Hurt Locker Studio Begins Requesting Canadian ISP's Subscriber Info 172
New submitter Nerdolicious writes "Ars Technica reports that Voltage Pictures, the studio behind the infamous Hurt Locker debacle, has requested subscriber information for thousands of TekSavvy customers in relation to alleged copyright infringements. In their official blog, TekSavvy clarifies the situation and provides further reassurance that they will not release any private customer information without a court order. They have also posted the legal documents containing both the official notice and list of films that are the subjects of the alleged infringements. However, several questions remain to be answered: will Canadian courts be amicable to these tactics after changes to copyright law were made specifically to prevent the predatory legal entanglement of Canadian citizens? Will the studio actually attempt to pursue the situation beyond the proliferation of threatening extortion letters? How would the already-clogged courts react to what amounts to denial-of-service attack on the judicial system?"
I made a mistake once (Score:4, Funny)
Re:$5000 Canadian (Score:5, Funny)
That would be $5,069.75 US.
Oh and 1992 called, they want their joke back.
Bill Voltage (Score:0, Funny)
They are requesting the list in Microsoft Excel Format.
"Thank you for your request. As we do not use this format, and as all our gear is proprietary, we will require that you send the required equipment, software, and a technician capable of running it. Please note that as we support complete freedom from copyright, we are not able to agree to any license agreements, thus the reasoning behind why you will need a technician capable of running said software.
Your technician will be presented with a comma separated value format file with Unix line endings with the requested information, in 8-bit ASCII format, as a file on an ext3 formatted USB drive. Ensure he is equipped to deal with this.
We look forward to co-operating with the court in this matter, and understand the court would not want to encourage further copyright infringement by requiring we falsely declare our agreement to a licensing contract."