Home > ACTA, Copyright, Digital Policy, net neutrality, Teksavvy, Voltage > Teksavvy Vs Voltage: CIPPIC Files Educational Affidavits

Teksavvy Vs Voltage: CIPPIC Files Educational Affidavits

The CIPPIC has filed what I would call more “educational briefs” last week to the court in the Teksavvy Vs. Voltage case, rather than a knock down blow to Voltage as some may have suggested.  One of the affidavits comes from tech expert Timothy Lethbridge who explains in detail to the court on what an IP address is.  This is something that any low level tech monkey from Teksavvy is capable of providing had Teksavvy opposed the motion to begin with.

The second affidavit is from Alexander Cooke a student working for the CIPPIC.  In Cooke’s affidavit he centers on Voltages conduct in the US, which anyone who knows how to use google and following the copyright debates, should be fairly easy to pull those records up as well, or even by way of connecting with the EFF.

Unless Teksavvy stands up directly in court and opposes this motion, I don’t see how the public interest has been served here at all.  Public interest can only be served in my point of view when a company fulfills its obligations under law to its customers.  This is how the system is supposed to work, and does work.

For those of you who may think the privacy issues are “moot”  in this case, may want to rethink that.  Those issues just became nuclear now with a real possibility Canadians could start to see jail time for copyright and trademark infringement with the ratification of ACTA. One thing commentators can agree on is that there’s a fight coming.  In my opinion that fight will be to ensure the “public interest” isn’t falsely represented by those who have “special” interests, and that our policy and regulatory system opens up to the general public, rather than to a selected few leading our law makers to believe they hold the public interest with their opinions.

Those that advocated for the notice to notice troll approach in the 2009 copyright consultations are just as guilty for bad public policy and law we are currently dealing with, as those who are trying to take advantage of it in this current legal case.  Karma falls on their back to correct this and start advocating for users of this technology (who represent the public interest here) until such time as they can speak for themselves in committees and to our regulatory system around copyright.  That responsibility falls on not just on those who took part in the 2009 copyright consultations, but also for private interests such as Teksavvy to hold up their weight as well.  Only than can the “public interest” truly be served in the current copyright troll cases.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: