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.

Hide this

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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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.

    ;-)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.