said by resa1983:The implementation has been apparently been the subject of fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying over issues such as the fees for processing notices and the retention of subscriber information.
That's interesting.
We know right now that part of the new copyright law requires TSI to keep records (retention).
Why do they not include destruction? These files would have to be handled separately from the rest and follow different destruction dates/procedure.
So X cost right there no matter what for retention
Zero consideration given to the work of segregation.
Zero consideration given to destruction.
X cost for notice.
But the judge in this case told TSI to send a second notice for *free*. WTF. In other words the judge told TSI to work for Voltage for free due to Voltages own fault and own incompetence. That doesn't seem right. But by telling TSI to do this at no cost the judge acknowledges the previous notice work deserves cost.
I am guessing that Bells and Rogers figure of 300$ per IP covers segregation, retention, destruction, and work to get subscriber name.
Bell and Rogers 300$ fee does not include notice at all since Bell et al never gave notice. Something I just realized.
So in effect that 300$ fee by Bell and Rogers is set to increase to include notice. So even their 300$ figure is low-balled now with the coming of the new notice-and-notice law.
TSI should be above 300$.
But, I don't know if TSI charged voltage for notice. Don't think they did. I seem to recall Marc stating part of the compromise/deal was to give people notice at his cost (I could be wrong). Thus maybe why their cost is a lot lower than Bells. Anyone know?
