Thanks to Paul Andersen (@pandersen) and Bill Sandiford (@Bill_Sandiford) for live-tweeting the proceedings this morning from Federal Court in Toronto as Voltage Pictures sought an order to require TekSavvy, a leading independent ISP, to disclose the identities of thousands of its subscribers. TekSavvy immediately requested an adjournment (ie. a delay), arguing that the notice period to inform customers of the proceedings was insufficient, adding that many of its customers had not received the notification. Moreover, CIPPIC wrote to the court last week urging it to delay, pointing to several key legal and evidentiary issues:
We request that the motion not go forward on December 17, but instead be set forward to a future date in order to give defendants to this action sufficient time to learn of the motion, retain and be advised by counsel, and participate in the hearing of the motion if they so desire. We also intend to apply to intervene in the hearing of the motion, but cannot do so in the short time that has elapsed between the filing of the motion on December 11 and the proposed hearing date, six days later.
Voltage opposed any delay, but the court sided with TekSavvy and decided to adjourn the proceeding. The case, which has garnered increasing attention in recent days, is now scheduled to resume on January 14, 2013. That should presumably provide CIPPIC and any affected subscribers time mount a formal intervention or opposition to the motion.
nice!
i’m glad to see this happen. Looks like the folks that were served will be well served.
at the end of the day this has the publics attention and there is little sympathy in this country for those who emulate bad U.S. behavior here.
Donate to CIPPIC if you can
I am all for defeating these disgusting trolls. However, resources are needed. CIPPIC is great, but they can always use a few extra bucks. Donate, if you can.
Why bother dealing the motion when you can just throw it out. This would suggest that the judge will demand Teksavvy to hand over their client’s information… Sad.
History is not on their side …
Recently in the USA:
“The studios (Voltage being one) behind these films are all represented by USCG, who decided to tell the court that they have dropped all of the John Doe defendants whose details were given out by their ISPs. Although the true reason for this decision is unknown, it appears that recent developments in similar cases may have led to the retreat.”
https://torrentfreak.com/us-copyright-group-drops-cases-against-alleged-hurt-locker-pirates-110118/
Canada is fresh ground for their past failures with the USA legal system. Hooray for us 0_o
no they won’t necessarily…
This has happened before…CIPPIC has been involved (intervened) in cases where they were successful in overturning these kinds of bogus (read: ridiculous) “lawsuits”. They are experienced in this type of litigation. Thing is, this will become very high profile come January now that the media has caught wind of it. Future lawsuits will be almost entirely based upon the outcome of this one and well, Voltage’s litigation team seems to be relying a little too heavily on Canipre’s uneducated sloppy staff. If they truly wanted to win this thing, to me it is easy. The gov clearly does not want mass lawsuits. They’ve outlined the difference between commercial and non-commercial types and put low caps in place for the latter. These dildos decided it would be smarter to circumvent the intent of the law and label users as commercial infringers. Again, very sloppily put together case. An educated high schooler could put together a better argument I’m sure. Let’s face it, millions of Canadians (yes MILLIONS) download p2p content. There’s no way everyone could be successfully sued. Perhaps the vast majority may be dangling out there far enough to get caught but those with a little background in networking will easily evade the sloppy likes of companies like Canipre. Even if people get burned in cases like this one, downloading will absolutely continue. Also, let’s not forget that before this there was MIRC, before that, BBSs. Let’s not forget Atmegas and AVRs to grab “grey market” tv. There will always be options for content if it is not delivered in a reasonable (which means low-profit margin) fashion to the consumer.
@NoWhereCLose
While it would be nice to have it chucked at this stage I think it needs to go the next level where Voltage would loose and be called out for the trolls they are.
But then again CIPPIC makes some pretty good points about just how much bad faith Voltage is dealing in, judge could look at their past behaviour and squash it in January.
In any case Voltage lost the opening skirmish, they can’t be happy about that.
@Grunt and C
Good points!
evidence
from what CIPPIC alluded to in their note is they are going after commercial infringement. They figure they can get higher rewards going down this path as they suspect most people will not do battle with them as the costs are really high (I suspect around 10-20k to fight this) but then again would the courts let it really drag out that long? Hopefully are judges are smart enough to know this is just a nasty troll come to town to extort and rape .
re: evidence
Wouldn’t Voltage have to prove monetary gain to claim commercial infringement. And wouldn’t this be next to impossible to prove in 99.99% of the cases?
For the sake of argument, if Voltage did claim commercial infringement, and then showed up in court without a shred of evidence, could the Judge just rule against Voltage at that point? Or could Voltage say “ooops, we meant non-commercial infringement” and then proceed along those lines?
Abuse of court process
What we have seen in the states is these large joint lawsuits that they dismiss the joint lawsuit as soon as they get the names and then threaten them individually, suing individually if necessary. Recently come courts in the States have begun to object to this approach. I’m not familiar with Canadian Law, but perhaps one of the responses is to suggest that if they started the lawsuit jointly, they have to finish the lawsuit jointly and that any dismissal is a dismissal with prejudice. Perhaps some of the respondents have to countersue in order to create this situation? Or do they have to countersue if they get a threatening letter?
Teksavvy
I wonder if the reason TSI did not apposed the motion, is because they knew the CIPPIC would appose and ask for intervener status. That would make a huge difference in my opinion of the company.
Otherwise, like everyone else, I’m extremely disappointed with tsi. As a customer, I expected them to try anything to appose the motion. Even not apposing, but requesting a charge per I.P. would have been acceptable. Anything but simply not appose with no conditions. It’s made me reconsider my openness to switching isp’s.
I can’t shake the feeling though that TSI was targeted. I can only speculate why they would be, but it makes no sense for voltage to go TSI only when we have companies like Videotron that have always provided IP addresses without court orders. Not only that, but Videotron has supported such lawsuits in the past. Probably due to their parent compnay Quebecor and their Quebec media monopoly.
In short, easy target is overlooked for a more difficult target. Conspiracy?
I’m wondering, for those people who have been accused, rightfully/wrongfully, what the cost is to defend themselves. I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k to 20k. However, I suspect if Voltage finds they are getting a large number of people defending themselves, they end up doing some math and figure, “ah, ok, scare tactic didnt work on that one”.
For commercial infringement, you have to prove with balanced probability that you were not only illegally download, but more importantly, you gained commercially from the sale or distribution of said right holders materials.
What if…
…Voltage is looking for commercial infringers but will sue non-commercially where they don’t have sufficient evidence to support this?
Supposing they plan to go through the 2,000 names obtained through discovery and look for those who, for example, have a family member who runs a sketchy convenience store. The other names they sue non-commercially…
?
Just a wild idea…
davegravy: Basically they cannot file for both. They have to file separately, which they did not. They are after commercial infringement because they avoid the entire $5k cap. However, not only do they have to prove you downloaded it but that you made copies and gained from the sale and distribution. Hence why its a complete troll-based approach to get $$ from people.
The other challenge they’ll have to deal with is if someone is sitting in say a Starbucks or Tim Horton’s or public library…who do they go after than? It gets really dicey in those circumstances.
I suspect they will nab a bunch of folks who have no clue and then they are left scrambling for a lawyer.
@Jim – with a larger dollar value they’re hoping to freak people out. Those affected will get a letter informing them that their information has been handed over by TSI. The wording will likely state that for a smaller amount, say $1500, they’ll drop the suit. I’m not sure of the amount, but they’ll make it low enough that people will figure that fighting it will cost more.
I believe its a money making scheme, pure and simple. The movies in question do not appear to have made money, so this may be how they’re trying to recoup their losses.
@DD
Thanks for the clarification.
One more thing – Did they specifically say they are going for commercial infringement, or is that just assumed from the $10,000? I mean is it possible they are seeking actual damages for non-commercial infringement or has this been clarified?
TOP NOTCH!!.. Those American vultures think they can just waltz into Canada and subject Canadians to what amounts to nothing more than EXTORTION!!! .. why?.. Mostly cuz their movies are garbage. Hurt Locker amongst others was simply a piece of shit not worth stealing, and they know it.. and this is the only way they can make any revenue!!.. VOLTAGE, you will not succeed , and now MILLIONS in North America will never watch a single thing you put out… You should be preparing to file for bankruptcy under section 11 instead of waging a war you will never win..
What sad is:
That the (dis)information networks (Quebecor, Gesca, etc…) does everything not to actually give information about this thing in Quebec.
Response to @Davegravy
I’m pretty sure they are going after people for commercial infringement. Of course its their prerogative to file something separate although most judges would view this as dubious. CIPPIC did a great job of raising awareness of this troll and their intent to the judge and it sounds like the judge read through their well written document. This is really precedence setting depending upon which way the judge makes their decision. I don not believe C11 really thought out the privacy issues.
An interesting corollary to identifying people via IP address is what if your at a Internet Caffe or your a Starbucks or Tim Horton’s WIFI or even larger corporations? Hmmmm…loved to see Voltage go after them…but then again I suspect they’d back down 🙂
@Davegravy
>Did they specifically say they are going for commercial infringement, or is that just assumed from the $10,00
Assumed but really what they wanted was to put out a scary number to terrify their victims into a settlement.
TSI really threw a spanner into the Voltage works by warning their clients.
Their original plan was for the judge to order TSI to hand over the names so they could quickly shoot out the letters. The surprise would have worked in the troll’s favour.
Now instead of an easy kill they have to deal with CIPPIC whose whole raison d’etre is to fight these exact cases. They’re a pack of young eager lawyers to be, they must be thrilled with the opportunities this case is going to give them.
And the letter they wrote to the judge made it pretty clear that they’re opposed to Voltage’s methods from a purely ethical point of view. Nothing to do with the right and wrongs of bittorrening (of which there are plenty) but rather the abuse of the Canadian court system.
I’m wondering if Voltage will try another tactical retreat in the fact of such opposition.
@Grunt “I’m wondering if Voltage will try another tactical retreat in the face of such opposition.”
If (and a very huge IF) this ever actually proceeds to a court case I expect the burden of commercial infringement will be thrown out. This will leave the only option of non-commercial, of which a maximum fine is $5000, highly doubtful. A retreat is much more likely in that regard.
I wonder if anyone could confirm this: If the max non-commercial fine is $5000 then would such a case not be heard in small claims court? If so, could this be why voltage is going for commercial to elevate it to the full courts as part of their scare campaign?
Low Voltage
it’s safe i think to assume that this is a test case for the troll industry.
Precedent was set last September
Montréal, Quebec, November 19, 2012
PRESENT: Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
SIMPLIFIED ACTION BETWEEN:
NGN PRIMA PRODUCTIONS INC.
Plaintiff
and
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE
Defendants
ORDER
CONSIDERING the motion presented by NGN Prima Productions Inc. for:
(a) an order pursuant to rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules authorizing NGN Prima Productions Inc. to conduct an examination for discovery in writing of 3 Web Corp., Access Communications Co-Operative Ltd., ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd. to obtain the names and addresses of certain defendants;
and
(b) an order pursuant to subsection 7(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to require that each of 3 Web Corp., Access Communications Co-Operative Ltd., ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd. disclose to NGN Prima Productions Inc. the names and addresses associated with the customer accounts whose IP addresses are identified in Exhibit “A†to the affidavit of Barry Logan, sworn November 14, 2012;
AND CONSIDERING the motion record filed by NGN Prima Productions Inc.;
AND CONSIDERING the presentation of the motion by counsel to NGN Prima
Productions Inc.
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. NGN Prima Productions Inc. is authorized to conduct an examination for
discovery in writing of 3 Web Corp., Access Communications Co-Operative
Limited, ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd., to obtain the names and addresses associated with those companies’ client accounts that used the IP addresses at the dates and times identified at Exhibit “A†to the affidavit of Barry Logan, sworn November 14, 2012.
2. Within two weeks of this Order, 3 Web Corp., Access Communications
Co-Operative Limited, ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd. must
disclose to NGN Prima Productions Inc. the names and addresses associated with the client accounts that used the IP addresses at the dates and times identified at Exhibit “A†to the affidavit of Barry Logan, sworn November 14, 2012. This disclosure shall be in Microsoft Excel format, with editing rights, and will be encrypted on a compact disc or other electronic support.
3. Without costs.
Precedent Set
While this is the first time a Canadian Studio has targeted Canadian bitTorrent users, precedent was set last September in Montreal by Voltage Pictures LLC who secured an order that three ISPs release the identities of individuals alleged to have illegally shared copies of “the Hurtlocker†via the BitTorrent protocol. At the time the presiding judge, Justice Shore, quoted the BMG Canada Inc. decision. v. John Doe, 2005 which confirmed:
[…] in cases where applicants demonstrate the legitimacy of their claim that unknown persons violate their copyright, they have the right that the identity of these people is revealed them to be able to sue […]
This precedent coupled with the Voltage Pictures order in 2011 and again yesterday gives fair indication that Canadian bitTorrent users are every bit as susceptible to lawsuits for illegal file sharing as are their American neighbours. The fact that we haven’t seen illegal downloading as aggressively litigated in Canada should be cold comfort as the appetite for it from rights holders seems to be growing.
I seem to recall that all cases were dropped (by voltage) last time this ‘precedent’ was set. This is their second kick at the can to ‘test the system’, which is why no one should blink.
What I would do
I would make an offer to settle for $200. Things I would consider:
1. Motion for security for costs. Company is a US company this means they would need to post money with the court to proceed with action.
2. Consider counter suing based on privacy violation lawsuit.
3. Make an offer to settle for $100-$500.
4. Assuming I did the downloading considering not fighting the Claim just the Damages
If court finds in their favour. The court has to consider if a settlement offer was reasonable. If it was better than what court finds then Voltage would have to pay a portion of your legal fees
@ Crock
Crockett said:
…
I seem to recall that all cases were dropped (by voltage) last time this ‘precedent’ was set. This is their second kick at the can to ‘test the system’, which is why no one should blink.
You’re a funny (and obviously nervous) man, but lets get back to reality shall we?
Just a thought Crock
Perhaps the next time you send the troops out to the battle field you’ll better prepare them?
As it stands now there’s a bunch of misinformed naked pawns getting slaughtered for your cause.
Crock says: “I seem to recall that all cases were dropped (by voltage)”
And a very smart move on their part. Before C-11, too many possible loop-holes and grey areas were present within Canada’s old copyright act, hence the new Modern C-11 and what a tight bill it is!
This idea that a new cap of $5000 will prevent rights holders from pursuing, again another crock.
The old act had damages from $500 – $20,000, and yet the courts have looked to award damages in the lower end, that did not prevent rights holders from moving forward and it will not prevent rights holders now.
@Reality_bytes “You’re a funny (and obviously nervous) man”
Funny? Yes. Nervous? No.
@Reality_bytes “As it stands now there’s a bunch of misinformed naked pawns getting slaughtered for your cause.”
That’s interesting as nothing has gone to trial yet, delayed unfortunately. Perhaps you are referring to end of the world on Friday? Now that’s scary!
@Reality_bytes “Before C-11, too many possible loop-holes and grey areas were present within Canada’s old copyright act”
Now there are less. If promises of up to $20K did not set the dogs to war how is a cap of $5000 going to sate their hunger? And thank you for admitting that $5K is the most you can hope for and the commercial threats are smoke after all.
And the name is Crockett, name calling is childish.
@ Crock
Reality_bytes said:
Just a thought Crock
Perhaps the next time you send the troops out to the battle field you’ll better prepare them?
As it stands now there’s a bunch of misinformed naked pawns getting slaughtered for your cause.
and here’s the proof:
“Grunt said:
@NoWhereCLose
While it would be nice to have it chucked at this stage I think it needs to go the next level where Voltage would loose and be called out for the trolls they are.
But then again CIPPIC makes some pretty good points about just how much bad faith Voltage is dealing in, judge could look at their past behaviour and squash it in January.
In any case Voltage lost the opening skirmish, they can’t be happy about that. ”
Lost? Very much the opposite! The ISP messed up so badly the judge gave all parties more time to prepare.
“Jim said:
re: evidence
Wouldn’t Voltage have to prove monetary gain to claim commercial infringement. And wouldn’t this be next to impossible to prove in 99.99% of the cases?
For the sake of argument, if Voltage did claim commercial infringement, and then showed up in court without a shred of evidence, could the Judge just rule against Voltage at that point? Or could Voltage say “ooops, we meant non-commercial infringement” and then proceed along those lines?”
Clueless, completely clueless.
“Joel said:
Teksavvy
I wonder if the reason TSI did not apposed the motion, is because they knew the CIPPIC would appose and ask for intervener status. That would make a huge difference in my opinion of the company.”
The judge didn’t want to hear from the Rep of CIPPIC.
“DD said:
…
I’m wondering, for those people who have been accused, rightfully/wrongfully, what the cost is to defend themselves. I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 10k to 20k. However, I suspect if Voltage finds they are getting a large number of people defending themselves, they end up doing some math and figure, “ah, ok, scare tactic didnt work on that one”.”
DD said:
…
For commercial infringement, you have to prove with balanced probability that you were not only illegally download, but more importantly, you gained commercially from the sale or distribution of said right holders materials. ”
Ummmm, what?
“Anne said:
…
@Jim – with a larger dollar value they’re hoping to freak people out. Those affected will get a letter informing them that their information has been handed over by TSI. The wording will likely state that for a smaller amount, say $1500, they’ll drop the suit. I’m not sure of the amount, but they’ll make it low enough that people will figure that fighting it will cost more.”
What insight!
Crock says: “That’s interesting as nothing has gone to trial yet, delayed unfortunately. Perhaps you are referring to end of the world on Friday? Now that’s scary!”
“delayed unfortunately” yes for the defendants. Gives more time for the Studios and their legal team(s) to be prepared.
Crocks says: “@Reality_bytes “Before C-11, too many possible loop-holes and grey areas were present within Canada’s old copyright act”
Now there are less. If promises of up to $20K did not set the dogs to war how is a cap of $5000 going to sate their hunger? And thank you for admitting that $5K is the most you can hope for and the commercial threats are smoke after all. ”
That’s one of the only partial truths I’ve seen you write thus far: “Now there are less.” I agree 100000% loop-holes are gone!
“And thank you for admitting that $5K is the most you can hope for and the commercial threats are smoke after all.”
And there you slip yet again; smart people know how spinners work, and I Crock am a very smart person.
@ Crock and ilk
It’s time to wake up sleepy heads!!
Reality_bytes, I am not going to accuse you of working for voltage or their legal team as that seems to get all sorts of feathers rustled, but here is some actual reality for you.
@Reality_bytes “Lost? Very much the opposite! The ISP messed up so badly the judge gave all parties more time to prepare.”
There are so many holes in that sentence its a wonder it doesn’t implode.
First: Voltage wanted the proceedings to happen as quickly as possible so the defendants would have little time to prepare or seek counsel. The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court. If they really needed more time to prepare after they dropped the writ then I suppose we have nothing to fear from such a slipshod outfit. The delay greatly benefits the plaintiffs, some of whom had not even been notified yet!
Second: It was the letter from the CIPPIC that laid out the need for more time for the plaintiffs. That letter was read by the judge and after a short 15 min recess the trial was adjourned for the reasons laid out in the letter, of which the voltage team objected.
Third: The ISP was going to remain neutral until it because apparent that many of the plaintiffs had not even been informed yet, they then made an objection in agreement with the CIPPIC, this also influenced the Judge’d decision of a delay.
You rather weak attempt to make it look like the delay is a good thing for voltage is quite incorrect, if not laughable. I actually do hope you work for them.
Cheers!
Reference for above comments:
http://www.davidellis.ca/watching-voltage-and-teksavvy-duke-it-out-in-federal-court/
Correction
Where the above post specifies plaintiff it should read defendant. At least I correct my errors 😉
@ Crock
Crock says:
“@Reality_bytes “Lost? Very much the opposite! The ISP messed up so badly the judge gave all parties more time to prepare.”
There are so many holes in that sentence its a wonder it doesn’t implode.
First: Voltage wanted the proceedings to happen as quickly as possible so the defendants would have little time to prepare or seek counsel. The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court. If they really needed more time to prepare after they dropped the writ then I suppose we have nothing to fear from such a slipshod outfit. The delay greatly benefits the plaintiffs, some of whom had not even been notified yet!”
Reality is:
After explaining to the court at Monday’s hearing how TSI has been acting in good faith by cooperating as best it can with Voltage, their counsel – Nicholas McHaffie of Stikeman Elliott – surprised the room by stating they could not continue to take their original position as a neutral party and let the motion go unopposed. The rationale for this dramatic change of heart lay in what McHaffie saw as a serious compromise of the due process owed the 2,000-odd people Voltage intends to go after.
McHaffie then explained how the rushed timeline and other complications have produced serious errors in identifying and alerting the TSI subs at issue.
For one thing, the TSI email receipt system had indicated only 10% of the customers sent notifications actually received them.
Early Monday morning, TSI received more detailed information about the errors that had cropped up. Thus, 92 customers reported they had never received any notice; and another 42 customers denied they had engaged in any form of infringement, despite being on the charge sheet prepared by TSI. McHaffie emphasized that this information had come to light mere hours before the hearing began.
He suggested this was clear evidence the hasty timeline being pushed by Voltage had compromised the ability of both TSI and potential defendants to see that justice would be done.
In a 180-degree reversal, McHaffie therefore asked the court to adjourn the hearing. McHaffie made it very clear the only grounds for opposing the motion was trying to ensure potential defendants got adequate time to be notified.
Yes Crock the ISP needed more time to prepare NOT the Studio. Even the judge said that! Did you even read the link you posted???
Crock says: “Second: It was the letter from the CIPPIC that laid out the need for more time for the plaintiffs. That letter was read by the judge and after a short 15 min recess the trial was adjourned for the reasons laid out in the letter, of which the voltage team objected.”
Reality is:
Just before Justice O’Keefe retired to chambers to consider the adjournment, the agent for CIPPIC asked if he could be heard. Although he was told no, not at this time, the judge noted he had read their brief and would take it under advisement.
Crock for you to say “It was the letter from the CIPPIC that laid out the need for more time for the plaintiffs.” is moronic! The ISP has one of Canada’s best litigators working with them, Nicholas McHaffie of Stikeman Elliott, it was their lawyer that asked for an extension and rightfully so.
Croc says: “Third: The ISP was going to remain neutral until it because apparent that many of the plaintiffs had not even been informed yet, they then made an objection in agreement with the CIPPIC, this also influenced the Judge’d decision of a delay.”
Once again Crock it was Nicholas McHaffie of Stikeman Elliott the ISP’s lawyer that asked for and was granted the extension, NOT CIPPIC. Nice second try there though!
Crock then says: “You rather weak attempt to make it look like the delay is a good thing for voltage is quite incorrect, if not laughable. I actually do hope you work for them.”
Are you Anne? You share the same type of “insight” Crock!
Next
@all
Don’t feed the troll, people.
…
It’s time to wake up sleeps heads! 🙂
…
Correction
Where the above post specifies “sleeps heads” it should read sleepy heads. At least I correct my errors 😉
Sorry Reality_bytes, no back peddeling allowed.
This is actually what you said, “delayed unfortunately, yes for the defendants. Gives more time for the Studios and their legal team(s) to be prepared.”
So your above statement says it is an unfortunate delay for the defendants BUT gives more time for the studios and their legal teams to prepare.
No wriggle room there.
My original comment stands: Voltage wanted the proceedings to happen as quickly as possible so the defendants would have little time to prepare or seek counsel. The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court. If they really needed more time to prepare after they dropped the writ then I suppose we have nothing to fear from such a slipshod outfit. The delay greatly benefits the defendants, some of whom had not even been notified yet! You rather weak attempt to make it look like the delay is a good thing for voltage is quite incorrect, if not laughable. I actually do hope you work for them.
@Reality-bytes “Once again Crock it was Nicholas McHaffie of Stikeman Elliott the ISP’s lawyer that asked for and was granted the extension … it was their lawyer that asked for an extension and rightfully so. NOT CIPPIC.”
Actually, you are only partly correct. It was the CIPPIC that first submitted the brief requesting a delay, the Judge said he had read this letter and taken it under advisement, obviously before the proceedings began. It was only on Monday, during the hearing, that the lawyer for the ISP changed their position calling for a delay. This was because new information had become available just hours before (many of the defendants had not yet received notice).
“Jim said:
re: evidence
Wouldn’t Voltage have to prove monetary gain to claim commercial infringement. And wouldn’t this be next to impossible to prove in 99.99% of the cases?
For the sake of argument, if Voltage did claim commercial infringement, and then showed up in court without a shred of evidence, could the Judge just rule against Voltage at that point? Or could Voltage say “ooops, we meant non-commercial infringement” and then proceed along those lines?”
Reality_bytes responds with a brief, and less than illuminating:
“Clueless, completely clueless.”
Being without a clue, Jim now wonders “how do I respond to a content-less response?”
Crockett, you make these bottom feeders look like curds in sour milk. Keep it up, but don’t feed them too much.
Crock says: “Sorry Reality_bytes, no back peddeling allowed.
This is actually what you said, “delayed unfortunately, yes for the defendants. Gives more time for the Studios and their legal team(s) to be prepared.”
So your above statement says it is an unfortunate delay for the defendants BUT gives more time for the studios and their legal teams to prepare.”
And I stand by my *common sense* statement Crock. The extension gives *all parties* more time to prepare, needed or not.
Crock says: “My original comment stands: Voltage wanted the proceedings to happen as quickly as possible so the defendants would have little time to prepare or seek counsel. The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court. If they really needed more time to prepare after they dropped the writ then I suppose we have nothing to fear from such a slipshod outfit.”
Lets explore than shall we:
“Voltage wanted the proceedings to happen as quickly as possible” – no doubt on advisement from their legal team.
“so the defendants would have little time to prepare or seek counsel” – a matter of your opinion NOT fact
“The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court.” – and they were, the ISP was NOT
“If they really needed more time to prepare after they dropped the writ then I suppose we have nothing to fear from such a slipshod outfit” – once AGAIN Crock, it was the ISP that needed more time NOT the studio.
“The delay greatly benefits the defendants, some of whom had not even been notified yet!” – how twisted is that! If people didn’t even know how could they possibly even be prepared?
“You rather weak attempt to make it look like the delay is a good thing for voltage is quite incorrect, if not laughable.”
It’s a good thing you’re just some random guy and not a lawyer Crock, your reasoning is a mess!
Next
Reality_bytes
Reality_bytes : You a troll dude? I think your logic is flawed. All parties need time to prepare. Maybe it’s true TSI did not provide its customer sufficient notice, regardless, defendants still require time to prepare.
IP based approach of identifying someone is flawed. There’s is no way of verifying that the program’s they use can in fact identify the IP addresses accurately because they really do not have an independent 3rd party to verify the code and the results that executable code produces from identifying individuals. I have seen people at Starbucks running torrents. So by your logic would you hold Starbucks accountable? Love to see that one.
However, I do agree with you that TSI appeared ill prepared at the proceedings. However, they really do not have any skin in the game other than losing customers (which is significant). So yes, they will definitely hand over the people behind the IP addresses that are identifiable if the court so chooses.
What will be interesting is if TSI cannot identify all the people behind those IP addresses …that will bring into doubt Volture et al approach to data gathering. Imagine that?
Sorry Perplexed, this guy make it so easy. I’ll try to make it the last.
“The delay greatly benefits the defendants, some of whom had not even been notified yet!” – how twisted is that! If people didn’t even know how could they possibly even be prepared?”
The purpose of the delay was to allow time for the defendants to be informed and prepare, are you now saying it is OK for the proceedings to go ahead without the defendants having any notice, or even a possibility to be prepared ?? Nice system of justice you believe in.
And here’s the kicker …
@Crockett “The legal team for voltage had all the time in the world to prepare BEFORE going to court.”
@Reality-bytes “- and they were, the ISP was NOT”
The ISP had what, a whole week or two? The voltage team had as much time as they needed to prepare BEFORE starting the proceedings (months, a year?). Your assertion of “delayed unfortunately, yes for the defendants. Gives more time for the Studios and their legal team(s) to be prepared.” is certainly not *common sense*.
@ DD
DD said:
“All parties need time to prepare. Maybe it’s true TSI did not provide its customer sufficient notice, regardless, defendants still require time to prepare.”
I agree 100000000% with you. Everyone effected (affected) should, at the very least be prepared.
“IP based approach of identifying someone is flawed. There’s is no way of verifying that the program’s they use can in fact identify the IP addresses accurately because they really do not have an independent 3rd party to verify the code and the results that executable code produces from identifying individuals. I have seen people at Starbucks running torrents. So by your logic would you hold Starbucks accountable? Love to see that one.”
DD I have not once mentioned the IP based approach and I would prefer you refrain from speaking for me.
I am not a computer tech’ and can not say with 100% certainty that the methods used are either useful or flawed?
Can you?
“However, I do agree with you that TSI appeared ill prepared at the proceedings. However, they really do not have any skin in the game other than losing customers (which is significant). So yes, they will definitely hand over the people behind the IP addresses that are identifiable if the court so chooses.”
It’s the law DD, the ISP is legally obligated to hand-over if so ordered.
“What will be interesting is if TSI cannot identify all the people behind those IP addresses …that will bring into doubt Volture et al approach to data gathering. Imagine that?”
No studio can or would be held responsible for an ISP’s inability to comply, nor would it cast any doubt.
@Reality_bytes “I am not a computer tech’ and can not say with 100% certainty that the methods used are either useful or flawed? Can you?”
Actually, I am and yes I can …
http://torrentfreak.com/court-rules-that-ip-address-alone-insufficient-to-identify-infringer-090615/
http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-judge-finds-that-ip-addresses-cannot-be-used-to-identify-infringers
http://extratorrent.com/article/2500/us+jury+won't+accept+ip+address+as+proof+of+infringement.html
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/297475-ip-address-not-a-person-judge-says-in-copyright-lawsuit
http://www.copyrightinfringementadvisor.com/i-p-address-suits/
http://www.geekosystem.com/ip-address-insufficient-id/
and just for fun: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/03240317155/riaas-response-to-infringement-via-its-ip-address-is-to-note-someone-else-did-it.shtml
You may want to ignore this aspect of the case but I think this will be a key pivot point in the coming weeks and months.
@ Perplexed?
Perplexed? says:
“The purpose of the delay was to allow time for the defendants to be informed and prepare, are you now saying it is OK for the proceedings to go ahead without the defendants having any notice, or even a possibility to be prepared ?? Nice system of justice you believe in.”
Actually I’ve said the complete opposite every time that came up, you would have known that if you read my comments.
Since you’re not prepared to read my comments I see no reason to afford you same.
From the Common Criteria Wiki:
Common Criteria is a framework in which computer system users can specify their security functional and assurance requirements, vendors can then implement and/or make claims about the security attributes of their products, and testing laboratories can evaluate the products to determine if they actually meet the claims. In other words, Common Criteria provides assurance that the process of specification, implementation and evaluation of a computer security product has been conducted in a rigorous and standard manner.
In order to be able make an objective, reproducible claim concerning the accuracy of the GuardaLey software, something akin to Common Critera certification would have to be done. Without this, all we would have to go on is GuardaLey’s word that their software produces at most X% false positives. And we do know from a past German case that GuardaLey’s word is not exactly golden. Given the potential for innocent false positives to be incorrectly dinged with $10,000 in damages, it would be useful to have more than GuardaLey’s word when it comes to the accuracy of their product.
IANAL, but it would seem reasonable for the defense to at minimum ask for an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the results GuardaLey claims.
DD: “What will be interesting is if TSI cannot identify all the people behind those IP addresses …that will bring into doubt Volture et al approach to data gathering. Imagine that?”
Reality bytes:
“No studio can or would be held responsible for an ISP’s inability to comply, nor would it cast any doubt.”
Huh? So i randomly come up with IP addresses and say you were pirating my movie you mean it does not bring into doubt my evidence gathering?
@ Crock
Crock says: “You may want to ignore this aspect of the case but I think this will be a key pivot point in the coming weeks and months.”
I, do not need to focus on ‘that’ aspect Crock, counsel and the Courts do, and will, with more insight than ever.
Thanks for all those links, that link back to each other though, always an entertaining read.
Time to wake up sleepy head 🙂
@ DD
DD says: “Huh? So i randomly come up with IP addresses and say you were pirating my movie you mean it does not bring into doubt my evidence gathering?”
I read what you posted, a few times in fact, I know it’s in the English language but I have no idea what you mean.
Did *YOU* find within the legal documents filed thus far any claims for “randomly come up with IP addresses” ?
I have not. Perhaps a better starting point would be, for *YOU* this is all new and “random”, but, for the professionals it’s their profession? Just a thought.
PowPow
PeterP was fired and replaced by Reality_byes at 1/4 the pay rate.
Fight the good fight – dont let the troll eat your children!
Reality_bytes:
I’d read what @Jim posted. GuardLey is not exactly the most reputable company. There is previous precedence here that calls their evidence gathering into question. Its akin to producing a witness that is not credible. There needs to be some form of affidavit that enables one to say : “Yes, those IP addresses are not only legitimate, but they belong to those who were infringing upon copy right holders”.
Being a developer, I can easily write code that listens on a given bittorent port(s) and dump out IP address’s and claim those people were downloading a given movie/song. The problem here is there’s nobody here to refute what GuadaLey has developed and attest to its accuracy and legitimacy. That’s really problematic because you could wind up mass suing people that committed no wrong.
Let’s face it, Voltage Pictures is a troll folks. Pure and simple. This is not about pursuing this in a court of law . Its about extortion using the law as a mockery.
So hopefully CIPPIC or other parties have the courage to step forward and fight Voltage if this case goes further. I’m afraid it might go further and if it does it opens up the flood gates to millions of people being victimized. So if you think the courts are busy now, you can imagine that there will be far more people stepping up to fight this.
PS : @Jim, great post!
@PowPow “PeterP was fired and replaced by Reality_bytes at 1/4 the pay rate”
And it shows.
I now this has been posted in another thread but it is such a great resource for those accused (and anyone interested in the tactics of copyright trolls in general), here it is again.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9a/Fight Copyright Trolls.pdf
activist
even if this doesn’t pan out for Voltage, and I did their web search, and they’re indeed a participant of “limited assets”, the fedgov has by establishing a $5K limit, established a $5K target. So if you’re chasing down Jane Doe, who’s been led to believe the Internet’s still free (after freight and taxes, because the GOC and Provincial Government benefit from this alleged scheme also), who else stands to benefit from this penny ante, late nite law firm shill?
I leave you people alone for an evening and the joint gets infested with helper-trolls
Here are the facts so far:
Voltage lost their opening gambit and it would take some serious reality denying to think otherwise. What was supposed to be a slam-dunk win (getting the court to hand over their client data) ended up being scuttled. Furthermore it’s now on the record that gathering IPs and tying them to accounts is not that easy. A rather salient point for the defense.
What’s worse is Voltage got Han Soloed. You know when Darth Vader was about to blow up Luke and suddenly the Millennium Falcon comes out of nowhere? That’s CIPPIC and their letter to the court which left no doubt on whose side they’re on. They called Voltage out as “Trolls” right to the judge! Now I’m no law talking guy but that struck me as stunningly blunt. It made it pretty clear that CIPPIC is disgusted with Voltage’s tactics and I can’t help but wonder if the judge shared their sentiment.
Courts do not like to be used as money making machines and that taint seems to be sticking to Voltage, not a good look.
So now instead of a bunch of scared and confused TSI users Voltage has to deal with young eager high tech law geeks who are on the bottom floor of a landmark case. If Voltage wins the next round, which is still pretty likely but not as certain as it was before CIPPIC isn’t going anywhere, they’re going to ride this to the end.
So no, the reality is Voltage lost their chance for a quick clean kill and their fight has gotten harder. Since they’re not fighting for their copyright but rather a payday the more money they bleed the less likely they are to carry on.
In any case the advice to those accused by the trolls is lawyer up, don’t settle, make them prove their case and if they can pay the $100 which will most likely be the settlement.
I’ve been reading the various comments on news sites covering the story, not much sympathy for Voltage out there so Voltage, if you’re reading this and I know you are, you’re going to need to step up the astroturfing because so far you’re coming off as a pack of giant gaping *ssholes. Hearts and minds, that stuff is important.
@P
Settlement would be the right thing to do if Voltage was acting in good faith to genuinely protect their copyright but that is not what they are doing.
First off they could have sent a notice to TSI saying “These IP addresses are distributing our stuff, please send them this notice telling them to cut it out. We will be monitoring the situation and if they don’t comply then we will start court proceedings.”
That right there probably would have worked on a majority of the file sharers. Furthermore Voltage could send take down notices to the torrent link hosting sites and done other proactive acts.
But that wouldn’t bring them any money, just protected their copyrights so obviously not their goal.
Secondly if they were honest players they wouldn’t be using dodgy software that sweeps up the innocent with the guilty. That right there would give anyone legitimate pause. Okay, someone stole from me, do I round up the usual suspects, put them all through the ringer and say “Ooopps sorry!” to the innocent ones? Would you do that? I wouldn’t but Voltage clearly doesn’t care. If they had software that could with no doubt nail the guilty parties I think everyone would be less annoyed.
Now they could argue that the guilty are hiding behind the innocent and that may be so but that doesn’t make the innocent guilty. Someone takes a hostage you don’t open fire killing them both.
So I don’t think a settlement is an option, make them take you to court, make them prove it and then have a judge finally say “You did it, don’t do it again, give them $100 and we’re done.”
http://dietrolldie.com/podcasts/
i don’t use 2P2 programs but i don’t agree with U.S. ambulance chaser attitudes either.
although the link to dietrolldie is american it’s very interesting ind sheds light on in the in’s and outs of the game this pond lickers play.It would appear that judges are growing weary of there games and vague accusations. well worth your time
Can someone here answer a couple of important questions.
1. if someone downloaded and up loaded does that still count as non-commercial private use?
2. can all of someones on line activities be used against them or only the stuff the trolls are after?
3. if the most they can get is 5000 and Dr. Geist has pretty much said no judge will go much higher than 100 then can someone ask for there money back if they had to pay a lawyer to defend them
4. it is even legal that someones activity on line is watched and tracked?
1. Yes, commercial is if you download and then burn it to a DVD and selling it. No one is saying that’s right.
2.Good question, that may be something for the courts to decide. For instance if a case goes to trial and Voltage demands that they hand over their hard drive the judge could say they can only look for their movies and nothing else. Or they could look for signs of other copyright material and or bittorenting if the person denies ever doing it.
My own hard drive has my credit card, my porn habits, personal emails, letters, client details, porn, my art, porn and probably some more porn. It’s safe to say that all of our hard drives have deeply personal porn, I mean material. I’m not sure if a judge would feel that downloading a movie warrants such an invasion or if they can go fishing to find evidence unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Is an IP address harvested from a dodgy source compelling? I don’t think so but I’m not a lawyer however so I could be totally wrong here about that and everything else.
3.I have no idea, Dr Geist or other law talking guy would be the one to answer that. The thing is in this case the first salvo from Voltage would be a letter demanding a settlement, the response would be a letter from your lawyer saying, essentially, you have no case we’ll see you in court. Now that won’t cost all that much, it’s if Voltage decides to take you to court that the expenses can pile up.
It should be noted that Voltage has never gone to court, they only threaten hence them being labeled “trollsâ€. They know they’d probably loose in court.
4.I think so, it goes to expectation of privacy, the Internet is not your home, your IP address is not your name and if you’re on a bittorrent you’re broadcasting it to the worldwide. If you are on the Internet you are not hidden. The closest you can get with that is with a VPN and even with one if someone wants to find you and see what you’ve been doing they technically can. All you can do is make it difficult.
@Zeb
>1. if someone downloaded and up loaded does that still count as non-commercial private use?
I would think it depends on what the individual does with their download. If you sell the product, it’s clearly commercial.
>2. can all of someones on line activities be used against them or only the stuff the trolls are after?
I think you can only be sued by someone who can reasonably claim they have suffered damages as a result of your actions. Voltage Pictures can’t sue for your infringements against other studios (I don’t think).
>3. if the most they can get is 5000 and Dr. Geist has pretty much said no judge will go much higher than 100 then can someone ask for there money back if they had to pay a lawyer to defend them
I think the 5000 cap does not include legal costs, but IANAL.
>4. it is even legal that someones activity on line is watched and tracked?
Depends on the methodology used. With bittorrent you are communicating openly across the public internet (however, anonymously) through a public swarm. It’s tantamount to you going out to a public park in a disguise, making some transactions with the people in that park, and having the feds watching you with binoculars from across the park.
If your transaction was conducted in private (e.g. FTP) then there would be privacy issues with them watching.
Ok cool not as bad as I thought. Thanks guys.
@Zeb “if the most they can get is $5000 and Dr. Geist has pretty much said no judge will go much higher than $100 then can someone ask for there money back if they had to pay a lawyer to defend them”.
I don’t think only a fine of $100 is something you can count on, this has not been tested in court, it could go as high as the cap but that too is unlikely. I am fairly certain that court costs are not part of the cap, but it is possible that a judge could award you the court costs if you are the prevailing party, especially if it can be shown that the plaintiff behaved in bad faith.
As I and others have said before, we are not lawyers, so if you have received a letter it is a very good idea to obtain legal counsel. What is fairly obvious from other cases in the USA and the world; is if you take the prudent steps of sending notice to the troll that you will not pay and are willing to go to court, your chances of actually ending up in said court are statistically close to zero. This step will cost you a little in timr
Here are some resources to get more information, although this pertains to the situation in the USA, it is hopeful that Canadian judges will take into account the fallout from there in their decisions.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9a/Fight Copyright Trolls.pdf
What’s the legal answer to paragraph 12 of the statement claim?
Paragraph 12 in the statement of claim suggestions:
12. All defendants activities are done without the authorization of Voltage and without any payment or compenstation to Voltage.
Does this mean if the original source material was ripped from a DVD, that this paragraph is invalid, because there was payment to Voltage for the initial source material. What if someone actually watched the movie in a theatre or owns the DVD, yet downloaded a copy of it from bittorrent? Does that not mean the did in fact provide compensation to Voltage and excused from the proceedings?
And why does the statement of claim clearly use the substantive amount of $10,000.00 when the law clearly says there is a limit of $5,000.00?
What about Paragraph 16
I don’t get it, Voltage is suggesting that the roughly 2,000 people it is filing claim against have commericially benefited? This is somewhat ridiculous, I’m very surprised and concerned that the judge would not have already tossed this litigation. I’m hopeful that the ruling that is going to be made is a clear and direct one against the publisher.
What are these Movies?
Looking at these obviously less than desirable movies, I decided to surf around a bit and see what I could find. I had to visit a closed torrent engine to find ‘Generation Um’.
The interesting questions arrise, which is that according to the Voltage Pictures website Generation Um was released in 2011. According to the court document it was released in 2012, according to IMDB it will be released in Russia in January of 2013, was released in Thailand in July of 2012, and in Greece in Sept of 2012.
Seems like they are really drawing at straws to find a financial implication for several of these movies. I look forward to understanding how they came to collect the addresses in question.
Reply to Paul Arbour
“And why does the statement of claim clearly use the substantive amount of $10,000.00 when the law clearly says there is a limit of $5,000.00? ”
Hi Paul, 5k only applies to those who infringed non-commercially. This is about commercial and therefore it can range up to 25k.
If your one of the unfortunate victims of this scheme, then its best to get your lawyer to write an official letter indicating you will be contesting this. Enough people do this , the troll will back down. They have NO intention to go to court especially if they cannot prove people redistributed and profited from doing so.
@ Zeb
1. if someone downloaded and up loaded does that still count as non-commercial private use?
No. Once you have up loaded Works to the Internet it is legally considered “Making Available” “Public Uses” of the Works.
2.1 Interpretation (Clause 3)
Clause 3 of the bill adds a new subsection to section 2.4 of the Act, clarifying that the making available of a work or other subject matter to the public at a place and time chosen by the public by means of telecommunication is included within the meaning of “communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public by telecommunication†(see more particularly clauses 9 and 11).
Clauses 9 and 11 of the bill provide a new exclusive right to performers and makers of sound recordings at sections 15 and 18 of the Act to make a sound recording available to the public over the Internet and to sell or transfer the ownership in a physical recording for the first time. The making available right is found in the two 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties, the WCT51 and the WPPT52 that Canada intends to implement with reform of the Copyright Act. The making available right is an exclusive right for rights-holders to authorize or prohibit the dissemination of their works and other protected material through interactive networks such as the Internet (for example, via iTunes). Note that this right already essentially exists for authors.)53
2. can all of someones on line activities be used against them or only the stuff the trolls are after?
Factors to consider
(5) In exercising its discretion under subsections (1) to (4), the court shall consider all relevant factors, including
(a) the good faith or bad faith of the defendant;
(b) the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings;
(c) the need to deter other infringements of the copyright in question; and
(d) in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.
3. if the most they can get is 5000 and Dr. Geist has pretty much said no judge will go much higher than 100 then can someone ask for there money back if they had to pay a lawyer to defend them
No. However the complaining party can ask for additional costs, court costs and legal fees.
4. it is even legal that someones activity on line is watched and tracked?
Yes. See *The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act – Section 7
7
3. For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is
a. made to, in the Province of Quebec, an advocate or notary or, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor who is representing the organization;
b. for the purpose of collecting a debt owed by the individual to the organization;
c. required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;
c.1. made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
i. it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
ii. the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
iii. the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;
1. if someone downloaded and up loaded does that still count as non-commercial use?
@Jim
I should think so unless you were running a pay-for bittorrent site, then they would bust you.
But that’s the thing, the only ones who are making money off of bittorrents are the link sites that have advertising. Now if Voltage went after them they would have a moral case and would actually be doing something about protecting their copyright.
But without those sites no one would be able to get the torrents and Voltage wouldn’t be able to make money off their films so I guess that’s why they leave them alone.
@ Paul Arbour
“What’s the legal answer to paragraph 12 of the statement claim?
Paragraph 12 in the statement of claim suggestions:
12. All defendants activities are done without the authorization of Voltage and without any payment or compenstation to Voltage.
Does this mean if the original source material was ripped from a DVD, that this paragraph is invalid, because there was payment to Voltage for the initial source material. What if someone actually watched the movie in a theatre or owns the DVD, yet downloaded a copy of it from bittorrent? Does that not mean the did in fact provide compensation to Voltage and excused from the proceedings?”
A simple answer is: the Copyright Act accords to the Rights holder the sole right to produce or reproduce the Works and provides that it is an infringement of copyright to engage in any act that only the Rights holder, as the copyright owner, has the right to do.
“What about Paragraph 16
I don’t get it, Voltage is suggesting that the roughly 2,000 people it is filing claim against have commericially benefited? This is somewhat ridiculous, I’m very surprised and concerned that the judge would not have already tossed this litigation. I’m hopeful that the ruling that is going to be made is a clear and direct one against the publisher.”
“commericially benefited”, a good example of this would be the case against the site NinjaVideo. They didn’t make money selling copies of the Works but rather made profit from ad’s and donations.
The language of the law is “profit” or “gain”.
Paul Arbour and Jim
go to google and search for the:
Legislative Summary of Bill C-11: An Act to amend the Copyright Act
many of the questions being asked here are answered very nicely.
@Jim “If someone downloaded and up loaded does that still count as non-commercial use?”
Jim, I am not a lawyer and have not been able to find a clear answer to this under Canadian law, but here is some info from US Law to consider.
In addition to demonstrating willfulness, the government must prove that the defendant engaged in an act of infringement “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 17 U.S.C. § 506(a). Emphasis should be placed on the word “purpose,” because it is not necessary to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff’d, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee’s purpose in retaining this requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or financial purpose.
Now in this case being brought by voltage we are talking about P2P software being the method of distribution. Since P2P works by uploading at the same time as downloading then the argument of only ‘making available’ does not seem to apply.
The purpose of the software though does not seem to offer participants any financial gain, possibly apart from negating the purchase cost of the file to the down loader. P2P works by many people sharing small pieces of a file with each other, unless you are the original uploader you are only sharing fragments of the work, not the entire work itself. The default setting on the software seems to be when you have uploaded the equivalent amount of pieces adding up to the original size of the file then the sharing ceases. This setting is adjustable though to many times the original size and down to almost zero.
The questions then are what is the value of what you are sharing? Even if you do share data equally the same as the file size does that only constitute one copy or are you liable for all the copies made from those pieces? If the original uploader could be identified then I think this would be different a case.
I am running through this more as a thought experiment, these questions may already have been answered in a Canadian context, but if not it would add an interesting thing for the judge to consider what will likely be a precedent setting case.
WRT Grunt’s answer and my understanding of the copyright amendment, uploading in and of itself does not constitute commercial infringement.
Thus, WRT to uploading as used in bittorrent clients, the question comes down to one of non-commercial, non-private use – or non-commercial “making available”, right?
So the next questions concern “making available”?
– does someone actually have to download the work to verify its availability?
– does 100% of the work have to be downloaded or a “substantial amount”?
– if the latter, what constitutes a “substantial amount”, 10%, 50%, 90%?
– do the pieces constituting a “substantial amount” have to be contiguous? (otherwise the result could be totally useless on its own)
My network is locked down pretty good – so I could join a swarm and you’d see me offering 100% of a Debian Squeeze ISO (never mind if you don’t know what it is – it’s not relevant), but you wouldn’t be able to get a single byte from me because my client would not be initiating any connections to peers or seeds in order to retrieve pieces of the file.
Would I still be considered to be “making available”?
Would GuardaLey’s software flag me as “making available”?
Enquiringly minds want to know.
DD said: Hi Paul, 5k only applies to those who infringed non-commercially. This is about commercial and therefore it can range up to 25k. If your one of the unfortunate victims of this scheme, then its best to get your lawyer to write an official letter indicating you will be contesting this. Enough people do this , the troll will back down. They have NO intention to go to court especially if they cannot prove people redistributed and profited from doing so.
If TS are forced by court order to submit the IP’s and they can get $200 per IP from Voltage ($400,000+)and 50% of the people who get the notice get a lawyer to send out a letter contesting it it’ll cost Voltage quite a bit to go forward with the lawsuit. 1000 lawsuit, the legal cost would be a monster especially for movies that flopped because they were bad and lost money because of that.
17 U.S.C. § 506(a) states:
The principal criminal statute protecting copyrighted works is 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), which provides that “[a]ny person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain” shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Section 2319 provides, in pertinent part, that a 5-year felony shall apply if the offense “consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500.” 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1).
That is the American Act and has absolutely no relevance to Canadian laws. Why Crock would confuse the issue even further with the U.S. Act is a complete mystery? Unless he’s implying that our judges and courts can’t think for themselves and look toward the (mess) in the U.S. for advise and guidance?
Crock says: “Now in this case being brought by voltage we are talking about P2P software being the method of distribution. Since P2P works by uploading at the same time as downloading then the argument of only ‘making available’ does not seem to apply.”
Crock read the bloody act before putting such false info out to the public. In fact google the link for the Legislative Summary of Bill C-11: An Act to amend the Copyright Act, anyone with any amount of intelligence would clearly see the courts decisions and guidance differ greatly from your personal views.
“I am running through this more as a thought experiment, these questions may already have been answered in a Canadian context”
“May already have been answered in a Canadian context”
They have been asked and answered, once again look at the documents.
I said this yesterday and I’ll say it again:
Perhaps the next time you send the troops out to the battle field you’ll better prepare them?
As it stands now there’s a bunch of misinformed naked pawns getting slaughtered for your cause.
Point is this unless you are somehow making money off of copyright infringement the cap is $5,000. But as Dr. Geist pointed out you’d have to catch the judge on a really bad day and maybe you ran over his dog to get handed that.
And since Voltage’s business model is predicated on not going to court we’re probably not going to find out anytime soon.
C-11 is geared towards commercial infringement, the Canadian government apparently got assurances that copyright holders weren’t going to pull this stunt yet there they go.
@Grunt,
So you’re saying that “making available” is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned? I.e., no additional penalties can be added due to “making available” as long as it’s deemed non-commercial?
[others (and you know who you are) can feel free to jump in]
“Point is this unless you are somehow making money off of copyright infringement the cap is $5,000. But as Dr. Geist pointed out you’d have to catch the judge on a really bad day and maybe you ran over his dog to get handed that.”
Or, during discovery it’s proven that you are in fact a bad player who downloads tons of content on a regular basis, have shown no remorse for your actions and have been notified in the past for the same behaviors.
“And since Voltage’s business model is predicated on not going to court we’re probably not going to find out anytime soon.”
That is simply a matter of view not fact.
“C-11 is geared towards commercial infringement, the Canadian government apparently got assurances that copyright holders weren’t going to pull this stunt yet there they go.”
First off C-11 is not geared towards commercial infringement, if you personally believe that so be it.
“the Canadian government apparently got assurances that copyright holders weren’t going to pull this stunt yet there they go”
Really? When was this? You have that in writing somewhere?, or is that another personal view that’s been cut n pasted so often you know have facts and fiction confused too?
@Jim
I guess, but like I and everyone else here, we’re not lawyers.
I think if you stand in front of judge and you say “Yes, I downloaded the movies, watched it and deleted it, sorry, won’t do it again.” the judge would say “Fine, $100, we’re done here.” because the reality is that every single piece of media is now on the net for free someplace and will always be.
The scum at Voltage are crying that it’s because of this that they’re losing money and nothing to do with the other reality; they make crappy movies. This argument gets shot down when one notices that the Hobbit just broke an opening day record that was broke by the Avengers that was broke by Twilight and so on and so forth. HMV has a record sales year in 2011 and I’m pretty sure they sell movies and music and I walked by the one near my place and it seemed pretty full of shoppers to me.
I wonder if I walked in there and told everyone, hey you can get all this for free on the Internet would they all stop and run home going “I had no idea!”? Somehow I doubt it.
So yes bittorrenting a movie is wrong but it’s about as wrong as dubbing a movie via two VHSs and giving the tape to a friend. Voltage knows this but they have dollar signs in their eyes and if they weren’t going to screw over a lot of innocent people in their greedy rampage I wouldn’t care much. But they are and people are really noticing and that’s going to hurt them in the end.
Just like fantasy trolls they don’t like the sunlight.
Small Claims Court?
Does the amount, $5K or even $10K, result in an automatic kick down to small claims court? Or is it the plaintiff’s choice?
This new PeterP is lame
> have been notified in the past for the same behaviors.
Yeah, they were supposed to send out notifications first but that won’t make Voltage any more money than their crappy films so they skipped that step. Sort of shows how much bad faith they are running on.
>That is simply a matter of view not fact.
They have taken someone to court? Can you please detail?
>Really? When was this? You have that in writing somewhere?, or is that another personal view that’s been cut n pasted so often you know have facts and fiction confused too?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/
Jim you seem to be an intelligent person with valid questions and concerns that should be respected and answered with the facts and whats on the law books now; the “if” and “maybe” sh** helps no one; not even the free culture libertarians.
A few years ago very people even knew what Intellectual Property was.
When the U.S tried to pass SOPA, google and ilk went on one hell of misinformation campaign and told people that not only did they have something to gain by supporting their cause but had even more to loose if they didn’t support it.
This is an old tactic that many were surprised worked; but it did.
Most people on the net know the words copyrights and infringements, but very few (outside the legal profession) know how those words apply to case law.
It’s complicated Jim, even for lawyers. The copyright act does not stand alone but is attached to other laws, acts, bills and global treaties.
It’s one thing to read C-11, but if you’re not comprehending what you’re reading of course mistakes will ensue.
From the government copyright FAQ, referenced by the Geist post, referenced by Grunt:
–begin quote–
Under current law, for commercial and non-commercial infringements, copyright owners can sue for statutory damages ranging from $500 to $20,000 for each work that is infringed. This Bill will dramatically reduce an individual’s potential liability in cases of non-commercial infringement. In such cases, statutory damages will be reduced to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.
–end quote–
So nothing about “making available” being a factor.
See http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.nsf/eng/h_rp01153.html#record
“And since Voltage’s business model is predicated on not going to court we’re probably not going to find out anytime soon.”
@Reality_bytes “That is simply a matter of view not fact.”
It would be helpful to make it a fact, at least by precedent. Can you point me to cases in Canada where the type of suit Voltage is bringing forward has resulted in a court case? The only successful cases I know of were by the RIAA in the USA, and even they admitted such tactics were an expensive PR failure that they would no longer pursue.
SOPA, google and ilk went on one hell of misinformation campaign
I sense some professional jealousy here…
“This new PeterP is lame”
Grunt that tactic and formula is older than all of us here combined. It’s a transparent as your ignorance.
Let it go. No one over the age of 15 buys into that sh**.
> have been notified in the past for the same behaviors.
Yeah, they were supposed to send out notifications first but that won’t make Voltage any more money than their crappy films so they skipped that step. Sort of shows how much bad faith they are running on.”
Once again your ignorance shines bright; any past infringement(s) can be used against the dependent.
>Really? When was this? You have that in writing somewhere?, or is that another personal view that’s been cut n pasted so often you know have facts and fiction confused too?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/
and again you point people to a *point of view* and not the facts.
This shill bores me!
Bring me another!
@Jim
>So nothing about “making available” being a factor.
No but that’s a sticky-wicket that the courts are going to have to think on. The nature of bittorenting means that if you’re downloading your also uploading. Now you can get all pedantic and say that they’re only doing that with tiny bits of the files, nothing whole but still the intent of bittorents and their ultimate function is self-evident; you copy files over the net. You both take part in and help facilitate the file transfer.
But it’s definitely not commercial and I think that’s the bit that Voltage doesn’t want to admit, that no one is making any money off of it (save for the sites that host the links and have advertising) and no one is losing any money off of it. No Voltage, your movies tanked because they sucked, nothing to do with the Internet.
SOPA
My understanding of SOPA is that it was indeed a massive overreach.
If this one excerpt from the SOPA Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act is accurate, then it amply demonstrates why SOPA was undesirable:
—begin excerpt—
The law would expand existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
–end excerpt—
Assuming it’s accurate, how in anyone’s imagination could infringing via streaming warrant 5 years in prison?
Unlike your U.S. copyright act, here in Canada C-11 is brand new.
RE: the mass suit in the U.S. and voltage, we both know it was due to the ISP not handing over the info within the required time that had the case dismissed; that Crock is a matter of public record.
The judge could not keep granting extensions, is that really the fault of voltage?
I don’t personally give a sh** about what you and your cronies need to believe, my concerns are for the unsuspecting innocent people that happen to come to this site in hopes of finding answers to some serious and valid questions.
I would argue that you’re knowingly misleading people in order to pursue your cause. I have a strong feeling you understand the Acts much better than you let on.
I only hope the intelligent people can see through your sh** and invest the time required to find and learn the facts for themselves.
If not, then they only have themselves to blame.
Grunt I did a search for this PeterP guy, I can see why you connected us; he’s right, I agree, you’re a complete imbecile.
Are We Not Lawyers? We Are Devo!
I think it is understood by all here that none of this constitutes real legal advice.
However, for the sake of clarity, adding a “I am not a lawyer” at the beginning or end of a post, would be useful.
Indeed, it may be useful to see who does *not* add something like that.
BTW, I am not a lawyer
Reality_sad
Did a search? Isn’t he like in the cubicle right next to you?
Grunt
Sometimes it’s better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt
Abe Lincoln
What do they say about people with conspiracy theories?
@Reality_bytes “I would argue that you’re knowingly misleading people in order to pursue your cause. I have a strong feeling you understand the Acts much better than you let on.”
That’s really out there. What exactly would that ’cause’ be?
Perhaps I am one of Prof. Geist’s law students, or a voltage employee out to bedevil the innocents? Maybe even an alien intent on destroying the earth’s economy by destabilizing honest movies studios? The world ends in two days you know!
@Reality_bytes “Crock, I am a very smart person”
Yes … I can see that.
“What do they say about people with conspiracy theories?”
Please don’t come to Canada?
@Reality_Bytes “Unless he’s implying that our judges and courts can’t think for themselves and look toward the (mess) in the U.S. for advise and guidance?”
Actually I do think our judges are level and prudent thinkers. Since this (may) be the first test of such a case in Canada so it would be irresponsible for a judge not to look at a history of such cases, regardless of the jurisdiction. Especially as cases such as voltage’s have seen a lot of censure from judges in the USA.
“An English court might cite judgments from countries that share the English common law tradition. These include other Commonwealth states (for example Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) and, to some extent, the United States (most often where the American courts have been particularly innovative, e.g. in product liability and certain areas of contract law).”
I do have a question Crock; what will you do when a few of the people that come here have to retain a lawyer and are told that the bulk of the info you and your cronies have been spoon feeding them is completely wrong? Call the lawyer(s) trolls?
You can continue to discredit me, belittle me, insult and and make it out like I have no idea what I’m talking about, but what happens when the truth comes out?
Id imagine “commercial” infringement means with monetary value where someone is making money off copyright infringement. Yah you could call commercial infringement “mass distributions” but I’ve always heard “commercial” when money was exchanged and I’m pretty sure the gov is saying the same thing here.
Seems this is geared towards torrent/piracy sites where people make money off the site which in this case would be commercial infringement. Whats really funny is now much “commercial” infringement goes on at flea markets and all the small “video” stores you see around. I have yet to see any of those local stores get busted and there’s probably 100’s in the GVRD area.
http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.nsf/eng/rp01184.html
I’ll say it again. If TS get a court order I’m sure they’re gonna make Voltage pay. Even if it $100 per IP to that’s $230,000 and if people send in letters from their lawyers there’s no way in hell Voltage will take this to court. Imagine $2300 cases. The judges would be PISSED OFF at the back log.
Crock and ilk – you make many references to debate, but anytime someone comes here with a different view you belittle them, or worse, deem them trolls or shills then verbally attack them.
If Geist only wants the free culture libertarians to comment on his blog why doesn’t he just say so?
I personally don’t agree with much of the free culture’s mandate, so? Does that mean I can not voice my views without being persecuted?
@Reality_Bytes “You can continue to discredit me, belittle me, insult and and make it out like I have no idea what I’m talking about, but what happens when the truth comes out?”
Who is belittling who? You refer to me in the derogatory manner “crock” even after I pointed out that was childish. As for that ‘truth’ I hope it turns out to be voltage once again folding under steadfast opposition.
@Reality_bytes “I do have a question Crock; what will you do when a few of the people that come here have to retain a lawyer”
It’s hard to know how many times I have to repeat this for you to notice but here it is again: … @Crockett “As I and others have said before, we are not lawyers, so if you have received a letter it is a very good idea to obtain legal counsel.”
We are having a debate, a sharing of ideas, I doubt anyone reading these posts would take that as legal advice, at least I would hope not. I do hope it will cause people to stop and think, first not to panic by seeing there are other thoughts on this matter than laid out in the extortion letters.
In that light I will once again point to a good resource [https://www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9a/Fight Copyright Trolls.pdf] and say ONCE AGAIN, for your sake, that anyone who has received an extortion letter should seek out legal counsel.
Still wondering what my ’cause’ is … always wanted a cause 😀
“Who is belittling who? You refer to me in the derogatory manner “crock” even after I pointed out that was childish.”
Agreed, I offer a genuine apology Crockett.
“I do hope it will cause people to stop and think, first not to panic by seeing there are other thoughts on this matter”
Agreed, I hope the same.
@Reality_bytes “Agreed, I offer a genuine apology Crockett.”
Thank you, well received. And if, as you say, your goal is that people get the information they need to make informed decisions then we are actually on the same page.
Fine, I’l feed it, maybe it’ll take a nap or something.
>…
Crock and ilk – you make many references to debate
Um where do we do that. There really isn’t much to debate, Voltage has every right to protect their copyright and in the case of bittorrents they have a case. People are indeed downloading and uploading their awful films and they will be probably forever so they are never going to be able to stop it. The Syrian government with guns and tanks shooting people could not stop all the 1s and 0s from going back and forth. They cut the lines and STILL the signal got out.
That is reality and the law has to adapt to it.
Does that mean the government declares the Internet a wild west and everyone go crazy? No, it means we create a society that understands you have to pay for stuff.
Oh. Wait. We already did that. People are right now buying movies in DVD, in NetFlix and FAR MORE than they are downloading.
Napster, the music industry went bat in a bear taking a sh*t crazy when they realized what it was, now go look at iTunes, tell me what their growth has been in the last five years. Every tune they sell you can get for free on the net.
And, this cannot be stressed enough, it’s always going to be like that. The Internet is the e-genie out of the bottle, in short it’s not going to get any less Internetty on planet Earth anytime soon.
The other reality is that bittorrenting does no significant harm and the damage the copyright violation does cause is offset by the good it does.
See “Psy + Copyright” for how this phenomenon goes. He is a millionaire! His people are raking it in and I never paid for that stupid song, did you? Huh, how’d he do that?
That’s the world we live in where the money is going to be made from a different angle.
Now I don’t know if Voltage is confused and angry about this brave new world or they’re just dicks but they are demanding $10,000+ and knowingly dragging innocent people into the mess makes it immaterial; they are wrong to do these things.
They are wrong from a business point of view, they are wrong from a moral point of view. They may be right from a legal point of view but it’s so narrow it’s hard to see.
Free culture libertarians?
Good god, who came up with that clunker?
Yeah, it’s not a question of free it’s a question of how do you get your money?
Voltage if they had a brain in their head would be seeding their own movies, people watch them and oh look there’s an embedded link, they click on the screen and it takes them to the movie merchandising page. It was a lousy movie but that’s a wicked hoodie, KA-CHING impulse sale. Or that was a great movie! I want the BluRay DVD with the extra features and the wrestler action figure. And check it out because you can process the orders one by one you have a better grasp on supply and demand so you can adjust your manufacturing accordingly, your shipping and storage costs go down too. Oh look, we have email addresses of customers and fans, gosh, we can send them stuff!!
But what does Voltage do instead? Throws a goddamn hissy fit because people are daring to watch their movies without giving them a buck. Yeah, they’re right but that doesn’t mean they’re right.
pots and kettles
@Reality_bytes
At least Crockett didn’t say “Clueless, completely clueless” when asked some reasonable, though perhaps naive, questions.
Pot, kettle, black
It’s been a quite while since I’ve acted like an obnoxious SOB to anyone online, I at least *try* to be better than that; doesn’t mean I appreciate being on the receiving end, or quickly forget.
BTW, I am not a lawyer
Fine, I’l feed it, maybe it’ll take a nap or something.
Grunt I read it all, I stand by my comment, you sir, are a complete imbecile.
Now piss off and don’t attempt to engage me in any more of your nonsensical rants.
Lol, that good will sure lasted.
@ Jim
“At least Crockett didn’t say “Clueless, completely clueless” when asked some reasonable, though perhaps naive, questions.”
Jim I pointed you to links and Government documents that somehow went completely over your head.
I don’t know your age but I assumed you to be a grown up capable of comprehending what you’re reading, perhaps I made an honest mistake?
It’s to your best advantage to consult a real-life lawyer Jim, after reading all of your comments you seem to be in a bit of a bind.
Best of luck.
“Lol, that good will sure lasted.”
you missed this:
“Fine, I’ll feed *it*, maybe *it’ll take a nap or something*.”
I think it unlikely the Good Will Ambassador would find tolerance or patience for someone like Grunt.
I am not an It. Nor would I tolerant being disrespected by some random person of the net.
I’m fine with fair, but that’s it.
You’re a funny (and obviously nervous) man, but lets get back to reality shall we?
That was your first response to a polite statement then you followed up with “Just a thought Crock” before he even answered.
Are you really this self-unaware in the real world? High school must have been hell.
Well everyone, I think I’ll finish on that note. Much has already been said, and we really have to wait now until January to see what the judge will rule on the IP/Name discovery issue. Further discussion may be moot.
Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays), all the best.
Grunts
“You’re a funny (and obviously nervous) man, but lets get back to reality shall we?”
That was your first response to a polite statement then you followed up with “Just a thought Crock” before he even answered.
Are you really this self-unaware in the real world? High school must have been hell.
Awww, you’re playing the big protective brother, how sweet, no worries I’m sure Crockett likes you more!
Me on the other hand, I think you’re an obnoxious arrogant ignorant imbecile, now piss off.
@Reality_bytes
First off, I’m in no bind. I merely appreciate an interesting problem, which this is on a number of levels. I know a bit from a byte and so find the intersection of technical with legal issues quite fascinating. I also have strong views on what the Internet is supposed to be, and on what constitutes justice, moral behaviour, etc. And yes, I greatly admire Richard Stallman, despite the fact that he can be a first class ass and wrong.
As for my age – irrelevant.
As for the documents that I was allegedly pointed to. You did not explicitly point me to any documents prior to your surly comment. That came out of the blue. Please point me to the post where you did this if I’m incorrect.
Re reading comprehension: I don’t readily read legalese, because (no surprise here) I am not a lawyer. Thus I ask questions hoping someone can shed some light. Does that really warrant rude comments?
Obviously, anyone who expects to be subject to a “letter” should talk to a real lawyer, the rest of us can ask questions, pose “what if” scenarios, etc. And should be able to do that free from insults, etc. Don’t you think?
I tend to think of this as not totally dissimilar to the SCO vs AutoZone situation. The result of SCO targeting AutoZone was that a gazillion geeks suddenly became interested in copyright and patent law (thank you, Groklaw). It did not end well for SCO. So, if a similar groundswell of opposition results in Voltage having to have to follow the letter and the spirit of the law rather than doing an end run around said laws, that would be justice in my books.
No mirrors in this guys world.
Awww, you’re playing the big protective brother, how sweet, no worries I’m sure Crockett likes you more!
Me on the other hand, I think you’re an obnoxious arrogant ignorant imbecile, now piss off.
Jim
Richard Stallman – while I disagree with much of his views I admire the mans conviction greatly.
The free culture libertarians have always struck me as a very closed and one sided club.
If memory serves Jim I suggested a few links – please look up in the thread.
“Re reading comprehension: I don’t readily read legalese, because (no surprise here) I am not a lawyer. Thus I ask questions hoping someone can shed some light. Does that really warrant rude comments?”
No it does not. Nor does does it warrant being called clueless either.
Certainly not to excuse my bad behavior, I run out of patience far too often when this debate comes up (I’ve been in the trenches since 2004.)
My apologies Jim for offending you and treating you in a manner that I would not tolerate myself.
Yes, he is a weird little man
Anyway, right now I’m watching Qi on YouTube, it’s this amazing BBC comedy quiz show thing, it looks like the whole series is up there via some guy name Carl. It’s interesting how the BBC doesn’t seem to care that their copyright is being violated.
Eventually everything will be on YouTube or something like it, it will be simply too much to try and police, the various industries are going to have to work with it or they will risk being left irrelevant.
Bit like the dinosaur yelling at the tar swallowing it up rather than figuring out how to swim.
If aggregation is the way of the future we are in for a big surprise. Id much rather see a YouTube full of quality original material. I like to think that was the original idea. Remember all the great shows and artists that got their start on public TV channels? We now have an equal playing field and instead of embracing a creative tool , we have become even lazier than ever and have given new meaning to the word couch-potato. There are tons of brilliant original works on YouTube. Sadly they just don’t manage to engage us as much as qi. (Which BTW was uploaded by BBC themselves…on their own channel…so that might explain why they don’t flag their own shows)
@ guy
“Which BTW was uploaded by BBC themselves…on their own channel…so that might explain why they don’t flag their own shows”
LOL – you caught that one too I see!
@Reality_bytes
You initially said that you pointed the links to me, which was not the case AFAICT.
Having said that, apology totally accepted, and from my perspective the whole thing is forgotten.
I look forward to reading your views on Jan 14.
Likely not posting anything until then, so Happy Holidays to all.
PowPow
I’m sorry Reality_byes.. I might of missed a few compiles of your expert assumptions, but I fail to see any advice you give to peers on this forum about retaining legal advice to defend possible “letter before claim, “claim notices” etc.
I find that odd, if I’m not mistaken you are a “neural” party in this forum?
Something smells phishy to me:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=your shit stinks
It’s still a copyright violation
Carl doesn’t have the right to upload bbc stuff, when you punch Qi into the YouTube search his are the ones that come up.
And the BBC channel only has clips
Please correct me if I’m wrong but from what I can see the bits of Qi that the BBC has on their channel seem to be segments whereas the whole episodes are uploaded by users who don’t appeare to have any connection to the BBC. Even when you watch the clips on the BBC channel you can see the full copyright volation versions on the right side of your screen.
So no, that doesn’t explain why they don’t flag their own shows at all.
@Guy
And all that is / will be there too. See “Young Bucks” for an example of new material made specially for YouTube.
All media both copyright and open source will be on the Internet legally or illegally and fighting it is simply counterproductive on every level; it’s yelling “stop making me wet!” at clouds while they rain on you. Even if they listened they couldn’t stop.
They’re trying to control the spread of 1s and 0s on a computer network, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, “Good luck with all that!”
@Grunt
My favourite (pertinent) quote:
“Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.” -kfg
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164559&cid=13737595
Interesting article
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/11165221440/if-teksavvy-wont-oppose-copyright-trolls-who-want-customer-info-who-will.shtml
QUOTE:
That letter focused heavily on the factors established in the BMG case, and when you run through those factors, you begin to see why this is a privacy issue before it’s an infringement issue. The court’s disclosure test was designed to ensure that customer info isn’t released without a solid reason—and perhaps the most important requirement is that there be a bona fide claim, further clarified as a true intent to pursue further action based on the disclosure, and no ulterior motive.
/QUOTE
Since we know that Voltage have a track record for extortion schemes and that the software they are using is flawed at best and that the “investigators” have a financial motivation to sweep up the innocent along with the guilty if CIPPIC can intervene reVoltage may be dead in the water.
And if not CIPPIC can certainly be attached to the individual cases where these points can be made again.
Such drama! It’s like Game of Thrones but with less incest.
@Grunt
>Such drama! It’s like Game of Thrones but with less incest.
Or naked women.
Interesting article
Techdirt always has ‘interesting’ articles, not so factual though.
Cool site if you’re into over-the-top fiction, not so good if you’re looking for factual and accurate info.
And when you consider that Masnick is a shill for Google and the like it’s no big surprise now is it.
not so factual though?
Huh.
Can you point out the points that are lacking in fact?
And what did he do that made him a Google shill?
that sounds like a creature from Harry Potter, “BEWARE THE GOOGLESHILL!”.
>Can you point out the points that are lacking in fact?
On the site in general? Or in specific postings?
>And what did he do that made him a Google shill?
Google it if you’re interested.
Canada’s Charter vs Quebecs’
Something I’ve been wondering about is Canada has a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Quebec has it’s own, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, will this effect the people in Quebec differently?
On the site in general? Or in specific postings?
The specific posting please.
>Google it if you’re interested.
So you can’t tell me? Google didn’t make a claim you did and I’m asking you to back it up, is that unreasonable?
For example, I claimed that the BBC seems indifferent to Qi being put up on YouTube in a clear copyright violation, you said:
QUOTE
@ guy
“Which BTW was uploaded by BBC themselves…on their own channel…so that might explain why they don’t flag their own shows”
LOL – you caught that one too I see!
/QUOTE
So I realized I never looked at the BBC channel, you guys could be right and I could be wrong and more importantly there could be more Qi there! (I’m completely addicted to it) So I went and saw that they only had 2 minute clips but in the side bar they have the full versions uploaded by accounts that are clearly not the BBC’s. So it’s safe to assume that the BBC is fully aware of the infringements and don’t care. After all it would take one email to YouTube to have them taken down.
I made a statement, it was called into dispute so I made an effort to investigate and see if my statement was correct.
I think that’s important.
@davegravy “>Such drama! It’s like Game of Thrones but with less incest.
Or naked women.”
Don’t put anything past trolling lawyers.
>On the site in general? Or in specific postings?
The specific posting please.< I'm not your secretary do the leg work yourself if you're interested. >So you can’t tell me? Google didn’t make a claim you did and I’m asking you to back it up, is that unreasonable?< Look up the Oracle case, all the info is out there if you really want it.
I’m not asking you to be my secretary
I am asking you to explain your why you’re saying Techdirt is “not so factual” and publishes “over-the-top fiction”.
Those are two rather bold statements that make a definitive claim without offering anything in the form of evidence to back them up.
>And when you consider that Masnick is a shill for Google
I don’t consider anything, I never heard of him before you put the name to the article. I read it and found nothing in it that seemed wrong.
So I ask you to back up your claim and you tell me to ask someone else.
That’s not the actions of someone who believes what they are saying.
When someone makes a claim and then asks the skeptic to back it up for them, well the only possible conclusion I can come to is that you’re a liar.
Why you would lie about such a thing is the intriguing question.
It seems that there have been a few posters here who have insisting that certain things aren’t true or a “matter of opinion” but when pressed for explanation they just POOF! vanish.
Peculiar.
Oh and do you understand about Qi and the BBC now?
Or are you still all “lol” about it?
Grunt you use the “I” word a lot! Who are you exactly?
This is a public web site open to the public and open to public comment.
This is not your living room and no one myself included is expected to answer your questions.
Yes, I also you other words a lot too.
>Who are you exactly?
I’m Batman.
>This is a public web site open to the public and open to public comment.
No, it’s a private blog of a Dr. Geist and it’s only open to as much comment as he wishes.
>This is not your living room and no one myself included is expected to answer your questions.
So that would be you’re just going to make a claim about Techdirt and this Masnick guy then not back it up?
Okay, so you’re a liar, probably professional, thanks for the confirmation, we can move on!
Mr Grunt aka Batman
>probably professional< I work in the research dept for a consumer protection group >so you’re a liar< You have made the same terrible disparaging remarks toward everyone that refused to play with you Grunt. So what I will do is simple. I will take great care not to direct any questions at you. I suggest you do the same. Bye
Consumer protection group?
Hmm, why do I suspect that the group you work for uses the term “Consumer Protection” the same way North Korea uses “Democratic People’s Republic”?
>You have made the same terrible disparaging remarks toward everyone that refused to play with you Grunt.
You have noticed how you made two separate claims then refused to back them up? Ghost of Christopher Hitchens, can I get a ruling?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Thanks Chris, you drunk you.
So then we can say that Techdirt is factual and does not publish “over-the-top fiction”.
And that Dani is a liar.
Fresh troll please! This one is spent.
Thanks!
Mr Geist,
I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the hard and seemingly tireless work you put into this blog.
It’s informative and has proven incredibly useful for myself and many of the people I work with.
Our office has worked with CIPPIC on numerous occasions and we are truly thankful.
Happiest of Holidays Mr. Geist.
Kindly,
Dani
dani RE: Canada’s Charter vs Quebecs
We’ve been wondering about that as well.
Jan 14th should prove very interesting.
Try not to let the blog-flies get to you, they’re everywhere unfortunately.
Looks like the trolls decided to change Name
Good job PeterP. LOL!
If you don’t think…
If you don’t think the tactics taken by Voltage is extortion than you are a troll… Plain and simple… Your opinions do not matter and will not matter what so ever… You are embarrassing yourself trying to mislead the public and embarrassing your family for being a low life.
Geez, vicious in here. Guess someone didn’t like getting their butts handed to them.
First off the bat, I got a letter from TekSavvy saying that they sent us the notification e-mail in error; there were around 90 users that incorrectly received messages (from TekSavvy) saying that their IPs were being requested when, in fact, they weren’t. So I’m off the hook, hurray me (and ‘suck it’ to anyone claiming I was just ‘making excuses’)! That said, nothing else about this case is any different: Voltage Pictures are trolls with a long history of dropping cases and shady partners like Guardaley and USCG on their record, their evidence is little better than hearsay and anyone being accused in earnest should be lawyering up immediately to put them down as soon as possible. I will continue to try to get the word out to as many people as I know so this matter can be decided in the open instead of getting settlements and setting precedents via Blitzkrieg lawsuits.
I’m just gonna skip this little debate as it seems as though I’ve already missed most of it but I wanted to address one post:
[Joel said: Teksavvy
I wonder if the reason TSI did not apposed the motion, is because they knew the CIPPIC would appose and ask for intervener status. That would make a huge difference in my opinion of the company.
Otherwise, like everyone else, I’m extremely disappointed with tsi. As a customer, I expected them to try anything to appose the motion. Even not apposing, but requesting a charge per I.P. would have been acceptable. Anything but simply not appose with no conditions. It’s made me reconsider my openness to switching isp’s.
I can’t shake the feeling though that TSI was targeted. I can only speculate why they would be, but it makes no sense for voltage to go TSI only when we have companies like Videotron that have always provided IP addresses without court orders. Not only that, but Videotron has supported such lawsuits in the past. Probably due to their parent compnay Quebecor and their Quebec media monopoly.
In short, easy target is overlooked for a more difficult target. Conspiracy? ]
First: ‘o’ppose. Second, I don’t think you understand that TekSavvy had no legal liability whatsoever. When Voltage filed this suit last year over ‘The Hurt Locker’ Rogers, Bell and Videotron *all* gave up their user info without opposing the motion, so really TekSavvy is still the best of the bunch.
I don’t know if you’re being accused or not but if you are you really should have shown up to the Notice of Motion because most of this was explained there. TekSavvy agreed not to oppose this motion under the condition that their John and Jane Doe customers be notified and given a chance to reply. Their arguments (and CIPPICs’ letter) apparently convinced the judge that this hadn’t been done so he adjourned for a month to give the Defendants their chance. Don’t blame TekSavvy for not defending you, that’s your job.
As to your conspiracy theory I have one of my own; Voltage Pictures has already approached Rogers and Bell and they’ve agreed to not oppose the Motion when it comes to them (if anyone can disprove this I’d love to hear it). As for why Voltage would go after TekSavvy first I can only add it to the list of weird things Voltage has done during this case.
For the record I am extremely happy with TekSavvy and would change providers for the world.
>In short, easy target is overlooked for a more difficult target.
I think TSI was targeted because they offer practically unlimited high-speed bandwidth, no one else does so if you’re a bittorrenting type they are your first choice in ISP. Voltage are more likely to catch hardcore (ab)users with TSI. As you point out their software for detecting IP is shoddy so I guess they want to aim it at a target rich environment.
While you should be annoyed at TSI for messing up your case I think they’re done as much as they can do so far. Legally they could have shrugged and said fine, here you go. Imagine the hassle you’d be having if they did!
If they’re going after the other ISPs they’re playing that pretty close to their chest, I suspect they’re using TSI as a test case, see how far they can get, see what details they need to tweak for the next time they try.
Which is why I want this to go to court, we need to settle the matter and from what I can see Voltage has a case that their copyright was violated but they have no case when it comes to damages. They have to know this so they won’t want to go to court.
So if they do get the names they want and they just send out threatening letters and then stroll off with whatever “settlements” they manage to extort we’ll be doing this again and again.
We need one case to set a precedent that makes it clear that a) downloading off the bittorents is a copyright violation but b) doesn’t do any significant damage to the copyright holder and thus should be compensated accordingly. Here Voltage, a hundred bucks, go hire a wrestler for your next “movie”.
Test case ? More to come?
I suspect this is the test case for the troll. I suspect the troll is testing the waters and see how profitable their scheme is. Given the history they have in the US and the fact that CIPPIC made the judge aware of Voltage’s schemes in the past, the judge might not look upon them to favorably.
However, judges must consider the motion in its entirety and the likelihood that a small percentage of people will go to court too will wave heavy. Perhaps what Grunt said is true, which is to let this go all the way to court and see what happens. In considering this in its entirety a defendant should bring into question the method / approach to evidence gathering and any counter evidence to to make a final decision. Given this is a commercial infringement case the statutory limits of 5k really do not apply and it is much greater. So, that said, having an IP address alone does not increase the balance of probabilities against you. I suspect the data gathered by Guardaley will be brought into question and the fact that a number of people mistakenly received emails will also way heavily. It brings into question a) whether TSI is able to identify the IP ‘s accurately based upon the info thus far b) whether Guadaley really did provide the right IP’s causing aforementioned a).
Wrt to “more to come”, I suspect Rogers et al will easily give up your IP. In fact, they will likely make some money from giving up your IP at $200-300 a pop. But the real cost is people will switch to another ISP that will at least have the courage to stand up and say “We’ll give you the customer info provided you provide more than just an IP as evidence that these folks specifically were performing the download.”
Who flubbed up?
@JamesG “First off the bat, I got a letter from TekSavvy saying that they sent us the notification e-mail in error; there were around 90 users that incorrectly received messages (from TekSavvy) saying that their IPs were being requested when, in fact, they weren’t.”
Let me say congratulations to James for being off the hook (a potentially sharp & nasty one) for something he obviously did not do.
Now the question in his case is how did this notification error occur? From what you say it sounds like TekSavvy was at fault, not the voltage legal team. If it was the latter that would just about kill their case right there. So just to be sure we should find out what exactly occurred, and hope that it doesn’t happen again.
Evidence handling
Wrt Crockett
“Now the question in his case is how did this notification error occur? From what you say it sounds like TekSavvy was at fault, not the voltage legal team. If it was the latter that would just about kill their case right there. So just to be sure we should find out what exactly occurred, and hope that it doesn’t happen again.”
This brings to light what checks and balances were employed in gathering the evidence in the first place and further what checks and balances were put in place to prevent this regardless of whether Voltage provided the wrong IP’s or whether TSI made a mistake. Given this is a legal matter and if the right checks and balances have not been put in place then this brings to light people being accused of committing an infringement that may not have committed one in the first place. This does not mention the fact that Guardaley handed over IP ‘s that were in error in the first place.
Hopefully this will be brought to the Judge’s attention and some form of verification process has been in place.
By the way, 90 people being misinformed is a significant error. It not like one or two people were informed mistakenly. This does Not appear like a TSI error.
CIPPIC or anyone accused, if your listening to this it is an important point to make note of as it brings to light that evidence may not have been handled or gathered appropriate and brings to light suspicion of mishandling data at various hand off points.
C11 evidence gathering process
I did not see anything outlining in C11 the process by which evidence gathering is conducted. Perhaps I missed something. If your are aware let me know.
I think it was TSI that messed up there but I’m not sure how that could have happened. It would seem to me that Voltage would send a list of IPs with time stamps, TSI cross-checks that with their own records and that produces a list of names. So did Voltage give bad numbers? Did TSI’s system spit out bad numbers? A combo?
Who knows, maybe Voltage has software that doesn’t make mistakes, could be they’ve improved it to the point of 99.9% accuracy since last time but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make them demonstrate that.
Yeah, Voltage should really have to show their work before they get names.
3rd party vetting process
“Yeah, Voltage should really have to show their work before they get names…” and have a 3rd party vet the process all the way through the hand off points.
3rd party vet
Maybe, since it goes to probabilities I’m thinking an in-court demonstration would be good, like they set up a computer, it runs the software and pulls up some IPs that are running Voltage bittorents (as there always will be until the end of the Internet no matter what the courts decide) and then those IPs are… hmm, not sure how they could get to the next step.
In my mind that’s where it all collapses for Voltage, how are they going to show that the person probably did it if all they have is software saying they did via some numbers.
The only way I could find for Voltage would be a) the person they accuse says they did it b) they find the movie on their hard drive or a other copyright material in the same vein c) Voltage shows me a system that doesn’t produce any false positives.
At any rate that’s only half of it, fine, someone dared to watch one of their crappy movies without giving anyone money for the privilege. That’s worth $5,000 for a first offense? I don’t see how that makes any sense beyond Voltage being greedy jerk faces.
I got a letter! Why would anyone download any of the listed garbage?
If this gets motioned I will be taken this to court and disputing this. Where can I find a well informed lawyer to help me fight this case? Thanks
thank you grunt
thank you grunt great post . Makes you wonder where this will go.
theaccused:
Call society for upper canada lawyers or cippic. You want somebody who knows copyright law and knows C11. Ask them if they do and prior experience. I hope this helps.
theaccused
There’s still many areas that defendants can call into question but i wont feed the trolls watching this forum. Cippic did enough to raise doubt and seed the discussion in the mind of the judge. There are many people watching this case. Its really a test of legislation and how far trolls will be willing to go. I’m interested in this purely from a privacy perspective . I believe all Canadians should be concerned as they can be found guilty of an act they didn’t commit purely based upon IP address information alone. Frightening
DD I think that’s a bit hyperbolic
>they can be found guilty of an act they didn’t commit purely based upon IP address information alone.
Remember no one has actually been taken to court over downloading. The only cases that seem to get to a judge are the ones where the defendant didn’t bother to show up.
I’m guessing that’s the troll’s favorite meal; they get a quick and easy judgment that they can then turn around and sell to a collection agency. Not a bad return for sending a letter and a couple of days in court.
Again and I am not a lawyer, cannot stress that point enough, I think if it gets to a Canadian judge it can only go one of two ways:
Person says I did it, sorry, won’t do it again. And then they get a fine if it’s their first time. Voltage cannot show damages because there aren’t any and if there are they are so hypothetical you’d need a jury of angels dancing on a pin’s head to figure out the dollar value.
And it would probably be the cost of renting the movie off of NetFlix.
Person says “I have no idea what you’re talking about, never downloaded the movie, never even heard of it before today.”
Then Voltage what? Checks out their hard drive? I guess if the person volunteered it that would be simple enough but it doesn’t really say either way. If it’s not there Voltage can howl that they deleted it! Or it may never have been there. Either way it boils down to the word of a person vs. a string of numbers generated by the accuser in a rather awkward chain of custody.
Then I guess the judge makes his or her call on that point and I can’t seem them leaning towards the string of numbers.
That is of course if that’s all Voltage has, who knows, maybe they’ve got some tricksy new method for tracking that takes a picture of the user watching the movie (probably grimacing and rolling their eyes wondering why they wasted the bandwidth).
I’m pretty eager to find out either way! Canadian law being made interesting, whodothunk?
DD I think that’s a bit hyperbolic
Trying not to be Grunt. Makes me wonder. I can’t see any of this going to a long drawn out trial. Especially over something so trivial
long drawn out trial.
Maybe, in this early one I guess it would be quick but let’s say the judge wants to know more about the technology involved, does that mean a crash course in IT for a guy who still gets his news from those paper things with words?
>Especially over something so trivial
Which it really is when you get down to it. People watched an inferior copy of a movie on small screen with tiny speakers and Voltage didn’t get their cut and that’s why their movies bomb.
Maybe a judge will cut right to that and do a judicial eye-roll.
That’s what makes it so interesting is that it’s all new law, I’ve been saying for awhile now that media is going to fundamentally change. Everyone can now produce their own movies, TV shows, radio programs, whatever and get them to the consumer with no middle man. No wonder studios are sh*tting themselves; they’re like dinosaurs who see the meteorite coming.
Oh well, I got myself an early Christmas present, the Game of Thrones BlueRay set and I noticed that it came with a digital copy for my computer. So they’re saying hey, put this show on your machine that is attached to an Internet.
Voltage, you’re idiots.
The business model has to change
Well, instead of fighting those who torrents, perhaps a different business model is in order. Now there is a novel concept!
It’s said that certain companies are spending their time going after people instead of …um…making a great movie that people will want to buy at a reasonable price. That’s one thing Apple got right. Hmmm…99 cents a song…not a bad deal when you do not want the whole album. Or maybe, they let people watch the movie for free and sell the advertising rights for the movie and recoup there costs that way. There are who bunch of legitimate money making schemes instead of trolling people.
In reality, they will never stop people, and I hate to say it, its too late. There are MANY and I mean MANY people out there that already have amassed a significant number of movies and music. There is nothing stopping people from say passing a 2TB hard drive over to their friends and copying away….
This litigation will do little to stem the flow of piracy. The cat’s out the bag .
As Grunt wrote eloquently, with the number of independent movie and music makers out there ever growing a new business model has to be found instead of resorting to these mass torts.
A different business model
It’s already here in the form of NetFlix, well not here in Canada exactly, the Canadian version is awful because Rogers and Bell want you to give them $60 to $120+ for less service and convenience with more fees and advertising for the same product.
However there is a work around easily found on Google if any Canadian is interested in paying $7 a month for more TV and movies than anyone can watch and telling Bell and or Rogers to pound sand.
And you’re right about it never ending, anything that can be made into a series of 1s and 0s will always be on the Internet for free, that’s the simple reality and some Hollywood studio exec shrieking about how unfair it all is won’t change no matter how many lawyers and forum trolls they throw at it.
A war that can only be won without the sword …
So, as been said too many times to count, better to innovate than litigate.
Someday they’ll get it.
The cat is out of the bag but the crooks still have their hands in the bag trying to pinch all you got!
Come January we shall see who the real crooks are, as if we didn’t know already.
I am very disappointed in Teksavvy and how they will not be opposing the motion by Voltage. This is not only a accused infringement issue but a privacy issue that Teksavvy should be protecting. How can Teksavvy claim to be protecting my private information when they won’t even stand up for me. Needless to say i’ll be cancelling my internet with them asap… Shame on you Teksavvy… and possibly see you in court.
@TheAccused
Well to be fair TSI did pretty much all they could do and some more. First off, legally they didn’t have to do anything more than show up in court and hand Voltage the information they were demanding. They didn’t have to warn anyone about what was coming and that right there was a huge blow to Voltage. Their ideal scenario would be you going to your mailbox and getting a letter from them demanding money. Now that people have a head’s up they can get educated and get a layer. Furthermore these delays lead to CIPPIC getting involved and that could be the game changer. Whereas before it was all but assumed that Voltage would get your information from TSI there is now some doubt. CIPPIC’s letter was pretty blunt and if they get to make all those arguments in court (Voltage’s past trollish behaviour, their failure to act on the last batch of names and numbers they got from a Canadian court, their “evidence” being digital hearsay, etc.) there is a solid chance that judge might throw the whole thing out. Courts do not like being used to bait hooks for fishing trips.
Or not, you may get an official letter, in that case you get a lawyer to write back and that will probably be the end of it. If not you go to court, your lawyer says you didn’t download it, they say you did, your lawyers says prove it and then Voltage better have something more than “That computer with this guy’s software said you did!” if they’re going to win anything.
@Grunt
Yes TSI does not have to do anything but it would be good business practice to take care of your customers as they are the ones that pays the bills. I understand TSI is not one of the bigger providers but I am sure they have the financial means to do so and I believe responsible to do so.
I am glad CIPPIC got involved but in my opinion TSI should have opposed. Like others have claimed of dropping TSI as a internet provider I will also be doing the same.
With a max. fine of $5000 for non-commercial infringement I’m not sure involving a lawyer would be feasible. I mind as well write my own letter and show up at court and plead not guilty.
@TheAccused
>good business practice to take care of your customers
Well yes, but all they really owe their clients are 1) internet access and 2) obeying the law. From what I can tell that’s been pretty much what they’ve been doing.
> I am sure they have the financial means to do so
I have no idea if they do or do not but there’s not a lot they can do. If a judge tells them to hand over the information then that’s what they have to do. To do a proper objection they would need to spend a fair amount of time and money to do so and why should they? It really isn’t TekSavvy’s problem beyond them complying with Canadian privacy laws.
CIPPIC on the other hand has the time and more importantly the will to make a strong case.
I understand you’re pissed about this and you should be, it’s ridiculous that Voltage can even get this far in their extortion scheme but that’s life. Sh*t happens and you’re going to have to deal with it.
>I mind as well write my own letter and show up at court and plead not guilty.
This is really not a good idea.
Contact CIPPIC and/or the Law Society of Upper Canada, they can give you a free 30 minute consultation. A lawyer will most likely charge you a reasonable fee for just the reply letter. That is your best defence, if Voltage thinks that you’re going it alone like the scavenger dogs they are they look for the strays to take down.
If they get a letter from a lawyer that says “See you in court” it will most likely end there. They don’t want to go to court, they know they can’t win there even if they win. They only way they can win is if you send them money or they think you won’t show up in court or will represent yourself.
At any rate you have until January and who knows? The judge might see just how vile Voltage is and send them packing, the end.
But still, start looking at lawyers sooner than later.
@Grunt
I wasn’t aware CIPPIC could provide consultation services?
CIPPIC
I’m not sure but I suspect they’ve gotten a few phone calls already and at the very least they may have another reference for callers in your situation.
Look at it like this, you’re driving down the road, you cut scuffed another car and now the guy is going to sue you for whiplash. You know it’s bs but regardless if the jerk takes you to court you have to show up with a lawyer. You’re not paying respect to the jerk that’s suing you but the court system itself. Worst thing you can do is make a judge feel like you’re not taking them seriously. That’s when they can really make your life difficult.
And if you did do it DO NOT SAY HERE THAT YOU DID OR DID NOT they still need to prove it to a balance of probability. I am not a lawyer but I don’t see how a string of numbers generated by three separate systems can convince a judge to the tune of $5,000. The only way I could see it happening is if Voltage found the movie on your hard drive or a bunch of similar bitttorented movies.
@Grunt
I’ll email The Law Society of Upper Canada to see if they can refer me to the appropriate lawyer. Thanks
hmmmm
What about the fact that there were actually it says 2000? tsi people dling a movie that sucks and no one from any other isp was doing so? Selective harassment of tsi is what that would look like to me? 🙂
All future lawsuits defeated for 3$ a month.
After the lawsuits came out I got a VPN with no log retention. For 3$ a month I am anonymous and can pretend to be in any of a dozen countries.
I am downloading slightly less though. Largely because of all the great content on US Netflix and the BBC shows.
These lawsuits didn’t change anything. I’m deliberately uploading more out of spite.
The US and the use of IP for identifying people
What is nutz about this to me is that in the US, judges are now saying that you cannot presume that because you have an ip you know that someone has downloaded something of yours. They say that there are too many chances that you identify someone who hasnt actually downloaded since people can hack wireless, or access them if they arent protected, and people who visist or other people in a house etc. might have made the infringement instead of the IP owner himself.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/
An I.P. can be used belonging to someone else very easily if their wireless routers if not properly encripted can be gotten in to.
The fact that this is possible means there is a resonable doubt as to a particular I.P. address being compromised and used by persons unknown to download copyrighted material.
I cannot see any court actually entertaining the idea that an I.P. is so secure as to not allow any unaouthorized use and thus blame the person who has this I.P. designation as the offender.
Anyone sends me a letter requesting payment with the threat of a suit can go pound sand !