dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
64
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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.



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
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·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

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
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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?

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

said by rednekcowboy:

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?

Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

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

said by resa1983:

Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.

How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA? This is what we are talking about, correct? Customer's privacy and whether or not to disclose this information? If it doesn't meet the guidlines outlined in the act itself it most definitely has merit.


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

said by rednekcowboy:

How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA?

Precedent: As in it's already been argued, and it was not seen as valid then.

Remember these proceedings are about Voltage seeking damages, as far as Voltage sees it the courts are probably not their only recourse to seek damages. (eg: Extortion letters)

Teksavvy, I think, by setting a bill of 190K for IP lookups is trying to make this route as unappealing as possible to Voltage, but to say that Voltage's only option is to sue you in a court of law is probably the legal equivalent of walking across the street without looking both ways.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

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

From the BMG appeal itself:

quote:
The privacy issue was an important consideration. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (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. Privacy rights are significant and must be protected. The delicate balance between privacy interests and public interest has always been a concern of the Court where confidential information is sought to be revealed. Privacy concerns must yield to public concerns for the protection of intellectual property rights in situations where infringement threatens to erode those rights. In other words, the public interest in favour of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate privacy concerns of the person sought to be identified if a disclosure order is made. Where plaintiffs show that they have a bona fide claim that unknown persons are infringing their copyright, they have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action.
»www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200···193.html

Previously, they needed to show a bona fide claim of infringement. Which is solid evidence. That was changed to prima facie, which essentially means it looks valid at first glance without rebuttal. Which, unfortunately, the affidavit does meet.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to El Quintron

This also brings up the question as to how do we make sure that Canadian subscribers info is handed over to non-Canadian entity - Voltage is to obey PIPEDA - Canadian law? May be the info should only be forwarded to their Canadian law firm and there should be conditions on how that is being used.

IMHO the jugde is also dropping hints about the court does not understand how an IP is associated with a person. This is a good time for CIPPIC or TSI to bring up some expert witness(es) and/or point out case file(s) that shows the uncertainties.



rednekcowboy

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

said by random :

This also brings up the question as to how do we make sure that Canadian subscribers info is handed over to non-Canadian entity - Voltage is to obey PIPEDA - Canadian law? May be the info should only be forwarded to their Canadian law firm and there should be conditions on how that is being used.

IMHO the jugde is also dropping hints about the court does not understand how an IP is associated with a person. This is a good time for CIPPIC or TSI to bring up some expert witness(es) and/or point out case file(s) that shows the uncertainties.

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

At this stage of the game, Voltage is having a tough enough time as it is. So much so that they are accusing the other side of creating a conspiracy against them, not once but several times. They are making wild accusations and calling names. If they thought they were going to make a "quick buck" with this, then they were sadly mistaken. They would be better off cutting their losses now....it's only going to get worse for them the longer this goes on as they don't really have a leg to stand on as demonstrated by their attitude befitting of a todler in court today.

This is the type of scrunity that I was looking for on this request. I also do have to admit that Teksavvy is putting up somewhat of a fight, which is decent, however I still feel that they should be fighting with more of an emphasis on their customers privacy protection and validity of the "evidence" that Voltage possesses rather than how much they should be allowed to charge for said information.


hm

@videotron.ca

I am betting Voltage drops this case.

The furthest this will go will be to see if CIPPIC is allowed to get in on the action, it ends there if they are granted intervenor status.


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

said by rednekcowboy:

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

You do realize that the original judge denied the court order, and that the appeals court reversed that denial, right? Appeals court has more say than Federal Court.

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity. For example, you can't libel someone or make death threats online anonymously, and expect that PIPEDA is going to keep your identity safe. Its ridiculous. PIPEDA is not the be-all, end-all, get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity.

While you are correct in that regard, I do believe TSI has some sort of obligation to protect the information they have from frivolous lawsuits.

Let's be honest here, what Voltage filed about people profiting and wanting all their bank records and financial history is pure rhetoric. These aren't professional commercial counterfeiters here. These are likely kids, a neighbour on your wireless, or someone spoofing your IP (relay/proxy/bounce).

While it may not be up to TSI to weigh the merits of piracy, it is TSI's responsibility to weigh what is being sought, why, and if it passes the giggle test in order to release peoples private information.

This doesn't pass the giggle test.

So TSI does have a responsibility in protecting people from vultures looking for easy money via obtaining their private information.

Is a couple of weeks or a few days notice protection to you?

Sure it's a hell of a lot more than what Videotron, Bell and Cogeco did. But, is notice all that is required under PIPEDA when a vulture comes knocking saying the accounts receivable of the IP is the person behind the IP?

TSI knows it's BS

You Know it's BS

I Know it's BS.

The Judge even said it's BS.

So did TSI "protect" their customers as required under PIPEDA, Resa?

What is the requirement under PIPEDA? And to what extent?

Is taking the position to not oppose (as TSI did) protection?

This person states it better than I could:

Judge grants new adjournment in TekSavvy illegal downloading case
»www.pogowasright.org/?p=32685

quote:
... Supporting the right of subscribers to privacy protection from frivolous or erroneous lawsuits does not equate with condoning piracy. It merely recognizes that before ISPs turn over subscribers’ details, there should be solid evidence supporting allegations of copyright infringement by the subscriber. ...
TSI, as they stated in these forums, wanted to stay neutral on the piracy issue. Yet they chose to ignore the privacy issue before them.

So here we are. ~50% of the people cheering for them. ~50% of the people asking what their malfunction is and why they aren't protecting info from these vultures.

TSI played a dangerous game here by making a deal with Voltage not to oppose. As the Judge stated, "Hearing a motion on a one-sided basis is risky".

Sure TSI deserves some kudos for what they did, but did they do the right thing?


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by rednekcowboy:

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

You do realize that the original judge denied the court order, and that the appeals court reversed that denial, right? Appeals court has more say than Federal Court.

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity. For example, you can't libel someone or make death threats online anonymously, and expect that PIPEDA is going to keep your identity safe. Its ridiculous. PIPEDA is not the be-all, end-all, get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.

I do realize what you are saying, however I'm just stating what PIPEDA says, nothing more. We are not talking murder/death threats here, we are talking about a group of IP addresses that prove absolutely, without a doubt nothing. Just because someone is an account holder does not actually prove that person was the one who committed the infringing act and without that proof, no one is entitled to the account holders information, as outlined in PIPEDA because they have no proof the account holder did anything wrong.

At the same time your example about death threats....If I made a death threat, say by leaving a message on voicemail, that person would have a recording of that for evidence. Similarly with other crimes, there would be evidence that the person responsible was the likely culprit via hard evidence (ie photos, eye witnesses, etc,etc). In this case there is none of that.

You can't just go around and make allegations against anyone and expect their head to be handed to you on a silver platter for you to dismantle and financially ruin and defame. At this point in the game, it's not about what tort was committed but if they can prove that they have actual evidence that an account holder committed the tort which they need to do in order to have access to their information, again, according to PIPEDA.

m3chen

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

@HM / Resa:

+1 on what HM said; and I don't believe PIPEDA should be used to shield people from committing crimes on the internet but I do believe it should be used to protect the general public from extortionist with bad evidence. I fully expect a child pornographer to get caught by the RCMP and have his info turned over when he's suspected of such criminal activity but I don't expect the same treatment of a someone who's downloading a copy of "True Justice" with Steven Segal.


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

said by m3chen:

@HM / Resa:

+1 on what HM said; and I don't believe PIPEDA should be used to shield people from committing crimes on the internet but I do believe it should be used to protect the general public from extortionist with bad evidence. I fully expect a child pornographer to get caught by the RCMP and have his info turned over when he's suspected of such criminal activity but I don't expect the same treatment of a someone who's downloading a copy of "True Justice" with Steven Segal.

We know its probably bad. But the court order doesn't usually require a full trial of the evidence to issue the court order.

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.

And unlike Ellis's latest puff piece (writer for hire?), the only reason for this is CIPPIC and the fight they brought with them.

CIPPIC could have been tossed out at stage one, and stage 2 (yesterday).

They can still be tossed out at the next court date.

Has nothing to do with TSI. TSI chose not to oppose.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to Nitra

What everyone is missing, it's not about the money, the first round will no doubt be a money loser. It's about setting precedents. If after all the legal wrangling on Voltage vs TSI subscribers is done, and if the courts rule in the favour of Voltage, they can they walk up to the next judge, whose hands will be tied by the previous ruling, and get their requests rubber stamped.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


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

1 recommendation

reply to hm

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.

And unlike Ellis's latest puff piece (writer for hire?), the only reason for this is CIPPIC and the fight they brought with them.

CIPPIC could have been tossed out at stage one, and stage 2 (yesterday).

They can still be tossed out at the next court date.

Has nothing to do with TSI. TSI chose not to oppose.

They can, but I doubt CIPPIC will get tossed.

As for David, he's semi-retired, and a York U professor who teaches Tech and background to communications students. Their courses get pretty deep surprisingly. Last summer I went and spoke to one of his classes as he was trying to do some 'current' tech news.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP