P2P filesharing via BitTorrent, and Voltage’s claim states that once it has obtained the Doe defendants’ names and addresses, it will seek a financial accounting of how much they profited by distribution of their works. Because most people are seeding but not actually obtaining direct financial remuneration, I’m not clear where Voltage is going with this, unless they intend to argue that someone who seeds X movies Y times owes them $$$ based on a per movie cost?

Disturbingly, to privacy advocates, subscribers, and Howard, the ISP decided not to fight the motion. Knopf wrote: ...


..... continues over at »www.pogowasright.org/?p=32666

Tomorrows court date sure is going to be interesting to follow. So many people have eyes on this one.