Computers & Electronics

Got served paper from IP trolls for bit torrent copyright

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 20th, 2018 12:44 am
Newbie
User avatar
Feb 26, 2004
67 posts
24 upvotes
For those that got served recently, do they claim you downloaded the movie recently or are they still serving notices for infringement claims going back months?
Newbie
Jun 10, 2018
12 posts
16 upvotes
mintos007 wrote:
Jun 12th, 2018 11:13 pm
Probono are free right? how do you get one of the lawyers to take you as a probono and where can we find one?
https://www.probonoontario.org/hotline/

Make sure to ask for a lawyer who deals with cases on the Federal level.
Xhumeka wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 9:54 am
For those that got served recently, do they claim you downloaded the movie recently or are they still serving notices for infringement claims going back months?
The claims are from 2017, and I got served this week.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
9551 posts
3763 upvotes
Toronto
inhama wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 10:00 am
https://www.probonoontario.org/hotline/

Make sure to ask for a lawyer who deals with cases on the Federal level.



The claims are from 2017, and I got served this week.
Can you post the document that you received? Obviously, removing any personal information. Did you ever get an email from your ISP about this specific claim against you?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2017
3232 posts
1167 upvotes
if it's pro-bono, what does the lawyer charge upon winning the case for you?
Newbie
Jun 10, 2018
12 posts
16 upvotes
badOne wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 10:54 am
if it's pro-bono, what does the lawyer charge upon winning the case for you?
Don't know yet, still at the beginning stages of exploring this option.
cgcgcgcg wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 11:22 am
https://imgur.com/a/xonr9pv
I have the EXACT same document with different dates and movie name.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 28, 2016
8278 posts
515 upvotes
SK
inhama wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 12:22 pm
I have the EXACT same document with different dates and movie name.
I dont understand that this can go through, with a DOE as the name. Does this mean anyone can sue anyone even if they dont know who they are, but know their address??

Also, arent there enough on here going through this to get together as one, and start something as a team
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
9551 posts
3763 upvotes
Toronto
cgcgcgcg wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 11:22 am
https://imgur.com/a/xonr9pv
Point 10 is the same argument that Teksavvy used against these clowns, in reference to the forensic software. lol. This is basically a rehash of the teksavvy vs voltage from 3 years ago.

Also, this to me is a huge loophole where there plaintiff has zero ability to prosecute.
Basically, it says that the defendant received prior notice (first notice) that their account was being used to infringe, etc... and did nothing to prevent or cease the infringement.
How are you to stop something that you either A) never received notice, B) you stopped at the time of notification or C) known that the internet account was being misused at that exact moment in time?

The first notice is never real time.
Capture.JPG
.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4368 posts
486 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
cgcgcgcg wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 11:22 am
https://imgur.com/a/xonr9pv
I just read the beginning of this, but what it says is that the defendant initially downloaded the movie and received a warning, but did not heed the warning and at a later date actually offered that same movie for download to anyone who wanted it.

This isn't what I understood from the comments in this thread - those always sounded as if people just downloaded the movie using bit torrent and that trigered the notice and subsequenty being served.
Different scenario in my mind if people make the movie available for download than just downloading it for private use.
Last edited by krs on Jun 13th, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Newbie
User avatar
Feb 26, 2004
67 posts
24 upvotes
Thanks for posting this cgcgcgcg.

The section krs is talking about is pasted below, and I agree - some who posted in this thread who were served papers in the mail claim never to have received any notice from their ISP:

Image
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 28, 2016
8278 posts
515 upvotes
SK
Xhumeka wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 1:48 pm
Thanks for posting this cgcgcgcg.

The section krs is talking about is pasted below, and I agree - some who posted in this thread who were served papers in the mail claim never to have received any notice from their ISP:

Image
And the "first contact" you have to be proved then wouldnt it. If proving they got the "second papers" served, via a signature, then wheres the proof of the first.

Wouldnt this mean the people that were served be able to ask their ISP, when I was I notified the first time, I want proof of that, and if not, add that back to the defence.

Thats what the emails from the ISP's were about werent they. You get them as your "first warning" and then many stop downloading. I know I did a long time ago.

It was written up somewhere in a article that the ISPs emails were kind of a "we are watching" scenario, now its up to you to continue, or not

Unless anyone that did get served, did get that original email and just said, its just the usual email they send, and moved on
Newbie
Jun 10, 2018
12 posts
16 upvotes
WikkiWikki wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 12:24 pm
I dont understand that this can go through, with a DOE as the name. Does this mean anyone can sue anyone even if they dont know who they are, but know their address??

Also, aren't there enough on here going through this to get together as one, and start something as a team
Thing is, this is a CLAIM. I can claim that you're a Giraffe because you have a neck.

Important statements in the front that the courts have forced them to put into their letters:

1. NO COURT HAS YET DETERMINED THAT YOU ARE LIABLE FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S MOVIES

2. NO COURT HAS YET DETERMINED THAT YOU ARE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES FOR ANY POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice:

Note the wording on both of these statements. First of all they CLAIM that it violates its copyright (I haven't delved into the complex world of copyright law here but from what I've read, this is a gray area and Canadian copyright laws are really outdated). Second whatever alleged action a Doe may or may not have performed, they have to prove that its the said Doe in trial and that they're responsible for any and all traffic that happens to have that IP address.

--
Update

I'm currently organizing resources with the Pro Bono organization (getting them connected with the resources I've found so far and sharing my knowledge with them) as they seem to be the referenced source on these claims for legal advice. I'm also going to see if Pro Bono can get all of the Does connected.

Secondly, I'm trying to get the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society, University of Ottawa involved as well.

We're going to organize an effective defence against this for all the cases.

Update #2:
Expect to have a template for a very basic statement of defence prepared within a week.
Aiming to have a more robust statement of defence and accompanying general guidelines for defendants within a couple weeks after that.

If you do not have the time to wait for your statement of defence, please contact Pro Bono and ask for Matt Cohen.

Hang tight everyone.
Deal Addict
Jan 29, 2017
1183 posts
875 upvotes
mintos007 wrote:
Jun 12th, 2018 9:44 pm
probably a $25 max cost to buy in store and their asking for $3 to $4K this is crazy... have you filed your defence letter
and to prepare a defense statement is over priced it shouldn't cost this much..

Also ofcourse the lawyers are eager for pooling Jon Does... minimum work more cash.

They are going after uploaders (or sharers in case of torrent). Uploading has potential for much more harm than the cost of a single copy.
Newbie
Jun 10, 2018
12 posts
16 upvotes
peli33 wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 5:40 pm
They are going after uploaders (or sharers in case of torrent). Uploading has potential for much more harm than the cost of a single copy.
All IP Address that have a P2P protocol have uploaded things. They need to prove x upload = y damages.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4368 posts
486 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
inhama wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 6:19 pm
They need to prove x upload = y damages.
Who says?

Top