dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
75271
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work

sanc5

join:2012-12-13
Mississauga, ON
reply to resa1983

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

FAQ from CIPPIC:

»cippic.ca/online-anonymity-and-d···disclose


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

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?

It's the argument that the NRA uses in the USA - guns don't kill, people do. Only in this case it's the people & the software.

I really don't have a big problem with copyright *owners* protecting their economic interests - I write software and I'm pretty protective of what I do too. But I'd never seek ridiculous damage amounts as Voltage is seeking - just the actual value of the lost sale and my costs in seeking restitution.

The technical "methodology" Canipre used is flawed and deserves to be trashed. The claim of 'commercial infringement' is so ludicrous that Voltage deserves to be laughed out of court, with costs awarded against them.

I disagree with TSI's log retention policy and hope that they see the light and reduce the amount of data and timeframe they hold on to them. That said, TSI did pretty much all they could in court given the hand they were dealt at the time.

I hope that come January 14th that TSI will strongly advocate for CIPPIC to be permitted to join the case, because it isn't a slam dunk that CIPPIC will be permitted to do so by the Court. TSI also had better be prepared to advance large parts of CIPPIC's case in the event that CIPPIC is denied the opportunity by the Court.


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

said by MaynardKrebs:

I hope that come January 14th that TSI will strongly advocate for CIPPIC to be permitted to join the case, because it isn't a slam dunk that CIPPIC will be permitted to do so by the Court. TSI also had better be prepared to advance large parts of CIPPIC's case in the event that CIPPIC is denied the opportunity by the Court.

+1
--
IF TREE = FALL AND PEOPLE = ZERO THEN SOUND = 0
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


Scarecrow

@180.149.96.x
reply to TSI Marc

Say someone created some (legal) videos and gave them the same names as the Voltage movies. Then they get uploaded to some torrent tracker. Canipre software would detect the names and track them

What would be the implications for anyone sharing those movies?


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

@Scarecrow - nothing, because Canipre claims that it verifies the data as well as watches the finished movie after the data has been recompiled into a working copy of the film. They'd find that your copy is a fake and they'd have no problem with you serving up a fake.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by racer123:

@Scarecrow - nothing, because Canipre claims that it verifies the data as well as watches the finished movie after the data has been recompiled into a working copy of the film. They'd find that your copy is a fake and they'd have no problem with you serving up a fake.

How can they verify this if all they receive are the few bits and pieces that you provide to them as part of a swarm?

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

@Gone That's their angle - they use "special software" which they are not the developer for, and isolate the supposed IP's that uploaded even the smallest portion of one of the file peices. That's it. I don't know if the software can identify which bits and bytes are from each independant IP address or not.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

Oh, I know what their angle is. I am simply saying that it isn't good enough as they have no way to prove that the IP they captured was making available a 100% complete and working version of the infringing material based on the extremely limited number of pieces they capture.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

@Scarecrow - nothing, because Canipre claims that it verifies the data as well as watches the finished movie after the data has been recompiled into a working copy of the film. They'd find that your copy is a fake and they'd have no problem with you serving up a fake.

Works by release.
The same movie could be released by 15 different groups.
Each one slightly different.
They would have to DL his entire movie (or a part if it was compressed etc) to check what it is they have.

As for canipre saying they re-assembled it and watched the movie in it's entirely then that means one of two things:

1) They made their own release and offered it up to whoever would take it. (This would be point A). Once someone else has it, A+B could serve it as well. on and on and on A+B+C+D+.... +infinity

So what release did these people make and offer? Someone with a notice would know.

2) Or they just chose any release already out in the wild by any number of groups. They grabbed the whole thing started serving it as well and DL'd from others (any of the billion people out there) to show they can get the same movie back (kinda lame, but that's it).

In addition, in both instances, they were getting parts from someone in Germany, Africa, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Sweden, Canada, US, etc etc etc. These 2000 people alone did not make the movie complete. Nor would removing all teksavvy users or all Canadian stop anything. It's world wide.

I believe part of their claim is to rush and get these people to put a stop to the "distribution" and ruining them (or something like that). That's a joke. A complete joke. 15 different copies of each movie is out (if not more) by 15+ release groups. All shared world wide (though I don't know anyone who would want their junk dollar bin crap).

Or Maybe their very own copy they made and shared with the world (if it's not one of the dozen releases by release groups) is their own fault. It sure as hell isn't a "teksavvy" or "Canadian" matter. It's world wide.

*shrug*

Bottom line, they are fulla shit.

But Canadian Judge Joe sitting in court is an idiot and will believe anything anyone says and will believe their claim has merit.

The whole thing is a sham and even preys on the ignorance of those who upload the law, the judge.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by racer123:

@Scarecrow - nothing, because Canipre claims that it verifies the data as well as watches the finished movie after the data has been recompiled into a working copy of the film. They'd find that your copy is a fake and they'd have no problem with you serving up a fake.

How can they verify this if all they receive are the few bits and pieces that you provide to them as part of a swarm?

A few pieces will pay.

When I tried to DL some the the educational chem video's the other day I cut one off at about 20% (had to run out). that 20% played just fine.

The movie files on p2p appear to come raw, not packed. so those bits can but to say I got 1kb of something from *only these* 2300 people (which some happen to be the same person 3x)... meh. All BS.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by hm :

A few pieces will pay.
When I tried to DL some the the educational chem video's the other day I cut one off at about 20% (had to run out). that 20% played just fine.
The movie files on p2p appear to come raw, not packed. so those bits can but to say I got 1kb of something from *only these* 2300 people (which some happen to be the same person 3x)... meh. All BS.

This is completely dependant on the format as most use containers that require a functional header to be viewable and as a result your blanket statement that all will play with just a few pieces of data is wholly incorrect. You need to educate yourself a bit further.

Furthermore, this does not negate the argument that a few pieces of data from one source proves that they have the entire material available for infringement.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Gone:

Furthermore, this does not negate the argument that a few pieces of data from one source proves that they have the entire material available for infringement.

Does it matter if they're making the entire material available for infringement? Honest question, I have no idea. I can't see why it would matter though, whether you share 1%, 50%, 99% or 100%, you're still sharing something you don't have the rights to share.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by Ree:

Does it matter if they're making the entire material available for infringement? Honest question, I have no idea. I can't see why it would matter though, whether you share 1%, 50%, 99% or 100%, you're still sharing something you don't have the rights to share.

It does matter, because without the full material available the data is just a useless series of 1s and 0s that can't be used for anything. It would be like someone blaming you for infringing on the copyright of a book when all you have is a page of random letters.

There are different formats that can be viewed in partial pieces, but the vast majority of the stuff out there uses container formats which will not function without the full file. You are unable to prove that the infringing material was available for use - a requirement under the law - when all you do is grab a few paces of "random letters," if you will.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Gone:

said by Ree:

Does it matter if they're making the entire material available for infringement? Honest question, I have no idea. I can't see why it would matter though, whether you share 1%, 50%, 99% or 100%, you're still sharing something you don't have the rights to share.

It does matter, because without the full material available the data is just a useless series of 1s and 0s that can't be used for anything. It would be like someone blaming you for infringing on the copyright of a book when all you have is a page of random letters.

There are different formats that can be viewed in partial pieces, but the vast majority of the stuff out there uses container formats which will not function without the full file. You are unable to prove that the infringing material was available for use - a requirement under the law - when all you do is grab a few paces of "random letters," if you will.

Yes, if they just grab a few pieces that proves nothing. But somebody mentioned that they will download the entire file (from hundreds if not thousands of seeds/peers) and watch it to confirm that it's an infringing work.

So if a given movie was made up of 1000 pieces, and each piece was downloaded from a different seed/peer, then now they know that 1000 people were making at least 1 piece of a copyrighted work available.

Which is where my question about percentages comes in. Each person only shared 1/1000th of the file. Does that suddenly make it OK?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by Ree:

Yes, if they just grab a few pieces that proves nothing. But somebody mentioned that they will download the entire file (from hundreds if not thousands of seeds/peers) and watch it to confirm that it's an infringing work.
So if a given movie was made up of 1000 pieces, and each piece was downloaded from a different seed/peer, then now they know that 1000 people were making at least 1 piece of a copyrighted work available.
Which is where my question about percentages comes in. Each person only shared 1/1000th of the file. Does that suddenly make it OK?

They can do that all they want. It doesn't prove that *you* have a full working copy of the file offered up for infringement. All it proves is that you have one or two segments of a file that, on their own, are just useless data.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Gone:

said by Ree:

Yes, if they just grab a few pieces that proves nothing. But somebody mentioned that they will download the entire file (from hundreds if not thousands of seeds/peers) and watch it to confirm that it's an infringing work.
So if a given movie was made up of 1000 pieces, and each piece was downloaded from a different seed/peer, then now they know that 1000 people were making at least 1 piece of a copyrighted work available.
Which is where my question about percentages comes in. Each person only shared 1/1000th of the file. Does that suddenly make it OK?

They can do that all they want. It doesn't prove that *you* have a full working copy of the file offered up for infringement. All it proves is that you have one or two segments of a file that, on their own, are just useless data.

And again, that's what my question is. Does it matter whether I share 1/1000 or 500/1000 or 999/1000 or 1000/1000 pieces? Any way you slice it I'm sharing something I don't own the rights to so I don't see what the difference is.

Seems like that would be a pretty big loophole if you had to share the whole thing for it to be infringement. If that's the case, I propose this change to the BitTorrent protocol:

Only ever share n-1 pieces of a file. If everyone picks a random piece to not share, then all the pieces will still be available, just never all from the same person, so then it can never be proved that anybody has a full working copy!

Off to file my patent now...


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to Gone

Just like they are using a "hacked" copy of torrent client for honeypot, a user can also find "hacked" torrent clients that lies about their uploads, share ratio, completion and other stats too.

Having only a few non-sequential random blocks of data in torrent is very much like a random patch of data in a CD that is partially destroyed by a microwave oven. Not until you have recovered enough of the directory structures, file header etc, you can't even make sense out of the raw data.

Expand your moderator at work


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to Ree

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

said by Ree:

And again, that's what my question is. Does it matter whether I share 1/1000 or 500/1000 or 999/1000 or 1000/1000 pieces? Any way you slice it I'm sharing something I don't own the rights to so I don't see what the difference is.

said by »laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts···html#h-4 :
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right
(a) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work,
(b) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work,
(c) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise,
(d) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,
(e) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work,
(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication,
(g) to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan,
(h) in the case of a computer program that can be reproduced in the ordinary course of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer program,
(i) in the case of a musical work, to rent out a sound recording in which the work is embodied, and
(j) in the case of a work that is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the copyright owner,
A single block is not substantial on its own in any way. In fact, with the way the Act is worded, that tiny non-substantial piece - remember, the Act requires a substantial part to be made available - in of itself isn't even a violation of the Copyright Act. Knowing this, a single unsubstantial block not only is of itself not an infringement of copyright, but also does not prove that copyright in of the entire work was made available for infringement by any specific user who may be named in a claim.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Gone:

A single block is not substantial on its own in any way. In fact, with the way the Act is worded, that tiny non-substantial piece - remember, the Act requires a substantial part to be made available - in of itself isn't even a violation of the Copyright Act. Knowing this, a single unsubstantial block not only is of itself not an infringement of copyright, but also does not prove that copyright in of the entire work was made available for infringement by any specific user who may be named in a claim.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

So my next question is whether "substantial" has been defined (elsewhere in the act, in previous court cases, or whatever). It seems like the same thing I mentioned above could apply, but instead of sharing n-1 blocks, you share substantial-1. Not that I'm advocating this, just pointing out that it's a pretty big loophole.

And another question. If I make all 1000/1000 blocks available, but nobody ever downloads them, is that still a copyright violation? The reason I ask is because if Voltage (or whoever) only downloaded one block to prove what I was sharing was really their copyrighted material, and that's not substantial enough for a copyright violation conviction, is it enough to ask the courts to identify me so they can investigate further (seize my PC to check if I had the whole file, or just the 1 block)?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

The issue is that unless they obtain all 1000 blocks from you specifically and reassemble them into a working form, they have no way to verify that all 1000 blocks you made available in the swarm are actually a working version material they're claiming you infringed upon. Merely listing 1000 blocks available does not in itself constitute infringement as there's no way to verify the information was actually what you said it is. Without 1000 correct blocks of that infringed-upon material, you don't have a working copy of the file, and therefore aren't infringing on anything.

They can make whatever claim they want, there is still no way for them to prove that all 2000 of the IPs actually served up anything useful unless they downloaded a complete movie from each and every individual 2000s IPs at one specific point in time.

Now, hypothetically, even if they did do exactly that, then you get into the whole issue of being unable to prove that the person named in the suit was the one who actually made the material available for infringement.

This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to funny0

said by funny0:

said by UK_Dave:

Because the bit torrent case is about people UPLOADING.

Downloading is legal, uploading isn't - broadly speaking.

WRONG downloading is now illegal BUT i'll quote the RCMP
"they won't go after non commercial file sharing"
ergo they want to target counterfeiting and people ripping people off making money off others stuff...

This is so wrong. It's 100% legal to download in Canada because a) we pay a tax on all storage to compensate authors for it b) the supreme court ruled that because we as users are unable to determine if the source we are downloading from is legitimate or not (could be a promotional copy, could be from a country without copyright laws, could be downloading from ourselves, etc) and as a result we can't be held liable.

The most significant change to copyright laws in Canada was the digital lock rules. They create a catch 22 and are likely unconstitutional but until they're challenged that'll be the big cloud over Canadian's heads.


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

Said by Gone See Profile
This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.

More like threat of lawsuits as by now we're aware these are extortion attempts. And if Prenda Law is any indication it could get even stickier down the road, they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

Said by Techdirt
So we move on to the next trick, which is that Guava / Prenda then sued all of the same people in ten different federal district courts. Yes, they basically filed identical lawsuits in ten different courts, all asking for discovery on the same exact list of 34 IP addresses.
---
The attempt to sneak through discovery without even naming the IP addresses as defendants failed in Cook County, so just file repeat federal lawsuits everywhere they can think of, perhaps hoping / figuring that at least one of the judges would agree to discovery, leading to the identities associated with those 34 IP addresses being passed over.

The article goes on to list several types of "tricks" they're employing. Its something of a bother. We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.
--
----|- Crazed Techie Crossing -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to racer123

said by racer123:

Marc can attack this head on, quite simply, and I've stated it before.

Attack and destroy the credibility of the Affidavit which supports the motion. Without it the motion has no strength or merit or grounds. Blow holes through it.

To start, Canipre is touted as the forensic investigation company. Canipre is not a licensed or registered private investigator under the law in Ontario. Barry Logan is the sworn "Owner" and "Principal Forensic Consultant" to Canipre. Canipre is the retained (hired) agent by Voltage.

What is the difference between an individual sneaking around the internet looking for personal information and Identifiers on individuals, regardless of end intent, if one is or is not a properly licensed investigator? Its criminal, that's the difference. And his affidavit has no credibility.

Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005
business entity” includes a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship; (“entreprise”)

“employee” includes a person, whether or not employed under a contract of employment, who performs work or services for another person for remuneration on such conditions that he or she is in a position of economic dependence upon, and under an obligation to perform duties for, that person more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor; (“employé”)

“licensee” means an individual or business entity that holds a licence under this Act, and “licensed” has a corresponding meaning; (“titulaire de permis”)

Private investigators
(2) A private investigator is a person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of conducting investigations in order to provide information. 2005, c. 34, s. 2 (2).

Soliciting or procuring services
(6) A person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of acting for or aiding others in soliciting or procuring the services of a private investigator or security guard shall be deemed to be in the business of selling private investigator or security guard services. 2005, c. 34, s. 2 (6).

PROHIBITIONS
Individual licence
6. No person shall act as a private investigator or a security guard or hold himself or herself out as one unless the person holds the appropriate licence under this Act and,

(a) is employed by a licensed business entity, a registered employer under section 5, or an employer that is not required to be registered; or

(b) is the sole proprietor of a licensed business entity or is a partner in a licensed business entity. 2005, c. 34, s. 6.

Penalties
Individuals
45. (1) Every individual convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both. 2005, c. 34, s. 45 (1).

Business entity
(2) Every business entity convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000. 2005, c. 34, s. 45 (2).

»www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/···list.asp

I've called and confirmed that Canipre and Canipre Inc are not licensed or registered agents or businesses respectively. Logan on the other hand, I need his personal DOB and address........

OH and one might see if they updated there license cause last year or so they updated what one needs to hold a security guard and PI license ergo tightened the rules.


WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been

join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to TSI Marc

It's been a while since I used Bit Torrent for Linux Distros, honest ; but if I remember, the client software I was using would show the IP address of all the seeders, and the percentage of the file that they had available to share. You could even monitor how much data you were receiving from each seed. A little flag popped up beside each IP address to show the country that IP address was in. I don't remember the name of that software.

Would it not be a simple matter for the copyright agent to use similar software and record the IP address of any 100% seeder for a period of time to say they "made available the copyrighted work"?


funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

WRONG downloading is now illegal BUT i'll quote the RCMP
"they won't go after non commercial file sharing"
-------------------------

Please show me your sources.

I believe you are wrong.

The RCMP quote is in relation to FILE SHARING, not downloading. In fact you even say that in your own quote.

Downloading, without sharing, is still legal.

go look at cbc website it was right on the site regarding the new law going into affect....you can call and ask them...they will resay it...
they have better things to do then go after kids grabbing a gay porn flick

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to WhaleOilBee

said by WhaleOilBee:

Would it not be a simple matter for the copyright agent to use similar software and record the IP address of any 100% seeder for a period of time to say they "made available the copyrighted work"?

That's not proof of uploading, it's not proof of uploading more than 10% (fair use), and it's not proof of the contents just hashes (can be faked), etc.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

lol so confident they cant understand what the diffferance between 10K per each commercial infringement ergo counterfeiting and 5K FOR ALL INFRINGEMENTS for non commercial....ya that's showing smarts...
----------------------

Are you confident that saying "they can't prove it's commercial" to a judge this morning would have led to dismissal?

Care to put your life's work on the line? Care to make a sizeable bet with me?

Because Voltage's lawyers would simply declare they need disclosure to proceed and prove. At which point, boom. Disclosure.

YES
if you file a lawsuit incorrectly for the wrong reasons then there should have been a motion to dismiss( or anothe rmotion to talk about how ips are able to commerically infringe) as they cant prove any of the ip addresses were economically infringing...go on how much did xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx make? no really what's your logic just a download without any proof of cash being handed around is called non commercial infringement....you need to show they are beyond a reasonable doubt that they are profiting form your precious ip.

i'll say this is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx took your stuff and was caught by the rcmp selling it at a fea market they could get smacked with up to 20000 per each sale....and that is what the RCMP go after folks and why file sharing is being left alone....no money no bother...judges were also instructing in the case of non commercial file sharing to err on low side for undue hardship ( also a clause directly mentioned on welfare and disability sections of govt pages that limits to 29/50 respectively the monthly they can pay ) on low side of the 100 of the 5000 unless you got loads a files you prolly would get 100$ for a movie.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to TSI Marc

God damn I just made a pot and went into limbo.