dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9246
share rss forum feed

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

reply to globus9991

Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports

to "funny"

said by funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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:28
reply to hm
hahaha. nice!

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to hm
said by hm :

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.

Yur chemist? brother in arms!
MIT give a bunch of courses away for free. Just go to their website. However, last time I checked there weren't that many interesting ones... although it has been a while.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by globus9991:

MIT give a bunch of courses away for free. Just go to their website.

Yeah saw it a little while after posting. And Stanford U have Eng on torrent or direct dl as well.

Found a few educational institutions giving their courseware on torrent or direct DL.

Depending on the institution, the torrent bundles seems to be better since they put the whole shabang of stuff in one DL as opposed to individual DL's via web.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to globus9991
said by globus9991:

So, technically, they are claiming copyright infringement based on people uploading garbage!

Well, yes, we've all read through the list of movies they're suing over.


Crazycanuckz

@reliablehosting.com
You mean crappy low budget films. They shouldn't get anymore than $10 per movie if that.

funny0

join:2010-12-22

2 edits
reply to globus9991
said by globus9991:

to "funny"

said by funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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 funny0:

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.

UM yes they do need ot refile becuase the action seeks damages that they shuld not be legally entitled to and also cruelly and unusally punishes poor people whom cant afford a legal defense that otherwise as a 5000 dollar maximum would otherwise be able to get legal aid and thus at least retain council for a proper legal defense
NICE try ( more edits as i read more )
------------
ugh when the law says "for all infringements" most will say in regard to the suing person(s) or companies intellectual property NOT for as i joked bring in a million infringed things ya did take the 5 grand fine and run off ...seriously dont try that it was a joke .

langaage is what it is man....for all means all. NOT a few of these and that and more of this and that ....
id say and argue also once one has reached that 5000 limit you cant be sued any more by said company but thats another argument the fact is harper made it public he told the legal peopel the end of the law was to error on low side to prevent undue hardship , MUCH as welfare and disability get protection for ( yup thats the maximums /month i speak of. ) its on govts website go read it....if hte vast majority of people oding this are the poor one can argue they'd never be able to buy your stuff and at least if they like it may mention it to others that might buy ....
------
on 3rd point it shows your lack of bit torrent understanding
the fact we have download speeds in some cases as much as 30 times faster then uploading and the rules state in effect give the bandwidth you get ergo ratio 1 to 1
means it might take 30 secs to get somehting but it then takes 15 minutes to give it back and by then a lot of people are done so one might have to wait days to get that ratio back...
its not that your take and harming more you just balancing give n get
also here are two stats from sandvine
sept 2005 5.4 million file sharers using p2p networks simultaneously on avg
march 2006 number rose to 9.8 million and we didnt get caps real heavy till 2007ish so imagine how many enjoyed that cdr levy WHICH i'll add as the copyrights push harder the levy money is drying up....
-----
on last point you me and everyone else have rules about filing lawsuits...seriously you start going around filing lawsuts on people for the wrong reasons and slander and defamtion of character start flying your way....

commerical infringment puts you in the couterfeiter class
and i'll add im not surprised someone doesn't make a threat back that if they pursue commerical infringement that a counter claim for slander and defamtion of character might not fly there way when they cant prove commercial infringment and ill add pain and suffering money and sue for say 25000 dollars total nullifying a lot of any extortion money you get and then pay those peoples legal bills with it.

same thing with calling this piracy im not a pirate i dont have any weapons nor have i committed an act of robbery or thievery YOUR original is still safe with you somehwere a copy is a copy

so another aspect of there claim is false. you pick holes at stuff long enough ....

OH and my reading of class actions has learned me that i don't have to even BE one of the actual persons named in the suit to start a slander and defamation of character suit.

i am not a pirate , nor have i ever commercially profited off anyone's licensed ip without expressed written permission.

I bet most if not all 2300 could say the same thing in court with it it being a lie.