dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed

bt

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

Re: How can people be wrongly accused of this recent issue?

IPs can be spoofed, so no - they aren't infallible.

Timeframes can be off. It was more of an issue in the dial-up days, but an IP can change hands and a simple difference in the time different clocks are showing can make the logged IP not match up with the correct account. There's a margin for error with that, and it's possible to have more than one account identified in the relevant time period.

It can only identify an account holder, not a person. I'm not sure where the law stands on liability for this, though.

I know I've received notices for supposedly pirating stuff I wouldn't touch unless they were going to pay me to take it (and even then, maybe not), so false accusations can definitely happen.


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

I know I've received notices for supposedly pirating stuff I wouldn't touch unless they were going to pay me to take it (and even then, maybe not), so false accusations can definitely happen.

I've heard that a lot of these "notices" where they arent threatening to sue you, were sent to random IP's just for the purpose of preventitive scare tactics. IE, even if the user has never pirated a file, it scares them into thinking what may happen if they do, and they will tell their friends.
--


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
One of the examples brought up by TSI counsel was
"But I wasn't even a customer of TSI at that date.. I joined later. It wasn't me."

Err, that was an example of the 42 people who mistakenly received notice of copyright infringement when they shouldn't have.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to bt
said by bt:

It can only identify an account holder, not a person. I'm not sure where the law stands on liability for this, though.

Yeah that part has me confused about how it can even get to this point. There are already many cases showing this data can't be relied upon. The single best case right now is the Pierre Poutine case.

A conservative MP owning the account = not responsible

The Family owning the Rogers account where the spoofed IP came from = Not responsible.

Yet here we have people (courts, voltage, canipre and the harper gov) stating you are responsible.

*shakes head*

Doesn't make sense to me.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

said by bt:

I know I've received notices for supposedly pirating stuff I wouldn't touch unless they were going to pay me to take it (and even then, maybe not), so false accusations can definitely happen.

I've heard that a lot of these "notices" where they arent threatening to sue you, were sent to random IP's just for the purpose of preventitive scare tactics. IE, even if the user has never pirated a file, it scares them into thinking what may happen if they do, and they will tell their friends.

That wouldn't completely surprise me with the notice-and-notice system...

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
reply to hm
Well HM.

We don't yet.

It hasn't had chance to be tested.

This was the first line of defence - avoid warranted disclosure.

If it happens, and Voltage do take someone to court, then we may hear it.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to hm
said by hm :

Yet here we have people (courts, voltage, canipre and the harper gov) stating you are responsible.

*shakes head*

Doesn't make sense to me.

Not all liability is created equal, even beyond the difference between criminal and civil cases.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

said by bt:

I know I've received notices for supposedly pirating stuff I wouldn't touch unless they were going to pay me to take it (and even then, maybe not), so false accusations can definitely happen.

I've heard that a lot of these "notices" where they arent threatening to sue you, were sent to random IP's just for the purpose of preventitive scare tactics. IE, even if the user has never pirated a file, it scares them into thinking what may happen if they do, and they will tell their friends.

I wonder if you're right or not... i ask because i was sent a notice years and years ago about 3dmax and i had simply replied to the email saying "sorry" without even knowing what it was i did... I'm talking 12 years ago so i was young and had no clue...