bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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! |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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!!!
|
|
| reply to globus9991
»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270
CIPPIC Asks Court to Delay Hearing in Voltage v. Doe |
|
| said by cognizantt:http://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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
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 ? |
|
| 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... |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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? |
|
| 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....  |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
"Breaking and Entering" -> »canlii.ca/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-19···l#sec348 |
|
 dillyhammerA. Good. Start.Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9
·Start Communicat..
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
