dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9170
share rss forum feed

JMJimmy

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

Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports

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.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to gibbons_

Continuing with the argument above, there is another wrinkle in this affair. It so happens that Canipre only monitors three things:

1 - The uploader's IP
2 - What the uploader is offering
3 - What the uploader has actually uploaded to Canipre.

#1 is actually irrelevant copyright-wise
#2 is irrelevant. Making something available that could be anything, even if the file is titled "Sykfall" or "StarTrek Into Darkness" means nothing unless one can prove what's in the file.
#3 is the issue. Here Canipre received from the uploader the actual file and its contents can be verified.

The problem is that Canipre is not and cannot monitor bandwidth and how much has an uploader actually uploaded.

In other words. Let's say that in order to upload a 700 Mb @ 0.6Mb/s = 2.6 hours full bw saturation. And let's say that the uploader kept the Bittorrent app running for 24 hrs.

Canipre has no way to know if the uploader was actually uploading at full blast or if the ul bw was limited in the Bittorrent app or was watching Youtube or using the bw in any other shape or form. In other words, Canipre can ONLY testify to what portions of the movie THEY received. That's it. Any other assumption is just groundless supposition.



MrFair

@polkaroo.net
reply to globus9991

We don't have fair use in Canada. We have fair dealing and it is quite limited, although as I understand it, some new "dealings" have been added in recent law.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to globus9991

reply to "funny"
BTW, why are your posts always "(locked)"?

Anyhoo... playing devil's (or Voltage's) advocate, allow me to proceed.

said by funny:

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.

I cold argue that at this stage the viability of my claim is not required to be verified, not even at "prima facie". All that's required for the disclosure order is to provide sufficient evidence showing that a givne IP uploaded a copyrighted work for which I either have the rights or represent the rights. Furthermore, I can claim that having such names and addresses will help in making my "commercial" claim stronger since will enable further investigations. Lastly, since I intend to file said claims in court, it is up to the court during the trial to determine if the infringement was "commercial" or not.

said by funny:

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 .

Not necessarily. There are plenty of people in Tek that are not tek-savvy. If their router does not connect, for the, it is akin to black-magic. So they will probably reboot and get another IP. Tek would not necessarily get a slurry of phone calls.

said by funny:

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...

Not a chance in heck. This is a non-criminal case. Warrants for search and seizure based on non-criminal activity are exceedingly rare and issued only in critical situations such as "life and death".

said by funny:

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

It goes to show how un-reliable this whole circus is. It is a valid argument. If the owner and operator of the systems that are designed to log, the company that has actual access to all your data in real time has problems correlating your data, it is only logical that an external, third party must have a much, much larger difficulty and/or degree of error.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to globus9991

to "funny"

said by funny:

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 .

True, but it is still a valid argument. It remains to be seen if there is clear, legal determination as to whether a trans-coded copy is actually considered a copy under the new copyright law (although I strongly suspect that it will take a Judge all of about 3 seconds to say yes....). If it was cracked or not cracked is irrelevant. Wrt commercial infringement, the sharing is the first step i.e. the illegal exchange of copyrighted material. Then... much... much then... comes the "commercial" part of it. I could claim that the bittorent protocol is a viable conduit for the exchange of "stolen" digital material.

said by funny:

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.

Well... no. I can claim that it is the unavoidable intention of the government to implement the "notice and notice" and that Voltage has rushed into this proceeding with ill intention to abuse the loophole currently existing.
Wrt being a first uploader, it is not necessarily. The law is clear. In order to commit commercial infrigement I need to be selling a copy (by any means). The law does not specify counterfeiting, which is a different thing. In other words, I could receive a trans-coded copy and sell it through bittorrent. Maybe I received the original trans-coded copy through bittorent but I am selling it just now. I don't need to be the first uploader. All that is required by the law is:

1 - I gave a copy of a copyrighted material for which I have no rights to a person.
2 - Money changed hands.

That's it.


Jeenius

@anonymouse.org
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

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.

What if I there was a program that pre-computed the SHA-1 hash for every possible 256K data block? If I understand correctly this is relatively easy. The combinations would be 256 * 1024 * 256 = 67M combinations. This seems like a relatively small number given today's computing power. It's such a small combination that I must be clueless.

Now if I joined swarms that had Voltage unlicensed content then it would look like I was participating in sharing their files but had exchanged nothing but randomly computed data.

Linking to your theory: if key frames are spoofed then it would effectively make the file unusable and not infringe on any licensed content.

Or, what if I download everything but the key frames and generate them independently? From an external observer's POV have I infringed on anything?

How do we know this hasn't already happened?

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to globus9991

to "funny"

said by funny:

they them selves(RCMP) said they wont persue non commercial file sharing

This is irrelevant for the motion. RCMP's internal policy is not a law and not a regulation.

said by funny:

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

Wrt the sofware functioning properly, pls see my previous post about ITQA.
Wrt somebody using Bittorrent to make a buck, I can't see why not. For example:

1 - Get a free Wordpress page
2 - Post an add saying gimme 10$ into my PayPal account and I'll give you a copy of the movie XYZ
3 - Connect to the private torrent tracker ZYX and search for the file "Mary's vacation in Ottawa, 2006".
4 - Download the file
5 - Done.

Or share the file encrypted with WinRaR and for 10$ I'll give you the password.

Or... or... or

There are many ways in which Bittorrent can be use for commercial purposes. The fact that somebody is using bittorent does not preclude commercial intent by any stretch of the imagination.

said by funny:

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.

As I explained before, the "commercial" part is to be proven latter-on, during the trial. This is not the trial, this is just the motion to release the data.

said by funny:

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.

You are assuming this. This intention is not in Voltage's papers we have seen to date. We don't know how / if is that Voltage is intending to justify "commercial". I am sure that whatever they come up with will be garbage, but in the meantime, I would rather not speculate.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to globus9991

Anyone else find it funny that canipre and his buddy over at their shill website stated (more or less) that the CNOC guy Bill, cippic and the likes have infiltrated or have now polluted CIRA.

Kinda funny things coming out of their mouths.

But then again, they don't have to be neutral on anything, other than to push their money making agenda.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to Jeenius

said by Jeenius :

What if I there was a program that pre-computed the SHA-1 hash for every possible 256K data block? If I understand correctly this is relatively easy. The combinations would be 256 * 1024 * 256 = 67M combinations. This seems like a relatively small number given today's computing power. It's such a small combination that I must be clueless.

We are talking trial now. This is too advanced for a mere motion. However, let's proceed. That is certainly possible to do. Do you have any proof that it did indeed happened? Or looking at it from a probabilistic point of view, what is the probability that this did indeed happened? I would say extremely low. Balance of probability rules, the argument is striken.

said by Jeenius :

Now if I joined swarms that had Voltage unlicensed content then it would look like I was participating in sharing their files but had exchanged nothing but randomly computed data.

Again, possible, but, do you have any proof?

said by Jeenius :

Linking to your theory: if key frames are spoofed then it would effectively make the file unusable and not infringe on any licensed content.

I would say yes... but I am not the Judge.

said by Jeenius :

Or, what if I download everything but the key frames and generate them independently? From an external observer's POV have I infringed on anything?

Again, possible but very, very unlikely indeed. You would have to have above average knowledge of how to do this and the correct tool to do it. It is unlikely that 2300 people have this know-how. Also, each 256K data block does not distinguish between frames and no-frames. It's all garbled in.

said by Jeenius :

How do we know this hasn't already happened?

We don't, but, is it relevant to this motion? Probably not. Unfortunately, just because something may be viable it does not mean it will pass the balance of probabilities test....

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to drjp81

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My data says otherwise. But, in any event, unless one can put an expert on the stand, it is irrelevant...


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

reply to hm

You said it brother! It's just propaganda.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

reply to globus9991

to "funny"

said by funny:

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.

As previously explained, the "commercial" part comes during the trial (or so Voltage would argue). For this motion, they don't have to re-file.

said by funny:

suing you with lawyers costing 2-3 K for that day to get 100$ is not gonna happen

NObody is arguing about that.

said by funny:

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....

Well... not really. This is a completely new section of the law. When the law says that it is for everything, what does it mean? For everything during your life? up to this point in time? for this trial? for this copyright owner? We don't know. I am assuming that there will be some brand-new judgments to clarify this point in the near future. Besides, you are still 5K out of pocket, which is nothing to laugh about.

said by funny:

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

Maybe. But you are assuming a person is on-line for sufficient time to ul the entire movie. Most of the time, this is not the case since the ul bw is usually limited.

said by funny:

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 )

Yes, but you are assuming their claim. This is not in evidence. We don't have a clue what their claim will be. At this point, this claim is irrelevant for the motion.

said by funny:

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

Of course it does not. That's not the point. The point is to scare noobs into settling. Let me put it this way, if you don't have a clue and you get an official letter demanding $$ or they will sue you, how would you react? The letter is official. They got your name from Tek through a valid Court Order. It all looks on the level and very, very serious. You are facing 10K + fines or 20K+ expensed in lawyers. Do you pay? Of course! In a hearth beat!

The tactic is fear. That's why the "commercial" piece is in. No other purpose.

praytorian00

join:2005-05-24
canada
reply to globus9991

I've tried to read the laws and try to keep up to date with what's happening but I was just thinking....(excuse my ignorance as I'm not an expert on internet law)

Here's the scenario:

-User downloads a show that is 300MB - HD Quality 720p (for example) on torrent , while it's downloading it's uploading let's say 100KB/s. Theoretically if you are on the 25/1 plan you can finish downloading the show in a few minutes. You stop the download and you've uploaded about let's say 10MB. Now you've shared 10MB of the show dispersely to different people. But technically you've only shared a few seconds of video to people and doesn't the law allow you to share a few minutes of video without breaking copyright laws?

1. I don't see the difference then of people making Fan Videos on youtube because they shared second/minutes of videos and are kept up without trouble of copyright violations.
2. Do the logs measure how much data was shared between people?

Let me know what you guys think.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by praytorian00:

Here's the scenario:

-User downloads a show that is 300MB - HD Quality 720p (for example) on torrent , while it's downloading it's uploading let's say 100KB/s. Theoretically if you are on the 25/1 plan you can finish downloading the show in a few minutes. You stop the download and you've uploaded about let's say 10MB. Now you've shared 10MB of the show dispersely to different people. But technically you've only shared a few seconds of video to people and doesn't the law allow you to share a few minutes of video without breaking copyright laws?

Technically speaking, the only time when you are allowed to make copies of stuff you don't own aka the "fair dealing" is described here: »laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42···tml#h-26

This is:
29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.
29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

Fair dealing includes the entire work or part of it.

If the purpose of copying includes any of the above points, then yes, you can without breaking the laws.

However, how will the courts react to somebody sharing a small portion of a work? If previous court cases are of any guidance (mind you, we are talking the old copy laws) the judges will simply dismiss it. That's why I talked previously about "fair use" being about 10%. That was roughly the old threshold.

said by praytorian00:

1. I don't see the difference then of people making Fan Videos on youtube because they shared second/minutes of videos and are kept up without trouble of copyright violations.

YouTube is under US law. Their law is different. Plus, many authors actually like free marketing that fans do, so they let that material stay online.

said by praytorian00:

2. Do the logs measure how much data was shared between people?

No. Logs only show when a person connected / disconnected to Tek's network and what IP got.

It is possible to measure how much data was shared between two or more bittorrents, but depending of the settings (encrypted or not) it could be technically difficult.

tedrampart

join:2011-12-13
London, ON

1 edit
reply to globus9991

I haven't posted in any of these discussions yet, but have been reading every single post waiting with bated breath for the outcome of this. I haven't been flagged (yet), but since I share my account with a few other apartments in my place (we all split it the cost), I'm nervous I'll be notified, hope not..

despite my situation, I have been absorbing all this great knowledge and back and forth discussion regarding this case, it's definitely history in the making.

I recall a discussion that took place in the states which i found linked on slashdot.org a few years ago. posted by newyorkcitylawyer (user who works in the copyright legal scene from what I can recall), it was addressed to higher court judges warning of the implications these mass extortion type cases pose to the legal system itself.. I'll try to dig it up, as it contained a lot of reasons why justices themselves should be careful what they allow these types of copytrolls to get away with.. something along the lines of "give an inch they take a mile"..

if anyone else can recall such a letter/discussion/pdf posted to slashdot by that person, please also bring it forward... unless I'm way off in the content of that post (it has been a number of years).

edit: I think I found his blog.. »recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.ca mostly focused on the RIAA though.. could have some info in there of what our neighbors to the south have been going through with our new found "friends"..


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

There are many ways in which Bittorrent can be use for commercial purposes. The fact that somebody is using bittorent does not preclude commercial intent by any stretch of the imagination.

But use of BT in and of itself does NOT prove commercial intent.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by globus9991:

There are many ways in which Bittorrent can be use for commercial purposes. The fact that somebody is using bittorent does not preclude commercial intent by any stretch of the imagination.

But use of BT in and of itself does NOT prove commercial intent.

Correct, but it does not disprove it either. The use of Bittorrent is neutral wrt "commercial".

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

reply to tedrampart

said by tedrampart:

edit: I think I found his blog.. »recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.ca mostly focused on the RIAA though.. could have some info in there of what our neighbors to the south have been going through with our new found "friends"..

Great find! Tx! I particularly like this (it touches in quite a number of valid points):

Judge Spatt upholds all of Magistrate Brown's findings in In re BitTorrent

In a Central Islip case, Patrick Collins Inc. v. Doe 1, District Judge Arthur D. Spatt has upheld all of the findings and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown (PDF), in In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, agreeing that
an IP address alone is insufficient to establish “a reasonable likelihood [that] it will lead to the identity of defendants who could be sued.” In re BitTorrent, 2012 WL 1570765, at *7. Judge Brown noted that an IP address only points to the internet account in question, and “[a]s a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices—which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals.” Id. at *3 (citing U.S. v. Latham, No. 06-CR-379, 2007 WL 4563459, at *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 18, 2007)). Due to the prevalence of wireless routers, the actual device that performed the allegedly infringing activity could have been owned by a relative or guest of the account owner, or even an interloper without the knowledge of the owner.
Judge Spatt noted that
a simple internet search reveals that detailed instructions are widely available that would allow anyone with only a moderate degree of computer knowledge to “hack” any wireless network that uses this feature, using almost any modern laptop. Furthermore, at least one website offers a $99 kit that gives the same capability to any user with even the most basic knowledge of computers. Many routers also use a security method known as Wired Equivalent Privacy (“WEP”), which the FBI warns has its own share of exploitable vulnerabilities. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Got a Wireless Network? It’s Time to Shore Up Security (May 4, 2007) available at »www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/ma···s_050407.

If the Court were to hold internet account holders responsible for any interlopers and guests who might infringe on the Plaintiff’s work, the Court would essentially be imposing a duty that every home internet user vigilantly guard their wireless network. The Court declines to impose such a duty. See AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 12-CV-2049, 2012 WL 3835102, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2012) (“AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works [by securing his wireless network], and the court is aware of none.”).
Judge Spatt concluded "that the Plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the discovery requested would lead to the identity of the Defendants who could be sued."

Judge Spatt likewise agreed with Magistrate Judge Brown that there was no basis for joinder in these cases, under the Federal Rules.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs

Click for full size
Sci Courses
said by MaynardKrebs:

But use of BT in and of itself does NOT prove commercial intent.

True. I never used torrents except to show TSI_Marc an Example of how I could spoof any address I want to as seen here, »Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday..

But after installing it and doing this test, I noticed they have a bunch of things I like (I'm a chemist so naturally this got my interest). They have Biology courses, Chem courses, Physics courses, and I read some place that I could find a shitload of MIT science courses on BT as well. So one day, when I find the time, I will likely look into them.

So yeah, I guess having and using BT is legit.

I didn't know all these educational courses were available there... So I learned something new, thanks to TSI_Marc telling me to prove how I can get a teksavvy IP an extortion letter

TY Marc.

Anyone know of how/where I can get more courses via torrents?


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

+1

said by hm :

I didn't know all these educational courses were available there... So I learned something new, thanks to TSI_Marc telling me to prove how I can get a teksavvy IP an extortion letter

^ Hah! That comment made me chuckle!
--
IF TREE = FALL AND PEOPLE = ZERO THEN SOUND = 0
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26
reply to hm

hahaha. nice!