Canadian ISP Teksavvy Fights Back Against Overbroad Copyright 'Blocking Order' For GoldTV

from the site-blocking dept

A few weeks back, a Canadian court issued a shockingly broad blocking order against GoldTV, an IPTV service that copyright holders allege are engaging in piracy by offering streaming access to unauthorized TV streams. The case itself is interesting in that Bell Media and Rogers Media sued GoldTV's owners (listed as John Does) as defendants, but then also had all Canadian broadband ISPs listed as "respondents," including Bell Canada and Rogers Communications -- which almost makes this a case where Bell and Rogers are effectively suing themselves. Wacky.

The plaintiffs in the case demanded that the various ISPs block GoldTV. Not surprisingly, Bell's and Rogers' ISP arms consented to the demand with no protest (as did Fido and Videotron). Most of the other ISPs "took no position" on the matter. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian civil process to fully understand this, but it sounds more or less like they would agree to whatever the court decided, and wouldn't advocate one way or the other. The only ISP to fight back was Teksavvy. The company's lawyers said that the federal court system lacks the jurisdiction to issue a blocking order. The company's argument was that this is a copyright issue, and Canada's revised copyright law has no provision for site blocking. Indeed, such a remedy was proposed but rejected by the Canadian Parliament. Teksavvy also pointed out that issues of site blocking for ISPs was not within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, but rather the CRTC, the regulatory agency overseeing communications policy (roughly the equivalent of the American FCC). The argument here is that since the CRTC has a net neutrality-like rule that says that content must be treated equally, site blocking would violate that rule.

Indeed, Teksavvy made it clear that even if GoldTV is a bad actor and engaged in widespread infringement, a full site blocking order is a problematic statement for how the internet should work. In a statement given to the website Mobile Syrup Teksavvy explained its position as a principled one in favor of an open internet (and not as a defender of piracy):

“TekSavvy opposed the original motion because a blocking order is a grave violation of network neutrality and a fundamental change to what we do as Internet service providers,” a spokesperson told MobileSyrup in an email.

[....]

“As unsympathetic as GoldTV may be, TekSavvy’s view is that it does not represent such an urgent harm to the plaintiffs or to society that stopping its copyright infringing activities would justify such a fundamental change in the nature of the Internet in Canada,” the spokesperson said.

The Court rejects all of that. It says that site blocking orders "have proven effective." It also rejects Teksavvy's position that DNS-level blocking would run into problems when it comes to situations where higher level DNS security systems, like DNSSEC are in place. The court does not care and more or less says "nerd harder."

I accept Teksavvy's evidence to the effect that it currently lacks a system or business process to implement and monitor site blocking; however, that evidence does not establish that the cost and complexity of doing so tips this factor in favour of not issuing the order sought.

Of course, the issue is not really one of the expense of doing the blocking, but due to the fact that it would break other aspects of security. But the court ignores that.

Then there's the big one. Teksavvy, rightly, points out the concern that this site blocking order will overblock, and end up blocking legitimate, non-infringing material. The court completely ignores all that by saying that the site blocking order itself is limited, and if something non-infringing gets blocked, the court can always adjust the order, and also the order lets the ISP temporarily lift the block if it needs to "respond to technical or security concerns or to avoid overblocking." And that's it. No practical understanding or consideration of the problems, just "nerd harder."

Regarding the net neutrality question, again, the court rejects the argument. While the court doesn't go quite as far as the plaintiffs want in declaring that site blocking is never a net neutrality issue (which would be quite a horrifying conclusion), it does note that since this is targeting a site engaged in widespread infringement, that it is not covered by net neutrality rules, since those rules only cover "legal content."

Either way, it's a pretty complete loss for Teksavvy, but the ISP has already made it clear it's appealing the order. As Canadian copyright lawyer Howard Knopf notes in the linked story in the previous sentence, site blocking is a huge issue that, in most other places, has gone through a careful legislative debate. Yet, here, it's the court making up the remedy from scratch, and that should worry everyone:

If website blocking is a needed solution to a serious problem, then one would expect explicit and very carefully constructed legislation based upon extensive review and consultation. Other common law jurisdictions where the courts have blocked websites have enacted enabling legislation that merits study. In Canada, it is clearly the role of Parliament to devise and implement copyright legislation.

The job of our courts is to interpret and apply such legislation – not to effectively amend and extend the law to fill in perceived inadequacies.

Indeed, in the US, when site blocking was proposed in the form of SOPA and PIPA, people protested and Congress chose not to implement it. It would be hugely troubling for a court to then jump in and say "well, site blocking is okay because I said so." And, yet, that's more or less what this Canadian court did here.

Filed Under: blocking, canada, copyright, isps, site blocking
Companies: goldtv, teksavvy

Voltage Pictures Has To Pay $22k To Canadian ISP If It Wants Names For Its Shakedown Scheme

from the still-is-problematic dept

Voltage Pictures is the fairly successful movie studio that has a side business as a copyright troll -- sending angry threat letters demanding cash based on flimsy evidence about people who may have downloaded its films. While it originally focused on the US, more recently it has been trolling in other countries as well. When Canada changed its copyright laws a few years ago, Voltage immediately saw it as an opportunity to expand its trolling operations. It initially targeted Canadian ISP TekSavvy which refused to cough up names, but a year ago, the court ordered Teksavvy to cough up names -- but also said that it would review Voltage's shakedown letters to make sure they didn't overstate the company's position.

There was one remaining issue however: how much Voltage needed to pay TekSavvy for the privilege of getting the names. TekSavvy asked for about $350,000 to reveal about 2,000 names, while Voltage said it should only have to pay $884. The court has now given neither party exactly what it wants, saying that Voltage Pictures should pay $21,557.50 -- which works out to a little under $11 per user.

Just like this ruling didn't quite satisfy either Voltage or TekSavvy, it similarly is problematic for future copyright trolling situations on both sides. Michael Geist's discussion highlights the issues. For Voltage, at this price, and (importantly!) given the limitations of Canada's copyright laws on how much a copyright holder can get for infringement, the copyright trolling business might not be that profitable:

The big question now is whether Voltage will proceed with the case. Given their expense to date, they will likely pay the costs and obtain the names. However, they must be committed to going to court over the claims, since the court made it clear that merely sending threats would be viewed as copyright trolling for future claims. Yet with the cap on liability for non-commercial infringement, the further costs of litigating against individuals, the actual value of the works, and the need to obtain court approval on demand letters, it is hard to see how this is a business model that works. Indeed, that is what the court initial noted, stating that “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.”

But, on the flip side, the ruling is problematic in that it refused to let TekSavvy recover the costs associated with defending its users' privacy. The message, then, to ISPs is that it may be too costly to fight for users' privacy rights:

The decision unpacks all the cost claims, but the key finding was that costs related to the initial motion over whether there should be disclosure of subscriber information was separate from the costs of abiding by the order the court ultimately issued. The motion judge did not address costs at the time and the court now says it is too late to address them.

That approach seemingly does not reflect how the parties viewed the case given that this was an unprecedented action. With TekSavvy now bearing all of those motion costs (in addition to costs associated with informing customers), the decision sends a warning signal to ISPs that getting involved in these cases can lead to significant costs that won’t be recouped. That is a bad message for privacy.

Meanwhile, this just acts as yet another reminder as to why no one should bother watching movies produced by Voltage Pictures.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, copyright trolling, fees
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Both Wins And Loses In Canadian Copyright Troll Attempt

from the remind-me-not-to-watch-your-films dept

You might remember how Voltage Pictures, creators of The Hurt Locker, was the first studio in the United States to really try to take a stab at copyright trolling, suing large numbers of purported P2P copyright violators en masse. Despite struggles with this approach the company has proven persistent, with Voltage boss Nicolas Chartier insisting that anybody that criticizes his company's approach to business is a "moron and a thief." The company recently scaled down their efforts slightly, earlier this month filing a lawsuit against 31 anonymous people for using BitTorrent to obtain their latest film, Dallas Buyers Club.

After spreading such love and joy in the States, the company turned its sights on Canada in late 2012, where they took specific aim at a small independent ISP by the name of TekSavvy. Over the weekend, a Canadian court ruled that TekSavvy would have to hand over the personal data of roughly 2,000 customers who obtained copies of Voltage films via BitTorrent. Those users can now look forward to "settlement-o-matic" letters from Voltage demanding anything from $100 to $5,000 under Canada's federal Copyright Act.

While the court did feel bound by precedent to allow the release of user names, Judge Kevin Aalto at least recognized the hazards of copyright trolling, including numerous safeguards such as the requirement that Voltage have the precise wording of these letters signed off on by the court before they get sent to end users:

"In order to ensure there is no inappropriate language in any demand letter sent to the alleged infringers, the draft demand letter will be provided to the court for review," Aalto wrote. "Any correspondence sent by Voltage to any subscriber shall 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 court also required that any subscriber must be able to request a full copy of the Judge's order, which Voltage will have to pay for. TekSavvy's legal bills must also be paid in full before any information is exchanged, and Voltage is prohibited from exposing any of the data to the media, or putting it to use for "other purposes." All told, under Canadian law it may not make financial sense for Voltage to pursue this further. Canadian law professor Michael Geist does a nice job showing how being a copyright troll in Canada isn't going to be worth the expense:

"Even if Voltage were successful in convincing a court to award ten times the marketplace value of a $15 movie - $150 - the economics do not make sense. Assuming Voltage manages to convince 75% of recipients to settle for the $150 demand, the campaign would generate $225,000 in revenue. Yet that must be offset by paying the TekSavvy costs before any names are released (which alone were estimated at $200,000 at the federal court hearing), covering their own costs (assume a matching $200,000 to collect the IP addresses, retain experts, and fund the litigation), and dealing with thousands of demand letter recipients (if each letter costs $30 in time and money that adds another $45,000)."

Between the restrictions prohibiting Voltage from using their usual scare tactics in the letters and the high costs of pursuing things further, it doesn't look like Voltage is going to have much fun during their visit north of the border after all.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, the hurt locker, troll
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures

Court Gives Canadians More Time To Fight Copyright Troll Voltage

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

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.

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

If TekSavvy Won't Oppose Copyright Trolls Who Want Customer Info, Who Will?

from the privacy-before-piracy dept

We recently covered the latest attempt by Voltage Pictures to identify alleged Canadian filesharers in order to launch one of their infamous copyright shakedown schemes. Rather than target one of the big ISPs, they made a list of thousands of IP addresses from TekSavvy, an independent service provider, and sought a court order forcing them to identify the users behind the addresses. TekSavvy has been admirably transparent and communicative about the issue, and was clear from the start that it would not release any information without a court order. On Monday, the court granted TekSavvy's request to adjourn until January so it could notify its customers and give them a chance to oppose the motion that would reveal their identities. However, TekSavvy has also been very clear about one thing: it won't be opposing the motion itself, and it's left a lot of customers and commentators wondering why.

Nobody would expect TekSavvy to personally defend each customer against accusations of infringement, and the company's statements so far seem to hinge on that idea as the reason it's not going to oppose Voltage's request in court. On the surface that might seem reasonable, but in fact it sidesteps the real issue: TekSavvy may not be responsible for its users' defence against infringement lawsuits, but it is responsible for protecting its users' privacy—and there are plenty of serious privacy issues with Voltage's motion that need to be addressed long before we get to the point of determining the actual guilt or innocence of individual users.

This isn't hypothetical. Howard Knopf explains the key legal comparison in this case—a 2004 attempt by BMG to get information on a mere 29 users from much larger ISPs. Not only did the ISPs oppose the motion, they won, and established important precedents in doing so.

Despite Teksavvy’s openness concerning this issue, questions are still bound to arise why Teksavvy is not actually opposing this disclosure motion in 2012, as Shaw and Telus actively and successfully did in 2004, with Bell and Rogers taking a similar if less vigorous position. In this regard, it is interesting to compare Voltage’s material with the BMG et al material filed in 2004 that was rejected by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal at that time as inadequate in a very comparable situation, as a result of which we now have clear and binding appellate case law.

...

The law about all of this was clearly laid out by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2005. Here is a very balanced discussion of this presented by myself and one of my worthy opponents in that case, Richard Naiberg. The key criteria for potential success in a disclosure motion such as this is that there must be substantial, admissible, non-hearsay, and reliable evidence in the form of affidavit material and at least a bona fide case.

A key intervener in that case was the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, which fought hard for the privacy of the Doe defendants. CIPPIC also sent a letter to the court regarding this recent Voltage motion, requesting the adjournment that was granted Monday. That letter focused heavily on the factors established in the BMG case, and when you run through those factors, you begin to see why this is a privacy issue before it's an infringement issue. The court's disclosure test was designed to ensure that customer info isn't released without a solid reason—and perhaps the most important requirement is that there be a bona fide claim, further clarified as a true intent to pursue further action based on the disclosure, and no ulterior motive. When it comes to a shakedown operation like Voltage's, everyone knows that the exact opposite is true, and CIPPIC's letter (pdf) cites the company's past (while explaining precisely what a "copyright troll" is) to make this point:

On the question of bona fides, the plaintiff has identified literally thousands of John Does and Jane Does. BMG v. Doe involved only 29 potential defendants. It is worth asking the plaintiff if it holds a bond fide intent to bring 2000 actions for copyright infringement. As will be noted below, this plaintiff has a track record in the United States of demanding subscriber data of internet service providers for the purposes of demanding exorbitant payments to settle under threat of litigation, with no bona fide intent to prosecute such litigation. In CIPPIC’s view, this scheme does not meet the requirements of the need to show a bona fide claim, but instead is evidence of another purpose.

...

the applicant has in the past engaged in similar mass litigation in the United States. The applicant’s business model for such litigation has earned it the label of “copyright troll”. Trolls’ business model involves alleging that consumers are liable for copyright infringement, and demanding compensation under threat of litigation. The compensation demanded invariably grossly exceeds the damages a troll might expect if the troll were to actually litigate and obtain judgement and a damages award. However, such compensation does not typically exceed the cost to a defendant of defending the action. Enough defendants will choose to pay rather than defend to make the scheme profitable to the troll. The troll typically never litigates through to a judgement, since the costs of doing so would render the scheme as a whole less profitable. The troll’s business model, thus, is an arbitrage game, exploiting judicial resources to leverage defendants’ fear and the costs of defending into a revenue stream. And, of course, no part of these revenues finds its way back to the court to offset costs borne by the taxpayer as the judiciary plays its inadvertent role in this scheme. In CIPPIC’s view, such a purpose is improper and bars the applicant from establishing a bona fide claim.

Not only that, as the letter notes, Voltage's motion accuses the users of commercial infringement—a much higher bar carrying much higher potential fines. This accusation seems completely unsupported by the evidence (which amounts to little more than "these IP addresses were connected to BitTorrent swarms") and even less likely to qualify as a bona fide claim.

Since we've been seeing lots and lots and lots of US judges slamming copyright trolling operations and dumping their cases, there's clearly an opportunity here for Canadian courts to smack down this practice before it gets off the ground—or re-assert their earlier smackdown, anyway. But the only way that can happen is if someone actually opposes Voltage's request (CIPPIC's letter was just supporting a delay). TekSavvy is still insisting it won't be them; CIPPIC might seem the logical candidate, and I'm sure they'll do what they can, but it's unclear how much they will be allowed to intervene if none of the directly-involved parties put up a fight. The only other option is the customers themselves, once TekSavvy notifies them—but, of course, the whole point of this scheme in the first place is that most people can't afford to take on a complex legal battle.

So will Voltage waltz right past the clearly-established test for the disclosure of private information? If TekSavvy doesn't do anything, they just might.

Filed Under: canada, copyright trolls, isps, privacy
Companies: teksavvy, voltage

Voltage Pictures Thinks Canada's New Copyright Law Opens The Door For More Trolling

from the oh-canada dept

You may recall Voltage Pictures not because it once made a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture (Hurt Locker), but because it was basically the first Hollywood studio to embrace copyright trolling. This is the company whose boss, Nicolas Chartier, once said that anyone who criticizes his company for copyright trolling is a moron and a thief (and that was in response to a rather friendly and polite email to Chartier suggesting that copyright trolling might hurt the company's reputation in the long run). While some of its earlier efforts to sue thousands of people at once (in once case it sued nearly 25,000 people in one shot) have run into difficulties, Voltage just won't quit. A quick check of the records shows that it's still been filing new lawsuits in the US (among smaller groups) and trying to make the case for proper joinder by using the "swarm" theory: that if all the IP addresses are a part of the same swarm, they're all connected in the legal issue (of course, they miss the fact that this would likely also mean that the total sum that could be collected would be split among all defendants).

And, now, it appears, they've decided to try the same scheme up north. We had just noted that with Canada's new copyright law in place, it appeared that the copyright trolls were getting ready to pounce -- and that's now been confirmed. ISP TekSavvy initially released a blog post noting that Voltage Pictures was demanding a ton of information on many of its users. So far, the company is resisting, while notifying its users. It also noted that Voltage's strategy here is an odd one:

We are frankly puzzled by the approach that Voltage has taken. It seems contrary to the government’s intent with copyright reform, which was to discourage file sharing lawsuits against individuals, while still protecting copyright holders’ rights. The manner and the timing of this action also seems unusual given that the government recently created a roadmap for addressing file sharing and copyright infringement within its legislation. Its starting point is a notification system to subscribers to discourage infringement without immediate threats of lawsuits or disclosure of their personal information. That system is not yet finalized though. In light of these factors, Voltage’s actions seem odd to us.

It appears to us that a notice period is essential, especially in cases where large privacy disclosures may be involved. Without this notice, a customer could be the subject of a lawsuit and not even know about it. Surely this is in part why the government is seeking to enact such notice provisions in the policy.

At this point there are many unanswered questions. How does Voltage intend to proceed? How will the courts rule if customers should retain legal counsel? Under what conditions might the court order the disclosure of customer information? If Voltage is successful, how many more notices will Canadian ISPs receive? Is there a limit to what the court will allow?

The move by Voltage has a number of people confused. One of the really good features of Canada's new copyright laws is a cap on how much someone would have to pay at $5,000. That takes away a troll's ability to demand huge sums, while also limiting its ability to wave a big stick about them being liable for $150,000 in possible statutory awards (as they do in the US). Besides, as Teksavvy notes, the Canadian government was already worried about trolling when it passed the new law.

In the end, it's unclear if Voltage is so wedded to the idea of copyright trolling that it simply doesn't understand what's going on in Canada. Either way, it makes one thing clear: I will now go out of my way to never watch a movie from Voltage. Who would support a company that sues its fans?

Filed Under: canada, copyright trolling
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures