 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Rastan
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday. said by Rastan:Good stuff, hm. Thanks for demonstrating how this can be done.
It isn't brainiac stuff... anyone can do this following the example above. Matter of fact people who are now scared and never heard of sox will likely follow this example and someone in the states or some other country will now get an extortion letter instead of them.
All these mass lawsuits today... when I was into it that didn't exist. And if they existed back then i'd be responsible for thousands of people getting extortion letters. And I'm just one person. Now imagine the thousands of people who are doing this.
But when you get into writing your own TCL for the bots to scan, jump ip's, jump ranges, chaining bots and IP's etc, and your own scripts, then that is when the learning really starts and where you discover everything you can do with a single command with a 10000 IP's like this.
But this is usually the stuff that gets deleted... I'm sure Marc knows all this very well, he's a smart guy... he was just egging me on to show others that their IP could indeed be used and no one is safe.
I fell for it. *shrug*
But it's a lesson people should be aware of.
What I'm wondering now is this...
Thinking back to when I used to do this I would always be behind a spoofed IP when using someone else IP for nefarious deeds (chained proxies). However I was lazy at times and I wouldn't jump IP's in the chain... So it makes me wonder what exactly his logs show on his end.
If someone did spoof TSI IP's, could they have been lazy like I was and keep the same IP while using tsi IP's? In other words, is it possible that Marc could find a common denominator IP (say from China for example) connecting to his TSI IP's around the same time stamp from CANIPRE's time stamps? If so than... wow... That would be a mind blower discovery. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Vorter
said by Vorter :If TekSavvy will not fight this I will be terminating my service.
You cannot bill yourselves as different from your competitors by claiming they wouldn't make this information available then make no effort to fight these copyright trolls.
Do you see my point now Marc about costing this right? You gave people the gold platter and they don't grasp it. Which in turn costs you more money again, and your time isn't cheap.
I feel for you man.
Wish I couldn't invent a bot to pop out of a monitor and poke people in the eye. Not like they need their eyes, they are blind to what was given to them. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to tired
said by tired:In the 2000 or so IP addresses that they sent for review, were there any "bad" ones that didn't match up to a person? Or is the ~900 discrepancy between IPs and persons notified due to people being caught on multiple IPs?
I think this is an important point
Mainly because some trackers (opentracker comes to mind, which is what TPB uses I believe... ah yes according to wikipedia, though dunno how true that is) insert random IPs into their peer pool for the purpose of plausible deniability... so if some of the IPs don't match up, it could be a possible indicator that the torrent they were monitoring was inserting random IPs, which would mean that canipre's claim that they managed to download packets from all the listed IPs isn't as true as they're claiming.
Heck, even if all the IPs match up, there's still a chance that this did happen. Though to know whether or not there's such a possibility, one would need to know which trackers they acquired their torrent peer data from. |
|
| reply to hm
Not entirely sure what you are saying. But if TekSavvy retains my information for a specific purpose; emergencies, police investigations and whatever, and they have no internal policy about how and when this information is provided to third parties, then yes this will cost them greatly. In both time and loss of customers. It's poor practice and it's a poor response on the part of TSI. |
|
 TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | reply to Torabo
said by Torabo:said by tired:In the 2000 or so IP addresses that they sent for review, were there any "bad" ones that didn't match up to a person? Or is the ~900 discrepancy between IPs and persons notified due to people being caught on multiple IPs?
I think this is an important point Mainly because some trackers (opentracker comes to mind, which is what TPB uses I believe... ah yes according to wikipedia, though dunno how true that is) insert random IPs into their peer pool for the purpose of plausible deniability... so if some of the IPs don't match up, it could be a possible indicator that the torrent they were monitoring was inserting random IPs, which would mean that canipre's claim that they managed to download packets from all the listed IPs isn't as true as they're claiming. Heck, even if all the IPs match up, there's still a chance that this did happen. Though to know whether or not there's such a possibility, one would need to know which trackers they acquired their torrent peer data from. None did not match.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
lleader
join:2011-01-01
Mississauga, ON | Go to bed Marc. You need your rest! |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
Thanks for the clarification Marc |
|
TSI MarcPremium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:14 | reply to lleader
said by lleader:Go to bed Marc. You need your rest!
I wont be able to sleep!
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·TELUS
| reply to bjlockie
said by bjlockie:The name of the person that the account is registered to is legally responsible for ALL use of that account (ie. all users). Uh, can you back this statement up please? It is setting off my BS detector. |
|
cowwoc
join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL | reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:Good question. I assumed that this would be a matter for small claims court based on the following:
"In Ontario, the Small Claims Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice. It deals with civil disputes of a monetary value of up to $25,000 (Canadian)."
source (pdf file) - »www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c···t_EN.pdf
Someone in another thread said that Voltage Pictures plans to take people to federal court. I'm not sure if they will be forced to take it to small claims court since the amount will be under $25,000 or if they have the option of choosing a different court.
edit: The examples of claims that can be filed in small claims court doesn't list copyright infringement but it doesn't list every type of claim that can be filed.
If small claim's court applies, it pretty much kills their ability to prosecute. If it does not, they are limited to $5,000 per individual which brings into question whether lawyer fees are charged on top of this fee. If they are awarded $5,000 *plus* lawyer fees it makes it substantially more painful for the defendant. Still, at $5,000 a head (more likely $100 for a first time offence) they take-home amount will be extremely low. The only reason they would sue is to scare people more than anything else.
Time will tell,
Gili |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
 ·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to tired
said by tired:said by bjlockie:The name of the person that the account is registered to is legally responsible for ALL use of that account (ie. all users). Uh, can you back this statement up please? It is setting off my BS detector. Like saying i lend out my car and i'm responsible if they hurt someone because i own it. How is data different? I'm not responsible for the actions of those using it.
Just an example. I have to stress though i was not and will never be one of those accused... my kids keep me busy enough |
|
| reply to activoice
said by activoice:Although TSI is not arguing against the case on the merits.
Couldn't TSI inform the court that an IP address only identifies the residence that the internet connection terminates at, but that it in no way identifies the individual using the internet at the time the alleged infringement took place?
So basically go on record that you will provide the customer information if ordered by the court, but that this customer information does not necessarily indicate the name of the individual who may have infringed copyright?
This is an excellent idea.
It gets the concept into the record of the case on day 1.
It also sets Voltage up for damage claims against it later ...... after all who knows better about this than - an ISP or a bunch of movie makers? |
|
| reply to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:I'm not named in this, and I never will be unless by error.
But *when* you are named in error someday, how are you going to *prove* it wasn't you? |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:said by hm :ok then, I'll give it a go later this evening. Just a matter of finding an IP/sucker to use and i'll try it on a small "legal" torrent in case someone gets pissed off and causes crap.
That is, if the mod's allow this little educational experience to show. I'll let you talk to them about that.
haha. sure.. the obvious question then though will be... so, did that occur in any of the cases listed by Voltage? Who's to say, with 100% certainty, that it didn't 100% of the time? |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to TSI Marc
This is a Motion for release of personal Information, Not a Copyright Trial, I don;t see why Privacy cannot be a point to bring up to the court, I agree its not teks place to say these 2300 ips are Innocent thats fine, But as an ISp handling Customers private information, Would not it make sense to Oppose the motion based on Privacy Concerns? I am not named but this Does make me as a customer wonder When and if marcs Going to be the Isp to stay with I like teksavvys services but an isp who Rolls on its users without even a Statement Sure Don't oppose it But MAKE A FRIGGIN statement! or something. I hope tek does more than Nod and say sure np. here you go.
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.
|
|
Bhruic
join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by morisato:Would not it make sense to Oppose the motion based on Privacy Concerns?
I know it's a long thread, but he's already addressed that multiple times. This is not a test case. They've already had that. Other ISPs already went to court and made the privacy argument, and the court didn't accept it and ordered them to turn over the records. The precedent has already been set. Other than making people here "feel good", what would the point be of them going in and making an argument that's already been rejected? |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. | reply to TSI Marc
Does anyone have any references to this first Canadian case that has set precendent? |
|
Bhruic
join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | It's being discussed in this thread: »Lawsuit is bigger than you think IMO |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to TSI Marc
I wonder how this will work. I was not given a notice. But I do have an unsecured wireless network. There are currently 24 clients on the network, 19 are not my devices. Since they did not ask permission and are technically stealing my internet am I liable for their actions? Am I not technically just another internet service provider.
And if someone downloaded one of Voltage's shitty movies wouldn't the damages by the 12$ a movie ticket cost. So the 100$ minimum seems assured. Not 5000$ dollars.
Let Voltage spend thousands to get hundreds. |
|
Bhruic
join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Nemo888:And if someone downloaded one of Voltage's shitty movies wouldn't the damages by the 12$ a movie ticket cost. So the 100$ minimum seems assured. Not 5000$ dollars. It's not about downloading, it's about uploading. With peer-to-peer file sharing networks, you are (usually) doing both simultaneously. Since you are effectively sharing the file with others, that takes it out of the realm of a movie ticket cost. |
|
