Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Downloading Decision: Federal Court Establishes New Safeguards on Disclosures in File Sharing Suits

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Downloading Decision: Federal Court Establishes New Safeguards on Disclosures in File Sharing Suits

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday February 20, 2014
The federal court has released its much anticipated decision in Voltage Pictures v. Does, a case involving demands that TekSavvy, a leading independent ISP, disclose the identities of roughly 2,000 subscribers alleged to have downloaded movies without authorization. The case attracted significant attention for several reasons: it is the first major "copyright troll" case in Canada involving Internet downloading (the recording industry previously tried unsuccessfully to sue 29 alleged file sharers), the government sought to discourage these file sharing lawsuits against individuals by creating a $5,000 liability cap for non-commercial infringement, TekSavvy ensured that affected subscribers were made aware of the case and CIPPIC intervened to ensure the privacy issues were considered by the court. Copies of all the case documents can be found here.

The court set the tone for the decision by opening with the following quote from a U.S. copyright case:

"the rise of so-called 'copyright trolls' - plaintiffs who file multitudes of lawsuits solely to extort quick settlements - requires courts to ensure that the litigation process and their scarce resources are not being abused."

The court was clearly sensitive to the copyright troll concern, noting that "given the issues in play the answers require a delicate balancing of privacy rights versus the rights of copyright holders. This is especially so in the context of modern day technology and users of the Internet."

So how did the court strike the balance?

In short, by issuing a split decision. The court ruled that Voltage Pictures had met the legal standard for an order to disclose subscriber names and addresses, but it established a series of conditions and protections that extend far beyond previous cases. The conditions include court oversight of the "demand letter" that will be sent to subscribers, with a Case Management Judge assigned to review and approve its contents before being sent to any subscriber. Moreover, the letter must include a message in bold type that "no Court has yet made a determination that such subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages."

The win for Voltage Pictures is the order to disclose the subscriber names and addresses. The court felt bound by the Federal Court of Appeal Sony BMG case, which established that a "bona fide" claim is the standard needed for a court order (CIPPIC had argued for a higher "prima facie" standard). The court found that Voltage met the bona fide standard based on its statement of claim.

While Voltage argued that should be the end of the issue and privacy issues should not be a concern, the court was extremely troubled by the prospect of copyright trolling. It stated:

"This [Voltage's position] would be an acceptable position but for the spectre raised of the 'copyright troll' as it applies to these cases and the mischief that is created by compelling the TekSavvy's of the world to reveal private information about their customers. There is also the very real spectre of flooding the Court with an enormous number of cases involving the subscribers many of whom have perfectly good defences to the alleged infringement. Finally, the damages against individual subscribers even on a generous consideration of the Copyright Act damage provisions may be miniscule compared to the cost, time and effort in pursuing a claim against the subscriber."

Having cited the dangers of copyright trolling (and noted the limited damages available in these cases), the court canvassed the caselaw in the U.S. and the U.K. and identified principles that go beyond prior Canadian caselaw.  First, where there is compelling evidence of "improper motive" of a plaintiff, the court might consider denying the motion entirely.  Second, if such evidence is unavailable, there are numerous safeguards that can be established.

In this case, the court ruled that there is some evidence that Voltage has been engaged in litigation which may have an improper purposes, but not enough to deny the motion altogether. Instead, the court ordered release of the subscriber names and addresses with the following safeguards:
  • the case will be managed by a Case Management Judge
  • TekSavvy will only disclose subscriber name and address information
  • Voltage will pay all reasonable legal costs incurred by TekSavvy before the release of any information
  • the demand letter to subscribers will include a copy of the court order and "clearly state in bold type that no court has yet made a determination that such subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages"
  • the contents of the demand letter will be approved by the parties (including CIPPIC) and the Case Management  Judge
  • any further cases brought against subscribers will also be case managed
  • the information released by TekSavvy will remain confidential, will not be disclosed to other parties, and will not be used for other purposes. The information will not be disclosed to the general public or the media.
The safeguards are significant, since they ensure the active involvement of the courts in the sending of demand letters and likely eliminate unwarranted scare tactics about potential liability. Moreover, given the cap on liability and the increased legal costs the court involvement will create (not to mention paying legal fees for the ISP), it calls into question whether copyright trolling litigation is economically viable in Canada. The federal court was clearly anxious to discourage such tactics and its safeguards certainly make such actions less likely.
Comments (113)add comment

pat donovan said:

and now from the other side
You get trolled on youtube. I used '16 tons' as background music and there have been 4 people who claim management right, to it so far.

including an person called 'astiser', i believe. scraping for fun and profit here, i think. i should throw sonny and content management people here too.

have fun. Your own videos hbeing claimed by others is next... and LOTS of fun.

pay... errr, PAT! pat is the name...


February 21, 2014

GTCB said:

Great summary
Thank you very much Michael for a concise run-down of this complex issue. Much appreciated. Keep up the good work.
February 21, 2014

Trennam67 said:

...
Mike,
Thank you for the excellent summation. This definitely minimizes their trolling activities. Anyone getting one of these letters can just simply say: "go ahead take me to court." In court costs alone, it will cost them more than the $5000 cap limit that these trolls can potentially extract in settlement from you.
February 21, 2014

ENO said:

Bona Fide
What a joke. Suing 2000 subscribers in a bulk manner has nothing to do with "made or done in an honest and sincere way".
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@Trennam67
"go ahead take me to court." have you considered (or even know?) the prevailing parties get costs? So anyone found guilty will be court ordered to pay the other sides costs'; and that's going to be a hell of a lot more than the $5000!
Geist did mention that somewhere ... at least I hope?
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@curious
You're assuming that's the fine the judge will level.

It could be between $100 and $5000.

So you walk into the court, you say you did it, the judge tells you not to do it again and fines you $100.

Voltage cannot go after you for their costs in such a scenario.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
Once again: the guilty party pays the prevailing parties costs that's the law. "So you walk into the court, you say you did it" then the judge finds you guilty. "Voltage cannot go after you for their costs in such a scenario." Of course they can! That's the law.

Next is whether the Uses were personal, and, non-commercial for that cap to apply; want to guess how few fall into that category?
February 21, 2014

shohel said:

your 60 seconds
Thanks for this advice & important information.
short animated video
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@curious
Can you show me this law that automatically assigns court costs to the losing side?

I do know that a judge CAN assign court costs but only if they feel that the loser was wasting the courts time or was being particular unethical.

But if the defendant comes in and says they did it the judge is not going to demand that they pay thousands in court costs.

Also I don't know if you read the post or understand it but it's pretty clear the court is not on the troll's side, they don't want them bringing anyone to court for this nonsense and they're hardly going to encourage it by making it cheaper for Voltage to do so.

It would appear to be the complete opposite in fact.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
"Also I don't know if you read the post or understand it" I did read the decision, yesterday in fact; Geist can spin it all he wants it won't change the outcome for the guilty parties.

"Can you show me this law that automatically assigns court costs to the losing side?" if it interests you that much google it.

February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@curious
> Geist can spin it all he wants it won't change the outcome for the guilty parties.

Too true, Voltage can scream and cry all they like but alas it would seem their scheme to monetize their copyright for their awful movies just isn't going to be the payday they dream of.

And poor CANPIRE! Those silly sods built a whole business plan based on selling IP addresses and now they're looking pretty worthless.

> if it interests you that much google it.

I don't have to, I know what the laws say in Canada, courts do not automatically assign costs. They have to be asked and then they decide if its warranted.

Now if a defendant came in and said they didn't download anything and that Voltage is lying to the court and Voltage proves that they did download and share the movie? Well in that scenario I can see the court assigning costs.

Courts hate it when you lie to them.

Voltage has "won" the case but the court isn't giving them any rewards, they're telling them they're going to have to work even harder for less.

That isn't a spin, it's now precedent.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
Wow!, with insight like yours you should be teaching a few of my law classes!
February 21, 2014

end user said:

...
curious said: @bullettruthtony Wow!, with insight like yours you should be teaching a few of my law classes!

Oh so you're a student?
February 21, 2014

Spike said:

Ignorance
@bullettruthtony Nice, except one minor problem you're completely missing, an IP address is not a person.
Should someone get huge fines if their car is stolen and used in a crime? I don't think so. People share their Internet all the time.

So again, how does Voltage "prove" that someone downloaded one of their garbage works with just an IP address as "evidence"?
Short of seizing their computer(s) which would open a whole other can of worms? Waving a magic wand? A crystal ball? A coin toss?
Nevermind this case is about 2 years old, which any such evidence would be long gone by now with no proof it even existed in the first place.
February 21, 2014

Angry Canerdian said:

Glad to see the courts doing their job
This is one of those times I'm particularly proud to be Canadian. Parliament may create some boneheaded legislation, but, unlike the US courts that give trolls carte blanche, our judiciary knows when to rein it in with the public interest being of the utmost importance.
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@bullettruthtony
Well next time you're in class ask the prof if it's automatically assigned or at the judge's discretion.

February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@Spike
Oh for sure an IP address is not a person and some courts have come out and said as much.

However if you did download the movie and if you are standing in front of a judge I would not suggest that you lie about it.

This cannot be stressed enough, don't lie to a judge, they flip their powdered wigs when you do.

Voltage can't prove jack unless they look at your hard drive and find the movie file.

But at the same time an IP address isn't nothing, it is a tenuous connection between the file and the subscriber otherwise Voltage would have gotten nothing.

If someone gets a notice and they didn't download the movie, then by all means fight it of course.

If you did download the movie?

Well the law is pretty clear on the subject, the merits are debatable of course but regardless it's still the law.
February 21, 2014

Angry Canerdian said:

...
@curious: I could be wrong, but I think I recall the legal atmosphere surrounding compensation of plaintiff court costs to be quite unfavorable towards copyright trolls, given the spirit of the law limiting non-commercial damages.
February 21, 2014

Angry Canerdian said:

...
Just to clarify, my allusion to "boneheaded legislation" was in reference to the absolute protection of DRM with no exceptions, not even for transliteration of content for the disabled.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@Angry Canerdian
"the spirit of the law limiting non-commercial damages"
RE: C-11, non-commercial *private* use.

Statutory Damages
The statutory damages in Bill C-11 are very different than those in the previous Copyright Act. Formerly, damages ranged from $500 to $20,000 for each infringement. Bill C-11, by contrast, makes the quantum of damages dependent on the commercial and non-commercial purpose of the infringement. When suing an alleged non-commercial infringer, rights holders can elect statutory damages that will be limited to a range of $100 and $5,000 for all infringements in a single proceeding for all works. This greatly reduces the maximum amount of statutory damages which may be awarded against an individual who infringes copyright for private use and should provide some comfort to consumers.

If someone up loaded, or shared the Works there goes any plea for non-commercial private use.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
"Well next time you're in class ask the prof if it's automatically assigned or at the judge's discretion."

So to be clear, I never said "automatically assigned", what I did say was costs are awarded to the prevailing parties.
A lawyer will ask for costs the judge will determine the amount. It's pretty simple. Why should the burden of costs be placed on the Rights holder if it's proven that someone violated their Rights?
By admitting you're a thief to a court does not discount the other parties legal right to have costs awarded!
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@curious
> what I did say was costs are awarded to the prevailing parties.

No, not "are" CAN be awarded to the prevailing party if the judge says so.

Now in this case the judge may say so but I doubt they would as the ruling and the legislation is geared towards discouraging these cases. The defendant would really have to push some serious buttons for the judgment to come down that hard.

> By admitting you're a thief to

You may want to read more about what theft actually is, if anyone was stealing from Voltage they would have called the cops.

It's good that you're going to law school, you most definitely need some education there.
February 21, 2014

@Canuck said:

False name with my ISP
What happens in the scenario whereby TekSavvy has a pseudo-name on my account vs. my real name? The letter is not address to "me" so to speak, so who's liable?
February 21, 2014

Jason K said:

...
In my opinion here's no such thing as balance in my books when dealing with copyright trolls. This decision is still left very open ended, when it could have been open in shut within months, sparing a Canadian ISP some tremendous communication problems.

My take: http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.co...formation/

It ain't over until Voltage drops the suit completely, and even there there are still very much a lot of questions pertaining to the responsibility of ISPs to validate evidence legal requests for information, that still hasn't been answered. Post NSA, CSEC that worries me as not just a consumer, but as a business person as well. How will the decision not to oppose affect other non-related copyright court cases in the future? That's a question worthy of debate and has been on this case within the legal community itself regarding this particular case.

February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
"Now in this case the judge may say so but I doubt they would as the ruling and the legislation is geared towards discouraging these cases"

If your comment had any merit the case would not be going forward; it is.

"You may want to read more about what theft actually is, if anyone was stealing from Voltage they would have called the cops." It's a civil matter, can't call the cops. I would have thought someone as insightful as yourself would have known that? Hummm

"It's good that you're going to law school, you most definitely need some education there." I could not agree more! Copyright / IP law has to be one of the most confusing things to get your head around!
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@curious
> It's a civil matter, can't call the cops.

Exactly because it's not "theft" so there are no thieves.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
Good read Jason, thank you for posting.
February 21, 2014

curious said:

@bullettruthtony
Find another kid to play with, people like you are just plain boring.

Oh right ... Down with SOPA!!!!
February 21, 2014

Victory said:

Victory for copyright trolls
The decision is a victory for copyright trolls.

The decision opens the previously shut-down in the UK and USA model of a shell company obtaining the rights for an embarrassing porn movie, getting the bittorent IP addresses from an ISP and issuing a demand letter.

The fact that the court said it is to be "case managed" or the letter 'vetted' by the court means absolutely nothing.

It is all about the economics -- avoiding having to file an action against thousands of subscribers ($50 to $150 to $181 depending on where it is filed).

Even if the demand letter is for $100 -- who would not pay $100 but litigate an allegation in open court that she or a member of her family has downloaded an XXX movie.

The order that each intended defendant can get a case conference in the Voltage decision is laughable on its face -- how is the court to handle thousands of case conferences from disparate defendants without short changing them. This is a reverse class action.
February 21, 2014

Scott said:

Question
for clarity sake is downloading a copyrighted movie different from uploading it?

ex ... someone downloads a movie and never shares even a single byte for uploading is that person going to a target for companies like Voltage?
February 21, 2014

Stoo Dent said:

Yay downloadz
This is good. Nobody should ever have to pay. Movies, cable TV, music warez pr0n ITS ALL FREE. If you pay your an Idiot. This is the best thing the courts have done since legal hookers.
February 21, 2014

Bert said:

...
Just because they claim my IP address was used I'd like to see them prove it wasn't spoofed.
Check my hard drives, you'll never find a thing.
If my ISP ever shared my personal info with the USA I'd put them out of business.
February 21, 2014

Charles said:

@Bert
"If you pay your an Idiot."

I love the irony.
February 21, 2014

DrJSmythe said:

@curious
Bullettruthtony is correct. It is NOT theft, it is "infringement". Specifically, "copyright infringement".

Theft is divided , under the Can Criminal Code to be greater than or less than $5000.

If this was theft it would be enforceable by local constabularies. However, it is not theft, therefore it is not.

I am sorry, but I sincerely doubt you are a law student. Your lack of knowledge to comprehend the difference between civil and criminal law and between theft and infringement show a disturbing lack of literacy and critical thinking ability - which is required for the LSAT.

Then again, you never openly stated you are a law student - only alluded to it in a leading manner. A manner very unprofessional, if indeed you were one.
February 21, 2014

l_oaf said:

@bullettruthtony
[Quote]bullettruthtony said:
@curious
> what I did say was costs are awarded to the prevailing parties.

No, not "are" CAN be awarded to the prevailing party if the judge says so.

Now in this case the judge may say so but I doubt they would as the ruling and the legislation is geared towards discouraging these cases. The defendant would really have to push some serious buttons for the judgment to come down that hard.

> By admitting you're a thief to

You may want to read more about what theft actually is, if anyone was stealing from Voltage they would have called the cops.

It's good that you're going to law school, you most definitely need some education there.[]

I'm sorry Tony. If you had taken the time to correctly punctuate and place your commas in their rightful place, I might have actually tried to read your first sentence. But instead, I am not impressed with your condescending tone to, curious, the student.
February 21, 2014

davegravy said:

How will costs be handled @curious @bullettruthtony
Which of you is right will be the determining factor as to whether trolling is profitable in Canada IMO. A settlement of $300 versus a possible fine of $100 plus massive court costs would make most settle regardless of guilt.

The "protections" Michael lists above mean nothing in this context - Voltage having to pay Teksavvy's costs is irrelevant if these can be passed on as court costs to defendants who lose.



February 21, 2014

curious said:

@DrJSmythe
People like you won't prevent people like me from coming to sites like this to voice opinion. My passion for copyright law, although on the other side of many here, is no less valid and is essential to the debate.

Both you and bullettruthtony can play word games all you want but that will not change the fact that Intellectual Property Theft is very much recognized by the Courts, whether you agree or not.

"I am sorry, but I sincerely doubt you are a law student. Your lack of knowledge to comprehend the difference between civil and criminal law..." Jesus you're an old-timer! That (rather pathetic) tactic isn't used anymore DrJSmythe; you guys need new material.
February 21, 2014

davegravy said:

...
Take an extreme hypothetical example - a young adult is found guilty of stealing a $0.25 lollipop but the proof in court is highly technical and costly involving video surveillance and a determination by an expert that the video footage was not maliciously manipulated. Ignoring the low likely-hood that this would ever happen, is the court within it's right to moderate the hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs awarded to the plaintiff in light of the small magnitude of the crime?

I would hope that bullettruthtony is right, although I wouldn't be surprised if not.
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@davegravy
Well the idea of "loser pays" is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, you drag someone to court you'd better be sure you have a case.

Since this is all very new laws and no one is sure how it's all going to play out I doubt the judge would come down do hard on the defendant for going to court even if they did what Voltage said they did.

Unless of course they lie and get busted for it or do something else that upsets the court.

Now in this case it's obvious the courts are not fans of Voltage, they've plainly said they suspect them of being trolls so much so they're making it very hard for them to be trolls, getting someone to pay for their lawyers would run counter to this intention.

So yes, a judge can make the loser pay all or some or none, it all depends on what they hear and what they think.
February 21, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@davegravy
> A settlement of $300 versus a possible fine of $100 plus massive court costs would make most settle regardless of guilt.

Maybe but here's the thing, Voltage would need a far larger settlement to make it worth their while.

I suspect if they do send out demand letters they'll be asking for at least $2,500 per movie.

It all hinges on if they're prepared to shell out 200k to TekSavvy for costs.

If they do they're going to want a heckuvalot more that $300.
February 21, 2014

Terra Fried said:

Theft is theft but not copyright infringement
No matter how you spin it; Intellectual Property Theft, Theft by Proxy, Theft by 80%, Theft by Enabling: It is not directly depriving a person of a sole object, an original piece, merchandise in a store that causes a -1 lost in inventory, or even a "digital key" attached to software. The loss of potential income is an estimate figure only. Years ago (before the internet), and still today, I bet a common person would think the phrase IP Theft meant, "It is where you take someone's work without permission and sell it as if it is their own depriving the original creator of the piece; or even, sell copies of their work and actually received money for selling it, (not make-believe potential loss of future income). But there is more to this than meets the eye. Tek-Savvy had that "rebel" air of being "customer-centered", like that time they put Kevin O'Leary or whatever the heck his name was in his place about "owner stakeholder" crap. And the rep basically said our paying customers are our stakeholders. Now they are being punished by the media horde. This is well beyond honesty now. But what do you expect when we are citizens of a country or at least kowtow to a country south that defines using weapons against a weaker country as "liberation". Calling copyright infringement, IP theft, is only a minor tasteless spin using semantics. Also, I'd say things have gotten to a point now that the US is threatening us with some kind of sanction after years of bawling about our copyright laws not serving the interests of the US. Boycott Hollywood forever. Don't even acknowledge their existence. Don't use bittorrent. Catch up on the movies at a relative's home during the holidays on their Netflix account. Our weakness: two thousand human sacrifices that will have their lives ruined, the rates of human sacrifices will make the Aztecs blush, and we still support the system and the sodomizers of Hollywood.
February 21, 2014

Angry Canerdian said:

...
@curious: that depends on how "commercial infringement" is defined. I don't know what the legal definition in Canada actually is, but if it's at all reasonable, it requires the intent to regularly generate a profit, not simply sharing it.
February 21, 2014

Invisible said:

...
Would an ip hiding service (like hide myass) make it harder for companies like CANIPRE to know you download a movie?
February 21, 2014

Edgar Friendly said:

What if...
Here's a question: What if you have an open wifi access point in your home? Can you be held liable for any illegal downloads over that link in such a case where an IP address is in absolutely no way an accurate indication as to who transferred the files? Let's say it does go to court... if my equipment is searched and the files in question are nowhere to be found on my HDD (since the transfers aren't actually coming from me in the first place) could I still be held liable for these downloads? If so then wouldn't every coffee shop/restaurant/campus be liable for anything that passes over their networks?

I leave a wifi access point open all the time. When I do need to transfer large files I enjoy the speed afforded to me by my internet package, but since I can't get a high speed link with a low amount of data, I'm gouged for a high speed link with FAR more data than I could ever consume in a month. I'm paying for access to over 400GB/mo. when all I really want is the high speed when I need it. I stream most of my media (netflix, etc.) and have a VPN that I make regular use of when I'm away from home and I still have NEVER cracked 100GB in a single month with my own usage. Rather than overpaying for an unused 300GB+/mo. and letting the cable company gouge me for nothing, I decide to share that with anyone within range. If I have to, I'll stick a packet sniffer on my network and log all traffic so that if the Copyright trolls ever come knocking I can provide them with a MAC address (which is as useless as an IP address for identifying a suspect... but whatever, that apparently doesn't seem to bother the law...) but I'd really rather not log the traffic of other people and potentially violate their privacy.
February 21, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
Thanks for the feedback and the show of respect in your comments.

You said to @DrJSmythe "People like you won't prevent people like me from coming to sites like this to voice opinion. My passion for copyright law, although on the other side of many here, is no less valid and is essential to the debate."

I couldn't agree more. If we were to assume DrJSmythe's position then our democracy would be ruled by lawyers. We have enough of them already testing grey area's of law and our constitution, I'd much rather see debate around issues within law, then ego's flying around on quantification. In my experience in IT, those who push their certs to end a technical debate are often wrong.

That being said, I find a lot of the comments interesting on here considering the lack of support the position Teksavvy has taken within the legal community itself not to oppose based on the evidence Canipre provided.

From a policy perspective, this is going to provide an interesting case study on how companies are not following through with it's PIPEDA obligations at a time post NSA, and CSEC when the EU may be looking to suspend trade agreements based on the adequacy of companies following through with their PIPEDA responsibilities. Companies not following through with their PIPEDA obligations is sure to blow back politically on this situation in my view and from following EU developments on a policy stand point.

This decision has a far reaching effect beyond Teksavvy's customers post NSA, and I think it's important for the debate moving forward, that we keep that perspective.
February 21, 2014

Jack said:

IP address is not proof
Even if you know which IP it was downloaded from, it does not prove that the owner of the IP did the deed. If I murder someone and dump the corpse on your front lawn, it does not make you a murderer! If I steal a bike and dump it in your bushes, it does not make you a robber. So stop worrying about this, the only way they can know who downloaded it is by hacking, which even for a "noble motive" is still a crime. Many routers can be brute forced given the general public ignorance on the matter, if they are even secured... (and surprisingly enough, IT guys have even less security than the average)

There is precedent of such a case in the USA:
http://boingboing.net/2014/01/22/fed-judge-rules-that-a-downloa.html#more-281967
February 22, 2014

Futurist said:

Trolled
You guys been trolled by that Curious shill. No self respecting human would root for the maggot corporations over basic human rights . Don't take it seriously you been played.
February 22, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
It was foolish to doubt the outcome of Judge Aalto granting a Norwich Order, it is after all part of due process.
Description:lernerscommerciallitigationDOTca/blog/post/norwich-orders

"This decision has a far reaching effect beyond Teksavvy's customers post NSA, and I think it's important for the debate moving forward, that we keep that perspective."
Agreed 100%. Now consider the treaties already signed and the ones right around the corner, this year should be a wake-up call for many!
February 22, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
"Now consider the treaties already signed and the ones right around the corner, this year should be a wake-up call for many!"

Agreed. Lots of diplomatic dances are already occurring on that front. It's going to be an interesting year.
February 22, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
Now's the time for interested Canadians to stop all the name calling the sad attempts to discredit opposing views and get informed.
It's astonishing to me just how many people don't know the (legal) differences between commercial vs non-commercial, Private Uses vs Public Performances and the legal definition of private gain.
It's wonderful that we have a $5,000 liability cap for non-commercial infringement in Canada, but that cap only applies in certain circumstances.
February 22, 2014

curious said:

@Angry Canerdian
"@curious: that depends on how "commercial infringement" is defined. I don't know what the legal definition in Canada actually is, but if it's at all reasonable, it requires the intent to regularly generate a profit, not simply sharing it."

When you "share" Works on line you step outside 'personal' private' Uses. There are Copyrights, and, Neighboring Rights.

"requires the intent to regularly generate a profit" What? Where did you read that? Profit does not only pertain to money, the language of the law is profit or gain.
February 22, 2014

Not Worried said:

Lots of overreaction here
First of all, I'd bet that at this point Voltage pretty much gives up on their pursuit of the 2000 alleged infringement cases. The awarding of reasonable legal fees being paid out to TekSavvy BEFORE any names/addresses are revealed, probably comes close to or exceeds any total winnings they could hope to gain through following through with settlement requests (let alone those who would contest such claims as opposed to feebly acquiescing to payment demands).

Second, liability must further be proved against each of the alleged 2000 infringers - "alleged" being the operative word here. Even with an IP address, properly assigning guilt to the correct party is nearly impossible (how exactly do they intend on doing so? Canadian courts are loathe to hand out seizure warrants for private computers, not to mention that this movie is from 2008, and any trace of it is likely long gone from any users' computer, without convincing probable cause).

The courts have ruled carefully to protect Canadians from frivolous and threatening letters of demand. In essence, Voltage is not going to be able to send out letters with a crux of "We know you downloaded this movie, give us $500 or face legal action and prosecution" which is what they really want to do in this case.

This is a win for the little guy. I would predict that this whole process goes no further at this point, as Voltage has basically nothing to gain, and only additional costs and expenses to incur.
February 22, 2014

Not Worried said:

The comical thing in all of this really
Is that only a paltry 2000 individuals downloaded their sad little film, and the maximum potential gain for $10,000,000 which is almost guaranteed to be unattainable, probably still falls short of the legal fees they've already incurred along with ongoing legal fees they are likely to rack up if they continue on this silly pursuit of some imagined justice.
February 22, 2014

Not Worried said:

@curious
With regards to your argument on customers being fined based on commercial gain law, on what grounds would you base that argument when it comes to uploaders?

In what way does uploading, or seeding a torrent for example, provide any commercial gain in practice? Are you suggesting that torrent sites pay their uploaders or that others reward uploads with monetary or other commercial incentives?

In an abstract way, I suppose you could define the trading of uploaded data for "ratio" or "user class promotions" as a sort of commercial trade, but I don't think any court in Canada would do anything but laugh at such a notion.
February 22, 2014

I'd be Worried said:

@Not Worried
Just Kathryn Bigelows's net worth alone exceeds 14 million.
The sums of money you're referring to are meaningless for people like her.
I think it's safe to say it's all about the principle for her now.
She's a tough strong woman very wealthy, has incredible connections and she's obviously angry.
Hell ya I'd be worried.
February 22, 2014

Jason K said:

@Not Worried
It's not a war in law, it's a war on ideology. To that extent the "trolls" scored a big win on this regardless of the outcome here. Look at the headlines over the past 48 hours.

In my experience both inside the entertainment industry and also here on this blog during the Fair Copyright for Canada movement, you give these guys an inch, they gain a mile. In Canada right now it's not about money, it's the message sent that's more important to these guys. It's part of social engineering.

In order to fight these guys you have to understand them. The more they get the PR out of the deal for their ideology, the more society becomes complacent regarding the issue of copyright, and the easier it will be long term to bring in even stricter legislation. The entertainment industry is all about PR. Within that regard, this decision is a huge win for them.
February 22, 2014

curious said:

@Not Worried
"With regards to your argument on customers being fined based on commercial gain"

I'm not privy to all the evidence in case but I think it's safe to say that not all the 2000 defendants will be able to claim their use was private/personal and non-commercial. So that cap that everyone keeps banking on, may not apply at all.
February 22, 2014

haha said:

...
Curious is an idiot and corporate bag licker
February 22, 2014

curious said:

@haha
My guess is you're 15 years old tops - "Curious is an idiot and corporate bag licker" after reading that, I can only hope I'm right.
That being said I have nothing to add to your comment.
February 22, 2014

haha said:

...
Its obvious you are here only for one reason. To scare people into paying lol
Go lick your bosses balls again loser. Anybody who would send you guys any money must be out of their mind
February 22, 2014

Bababooey said:

Bell & Rogers next?
Just curious. Does this set a precedent for requiring Bell & Rogers to now release the information from the subscribers too?
February 22, 2014

PenguinTD said:

Thanks for a proper researched piece.
Short, to the point, and get the whole picture.
I hope every news outlet and "journalist" can do at least half of this.
February 22, 2014

Dan said:

customer
And then there's the other part to consider. i guess Bell and Rogers just simply handed all the names over to the plaintiff without going public or without a fight. but of course they have deals with the studios as a tv station to protect. they certainly didn't have the intestinal fortitude to even participate or support a court fight with their partners. another reason there shouldn't be monopolies in the vertical market.
February 22, 2014

Eric said:

...
Trennam67 mentioned that then looser has to cover the winners court cost and this is totally correct.

Unfortunately what he didn't take into account is that the likes of voltage would have to prove the said person is on the other end of the computer.
As the Riaa and Mpaa found out its next to impossible to do so..is it you ,the kid, or a hacker leeching off your wireless.

Its the reason why they stopped doing this very thing and its clear voltage is just another troll operation.

With the cost now so heavily against them and major constraints put on their behavior its very likely that this is the end of the line for voltage in Canada.

When the cost out weigh the possible benefit it becomes pointless to continue this line of action.
February 22, 2014

Eric said:

...
I also noticed that some have seemingly forgotten that this isn't something new.

The MPAA and RIAA tried this in the states with billions (not millions) of dollars behind them and the whole thing failed spectacularly.
So much so that they gave it up when they finally realized that the cost far outweighed the possible rewards.

Add to the fact it was next to impossible to actually prove quilt things turned into a massive press nightmare for them.

This was nothing more then a quick try at a cash grab on another market to see if it was ripe for the picking.
Canada firmly stated that not going to happen.
February 22, 2014

Jason K said:

@Bababooey
Yes it does, very much so. A lot of comments on here I think are being a little bit premature. This may stop copyright trolling, but not lawsuits. The copyright lobby spends millions per year, and from the past few decades, is very a custom to loosing big money on PR campaigns.

The judges decision allowed this to go forward based on the evidence presented (paragraph 56 of the decision). There has been a tremendous amounts of problems with the evidence that was not brought to the courts attention:

http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/cippic-cross-examination-of-canipres-barry-logan/

The way our privacy law works:

http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/teksavvy-could-be-liable-for-infringing-on-consumers-privacy-rights/

I'm getting an uneasy feeling here when Voltages lawyers are coming out claiming this as a win for privacy. That seems a bit suspicious to me. I don't think this is the end by any means, and may have in fact made our private information less secure as a result, but I guess only time will tell.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

...
Gut feeling, it's not over yet.
February 23, 2014

haha said:

...
CPPIC Director David Fewer said his read of the decision is that the court would not be eager to assign penalties at the higher range of what the Copyright Act allows.“If Voltage is asking for figures in excess of ($100) I think the court is going to shut them down pretty darn quickly,” Fewer said
February 23, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
You've eluded a number of times to the notion that a good number of these cases would be classed commercial infringement.

Are you assuming that the vast majority of these are typical bittorrent users who upload+download simultaneously, but who don't sell the downloaded works for money?

I think you are, and I think you're suggesting that the act of uploading constitutes commercial infringement, but you still haven't explained your basis for that.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@haha
It's not about whether they win or loose, it's the message carried by media on "illegal" downloading anytime they pop up and do something. Why do you think in previous cases in Canada Voltage has popped up before, made some noise with the ISPs which is covered in media about how "illegal" downloading is wrong, then drops the cases and leaves. This happened with the Hurt Locker a few years ago.

Knowing how these trolls operate, and due to the press this has got, I don't think Voltage is about to pick up and leave yet. In Canada it's not about money, it's about the message sent in the media. The more times "illegal" downloading is displayed the better for their cause in the long run.

I've seen within industry myself, professional artists unions and organization that send "weekly" addresses to their members filled with utter BS (some of it completely out there) around how "illegal" downloading is unfairly hurting their artists bottom line. They hate it so much, that they will do just about anything to try and stop it. Loss of money to fight it, or add to their cause, not a problem. Voltage would probably have the financial backing of the MPAA if they chose to move forward. It'll be of no cost to Voltage.

The only way to really stop these guys is to stand up to them. Teksavvy has yet to do that on behalf of it's customers. They have to a certain extent, but not what's needed get rid of these guys in my opinion. Teksavvy is also very weary right now on how Voltage intents to proceed. The only thing Teksavvy has done, is play right into the playbook of Voltage in my opinion.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@haha
I've fought these types while in industry who consistently bully new media start ups, and I've also been toe to toe with these types in the comments on this blog during the copyright consultation. If you go toe to toe with a bully, they usually back down. If you give them an inch, they will ask for a foot. Voltage got an inch here. Every time I've been toe to toe with these types, they back away and disappear. Look at what happen when Distributel opposed. Poof, trolls were gone. With this case, their M.O. suggests they aren't leaving yet. I would love to be wrong here.
February 23, 2014

Mike said:

Mike
Thank you very much for this detailed and accurate article. I previously read an article that served as a mouthpiece for the plaintiffs, so your more balanced article was a refreshing change.

~ Cheers
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
"@curious
You've eluded a number of times to the notion that a good number of these cases would be classed commercial infringement.

Are you assuming that the vast majority of these are typical bittorrent users who upload+download simultaneously, but who don't sell the downloaded works for money?

I think you are, and I think you're suggesting that the act of uploading constitutes commercial infringement, but you still haven't explained your basis for that."

Dave perhaps a closer look at the actual language of the bill may be of some use?

New Rights — Making Available and Distribution

The amended Act gives copyright owners two new rights. The first comes through a technical adjustment to the definition of what it means to communicate a work to the public by telecommunication. With the Bill's amendments, copyright holders now have the exclusive right to make a work available to the public by telecommunication in a manner that allows a member of the public to have access to it at the time and place of his or her choosing. This right will mean that peer-to-peer Internet file-sharers are committing infringement by simply making a copy of a
work available to the public, not only when transmitting an infringing copy of a work to another person.

Statutory Damages

The statutory damages in Bill C-11 are very different than those in the previous Copyright Act. Formerly, damages ranged from $500 to $20,000 for each infringement. Bill C-11, by contrast, makes the quantum of damages dependent on the commercial and non-commercial purpose of the infringement. When suing an alleged non-commercial infringer, rights holders can elect statutory damages that will be limited to a range of $100 and $5,000 for all infringements in a single proceeding for all works. This greatly reduces the maximum amount of statutory damages which may be awarded against an individual who infringes copyright for private use and should provide some comfort to consumers.

I'm not sure what province you're in, but most (if not all) offer free legal clinics.

I hope what I posted above adds more clarity than confusion?
February 23, 2014

Meno Seebach said:

Geist/Fewer & The "Caret Baggers"
Amazing stuff. Amazing that these fellas are given such an audience. Cippic lost. Geist is an arm chair theorist from the bush leagues. The "Carpet Baggers" won in a landslide victory ..so be careful on the advice and interpretations these fellas make. ..we have seen this in their 'reports" on this matter already0 - but, they let us down. Just keep that in mind - :)
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
Google this case: BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 2005 FCA 193 (CanLII)
it provides some background that may be if some use.
February 23, 2014

Not Worried said:

@curious
No part of those two excerpts that you've posted give any credence to the idea that simply downloading and/or seeding a torrent provides adequate basis for classification under commercial infringement.
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@Not Worried
You have no clue what you're talking about, that may not be clear to the people here but it's very clear to me.
And for what it's worth, much smarter than you have tried to bait me and failed; someone like you has no chance.
So here's where I'm at with you; the next post directed at me by you that either makes no sense or strays off topic I'll ignore.
People like you a part of the problem not the solution.

You actually wrote this: "$10,000,000 which is almost guaranteed to be unattainable, probably still falls short of the legal fees they've already incurred"
10 million in legal fees? The Cinar case lasted 20 years and didn't come close to the figure you posted. Stick with what you know Not Worried.

And if you're still confused about commercial vs non-commercial contact a lawyer, or drop into a *free* legal clinic.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
From my read of the decision and following the case closely, there's there's a lot of "explaining" that needs to be done. A lot of misdirection of legal arguments by anon commentators on this blog and else where that are missing a big piece of the puzzle. I don't know if that misdirection is intentional or not.

Paragraph 56 of the decision relates to allowing this case to move forward, when TSI had a legal obligation to it's customers to challenge that evidence pertaining to our privacy laws. The fact this wasn't done opens up a wide range of potential abuses regarding your account information that is wide reaching outside of this copyright case at a time when there are a tremendous amount of pressure to identify IP address to subscribers.

At some point in time, after leaving the door wide open here with this ruling (for what ever reason Tek's lawyers and leadership saw fit to do), Teksavvy is going to have to fix this. I think eventually they will if Voltage moves forward with any "letters" because the law requires it (nothing in this ruling changes that). However in the intern, this decision leaves a lot of non Teksavvy subscribers at great risk on future frivolous law suits.

I think consumers need to be properly informed regarding their rights on this issue, which is one of the reasons why I've remained on the sidelines with respect to fully commenting on the law here and letting the legal professionals handle the abuse of our system of privacy here the way they see fit.

I would strongly urge those reading to not take any commentary from anon posters with any seriousness, and as the judge in his decision strongly suggested, those affected by the TSI case obtain legal counsel. To extend that, anyone dealing with this in the future outside of TSI, needs to do the same. I say that with concern now that ISPs after this latest decision, may not be adequately protecting your rights.
February 23, 2014

haha said:

...
Curious is one of those copyright trolls posint nonsense here. CORPORATE BAGLICKER
February 23, 2014

haha said:

...
What is your job at Canipre curious ? One of those piece of shits that
Infiltrate boards like this posting nonsense and lies trying to scare people ?
You are nothing but waste of skin
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@haha
You're funny, an obnoxious imbecile, but still worth a good laugh.
February 23, 2014

haha said:

...
Your corporate boos needs his balls scratched. Youd better hurry up. Loser
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
Are you implying that I'm intentionally misleading people here Jason?
February 23, 2014

DownloadIt said:

...
Just downloaded the Hurt Locker out of spite of Voltage. Maybe movie companies need to quit paying celebs ridiculous amounts of money. Relax people just use google to search for software that masks your IP address.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
I don't know what your intentions are your anon, but would much rather see commentary regarding the privacy implications here from Micheal. Would be very curious to see what he has to say at this point regarding the evidence presented by Canipre and how that's been left unchallenged. I think a lot in the legal community have been wondering why he's been so silent on that issue.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
I would be referring to unchallenged by Teksavvy. Anon comments considering this high profile case, should be taken as a grain of salt.
February 23, 2014

curious said:

Jason K
"I don't know what your intentions are your anon"
Noted, but that won't change the factual information.
This decision opened the flood gates, Voltage is only the beginning.
There has never been a more important time in Canada for all people to get better informed with the actual laws, not the spins or wishful thinking of the free-culture community.
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
"There has never been a more important time in Canada for all people to get better informed with the actual laws, not the spins or wishful thinking of the free-culture community."

Wow, that's quite the loaded statement, especially on this blog. Don't even need to fully respond on that one. Good luck with your "anon" adventures.
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
And the best of luck to you Jason.
Be well
February 23, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
The take away for Canadian consumers should be, due to the way this has played out, this opens the flood gates to lawsuits not just against Teksavvy customers. Others need to be prepared for this as well, and above all those consumers affected need to seek legal advice to ensure their rights are being fully respected. As I've said before a number of times, this should have never been allowed to go this far. It has and we're here, so get ready. It'll be an interesting few months especially since Canipre has been left virtually unopposed.
February 23, 2014

Jeff said:

Couple of things here
First if you wish to avoid court costs offer a settlement of 300 or so, seems more than reasonable, you will not have to pay court costs unless Voltage wins considerably more than the 300. The court will consider your offer as reasonable and Voltage having should have accepted is now on The hook for all their court costs.
This hardly matters, given the way Voltage operates this is over, they will never recoup the legal costs already incurred never mind what would come.
This is over.
February 23, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
The legal expert I consulted (albeit in a casual and non-formal context) does not interpret the law the way you seem to, i.e uploading in a bittorrent transaction does not necessitate commercial infringement.

If there's no precedent supporting their or your interpretation, then perhaps it's something to be weary of, but I'm now a bit suspicious of your seeming level of certainty on the matter.
February 23, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
"The legal expert I consulted (albeit in a casual and non-formal context) does not interpret the law the way you seem to, i.e uploading in a bittorrent transaction does not necessitate commercial infringement."

I don't interpret the law the way you described above either davegravy, and I would greatly appreciate you backing up your statement and pointing out where I did.

I pointed out: New Rights — Making Available and Distribution, as a reference to Public vs Private Individual Uses.

This right will mean that peer-to-peer Internet file-sharers are committing infringement by simply making a copy of a work available to the public, not only when transmitting an infringing copy of a work to another person.

If your "legal expert" disputes that, then I'd be a bit suspicious of your legal experts 'expertize'.
February 23, 2014

Bababooey said:

What about streaming?
If you're streaming from a site that allows you to watch HBO etc. Is that crossing the line?
February 23, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
I agree that the bittorrent protocol, in the way it's typically used, makes works publicly available - i.e it's not private. But I don't see the link between this and commercial infringement (i.e the $5,000 cap not being applicable)

Or are you suggesting that Voltage will go after actual damages on this basis of making available instead of statutory? That would make a fun court case.
February 24, 2014

Mika said:

Fine with it
Honestly, I'm fine with seeing guilty people charged, though IMO the damages (to downloaders) should be limited to the twice the average retail value of one copy (because only one copy would be downloaded) if admitting to guilt immediately, and 20x the damages (to a maximum of 5000$) if it goes to court.

I think this is enough to discourage people from downloading pirated content if they are hit once. It won't discourage the people using proxies or hijacking other peoples internet services.
February 24, 2014

Spike said:

...
@curious

I know its obvious you have no technical knowledge of how bittorrent actually works. I find it hard to believe that merely being a member of a bittorrent swarm is considered "making available". You have absolutely no idea how this data was collected, and your sheer lack of knowledge on how bittorrent works is making a mockery out of you when you claim that they are "making a copy available to the public".

In simple terms it isn't as clear cut as you believe it is. They would have to download a complete copy of the data from an infringing IP address, which I have yet to see evidence that this was indeed the case. Its far easier to simply harvest IP addresses from a swarm, which means absolutely jack shit from a legal perspective. You make it sound like its as simple as downloading a complete file from a Kazaa user. Unfortunately torrents don't work this way.

From Canipre's perspective, one would only require a single piece of a file (out of hundreds of chunks), to be considered an infringer. Many torrents simply never complete due to lack of seeders, leaving useless data.

Heck, Guardaley is well known to post their own torrents and seed them while collecting infringing IP addresses from them. See the problem? This evidence they have is questionable at best.

The whole thing is a joke and I am pretty miffed myself that it was ever allowed to get this far in Canada, despite the U.S. courts continuing to issue setbacks to this money making scam.
February 24, 2014

davegravy said:

@Mika
How do you consider the fact that a download file does not necessarily equate to a lost sale?

E.g I could download britney spears album for free, but NEVER would have paid money for it even if the free option was non-existant. Assuming I didn't share the album with someone else, the actual damage to the rights-holder in this case is $0.

This is the trouble with assessing based on actual damages in these types of cases, and why statutory damages are rights-holder's best bet in winning anything in court.
February 24, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
"Or are you suggesting that" I'm not suggesting anything davegravy I haven't nor would I; as I repeatedly said I do not have privy to all the doc files or the evidence submitted to the courts.
February 24, 2014

bullettruthtony said:

@Bababooey
Streaming is perfectly legal if you're just the one watching.

Posting something copyright protecting to be streamed on the other hand is not.

And as bandwidth grows it's what will replace bittorrrents for "pirated" material, people will stream, the trolls will have no one to sue and they might go after the streamers and for everyone they catch three more will take its place.
February 24, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
"I'm not privy to all the evidence in case but I think it's safe to say that not all the 2000 defendants will be able to claim their use was private/personal and non-commercial. So that cap that everyone keeps banking on, may not apply at all."

I read this to mean that you either think it's likely that one or more of the 2000 defendants publicly re-distributed their downloaded material for personal gain (a likelyhood I disagree with) or you think that uploading constitutes commercial infringement.
February 24, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
Consult a lawyer davegravy, I'm not comfortable spoon feeding grown-ups.
All the info is out there, whether you comprehend the legal language or not I think is important, but, it's really not my business or my concern.
Best of luck to you.
February 24, 2014

JohnBoy said:

Voltage
LOL@ Voltage and their shitty movies I wouldn't even download for free.
February 24, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
So just to be clear, you've entered a public forum to warn everyone that there's a lot of people in for a lot of pain, but you're not willing to explain why. That makes you either a fear mongerering industry shill, or just a plain old sadist.
February 24, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
"So just to be clear, you've entered a public forum to warn everyone that there's a lot of people in for a lot of pain, but you're not willing to explain why. That makes you either a fear mongerering industry shill, or just a plain old sadist."

Are you well? "warn everyone that there's a lot of people in for a lot of pain" what the fuck you taking about? You're in a public forum asking anyone who'll answer you complex legal copyright questions, you're not going to get a straight fucking answer and certainly not the one you want, and you're giving me a hard time for posting legal definitions and the actual text from the bill.
Look davegravy we don't need to talk, I don't need the frustration.
February 24, 2014

Jason K said:

@davegravy
"Are you well? "warn everyone that there's a lot of people in for a lot of pain" what the fuck you taking about? You're in a public forum asking anyone who'll answer you complex legal copyright questions, you're not going to get a straight fucking answer and certainly not the one you want, and you're giving me a hard time for posting legal definitions and the actual text from the bill.
Look davegravy we don't need to talk, I don't need the frustration."

Yep talking points and scripts for sure ;)
February 25, 2014

Jason K said:

@davegravy
Well done sir!
February 25, 2014

Jason K said:

@curious
There has never been a more important time in Canada for all people to get better informed with the actual laws, not the spins or wishful thinking of the copyright industry.

This decision opened the flood gates, Voltage will be the end.

People like you are part of the problem not the solution.

"Are you implying that I'm intentionally misleading people here Jason?"

Now I am!

The next post directed at me by you that either makes no sense or strays off topic I'll ignore.
February 25, 2014

curious said:

@Jason K
If you were a person of any significance I'd be bothered, but you're no one, just some random stranger that babbles.
February 25, 2014

davegravy said:

@curious
You present yourself as an expert on the topic. If you are here to provide valuable insight to others, whether it's good news or bad news for 2,000 possible defendants, that's noble and I encourage it. But if you're here, hiding behind a pseudonym, to insinuate that everyone's making silly assumptions about how the future will unfold - without elaborating in much detail - then I hope you can understand how you create a perception that you're fear mongering.

I don't think it's just me who is perceiving you this way, so to answer your question: I think I'm quite well thank you.
February 25, 2014

Jason K said:

@davegravy
Just start copying and pasting his troll script. A lot more fun to see these guys argue to themselves, plus not worth the time typing anything. Back when I was defending new media companies in industry against such attacks on our forums, I made an industry troll talking to himself for about a week, before he gave up. Had everyone in stitches. Completely demoralizing too. Already worked on our curious pal here as well with my last response to him.
February 25, 2014

curious said:

@davegravy
Fist off, I never presented myself as an expert on the topic.
Like many I'm struggling to get my head around one of the most complex and confusing parts of the legal system, Copyright / IP Law.
I don't need to tell you this but it's a mess at the moment.
Treaties are being tabled weekly, international pressures are mounting, and the amount of BS that's out on the net is very discouraging.
davegravy you keep asking questions that don't have a simple straight forward answer.
I come from a family of 10, 8 of which work within the legal system, and my dad's a retired judge; needless to say Sunday dinners are a handful!
One brother has an interpretation that differs from the other, and my dad just shakes his head at the silliness, which one is right?
davegravy you have some valid and serious questions that I don't think can be answered in this forum, which is why I suggested looking into what free legal services are offered in your province. You'll do much better having a face to face with a qualified legal expert who has no motive other than to help you.
February 25, 2014

end user said:

...
curious said: @Jason K
If you were a person of any significance I'd be bothered, but you're no one, just some random stranger that babbles.

Oh the humanity, I mean the irony...
February 26, 2014

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: