Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Defending Privacy Doesn't Pay: Canadian Court Lets Copyright Troll Off the Hook

Posted by Soulskill on from the pennies-for-personal-data dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian court has issued its ruling on the costs (PDF) in the Voltage — TekSavvy case, a case involving the demand for the names and address of thousands of TekSavvy subscribers by Voltage on copyright infringement grounds. Last year, the court opened the door to TekSavvy disclosing the names and addresses, but also established new safeguards against copyright trolling in Canada. The court awarded only a fraction of the costs sought by TekSavvy, which sends a warning signal to ISPs that getting involved in these cases can lead to significant costs that won't be recouped. That is a bad message for privacy. So is the likely outcome for future cases (should they arise) with subscribers left with fewer notices and information from their ISP given the costs involved and the court's decision to not compensate for those costs.

2 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Getting sued costs money by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    TekSavvy didn't get sued. They made the mistake of trying to protect their customers' privacy, and the court decided that they should not be compensated for the costs of doing that. They never actually objected to the subpoena for customer information, they just insisted on privacy safeguards and advanced notification of customers and ensuring accuracy of the list of people they would be forced to reveal the information of and such things.

    Turns out that doing the right thing doesn't pay.

  2. For everyone who didn't read the decision by debrain · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. TekSavvy did receive costs.

    123. In sum, I am satisfied that TekSavvy has proven a total of $21,557.50 as its legal costs, administrative costs, and disbursements of abiding with the Order.

    2. Those costs were not as much as demanded by TekSavvy.

    129. ... Rather, no costs of the assessment will be awarded because neither party should be rewarded for its conduct: TekSavvy, without justification, has greatly exaggerated its claim, while Voltage has unreasonably sought to trivialize it based on unreliable and largely irrelevant evidence.

    For details about the costs that were asked and awarded and the reasoning for such, have a look at para. 113 and following. e.g.

    119. Under this heading, TekSavvy seeks to recover the sum of $81,524.12 for expenses incurred in communicating with affected and non-affected subscribers and the public; creating an online portal tool for the use of subscribers; and responding to a higher volume of inquiries and complaints ... These tasks, are ... TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of marketing, promotion, and customer relations, which I consider to be TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of doing business. Consequently, I disallow these costs.

    Whether one thinks this is being "let off the hook" is up to the reader, and also irrelevant to the decision. This is a comprehensive, precedent-setting, non-trivial decision accounting for a multitude of legal and factual variables. I, for one, find it consistent with the tone and spirit of the prior decision, largely agreeable, in this case.