dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


r3t 38x
reply to Tx

Re: The "Infringement" letter

Yeah, I think I read somewhere in USA. With the same company (With the Hurt Locker case) they are trying to serve a person who is dead for years.

bronx cheers from cheap seats
Mississauga, ON

yeah torrentfreak is where i read about this one


London, ON

2 edits
reply to ZombieBanner

said by ZombieBanner:

Until this matter is resolved, you are on notice to preserve any and all hard drives or other means of electronic storage associated with your above referenced IP address and to take no steps whatsoever to remove, erase, discard, conceal, destroy or delete from any means of electronic storage any evidence of piracy and/or other illegal downloading and distribution of Voltage Picture intellectual property.

The devil is in the details.

No court order/search warrant issued to a specific IP/subscriber yet = Only a suggestion.


Dr Facts


Uninforceable and only a suggestion.

Yes and no. Let's say you have a hard drive full of copyright stuff and you delete it, there is some software that can still see it.

Now you can use some utilities that will re-write over sectors but even that looks suspicious, like they get your hard drive and they see that the day after you got your letter it was reformated.

Again, this isn't a criminal thing, they just need probabilities and that would make it look rather probable that you have something to hide.

However I doubt that it's going to get to that stage for anyone who gets a letter but then again Voltage seem pretty bull-headed, they may just end up running on rage and spite.

Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Toronto, ON
reply to elitefx

Just Keep COOL Folks! its just part of the SCARE THE BEJEBUS OUTA YOU tatic to compell you to pay up or else! Nothing more. Unless they take you through an actual ligitation proccess in a real world courtroom with a real world Justice who can hand down real world judgments.

These voltagetrolls are only out to shake you down for all they can get. Endof.

The "Or Else" part is when you challenge them to do so in an actual court procceeding to PROVE IT! Which of course will be costing you quite a bit so your decision is either pay them out of court as per their extortion letters OR pay potentially far more by going through the court system. These voltagetrolls know this, they're counting on it. Thats the scheme.

Like I said earlier, we can only hope our Canadian Justices can see through this slipery deception being waged by the likes of voltage and other copytrolls and put the big-kibosh on this kind of racket before they get swamped. Nip it in the bud so to speak, and set a grand precedent for this right here at home in Canada.

In the Uk they disbarred lawyers for pulling these shenanigans.

Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


reply to Tong

You are absolutely correct.

"In the event that it is determined, through computer forensic evidence or otherwise ... you are on notice that said actions will be brought to the court’s attention and further associated remedies will be sought against you."

This is absolutely an "I'll tell mommy" threat. They have no legal authority to force this of you at this point.

All they're saying is "If we (voltage) find out that you tried to delete stuff, then we're telling you that we'll tell the courts this if we ever find out."

So I see what they're trying to get people to think. Deleting this information knowing that the movie's existence on your hard drive could hurt your chances in court -- that the act of deleting it could potentially be considered "obstruction of justice."

(That's what I think they want you to feel...)

But I think I see a small problem with this stance: They're requesting that you keep information, and making a legal threat if you don't. And I see what they're trying to get people thinking by putting their mindset in that kind of defense.

But the issue I see with this is:

(A) You would have to call into question the integrity of Voltage's evidence (hearsay, potentially logged data, sources, etc)
(B) The court would have to get a warrant to cease your property -- THAT's when such a legal obligation could be made.
(C) You would still have to be claiming innocence all the while, intentionally (Which, by the way, is NOT easy, but let's assume you were godly enough at lying and had the stamina of stone cold serial killer bull, and you were actually that stupid...)
(D) If you didn't wipe the drive right, go to directly to (F).
(E) If you wiped your drive right, and the evidence still wasn't good enough, they would *still* be grasping for straws to try and prove that you had the file by fast-firing questions at you in court (and to your credit you're probably a GOD at dealing with lawyers if you got this far...). They'd then go at you enough to find actual proof, in a civil court -- which, you'd pretty never get this unlucky...
(F) Assuming that they weren't satisfied with proving that you infringed their copyright, they would then have to actually WANT to fuck you over, to prove intent to obstruct justice, to bringing about more criminal charges (You may even need a separate hearing for that, because I think this is a civil trial, not a criminal trial!)
(G) You are still within your legal rights to free up your hard drive for any reason, so the burden of proof on obstructing justice would be on them.
(H) And somehow the court would have to be willing to hear this farce of bullying crap to pin you on something that affects absolutely no person any further, for a $100-$5,000 infraction!

That's a LOOOONG list to want to fuck someone over, at $100+ an hour, for several thousand people, with absolutely no financial incentive for these copyright trolls to dent your record.

These laws were put in place to treat people fairly in financial transactions, not to ruin their chances of a life ever again. And not to tell them what they can and can't do with their computers in other avenues of their life. Personally, I'd be more than content to see this resolved honestly. You'd be there to straighten out a checkbook because someone feels their civil rights have been violated, in a time where people don't stop to ask whether they had something of value to begin with. Not because the world wants to screw you over or to see you break down in court. If you actually get called to a stand, just don't lie! Be honest. Be open! Tell them you're afraid! You're well within your legal rights to delete a file on your computer with that kind of intent. Your rights have not been halted all of a sudden because of a civil issue. (Because quite frankly, they're terrible movies -- they're not *worth* a purchase, hence why the bulk of people WOULD pirate them instead of giving legal tender for them -- and we should *ALL* more than certainly boycott anything they ever make again, on the basis that they're FUCKING assholes!)

Remember, Canada's on your side!

PS> I wasn't accused, but I'd LOVE to make a legal defense on the nature of their so-called "evidence", because as a Teksavvy customer, I feel that my rights have been violated too with this kind of empty-handed accusation on the internet!

There's an absolute PILE of information on the internet that calls into question the integrity of their claim, before handing out what could potentially be MY name and address on any other day. (Yes Teksavvy, I'm disappointed about this -- you are NOT being responsible for my privacy by admitting defeat and saying "YES" to an allegation that you haven't even SEEN YET!)

If you want a defense that should never even make its way PAST "Voltage vs John Doe" at the court on January 14th, 2013, start with THIS:



Basic Tracker Announce Request
An optional parameter giving the IP (or dns name) which this peer is at. Generally used for the origin if it's on the same machine as the tracker; otherwise it's not normally needed.

Which can cause THIS:


Supported by section 4.1 in a research paper published from the University of WASHINGTON, saying THIS:


On these grounds alone, I would call into question how EVERY SINGLE PERSON on their retarded list isn't being accused on the merits of hearsay alone, FROM ANY ONE OF 7 BILLION POTENTIAL ANONYMOUS LIARS ON THE INTERNET.

I would ask them specifically for the logged traffic, and would question them on how they are exempt from THAT colossal fuck-up above. Assuming they were smart enough to get THAT far, I would then question them how they still managed to partake in a peer swarm without violating the very crimes that they are accusing several thousand people of committing, and would ask for the traffic logs to double-check myself during an extended court recess!

PSPS> Tell your lawyers it's called a torrent "CHUNK". Not a "packet" (lol wtf?)

Welcome to the INTERNET, Voltage!


London, ON
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

Just Keep COOL Folks! its just part of the SCARE THE BEJEBUS OUTA YOU tatic to compell you to pay up or else! Nothing more. Unless they take you through an actual ligitation proccess in a real world courtroom with a real world Justice who can hand down real world judgments.

I am curious to know who is going to pay for the forensic guy. I'm not caught up in this mess. Although if people are like me: I was counting all my old hard drives. I got 5. Not including the ones on actual computers (at least another 5) then there's all my recordable media DVD-Rs and the like. That's alot of sectors to read. That could easily cost thousands of dollars for a 3rd party to go through.


Stittsville, ON

1 recommendation

It's a civil suit. Remember that. They are not threatening to bring criminal charges against anybody, and even if they were threatening to do it, they don't have the power to do it because they are a private entity. They would have to convince a law enforcement agency to lay charges for it to become a criminal matter, and I don't think that's very likely. The police have much better things to do with their time than chase after an individual who allegedly downloaded a movie.

That means that any threats about not formatting your hard drive are completely baseless, and if they want to perform a forensic analysis on your hard drive they have to pay for it. You do not have to give them any access to your computer or equipment, regardless of what they claim.

There is software which can detect and find files after you've done a format of the drive, but if you do a low level format writing zeroes to every sector, there's virtually no way for them to recover the information that's been lost without taking the hard drive apart and scanning it: the hard drive's firmware controls what goes through the SATA interface, and it's specifically designed to ignore any residual magnetic fields from previous write cycles and tell you what's there now. Even then, depending on how many times it's been written over it's a coin toss as to whether they'd get anything useful, and that kind of data recovery can run into the tens of thousands of dollars for a single hard drive. When the most they can get, by law, is $5000 out of you, they're not going to pay for it.

However, being a civil case it's worth remembering that the standard of proof is much lower. They don't have to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that you have done what they accuse you, they only have to prove that the balance of evidence weighs against you. This means that if they have enough data about your activities just from logging what they've seen, they don't need to examine your hard drive to prove the case.

If you've received such a letter, then the best advice anybody can give you is to hire a lawyer (or go to legal aid if you can't afford a lawyer). Don't ignore it, because their behaviour in other countries indicates that they're more likely to file against you if you ignore the letter. Usually, in other countries, simply having a lawyer reply that you intend to challenge any allegations is enough to get them to drop the case and move on to the next victim. If it goes further, the case will lie on proving that an IP address translates to a person, which is something that's already been challenged in Canadian courts with decisions going both ways. With the lower standard of proof in civil cases, anybody with appropriate qualifications in computer networking should be able to cast enough doubt for the case to be dismissed.


Waterloo, ON

This is an interesting talk that ties in with a lot of the advice on this particular thread.