dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Who7

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by Who7:

Fight on your terms and what you can win on, not theirs. So some of you guys who come online with "copying does no harm"......are doing harm. Focus on privacy or STFU.

Says you.

If someone is willing to take on Voltage with that defense then it's their perogative to do so.

If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer.

Last I checked, privacy wasn't the only tool in my legal defense tookit.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by El Quintron:

said by Who7:

Fight on your terms and what you can win on, not theirs. So some of you guys who come online with "copying does no harm"......are doing harm. Focus on privacy or STFU.

Says you.

If someone is willing to take on Voltage with that defense then it's their perogative to do so.

If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer.

Last I checked, privacy wasn't the only tool in my legal defense tookit.

FWIW, that is a god-awful defense strategy but as you said, to each his own.


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

FWIW, that is a god-awful defense strategy but as you said, to each his own.

It would be, if all you're doing is trying to get out of this without paying damages.

On the other hand if you're trying to make an ass of the law allowing for damages, and the plaintiff it would be a PR disaster for them.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


hm

@videotron.ca
Slaw (legal Ezine) has a post up from an Ontario Linux group about the case. It's more on how to prevent frivolous lawsuits, what can be done, and what could be looked at to protect people from vultures like canipre and voltage, yet still protect serious copyright suits.

Points 6 & 7 caught my interest.

Copyright Infringement Trolls: An "Appreciation of the Situation"
»www.slaw.ca/2013/01/16/copyright···tuation/

6. Prohibit a particular practice.

Just like barratry, champerty and maintenance of old, legislators could prohibit plaintiff's lawyers from taking particular actions. In this case, the prohibition would be on using a suit to obtain identifying information which one uses for any other purpose. This would have to be carefully defined, however, to allow honest plaintiffs to proceed. Developing such a prohibition would be an “interesting” task for a legal draftsperson. Deciding what to call it might be even harder: engaging in “troglodytarum”, perhaps?

7. Consider the specific undesirable practice professional misconduct.

The Law Society could conceivably declare this kind of use of the courts to be misconduct before it becomes prevalent, or order a disciplinary proceeding to evaluate it if it is found to have occurred. This would ensure that an honest plaintiff's lawyer would be able to defend a proper use of the courts, but would be reluctant to proceed if they were acting for a dishonest plaintiff.
...continues...


hm

@videotron.ca
In various posts I mentioned that Rogers and Bell charged 300$ (rogers) to 200$ (bell) per IP when a troll comes knocking.

I based this on my obviously flawed memory of the York University case a few years back.

The Slaw reference (post above) cites this case as well. So I looked into it and found the case write-up and costs here:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4340/125/

It states:

...in return for ordering the two companies to disclose the names of customers associated with particular IP addresses. First, York University was required to pay the ISPs to compensate them for providing the information - Rogers gets $600, while Bell gets $300.

So as you can see, I erred. oopsie.

Bell charges $300/ip look-up.
Rogers $600/ip look-up

There was also another case where Bell and Rogers costs were viewable, but I no longer recall which case it was. But costs were similar (but memory is telling me a bit lower).

TSI should have charged more to be inline with Rogers and Bell.

Maybe CNOC can/should use it's influence to set a minimum standard in line with Rogers. After-all their mission statement sates: to "influence the development of laws and regulations, regulatory and judicial determinations, as well as public policy affecting communications in Canada".

CNOC should consider this to protect their members from these trolling lawsuits and the cost burden involved, using TSI as the example. Over to Rocca...

These trolling suits affect bottom line and could/will lead to increasing costs on the consumer (which affects their competition price) if they don't stand up to their mission statements and get a consensus on the cost burden that should be used as a minimum guideline for all CNOC members.

Rogers charges SIX HUNDRED BUX PER IP!!
Sure makes trolls think twice.

Would make an interesting industry standard which would force only the most serious cases to seek IP info, and not a mass trolling campaign.

So maybe the Slaw post above should include this as another point.

But pretty sure there was another case and rogers charged over 300 but less than 600. Just can't recall it.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

That is exactly what the order states. Total costs.

So, Rogers, 600. Bell, 300. TSI, 190,000.



(sorry, can't help m'self)

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


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

Yes, noticed that after I pasted it.

I am assuming that is 2 IP's for Rogers and one for Bell. I could be wrong here, but there was indeed another case where Bell charged ~200 and Rogers ~300 (100 more than Bell for an IP each). For the life of me I can't recall why or for what, or I would search for it.

So guess I wasn't wrong to begin with, just can't find it or recall it.

But still, it is something CNOC should take up and look at to protect their group from this (and protect from a potential rate increase to protect themselves from the costs of not opposing and just showing up in court and giving people notice).

DeViLzzz

join:2004-07-29
Sarnia, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
blah blah blah ....

bottom line is people if you download anything that is not yours and it is being sold commercially or is owned by someone and they say it is not freeware or whatever then you are stealing and should be punished in a way that will make you stop from doing it in the future

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm
The problem is that the courts state costs.. Not prohibitive costs so this doesn't happen again.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

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

3 edits
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

It looks like it was the costs to identify one (1) person who appears to have used the same e-mail address to send potentially libelous information. It appears that the person sent the e-mail via a Gmail account, from both Bell & Rogers IP's, a GRAND total of three (3) times.

Thus the total costs of $900 between the two IP's are essentially for tracking down three (3) IP addresses in total.

[aside: Cost to Voltage for 2,300 IP's at those rates would be $690,000 - cite that as precedent TSI ]

»www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20···447.html
(see paragraphs 6-9)]

Edit: Sorry guys - I didn't look at the Geist source article when I first did the math - $300/IP is the correct amount as per Geist.
Note in the CanLII post that "The costs of compliance, which are nominal in this case,....." can definitely be interpreted as costs per IP.


hm

@videotron.ca
3 IP's in total would likely make it as I said above. 2 for Rogers, 1 for bell. Thus 2x 300/IP for Rogers (600), 1x 300/IP (300) for Bell.

Thanks for finding that!

So $300/IP for both. Hmm

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
never mind


Typo King

@videotron.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

Edit: Sorry guys

pfft don't be sorry, typo's happen.

And yeah, TSI under-costed themselves. But like they said in court, it wasn't finished yet and costs could increase.

CNOC, as an industry group (as said above), should be behind them and every ISP under their banner to study this and come out with a bare minimum range to help their members out in trolling suits.

ISP's don't work free for trolls.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to DeViLzzz
said by DeViLzzz:

bottom line is people if you download anything that is not yours and it is being sold commercially or is owned by someone and they say it is not freeware or whatever then you are stealing and should be punished in a way that will make you stop from doing it in the future

Yup. But the problem with the current system is that before any legal action is actually taken against you, you will receive a letter offering to settle the dispute for $X where $X is less than the costs you would expect to pay to defend yourself in court. So in other words, it doesn't matter if you're innocent or guilty. Once they have your name you are on the hook for a substantial amount of money. If nobody looks at this, then for all we know they have a lotto machine spitting out random IP addresses assigned to particular ISPs. Where's the proof that the person who pays the Internet bill did anything wrong?

So before these names are handed over to Voltage some due diligence must be done to ensure that the collection methods are solid and there aren't any innocent parties who have been included in the thousand people who are part of this.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that due diligence is done?

As seen in the 3 minute review of the Recoil motion, the courts aren't going to do it by themselves. They'll just take what is claimed at face value.

Is it the owners of the IP addresses? Those targeted by the suit? Possibly, but again the cost to oppose this motion would be less than any offer of settlement. Plus as TekSavvy have shown the ISP will have to spend a ridiculous amount of money up front, and possibly uncovered by the Voltage, just to let their customers know which of them are targets.

Is it the ISP? That's my personal opinion, but of course I don't run one so I don't have to face the costs and risks associated with that course of action.

In the current action, CIPPIC are trying to insert themselves and ask the right questions. If that happens, great. If not then I guess it sucks to be the 1000 defendants, guilty and innocent.

The whole situation just plain sucks for everybody. Because the only ones who win are the Trolls. The rest of us, ISPs and subscribers alike, are on the hook to be scammed out of money whether we've done something wrong or not.

Clearly the system as it currently exists is broken.

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

The whole situation just plain sucks for everybody. Because the only ones who win are the Trolls. The rest of us, ISPs and subscribers alike, are on the hook to be scammed out of money whether we've done something wrong or not.

Clearly the system as it currently exists is broken.

MP's, their Hollywood lobbyists, and a bunch of government lawyers sat in a room. Sounds like it's the start of a joke, right? Only it isn't....it's what we got.... and we can thank the Conservatives - who limit debate on everything -for this abortion of a law as a result.

Who was in the room doing the "if, then, else" figuring out how it actually worked for those on the front lines - the ISP's?
Nobody.

Who followed the money as far as what any self-respecting ISP would do to protect their customer's privacy --- (this is where we exclude Bell, Rogers, Videotron, Acanac, and some others who recently 'shat' [not the Shatner-esque definition of the verb] on their customer's privacy)?
Nobody.

Why nobody?
Because the ISP's weren't invited to Hollywood's legislation party.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else.

Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP.

I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

1 recommendation

said by rednekcowboy:

said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else.

Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP.

I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for.

pfft! fuddle duddle.

You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

If I were to get a letter from Voltage asking me for damages, and in return, I respond to voltage and use my copying did not cost you the "X" dollars you're asking for as defense, then that's between me and my lawyer.

No your defence should be TSI gave the plaintiff the wrong IP...it was a log mistake...a spoof etc.

In the alternative if they gave the plaintiff the right IP it wasn't me it was an open wifi...my tenant...my brother-in-law visiting etc.

In the further alternative even if it was me the movie is shit and you didn't lose any money as a result of my actions.

In the further alternative even if you lost money, and I put you to the strict proof therein, it was of such a small amount that this suit is frivolous.

This is all premised on the fact my first motion to Federal Court is to strike the proceeding and have the suit filed in Small Claims.


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

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.

Thank you for saying out loud what most people with *some* exposure to the legal system are thinking.

@ rednekcowboy See Profile discussing a legal strategy in plain sight of your opponents is a bad idea, because, uh, they can use it against you.

I'm sure TSI would love to tell its side of story, but it can wait until this whole mess is over.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

No your defence should be TSI gave the plaintiff the wrong IP...it was a log mistake...a spoof etc.

(...)

All great suggestions, but my post simply stating the privacy isn't the only avenue under which this can be pursued. At the time I posted there was an almost religious zeal surrounding a privacy defence, and I didn't feel that was the only option or even a correct one in certain cases.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

bparanoid5

join:2009-07-17
reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.

I find it amusing that some people feel entitled to know the details of Teksavvy's legal strategy whilst still in the courts. Speculate all you like, only a fool would go against their counsels recommendation to keep their mouths shut. IMHO
I reserve my Judgement on Teksavvy's stance in all of this once the books are open. Until then I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

Come on. Cut some slack. He replied to an obvious math and reading error I made. It's plain for all to see.

I have a whole list of questions for both Marc and Voltage, but no one is going to respond now.

In regards to what you and some others *perceive* to be profiting off of privacy, really all I can say without spelling it all out time and time again is to look at it with blinders off, or from another point of view.

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

Keep in mind, TSI will also have to retain all this data separately for 6 months to a year due to voltages request. Data retention, record retention, and date destruction in 6 months to a year. This is legislated and now voltage will have to pay this as well since they made the request for this. This may not have been costed in yet.

Prices are set to rise yet again.

TSI, as said in court, wanted 190K for work performed *to date*. I hope TSI realized that work performed, under the new copyright law, includes the retention for 6-12 months + destruction. I hope Voltage read the copyright law and some of the costs they will incur for their request.

Search the forum for costing and I think you may find a whole lot of itemized things that have to be costed. Real world costs. You work for free?

In six months maybe they will get a request for another 10,000 IP's. Retention and destruction will require a person. Has to be costed right so TSI isn't paying peoples salary for voltage for free. And the costing of will take a bean counter who doesn't work for free.

Lots of real world costs, rednekcowboy. Try and look beyound the pain old myopic view of "selling off privacy". It's far from it in the real world of accounting.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

pfft! fuddle duddle.

You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.

+100

Don't take the bait, Marc.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to hm
said by hm :

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

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

said by hm :

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

Original 2300 IPs? The original number was 4k sent by Voltage in Nov. Voltage then gave an updated list with only ~2300.

Whether TSI got to any/all of the removed IPs, who knows, but that would count towards the 190k in costs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

Correct. Also a party to a proceeding such as this should ask for a deposit or an amount held in escrow before initiating any action to link IPs to a customers.

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

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

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

I would simply tell Voltage that they don't have any credit at my ISP. They're a foreign company with dodgy financials.
Cash or wire transfer up-front.

Plaintiff's lawyers ask for cash up-front and on-going progress payments such that the lawyer's trust account never goes negative for the plaintiff.

Could a court order an ISP to hand over customer PI info when the plaintiff doesn't meet normal commercial terms of service - ie. acceptable credit rating, non-foreign entity, payment in advance?
If the court orders this and the plaintiff stiffs the ISP, who does the ISP sue?

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

said by peterboro:

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

I would simply tell Voltage that they don't have any credit at my ISP. They're a foreign company with dodgy financials.
Cash or wire transfer up-front.

Plaintiff's lawyers ask for cash up-front and on-going progress payments such that the lawyer's trust account never goes negative for the plaintiff.

Could a court order an ISP to hand over customer PI info when the plaintiff doesn't meet normal commercial terms of service - ie. acceptable credit rating, non-foreign entity, payment in advance?
If the court orders this and the plaintiff stiffs the ISP, who does the ISP sue?

A court can order a bond be made by the plaintiff, yes. Its happening right now in the US.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP