dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
33
share rss forum feed

activoice

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

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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.



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.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

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).

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to hm

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
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

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
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

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.



hm

@videotron.ca

As far as I can tell, the three links to follow for today's court hearing will be:

»twitter.com/pandersen
»twitter.com/RessyM
»twitter.com/johnDowntownTO

I am unsure if any of these people will be allowed to live-tweet during the court proceedings (Requires the court to identify you as a journalist).

Anyone know of any other feeds to follow?

Good luck to all, and thanks Ressy for taking time out of your life to head over to the court to keep us all informed! Much appreciated.

Privacy Versus Piracy Starts at 11-am.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

John said he wouldn't be here for this one, that he'd be following me.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Expand your moderator at work


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.

In addition, there might be more added costs.
---

Good for them!



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by hm :

Teksavvy said they incurred costs to date of $190k. Wants to be paid up front before a foreign company disappears with peoples private info.

In addition, there might be more added costs.
---

Good for them!

Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


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

said by dillyhammer:

Private info sold to a foreign dirtbag company? According to some people, really cheap. How is that good for them?

Mike

190k is well beyond what they can get out of these lawsuits after their costs are factored in.

I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have
Expand your moderator at work

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to El Quintron

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

Barry Logan is quoted as saying "Rumour has it that some ISPs are asking anywhere from $40 to $200 per address for IP address reconciliation. For even a modest request for 1,000 records is going to cost a fortune. At $40 per address it’s absurd. At $200 it’s impossible."

So... yeah



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.

And by my guesstimate of accountings, that is letting them off cheap.

Only comes to around 95$/IP. I was stating since the beginning it should be above $100-150.

But TSI also added there could be more costs. So good.

So at least we know Voltages legal team wants about $2000 per court appearance.

So guess that brings them up to $4,000 dollars now, then a hearing to see if CIPPIC should be granted, so $6,000. And that's just to get the ball rolling in regards to what the judge said, "to try and get this right".

Unless Voltages lawyers are working pro-bono (or accepting a cut from the extortion), voltage will be out of pocket an easy $215k before they get a name.

But voltage will still make a nice profit if they get those names.

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Nitra:

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.

That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.

1. Voltage will leave owing money

2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.

3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine".


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by hm :

said by Nitra:

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.

That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.

1. Voltage will leave owing money

2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.

3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine".

The issue of whether or not Voltage is going to sue should also be a matter argued before the courts. If there is no intention to sue then they have no right to the names in the first place. Why is no one arguing PIPEDA in this case?