Canadian File Sharing Plaintiff Admits To Copyright Trolling 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."
Re: A Sad Day for Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Now they infest Canada. (Score:5, Informative)
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:A Sad Day for Canada (Score:4, Informative)
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:Interesting business model (Score:2, Informative)
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:In Other Words (Score:5, Informative)
You mean extortion. Blackmail involves extortion by keeping a secret/returning information/etc.
Re:Fraud? (Score:4, Informative)
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]