dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
268
share rss forum feed


Curious Me

@videotron.ca
reply to Curious Me

Re: Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada

So I resolved the Bell IP addresses, see bellow. These are how the IP's resolve (Some don't resolve).

What is curious is that this company that is taking people's IP's must be using some sort of commercial app to target the specific city of the person. For example when I try to geo-locate the 70.53.229.233 IP using standard available web apps or demo's of commercial apps, it shows it to be in Terrebone, or Ottawa or Toronto. The filing shows it as Asbestos, Quebec. How did they get that? And with which app? Or did Bell give them that location?

Another curiosity (and this is a big one) arises with the 207.61.47.217 IP. It doesn't resolve to a standard Bell host, but rather a commercial host, 217.canadiens.com. That's right. It belongs to L’Aréna des Canadiens! "Go HABS Go"

CustName: L'Arena des Canadiens Inc
Address: 1275 rue St-Antoine ouest
Address: 7ieme etage
City: Montreal
StateProv: QC
PostalCode: H3C-5L2
Country: CA
RegDate: 2003-06-11
Updated: 2011-03-19
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C00607110
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-···2-1.html


Umm... If Racquel wanted to find someone associated with those IP's, I think he may have just found one...

The Bell IP's resolved:

* Dns resolving 65.95.12.38
-
* Dns resolved 65.95.12.38 to bas2-montreal42-1096748070.dsl.bell.ca
-

* Dns resolving 65.93.125.178
-
* Dns resolved 65.93.125.178 to bas6-montreal02-1096646066.dsl.bell.ca
-

* Dns resolving 207.61.47.217
-
* Dns resolved 207.61.47.217 to 217.canadiens.com
-

* Dns resolving 217.canadiens.com
-
* Dns unable to resolve address 217.canadiens.com
-

* Dns resolving 69.159.122.39
-
* Dns resolved 69.159.122.39 to 69.159.122.39
-

* Dns resolving 70.53.229.233
-
* Dns resolved 70.53.229.233 to bas3-toronto48-1177937385.dsl.bell.ca
-

* Dns resolving 65.95.12.177
-
* Dns resolved 65.95.12.177 to bas2-montreal42-1096748209.dsl.bell.ca
-

* Dns resolving 207.236.136.66
-
* Dns resolved 207.236.136.66 to 207.236.136.66
-

* Dns resolving 65.95.14.167
-
* Dns resolved 65.95.14.167 to 65.95.14.167
-

* Dns resolving 69.159.122.63
-
* Dns resolved 69.159.122.63 to 69.159.122.63

-
* Dns resolving 65.92.27.123
-
* Dns resolved 65.92.27.123 to bas5-montreal02-1096555387.dsl.bell.ca


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

said by Curious Me :

* Dns resolving 207.61.47.217
-
* Dns resolved 207.61.47.217 to 217.canadiens.com
-

* Dns resolving 217.canadiens.com
-
* Dns unable to resolve address 217.canadiens.com

If 217.canadiens.com doesn't resolve, does that mean that the IP is no longer in use?
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog

static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

If I'm right, does this show that the IP has been in-use since 2003?

NetRange 207.61.47.192 - 207.61.47.223
CIDR 207.61.47.192/27
Name LAR0611-CA
Handle NET-207-61-47-192-1
Parent WORLDLINX01 (NET-207-61-0-0-1)
Net Type Reassigned
Origin AS
Customer L'Arena des Canadiens Inc (C00607110)
Registration Date 2003-06-11
Last Updated 2003-06-11
Comments LINX
RESTful Link »whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-61-47-192-1

--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog



Concerned

@feralhosting.com

Someone should call Evenko and tip them off, get their legal dept all over this.
»www.canadianconsultingengineer.c···25760184


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to static416

said by static416:

If I'm right, does this show that the IP has been in-use since 2003?

NetRange 207.61.47.192 - 207.61.47.223
CIDR 207.61.47.192/27
Name LAR0611-CA
Handle NET-207-61-47-192-1
Parent WORLDLINX01 (NET-207-61-0-0-1)
Net Type Reassigned
Origin AS
Customer L'Arena des Canadiens Inc (C00607110)
Registration Date 2003-06-11
Last Updated 2003-06-11
Comments LINX
RESTful Link »whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-61-47-192-1

I'd say they bought themselves a static IP.


Concerned

@feralhosting.com

Centre Bell administration
(514) 932-2582


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

I'd say they bought themselves a static IP.

If this really is accurate, and the Canadiens IP really is part of this Voltage suit, I am going to be deliriously happy. I hope there is no catch, I hope this is true.

This makes for some potentially awesome media coverage. No news company is going to pass over "Habs Stadium Could Be Sued for Hurt Locker Download". That's guaranteed eyeballs, they are going to put that on the nightly news. And the beauty of it is that it perfectly shows to the entire Canadian public how ridiculous the IP=Identity concept is.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog

static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

Can you imagine how pissed the Voltage guys have to be right now?

I mean, they randomly pick 30 IPs from all of Quebec, and one of them belongs to a stadium for our national religion.

Which makes me think, didn't they do a simple IP lookup before requesting info on these IPs? I mean, they had this IP before they started the court proceedings and could have looked it up before submitting it to the court. I'd imagine if they knew they were suing for the info on a stadium they would have picked another one of the ten thousand Quebec IPs.

Either they are smarter than I previously thought and this is some kind of scam or pre-meditated setup like others here have suggested. Or Voltage is really incompetent.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog



Concerned

@feralhosting.com
reply to static416

»torrentfreak.com/ip-addresses-of···-110926/



Curious Me

@videotron.ca

Maybe you should tell those torrentfreak people you found Quebec's Iconic hockey league in there which is partially owne3d by Bell Canada and the IP in question sits squarely within the Bell Centre.

And while you are at it, make sure to drop a note to Geist and to the CBC.


Concerned

@feralhosting.com

Already done.



Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to static416

They must have done some reverse IP lookup (or talked to the providers) to come up with 10 IP addresses for each of the providers.

As for the duplicated address, if it were a DSL dynamic address (and not a cable), then that could have been two separate subscribers.


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to Curious Me

said by Curious Me :

And while you are at it, make sure to drop a note to Geist and to the CBC.

Geist already retweeted my mention of this earlier this morning. »j.mp/o2T7AU

I really hope he writes an article on the subject, hopefully for the Toronto Star.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Concerned

@feralhosting.com

Would be helpful if some lawyers from Evenko got involved now to appeal the decision on release of information before time runs out on the appeal.



Curious me

@videotron.ca

said by Concerned :

Would be helpful if some lawyers from Evenko got involved now to appeal the decision on release of information before time runs out on the appeal.

I honestly can't see this happening. For sure it's worth the shot but the owner of this also owned TV stations (KangarooTV, sports only that I think was sold to the NFL, but i'm not 100% sure), music and on and on.

The owner of this IP also filed to support Bell Canada when they purchased CTV and the whole worry of verticle integration came out and exclusive contracts which in turn led to this »CRTC decision on vertical integration 2011-601

This is a good ol boy. I can't see them fighting Bell when they filed in support of Bell.

In my personal belief, this is a setup.


Concerned

@feralhosting.com

Lets hope this gets public, and fast.


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to Curious me

said by Curious me :

I honestly can't see this happening. For sure it's worth the shot but the owner of this also owned TV stations (KangarooTV, sports only that I think was sold to the NFL, but i'm not 100% sure), music and on and on.

The owner of this IP also filed to support Bell Canada when they purchased CTV and the whole worry of verticle integration came out and exclusive contracts which in turn led to this »CRTC decision on vertical integration 2011-601

This is a good ol boy. I can't see them fighting Bell when they filed in support of Bell.

In my personal belief, this is a setup.

It is suspicious, and I agree that I can't see them fighting Bell on the privacy part of this. On top of the existing conflicting interests, the subscriber information has already been provided (it was given two weeks after the hearing), and much time remaining for any lawyer to appeal on.

That said, while they might not fight Bell, I don't see why they wouldn't fight Voltage. Accepting liability for everything that everyone in your stadium downloads is ludicrous and is not something any large infrastructure owner would accept.

They HAVE to fight it, acknowledging defeat would just open the floodgates to letting anyone with any copyrights to sue you continually.

In fact, I doubt Voltage would even bother attempting to settle once they see who the owner of that IP is.

Despite this specific case never getting to court, it serves as a great example for those that do. If an IP is at-best no better than a street address, how can you sue someone based only on that evidence?
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to Ott_Cable

Note: The duplicated IP has a different GUID.

If that duplicated IP is indeed the same account, then wouldn't it be correct that the log is a snapshot of what the software see within a timeframe? Two snapshots cannot mean the person has downloaded 2 copied of the same movie, so each "copy" is less than 100%.

So how much (percentage) of the actual movie can be downloaded within that time frame?

How much (percentage) of copying the movie can be classified as an infringement? 10%/5%/1%/0.1%?

Did they have witness/log the IP copied all the individual blocks required for that percentage to be infringing?

If not, it could be there is only enough evidence to show the person has at least x% of the file, but not necessarily 100% of the file. Would VOLTAGE accept x% of the damages they claim?



Curious me

@videotron.ca
reply to static416

said by static416:

In fact, I doubt Voltage would even bother attempting to settle once they see who the owner of that IP is.

I can agree with that. Chances are they will send extortion letters to Mom & Pop in Asbestos, Quebec, and never send one to this place.

They can pick and choose who they will try and sue or extort for money. I can't see this one little Canadiens franchise (out of many) and worth hundreds of millions of dollars being intimidated.


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to Ott_Cable

The time stamps of the IP logs do not seem to indicate anything more than a quick snapshot (vs for example a 10 minutes) as they all have different seconds.

Is that sufficient evidence that the person has a significant part of the file?


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to Ott_Cable

said by Ott_Cable :

How much (percentage) of copying the movie can be classified as an infringement? 10%/5%/1%/0.1%?

Did they have witness/log the IP copied all the individual blocks required for that percentage to be infringing?

Not sure if the have to, but that was IPP's aim.

The monitoring company that signed the affidavit said that all IPs listed were observed to download the entire movie.

Looks like that IP downloaded the same movie twice a week apart. Not sure why they would want to target one person for two charges of the same thing. If anything, that only complicates the issue and reinforces the idea that data is infinitely copiable, so individual copies mean little. That's my optimistic viewpoint anyways, of course the court only cares about what the law literally says, and that would technically count as two infringements in that case. I guess.

How many infringements are counted when you upload thousands of pieces of the file to millions of people, but never a complete copy?

All of this is ridiculous the more you look into it.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Concerned

@feralhosting.com
reply to Ott_Cable

»torrentfreak.com/evidence-agains···-110824/
»www.scribd.com/doc/62983561/Ipoque-Rev


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to Curious me

said by Curious me :

They can pick and choose who they will try and sue or extort for money. I can't see this one little Canadiens franchise (out of many) and worth hundreds of millions of dollars being intimidated.

That's the other thing, didn't Voltage publicly state in response to a question about these IP addresses that they didn't intend to sue? I thought I saw that somewhere. I'll poke around more.

But lately there was a story about how some music distributors are just nicely asking people send in $10 without getting their information or threatening to sue. Essentially just asking for a voluntary payment from the IP that appears in the BT tracker. Maybe that's what Voltage will do? Seems unlikely though, given their history in the US and UK.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Concerned

@feralhosting.com

@static416
»thewirereport.ca/reports/content···o_canada
That's the post you're looking for.


static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

said by Concerned :

@static416
»thewirereport.ca/reports/content···o_canada
That's the post you're looking for.

Oh right, thanks. I complained about how it's behind a paywall. Well, guess I'll request a free trial and wait.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Curious me

@videotron.ca
reply to static416

said by static416:

That's the other thing, didn't Voltage publicly state in response to a question about these IP addresses that they didn't intend to sue?

"Intend" is a weasel word.

I don't "intend" to sue you unless you pay my extortion fee.

"Intend" is not a definite no.


Curious me

@videotron.ca
reply to static416

said by static416:

said by Concerned :

@static416
»thewirereport.ca/reports/content···o_canada
That's the post you're looking for.

Oh right, thanks. I complained about how it's behind a paywall. Well, guess I'll request a free trial and wait.

Just Email David Fewer of CIPPIC.ca instead. He will likely have more and better insight than that report.

These people are very approachable and decent.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to Curious me

said by Curious me :

said by static416:

That's the other thing, didn't Voltage publicly state in response to a question about these IP addresses that they didn't intend to sue?

"Intend" is a weasel word.

I don't "intend" to sue you unless you pay my extortion fee.

"Intend" is not a definite no.

so walk up to a cop and tell him "i don't 'intend' to shoot you" see what mister cop does....

static416

join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON
reply to Concerned

said by Concerned :

@static416
»thewirereport.ca/reports/content···o_canada
That's the post you're looking for.

Hmm. So it looks like nowhere in that article did Voltage say they wouldn't sue now. I know that a few years ago they said that, but I can't find a source that they said that regarding this case.

In fact, in the court documentation Voltage said "Obtaining the names and addresses of the defendants will accelerate the pursuit of this action [suing for infringement]. If Voltage Pictures LLC does not obtain this information, it cannot claim its rights."

So I guess it's pretty clear what they intend to do. The Montreal Canadians better start saving their pennies.
--
www.LaconicReply.com - Tech/photography/rant blog


Curious me

@videotron.ca
reply to static416

said by static416:

said by Curious Me :

* Dns resolving 207.61.47.217
-
* Dns resolved 207.61.47.217 to 217.canadiens.com
-

* Dns resolving 217.canadiens.com
-
* Dns unable to resolve address 217.canadiens.com

If 217.canadiens.com doesn't resolve, does that mean that the IP is no longer in use?

nah. The IP obviously exists. They own the whole domain of canadiens.com, it's a vhost issue.