Canipre, a Montreal-based intellectual property enforcement firm, yesterday issued a press release announcing an infringement monitoring program designed to take advantage of the new copyright notice-and-notice system. The release notes that the service detects online infringement and sends notifications alleging infringement to Canadian Internet providers, who must forward the notifications to their subscribers. The company has been involved in the Voltage Pictures – TekSavvy lawsuit and it cites that case as evidence of the effectiveness of its services.
Yet what Canipre does not say is that a blog associated with the company may have been engaged in copyright infringement for many months. The blog – copyrightenforcement.ca – is run by Barry Logan, the company’s Managing Director, Operations (I received an email from Mr. Logan last year that listed the site as his blog address). In addition to posting releases from Canipre and information about the TekSavvy case, the site has posted dozens of full-text articles from media organizations around the world.
Read more ›
Canipre, a Montreal-based intellectual property rights enforcement firm, has admitted that it is behind the Voltage file sharing lawsuits involving TekSavvy in what is described as a “speculative invoicing” scheme. Often referred to as copyright trolling, speculative invoicing involves sending hundreds or thousands of demand letters alleging copyright infringement and seeking thousands of dollars in compensation. Those cases rarely – if ever – go to court as the intent is simply to scare enough people into settling in order to generate a profit.
Canadian Business reports that Canipre’s goal is to import the speculative invoicing strategy to Canada and that it found a willing partner in Voltage Pictures. Canipre collected thousands of IP addresses that are alleged to have downloaded Voltage films and Voltage is now asking the Federal Court to order TekSavvy to disclose the subscriber names linked to the IP addresses.
The Canipre admission is important because it is consistent with arguments that the case involves copyright trolling and that the Federal Court should not support the scheme by ordering the disclosure of subscriber contact information.
Read more ›