| |
AudiS4
Anon
2013-Feb-1 9:09 am
lawsuit update?Any updates on what is happening with the lawsuit for downloading? |
|
| |
um yeah
Anon
2013-Feb-1 9:53 am
Did the voltage lawyers give the draft yet for the second round of Emails that are supposed to go out that tell your customers to cease activities on torrents?
If so, anyone have a copy they can post?
TY. |
|
 TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2013-Feb-1 10:21 am
Late yesterday Judge released reasons for second adjournment: » www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· ormation |
|
| |
The judge seems very reasonable and thorough in that document. It does sound as though he has no intention of letting Voltage steamroll him and has quickly grasped a couple of the core problems with Voltage's case...namely the link between IP address and individual, and the extortionist intent of the plaintiff (1000+ defendants). |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
to TSI Marc
Same answers he gave in the courtroom.
I'm really hoping his other major case wraps up, and he decides to hold onto this one. He seems very aware of the issues. |
|
| |
ontarian
Anon
2013-Feb-1 12:11 pm
Yep, it looks like a judge is very well aware about fact that IP =/= person and about voltage's extortion scheme (confirmed in other BS "copyright" cases) based on BS evidence and presented under "commercial??? copyright infringement" chutzpa label without any intention to stop "real piracy" if such thing actually exists (it's a revenue stream for these talentless arseholes after all).
Since many of these cases were already tried and thrown out of court worldwide Canadian court has an absolute merit to do the same (effectively killing other future extortionists) after dragging voltage's bare ass through a shredder of "evidence" cross-examination. Trolls have to get a crushing kick in the nutz in Canada and go to their hollywood BS hole where they came from and maybe try to make better movies that have a value to them so there is no need to be an extortionist in a first place. |
|
| |
to TSI Marc
I'd like to say I've been humbled by TSI's actions. And to a similar extent CIPPIC and the Judge in this case. So many things could have gone wrong. And it seems that everyone (except for Voltage) is being careful, diligent and smart about this case.
For one, I've been a bit brash in my analysis of the situation, which often happens as an armchair ... well anything really ... but the reality as it is today and the actions that shaped it (in no small part by TSI) in the state the suit is in, is actually pretty close to ideal, IMHO. But I'm not one to never make or never admit they are mistaken, either.
I wish there was a "mea Culpa/Kudos" term that could be said that propoerly express my reborn, respect for TSI and their vision of a good business vs customers relationship.
You guys are, amazing.
Mea Kudos to you. |
|
| |
to AudiS4
Smart judge. "What is the link between IP and the person? It is direct, indirect, to a device, to a person?" This implies that motion could be refused simply based on lack of evidence of a direct link between IP and person. In other words, why would judge grant disclosure of information on persons who have not been seen committing the allegations?
More specifically:
IP-person exists in Teksavvy's records
IP-device exists in physical form
person-device is anybody's guess
A parallel is phone-person, where a phone number is assigned to a person, but the phone itself could be used by anybody. |
|
| |
Dr Facts
Anon
2013-Feb-1 2:07 pm
said by JonyBelGeul:IP-person exists in Teksavvy's records
IP-device exists in physical form
person-device is anybody's guess
I would also want to know how these numbers are generated, what the false-positive likelihood is and how that information goes from Point A to Point Court. Seems to me that the people providing Voltage with the IPs have a monetary reason to provide as many as they can and Voltage can always plead "Well they said they were the right guys! Whatcouldwedo?!?!" when called on it. It really is a neat little racket. And kudos as well to all those throwing spanners in the trollworks. |
|
| |
to AudiS4
To OP, several problems with this thread....
1) The title, you spelt lawlsuit wrong.
2) The case doesn't have a whole lot to do with downloading because potentially, 100% of the people accused are innocent and I'd say this is more a privacy issue than with downloading. |
|
 heh
@videotron.ca |
heh
Anon
2013-Feb-1 4:30 pm
said by d4m1r:To OP, several problems with this thread....
1) The title, you spelt lawlsuit wrong.
heh, I giggled. |
|
 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
to d4m1r
said by d4m1r:1) The title, you spelt lawlsuit wrong.
Urban Dictionary
lawl: Term used as a stand in for "lol", however usually said in a sarcastic manner, where somebody's substandard manner of typing is criticised.
noob: omg mai mouse iz broken!11!
person: LAWLZ JUST PLuGZ IT IN OMG!!1!
noob: omfg leern 2 type l0ser LAWLsuit: obvious pun, on law-suit. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
My lawlsuit has been taken to the cleaners. |
|
 Viral
join:2011-09-10
Windsor, ON |
to AudiS4
You fought the lawl and the lawl won? |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
| |
to AudiS4
Re: lawsuit update?Oh noes, what have I started  |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
Clanless and lawless and hearthless is he.
|
|
| |
to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:Smart judge. "What is the link between IP and the person? It is direct, indirect, to a device, to a person?" This implies that motion could be refused simply based on lack of evidence of a direct link between IP and person. In other words, why would judge grant disclosure of information on persons who have not been seen committing the allegations?
More specifically:
IP-person exists in Teksavvy's records
IP-device exists in physical form
person-device is anybody's guess
A parallel is phone-person, where a phone number is assigned to a person, but the phone itself could be used by anybody.
Good point. Is there any jurisprudence to this effect that you know of? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to d4m1r
said by d4m1r:Oh noes, what have I started
One of these -----> » IGNORE this thread |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON |
|
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. |
to AudiS4
heh followed this topic and I lawl'd |
|
