Court Gives Canadians More Time To Fight Copyright Troll Voltage

from the one-step-at-a-time dept

Mon, Jan 14th 2013 10:12am — Leigh Beadon

There has been a considerable amount of debate as to whether Canadian ISP TekSavvy should be doing more to protect its customer info from Voltage, the well-known copyright troll that is seeking subscriber information on thousands of IP addresses that allegedly shared infringing movies over BitTorrent. Though TekSavvy is still not directly opposing the motion, today it fought hard for an adjournment to give CIPPIC, a public interest group, time to request intervener status in the case. According to live tweets from some people covering the hearing, that adjournment was granted shortly after noon today.

While there is still a significant question as to whether TekSavvy should be taking a more direct role (as well as some pushback on that idea), today's events represent a victory for TekSavvy's customers, who now have someone (CIPPIC) taking up their cause, or at least trying to.

It also looks like the judge understands the complexity, and the gravity, of the situation. Apparently the judge has been asking questions about the specifics of what an IP address represents, the impact of Canada's new copyright legislation, and the overall implications of the case. The judge also suggested that this will not be resolved in a single day.

This case still has a long way to go, but it looks like we may be headed towards a full-scale test case for copyright trolling practices in Canada, with a judge who seeks a clear understanding of the issues at play. That, for now, is a good place to be.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, cippic, copyright, copyright trolling, privacy
Companies: teksavvy, voltage

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 10:30am

What are the odds, that even if the Canadian judge finds that an IP address alone is insufficient evidence, that copyright trolls in the US and elsewhere will ignore it or work extremely hard to twist his ruling into pretending he's saying it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  Copyright trolls ignoring 'inconvenient' evidence and continuing on with business as usual, regardless of what a court may have said regarding such 'business'?
  
  I'd say you'd have better odds of being hit by a jet-liner that just got struck by lighting, which is carrying both meteorite samples, and live sharks(which manage to break out and slam into and bite you respectively), all of which hit you at the same time, at the same moment you find out you've just won the lottery(all of them), than such a ruling causing more than a blip on the radar, or more than a moment's hesitation, for copyright trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 10:47am

No Brainer
LOGIC: IPAddress == MAC Address == Dirty Pirate
PROCESS:
0) Find IPAddress using BitTorrent
1) Sue IPAddress owner
2) Ignore due process, break laws, bribe congress/judges
3) Kill competition by killing all channels that didn't exist before 1999
4) Hypnotize entire planet to buy what is sold
5) Produce/support/release works from one artist (hired under Works for Hire) and profit into the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 11:29am

It's aboot freedom?
Every time I read an article about Canadian Copyright Trolls seeking mass IP addresses of ISP customers for allegedly downloading something illegally, I'm shocked that they have electricity in Canada.

;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Crazy Canuck, 14 Jan 2013 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: It's aboot freedom?
  We also have high speed internet in our igloos but it is hard to keep the moose on the treadmill generating the electricity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- -, 14 Jan 2013 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: It's aboot freedom?
  We actually sell you're poor economically devastated country electricity ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re: It's aboot freedom?
    No, we pay them to take it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- -, 14 Jan 2013 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: It's aboot freedom?
  We actually sell you're poor economically devastated country electricity ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- -, 14 Jan 2013 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: It's aboot freedom?
  We actually sell you're poor economically devastated country electricity ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Big Al, 14 Jan 2013 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re: It's aboot freedom?
    Did each of those replies com in on a different phase?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 11:37am

Well, with the judge asking questions like that, and the victims fighting back, you don't have to have more than an elementary level of pattern recognition to foresee the troll company dropping this case as soon as it can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2013 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Could have been a fun case though. Setting precedents like separate cases for separate people would kill this kind of trolling and smash the economic basis for trying private people for infringement if your goal is money!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And that is exactly why they tend to drop cases in which the victims fight back and they are dealing with a judge not willing to just blindly go along with their claims(and the reason I fully expect the trolls in this case to drop it): they can't afford a negative precedent being set that would affect their extortion racket.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 2:32pm

Don't Canadians already pay blank media tax?
Don't Canadians already pay a "You Must Be A Pirate" tax on blank media?

Therefore it seems that the copyright owners are already compensated.

Nothing wrong is done because the Canadian government already knows that and permits that its citizens are pirates, and taxes them accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tyler, 14 Jan 2013 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re: Don't Canadians already pay blank media tax?
  That only applies to music and not movies/tv shows afaik.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 1:26am
    
    Re: Re: Don't Canadians already pay blank media tax?
    Funny that. Eh!
    Doesn't apply to photographers or...
    
    Can't remember the last time myself or anyone I know burnt a disc full of music.
    
    The RIAA has actually turned me off of music.
    Musicians have done so as well. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
B's Opinion Only (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 5:49pm

I am very proud to be a Teksavvy customer today!

I understand they have spent $190,000 so far fighting this troll. If they wanted to add $5 a month to my bill to continue taking the high road I would be happy to pay it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 2:04am
  
  Re:
  $200 000 and they haven't even gone to court?
  
  They wouldn't even oppose a motion to disclose your identity. Even Bell fought that.
  
  How are they fighting this troll? With ninjas?
  
  Convince me to switch to Teksavvy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ressy (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    They may have fought it in 2004, but they didn't fight the copytroll attempt from Voltage in 2011.
    
    In fact, Bell along with the other ISPs wrote to the Judge specifically stating that they wouldn't be fighting the court order, or even appearing for any court hearings.
    
    The letter was mistakenly in the public file when someone viewed the file in the Montreal courts. When the person who saw it and requested a photocopy of the page, staff realized their error, and removed it from the file, refusing to allow it to be copied.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is voltage asking bell for ip address' identifying info?
      
      What other ISPs? Teksavvy?
      
      I don't recall Teksavvy, Cogeco, Nexicom, etc... joining bell back in '04.
      
      You haven't convinced me. I'll stick with Cogeco, for now. At least they quit sending me notices of infringement when I told them they better have their facts straight before forwarding any more said notices or we would meet in court.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ressy (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In 2011, Voltage asked for IP information from Bell, Cogeco & Videotron, and all 3 ISPs wrote a letter to the court together stating they wouldn't fight it, or even show up to the hearing.
        http://dwmw.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/voltages-teksavvy-subscriber-shakedown-whats-an-isp-t o-do/#comment-2530
        Jean-Francois Mezei (also known as 'JF') is well-known in the Canadian Tech Policy circles, and I can confirm that posting is from him due to a conversation I had with him Sunday night.
        
        In 2012, NGN asked for & got IP information from 4 ISPs; Access, Distributel, 3web & ACN Inc.
        http://copyrightenforcement.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NGN-Order-Montreal.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.davidellis.ca/teksavvy-customers-win-big-in-federal-court-today/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "In 2011, Bell,Vid�otron,Cog�co struck a deal with Voltage where they not only agreed to not fight the request to divulge identity associated with 50 IP addresses, but also agreed to NOT SHOW UP IN COURT."
        
        First I have heard of any of this. All 50 must have settled out of court. Is this when the Montreal Forum was nabbed as well?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ressy (profile), 16 Jan 2013 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think that's where one of the IPs resolved to, yes.
        There was a big post about it on DSLReports.com (Canadian Broadband) back then where people were checking where the 50 IPs resolved to - whether commercial, or private.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]