dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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

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