posted by
LaminatorX
on Friday February 21 2014, @06:45PM
from the A-leashed-hyena-is-still-a-hyena dept.
from the A-leashed-hyena-is-still-a-hyena dept.
dbot writes
"In the latest turn in an ongoing legal dispute, Canadian ISP TekSavvy has been ordered to hand over the IP addresses information of subscribers allegedly engaging in copyright infringement of Voltage Pictures works.
While it doesn't look like a great decision on the surface (an IP address does not uniquely identify an infringer), the court specifically said it wants to sign off on the wording of any contact notices issued by Voltage to prevent extortionary "Copyright Troll" messages. It will be interesting to see if this new decision scales."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ISP TekSavvy Ordered to Hand-over Subscriber Info
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by zim on Friday February 21 2014, @06:50PM
We can give you our entire customer database if you like. But as for who was on what IP at what date/time? Yeah... We have no clue beyond the past 24 hours. Sorry."
I'm not sure how you can even do this. People in canada already pay the blank media tax on pretty much everything to cover 'piracy'. Where's that money going?
Voltage Pictures should find out and ask for their cut.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @06:55PM
Their catalog of movies is complete crap. All 4th rate B grade garbage. IMDB rates most of them i checked lower than the run of the mill syfi channel dreck.
Sounds alot like a crap movie company is looking for a payday. Since they didn't make a damm thing from their crap movies because they were all TERRIBLE...
(Score: 5, Informative) by wjwlsn on Friday February 21 2014, @07:15PM
This isn't exactly correct. While they do have a lot of crap, they also have "The Hurt Locker" and "Dallas Buyer's Club"... and those are just the two I recognized immediately.
Please note that I'm only posting this to keep our facts straight. I do not support what they're trying to do with their legal BS.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 4, Funny) by forsythe on Friday February 21 2014, @07:28PM
The only name I'd recognized was "The Hurt Locker", which I'd only heard about in connection with the massive lawsuit over piracy a while back. Perhaps Voltage's legal department is trying a long term strategy of Streisand effect-ing their catalog?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Ezber Bozmak on Friday February 21 2014, @08:36PM
The only name I'd recognized was "The Hurt Locker", which I'd only heard about in connection with the massive lawsuit over piracy a while back.
Your not knowing much about it says more about you than anything else. It won 6 oscars, twice as many as any other movie that year plus tons of other awards. [imdb.com] That movie's success was the reason the director, Katheryn Bigelow was able to make the pro-torture movie "Zero Dark Thirty" a couple of years later.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Fry on Friday February 21 2014, @10:26PM
Your not knowing much about it says more about you than anything else.
Yeah, right. Notice how no-one's modding you up?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @08:03PM
Was that supposed to be a disagreement? I saw part of the Hurt Locker on TNT. Every time I caught it, the same thing was always happening—some guys were standing around while one guy dramatically pulled some cables that dramatically turned out to be nothing. Then a bunch of standing around. I just assumed it was a non-budget remake of Episode I.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Friday February 21 2014, @08:22PM
I didn't like "The Hurt Locker" either, but it won six Oscars, which seems to mean something to a lot of people... and "Dallas Buyer's Club" has been nominated for a few as well. By the standards that many people seem to apply, those two movies (and possibly others in Voltage's catalogue) are not complete crap and probably did make a lot of money.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @11:17PM
Yeah; the people who made it. The Academy Awards is a circlejerk. My balls won six Oscars but you don't hear them going on about it because they don't have their own TV network.
(Score: 1) by edIII on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:41PM
The Hurt Locker rings a bell for me. I remember there being something in the news about the company going after pirates for that one title specifically.
If they really were a small sucky group with no titles, they wouldn't have the resources to engage in such pointless terrorism. There are 17 different versions of the Hurt Locker alone on just one private torrent site I checked. Looking at their movies they do have something worth protecting.
There is no path to victory for them. Unless you are interested in it, nobody remembers a damn thing, nor do they care about, case precedence like that. Young people today do things far more reckless and dangerous than downloading a movie on a public tracker *and* seeding it.
I can't wait for the world to collectively get its head out of its ass and figure out a new model to compensate IP producers. It's the only thing keeping fresh content coming into the Public Domain.
Voltage Pictures LLC and others are fighting so hard in the other direction they wish to eliminate Public Domain and Fair Use entirely. That's not a road with a good ending either.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Fluffeh on Friday February 21 2014, @07:44PM
This is a company that makes lot of crap, and then goes after the folks who download them individually and sends them "settlement letters" which generally are just below the cost to mount a defense in court. They are quite well known [huffingtonpost.ca] for this. Perfect 10 is another company that is desperately exploring the law [wikipedia.org] looking to make a hefty windfall.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ragequit on Friday February 21 2014, @07:00PM
I went back through their list of ... stuff.
The last one I had even heard of was Hurt Locker. And I found out that Stephen Segal has made WAAAAAAY more movies than I thought.
http://www.voltagepictures.com/titles.aspx [voltagepictures.com]
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gallondr00nk on Friday February 21 2014, @07:15PM
I thought I recognised the name - this is the same production company that filed suit [torrentfreak.com] against Bittorrent users for distribution of The Hurt Locker. At the time, it was the biggest of its kind, around 25,000 users.
The thing that always infuriates me about this kind of litigation is the eye watering damages they try to gouge from users. After all, if infringement is stealing as they so often assert, the settlement shouldn't be much more than the retail price of the movie. That would be roughly in line with the punishment for minor shoplifting in a lot of countries.
Sadly, both the lawyers and the media companies see it as a revenue stream. It all feels quite sickening.
(Score: 1) by SMI on Friday February 21 2014, @08:19PM
You make a very good point. The settlement (or potential legal damages) shouldn't be any more than the retail price of the movie. After all, that's generally the rule of thumb in civil court when suing (or being sued).
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @07:25PM
Yeah so I lurked on the other site for a while, thought I'd participate here after the beta fuckup. Submitted a story and sorry if I cited populist media but their cover was available first and the original court decision was linked too. Don't know what I did wrong not to get approved aside from leaving the other place. Hope you enjoy polishing each other's scepters, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the show.
Here's my original submission http://dev.soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid= 232 [dev.soylentnews.org] and for the TLDR,i tem/59907/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHdm9sdGFnZQAAAAAB [fct-cf.gc.ca]
the official court ruling http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @07:29PM
-1 Off-Topic
There's a back-log of submissions. http://dev.soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=list [dev.soylentnews.org] You just submitted yours today, this one we're commenting on right now was most likely submitted before you.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @07:38PM
I actually checked the backlog first, saw dupes popping a few hours later, but yeah fuck timestamps since they can be hacked way easier than Ellingson Mineral Company's Gibson.
theirs
TekSavvy ordered to hand over subscriber info
On Friday February 21, @07:38PM
Canadian ISP orderd to ID downloaders
On Friday February 21, @09:55PM
Mine
Blame Canada for its position on net privacy
On Friday February 21, @05:42PM
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday February 21 2014, @10:18PM
Or it could be that yours [dev.soylentnews.org] omitted most of the important aspects of the story, and reads like a Voltage press release. Just a thought.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:34AM
I have no problem with obvious flamebait bent articles being skipped over for other dupes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by combatserver on Friday February 21 2014, @08:08PM
"Don't know what I did wrong not to get approved aside from leaving the other place."
Relax--two people submitted the same story, someone had to be rejected.
To answer your question, it appears to me that the reason your submission was rejected over the the one above was a matter of formatting. Embedded links in the body of the text are a plus (it makes things easier for the editors, as well as give YOU the opportunity to specify where the links should be). Adding links at the end of the text can lead to confusion. Integrate them into the body of text.
Other than that, the only other thing I noticed was the inclusion of a paragraph break--you'd be surprised how much of an effect that can have on the reader. A paragraph break is roughly the same thing as saying "Stop, and think about that before moving on". When condensing information into a small body of text, that could have a huge effect on comprehension.
Aside from those two things I noticed, the content of your links were perfectly acceptable, at least to me. Don't give up because of one rejected submission--the quality of your submission was there, the delivery just needed a little tweaking.
On a related note, the editing staff has been discussing implementing a means to return submissions to the author for re-submission, rather than outright rejecting them. I believe this has been in the works right from the beginning.
I hope I can change this later...
(Score: 1) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @08:37PM
then I noticed Allowed HTML but I couldn't figure out how to edit my submission.
On another note, I understand that the Court's decision includes safeguards, that there are limitations to how much money copyright holders can go for per infringement but how far can this end up going? Will newer, slacker legislation come up when requests clog up federal courts? Will cops show up on my doorstep for a viral vine video with The Traveler playing in the background?
(Score: 4, Informative) by combatserver on Friday February 21 2014, @09:31PM
"...then I noticed Allowed HTML but I couldn't figure out how to edit my submission."
I have been composing my submissions in the submission form with "plain old text" selected, and periodically backing it up in a .rtf file as I go along. Add in your HTML (I've been avoiding HTML paragraph breaks as they seem a little buggy at times), and then "Preview" to test the HTML and visual layout. Backup in the .rtf, rinse repeat.
When it's good to go, submit--once they are submitted, you cannot edit your submission. (as I said, hopefully this will change in the near future)
Having an unedited backup of your original submission allows you to determine what changes were made by the editors.
Look forward to your next submission!
I hope I can change this later...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Terence on Friday February 21 2014, @08:35PM
About 2 years ago Canada got a updated copyright law. It was worded and and sold to the public as a balance between protecting copyrights and protecting private users. One way they did this by limiting damages awards to $100 to $5000 per claim against personal use.
So the court is making Voltage get their notification letters approved (so there's no trolling for excessive early settlements) and has suggested if they do bring individuals to court they shouldn't expect anywhere near the maximum $5000 per claim.
I think if Voltage starts doing the math, they'll realize this is a money losing proposition, and just go away. Which is exactly how I understood the law was supposed to work.
So, nicely done.
I value your opinion as much as the next person. Unfortunately the other person doesn't give a shit what you think.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Appalbarry on Friday February 21 2014, @08:41PM
Don't know why the summary at top didn't say it, but what was really noteworthy was that the court specifically identified copyright trolls as a problem, and set out restrictions on their activities.
In Canada, at least, your average copyright troll can no longer make enough profit to be successful
(Score: 4, Informative) by T0T4L_L43R on Friday February 21 2014, @11:58PM
Well it isn't in the summary, but it is in the link to Michael Geist's (pretty frikken excellent) article.
We have our share of problems up here in The Great White North, but lawsuites for fun and profit are not amoung them - hell, even our sad litle neo-con government despises them.
From TFA:
>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 damage".
>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.
Agree. They're doing it right.
(Score: 1) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @08:44PM
Ruling allows for personal customer information to be released upon court's request. Voltage goes and pays for that data first and then what about seeding? Can it be seen as unlawful distribution of copyrighted material? In Canada you can't get charged for substance abuse but it's a whole other game if you distribute it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by harmar on Friday February 21 2014, @09:48PM
Some other interesting tidbits in another article (http://www.cp24.com/news/canadian-isp-to-name-sub scribers-linked-to-alleged-downloading-of-films-1. 1697618#ixzz2tz9lnaAG [cp24.com])
(Score: 5, Informative) by randmcnatt on Friday February 21 2014, @08:47PM
It also reveals that Voltage has 22 American lawsuits in the works suing about 28,000 unknown alleged infringers.
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @10:12PM
I was bit confused by the summary because it omitted "to be". Quoted below the sentence in question with "to be" added in bold.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Zoinky on Friday February 21 2014, @11:42PM
I should point out that in addition to the general anti-copyright troll language and terms included in the decision, a plaintiff must pay the ISP all associated costs (compiling the list of subscribers, and in this case legal fees), before the ISP is obligated to turn over anything. In this case, that comes to somewhere over $200,000. If Voltage can then prove that someone did actually infringe on their copyright, they are limited $5000 per person. So the chances that this or a similar, future case will go anywhere are slim to none.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Maow on Saturday February 22 2014, @02:37AM
Just wanted to give them a shout-out.
Been a happy customer for a couple years now - they're head & shoulders above the competition.
They're a re-seller of Bell, Shaw, Rogers, etc.
A pleasure to deal with and they don't take every opportunity to bend me over and ream me. Also, they're cheaper internet access over Shaw's cable lines than through Shaw themselves.