Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian File Sharing Plaintiff Admits To Copyright Trolling

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the ok-we-like-money dept.

Canada 87

An anonymous reader writes "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. The Canipre admission is important because it is consistent with arguments that the case involves copyright trolling and that the Canadian Federal Court should not support the scheme by ordering the disclosure of subscriber contact information."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A Sad Day for Canada (3)

DotNM (737979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148955)

It's a sad day for Canada when we start doing this kind of stuff too.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (4, Informative)

dropadrop (1057046) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149009)

I would imagine that you can't judge how sad the day is before seeing what the reaction is. I would imagine this scheme is active in most countries enforcing copyright.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (-1, Flamebait)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149081)

I would imagine that you can't judge how sad the day is before seeing what the reaction is. I would imagine this scheme is active in most countries enforcing copyright.

Some countries have their capitalism purer than others, e.g. pure jungle tooth and claw capitalism, where lawyers and business attack the population unrestrained, or somewhat socialised capitalism where the state attempts to moderate.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (0, Troll)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150679)

Blaming capitolism for crime is like blaming highways for road deaths. I love how you clowns seem to think totalitarian government is the cure for everything.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151135)

Here's the difference, you drive drunk and kill someone in an accident you are punished. You have drinks while you plunder the populace using a monopoly or through scams or by just being a banking institution and you don't get punished at all.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151239)

The blame goes to unregulated and unrestrained capitalism. It is the wingnuts that have taught everyone else that unregulated and unrestrained is the one true capitalism, and so made it the target for blame.

Imagine a world where you could rob the liquor store just by telling the first cop you see that the money in the till is actually yours. The store owner is, of course, welcome to file a protest but the filing fee amounts to double the amount in the till.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153477)

Uhhh...kinda forget your history bud? We ALREADY TRIED so called "pure capitalism" and it got us a little period known as "the age of the robber barons" which left us some really nice superfund sites that We, The People are on the hook for, along with tons of toxin dumped all over the place, quite a few worker deaths, and oh yeah...you know those regulations that you libertarians are always harping on about, guess who paid for them? THE ROBBER BARONS, that's right, those "unfettered capitalists" after they had made THEIR fortunes sure as fuck didn't want any competition so like the rich in any other period since the dawn of time they bought their own government to enforce their monopolies...nice huh?

So I'm sorry, like fascism and communism, we've been there and done that, don't work. Kinda funny how the Libertarians refuse to claim what was a half a century of EXACTLY what they have been asking for, because it highlights the flaw in their logic which is thus: For libertarianism, or any other ism for that matter, to work you need to have players who are NOT douchebags, yet if there is one thing that history has taught us its that those at the top often have dreams of being Nero and are very much douchebags, so it always ends in disaster. Maybe if you could build a system controlled by an AI that didn't have an ego to inflate? Maybe. But as long as meatbags are in charge its gonna suck because everyone dreams of being their own "King God of the Mountain" and ruling over the peasants with an iron fist.

Hell give me half a trillion and I'll buy a chunk of South America and make Chavez look like a choirboy, I wouldn't be able to help it, power corrupts. To paraphrase a line from LOTR "I would take this power from a desire to do good, but through me it would do great evil" because that is just how power works, it appeals to our belief that we know better than everybody else and it blinds us to "the little things" that end up causing great suffering. Capitalism is NO DIFFERENT, those that end up with great wealth decide they have this because it "proves" they are better and thus should rule, it blinds them and corrupts them and it ends up causing suffering because they are too high in the tower to see what their edicts are doing to those on the ground. It has been this way since the olden days, it will be this way a thousand years from now, that's just how it works folks.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153733)

I've pointed out to you before that your view is largely a myth. I'll just leave this here for anyone interested.

The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315 [amazon.com]

That period of the 19th century you lament so much saw the largest rise in wages and standards of living that workers had ever seen, increase in safety (as technology allowed), and the effective elimination of the 10,000 year history of child labor by allowing parents to earn enough money that the children did not have to. Workers went from 14 hour days 6 days a week on the farm to 12 hour days in the factories, which soon went to 10 and eventually 8, all the while earning more than they could have at 16 hours on a farm thanks to the capital equipment at their disposal. Things were rough and primitive because the technology available was rough and primitive compared to today. They did the best with what they had just like we did 10 or 20 years ago with computers.

The problem of pollution was a problem caused by government refusing to enforce private property rights. Not to mention that one of the largest polluters was government agencies or organizations, especially municipal water systems.

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution
https://mises.org/daily/5978/The-Libertarian-Manifesto-on-Pollution [mises.org]

Before the mid and late 19th century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights. But during the 19th century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and the law of nuisance to permit any air pollution which was not unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.

As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that industrial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease and countless other ailments. And all for the "common good"


Not to mention that the long term effects of some of these chemicals were not known at the time, so even if there was an EPA in 1870, they would have just dumped them in a hole anyway.

It's not like Libertarians haven't been thinking about these things, it's that the solutions don't fit into a 30 second sound bite. No solution is going to be perfect, so we are going to have to chose which imperfections we are most willing to deal with.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155277)

simplistic nonsense.

shorter hours, better working conditions, and curtailment of child wages were not GIVEN to workers by capital or management, they were TAKEN by people who were tired of dying on the job while being forced to pay excessive amounts for food and rent at company-owned stores and towns.

Typical right-wing nonsense: capitalism gently provides for its workers and "the invisible hand of the marketplace" is some warm soft breeze that reorganizes, not a hammer blow that destroys those at the bottom, usually missing those whose malefactions caused the problem (cf the US economy in 1792, 1796, 1819, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1869, 1873, 1893, 1896, 1901, 1907, 1920, 1929, 1936, 1973, 1980 (silver corner), 1987, 1989, 1992, 2008).

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155503)

You know, that's really strange, because I seem to remember the rise of trade unionism being the end of child labor and the development of the 40 hour work week. The robber barons were pissed off because their employees didn't want to work 168 hours a week and actually wanted to sleep part of that week.

But I guess in today's union-busting America, it's politically correct to revise history to put a kinder gentler face on the robber barons. Handy little hint for you, they weren't called 'robber barons' because they were pushovers...

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156801)

Allow me to say thank you, as my great grandfather was an actual card carrying socialist that had his skull cracked several times for daring to point out that sharecroppers? They could actually feel pain and did need to rest when they are sick. I know that would be just common fucking sense but words like that simply not tolerated by the large land owners who frankly treated their workers like disposable people.

And I'm not even gonna respond to the libertarian, know why? because they ARE the young earthers, I swear to fucking God that is EXACTLY what they are like. You can point to societies that had no government, you can show how time and time again this ALWAYS leads to feudalism, how the history of this planet, going back to the first clay tablets, shows it ALWAYS follows the same pattern 1.-Make large sums by ANY means, be they legal, moral, or not, 2.-Hire goon squad, 3.-Become God of the Mountain and treat those below you like shit but JUST LIKE the young earthers whose stock answer is "Satan did it" their answer is "The free market fixes that".

Believe me I know of which I speak, I spent a year arguing with one on YouTube before someone pointed out "You DO realize you are about as likely to get him to see logic as you are getting a member of the Taliban to see women as anything other than chattel, right?" and its true, there is NO amount of citations, no amount of history, hell I even quoted Adam Smith who knew that unfettered capitalism would be a fricking disaster yet NONE of this matters, because the market is his God, the invisible hand his Jesus. Notice how badly he distorted a period of history that frankly is VERY well documented, by coming up with a single ultra right book that says "Those poor wittle robber barons, picked on by the nasty government" which has about as much weight with historians, and not meaning to Godwin here, just don't have a better example of this level of batshit historical revisionism, the former executioner that wrote a book that said all those empty cans of poison at the camps was used for clearing buildings of lice.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what history shows to be true because just like religion libertarian beliefs are all about FAITH not science. look up that Stefan from FreeDomainRadio some time, for him the magic word is "insurance". Yes insurance will magically keep the rich guy from poisoning my land, keep the rapist from raping my wife and children, why we don't need a government at all to stop evil men, just...insurance policies. No I'm NOT making that shit up, I swear to God he actually believes this and even more scarily has hundreds of thousands of followers that buy this kind of batshit.

Of course we ALL know what it ultimately is about, and I have to thank Ron Paul of all people for giving us the ultimate example and that is GREED. When all those libertarians cheered at the thought of a 22 year old dying because he didn't have money for medical treatment I thought "Here is the perfect metaphor for libertarianism, cheer death and suffering as long as it doesn't take their precious pieces of silver from them" because at the end of the day what IS libertarianism? Its about greed, its about not minding if the guy down the road is starving and living in filth as long as you have your gold plated shitter and maid to wipe your ass, its frankly one of the most disgusting belief systems I've ever seen, right up there with fascism and cults of personality like Stalinism in my book. As one of the posters pointed out there is really only 2 flavors of libertarians, one wants the government to protect them from their slaves, the other wants to be able to hire a goon squad to protect them from the slaves as the government might enact laws saying they can only beat their slaves once a week.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43169811)

You remember incorrectly. By the end of the 19th century Unionization was still in the single digits percentage wise, perhaps low double digits in some places. They were in no position to make such demands. Just look at the 3rd world today. Why do children there work? Because ALL the parents suck? Or is it because they are so poor that if the children don't work, the family starves.

They had nothing to do with the 40 hour week either. That was part of the natural progression of rising wages and people choosing to work fewer hours and employers accommodating this. The much more heavily Unionized European workers had their wages rise slower and got the 8 hour day much later than their effectively non-unionized american counterparts.

You, by contract, whitewash the blatant racism of Labor Unions that continues to this day, whose efforts to keep blacks from competing for the jobs of whites kept so many on the sharecropping plantation and keep so many blacks today unemployed.

They were called "robber barons" by their competitors, whom they drove out of business by increasing productivity and efficiency. Labor unions by contrast produce nothing, they are pure parasites on the productive sector of the economy. They don't produce a single bushel of what, a single car, a single drop of oil.

The 19th century Socialist talking points are worthless because they don't match reality. I've already cited a well researched book on the subject and that view is gaining traction with historians because the evidence is too overwhelming.

The Free Market: Fallacies and Facts | Thomas E. Woods, Jr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jByMs8tKGI [youtube.com]

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#43172933)

So you're saying that the Knights of Labor and other early trade unionists were against the 40 hour work week and wanted to work til they dropped? And it was only due to the kindhearted industrialists that we got the 40 hour work week, with time & a half after 40 hours for overtime pay? Care to explain to me why the Republicans, standardbearers of the corporations, want to eliminate overtime pay, the minimum wage, and just about every other social advance that built the middle class?

I don't know what you're smoking, but howcome you're not sharing? Or is that too socialist/communist/un-American for you?

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43181715)

Wow, way to construct a straw man.

Of course they weren't against the 40 hour week, but they didn't have anything meaningful to do with it, as evidenced by the much more heavily unionized European workers getting the 8 hour day long after American workers did. It was rising productivity made possible by the capitalists that enabled wages to rise to the point where workers had the option to accept more free time instead of higher wages. Workers were willing to accept slightly lower wages in exchange for an 8 hour day, so the capitalists did indeed freely oblige. Before that point, wages had not risen enough and people needed the extra income that working a 10 hour day brought them. Today I bet every single person would love to work a 20 hour week. The problem is that they couldn't life on the wages that a 20 hour week would bring them. Likewise in the early 19th century in regards to the 50 and 60 hour week.

Since you obviously don't read your history, what the labor unionists wanted was "8 hour day for 10 hour pay". THAT is why there was such "resistance" to the 8 hour day. Workers that wanted 8 hour day for 8 hour pay had no problem getting an 8 hour day.

Forgotten Facts of American Labor History
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods135.html [lewrockwell.com]

As Henry George wrote in the nineteenth century, "Those who tell you of trades unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone are like those who would tell you of tigers that live on oranges." The result of union activity, therefore, is to reduce the number of jobs in an industry and to raise the money wages of union labor, while at the same time relegating many workers, driven out of this line of work by the decreased quantity of labor demanded there, to other lines of work, whose money wages must decrease as a result of the greater supply of workers now forced to compete for them.

The net result is that the gains to certain workers are more than offset by the disabilities inflicted upon other workers. When union activity reduces the number of people who can be profitably employed in skilled trades, it correspondingly increases the number of skilled laborers who are forced to find work in fields that are well below their level of competence. The outcome of this displacement of skilled labor is no different from a situation in which laborers never possessed these skills in the first place. If union privilege prevents some workers from putting their skills to their proper use, the effect is the same as if they had never gone to the trouble to acquire them at all. Thus society produces below its potential, and wealth that would otherwise have been created never sees the light of day.

Unions do not help the workers, they help some workers get some wages by lowering the wages of all other workers. They rely on violence and coercion to prevent the employer from simply finding workers willing to work at the terms offered. You know a Union is being unreasonable in its demands when it has to resort to picketing and assaulting replacement workers. If the Unions demands were reasonable then the owner would not be able to find enough replacement workers willing to work for him and a picket would be unnecessary.

This idea, that workers without unions will inherently have a disadvantage in bargaining power relative to employers, is the basis for most individuals' support of unionism and is picked up again in the Wagner Act. But that disadvantage is a hoary myth. A worker's bargaining power depends on the worker's alternatives. If a worker either works for Employer A or does not work (i.e., if Employer A is a monopsonist), the worker has little bargaining power. If the worker has several employment alternatives, he has strong bargaining power. There may have been instances of monopsony or oligopsony in the 19th century, but they were short-lived. Monopsony has not been a significant factor in the American labor market since the introduction and widespread use of the automobile.

Think to the show Gilligans Island. Why the were they so poor? After all, not a single episode went by where Thurston wasn't using hundred dollar bills for some trivial task. It wasn't that there was a shortage of money, it was that there was a shortage of production. Taking all of Thurstons money and passing it around would have done nothing to solve their problems because there wasn't anything for them to buy with that money. Likewise in the 19th century. Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860—1890, and another 37 percent from 1890 to 1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154385)

> Blaming capitolism for crime is like blaming highways for road deaths.

well, when the highway collapses from lack of investment because it wasn't profitable, then yes, you can blame the highway for the road deaths

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155243)

what crime ?
you mean stealing a purse?

oh you mean robbing a store?

Oh you mean downloading shit??

Move back to the US ov A

Re: socialised capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151511)

It called compassionate conservatism, not socialised capitalism.

Now assume the position peons, I feel a trickle coming on.

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151671)

Courts aren't capitalism, they're the opposite of capitalism. Courts are run by the government. Thus, the idea of law and enforcement of law is a purely non-capitalist idea.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean capitalism is better without any form of law. But don't get the two confused. The use of law against another is the use of socialism against another, as law *is* "social justice".

Re: A Sad Day for Canada (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#43155897)

Comrade, come to the United States, where you can get all the justice you can buy.

Cash only, no checks. Void where prohibited, local restrictions may apply...

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149199)

Is there a legal requirement to give your real name when signing up with internet, cable, or landline phone service? As far as I can tell, they don't confirm the information you give to them and I don't think there is a law saying you must use your real name. It would be a great way to defend from copyright trolls. Oh you are suing Jack Smith at 123 Main St? Sorry there is no Jack Smith living here. *Process server leaves* I guess they could subpoena the electric or gas company after that, but if those guys have a backbone, they will not give this information away and a judge probably wouldn't force them to without cause. Even then, you could give a psuedonymn to your utilities and they probably won't care as long as you're paying the bills.

Really, the only reason companies want your name and DOB is for debt collection and credit check. Generally, you can avoid the credit inquiry by giving them a deposit. They don't give a shit who lives where as long as they get paid.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149749)

How do they send you an invoice, roll the wire to your house, etc.?

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150133)

They mail it to a different address.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150941)

They hook your cable/DSL up to a different house?

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151313)

For cable in most cases the wire is already rolled. All they actually need from you is the MAC address of your cable modem and, of course, payment.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151445)

The cable guy came, got the serial # off my modem, went outside, climbed the pole, and switched the feed on. The cable was there, but physically off. This is how cable works.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151597)

In some places.

In the analog days they did that so you couldn't just plug in a cable ready TV and go. If they wanted to stop the analog signal from going to your house, they had to disconnect the wire. If you later wanted premium services, they had to roll a truck to physically change the filters connected to your line to permit those channels to pass. It wasn't all that unusual to just hook up a TV and find that some sort of cable service was already available for free. This was not generosity, they just didn't bother to roll a truck when the previous resident cancelled (or they disconnected the wrong cable).

In all digital systems, they just have to send an authorization message to the cable box. For internet they just enable the MAC address.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43152441)

This was not generosity, they just didn't bother to roll a truck when the previous resident cancelled

Or they rolled a truck and the installer went for coffee and did a "pencil-whip disconnect", as they called it back then.

I lived in a college town and the cable co had an issue with people who were getting cable for free by just plugging in. They couldn't prosecute anyone for cable theft because of the known issue of pencil-whips. So, they did a complete system audit. Every pole, every box. Everyone who was connected but wasn't paying got offered a deal on signing up for service. Anyone who refused got cut off.

Then they went back a few months later to see if anyone they had cut off was mysteriously reconnected. THOSE people were targets for cable theft investigations.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151611)

Ditto with xDSL. They just switch the circuit on from the central office.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151179)

As with virtually every grey area in Canadian law, the answer is: unless you intend to deceive or defraud. In this case you would definitely be intending to deceive when the process server arrived.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149271)

It will be worse when Canada shows it servitude to the US even more by ratifying ACTA, Bill C-56 [michaelgeist.ca] is just paves the way.

The problem is the First-Past-The-Post election system. If you say that General B'weto received less than 40% of the votes in the Republic of Masuto, but rules with absolute power, this person will be called a dictator. Now look at Canada's latest election results. Yes. The Ruler received just under 40% of the votes. Less than 4-in-10 voters gave their support. But the rule with absolute majority.

Even the senate is a joke: members are appointed by the PM for life. There is no balance there, either.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149345)

There are no lack of European countries with proportional voting systems who are taking hard lines on copyright issues. It seems to matter little how elected representatives are chosen, what seems to matter is that mainline political parties in most countries are sucking at the teat of Big Media.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (2)

Gorshkov (932507) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150991)

The problem is the First-Past-The-Post election system. If you say that General B'weto received less than 40% of the votes in the Republic of Masuto, but rules with absolute power, this person will be called a dictator. Now look at Canada's latest election results. Yes. The Ruler received just under 40% of the votes. Less than 4-in-10 voters gave their support. But the rule with absolute majority.

1) First-Past-The-Post favours different parties at different times - it all works out in the end, provided you think about time scales larger than one meal to the next. One thing it *does* do, is give a party chance to form a stable government and actually govern. In most proportional systems, you wind up with an almost permanent gridlock system, where the tail winds up wagging the dog. YMMV
2) The Prime Minister does not have absolute power - nothing even close to it.
3) General B'weto will remain in power until he dies, or is overthrown by a coup; any elections he decides to have, will be elections where he gets over 90% of the vote.
4) The WILL be another election - there is no choice in the matter. If the Prime Minster looses, he will leave 24 Sussex Drive on his own, without requiring police escort of military prompting.

Yeah - we live in such a brutal dictatorship.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149279)

Really? When was the last time you heard of a copyright troll admitting to wrongdoing in the US?

If you actually read TFA, Canpire actually admits that acting civilly and reasonably with infringers is better and more effective than being total dicks. Though only time will tell whether this is a ruse to build goodwill, and it does demonstrate that they are, in fact, behaving like dicks with their bullshit litigious actions.

(fun sidebar: the word "Canpire" autocorrects to "Vampire" on my phone)

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149731)

Does the company's correct name, Canipre, also autocorrect to Vampire?

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149755)

(fun sidebar: the word "Canpire" autocorrects to "Vampire" on my phone)

Even more fun sidebar: 'Canpire' is wrong, too. This is Montreal, ergo, french.
'Canipre'....it would be pronounced something like...'Can-ee-pray'...

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151329)

More like Can-ee-prey.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153873)

Actually, it's probably halfway between that and Can-ee-pruh.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151647)

(fun sidebar: the word "Canpire" autocorrects to "Vampire" on my phone)

Even more fun sidebar: 'Canpire' is wrong, too. This is Montreal, ergo, french.
'Canipre'....it would be pronounced something like...'Can-ee-pray'...

I prefer Can-ee-prey

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150397)

Really? When was the last time you heard of a copyright troll admitting to wrongdoing in the US?

If you actually read TFA, Canpire actually admits that acting civilly and reasonably with infringers is better and more effective than being total dicks. Though only time will tell whether this is a ruse to build goodwill, and it does demonstrate that they are, in fact, behaving like dicks with their bullshit litigious actions.

(fun sidebar: the word "Canpire" autocorrects to "Vampire" on my phone)

They call it a smartphone.

Re:A Sad Day for Canada (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43152051)

Really? When was the last time you heard of a copyright troll admitting to wrongdoing in the US?

When was the last time you heard one admitting to wrongdoing in Canada? The "admission" the summary talks about isn't actually there, it's the claim of Michael Geist (from whom the summary "written" by "anonymous" was copied almost verbatim. Can you spell "plagiarism"? ).

Canipre didn't admit to being a copyright troll, nor did they admit to wrongdoing.

If you actually read TFA, Canpire actually admits that acting civilly and reasonably with infringers is better and more effective than being total dicks.

And TFA also says that some infringers need more, and that Canipre knows the most effective way to get a takedown is by using the legal methods and not just asking politely.

So it has come to this (1)

Prozzaks (185225) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150755)

Even in Canada some corporations are trying to make profit off of scaring people. I see this kind of corporate behaviour even more damaging for society than copyright infringement!

In Other Words (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149073)

Simple blackmail.

Re:In Other Words (4, Informative)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150213)

You mean extortion. Blackmail involves extortion by keeping a secret/returning information/etc.

Re:In Other Words (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151463)

Extortion sounds like robbery except the threat is in memespace rather than meatspace.

I like to define things using the latest, most accurate scientific understanding. :)

Now they infest Canada. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149093)

Voltage Films is a well known copyright trolling firm in the United States. Unfortunately for our neighbors to the north, it appears that these cockroaches are now infesting them as well.

Here's a sample of the RECENT cases they've filed in the U.S.:

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-12
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-24
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Northern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-11
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Northern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-43
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Northern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-22
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-26
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-19
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-72
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-13
Copyright Infringement – Ohio Southern District Court Filed: 3/4/2013

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1 - 198
Copyright Infringement – Oregon District Court Filed: 2/19/2013

Voltage has many other ongoing lawsuits in the states. They've been filing them since at least early 2011.

Re:Now they infest Canada. (2)

Nos. (179609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151485)

Fine, you take Voltage Pictures back, and we'll take Celine back.

the appropriate response (4, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149127)

Turn over all the subscriber info to Canpire immediately. Let them send out demand letters. Then send out letters to all those subscribers explaining the exact nature of Canpire's business, on the theory that there's a least a handful of those subscribers with money, good lawyers, and short tempers ;-)

Re:the appropriate response (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149679)

Absolutely not.

I'm not worried about receiving a letter from them, but I absolutely do not want them to have my contact information at all. Who's to say what they're going to do with that information besides launch a bullshit lawsuit? They may still be able to make money off it, even if not a single suit gets filed.

Re:the appropriate response (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150265)

Exactly... That and what's to limit the scope of their claims? Canipre has already said it has, discredited, data (software they use was thrown out of a German court due to it's failings) on over a million IPs in Canada.

Re:the appropriate response (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151411)

Given their nature, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they followed up with letters from a Nigerian prince who wants to transact business proposition.

Re:the appropriate response (1)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43152991)

Who's to say what they're going to do with that [contact] information besides launch a bullshit lawsuit?

Not "who", but "what" : Canada's PIPEDA law [justice.gc.ca] explicitly prohibits Personal Information collected for one purpose from being used for a different purpose (without consent).

Re:the appropriate response (1)

eth1 (94901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150703)

Turn over all the subscriber info to Canpire immediately. Let them send out demand letters. Then send out letters to all those subscribers explaining the exact nature of Canpire's business, on the theory that there's a least a handful of those subscribers with money, good lawyers, and short tempers ;-)

Even better response that might ultimately be cheaper for the ISP than getting incessant requests:

Send out a letter to all subscribers describing the troll and their methods, then "if you receive demands of this nature, and are willing to fight them in court, contact us for legal assistance." Then either pay for lawyers or use the company ones.

At minimum, you might have to argue one case, but if the trolls find out you're making this offer, they might just move on to an easier target.

Yeah (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149183)

'speculative invoicing' I think the correct term would be blackmail.

Re:Yeah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43150633)

Speculative = Abusive use of legal process
Invoicing = Extortion

But somehow "Extortion via abuse of legal process" doesn't sound as fluffy as "Speculative invoicing".

Also, I react differently to an invoice in the mailbox vs. a court summons in the mailbox - one of these is a little more threatening and imposing than the other, can you guess which?

Fraud? (4, Insightful)

CheeseTroll (696413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149261)

IANAL, but why isn't this simply considered fraud, and prosecuted as such?

Re:Fraud? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149463)

Because law-suits are, fundamentally speaking, a necessary tool to hold people accountable, and creating a precedent(Canada is common law, right?) that suggests you can be punished to raising the possibility of a lawsuit can be dangerous. In this case, I don't think it is, because maliciousness is inherent in the planning, but think what unsavory corporate lawyers might do with such a ruling.

Re:Fraud? (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149701)

Because, theoretically, there actually has been a crime committed in which they are actually the victims. As such, they have a right to defend their properties.

Whether they actually intend to prosecute it is irrelevant, when considering whether they have an entitlement to do so.

sucks, don't it?

Re:Fraud? (2)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150025)

Because, theoretically, there actually has been a crime committed in which they are actually the victims. As such, they have a right to defend their properties.

IIANAL but I don't think that's true. If they want to sue someone go ahead - in court. But to send a notice making unfounded claims and seeking payment is probably mail fraud - at least in the US.

Re:Fraud? (3, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150223)

send a notice making unfounded claims

that's the point... the claims aren't unfounded, at least not to the best of their knowledge. They have evidence (which has yet to be accepted/proven in court) which links the IP address in question to an infringement that is illegal under Canadian law. They're seeking to have the information which links the IP address to a real person so that they can sue.

Whether they actually intend to sue, or simply send threatening letters, has nothing to do with it. The whole point of the case is that the validity of IP address evidence itself needs to be tested in court before the subscriber information is released, not after.

The CIPPIC briefs in this case are particularly interesting/important reading... you can find them, along with all of the other court documents, here: http://www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy/in-the-news/teksavvy-customer-notices/legal-documents-for-request-for-customer-information [teksavvy.com]

Re:Fraud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155219)

Ip never means end user and cant be proven in court ,

If someone steals my car and go on a killing rampage but never get busted im not responsible if i was unaware my car was stolen , same goes for my WI FI .

until they can totally prove beyond resonable doubt that it was you who commited the download they got nada on you , and im saying this stealing one of the 5 open WI FI in my area.

Montreal Canada.

Re:Fraud? (3, Interesting)

davecb (6526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150243)

In addition, their actions have been found to be a fraud upon the courts in some cases.

Applying to the courts for an order to identify people on the grounds you will sue them, and then extorting payments instead, makes the initial application fraudulent.

In the U.S. and the U.K., this has led to legal or law-society actions against the fraudulent plaintiffs. In Canada, as we just passed a law to limit such suits, it may lead to stronger measures.

--dave

Re:Fraud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43245459)

Because, theoretically, there actually has been a crime committed in which they are actually the victims. As such, they have a right to defend their properties.

Whether they actually intend to prosecute it is irrelevant, when considering whether they have an entitlement to do so.

sucks, don't it?

'CRIME'? That's laughable. More like an outmoded busniess plan that is fossilized. The only crime is the extortion from these bastards.

Interesting business model (4, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149305)

1) Send out threatening letters
2) ???
3) Profit!

I call that a Racket as in Racketerring... [wikipedia.org]

Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.

So you have companies asking people to pay for protection or immunity from further civil or criminal prosecution. All they have to do is just pay up.

I don't know if Canada has Racket laws, but in the US we do have the RICO law [wikipedia.org] which has been effective in going after organized crime, especially around Rackets such as this.

Re:Interesting business model (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149455)

When the mob knocks on your door and says that you need to pay up or bad things might happen, that's racketeering. The bad thing that might happen is not of the individual or business's doing, rather it's the mob ransacking the place, torching it, scaring away customers, etc.

While they may have no intentions of actually going after file traders if they don't "settle", they have the option to legally do so. This isn't getting into the debate of whether IP addresses are sufficient evidence to sustain a case, just that the legal option.

Perhaps if the case was absolutely baseless then extortion could be a possibility. But even just an IP address probably would be sufficient enough to get past an extortion claim.

Re:Interesting business model (1)

nebular (76369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149663)

The article even states that they want to go after those that don't settle. They want to take it all the way, which means getting the scared to pay up a small, but not insignificant, amount and the pompous you can't touch me a huge destroying amount, both to them and the defence legal team.

Basically, you bankrupt a few high profile piraters the others will cave, either by paying a settlement, or by not pirating anymore.

Still a losing game these days.

Re:Interesting business model (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#43154309)

luckily the law in Canada caps the maximum penalty for all past offences of private copyright infringement at $5000 total. so "bankrupt" is unlikely.

Re:Interesting business model (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149693)

In Quebec, Canada we have law which is called "Act respecting the Collection of Certain Debts", which states that:

[...]
Prohibited practices.

3. No person may, for the collection of a debt,

  (1) represent that, failing payment, the debtor is liable to arrest or penal proceedings;

  (2) communicate with the debtor when the latter has notified him or her in writing to communicate with his or her legal adviser;

  (2.1) communicate verbally with the debtor before legal action is taken, if the debtor has informed the person in writing that the debt is contested and that the creditor may proceed with legal action; however, for the collection of a debt by the Government or one of its departments, this prohibition only applies as of 120 days following the sending of a demand for payment of the debt;

  (3) use harassment, threats or intimidation;

  (4) disclose information that might cause undue injury to the debtor, his or her surety, their married or civil union spouses or members of their families;

  (5) collect or claim from a debtor a sum of money greater than that which is due;

  (6) use a writing that might be mistaken for a document used, authorized, issued or approved by a tribunal, a government, a municipality or an agency of any of these;

  (7) claim a sum of money from a person other than the debtor or his or her surety;

  (8) communicate verbally with a person believed to be the debtor but who, in the course of a prior communication, indicated that he or she was not the debtor.
[...]

Re:Interesting business model (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151575)

It's nitpicking, but in the case of these letters, I don't believe the defendant/victim/alleged downloader can be considered a debtor. At the time of the letter, there is no legal obligation to pay a "debt". They haven't entered into a contract or agreement for exchange of goods or services.

It's in essence not that different then magazine or other services that send an "invoice" for their service in an attempt to get you to subscribe to them. This presume that the letter they send does not misrepresent the plaintiffs, "debt", or what is required.

Re:Interesting business model (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149895)

Please explain why the MAFIAA can still do racketeering in the USofA if there is a law against it.
As in "I assume that you share files: Either you pay a serious amount of money, or you pay a ridiculous amount of money. And if you want to fight us in court: may God have mercy on your children, because we will make you loose everything including things not even Don Corleone dares to take away."

Re:Interesting business model (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150589)

Humm, well let's see.

1) RIAA and the MPAA spend lots of money lobbying congress. The MPAA for example has a former US Senator as it's current leader, Chris Dodd. [wikipedia.org] Because of lobbying and influence in terms of campaign contributions we have such wonderful legislation like the DMCA.
2) Patent Trolling in the US is a legitimate business, there are examples of this going back nearly 200 years. My favorite example of patent thickets and trolling involves the Sewing Machine wars which started in the 1850s. [ipwatchdog.com] It's an interesting read.
3) Businesses in this country derive special protection, some business practices while questionable aren't illegal. To make something illegal there has to be some law prohibiting it. If RIAA [pcworld.com] and the MPAA [thecrimson.com] can go after people with John Doe cases which amount largely to fishing expeditions then that's allowed under our right of due process. Some judges have disagreed with these tactics while some still are proceeding on appeal. reference: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later [eff.org]
4) The tool that all of these folks use is the DMCA, which is a flawed piece of legislation. Not only is it flawed, it's also being pushed worldwide under the guises of free trade agreements like the "secret" ACTA [afterdawn.com] treaty.
5) Congress really doesn't write anything, they take pieces of put together bullshit from lobbyists, change a couple of things and present it as their own bill. Others attach their bullshit, called a rider onto the Bill that may or may not have anything to do with it but makes it more "passable" because they included a mom + apple pie subsidy along with the big bad legislation. It gets out of dozens of committees and then is voted upon. It's the worst form of legislative process possible run by career politicians and staff people who have no fear of ever losing their jobs. It's no wonder that the approval rating for congress is in the low teens.

So, in simple terms. lobbying + campaign contributions + pre written legislation = DMCA
DMCA + Legal System that allow John Doe suits = (RIAA + MPAA + Big Money Law Firms) + Courts flooded with meaningless cases + defense lawyers + big fees = screwed John Doe who can't defend himself with a fine that exceeds the value of the pilfering many fold. [riaa.com]

this is the worst possible outcome and if you download a CD from a file sharing site you could get slapped very heavily. In a word don't do it but in another word, defending yourself in a wrongful prosecution could become extremely costly. That's why John Doe cases need to be abolished, the DMCA needs to be appealed and where pirating has been found, only the value of the property illegally copied * number of copies should be the penalty. If you have kids at home, I suggest you let them know about downloading and its dangers, not just from malware and viruses but because of that knock on the door from a process server saying you're being sued. [wyff4.com]

Canipre Corporate, DNS, & Contact Info (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149375)

Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149401)

If you remember the sites that sold bittorrent for $30. Or rather they sold 'unlimited copyright free downloads' for $30, and the small print mentioned that the bittorrent app doesn't itself infringe copyright, its the *use* you put it to that may infringe.

People want to pay for the stuff they get, it may not be the price the copyright holder would like, but there's a deal to be made there.

This is the same thing, people feel guilty about getting so much stuff for free, that a troll can extract money from them easily.

IMHO, they (the *real* copyright holders) should join torrent streams, track IP addresses, and make a site that will show them the copyright infringements for each IP. You visit their site, it says you downloaded X,Y,Z with dates and times and a fee. The fee should be cheap, $9 a DVD, $19 a Bluray, $4.99 a CD. Pay the fee, the copyright holder waived the challenge, the infringement is settled. Do you want to dispute some of the infringements, fair enough, dispute them, pay what you agree if you're way out you risk challenge, but mostly not.

Once people settle their costs, offer them NEW releases at a discount. You downloaded and paid for Avengers? OK, $8 to buy the latest Marvel movie at DVD quality, brand new this month!. Go here to download from the official source. Watermark each copy, you know it will be pirated, you're more interested in persuasion that some insane punishment. So tell them it's marked for their use, so don't pirate it. If they break the watermark, change the watermark system.

Now they're customers not pirates, sell them stuff.

There's a deal to be made here. iTunes showed just how insanely successful* music can be online, the rest of the copyright industries need to see the possibility too.

* The RIAA is keen to show their sales declining but neglect to show that paid for music tracks are at an all time high, again, as they have been for years. It's just their market share has fallen badly. It's a real market, it's really successful, far more than it was in the vinyl single days. But you don't see that from the RIAA claims. The same can happen in all copyright industries if they adjust their views.

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149781)

People want to pay for the stuff they get

People want to pay for the privilege to not face retribution. They're taught that certain things are illegal, immoral, or somehow wrong; and that being a bad boy will get you in trouble. Thus they pay the camel through the needle's eye to stay out of hell.

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

TimHunter (174406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150151)

Thus they pay the camel through the needle's eye to stay out of hell.

"Your sentiments do you honor, but if you will allow me to say it, metaphor is not your best hold."
-- Mark Twain, "The McWilliamses and the Burglar Alarm", 1882

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150965)

I was referencing the biblical simile between a rich person getting into heaven and a camel passing through a needle's eye to the Catholic Church's short-lived program of paying the Catholic Church money to ensure your place in heaven (you know, the whole affair that forked the Lutheran Church). The implication is they've paid their tithe, and therefor they can consume as much as they want without paying for anything again--they've paid once so it's okay to take things without paying for them.

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

TimHunter (174406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43151617)

So, you're blending a reference to the sale of indulgences and the Protestant Reformation with a reference to Jesus' advice to the rich man who wanted to know how to get into heaven?

Quite a mix for one metaphor. I'm awed.

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43152145)

More like doing a backtrace. The indulgences could be considered shoving enough money to buy a camel through the eye of a needle. Also there is a pattern of people amending metaphor when someone does something--in this case it is said that a rich person making it to heaven is as a camel through a needle's eye, and so a rich man entering heaven has put his camel through the needle's eye. Or, has put himself through the needle's eye. Or, as I said, the money for the camel. The money or the camel itself could be considered "paid the camel" (as in the invoice was for one (1) camel and he has paid one (1) camel).

Language is very abstract, apparently.

Re:Remember bittorrent $30? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151689)

Ahh, just like the speeding cameras in the UK. You can pay us 30 GBP today, or you can go to court. If you go to court, the minimum fine will be 1000 GBP. So, do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?

Justice shouldn't be meeted out with increasing threat levels against innocent individuals. It's pure insanity.

Depends on the motivation the Judge believes (2)

nebular (76369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149603)

The judge is going to have to interpret what the motivation behind the practice is. Based on my limited knowledge of precedent in this area, if the judge feels the motivation is profit driven (i.e. Day to day Business as usual) then he could throw it out. Canada is not known for tolerating overly litigious business practices. However if the Judge believes this is to collect lost revenue due to infringement, then this could go right through.
Goon is more believable that it's going after lost revenue then Hurt Locker.

trolling is perjury in this case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43150111)

In this case it seems like trolling perjury, and they should be charged with every single criminal count possible.

And this is where movie studios get it wrong (1)

SilverJets (131916) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150939)

From the first linked article in the summary:
In recent years, American distributors have experimented with what’s known as premium VOD (video on demand), a scheme by which a newly released film is made available simultaneously on pay-per-view television for a high price. (This tactic is virtually unheard of in Canada.) Goon’s U.S. distributor, Magnolia Pictures, made the film available via U.S. cable providers for $30.

$30?? This shows exactly what is wrong with the movie studios and why they'll never "get it". It should be priced at $15 at the most. I hate movie theatres these days. Mostly due to the ignorant jackholes that can't shut up or stop checking their damn phone during the movie. I'd pay $15 to watch a first run movie on demand at home and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But $30? They can go blow it out their @ss.

Re:And this is where movie studios get it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155455)

$30?? This shows exactly what is wrong with the movie studios and why they'll never "get it". It should be priced at $15 at the most. I hate movie theatres these days. Mostly due to the ignorant jackholes that can't shut up or stop checking their damn phone during the movie. I'd pay $15 to watch a first run movie on demand at home and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But $30? They can go blow it out their @ss.

Have they really? I don't know where you come from or what your movie ticket prices are worth but over here in Australia you're talking around $17 for a movie ticket. Compare that to $30 and it's cheaper to sit at home and watch it if there's two of you.

This is what they have had to take into account when pricing the movie for viewing at home. That they're charging the same amount regardless of wether there is 1 or 10 viewers in front of your tele and they have to come to a price they think will work best. Price it too high and everyone will just watch it at the cinema, price it too low and the cinemas will go out of business.

Besides what's stopping you from getting enough mates to come around and watch the movie with you and splitting the cost? Just get enough mates such that by the time you split the cost it works out to 1/2 the cost of a cinema ticket each? Truth be told there's probably legalities around that too but I would think that is much harder for the movie studies to find out about and try and sue you for than by downloading said movie off the internet.

Kudos to TekSavvy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151157)

Big kudos to TekSavvy for fighting copyright trolls and actually protecting their customers' private information. Just for that I will gladly keep giving them my money.

Where we go from here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43151695)

Where we go from here depends on two things. 1) Whether the courts have a backbone and a true meaning of what "Justice" means as opposed to 2) A justice system (The Judicial Branch) that caves to Parliament (the Legislative branch) who are constantly caving to large corporate interests and foreign governments, in particular large American Corporate interests and particular the American Government. They are trying (the second try in about 6 months) to shove an ACTA type bill down our throats, and since the government has stacked the high court with right-wing, goose stepping, swastika wearing Ayn Rand types, 'of course' big money will get what it wants, and the constitution and people will all suffer.

Misleading title (2)

Svet Ivanov (2837497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43152187)

It is not clear whether Canpire is "behind" the lawsuits at all and specifically, the VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC v. JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE case (Federal Court Number : T-2058-12 http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2058-12 [cas-satj.gc.ca] ).

To be "behind" the lawsuit, Canpire must have some form of ownership over the works. The court materials show that Voltage claims ownership. So Voltage is and remains "behind" the lawsuit. Canpire are Voltage's "experts" on the issue of who is infringing. Barry Logan of Canpire has provided an affidavit in support of Voltage's motion for disclosure. The affidavit is inside the motion materials, available at http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2058-12 [cas-satj.gc.ca] . So Canpire's role has not been a secret. As "experts," they might hope their side wins (although 'experts' in Canadian law should not be advocates) and they get paid handsomely, etc. but that in itself is not being "behind" a lawsuit.

What is secret at this point is whether there is some form of agreement between Voltage, Canpire, and Voltage's lawyers (Brauti Thorning Zibarras) with respect to the monies they presumably will get from the mass collection letters and whether the agreement violates the any laws on champerty or maintenance or perhaps, as in the UK case (ACS:Law), lawyers' codes of conduct.

In the Voltage case, CIPPC (Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic www.cippic.ca) was granted an intervenor status (http://www.cippic.ca/en/node/129298) and was allowed to produce its own materials and experts (which it did) and examine Barry Logan (Canpire's principal) on his materials (which I am not sure has been done yet).

The interesting question is how Logan will be cross-examined on his affidavit.

i double dare them to send me one of these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43155201)

and im in the Montreal Area , id make it up with personal vandalism against those who sent me illegal false menaces.

TFA is so slanted it should fall over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156427)

Interesting take on the article by the OP, but has anyone read the original source?

Seriously slanted. They present the case for the producers of Goon. It's a sympathetic case, no questions there. These guys produce a movie and copies of the screener get pirated, including people selling downloads. Evil, evil pirates. Most people can agree entirely, right?

This however then gets conflated with the whole "speculative invoicing" scheme of recovering profits. You know, the model where a law firm sends out demands for a hundreds or thousands of dollars as a settlement to avoid a more-expensive legal battle.

Simply put, "speculative invoicing" is nothing more than punishing the viewers. It's too expensive to go after the criminal copyright infringers, but it's easy to find a bunch of IP addresses that use a particular torrent. The cops don't have the resources to go after the criminals, but the studios can hire CANIPRE to chase down IP addresses, and their fee is a share of the out of court settlements.

Isn't it rather cynical that the producers are more likely to go after the people who download their movie for free than the people making money pirating their product? And isn't it rather cynical that canadianbusiness.com presents this as an acceptable response to the problem of piracy?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?