Comments for Federal Court Grants Delay in Voltage File Sharing Lawsuits at http://www.michaelgeist.ca , comment 1 to 178 out of 20 comments http://www.michaelgeist.ca Mon, 20 May 2013 09:34:19 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-52407 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 ! - don Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:38:13 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50793 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. - Jeff Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:14:52 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50731 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. - Nemo Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:03:51 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50694 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? :) - LordDread Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:04:09 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50620 I'll email The Law Society of Upper Canada to see if they can refer me to the appropriate lawyer. Thanks - TheAccused Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:57:52 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50619 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 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:43:41 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50618 I wasn't aware CIPPIC could provide consultation services? - TheAccused Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:18:08 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50617 >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 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:07:20 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50616 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 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:43:10 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50615 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 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:52:08 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50610 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 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:26:55 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50581 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. - Jane Doe Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:20:57 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50579 So, as been said too many times to count, better to innovate than litigate. Someday they'll get it. - Crockett Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:35:42 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50577 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. - Grunt Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:21:31 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50575 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. - DD Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:36:52 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50562 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. - Grunt Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:02:59 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50561 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 - DD Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:01:24 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50560 >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? - Grunt Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:46:39 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50559 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 Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:02:06 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6723/125/#comment-50558 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. - DD Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:44:45 +0100