Topic 'Re: How can people be wrongly accused of this recent issue?' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com

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

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:23:01 EDT

JonyBelGeul posted :

As far as I remember, the courts in Canada have not stated it was illegal to download a movie, but that it was illegal to "make available" a copyrighted work for download.

So the data does not show the IP downloaded a part of the movie, but that Vonage (via Canipre) was able to download a part of the movie from that IP, therefore that IP was "making it available" for download.

If you look at the statement of claims, the defendants are accused of "unauthorized distribution of the works through the Bittorrent ptotocol". So the IP was caught for seeding, not downloading.

That's an interesting point. The method used to download requires upload. Tit-for-tat. Zero upload means no download. The same method almost guarantees that no single individual peer uploads the entire file to any other single individual peer, unless the swarm is composed of one seed and one peer. But then, only the seeder can be sued for distribution, the peer can't be sued for anything.

And this brings up another interesting point. In order to catch this lone seeder in the act of distribution, this lone peer must be the rights holder or his agent who is checking to see if his works are being distributed without his authorization. If there are two peers - one a regular guy and the other the rights holder - then the rights holder is also distributing to this regular guy, making the allegations convoluted since now the rights holder is now a willing participant in the alleged unauthorized distribution. The same argument extends to any size swarm, unless the rights holder does not upload, but then he could not download either due to protocol requirements. And if he can't download, he has no data, he can't check to see if the data being distributed is in fact his works.

There is one instance where the rights holder can say with no doubt whatsoever that the seed distributed the entire file or a significant part of it. It's the superseed mode. In this mode, the seed uploads blocks in sequence, and uploads the next block only when all peers connected to the seed have received this block. However, this requires both superseed and sequential seed. Sequential is an option of superseed. It's unavailable in regular seed mode. Anyway, it also requires that the rights holder be a peer connected to this seed for the entire duration of the seeding, up to complete or significant part of. Also, other peers not directly connect to the seed are connected only to other peers, and those other peers don't have to superseed so they can upload out of sequence.

I may be out of date with the current BitTorrent protocol, but I think I'm not too far off the mark. The point is that it's virtually impossible to determine if an individual peer is distributing, making a commercial case equally virtually impossible to prove. And very difficult to prove for the original seed as well, since now the data checker must be connected to that original seed, before any other peer gets on, to make sure it's the original seed. The nature of BitTorrent.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

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

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:12:23 EDT

Tx posted :

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...

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:36:28 EDT

decranez posted : As far as I remember, the courts in Canada have not stated it was illegal to download a movie, but that it was illegal to "make available" a copyrighted work for download.

So the data does not show the IP downloaded a part of the movie, but that Vonage (via Canipre) was able to download a part of the movie from that IP, therefore that IP was "making it available" for download.

If you look at the statement of claims, the defendants are accused of "unauthorized distribution of the works through the Bittorrent ptotocol". So the IP was caught for seeding, not downloading.

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:45:26 EDT

anon posted : please correct me if I am way off based but this company is saying that X dl'ed a movie via torrent ..we have their IP to connect them to this torrent therefore we want money? is that correct?
Having your IP attached to a torrent doesn't mean you Dl'ed the complete movie though does it? Maybe you decide it was wrong and disconnected before completion:)..they still have your IP attached to this but you took nothing of value or money from them.
How would they in court determine that?

thanks

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:19:54 EDT

dad_of_3 posted : I don’t believe the main issue here is whether you were involved in any kind of copyright infringement or not....The issue is the way in which Voltage is targeting Taxpaying Canadians (and our American cousins in the past)..If you received a notice, then:

1. You knowingly downloaded (or made available w/e)one of the works.
2. The data collected is wrong, corrupted, manipulated, etc.etc.
3. You were mistakenly identified.
4. The work was download via your IP, unbeknownst to you. (hacked, open wifi, another user responsible, virus etc, etc ad infinitum)

I wont debate what the possible percentage split on the above is, however, I will say that of the 2000, or whatever number of people received a notice, some did it, and some didn't do it.

My point is this. Voltage purposes to “throw the baby out with the bath water”..In other words, there are some account holders in each of the 4 above mentioned groups who will be/are identified. This style of “fishing expedition” Voltage is trying to charter is going to scoop up ALL groups. Now, in my opinion if just one person is falsely accused, that’s one too many. Imagine if you get a notice and you are honestly in group 2,3, or 4. I can expect that you are freaked out, confused, and damned worried. The only way to protect the innocent is to deny the motion to release the private information. Now of course I realize that this means there will be some who did do the deed, who will escape the hangman’s noose so to speak. But ask yourself what would be worse, allowing some who are guilty off the hook, or going after some innocent people, and potentially ruining their lives. Don't forget that if Voltage is successful here, it will be only the beginning. Imagine how many more tax paying, eligible voters could be held hostage to these thugs.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:30:44 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted : I stand to be corrected on this - as I can't ever recall using any torrent software - but don't some torrent apps insert bogus IP's into their 'trackers' (or whatever they're called) - sort of a 'honeypot' in reverse?

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:14:12 EDT

funny posted :

said by JonyBelGeul:

said by bt:

said by JonyBelGeul:

The second is different. It's about evidence. Without direct evidence that the person did the deed, that's all that's needed for the charges to be dropped and the case to be dismissed. However, in the case of our cafe owner, he could present this evidence on top of pointing out the lack of evidence for the plaintiff. Charges dropped, case dismissed.

Even in the event that the person did do the deed, it's still up to the plaintiff to prove it by way of presenting evidence of such.

This is a civil case. Direct evidence isn't necessary to win the case - they just have to convince the judge that it's more likely the defendant did it than didn't do it.

That's flawed logic. If direct evidence is not necessary, then it does not automatically follow that arguments alone are enough. Arguments are not evidence. However, if you mean that direct evidence is not necessary, but indirect evidence could be sufficient, then I agree. But then, it all depends on the evidence itself, not the arguments.

On the subject of "more likely", that's probabilities. And if we only look at the probabilities concerning how many people use how many IP's, it's immediately obvious that there's many times more people who use the same IP than just the one person assigned this IP. Think of all the cafes, all the enterprises, all the homes, all the schools, that use a single IP to connect to the internet, but use an intranet to connect all its users. So it would be immensely difficult for anybody to convince a court that the person assigned the IP did the deed indeed, without direct evidence.

you cant walk into a court and constantly say oh probably he did this and that you will get whacked with a heresy motion if you keep it up without any actual evidence...

the only actual evidence known is that they have a list of ip addresses getting some bits of there files. The statement of claim asks for commercial judgements NOT non commercial ones. WELL at the hearing they should be all asking for discovery of the COMMERCIAL aspects cause just sharing a file does not nor ever has required a transfer of money ....PROVE that is what i am asking any court or plaintiff....and you can't ....there isn't even a doubt that you can't prove it was commercial thus the wish by them to gain the ids of users for a commercial lawsuit should die right there.

go refile for non commercial and btw you just lost 5K of that 10K wish
and judges for a couple of movies are never going to give 5K
they were told not too.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:31:41 EDT

JonyBelGeul posted :

said by bt:

said by JonyBelGeul:

This is a civil case. Direct evidence isn't necessary to win the case - they just have to convince the judge that it's more likely the defendant did it than didn't do it.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:20 EDT

TwiztedZero posted : Its called Spectulative Invoicing. You might read this: The Spectulative Invoicing Handbook .pdf
Cheers!
--
IF TREE = FALL AND PEOPLE = ZERO THEN SOUND = 0
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:44:50 EDT

JMJimmy posted :

said by elitefx:

Until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on this divisive issue things will continue to spiral out of control.

Very true. Even for an IP being liable. When I was 11 I could hide my activities from the school's administrator, I'd have no trouble doing it within a local network these days.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:42:41 EDT

UK_Dave posted : Agreed, Elite.

I'd love to see that test case.

I'd rather watch it from the gallery though, and not the dock.

I wonder if it might just be left on a case by case basis in civil law?

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:40:44 EDT

elitefx posted : There is one overiding common issue in all these threads and posts. Whether an IP = A person and is the owner of that IP liable for activites connected to it.

IMHO There is enough evidence/scenarios to the contrary presented in these threads by knowledgeable minds to quash the IP=person notion forever.

Until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on this divisive issue things will continue to spiral out of control.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:39:16 EDT

stevey_frac posted : My router has the ability to set up separate guest network, that can't route to my local computers, just straight to the internet. Who's to say who might use such a thing.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:23:00 EDT

UK_Dave posted : So the more people you share your connection with, the smaller the odds get of it being you.....

Hmmm....

Mass civil disobediance through passive WIFI sharing....

I like it.....

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:19:31 EDT

bt posted :

said by JonyBelGeul:

This is a civil case. Direct evidence isn't necessary to win the case - they just have to convince the judge that it's more likely the defendant did it than didn't do it.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:17:15 EDT

bt posted :

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.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:13:44 EDT

JonyBelGeul posted : You ask two questions. How can somebody can be wrongly accused, and what to do when it happens.

The first is obvious. The IP is not the person, as many others have pointed out. For example, the IP could be assigned to a person, who owns a cafe, who offers free wifi to customers.

The second is different. It's about evidence. Without direct evidence that the person did the deed, that's all that's needed for the charges to be dropped and the case to be dismissed. However, in the case of our cafe owner, he could present this evidence on top of pointing out the lack of evidence for the plaintiff. Charges dropped, case dismissed.

Even in the event that the person did do the deed, it's still up to the plaintiff to prove it by way of presenting evidence of such.

IANAL, so if you're serious about protecting yourself in case of wrong accusation, then consult a lawyer.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:06:16 EDT

JMJimmy posted : @Optional - TSI is still trying to figure out how I was identified (Ontario customer) with an IP address that geolocates to Montreal. The system is far from flawless.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:02:29 EDT

UK_Dave posted : 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.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:59:25 EDT

anon posted :

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.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:57:33 EDT

bt posted :

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.

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

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:50:41 EDT

activoice posted : The IP just indicates what location the connection terminates at, but it does not indicate which computer was used or the person committing the infringement.

For example I could have a WIFI router connected to my internet connection with no security in place (think coffee shop) should the owner of that coffee shop be liable for things that their customer did on the internet. Same with Airport Lounge, or Mall.

Or what about an apartment where internet is shared among multiple roommates, if I am the subscriber but my roommates infringed copyright should I be on the hook just because I am the account holder?

It is not possible for the copyright holder to determine who the actual infringer was.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:46:51 EDT

resa1983 posted : 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

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:45:30 EDT

HiVolt posted :

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.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:11 EDT

stevey_frac posted : »dmca.cs.washington.edu/

University of Washington researchers were able to generate complaints about a laser printer infringing on copyrights. So, you could be wrongly accused, without your connection even being actually USED to do any torrenting.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:39:01 EDT

bt posted : 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.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:32:16 EDT

Amou posted : One of the reason why the court date was push back I think. Not enough time for Teksavvy to sort through everything properly so some people got flagged for no reason. I think they said they will have it sort out by January so you don't have to worry. Obviously other factors such as open wifi or sharing net between family or people renting could cause you to be on the list.

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

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:30:03 EDT

UK_Dave posted : Because an IP address doesn't equal a person. It just identifies the account holder.

Many of us here are not fighting this as "pro-piracy" - it's a fight for privacy.

Take a read through the big threads first, there's a lot in them of use.

Cheers
Dave

How can people be wrongly accused of this recent issue?

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:26:00 EDT

Optional posted : This is what confuses me. I'm quite tech savvy (I'm sorry, I had to) and I don't know how you could be wrongly accused.

I don't think this internet forensics team is stupid. I know their method of fish netting ip's was pretty.. blunt, but how does that mean people could be wrongly accused?

if your IP was attached to that torrent then isn't that infallible? I'm not saying these guys have a right to extort you, but a warning from an ISP like they do in the states would be suffice, ya know? A long time friend of mine in the States on Comcast ISP, got a couple warnings so he totally stopped downloading stuff. Do we have to be living in fear now, that our information will be able to be requested and given to the highest bidder whenever we do something someone else doesn't like?

I'm a pretty legit user of the internet, I like giving money to things that I want and enjoy (Music, movies) I pay for HDTV, I actually watch tv shows, and buy them on bluray when a season comes out etc. But, I'm also somebody with a lot of crap on their plate right now, and was diagnosed with generalized anxiety last year.

After having read what was said at court today, some people were wrongly accused, and some people haven't been informed yet, it's gotten my mind going again doing what it does. I've never seen nor heard of their movies except hurt locker, even though it keeps rearing it's head at me on Netflix with all those awards stickers all over it's poster.

What if I get wrongly accused? however that happens maybe someone can enlighten me.