dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27409
share rss forum feed

kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to Content

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

Never heard of that movie... IMDB says it's a 4.9, now I know why.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to rednekcowboy

said by rednekcowboy:

I don't normally lower myself to name calling in this forum, however, seeing as you are such an ignoramus--you sir, are a complete idiot.

Yet I'm not the one who can't tell the difference between criminal and civil court.

said by rednekcowboy:

1. Your agreement between you and your ISP has no relevance in a lawsuit that they are not party to. If the copyright holder sued the ISP and won, the ISP could then turn around and sue you based on the TOS to recoup whatever damages they lost. However I'm not sure they would even win that. The agreement between you and your ISP is a private contract between you and them and offers no protection to any third parties, IE copyright holders.

Actually the agreement with your ISP matters very much because the evidence that they gather (i.e. IP addresses) only points to the ISP as the party responsible for the damage. The ISP then offloads that responsibility to you by proving to the complainant, using their records and the terms of their ToS, that you are solely responsible for all access to their service through your account.

said by rednekcowboy:

The only party that can bring action against you in regards to the contract you signed with your ISP is your ISP. It is an agreement between you and them with no other parties involved. So unless your activities have caused damage to your ISP in some, way shape or form it holds no relevance for anyone else. Even if your actions caused damages to your ISP, I think the most they can do, as per the agreement, is terminate your services and charge you whatever applicable cancellation fees might be included in that.

Which again only shows how legally clueless you are. The actions aren't brought against the customer "in regards of the contract", they're brought against breaches of the Copyright Act. The Contract signed can be brought in as proof that you are responsible for the damage done using that service.

said by rednekcowboy:

You really need to learn the basics of contract law.

Why, it's not the contract that's being breached, it's the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

2. The rules aren't completely different, in civil matters, the rules are the same, but as you said (with the exception of your account--moron, they aren't suing your account, your account would not be a named plantiff--YOU would be a named plantiff) they have to prove it was more likely than you, yourself downloaded the infringed material. How exactly do they do that with an IP? Short answer, they can't.

Except your account (and your contract with the ISP) is what allows the ISP to single you out as the user of their service that is responsible for the damage. They do NOT have to prove that you committed the offense, only that you are RESPONSIBLE for the damage.

said by rednekcowboy:

3. Red light cameras, interesting point. However many cases have been thrown out when the prosecution could not meet the burden when faced with an appointment schedule, etc.

Please provide reference to even a single case where a red light ticket was thrown out solely because the owner of the vehicle identified said he wasn't the one driving the vehicle.

said by rednekcowboy:

For someone who claims to know the law, you really are extremely clueless. Must be one of those mindless "yes men" that work for the movie companies.

Right back at you buddy.

said by rednekcowboy:

Everything you are trying to argue about has already been debunked in a court of law.

If it has why don't you provide references to those cases and educate us all? Shouldn't be hard after all, right?

said by rednekcowboy:

You don't have a leg to stand on and you are starting to show what a true buffoon you really are with these constant imbecilic statements that hold no value in the real world and only exist this way in your imagination.

Let me tell you exactly how this would play out in court:

Judge: Did you sir download this movie?
Me: No sir, I did not. I realize that someone at my IP may have but I live with my wife and two daughters all of whom have access to this network
Judge to Plantiff: Can you prove that sir is the one who downloaded your movie/that it was not 1 of the other three people in that household?
Plantiff: No, your honor, we just know that the offender used this IP to commit the infringement
Judge: Seeing as the person you accused is 1 of 4 possibilities, I have no choice but to dismiss your case. 25% likliehood that the defendant committed the offence nowhere near meets a preponderance of the evidence.

You clearly haven't spent any time in a courtroom if you think that's how it goes.

said by rednekcowboy:

If I lived by myself, they might have a case or even if it was just myself and my wife, then they would at least meet the 50% burden, unless of course, I had visitors on the day in question....

Doesn't matter if there's a hundred people living with you. The person who has the contract with the ISP is the one responsible for everything that happens with that service.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

I don't normally lower myself to name calling in this forum, however, seeing as you are such an ignoramus--you sir, are a complete idiot.

Yet I'm not the one who can't tell the difference between criminal and civil court.

said by rednekcowboy:

1. Your agreement between you and your ISP has no relevance in a lawsuit that they are not party to. If the copyright holder sued the ISP and won, the ISP could then turn around and sue you based on the TOS to recoup whatever damages they lost. However I'm not sure they would even win that. The agreement between you and your ISP is a private contract between you and them and offers no protection to any third parties, IE copyright holders.

Actually the agreement with your ISP matters very much because the evidence that they gather (i.e. IP addresses) only points to the ISP as the party responsible for the damage. The ISP then offloads that responsibility to you by proving to the complainant, using their records and the terms of their ToS, that you are solely responsible for all access to their service through your account.

said by rednekcowboy:

The only party that can bring action against you in regards to the contract you signed with your ISP is your ISP. It is an agreement between you and them with no other parties involved. So unless your activities have caused damage to your ISP in some, way shape or form it holds no relevance for anyone else. Even if your actions caused damages to your ISP, I think the most they can do, as per the agreement, is terminate your services and charge you whatever applicable cancellation fees might be included in that.

Which again only shows how legally clueless you are. The actions aren't brought against the customer "in regards of the contract", they're brought against breaches of the Copyright Act. The Contract signed can be brought in as proof that you are responsible for the damage done using that service.

said by rednekcowboy:

You really need to learn the basics of contract law.

Why, it's not the contract that's being breached, it's the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

2. The rules aren't completely different, in civil matters, the rules are the same, but as you said (with the exception of your account--moron, they aren't suing your account, your account would not be a named plantiff--YOU would be a named plantiff) they have to prove it was more likely than you, yourself downloaded the infringed material. How exactly do they do that with an IP? Short answer, they can't.

Except your account (and your contract with the ISP) is what allows the ISP to single you out as the user of their service that is responsible for the damage. They do NOT have to prove that you committed the offense, only that you are RESPONSIBLE for the damage.

said by rednekcowboy:

3. Red light cameras, interesting point. However many cases have been thrown out when the prosecution could not meet the burden when faced with an appointment schedule, etc.

Please provide reference to even a single case where a red light ticket was thrown out solely because the owner of the vehicle identified said he wasn't the one driving the vehicle.

said by rednekcowboy:

For someone who claims to know the law, you really are extremely clueless. Must be one of those mindless "yes men" that work for the movie companies.

Right back at you buddy.

said by rednekcowboy:

Everything you are trying to argue about has already been debunked in a court of law.

If it has why don't you provide references to those cases and educate us all? Shouldn't be hard after all, right?

said by rednekcowboy:

You don't have a leg to stand on and you are starting to show what a true buffoon you really are with these constant imbecilic statements that hold no value in the real world and only exist this way in your imagination.

Let me tell you exactly how this would play out in court:

Judge: Did you sir download this movie?
Me: No sir, I did not. I realize that someone at my IP may have but I live with my wife and two daughters all of whom have access to this network
Judge to Plantiff: Can you prove that sir is the one who downloaded your movie/that it was not 1 of the other three people in that household?
Plantiff: No, your honor, we just know that the offender used this IP to commit the infringement
Judge: Seeing as the person you accused is 1 of 4 possibilities, I have no choice but to dismiss your case. 25% likliehood that the defendant committed the offence nowhere near meets a preponderance of the evidence.

You clearly haven't spent any time in a courtroom if you think that's how it goes.

said by rednekcowboy:

If I lived by myself, they might have a case or even if it was just myself and my wife, then they would at least meet the 50% burden, unless of course, I had visitors on the day in question....

Doesn't matter if there's a hundred people living with you. The person who has the contract with the ISP is the one responsible for everything that happens with that service.

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Furthermore, if what you claim to be true is true, then what you are saying is that I can go to McDonald's and download a torrent on their open wifi and then they will be sued? C'mon, use your head!!

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by rednekcowboy:

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

So now not only can't you make the difference between criminal and civil court, but you can't even tell the difference between the USA and Canada.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

said by rednekcowboy:

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Except they only have to prove damages, and that you're more than likely to be responsible for those damages, which wouldn't be hard using that evidence.

said by rednekcowboy:

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

It would be nice if you could find relevant evidence of your claims instead of irrelevant cases out of irrelevant jurisdictions.

I'd like to remind you that this thread is about CANADA.

said by rednekcowboy:

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I agree, it must be hard for you to find arguments in a field you know so little about.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

You really are clueless. Ever heard of google? Torrent lawsuit thrown out of court:

»www.pcworld.com/article/255061/j···its.html

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add···-120503/

So now not only can't you make the difference between criminal and civil court, but you can't even tell the difference between the USA and Canada.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your agreement with your ISP only points towards you being the owner of the account. They can give your name to anyone, but it still doesn't prove anything, just that you own the acccount. The ISP may be able to hold you accountable, but those rights don't automatically pass on to anyone else. They can't relinquish your rights to a third party, only you can do that.

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

said by rednekcowboy:

Even if they could, it still has to be proven in a court of law, be it civil or criminal, there is still a burden of proof. You have even admitted as much. Quit being such a troll.

Except they only have to prove damages, and that you're more than likely to be responsible for those damages, which wouldn't be hard using that evidence.

said by rednekcowboy:

Red light camera:

»www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-fight-···cket.htm

»mynorthwest.com/11/714894/Judge-···cant-you

While I admit, I only searched for 2 seconds, I could search longer and find more for you if you like.

It would be nice if you could find relevant evidence of your claims instead of irrelevant cases out of irrelevant jurisdictions.

I'd like to remind you that this thread is about CANADA.

said by rednekcowboy:

At any rate, I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile. It's pointless to argue facts when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I agree, it must be hard for you to find arguments in a field you know so little about.

OK, one last time. Your ISP can only testify that you are the account holder and while they may be able to hold you accountable to them for any damages they incur, this does not prove that YOU did anything nor does it mean some third party can hold you accountable. It also does not show that YOU infringed or committed anything, it shows your account was used to commit the act. So we come full circle, there is nothing that ties YOU directly to anything, and without that, a case cannot be won against you.

As far as US vs Canada. I can find more if I want to, however I don't have the time to spend doing it. You asked for cases, I provided cases.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
reply to IamGimli

double post


peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

That only forms the contractual relationship between you and your ISP via their TOS (contract) as they mandated them to their consumers.

The TOS are really just a "wish list" by the ISP on how they believe the world should work and contract is open to interpretation by the courts.

It does not form the basis for any responsibility in a copyright infringement case other than identifying who registered and pays for an account with an ISP that assigned a particular IP at a particular moment in time material to the claim for damages.

Until we get some more case law under our belts the whole concept of responsibility for an IP is fluid currently.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by peterboro:

That only forms the contractual relationship between you and your ISP via their TOS (contract) as they mandated them to their consumers.

The TOS are really just a "wish list" by the ISP on how they believe the world should work and contract is open to interpretation by the courts.

It does not form the basis for any responsibility in a copyright infringement case other than identifying who registered and pays for an account with an ISP that assigned a particular IP at a particular moment in time material to the claim for damages.

Until we get some more case law under our belts the whole concept of responsibility for an IP is fluid currently.

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

I'm quite certain that a car's owner would still get the ticket if he decided to leave his car unlocked, keys in the ignition, for anybody to use and one of those users ran a red light using the car (as the unsecure router argument goes).

BTW it's much easier to spoof a license plate than it is to spoof a routable IP, yet it's still perfectly acceptable to Canadian courts.

This won't be settled for sure until an actual judgement in a piracy case comes down in Canada but there is no relevant evidence to the contrary.


well hm

@videotron.ca

Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Perfect example to bring to court with you.


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Content

The red light camera case is not the same. In those situations it can be concluded, unless you have filed a police report otherwise, that the person in control of your vehicle is either you or known to you and had your permissions to take the car. If in the situation you outline you called the police to report your car stolen, no court is going to charge you with the actions taken by the criminal. I find it odd that anyone would think that they would.

The same can not be said for someone who uses your open wi-fi connection. It's a nice analogy, but it doesn't hold up.



random

@teksavvy.com
reply to well hm

>Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Pierre Poutine has not been caught, so there has not been a trial to set the precedent.



well hm

@videotron.ca

said by random :

>Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Pierre Poutine has not been caught, so there has not been a trial to set the precedent.

Well he has (or he says hasn't). He plead not guilty and it's already going through court.

Elections Canada and all their super-IT specialists, which one would assume are top notch and the best there is, couldn't prove it was him. It's all based on circumstantial evidence (ie. this guy is in court because he used the name Pierre Poutine on a name tag once and they have a picture of it). Not an IP. Not an IP at all. Far from it.

Pierre poutine did indeed prove that.

If the government of Canada and their top notch specialists can't prove it, how is this mickey mouse extortion company going to?

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

You wouldn't download a car would you?

Nuts to red-light camera case law. It's not very analogous to copyright infringement over the internet.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Samgee

said by Samgee:

The red light camera case is not the same. In those situations it can be concluded, unless you have filed a police report otherwise, that the person in control of your vehicle is either you or known to you and had your permissions to take the car.

...and following the same logic, since you entered into a contract with the ISP and agreed to be held responsible for all usage of their service through your account, you're responsible for any action that is proven to have been performed through your account.

said by Samgee:

If in the situation you outline you called the police to report your car stolen, no court is going to charge you with the actions taken by the criminal. I find it odd that anyone would think that they would.

Except if you call to report your car stolen AFTER the action has taken place, in which case the onus will be on you to prove that your car was stolen before the action in question took place and you'll have to explain why you failed to report the theft at that time. If you can't prove that, you'll still be held responsible in a civil court.

You are also again confusing criminal matters and civil matters. One can be held responsible in a civil court for damages suffered by a victim even if that person is found not guilty of a criminal offense.

said by Samgee:

The same can not be said for someone who uses your open wi-fi connection. It's a nice analogy, but it doesn't hold up.

It's exactly the same as the example I gave; unlocked car, keys in the ignition (i.e. unsecured router), which hasn't been reported stolen. Have you reported your router to be un-secured to your ISP?

said by booj:

You wouldn't download a car would you?

Nuts to red-light camera case law. It's not very analogous to copyright infringement over the internet.

We're talking civil responsibility. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it null.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by IamGimli:

said by Samgee:

The red light camera case is not the same. In those situations it can be concluded, unless you have filed a police report otherwise, that the person in control of your vehicle is either you or known to you and had your permissions to take the car.

...and following the same logic, since you entered into a contract with the ISP and agreed to be held responsible for all usage of their service through your account, you're responsible for any action that is proven to have been performed through your account.

said by Samgee:

If in the situation you outline you called the police to report your car stolen, no court is going to charge you with the actions taken by the criminal. I find it odd that anyone would think that they would.

Except if you call to report your car stolen AFTER the action has taken place, in which case the onus will be on you to prove that your car was stolen before the action in question took place and you'll have to explain why you failed to report the theft at that time. If you can't prove that, you'll still be held responsible in a civil court.

You are also again confusing criminal matters and civil matters. One can be held responsible in a civil court for damages suffered by a victim even if that person is found not guilty of a criminal offense.

said by Samgee:

The same can not be said for someone who uses your open wi-fi connection. It's a nice analogy, but it doesn't hold up.

It's exactly the same as the example I gave; unlocked car, keys in the ignition (i.e. unsecured router), which hasn't been reported stolen. Have you reported your router to be un-secured to your ISP?

said by booj:

You wouldn't download a car would you?

Nuts to red-light camera case law. It's not very analogous to copyright infringement over the internet.

We're talking civil responsibility. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it null.

Last time-just because it's civil court does not mean there is no burden of proof. If that was the case anyone could accuse anyone of anything and win. It's call f'n common sense. God you're thick.

Again, if I go to a business, use their open wifi and download this movie, they aren't going to sue the business owner (IE account holder) for the infrigement. Same applies to a personal account.

They still have to prove, in all likeliehood that it was you that commited the offense, not that your account was used to commit the offense. Quit being so freaking stupid.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

Except if you call to report your car stolen AFTER the action has taken place, in which case the onus will be on you to prove that your car was stolen before the action in question took place and you'll have to explain why you failed to report the theft at that time.

What makes you think that's so hard to do? The car was stolen overnight, I reported it in the morning. The police aren't going to ask for proof of that. If during the investigation they find I was lying, that's a different story but a person is not required to report the loss of a car the second it happens, only once they become aware of it.

As for civil responsibility, the burden is lower, not non-existent. An IP address is not a person, and the courts if provided with the opportunity to rule on it will come to that conclusion. Until it happens though, no one knows. But I do know my contract with my ISP is not an admission of guilt or responsibility in a court of law as to what's done by others (criminally in the case of a stolen wi-fi signal) with my connection.


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to IamGimli

>and following the same logic, since you entered into a contract with the ISP and agreed to be held responsible for all usage of their service through your account, you're responsible for any action that is proven to have been performed through your account.

That contract is only between the two parties. Not so sure if a 3rd party can normally hold you to the terms in that particular contract.


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

And your ISP will be brought forward as a witness by the complainant and they'll explain how you are responsible with everything that happens with your account, as per their ToS. Since YOU used their services to create the claimed damage then YOU implicated them and therefore made them relevant and their testimony receivable.

said by rednekcowboy:

Your account doesn't "single you out" in any way shape or form. It shows that you are an account holder, that is all. It by no means meets any burden of proof in any court of law--civil or criminal. You really are a moron to be trying to say otherwise.

It makes you RESPONSIBLE. I showed you that in the quote I posted about two pages back. Not that I expect you to understand a complicated word like RESPONSIBLE but still, it does matter in a court of law.

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?

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

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.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

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.

But it was the user (or someone on their system) who downloaded the file. The ISP never even had a copy of the file. It seems very hard to prove their guilt of copyright violation, just because a download was routed to one of their IPs.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to IamGimli

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:2

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
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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:2

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
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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
kudos:1
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:2
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
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

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!