UK_Dave
join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Tong
Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Not having ever received one of the letters in question, I don't know.
But he did seem to be suggesting that when he said there is a 70% correlation between IP addresses and people, based on submitted hard drives.
I've asked hm for sources, he's going to look - but as you probably saw from my last post - he's got to be talking massive commercial infringement and duplication.
Anton Pillar orders are hard to get. They wouldnt be given for domestic addresses on the basis of no other evidence than an IP. |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
Here's an interesting read:
»blog.ayrlaw.com/blog/2011/01/14/···tration/
Apparently, under U.S. law, if the copyright is not registered, you have to prove actual damages and cannot rely on statutory damages. I just checked in the CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office) database and lo and behold, copyright on several of the titles in Voltage's claim, if not all, is NOT registered in Canada. Does anyone know what the cross-jurisdiction implications are? I read somewhere that they are trying to harmonize copyright across nations that are subscribers to the WIPO treaties, but one would think that since registration is a key requirement for statutory damages in some jurisdictions, it would carry over, especially since statutory damages are jurisdiction dependent. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
1 edit | reply to UK_Dave
@UK_Dave
Yeah, I saw he is conversing. That's a good thing.
It's unfortunate he's quite one sided. But, his likely relationship with Canipre and Logan would indicate such.
I don't know what he is meaning of " intimations and personal intimidation". Maybe something is occuring on or about another forum or chat?
As for obtaining Anton Piller orders for the hard drives or PC's of private individuals, on the evidence in the affidavit provided so far - fat chance of that happening.
Fact is, the IP addresses were likely obtained by hopping onto Bittorrent, checking some files that were being downloaded, and recording the IP addresses in bulk. This initial search was completed over a course of a year or months, as the STI IP's would need to be gleaned from the overall mass search of IP addresses.
Then, the lawyers wrote the rest up that files were confirmed individually downloaded from each of the IP addresses, and each then confirmed for functionality, then each movie verified in a side by side viewing with an original control copy.
Logan doesn't have enough money to buy the hardware, properly licensed and educated staff, internet fibre connection contract, in order to complete such a task in around a 45 day window to analyze 60 days and 2300 occurences collected. Thats 144 days straight of non stop 24/7 movie comparisons. Let alone aquiring the data during the supposed 60 day period, weeding it from non TSI IP addresses, then attacking the TSI IP addresses only. Not impossible, but so expensive, difficult, improbable that it might as well be impossible.
Then there is the matter of using a third party software to do all the alleged work, all the data processing, etc etc, to which he is not educated, nor a designer or programmer of. Heresay anyone?
The affidavit is a fabrication, in whole or in part. |
|
| said by racer123:@UK_Dave
Then, the lawyers wrote the rest up that files were confirmed individually downloaded from each of the IP addresses, and each then confirmed for functionality, then each movie verified in a side by side viewing with an original control copy.
I believe it was mentioned through Canpire that they downloaded a bit from all IP's and then they go one complete file from all IP not a complete file from each IP.
Also don't know how much if matters but Canpire in not an impartial third party but part of the copyright troll circle. Seems they would gain financially to make sure someone got tracked and busted. Seems like a phishing expedition for monetary value. How do we know they didn't seed the original torrent. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
I keep thinking back to this "landlord" anaolgy and find myself saying... What if...
What if someone were to setup a website where the rules of the show is:
1. Each party must pay a teksavvy account 1 year in advance, like one of those "gift card" type things.
2. People swap their "gift card" with someone in another province.
In effect Joe Blow from Ontario is having his internet account paid for by Pierre Poutine in Quebec.
In other words, the account receivable in the TSI system for the Ontario customer is in Quebec, and vice-versa.
So any so called infringement can never, ever, had been done by the person paying the IP.
Or, to put it another way (or another method of doing this) as an example:
Why don't I set up the website, AnonTronTrollrUS.ca I take the money for people and pay their account and act as an intermediary. The billing would come to me, and the bill-to address would be me. I would never know anything else, other than a transaction.
As far as I know they ask the courts for the bill-to person (ie the accounts receivable). Teksavvy has no other name on file as owning the account. Thus a name could never be given, and I could never have had any of those IP's since I don't even have a teksavvy internet myself.
So in effect, if a troll like voltage ever wetn after someone they would have to go after a whole address. So this would in turn make an IP an street address (HEH) and not a person. Now go ahead and show which person did it.
Anyone see a hole in this?
Things that make me go hmm... |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Tong
said by Tong:I was reading the post. In the post, there is a mentioning that TekSavvy told the people through E-mail that they can't throw out their system, format their HD because court might need to check them?
And the question is, Which system can't they touch "or tamper with"?
I mean I'm just a normal family of 4. I have 6 computers here. The geeks here have 10.
Does teksavvy ask that the "account holder" not delete or wipe the account holders own computer? Or his wifes and kids computers as well?
Also who would pay for the forensics of a family of 4 hard disks? 6 computers could equal 10 hard-disks.
Also, that is a shit load of private information on disks like that. The wifes affair, the husbands mistresses names, what venereal diseases they may have, a kids suicidal thoughts, perverted thoughts, gay porn history, passwords to websites, passwords to emails, passwords to facebook, Bot passwords on IRC, passwords to gay porn sites, on and on and on and on.
In addition to the above, it could possibly show someone downloaded 0day warez, all top 100 IMDB movies that they never would have bought to begin with, loads of porn titles, on and on and on and on.
hmm
So is a family of 4 really expected not to touch anything on all 6 computers?
Also, once voltage and canipre gets those IP's I would expect voltage and canipre to build a history on these people. a search for every occurrence of a certain IP, setting up their canipre software to log all instances of that IP being found on torrent again (to show habitual use) on and on and on and on, even though it could be 6 different people...
hmm...
People here better learn how to spoof real quick. |
|
| reply to kabes
said by kabes:A million people? 1/30th of the population? Good luck having the courts handle that.
there are geographical maps plotting average household incomes and property values. AFter getting the list of people, it's easy to map out the addresses and send out letters accordingly. Without a doubt, they will target more middle/higher income neighborhoods stay out of most welfare townhouse rows. |
|
| reply to ehh
Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit said by ehh :In the lawsuit papers it states the so-called forensic company used on "GuardaLey" monitoring program to conduct its examination of the 2000 ips. Lots of interesting info about this
»torrentfreak.com/evidence-agains···-110824/
The Court should require that GuardaLey deposit their source code with the court so that it can be inspected by every defendant as to what it does & how it works.
There should be a complete disclosure of the the financial relationships between GuardaLey, Canipre, & Voltage. |
|
|
|
| reply to TSI Marc
Faaaarrr too many holes in this gangsterism ... just need someone with legalize and time/resources to stand up to these thugs. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to analog andy
quote:
I believe it was mentioned through Canpire that they downloaded a bit from all IP's and then they go one complete file from all IP not a complete file from each IP.
Also don't know how much if matters but Canpire in not an impartial third party but part of the copyright troll circle. Seems they would gain financially to make sure someone got tracked and busted. Seems like a phishing expedition for monetary value. How do we know they didn't seed the original torrent.
@ Analog Andy - I hope that is not the case... so if some guy's IP is flagged, and he uploads a 1 and a 0 (2 bits, or 1/4 a byte) then he's screwed. Wow, that's a REALLY loose standard of evidence.
You make a good point about Canipre. It's owner might have been and may be a private investigator, but Canipre itself is not, and Logan is not an IT or programming professional, nor a developer of the Guardaley software he relies upon. He might have been a private investigator in the past, and might currently be, but he is also a musician. Nowhere can I located an education or profession in software or computing. The German program Guardaley is under massive scrutiny in the USA as well, as previously noted.
This Voltage case is a pile of dung, piled on different kinds of dung. Then thrown at a wall. Hoping one of all the types of dung sticks. |
|
2 edits | said by racer123:@ Analog Andy - I hope that is not the case... so if some guy's IP is flagged, and he uploads a 1 and a 0 (2 bits, or 1/4 a byte) then he's screwed. Wow, that's a REALLY loose standard of evidence.
Im trying to locate it but its written in one of the submissions/court papers someone link to on here.
Edit found it. Seems there was no way they could download 2300 individual copies of each movie andcheck them all against a master copy. That would take like 5000+ hours per show to watch each one.
6. Between September 1 and October 30, 2012, Canipre used forensic software to scan
BitTorrent networks for the presence of the Works. The forensic software searched
BitTorrent networks for files corresponding to the Works and identified the IP
address of each seeder or peer who was offering any of these files for transfer or
distribution. This information is available to anyone that is connected to the P2P
network;
7. The forensic software downloaded the copies of the Works available for distribution
on the P2P networks and for each file downloaded recorded the following identifying
information:
a. the IP address assigned to the peer by his or her internet service provider
(“ISP”) at the time it distributed the file;
b. the date and time at which the file was distributed by the seeder or peer;
c. the P2P network utilized by the peer; and
d. the file’s metadata, which includes the name of the file and the size of the file
(collectively, the “File Data”);
8. Canipre analyzed each of the BitTorrent packets distributed by the IP addresses
contained in File Data and verified that reassembling the pieces results in a fully
4
playable digital motion picture that is one of the Works. Canipre verified this by
viewing a control copy of each of the Works side by side with the digital media files
being distributed on the P2P network and confirming that they were the same;
9. Canipre reviewed the File Data and identified the transactions associated with IP
addresses for customers of TekSavvy in Ontario that used the BitTorrent network to
reproduce and distribute the Works during the period of September 1 to October 30,
2012 (the “Distributors”);
10. ISP’s track the IP addresses assigned to their customers at any given time and retain
“user logs” of that information. Once provided with the IP address and the
corresponding File Data, ISPs can review their user logs to identify the contact
information of their clients who acted as peers to copy and distribute unauthorized
versions of the Works. Only an ISP can correlate the IP address to the real identity of
its subscriber; |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| Yeah, it doesnt specifically say how much data that needs to be provided - just that the IP is listed to a particular file part.
The problem is the Guardalay software is doing all the work, and he's trying to describe how it works and dumbing it down, when he doesnt understand it himself. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to TSI Marc
I wonder if Barry Logan's band "Whoa! Miss Mojo" paid any royalties for the songs it has performed (covered). If ever? I wonder if they ever contacted the original works artist to ask permission to play a song?
Since we are talking about copyright infringement and all... |
|
| reply to racer123
Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit I found the file but linking it here put two of my posts into moderation. It'll probably show up later. |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
Yeah, Its the Motion recort file, with the motion affidavit and the statement of claim therein contained. |
|
| said by racer123:Yeah, Its the Motion recort file, with the motion affidavit and the statement of claim therein contained.
Yah this is the text
6. Between September 1 and October 30, 2012, Canipre used forensic software to scan
BitTorrent networks for the presence of the Works. The forensic software searched
BitTorrent networks for files corresponding to the Works and identified the IP
address of each seeder or peer who was offering any of these files for transfer or
distribution. This information is available to anyone that is connected to the P2P
network;
7. The forensic software downloaded the copies of the Works available for distribution
on the P2P networks and for each file downloaded recorded the following identifying
information:
a. the IP address assigned to the peer by his or her internet service provider
(“ISP”) at the time it distributed the file;
b. the date and time at which the file was distributed by the seeder or peer;
c. the P2P network utilized by the peer; and
d. the file’s metadata, which includes the name of the file and the size of the file
(collectively, the “File Data”);
8. Canipre analyzed each of the BitTorrent packets distributed by the IP addresses
contained in File Data and verified that reassembling the pieces results in a fully
4
playable digital motion picture that is one of the Works. Canipre verified this by
viewing a control copy of each of the Works side by side with the digital media files
being distributed on the P2P network and confirming that they were the same;
9. Canipre reviewed the File Data and identified the transactions associated with IP
addresses for customers of TekSavvy in Ontario that used the BitTorrent network to
reproduce and distribute the Works during the period of September 1 to October 30,
2012 (the “Distributors”); So Canpire
Found the movies in question on Bittorrent
Recorded the IP's that were seeding the movies
Downloaded the movies in full and compared them with a movie file they have?
Or Downloaded each piece and pieced the file together manually to get a whole movie or are they talking about the torrent software combing the pieces into a complete file and then comparing it? |
|
| said by analog andy:So Canpire
Found the movies in question on Bittorrent
Recorded the IP's that were seeding the movies
Downloaded the movies in full and compared them with a movie file they have?
Or Downloaded each piece and pieced the file together manually to get a whole movie or are they talking about the torrent software combing the pieces into a complete file and then comparing it?
Okay, if we assume that Canipire's software is accurate:
Looks like they simply combined pieces from a whole bunch of seeders and peers into one file, then verified the file was one of their movies. Which is what a typical bittorrent client would do, so I wouldn't expect them to do anything more.
However, it's highly doubtful that any single seeder provided a complete copy of a movie to them. So, the question that the court needs to answer is how much of a movie needs to be shared in order for that to be considered illegal?
Also, this procedure only verifies that people are uploading the file, it doesn't guarantee that any of the peers have a full copy of the file. For example, what if a user started downloading a movie but cancelled it after 10% was downloaded? Is he guilty of pirating the movie? Or could he argue that he killed the download after he realized it was a pirated movie?
Is sharing a movie (such as what bittorrent does by default) more "nasty" than downloading only? What if you turn off uploading in bittorrent, but Canpire's software marks your IP address as a sharer because you still belong to the swarm?
There are SO MANY QUESTIONS that the court needs to answer. We really do need a test-case to find out what the new law allows and disallows.
The intent of the law is clear: don't pirate movies. But the details are not at all clear, nor are the penalties. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to TSI Marc
Here's food for thought.
Take it back 20 years technology.
A bunch of kids all record part of songs off the radio, and all take individual bits, all get together and their teacher helps them splice the tape together in their film studio class.
Who commited the crime? Each of the kids for providing a part of the song, or the teacher for helping them splice it all together? |
|
