Beware of copyrights, etc. by Spushnik (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Beware of copyrights, etc. by Spushnik (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)


Misuse of Canada’s Copyright Notice System Continues: U.S. Firm Sending Thousands of Notices With Settlement Demands

The launch of the Canadian copyright notice system earlier this year raised serious concerns as Rightscorp, a U.S.-based anti-piracy company, sent notices that misstated Canadian law and demanded that users pay to settle claims. The misuse of the Canadian system was the result of the government’s failure to establish regulations prohibiting misleading content or the use of notice-and-notice to demand settlements.  Despite more than a year of work on potential regulations – including possible costs to rights holders for sending notifications – Industry Minister James Moore abandoned the process, implementing the system with no costs, no limitations on notice content, no restrictions on settlement demands, and no sanctions for the inclusion of false or misleading information. The government’s backgrounder says that the law “sets clear rules on the content of these notices”, however, it does not restrict the ability for rights holders to include information that goes beyond the statutory minimum.

The furor over the Rightscorp notices died down in recent weeks, but now another U.S. anti-piracy firm is flooding the Canadian market with thousands of notices, all seeking payment for alleged infringements. CEG TEK, a well-known U.S. firm, is sending notices that reference Canadian copyright law, but use the notice-and-notice system to pressure recipients into paying large settlements. A blog reader sent along a sample notice posted below (TekSavvy has posted a similar one they received).

The notice raises many concerns. First, CEG TEK is using the Canadian notice system to send thousands of demand letters at no cost. In fact, the cost is effectively borne by consumers, since Internet providers are required to forward the notifications and will ultimately pass along the charges in the form of higher access fees. The government was asked to include a fee, but having declined to do so, effectively invited abuse of the system.

Second, the notice references Canadian copyright law, but still may leave users with an inaccurate impression. Users’ personal information has not been disclosed (ie. CEG TEK does not know who receives the notices unless the recipient tells them by settling), the settlement demands (which are apparently US$150 per notice) bear no correlation to a likely award, the maximum statutory damages of C$5000 is for all infringements (not per infringement as implied in the notice), and the likelihood of non-statutory damages referenced in the notice is incredibly remote.

All of this could have been avoided had the government established regulations with the notice-and-notice system as many stakeholders urged Moore to do. Instead, the notice is system is again being abused, leading to significant ISP costs and settlement demands to thousands of Canadians. The solution is obvious: implement the missing regulations by establishing an appropriate fee for forwarding notices, prohibit the use of notices to demand settlements, and give ISPs the leeway to refuse to forward notices where they contain misleading or inaccurate information.

The sample CEG TEK notice is posted below:

Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 41.25 and 41.26 of the Canada Copyright Act, please electronically forward as soon as feasible the entire copyright infringement notice set forth below to the ACCOUNT HOLDER OF IP ADDRESS at 2015-01-31 xx:xx North American Eastern Time and inform us on behalf of Rights Owner once it has been forwarded or (if applicable) the reason it was not possible for you to do so.***

February 26, 2015

IP ADDRESS xx.xx.xx.xx at 2015-01-31 xx:xx North American Eastern Time
Re: Notice of Unauthorized Use of Copyright Owned by Paperstreet Media LLC, Case #: XXXXX

This notice is intended solely for the primary Managed Network Systems service account holder.
 CEG TEK International (“CEG”) is the agent for Paperstreet Media LLC (hereinafter “Rights Owner”) whose address is 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 304, Miami, FL 33132, US. All communications with Paperstreet Media LLC with respect of this notice should be made to our attention as its agent. CEG’s contact information is shown below.
 Rights Owner owns all right, title and interest, including copyrights, in and to the work listed below (hereinafter the “Work”). (Some individuals may find certain words in titles of works to be offensive. CEG apologizes in advance if this is the case.)
Your Internet account has been identified as having been used in the unauthorized copying, performance, and/or distribution, via peer-to-peer sharing, of the Work listed below. (Note that the time/date noted is the time/date that the unauthorized copying was identified. The actual downloading, copying, and/or distribution through your Internet account may have begun or occurred significantly earlier.)

Copyright Owner: Paperstreet Media LLC
Unauthorized File Name: *****mp4 
Unauthorized Hash: xxxxx Unauthorized File Size: xxx Unauthorized Protocol: BitTorrent Timestamp: 2015-01-31 xx:xx North American Eastern Time Unauthorized IP Address: ***.*.***.*** Unauthorized Port: 51413
The following files were included in the unauthorized copying, performance, and/or distribution:
File 1: ****.mp4

Paperstreet Media LLC is the sole and exclusive owner and distributor of the Work in Canada, and at no time have you, or anyone using your account, received authorization or consent to download or distribute Rights Owner’s exclusive property.

Your ISP has forwarded this notice to you pursuant to provisions of the Canada Copyright Act.

In Canada, the unauthorized copying, performance, and/or distribution of Rights Owner’s Work is illegal and is subject to civil sanctions (with statutory damages of up to $5,000 or non-statutory damages that could be higher) and/or criminal sanctions, and is a violation of the Canada Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42).  The recent amendments to the Copyright Act, which came into force on November 2012, have confirmed Rights Owner’s right to have its copyright protected in Canada.

Moreover, such copying, performance and/or distribution of unauthorized works may also violate (i) the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, (ii) the Universal Copyright Convention, (iii) bilateral treaties with other countries (including Canada), and/or (iv) the copyright laws of Canada.

If you have questions about your legal rights, you should consult with your own legal counsel (i.e., barrister, solicitor, lawyer, and/or attorney).


You have until Saturday, March 28, 2015 to access the settlement offer and settle online.  To access the settlement offer, please visit and enter Case #: xxxx and Password: xxx. To access the settlement offer directly, please visit

Settlement Information: 
Direct Settlement Link:

If this matter is not resolved by the date shown above, the original settlement offer will no longer be an option and any future resolution may require an increased payment from you.
In the event that Rights Owner proceeds with legal action against you, you will be required to produce all relevant documents, including electronic documents and files that bear on Rights Owner’s claim against you.  Until this matter is resolved, whether by settlement or otherwise, we require you to accept this as written notice to preserve any and all hard drives or other means of electronic storage used with your above referenced IP address and to take no steps whatsoever to remove, erase, discard, conceal, destroy or delete from any means of electronic storage any evidence of piracy and/or other illegal or unauthorized downloading and distribution of Rights Owner’s Work.

This notice is NOT a bill or invoice.  It is a notice made on behalf of Rights Owner of (i) a potential claim against you and/or those who you have allowed access to your Internet account for infringement of the Rights Owner’s copyright in the Work, and (ii) an opportunity to completely resolve that claim now.
Nothing contained or omitted from this correspondence is, or shall be deemed to be either a full statement of the facts or applicable law, an admission of any fact, or waiver or limitation of any of Rights Owner’s rights or remedies, all of which are specifically retained and reserved.
The information in this notice is accurate. CEG has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of herein is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by operation of law. CEG and the undersigned declare under penalty of perjury, that CEG is authorized to act on behalf of Paperstreet Media LLC.

CEG TEK International 
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
United States of America
Toll Free: +1-877-526-7974 




  1. Korla Plankton says:

    Please make your thoughts known to Minister Moore at

    • B. M. Armstrong says:

      Mr. Moore:

      Canadians have no wish to become AMERICANS, contrary to Mr. Harper and the rest of the party you represent! The convoluted and underhanded methods used by your party and this current government have caused MILLIONS of dollars worth of pain and suffering to the Canadian Public! Let us not blur the lines that the BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT set out! Leave CANADIAN COMMON LAW INTACT. Modernizing is one thing, but what your government and YOU Mr. Minister are doing to the average Canadian is DEPLORABLE AND DESPICABLE!
      Since the big TELCO’s appear to be in the POCKETS of the people that are supposed to represent myself and the general public, (not to mention the CRTC that appears to be VOICELESS to you people!)…….. If the big tel-cos admit to being POWERLESS to stop the use of the internet being used for Criminal activities , fraud and (HEAVENS!) Copyright of material (whatever happened to taping your favorite show and watching it later?Whatever happened to EDUCATIONAL USE?) then what gives you and your government the right to fritter away OUR RIGHTS under Canadian Law? DO SOMETHING about the companies coming into Canada and sending ILLEGAL and Improper notices of COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT. This is CANADA not AMERICA…….we are NORTH OF THE 49th parallel in case your schooling didn’t get that far! The instruments they are using to intercept our communications, what law governs their use? What law protects intercepted private communications? What is our government doing to ensure LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY and INDEMNIFICATION?
      One last thing MR MINISTER : If I download a file that is called XYZ New Movie, what proof does anyone have that the said file XYZ New Movie is , in FACT, a copyrighted material? What if everyone starts sending files with the same name? A COPY of a COPYRIGHTED WORKS, while it may be Intellectual Property infringement etc. , is just that A COPY! 99 percent of all the COPIED material out there are BACKUPS TO LEGAL COPIES THAT WERE PURCHASED! Anyone that did not intend to buy some movie or game or TV show, in the first place, has not cheated anyone out of a sale that was not going to happen in the first place! Giving these groups of LOBBYIST TYPES Carte Blanche to come into Canada and PISS AND MOAN about there losses, opens up the flood gates and a Pandora’s Box of WORMS! Don’t let these YANKS, get a foot in our doors! The onus is on THEM to PROVE , before ANYONE should part with one red (Canadian) Cent, Mr. Minister!
      With all the Canada Post Super Boxes, Bank Fees going up (can you imagine a bloody fee for paying your mortgage???? Who thinks this shit up anyway?) Mike Duffy, Whallen etc. THERE IS VERY LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY ANYWHERE ANYMORE!

      Please prove me wrong Mr. Minister!
      (And have a great week)!

  2. Since CEG TEK is offering to sell a settlement, would these notices now be considered unsolicited commercial email? They should be treated the same as Compu-Finder:

  3. Bill Stewart says:

    In the absence of a specific process for rejecting false copyright claims, don’t they default to counting as mail fraud / wire fraud, both in Canada and the US?
    It’s roughly the same as getting mail from a “corrupt Nigerian bank official”.

  4. Devil's Advocate says:

    I still say, there is no possible law that would obligate a Canadian provider to forward anything containing false or misleading information, or containing any content that is not relevant to the notice process (such as the settlement “offer”) to its customers.

    The provider still has the legal right to refuse to forward the notice as is, and demand a more appropriate one to forward – one that properly reflects Canadian Law, and omits the “offer” entirely, as the notice process is really a completely INAPPROPRIATE VENUE, from a legal standpoint, for such “deals”. Additionally, a provider should also not be obligated to be in a position that becomes part of the threat process against its own customers.

    Any provider that forwards anything to its customers resembling the Rightscorp / CEG TEK examples we’re seeing here is doing itself and its customers a complete disservice. On top of that, to include the settlement “offer”, as written, without any qualifying information added to it, shows a complete lack of concern for those customers receiving it. Without any counter-information provided, customers have no good reason to think their providers are not also part of the threat.

    • Please, I beg you: cite SOMETHING that is legally binding.

      • Devil's Advocate says:

        I don’t understand what you’re saying.

        My comment described what providers are NOT legally obliged to do, and what they SHOULD consider doing, if they have any appreciation for their customers.

        Are you asking me to cite a negative?

        • Under the Copyright Modernization Act (bill c-11) Internet service providers ARE REQUIRED to forward ALL notices received that meet a minimum specification. The providers much forward the messages without altering them, and must also notify the claimant that the notice has been sent, or provide a reason that it was unable to send. There are also record keeping requirements, and failure to comply can allow the claimant ground for statutory damages up to $10,000.

          • Devil's Advocate says:

            I’m aware of the clause.

            My point is, it can’t override everyone’s basic right to refuse to pass along (or RECEIVE!) false or misleading information. Nor should it force providers to jeopardize their relationships with their customers.

            If a law stands to conflict with these principles, it is unjust, and can’t rightfully be enforced.

            I’m just saying there’s a legal argument for striking the law, or ordering it rewritten to conform with reason-ability and logic.

        • @Devil’s Advocate: I could be wrong, but I took kp’s remark to mean that legal or binding is less a matter of law than of something else. In other words, for some entities nothing is really legally binding.

          Anyway, I agree with you that ISP’s may do well to consider what they look like to their customers.

        • I’m asking you to cite the laws/regulations that ‘give ISPs the leeway to refuse to forward notices where they contain misleading or inaccurate information.’ Is it in the Consumer Protection Act? Is it in the Charter? From you comments, it would appear that you have an understanding of what ISP’s legal obligations are (and aren’t) as well as everyone’s basic rights — I’m just asking where you’re getting that information. Lawyers need to know this, and the question of whether to comply with the Act as it is written, or use other law to interpret exceptions, is ultimately up to lawyers.

          Or are you saying that ISPs should fight this in court? It didn’t sound like that to me since you appear to think the issue is clear cut (as in, there is existing law/regulations addressing this issue, which I’m asking you to cite.) If you ARE saying that ISPs should fight this in court, I absolutely agree. Unfortunately that does nothing to help the smaller ISPs who don’t have the resources to take that risk. I sincerely hope that Bell or Rogers or someone with deep pockets steps up to the plate on this.

          For the record, I completely agree that ISPs who forward these notices are doing a disservice to their customers, however it isn’t clear that they have a choice. From section 41.26 of C-11, it appears that they don’t. I wouldn’t expect small ISPs to risk their livelihood by opening themselves up to potentially catastrophic legal action but I would hope that the big players will.

          • Just to show you that I’m not simply here to argue, I will point out that 41.26 (1) (a) states:

            “as soon as feasible forward the notice electronically to the person to whom the electronic location identified by the location data specified in the notice belongs and inform the claimant of its forwarding or, if applicable, of the reason why it was not possible to forward it”

            That last part is why I’m asking you to cite something that could be used in the ISP’s response to the claimant as the reason why it is ‘not possible to forward it.’

          • Devil's Advocate says:

            So, in other words, you are asking me to cite a negative, in the form of some “law” that actually states the “right” to refuse to be a party to bad information?

            I’ll put it to you this way: Try citing for yourself any law that actually states an obligation for anyone to be a party to false or misleading information.

            As to whether providers should be fighting this so-called “requirement” in court, I’m saying they should be doing even better than that.

            They should be replying to the trolling firm, stating that they cannot forward the notice “AS IS”, and asking for a replacement notice to forward – one that properly reflects Canadian law and provides a balanced explanation of the so-called “settlement offer”.

            If the trolling company refuses to comply, then the provider should continue with the refusal, leaving the trolls with the option of either taking the provider to court or throwing the whole request.

            I sincerely doubt the trolling company would have a leg to stand on in court in trying to force the ISP to lie to its own customers.

          • @D.A. It has been mentioned in this thread several times already bill C-11 is in fact the law that obliges ISPs to pass along misleading or false information. It is a poorly worded clause in a bad law, but is is still The Law, and unless you can cite another law or precedent that negates that obligation, it is The Law and violation of it has very specific consequences, also spelled out in the same piece of legislation: Up to $10,000 statutory damages per violation.
            There may well be several good precedents to overrule this, but they have not been tried in a court of law as a defense, so for now, ISPs are obliged to pass along whatever false and misleading notices are provided or risk being sued for statutory damages by the complainant.
            The rights holders may not be willing to dump more money into a lawsuit for an individual where the cost will overrun the maximum return, but they are likely to target an ISP where a single suit can result in damages for hundreds or thousands of violations for practically the same cost.

          • @Devil’s Advocate — You state “The provider still has the legal right to refuse to forward the notice as is”

            My question is which Act or legal precedent are you reading that gives you this idea? It is easy to say these things, and I want to agree with you — that’s why I’m asking for specifics. Legal rights are, by definition, enshrined in law. Are you sure you don’t mean ‘natural right’? Anyway, this is sort of a sideshow issue.

            “Try citing for yourself any law that actually states an obligation for anyone to be a party to false or misleading information.”

            Section 41.26(1)(a) of the very bill we’ve been discussing appears to do just that. That’s what this whole thing is about!

            “I sincerely doubt the trolling company would have a leg to stand on in court in trying to force the ISP to lie to its own customers.”

            Three things: 1. Your sincere doubt means nothing to ISPs who are deciding how to respond to these trolls 2. What specific falsehood (‘lie’) exists in CEG TEK’s notice? 3. ISPs tend to prefix these notices with language that reiterates the customer’s rights. Phrases like ‘Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean that you have in fact infringed copyright or that you will be sued for copyright infringement’ and ‘The Notice and Notice regime does not impose any obligations on a subscriber who receives a notice and it does not require the subscriber to contact the copyright owner or the intermediary’ appear in most of the notices I’ve seen. ISP’s ability to potentially mitigate the language in the notice is a reason FOR forwaring the notice.

            The thing is, I don’t disagree with what you’re trying to get at. I would like to see ISPs responding to trolls in the very way that you describe. My point is that in a legal matter, the opinions of non-lawyers that aren’t backed up by at least a lay reading of a legal document are frankly not worth the discussion. This is why I begged for some kind of citation: because I would sincerely love to see something more than just unbridled opinion (no matter how much I may agree with that unbridled opinion)

          • Devil's Advocate says:

            It’s alarming that so many people would believe a law that can force people to pass along false or misleading information (generally a offense in itself) could legally exist. What’s next, a law that forces us to slap our mothers?

            For a new law to exist, it needs to survive the necessary challenges. If people aren’t willing to challenge an unjust law, it will survive.

            Providers are currently acting as if this thing’s a done deal, before considering how important it is to THEMSELVES (never mind their customers) that they at least test the waters by taking the initiative with questions and challenges.

            It’s like there’s been no thought whatsoever to the idea that they could very possibly get the new law overturned with the most minimal of effort. They’re not demonstrating any desire to do the right thing, not that that should surprise me.

          • “What’s next, a law that forces us to slap our mothers?”

            For crying out loud!!

            Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

            265. (1) A person commits an assault when

            (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

            It took me seconds to find that. It should tell you something. Do you understand what the problem is yet?

            OF COURSE it needs to be tested in court if the government allows it to stand as is. That is the problem! That is the whole point of the discussion! It’s going to have to go to court because, as you’ve illustrated, there doesn’t seem to be a safe, legal way to get out of it. So, who is it going to be that tests it?

            There are questions which might yield a productive discussion and I have put some of them forward but you are not interested in discussing them. When an ISP ends up in court about this, what exactly do you think the arguments are going to be? Falsehoods? Which falsehoods? Extortion? Well, that would likely be a counter-suit in a criminal court, wouldn’t it? Is that what you call ‘minimal effort’?

            You are no longer having a discussion but restating the same position over and over.

          • Devil's Advocate says:

            1) “For crying out loud!!
            Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
            265. (1) A person commits an assault when…”

            There are also laws concerning the propagation of false or misleading information. What difference would it make which law another law would have you break?

            2) “OF COURSE it needs to be tested …That is the whole point of the discussion! … there doesn’t seem to be a safe, legal way to get out of it. So, who is it going to be that tests it?”

            Indeed, the provider is the one being presented with the supposed “obligation” to forward false info. Who else should test it?

            If I owned a business similarly affected by such an “obligation”, I would be replying to the complaining party to begin the pushback process, as it would be my right to ask for any needed clarity, or for something more appropriate before gambling with my income base (my customers). I would be willing to let them take me to court should they continue to want me to lie to my customers. I’m sure the case would have merit.

            There’s nothing in the new law that properly outlines what kind(s) of info would be considered unacceptable/unallowable, and that’s where a big whole exists that should be explored before this thing gets completely away from us.

            The only way to do this seems to be to have it go to court right away, and the only one in the position to do that is the provider.

          • “Exactly!
            There are also laws concerning the propagation of false or misleading information.”

            Which is what I asked you to cite in the first place.

            And again, you have not answered my question as to what information in the CEG TEK claim you think is false. Considering that your argument hinges on this, I don’t think any further discussion can happen until you do.

          • Devil's Advocate says:

            “… I asked you to cite…”

            I think you’re too hung up on citation to see where I’m going. My primary point here is that there can’t be a law that forces the dissemination of false or misleading info.

            You’ve cited this law as an example of being forced to pass along the information, regardless of its contents. What it doesn’t actually say is that you’re obliged to pass false information. Therefore, you haven’t cited anything that says anything to that effect.

            The notice process wants the NOTICE itself forwarded. What the process doesn’t address is the CONTENT PARAMETERS. It doesn’t outline ALL of what can and can’t be part of it.

            Surely a provider sees a big gaping hole there where there should be some specifications as to what must be forwarded, and what should be disallowed in that notice.

            If I were a provider, I would be more concerned with what could happen if I simply complied, than I would be if I challenged its content. Of course, that’s me, and not necessarily anyone else in that position.

            “… what information in the CEG TEK claim you think is false.”

            I’ll first comment that the CEG notice *appears* to not exaggerate the possible penalty (with Rightscorp, the false information was very blatant)… however, what I do see, is a deliberate attempt to leave all their options for claim and remedy OPEN….

            “Nothing contained or omitted from this correspondence is, or shall be deemed to be either a full statement of the facts or applicable law, an admission of any fact, or waiver or limitation of any of Rights Owner’s rights or remedies, all of which are specifically retained and reserved.”

            This statement is basically saying they’re probably not telling you everything about their intended claim, or how much it’s really going to cost to shut them up. That puts the entire notice itself in the “misleading” category.

            This is significant, as there were others who have received similar from CEK and have paid the settlement, only to get hit later with more claims from CEK. Those people were definitely misled by the notice to think the settlement would end it.

            I also find the “deadline” to pay up to be questionable, but I’m not saying I know for sure that it’s improper at this time.

            One other clip…

            I believe that’s there to try to cover their own asses about any “inadequacies” in the information itself, and make the notice appear more “neutral” to the recipient. I’m not saying there’s anything atypical about that. I’m just noting it for interest’s sake.

          • @Devil’s Advocate

            “I think you’re too hung up on citation to see where I’m going.”

            I don’t think it is worthwhile pursuing this line of discussion further. Your opinion and ‘where you are going’ has been clear for some time and you aren’t going to find and cite an Act or prescedent that would bring this discussion beyond the airing of your opinion.

            The snippets you post from the CEG TEK notice indicate only that they are the scum of the earth. They do not contain falsehoods nor are they misleading.

  5. They’re getting smarter. $150 is a small enough amount that people might pay it without giving it too much thought.

    • There is another, rarely reported issue here.

      I receive many emails from the CEG-TEK and Rightscorp victims, and some of them say that after they paid a “nuisance” amount without thinking twice, they were hit by a much larger demand. These are Mafioso ways: the ones who pay quickly are considered weak and thus are subject for further milking.

      • I don’t think it’s a matter of “the ones who pay quickly are considered weak”, so much as the ones who pay have effectively admitted guilt. That means that the troll can hit them up for more money without having to prove anything. It’s a trap.

        • That’s just arguing semantics. The results are the same. It’s clearly not about seeing justice done, but instead, a quick payout.

          It’s sleezy, but then again, so is CEG TEK’s client list, which contains nothing but adult entertainment companies.

          I highly doubt anyone will get taken to court in Canada over this. The potential rewards for CEG TEK and its clients far outweigh the costs involved.

  6. Dawn Hobs says:

    Seems to me that the most “interesting” method of dealing with these could be to respond, saying only that “this message has come into my possession” (ie admitting nothing) and seeing what they do.

    The *instant* they demand anything that is not allowed by law – because now THEY and YOU are actually communicating directly – they may be contravening one or more commercial laws, extortion etc.

    That may provide the economic (class action), criminal (extortion) or civil (simple misuse of laws – even nuisance cases against them) to bring them to their knees and wake up our slumbering government.

  7. “The notice raises many concerns. First, CEG TEK is using the Canadian notice system to send thousands of demand letters at no cost. In fact, the cost is effectively borne by consumers, since Internet providers are required to forward the notifications and will ultimately pass along the charges in the form of higher access fees. The government was asked to include a fee, but having declined to do so, effectively invited abuse of the system.”

    Are not the infringers the ones who should be blamed for the costs?

    • Devil's Advocate says:

      You can “blame” anyone you want PRIOR to any judgment of guilt. It doesn’t dismiss the fact that the legal firm should be bearing the cost of its own communication, and not the entire internet community.

      Besides, there’s no intention of taking people to court to actually convict actual infringers. That would cost them far too much time and money. They intend to make their money by scaring the ignorant into paying “the settlement”.

  8. JuanaDalton says:

    All information should be correct and trustful. Any misleading information is kind of the breaking law. essay writing companies provides only correct and reliable information.

  9. I received two emails today for the exact same infringement. One was for 150 and the other 225. I called the number and it all sounded very sketchy. They wanted alot of personal information and wanted to call me back. My neighbour also got an email and she paid it. I told her not to but she did. Then she called her credit card company to stop the payment. She did say that she gave then all false information when they asked for it instead of her credit card number. Visa said she won’t be charged. By the way our provider is rogers. Just curious what others are doing this.

  10. I got hit by the exact same email asking for a $225 settlement fee by Saturday, April 4, 2015. Seems kind of fishy. I did some googling on the internet and came to this forum and people are saying to just ignore it. Not sure what to do but giving any credit information over the internet to a sketchy website is probably not a good idea.

    • Scott, I’d like to know if you have any follow up info on further communications from CEG TEK, now that you are well past your settlement date.

  11. Pingback: Trolls abuse Canadian copyright law with fraudulent mass-scale extortion notices | Rob's Personal Aggregator

  12. So I got one of these as well, my first instinct is that this is a phishing scam, because it is an automated email probably sent our to a lot of people. I have until April to pay the settlement but I’m not sure if I should or not, because something about it seems not right while the email is from my ISP so it is somewhat legitimate. ISP is Rogers, did anyone here pay? or should I ignore this

  13. Thomas, don’t pay. It’s a scam. I clicked the claim link in one I got tonight and they wanted $225 for some porn torrent. If you look around, you’ll see tons of people getting the exact same extortion with a random porn flick being torrented via your IP #. Some people are saying they’re worried by just clicking the link, even if they don’t pay.

    Since the ISPs don’t divulge any personal info, but are only obligated to forward the settlement offer, they can’t have your email address associated with the unique ID and password for the claim to confirm. They can certainly associate the IP you accessed it with, but since the original claim they have the ISP forward to you has your IP already, it doesn’t represent an additional concern.

    If you don’t pay, they’d have to take legal action, then prove you actually infringed their copyright. It’s hard to see how they could possibly prove that. I’d like to see the evidence that proves a given IP address was involved in torrenting these flicks. I suspect that even they took you to court, once you show a judge the information flying around about this scam, the claim would be thrown out.

    I guarantee they simply get your ISP IP pools, information that’s easily obtainable. They may well generate a bogus claim for every IP number. Then the ISP has to send the claim to the customer who is assigned each IP. They are sending thousands and there’s zero merit to them.

    Here’s another forum post from the past week with a bunch of people experiencing the same thing:

  14. Does this help @kp and @Devil’s Advocate? From the gov’t ‘Notice and Notice Regime’ page:

    In other words, if all the bullets are contained in the notice, your ISP ‘must’ forward it.


    Notices must:

    - state the claimant’s name and address;
    - identify the copyright material that is alleged to have been infringed and the claimant’s interest or right with respect to that material;
    - specify the location data (e.g. the web address or Internet address associated with the alleged infringement);
    - specify the infringement that is alleged; and
    - specify the date and time of the alleged infringement.

    Your Internet service provider (ISP) is obligated to forward you any notice that complies with the regime. Your ISP may also be a source of helpful information in terms of understanding the reasons why you were forwarded a notice.

    • Hi James,

      What I was asking Devil’s Advocate was whether he knew of any specific legal protections that he believes would release the ISP from the obligation you’re referring to. I think we reached the conclusion that this would have to be dealt with by the court, which will (based on my admittedly limited understanding) either clarify the law by citing the information I was asking Devil’s Advocate for; by requiring that the Act be ammended, or; by doing neither, which would be a terrible blow to consumer protection imho.


  16. Pingback: More Copyright Trolls Rushing In To Take Advantage Of Canadian Copyright Notice System Loopholes | Technology

  17. Pingback: Tech News / More Copyright Trolls Rushing In To Take Advantage Of Canadian Copyright Notice System Loopholes

  18. Pingback: US firm runs mass copyright shakedown in Canada -

  19. seems like many are getting this email. Shaw cable has this message to their subscribers:

    I and many other people I know recently started receiving these emails with specific and accurate IP address info. It’s not spam.
    Shaw has an FAQ setup since January so it appears to becoming very common.
    “What is copyright infringement? Copyright infringement occurs when protected content is copied, downloaded and/or shared without legal consent from the rights holder.
    Why have I received this notification? You have received a copyright notification as Shaw has been notified by a rights holder that your Internet Protocol (IP) address has been associated with an alleged copyright infringement, and Shaw is legally obligated to forward a copy of the content owner’s notice.
    Content owners, not Shaw, monitor various websites that use sharing services and inform us when a Shaw IP has been associated with a possible copyright infringement.
    Has my information been provided to the rights holder? Shaw will not provide any information regarding customers’ accounts to rights holders without a Canadian court order directing us to do so.
    What are the details of the copyright infringement claim? Right holders will provide certain details about an alleged infringement including title, source, timestamp, and IP. Shaw is unaware of and will not seek any further details related to the copyright infringement claim, nor will Shaw assess the merits of the claim.
    Are you monitoring my Internet usage? Other than quantity of data transfer, Shaw does not monitor your internet usage. The content owner associated with this message has determined that your IP was involved in a copyright infringement claim.
    What should I do now? Shaw is unable to advise you on a course of action, but if you have questions concerning this matter, you may wish to contact the content owner directly. Contact information for the rights owner can be found attached to the notification email.”

  20. I have a quesiton: Should the copyright holder actually go through the process of obtaining your information and bringing your case to court, could you be criminally charged for downloading media content? I’m wondering in the case of seeking employment. Or would this be a fine leaving you with no criminal record.

    • My understanding is that this would be a civil suit, so no criminal record unless it is determined that you were doing it for commercial purposes.

      I am not a lawyer!

  21. Jimmy Rogers says:

    I’m with Bell and I just got two of these notices today for allegedly torrenting some pornography. The IP address on the infringement claim though is not mine, so it appears as if BCE is not only sending these claims to the wrong accounts, but also informing complete strangers of particular customer’s preferences of the nasty! Has anyone else had these infringement claims sent to them with the wrong IP address?

    • Alleged Infringer says:

      @Jimmy Rogers: The IP address in the claim would be your IP address at the time of the infringement, not your current one. Your IP address on Bell changes on a relatively frequent basis. I’ve seen a new IP address multiple times in a day before.

      The problem is that the infringement notices cannot possibly be sent out quickly enough to guarantee your IP address has not changed since the infringement allegedly occurred.

      Of course, having said that, there’s no guarantee that a mistake hasn’t been made, but just because the IP address don’t match isn’t a guarantee that it has been made, either.

  22. shouldi havenot says:

    Unfortunately my wife and I didn’t look on the forums first, and just went on the site and paid (thinking our wifi had been compromised, and that that would be the end of it).

    Please advise if I should cancel my payments, or let it be and ignore any further notices.

  23. Since I didn’t use Google to research this copyright notice first and having opened the settlement offer: does CEG now have my personal information? Am I now obligated to pay the settlement to make this go away or is this really something I shouldn’t worry to much about?

  24. My ex has been receiving these notices for a few days now. Like OOPS, she clicked the link and started the ‘settlement’ process. What are the repercussions of this? Also, are ISP’s able to confirm the download or connection to the Copyright holder’s IP address at the date and time cited in these notices?

    • They can’t do anything if you just click the link. They’d get your IP, which they have already got by trolling torrent sites. They still can’t contact you. If you were silly enough to provide an email address, phone # or, gawd forbid a CC# then they can scam and harass you directly.

      If you don’t pay the scam offer, the only thing they could do is take you to court and then they’d have to prove you torrented the title in question. Their model is built on extorting money through the offer. Period.

      They aren’t on record as actually going through with suits as it’s too expensive and risky.

  25. An email and phone number were given…we shall see if the harassment continues…

    • Canadian Anon says:

      Have you heard anything since?

      • There have been a couple more ‘Notices’ of Infringement, the titles of the porn are getting more creative but no further direct phone or email follow-up from CEG

      • a couple more Notices arrived but no further direct phone or email contact from CEG

  26. I am also in Canada and just received CEG TEK shakedown notice claiming file torrent infringements for some kind of porn movie title back in Feb. I’m glad I found this post I have no idea as to the material they claimed was downloaded from my IP honestly could have been anyone connected to my Wifi of which I’ve since changed the password and tried to secure better. Instead of bringing public awareness as the Government had hoped it seems to created Extortion. That is to send a notice as such and then demand $150+ to be paid for said infringement by a deadline date, meanwhile in reality there is no legal obligation to pay any settlement offered by the a copyright owner well unless Sued and found guilty in Canadian Court. Its a scare tactic with financial gains going to Trolls the Government needs to to put something in place to protect not to allow their Citizens to be scammed by people like this. I could only imagine how many people got scared into paying this settlements for now I will ignore in the hopes nothing else comes of this?

    • I got the same notice from my ISP, and it wanted to to pay a “settlement” by April 15th, I’m not going to pay it, and I’m going to invest in getting Private Internet Access and use that at the end of this month. As people on here are saying, ignore it, you will be fine. They’re not known to follow through with the suit.

      • Gov’t needs to make revisions to this law to protect people from being scammed by these Trolls. Also Might be a good idea to invest in a VPN offshore heard Swedish VPN’s are they way to go for now.

  27. I received two notices from CEG TEK in the last days. They both offer to settle for 225$.
    From what I understand from all of the above, I really shouldn’t pay these amounts as there are in fact VERY MINIMAL chances the rights owner actually brings me to court. Does anyone disagree with that?
    Is there a history of people actually being brought to court for illegal downloading in Canada?
    Thanks in advance!

  28. How does the fact that these same porn producers put their movies on countless free streaming sites which can be easily downloaded with extensions on say Firefox, impact their claim. They themselves are giving their movies away even essentially if you don’t download it. I understand the principle of ownership but trolls like me who don’t reseed downloads…I know, bad me. But this fact alone that they themselves distribute their wares for free has to almost negate their claim. I get that they can pull the movie whenever they see fit, but really, it’s the internet, once it’s posted its out there.

    • One of the key phrases you’ll see in these notices is ‘unauthorized use.’ I don’t believe the presence of the movie on free sites does anything to affect their claim, although if you were taken to court it could potentially have an impact on the damages awarded (recall that $5,000 is a *maximum*)

      I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice!

  29. Basically, summarizing all posts and provided links my thoughts are:

    1. Your internet provider had to forward these notes (Bell, Rogers, Shaw all have done this)
    2. This notices are not legal and you must not to settle anything.
    3. In a very worse case scenario you can be obliged to pay maximum $5000 CDN
    And I don’t think any copyright holder will decided to go through all legal formalities, because they will have to pay to their lawyers more than $5000 CDN, so there is no sense for them do this.

    Based on these facts I think they just counting on quantity of sent emails and “weak criminals” :). If at least 10 of 100 recipients will “settle” their cases – they will get more than two grand. And if they’ve sent 10000 emails – it’s $22500…

    I myself always paid them before so $225. At first they write that settlement will be some minimal fee equal price of DVD. But when I saw $225 I decided to get out of there and luckily I’ve found this forum.

    Just one concern though, in improbable scenario – if they decide to sue you and you at this moment are travelling in US, can they detain you and apply US law?

    Cheers and be strong

    • “Just one concern though, in improbable scenario – if they decide to sue you and you at this moment are travelling in US, can they detain you and apply US law?”

      If you did the piracy while you were in the US, then ‘maybe’ (though who would they be sending the notice to? Your hotel? Whoever you were visiting?)

      If you did the piracy in Canada and they decided to sue you while you were in the US, then ‘no.’ You are being sued under Canadian law.

      I am not a lawyer!

  30. I received the notices last week. Was worried and seriously considering paying it out. VERY glad I researched it…. This forum in particular has put my mind (mostly) at ease. No way I’m paying it out. Craziness.

  31. Recently received one of these notices for a movie that was downloaded & accidentally seeded (I fell asleep) for a few hours. Should I be concerned about being taken to court? Anxious.

  32. troll-hater says:

    I started receiving those emails from CEGTEK via Bell Canada a few weeks ago, and I’m getting them still at a rate of several a week. I didn’t download any of the stuff they are referring to, have never even heard of them, and feel the need to take a shower after seeing the titles. At this point, I consider it harassment by proxy.

    Bell says to contact the sender of the email directly, and not them, but I knew there was something wrong when I saw the first one. Neither I nor anyone in my household has downloaded this stuff and Bell assures me my WiFi is secure. Someone may or may not have downloaded a TV show, for which I received ONE warning notice via Bell from a legitimate network, with nothing regarding paying up to avoid future problems, and I wonder whether whoever does the spying for them is selling them to this other person.

    At this point, I am having anything from that particular Bell email account sent directly to my spam folder and am looking for a new ISP.

    • I wound suggest not contacting them and not paying unless in the rare event they open a court case then the Canadian ISP will have to give them your info. Otherwise your info will not be given to CEG TEK by the ISP. Why would you be switching ISP’s as they all have to follow the same rules for the notice and notice system the gov’t put in place anyway.

      Very useful info read information

      • troll-hater says:

        Yes, I understand, and you’re quite right: they all have to forward notices. I guess I’m just p.o.d at Bell for other reasons. I have no intention of paying these people or contacting them at all. Let them open a court case.

  33. I should have researched before I was about to pay but I was scared(weak) and clicked the link. I filled out my info and the payment was rejected (incomplete( so technically I didn’t pay. However they now have my info.
    Anyone else provide info and did CEG come back with more emails?

    • My ex did something similar and beyond one return phone call from the villians and one return email, nothing else. She did receive a few more notices of other bogus downloads and then so far that’s it

  34. I received 3 Emails from these weirdos and a fews other from another group.
    Getting really sick of this.

  35. i am confuse i know chances are low to get sue they billed me 1800$ and i clicked the link too just wondering. i am very scared too if they take me to the court and proof i am guilty is that gonna show on criminal background check.

    • Don’t worry. Its not criminal. You wont get deported. You wont see jail. Do not pay!!!! Prolly some educated jihadis running this.

  36. This is All American Fear Mongering at its best creeping it’s way into our Canadian psyche. Shame on us for letting this happen. We should welcome a lawsuit, then start a kickstarter campaign that would scare the shit out of these All American gangsters sending them back to their country with their tail between their legs.

    I for one will donate to a kickstarter that is meant to fight these trolls in our Country.

    • You so right friend. For instance our oil. They have a lame contract that we are losers either way. Some crazy ass policy. I will donate too.

  37. Just don’t want the wifee to find out about the porn. lol. I m not a lawyer but bell or rogers would have to take you to court. An email from the plaintiff is just to scare you into paying. Its a creative scam. Too many holes in this email. Besides if someone was suing you, you would receive a notice in the physical mailbox.
    Even if you paid, it does not mean they still won’t come after you for more money later or from some other movie like above comments stated. The plaintiff would have to take Bell or Rogers to court for the names of the ip addresses in question. And even if they happen to score they would still have to prove it in court. And these days there is too many spoof ip addresses so anybody could have gained access to your ip address. Too many variables. Draw your own conclusions. I wouldnt give in even if you are guilty. Stop using torrents. Thats how they find out. There are torrent sites that are super private. Also the site you downloaded all that is still up and still uploading same content you receiving threats over. Why? Because the torrent sites are in on it. lol.
    Its funny California is where they come up with super inventions and super ideas. Too bad they ran out of water and now have to rely on sea water.

  38. Who cares about revealing ones porn consumption. Its a 30 billion dollar a year industry no one uses…

    I would throw at them an addiction defense and that they are required to help me recover from my addiction. The research is well documented about the affects porn has on the brain and the addiction it creates. And these same producers give their product away for free all day every day. Its like the crack dealer giving you a free sample whenever you wanted it, just not as hi-def dose, but the end results are the same, A fix is a fix for an addict. These guys really are treading into murky waters that could legitimately cause them jeopardy.

    Hell I’m getting emails for violations that occurred prior to the Canadian Law coming into effect.

  39. Beyondthis says:

    I find the association with a porn site, using my IP addy to bounce their abusive crap into the www is pretty sick.
    …Even more, I am upset that some loophole in Canadian Law would give them a chance to bilk some weaker minded or more careless individuals from a US location.
    It makes me wonder if their address (CEG TEK) given is a legitimate address.
    They’re gonna have to sue to get anything from me, and if they do, I want all those who offered to donate to the test case to cough up.
    Probably just as likely….

  40. Pingback: The burden Canadian Copyright law is placing on higher ed institutions |

  41. Pingback: Shaw Copyright Notice - REVscene Automotive Forum

  42. I just got a few of these notices from my Canadian ISP. The alleged downloads occurred while the IP was under “protection” of PureVPN servers. Go figure.
    Thanks for the advice.

    • I visited the site here: . They do say they don’t keep logs of your activity, so it should theoretically be impossible for anybody to get your IP. What software were you using to download with? Are you sure that software was configured properly to use the VPN connection (ie, for bittorrent, you need to use a forwarded port), or was it connecting directly to the internet?