dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
26904
share rss forum feed


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to IamGimli

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

said by IamGimli:

said by axus:

The problem with this argument, is that it's basing legal responsibility on the language of the Terms of Service. If the terms of service didn't assign responsibility to the user, would there be any difference in their legal responsibility?

Yes there would, which is why all ISPs include similar language in their terms of service.

In such a civil case, all the complainant can prove is what IP address the traffic came from. That IP address can be assigned to an ISP with very little doubt that the ISP owns the IP range, which is why the complainant's first stop is the ISP. At that point the complainant holds the ISP responsible for the tort that it suffered because that's who legally "owns" the IP.

This is where the terms of service come in. Because you have that contract with the ISP that says that YOU are legally responsible for everything that happens using your account, instead of your ISP. Since your ISP has good logs of which account uses which IP at any given time, they can then turn to the complainant and say "look buddy, my records show that it's Customer Joe-Bob who is responsible for the tort you claim, and here's the contract that Joe-Bob signed that says so".

Again, in a civil case such as this, the judge will look at the evidence presented by all parties (which include both the complainant and the ISP as a named interest in the case) and is very likely to determine that Joe-Bob is responsible for the tort in the balance of probabilities, unless Joe-Bob can prove it wasn't his account that was using that IP when the tort occurred, or can provide evidence of someone else being responsible for the tort, like a contract, logs, etc.

You really are quite daft.

Your agreement with your ISP is not a legally binding agreement with a third party nor does it absolve the ISP of any responsibility with that third party.

The reason I said you need to learn about contract law and civil suits is that no court in the country operates in the fashion now, nor have they ever nor will they ever.

If the copyright holder deems that the ISP is responsible, then they sue them and if they can prove it in a court of law (yes, a civil court is still a court of law, bound by the law and has to follow the rules of the law) that they are responsible and win, then the ISP can sue you to recoup those damages and use the TOS against you. However the ISP cannot use the TOS they have signed with you to claim they are not responsible. The ISP can (and only the ISP can seeing as that is who the contract is between--YOU AND THE ISP) try and hold you responsible to them for any damage you may cause them or their network due to activities on your account. However, even the legal validity of that TOS can be challenged as no one can force you to claim responsibility for something you did not do.

If the copyright holder decides to sue you based on your account information they subpoenaed from your ISP, then they still have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that it was actually you that committed the infringing act (preponderance of evidence means more likely than not which is the standard of proof in CIVIL COURT).

This is the way contracts work, it is also the way the courts work. I would ask you for examples of it not working this way, but we both know that you are just simply full of hot air and trying to cause a panic among the general populace of torrent users.


hm

@videotron.ca

IamGimli, Redneck is correct.

If what you stated was true, then the family owning that Rogers IP that Pierre Poutine used would have been sued.

The best IT investigators in all of Canada could not prove they were the ones responsible based on the Rogers IP that they owned.

Pierre Poutine showed more than how to perform Election Fraud, you know.

Now think if you are a parent paying for your kids internet access. Your kid might be going to Uni of Chaboogamoo, Alberta, while you (the accounts receivable in the ISP accounting system) live in Val D'dor, Quebec.

The accounts receivable is the info they get (refer to the Hurt locker case). That is, who pays the account, thus who owns the IP.

IP does not equal the person.

In addition, let's say this went to court, which I doubt, and the court demands to know who the kid is. Well that one kid living with 4 other students who also use the net and same IP can't be fingered as the one either. How can they?

You seem to be saying that the parent should be and will be held liable as the guilty one, even though they were in a diff prov and can't even get said ISP or IP in question.

These is just one scenario. There are quite a few others. Pierre Poutine is our Guy Fawkes He should be celebrated.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:1

said by hm :

IamGimli, Redneck is correct.

If what you stated was true, then the family owning that Rogers IP that Pierre Poutine used would have been sued.

Who has a civil case against "Pierre Poutine"? What would that case be?

said by hm :

The best IT investigators in all of Canada could not prove they were the ones responsible based on the Rogers IP that they owned.

They couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the standard for CIVIL court.

said by hm :

Now think if you are a parent paying for your kids internet access. Your kid might be going to Uni of Chaboogamoo, Alberta, while you (the accounts receivable in the ISP accounting system) live in Val D'dor, Quebec.

The accounts receivable is the info they get (refer to the Hurt locker case). That is, who pays the account, thus who owns the IP.

IP does not equal the person.

In addition, let's say this went to court, which I doubt, and the court demands to know who the kid is. Well that one kid living with 4 other students who also use the net and same IP can't be fingered as the one either. How can they?

You seem to be saying that the parent should be and will be held liable as the guilty one, even though they were in a diff prov and can't even get said ISP or IP in question.

Not guilty, that's a CRIMINAL COURT term and doesn't apply to this. RESPONSIBLE, that's CIVIL COURT. Think OJ Simpson. Not criminally guilty, but still had to pay the families of his victims damages following a CIVIL court case.

said by hm :

These is just one scenario. There are quite a few others. Pierre Poutine is our Guy Fawkes He should be celebrated.

Only by those who have no clue what civil court is.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

I have yet to see where he uses the term "not guilty." You need to learn to read, he says "liable" as the guilty party. Liable is most definitely commonly used civil legal terminology. His point is still the same either way. Quit grasping at straws.

You are wrong. Just because you say something does not make it so. That and the correlations you are drawing are absolutely laughable and ludicrous. Please provide some examples of what you so adamantly are trying to pass of as fact! You won't because you can't seeing as it's all fiction dreamt up when your head hits the pillow.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:1

said by rednekcowboy:

I have yet to see where he uses the term "not guilty."

I didn't say he used "not guilty", I said he used "guilty" incorrectly.

said by hm :

You seem to be saying that the parent should be and will be held liable as the guilty one, even though they were in a diff prov and can't even get said ISP or IP in question.

said by rednekcowboy:

You need to learn to read

Right back at you.

Maybe you were too busy thinking of your next insult instead of an actual argument.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

2 edits

2 recommendations

said by IamGimli:

I didn't say he used "not guilty", I said he used "guilty" incorrectly.

said by IamGimli See ProfileNot guilty, that's a CRIMINAL COURT

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to, you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.


Fergless
Premium
join:2008-04-19
Toronto, ON
reply to Content

And the President of the panel looks over at the 2nd and 3rd Judges and goes, what in the hell do we do with this.

"RESERVED"


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:1
reply to rednekcowboy

said by rednekcowboy:

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I said, even after I explained it. Keep believing your fantasy if you wish but that's YOUR fantasy, not mine.

said by rednekcowboy:

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

I haven't countered them again because I already countered them. Your examples have no influence on Canadian law and jurisprudence. Just because you keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it right. Besides, I won't stoop down to your level and try to counter insults.

said by rednekcowboy:

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to

Again, that's your misinterpretation of what I said, I never said that a third party would introduce it, only that it would be introduced. You're again taking your fantasy for reality and then arguing with yourself.

said by rednekcowboy:

you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

Whatever.

said by rednekcowboy:

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

One has no relation to the other, how could it be going "even a step further"?

Since I never said IPs were persons I wonder why you would make such an argument. Of course IPs aren't persons, just like license plates aren't persons, but tickets are still issued to car owners whose car go through red lights based on the data available on their license plate.

BTW "personal use" doesn't include broadcasting and sharing, which is what the Canadian court cases are about.

said by rednekcowboy:

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Which is why the Plaintiff still has to prove damages in civil court, unless he decides to ask for the statutory damages the Legislator included in section 38.1 of the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.

Again, right back at ya.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX

2 edits

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I said, even after I explained it. Keep believing your fantasy if you wish but that's YOUR fantasy, not mine.

said by rednekcowboy:

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

I haven't countered them again because I already countered them. Your examples have no influence on Canadian law and jurisprudence. Just because you keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it right. Besides, I won't stoop down to your level and try to counter insults.

said by rednekcowboy:

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to

Again, that's your misinterpretation of what I said, I never said that a third party would introduce it, only that it would be introduced. You're again taking your fantasy for reality and then arguing with yourself.

said by rednekcowboy:

you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

Whatever.

said by rednekcowboy:

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

One has no relation to the other, how could it be going "even a step further"?

Since I never said IPs were persons I wonder why you would make such an argument. Of course IPs aren't persons, just like license plates aren't persons, but tickets are still issued to car owners whose car go through red lights based on the data available on their license plate.

BTW "personal use" doesn't include broadcasting and sharing, which is what the Canadian court cases are about.

said by rednekcowboy:

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Which is why the Plaintiff still has to prove damages in civil court, unless he decides to ask for the statutory damages the Legislator included in section 38.1 of the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.

Again, right back at ya.

So, after all that, just more hot air? How about some examples to prove what you are saying then, Mr. Smarty pants? Oh wait, that's right, there isn't any.....

AND yes Portugal has declared TORRENTING legal. They specifically mention it as it's a necessary means to an end. In order to get the file, you have to share the file.

Also, you are the one spouting off about IP is all they need and have been doing so the entire thread. Now that you're backed into a corner, you're changing your tune. I never said IP's were persons either, I said they don't prove anything. Again, you need to learn to read instead of just trolling.

Again, if you have nothing to offer, no proof to show, nothing other than your own statements and hot air, then what you are offering is completely worthless. My examples may not be from this country, but they are from countries that Canada closely follows (the US) in it's operations and they go to show the global climate on this particular issue.


Eleonora

@distributel.net
reply to IamGimli

Hi IamGimli
I'm kinda neutral to the argue you have guys!!!

My question is can I be sued for downloading illegal movie in August 2012 if a new law became effective November 7 , 2012

Are some of the Canadian Laws retroactive??

Thanks in advance!



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to shrug

said by shrug :

said by Snooky :

The data was collected in September and October, but didn't C-11 come into effect on November 7th?

C-11 has no baring on this, other than new minimum "damages". People could always have been sued.

The courts already struck down previous requests for IP's (fishing expeditions) due to privacy concerns.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

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

Distributel is now FIGHTING the court order to disclose their customer information!

»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6781/125/

Entire previous docket:
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2062-12

Next hearing is Monday morning in Montreal, at 9:30am.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

1 edit

WOW! More ammo for us potentially... and I guess we'll be hearing more cases anytime soon regarding other TPIA's... oh boy here we go people...

For those of you who attend those hearings: plz DO TWEET and find a hashtag so we can follow along! TYVM!



Content

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Wow!
Thanks for posting that.

+1 to Distributel for growing a pair and stepping up to the plate. My view of them has just changed.


MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to resa1983

Ya just gotta love extortion at its finest. What I wonder here is if in either case, it will finally be determined that you may be able to identify the subscriber of the service, but this doesn't necessarily identify the device that the materials were transferred to, nor does it identify the actual end-user who initiated the requests to commit these acts by downloading the content.

In my case for example in St. George, I am in a rather large house with a wireless network setup that covers all 9,000 sq. ft. of space within the house. While the internet bill is in my name, and the IP address is assigned to me, this IP address actually points to a D-Link DIR-615 wireless router and not an actual computer. As there are 3 people here who make use of my connection (myself included), it would be reasonable to argue in such a case that I do not actually have any knowledge of such transfers, especially considering that there are two other people who make use of the connection.

This is why I say that there should be a road-block put in place here. Far too often (such as the case before the superior court of R. vs. Pottelburg on an unrelated matter), the question of the identity of the end-user comes into question. I had to face this challenge myself in this case and only won because I was able to get a screen capture of the end-user's live webcam feed to be able to both identify the physical user of the computer in question, and identify the IP address in that case. Had I not been able to capture a screen shot to validate the identity of the end user, all of the conversation history in that case would have been ruled to be inadmissible because I would not have been able to satisfy the identity of the end-user.

I think here the key is likely going to boil down to this very point because it's already come up in a number of other cases. The reality is that far too often this is the subsequent end result of such investigations.


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

CIPPIC has been sent a ton of US court decisions where Judges have made decisions that an IP address only brings you to the subscriber, and not the actual infringer. I also sent them the latest big decision by a Judge:

»fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02···eration/

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml

If CIPPIC is able to bring in US case law (as they've been seeing these lawsuits extensively, while we've only had a smattering of cases), things will be looking good up here until Canipre changes tactics.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10

"legal asshattery".

Gotta love that. So... apropos.

Mike



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Any clue when this will be back in court at Montreal?


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

Distributel case's next hearing is Monday Feb 11, 9:30am-11am.

Per
»cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2062-12

quote:
Adjournment letter dated 08-FEB-2013 received on 08-FEB-2013 from Plaintiff concerning Motion Doc. No. 10 currently scheduled to be heard at General Sitting on 11-FEB-2013 now adjourned sine die placed on file.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

So let's try and make a list of what has gone down so far with Distributel.

1. They put up zero resistance to giving out their customers names (which is not necessarily the one doing P2P).

2. Since they acted like Bell and Videotron by not opposing anything, the court ordered that the names of the people paying for Distributel internet be released.

3. These Distributel customers who may not even know what p2p is then got demand letters for $1,500 or risk going to court for $20,000.

4. Distributel made zero comment on anything, and were happy.

5. Now this Company, NGN Production, gave more IP's to Distrbutel in order to extort more of their customers who may not ever of heard of p2p before.

6. Only now does Distributel raise any sort of fuss to be paid for giving info, and only now do they say that their accounts recivable for the IP isn't the person behind a computer. And only after TSI/CIPPIC are involved in another case which is frustrating the extortion trolls.

7. Only now do they state they are concerned that this can look bad for them in their customers eyes and will affect Distributel as being a choice for people.

Hmm.
Hmm....

Up above I stated, "My view of them has just changed". I think I'll retract that now that I read up on this a bit.

Seems to me Distributel is only opposing this new motion for more of their customers info because they realized they will lose business and word is getting out not to go to them since they have zero regard for their customers.

All this is is a move to not lose customers while other ISP's fight. Thus making Distributel look bad.

Hm, yeah. I wouldn't recommend Distributel to anyone, nor any of their resellers like Acanac, 3web, etc since they have already made their bed and showed us what they are all about. Regardless what they do now to try and correct this in order to remain a consumer choice as an ISP.


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

Part of it is also that NGN/new company - added to the complaint courtesy of Canipre - submitted a draft order, which includes costs.

I suspect that they're fighting this in part, so that they can actually recover all their costs up to this point, as I bet that NGN's stated amount is insufficient to cover costs to this point.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


D_Puckett
Premium
join:2013-02-09
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to hm

Actually no. The motivation is that we don't like bullies. Distributel receives requests for private information on a regular basis and our answer had been a standard, 'go see if you can find a court to agree with you'. The problem with these copyright cases, as we have realized, is that the court is not able ascertain on its own what is good technical evidence and what is not. It was only after one of our customers received a settlement offer that we realized that the collection of the info was not for cease and desist letters but for $1500 shakedown letters.


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

Daniel, I'm sort of surprised you expected your customers to receive C&D letters, considering Voltage's history down in the States..
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


D_Puckett
Premium
join:2013-02-09
Etobicoke, ON

said by resa1983:

Daniel, I'm sort of surprised you expected your customers to receive C&D letters, considering Voltage's history down in the States..

Hello Resa, The November motion was not Voltage, but rather NGN. I think that the events that started in November are an education for us all. The Judiciary, the Internet using public, and the ISPs. As for our belief of their intentions.. I dug up an excerpt for you from the public record:

November 19 Written Representations
4. NGN Prima Productions Inc. requests the Court's authorization to conduct an examination for discovery in writing of the Defendants' internet service providers to obtain the names and addresses associated with the IP addresses that NGN Prima Productions Inc. identified using public sources. Once the Defendants have been identified, NGN Prima Productions Inc. will be able to send them cease and desist letters and, if required, to add them as named Defendants to this action.
[underline mine]That submission was signed by a member of the Quebec Bar

Riplin

join:2002-05-13
canada
reply to Content

Isp's are in for a rude awakening if mass lawsuits start to happen.

People talk and fast.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to D_Puckett

Do you plan on taking action for this.... lie.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by hm :

Do you plan on taking action for this.... lie.

Maybe "deceit" is a better word?

Hmm. I wonder... I wonder what privcom would do (if anything) if someone were to file a complaint about this deceit & lie to the court that cost people their private info to be given out?

If you upload the "public record" so I can get it, I'll file the complaint first thing Monday and see what (if anything) they say and/or do.

Wonder if they will contact the bar?

D_Puckett
Premium
join:2013-02-09
Etobicoke, ON
reply to hm

said by hm :

Do you plan on taking action for this.... lie.

We included the 'cease and desist' issue as well as the misrepresentations of the non-commercial liability in paragraphs 64 through 70 of our written representations. It is available at Michael Geist's blog, »www.michaelgeist.ca/ --look for the link: 'opposing a motion' in the first sentence.

I should not comment on your Privacy Commissioner idea while our matter is before Federal Court.


hm

@videotron.ca

np.

Didn't notice the link on MG on the first read, just checking it out now.

Kind of odd how this so-called "forensics" company doesn't know about time synchronization.

...only on para 20 and you made some great points so far.


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

said by hm :

np.

Didn't notice the link on MG on the first read, just checking it out now.

Kind of odd how this so-called "forensics" company doesn't know about time synchronization.

...only on para 20 and you made some great points so far.

The thing is this:
No lawsuit has ever gone to trial with Guardaley 'evidence' (the program that Canipre used - the program that all copytrolls use). The reason being is highly faulty, with an estimated 30% false positive rate - due to tracker poisoning with fake peers.

There is 1 Judge down in the states who decided to link 6 separate copytroll cases (only 1 person in each case as the others were dismissed for improper joinder, as it was doubtful any of the people actually shared with each other), and is now testing evidence via what's called a Bellwether trial. 1 defendant has paid up $10k after finding out a family did in fact infringe on video(s) of the plaintiff's, so there's only 5 now. It's very slowly going through the system right now.

The only time the evidence has been fully tested so far, was from someone who got sued in Germany, and counter-sued. The German courts threw out the Guardaley evidence, and the original lawsuit was dismissed, and the counter-suit won. The evidence which was provided in this case, was translated into English - unsure if it was by the courts, or by the investigating company. It's been attached as a pdf.

These copytrolls know the evidence is faulty, they know that to send out these settlement demands that the evidence just has to look good, and doesn't actually have to BE good, because they'll dismiss it before it ever reaches a point that the evidence needs to be tested.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP