dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9169
share rss forum feed

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to JMJimmy

Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports

Pretty sure fair use applies to however they use it (ie: distribution to a class), and wouldn't cover any acts on the part of the source they got it from.

So in the case of your example, the teacher would be fine but your action would still be copyright infringement. I think.


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Normally I would agree, but Muzak supra applies. Using a piece of equipment (P2P Client) which is capable of infringement doesn't mean I expressly authorize the infringement. If I were to email Joe teacher a link to my file and say "here download it" that's express authorization of infringement. Being part of a swarm is a passive behaviour.



drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

Very good summary of points, all valid IMO.

One thing which has been discussed many many times, is that identifying an IP does not mean identifying the person themselves.

Non-secured or poorly secured (WEP) WiFi is of course the easiest way a nogooder can steal someone's internet connection to perform illegal activity.

How many times have we read on these forums stories like "my internet is down, but thank god for my neighbour's open wifi".

Stupidity or non-awareness does not make you guilty. There isn't a law that you have to have your home internet connection secured to the highest available standards. For the same reason if you forget to lock your house or your car, it does not give another person the right to steal from you.

Also if I didn't make this clear last time, I'd like to point out that even pretty well secured wifi, there the good old WPS vulnerability that I'm sure affects 80-90 of the hardware owned by our friends here at DSL reports. Of course, that's if you have the original firmware...
--
Cheers!

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by drjp81:

Also if I didn't make this clear last time, I'd like to point out that even pretty well secured wifi, there the good old WPS vulnerability that I'm sure affects 80-90 of the hardware owned by our friends here at DSL reports. Of course, that's if you have the original firmware...

I am not sure about that. I did some surveys bout a year plus ago and most systems I found did not had the flaw. But this is pointless. For this info to be valid we would have to have a current study and even then I am not sure if it can be presented as evidence because it is just heresay. I think (but not sure) that one would have to present either the author or a pro that would testify to the accuracy of the report.

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to drjp81

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by morisato:

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.

Isn't that a little different? Cause & effect?

Nobody gets killed, injured, affected directly when a file is shared...

The trolls would like everyone to believe that every shared copy is a sale lost... Thats just not true.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!


cognizantt

join:2009-06-13
Montreal, QC
reply to globus9991

»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270

CIPPIC Asks Court to Delay Hearing in Voltage v. Doe


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by cognizantt:

»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270

CIPPIC Asks Court to Delay Hearing in Voltage v. Doe

Yes, we know. That's *very* old news. It was postponed to jan 14.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to morisato

said by morisato:

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.

I would argue that there is a huuuuuge difference. You have a statutory duty to secure your weapon.This is, by law. you must keep your weapon out of other people's hands. So, if you leave your weapon where anybody can get it, sure, you are responsible.

However, there is no law against having poorly secured or un-secured wifi. Furthermore, if somebody uses your internet connection without your persmission through it, that would fall under the definition of theft.

So no. The question is not that. The question is if a judge would accept the argument. Frankly, I don't know. I guess it would have to be compellling. For example a total noob. If anyone with a modicum of tech-savvy would try it, the judge would probably not accep it.

Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12
reply to morisato

Keiichi, if you forget your car unlocked and someone steals it and mows down an octagenarian it is still them who are comitting an illegal act. Your car's main purpose is not to mow down pedestrians, just as your Internet connection's main purpose is not to commit illegal acts, so the level of "responsibility" regarding it's misuse is very different from that of a firearm. That's probably why there are no laws about locking down your Internet, though they might be coming soon, what with all the hyperbole.


dutox101

join:2010-01-02

1 edit
reply to globus9991

One other point no one mentioned is :

If they did download complete movies from the swarm using the P2P process they also had to share the parts of the torrent files with others in the swarm. When using P2P you need to share the parts you have to be able to download parts from others correct ?

This would mean they themselves helped to distribute their own pirated content to other peoples in the swarm.

In other words they participated in the 'crime' and helped/encouraged it and now they blame others for doing it ?



watchers

@telus.net
reply to Fuzzy285

So instead of preventing content flying around FOR FREE, they go after the people who cant afford to buy it in store, FOR MONEY ? How is this calculated Voltage ??? Going after individuals is the dumbest long term strategy of all time. Good luck to you all. Looks like someone has way too much money to burn...


Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

Reasons why the case, or parts of it, could be invalid

- Voltage only has foreign sales rights on many of the titles which does not translate to being the author of a work nor possessing standing to sue in Canada

Reasons why affidavit could be invalid
- Canipre is not a licensed investigator in Ontario
- Logan may not be a licensed investigator in Ontario

Foreign Sales - You answered your own question, they have the sales rights.

Investigator - Immaterial, as long as they are licensed or satisfy the requirements in their home province they are then recognized within Ontario in order to provide information only.

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

HiVolt: added. Also, excellent analogy with the door... there is a reason why it's "breaking and entering" (ie: breaking the seal on the door/window/etc = 1 crime, crossing the threshold = 2nd crime)

It is still only one crime, there is no offence in Canada of Breaking and Entering, specifically it is Breaking and Entering with Intent to commit an indictable offence, hence only one crime, there is no separation for each individual act committed.

You are somewhat correct in that all they have to do is "break the seal", however the person or an object must also cross that "magic line" and subsequently the intent is proved unless there is evidence to the contrary.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by Grappler:

You are somewhat correct in that all they have to do is "break the seal", however the person or an object must also cross that "magic line" and subsequently the intent is proved unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Interesting!
I was also wondering about statutory v. non-statutory (i.e. actual) damages. The way I understand it, is that if an accused is sued for statutory damages, this person has the right to request a trial by jury for actual damages. Is this correct?
If this is so, wouldn't it be fun to watch if somebody has the balls to force Voltage to actually try to prove true damages?

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to watchers

said by watchers :

So instead of preventing content flying around FOR FREE, they go after the people who cant afford to buy it in store, FOR MONEY ? How is this calculated Voltage ??? Going after individuals is the dumbest long term strategy of all time. Good luck to you all. Looks like someone has way too much money to burn...

Sad but true. However, I don't think they care. People will watch a movie if good and reject it if bad. Since Voltage makes exclusively crap, they have noting to loose. There is no way they will have even less watchers because of this....

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to globus9991

Oh I almost forgot. There is yet another reason why an IP is not a person. Some P2P applications have a unique cryptographic identifier (eMule - for example). This ID is used to "reward" uploaders. Every time somebody uploads something in eMule, they get points from downloaders. This only works if the ID is unique. However in Bittorrent there is no such ID, hence a unique Bittorrent client cannot be ID'd, other by its IP (see for example »bitthief.ethz.ch/).
In other words, it is impossible to prove that behind a single IP there is only one specific Bittorrent client. There could be hundredths of them.


JMJimmy

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

said by Grappler:

Foreign Sales - You answered your own question, they have the sales rights.

Investigator - Immaterial, as long as they are licensed or satisfy the requirements in their home province they are then recognized within Ontario in order to provide information only.

Under the current copyright law it's the author of a work who has standing to sue, not the authorized sales agent.

Canipre is not licensed in Ontario (where the investigation is affirmed to have taken place) nor in Quebec (where Canipre's head office is located)

It is still only one crime, there is no offence in Canada of Breaking and Entering, specifically it is Breaking and Entering with Intent to commit an indictable offence, hence only one crime, there is no separation for each individual act committed.

You are somewhat correct in that all they have to do is "break the seal", however the person or an object must also cross that "magic line" and subsequently the intent is proved unless there is evidence to the contrary.

You can only be charged once, but when I say they are two separate crimes I mean that if the seal on the door/window/whatever is already broken, you are still charged with break & enter if you cross the threshold. Conversely if you break the seal but do not enter you can be charged as well. And yes, there must be intent to commit an indictable offence as a check/balance in the law but that still applies to the analogy that was being made.

"Breaking and Entering" -> »canlii.ca/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-19···l#sec348


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to JMJimmy

I think in every action for damages in Ontario, perhaps Canada, where the damages have occurred over a period of time, if the plaintiff became aware that the damages were occurring, or if the plaintiff became aware that behaviour was occurring or about to occur that would likely lead to damages, then the plaintiff must show that they, in good faith, acted to mitigate those damages using whatever reasonable methods at its disposal.

In this case, Voltage became aware that files purporting to be their property were being shared. This happened over the course of several months. During that time, the plaintiff can be seen to be allowing the behaviour to occur, and it some or all cases taking part in the behaviour themselves - the purpose of which was to not only NOT mitigate the damages but to facilitate damages.

The plaintiff claims they were made aware that IP addresses were being used to share those files. Simple tools are available to ascertain the owner of the IP blocks, as the plaintiff has so amply demonstrated. The plaintiff had at their disposal the ability to serve notice to the owner of the IP block - in this case Teksavvy - that an IP address which they own is engaged in the impinging behaviour and demand the the behaviour cease and desist.

Not only did the plaintiff not do this, they simply carried on, allowing the files to be shared unimpeded as witnessed by them expressly. It could very well and most likely be that had they taken prudent and reasonable steps to stop the behaviour and/or mitigate the damages, the files would not have been completely shared, and there would be no cause for action.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged



Dr Facts

@gc.ca

Yeah, that's bugging me too, what if they just sent TSI a notice saying "hey, these jerks have our stuff on their bittoterrents, please send them an email saying "We know, stop it or we'll take it to the next level"."

Parents would have gone yelling at their kids "Did you download that stupid movie with the wrestler?!?! I raised you better than that, have some taste!" and most others would no doubt comply and removed the offending files.

Not difficult with the Voltage catalog, I've seen better looking movies in the dollar bin at the grocery store.

Now that would be the actions of someone genuinly interested in protecting their copyrights. Voltage didn't do that.

Don't think we need to call in Mulder and Scully to solve that Xfile as to why.


JMJimmy

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

While I agree with your assessment, in the case of P2P I don't think that argument would hold up in court. They cannot act in jurisdictions where there are no copyright laws which allows the file to be shared regardless of any actions they take in Canada. This is also why I believe the author of the work is the only one who has standing to sue - Voltage may have the Canadian sales rights, but another company may have the Indian sales rights, etc. Only the author of a work can act in all jurisdictions.

The "taking part in the behaviour" is the big one - by operating a honeypot, even for a portion of the file, their case becomes a circular one. If uploading as part of a P2P download is deemed to amount to authorization of infringement (what they're arguing) then they themselves authorized the action by participating and is no longer infringement.

The interesting thing is whether waiting 60+ days could be used against them. Technically as soon as they identified an IP they should report it. A court may see it this way but they may also see it as a cost issue. It depends on how they rule on the possible joinder challenge.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

said by JMJimmy:

The "taking part in the behaviour" is the big one - by operating a honeypot, even for a portion of the file, their case becomes a circular one. If uploading as part of a P2P download is deemed to amount to authorization of infringement (what they're arguing) then they themselves authorized the action by participating and is no longer infringement.

That would be nice, but, and this is a big but, there would have to be some sort of evidence. I don't see any easy way to do it since Canipre may not be using its domain IP. I think this is a long shot at best.

said by JMJimmy:

The interesting thing is whether waiting 60+ days could be used against them. Technically as soon as they identified an IP they should report it. A court may see it this way but they may also see it as a cost issue. It depends on how they rule on the possible joinder challenge.

This is another thing altogether. You are right. In general terms the court expects people to act with common sense. If you do not and let it go, it is taken as condoning. For example, I buy a house. My neighbour has a pool and a noisy water filter. Although the noise bugs me, I am busy with other things and let time pass on, let's say 6 months. Later on, I want the noise to stop. Talk to the neighbour and he says no. I go to a lawyer and try to sue. Most likely than not the judge will see the 6 month period as condoning the behaviour and will toss the case out of the court.

Now, if in addition to that, it can be demonstrated that the plaintiff has not acted candidly (case in point with Voltage through its history in US and Canada) then the whole thing can turn very ugly for the plaintiff. Judges do not take kindly people trying to game the system.


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

1 edit
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

I am not sure about that. I did some surveys bout a year plus ago and most systems I found did not had the flaw. But this is pointless. For this info to be valid we would have to have a current study and even then I am not sure if it can be presented as evidence because it is just heresay. I think (but not sure) that one would have to present either the author or a pro that would testify to the accuracy of the report.

Survey shmurvey.
I've tested myself at least 4 routers that I can confirm are vulnerable. They could be compromised in little as 10 minutes but some took a few hours.
Dlink: dir-615
dir-628
dir-825
Linksys: WRT54G2
And my router is also vulnerable. But I've mitigated the problem by having a renewal of the key/reboot at intervals that are typically shorter than it takes to crack the pin.

The spreadsheet here says much:
»docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?k···page=250

--
Cheers!

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

don't see any easy way to do it since Canipre may not be using its domain IP. I think this is a long shot at best.

Barry Logan's affidavit is all that's needed. He's stated under oath that they used GuardaLey Observer software which operates by using honeypots.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by JMJimmy:

Barry Logan's affidavit is all that's needed. He's stated under oath that they used GuardaLey Observer software which operates by using honeypots.

I know of the German document. But that document only suggest that the app is operating as honeypot. It is not clear if it effectively does so or not. I did not see any proof either way. Hence, the need for an evidentiary hearing to shine a light to the app *before* disclosing any name behind an IP


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by globus9991:

don't see any easy way to do it since Canipre may not be using its domain IP. I think this is a long shot at best.

Barry Logan's affidavit is all that's needed. He's stated under oath that they used GuardaLey Observer software which operates by using honeypots.

Would that mean that many of torrenters would have actually obtained the file from Voltage who was sharing it in the first place?
--
Cheers!

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

said by drjp81:

said by JMJimmy:

said by globus9991:

don't see any easy way to do it since Canipre may not be using its domain IP. I think this is a long shot at best.

Barry Logan's affidavit is all that's needed. He's stated under oath that they used GuardaLey Observer software which operates by using honeypots.

Would that mean that many of torrenters would have actually obtained the file from Voltage who was sharing it in the first place?

Either Canipre was sharing it with the express written consent of Voltage - in which case the d/l reception of the torrenting was legal. Arguably the individuals who d/l the movie could make the case that they didn't know how to turn off the upload - pay $100 (statutory damages) or $5 (actual damages) and end of story.

Or Canipre was torrenting the movie without the express written consent of Voltage - in which case Caipre is guilty of commercial infringement x $25,000 x 2300 (alleged) downloaders = a shitload of money.

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

Summary of ideas:

Reasons why IPs could be invalid
- IP Spoofing
- Malware
- TSI itself has been having issues correlating the data

Reasons why the case, or parts of it, could be invalid
- Voltage only has foreign sales rights on many of the titles which does not translate to being the author of a work nor possessing standing to sue in Canada
- a determination of whether copying a P2P avi/mkv/etc file constitutes copying a DVD or Bluray copy. If you download an ISO/VOB files it's clear, however, avi files are of a different quality/standard and may be unique. Such a distinction is made between theatrical and physical sales and the industry itself makes a distinction between "digital copy" and physical copies.
- A determination of whether November 7th amendments to the law can be used to gather defendant information prior to the enactment of those laws.

Reasons why the "evidence" could be invalid
- GuardaLey Observer has been invalidated by other courts upon the results of an independent review
- No evidence that Canipre are trained in the use of or certified experts of the operation of GuardaLey Observer 1.2
- No audit of Canipre's systems has been performed to determine the authenticity of their claims nor their capabilities to carry out such an investigation (ie: downloading verifying 100% of ~1.5tb of data ~145 days worth of video in under 60 days... all claimed to be done by a single person if I remember correctly. Also, subpoena their data usage records for the period to determine if they even downloaded anything)

Reasons why affidavit could be invalid
- Canipre is not a licensed investigator in Ontario
- Logan may not be a licensed investigator in Ontario
- States information gathered by staff as first hand or "we"
- Canipre has a financial gain to identifying as many people as possible
- Contains statements which contradict the first section of this post which is basic knowledge when working on forensic collection of IP addresses. This shows an intent to mislead the court or improper knowledge to perform the investigation

Reasons that, even if all else is valid, does not constitute proof of individual infringement
- An IP does not represent an individual or computer, merely a termination point where local networking takes place.
- All arguments pertaining to why ISPs are not liable for infringement can apply to any network operator.
- Muzak supra (ie: no express authorization)

Reasons why uploading could be valid
- A user rarely uploads 100% of a file to a single user in P2P and GuardaLey Observer 1.2 is not designed to download 100% of the file
- By operating a honeypot the copyright holder authorized the copy of parts of the file, as a technological limitation of P2P users cannot choose which parts they upload while copying the authorized 50%. Nor can they tell which parts a given user has
- By operating a P2P client the user only authorizes legal uses of sharing of a file, they do not authorize illegal ones. I cannot tell if the persons I am sharing with are protected under Canadian (or local) copyright laws, downloading a fair use copy, or an illegal copy

Limitations that could be placed on the judgment
- Because there is no way to track who shared what pieces with any given individual the peers that constitute the pieces of a full download (100% of the pieces, no honeypotting) constitute a single infringement with multiple defendants not multiple infringements.

Did I miss anything?

its even easier then page one

they are taking TSI to court based on commercial NOT non commercial infringement. Its clear to even a non lawyer that an ip address alone can not tell you any commercial activity is happening especially once you actually know how bit torrent works.

THUS what would be the difference of having said persons identity ( name and home address ) have anything to do with this ? NONE...i argue. The fact is its an incorrect filing and should be tossed because its very clear that even if said ip addresses just downloaded or shared the files you cant claim commerce occured. There can be no doubt on that aspect. Doesn't mean anyone has done anyhitng wrong ergo these ip addresses just means its the wrong reason to ask for these for what you are saying had occured.

One can say that if said occured there might have been a rise in calls to TSI about why a user could not connect and if dynamic they simply reconnect and get a new one and if they cant then they be calling tsi .
malware : possible but then your giving a reason to not only get the names and addresses but search and seize and inspect a persons pc to see if such is the case...
TSI having issues is not a users fault nor has it to do with getting voltage the majority of the information a delay has happened in part on this but its not always going to be the case

-----
getting an already cracked dvdr whether its an iso which someone else did does not mean I CRACKED IT...someone else did and i don't know or keep a log so i cant help you on that...torrent clients dont...an avi file is just a way of compressing in lesser quality...using differing video container and so all that is just not an aspect of any reason why this is a commercial infringement .
While the law came into affect the notice and notice has yet to cme , that has zero to do with voltage using other aspects of this law incorrectly as in the fact that as i have stated an ip address can't tell you of commercial infringement UNLESS your the first uploader and/or your selling it at a street corner...and gaining cash
this is the meaning of COMMERCIAL its also known as counterfeiting and the rcmp will hunt you for it.
-------
they them selves(RCMP) said they wont persue non commercial file sharing
-----------
Reasons why the "evidence" could be invalid
no ideas there but that could be true and i hear ya on the fact that before all this flies anywhere that software should be proven first to work properly and show that someone is commercially making a buck while using a torrent client ...this i have to see....
haha
------
----
Reasons why uploading could be valid
not so much valid there is no valid NON commercial file sharing its still infringing the difference to be made at this point is to say that unless someone is profiting cash wise then its NON COMMERCIAL
remember this action isn't about the users directly its about TSI handing over data based on a commercial infringement you have to understand the context of the action to know what the end is.
THEY want 10000 per infringement and there idea of that is that every day canipre logs on and sees the person still seeding = one commercial infringement even though no one in that cycle is actually making any money.

using any software to infringe if your caught is still infringement the differance here is that with a maximum of 5K for all your infringements and say you did one movie its likely then for non commercial as geist and the govt said judges are to error on the low side to prevent this very kind of action form occurring.
THUS 100$ might be a non commercial judgement when said user was brought ot court BUT they cant be judged commercially so voltage has to refile.

suing you with lawyers costing 2-3 K for that day to get 100$ is not gonna happen
do you see why yet? and if ya fealt like your gonna get screwed over for the full 5K then just bring a list of everything you have every infringed and make it an all in one day....
YOUR aspect of limitations that could be placed on judgements is very weak...all one has to do is ban all ips but your and get a full copy and your pwned....
one could design a client that cant do that or allow that and make ths aspect harder but then a company puts 200 in the swarm of 10 others and sooner or alter they will get a fill copy...off you just using two ips min
the fact they want to try and claim that by logging on each day and seeing someone still seeding might just mean the user hasn't given back for a 1 to 1 or might have grabbed other stuff legal we shall say and needs to up his ratio ( this is where description of bit torrents needs to be addressed )
--------------
as i said my whole angle here is why are they trying to claim commercial infringement when they cant prove money changed hands anywhere....sorry doesn't fly

gibbons_

join:2011-07-19
reply to globus9991

Does the fact that TekSavvy cable customers are limited to 1 Mbps upload have an impact on the claims of Voltage?

If the "average" user downloads a 700MB file on an 18 Mbps line, this would take 311 seconds if maxed out. I would guess that most people stop seeding the file once the download is complete. In that scenario, it is obviously impossible for the user to have uploaded an equal amount (700MB), as their download is 18x faster than upload.

Fine. Let's say the user is careless, and leaves the file seeding for an hour.

In that hour, the absolute most the user could upload is 450 MB. It is literally impossible that the user could have made a complete file available online for another user.

So, if a defendant could request full disclosure on the data Voltage has acquired, they should receive the total time they were monitored in the torrent "swarm" (is that the right term?). Provided that the time they were monitored uploading the torrent is less than the the time their maximum upload speed would have required to seed 700MB, then in theory, have they done anything illegal?

Isn't the "illegal" action uploading a complete file for another user to use illegitimately? Or do the "chunks" count as well?


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by gibbons_:

Does the fact that TekSavvy cable customers are limited to 1 Mbps upload have an impact on the claims of Voltage?

If the "average" user downloads a 700MB file on an 18 Mbps line, this would take 311 seconds if maxed out. I would guess that most people stop seeding the file once the download is complete. In that scenario, it is obviously impossible for the user to have uploaded an equal amount (700MB), as their download is 18x faster than upload.

Fine. Let's say the user is careless, and leaves the file seeding for an hour.

In that hour, the absolute most the user could upload is 450 MB. It is literally impossible that the user could have made a complete file available online for another user.

There are too many assumptions in your argument. I could counter-assume (as Voltage's lawyer would do) that a person could have left the Bittorren app running overnight, for example. In which case the argument falls appart. The issue is not what one can assume, but what one can prove.

said by gibbons_:

So, if a defendant could request full disclosure on the data Voltage has acquired, they should receive the total time they were monitored in the torrent "swarm" (is that the right term?). Provided that the time they were monitored uploading the torrent is less than the the time their maximum upload speed would have required to seed 700MB, then in theory, have they done anything illegal?

Isn't the "illegal" action uploading a complete file for another user to use illegitimately? Or do the "chunks" count as well?

It is illegal to copy or share more than a percentage of any copyrighted work. This percentage is called "fair use". Assuming that "chunks" are considered a genuine copy of the work, then "fair use" is more or less 10% which makes the argument that this person was infringing the copyright feasible.
In this case, certainly, an accused could request from Canipre the time his/her IP was monitored. A calculation can be made to se if it is possible or impossible.

The problem I have with this notion is that I can't possibly see how a "chunk" without the Header or the Index can possibly be considered part of the work. Now, let's assume that a person uploads several "chunks" and the Header and the Index in excess of "fair use", then, and only then, I can see this person infringing in copyright because now you can see a part of the movie, hear a part of the soundtrack and extract stills.

My previous point was that an argument can be made playing statistics. Since the Header and the Index are just a few "chunks" among hundredths and thousands, most of the time the uploader would simply be uploading garbage.