 dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| reply to nanook
Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers said by nanook:Do we really want the likes of Voltage to lobby politicians to enact legislation so that IP address alone (license plate number) is sufficient to identify and punish alleged copyright violators?
A car can't be spoofed so easily. How can you pass a law than can so easily be demonstrated as completely fallible? It's not possible.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged |
|
 nanookPremium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·TekSavvy DSL
| It's not about spoofing. It's about holding the registered car owner (TSI customer) responsible for the actions of someone who shares the car (IP address) and then runs a red light or exceeds the speed limit. The legislation makes it irrelevant who actually ran the light/sped ("pirated" the movie) for the purposes of levying the fine. |
|
dillyhammerSTART me upPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:9 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| said by nanook:It's not about spoofing. It's about holding the registered car owner (TSI customer) responsible for the actions of someone who shares the car (IP address) and then runs a red light or exceeds the speed limit. The legislation makes it irrelevant who actually ran the light/sped ("pirated" the movie) for the purposes of levying the fine.
Sounds like something Vic Toews would say. "Either you're with us, or with the pirates!"
It's virtually impossible to copy a car.
I can download stuff right now and make it look like you did it. No problem. Trivial to do. In your flawed analogy, you'd have no defense. Good luck with that.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged |
|
nanookPremium,MVM
join:2007-12-02 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by dillyhammer:It's virtually impossible to copy a car. Who's talking about copying a car?
Let me try again.
1. A car owner is identified by license plate number. An Internet account owner is identified by the IP addresses they use.
2. A car owner can share their vehicle with other drivers. An Internet account owner can share their connection with others.
3. If the driver of a car commits a red light camera or photo radar violation then the car owner, not that user, is legally required to pay the fine. If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted.
Now you might say that such legislation doesn't currently exist. I would point out that until red light cameras, photo radar and other such arbitrary fund generation opportunities became available to police and municipalities, neither did such legislation exist to cover them either.
And since you brought up [barf] Vic Toews, what side do you think he would take on this issue—ours or Voltages? Do you think he might equate filesharing with child pornography, as he essentially did in the line that made him (in)famous? |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to ISpeakForYou
said by ISpeakForYou:I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by DarkStar33:said by ISpeakForYou:I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone. Like his "message" you indirectly try to speak for everyone yourself.
Edit: I should explain. I disagree with what you said about him/her. They do have valid points about few things. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by Tx:said by DarkStar33:said by ISpeakForYou:I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone. Like his "message" you indirectly try to speak for everyone yourself. Edit: I should explain. I disagree with what you said about him/her. They do have valid points about few things. Some good points yes but he is asking the wrong organization to act. Its not TekSavvy's place to fight for our privacy, we have an entire dedicated agency that does nothing but that:
»www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp
If your concerned with the issue, write this agency along with your local representation.
Its completely outside of the responsibility for TekSavvy to act and actively harms them from intervening with these matters.
It prevents Copyright holders from having any ammunition to use against them, they are complying with the courts and staying out of it.
In this stage of the fight its Voltage Vs Canadian Legal System.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by DarkStar33:Some good points yes but he is asking the wrong organization to act. Its not TekSavvy's place to fight for our privacy, we have an entire dedicated agency that does nothing but that:
»www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp
If your concerned with the issue, write this agency along with your local representation.
Its completely outside of the responsibility for TekSavvy to act and actively harms them from intervening with these matters.
It prevents Copyright holders from having any ammunition to use against them, they are complying with the courts and staying out of it.
In this stage of the fight its Voltage Vs Canadian Legal System.
You my friend are a stand up guy/girl for being genuine and not blasting me (or anyone) for simple comments like i made that would usually happen. |
|
| reply to nanook
said by nanook:3. (...) If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted. Over my dead body! |
|
nanookPremium,MVM
join:2007-12-02 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| That's what people said about the principle of fining the car owner even when someone else actually committed the red light/speeding infraction. Yet even though the notion offends us, cash-strapped cities and lazy police departments managed to convince provincial politicians to make that the law.
The same sort of thing could happen with IP addresses. With people like [barf] Vic Toews making the legislation we have to be particularly vigilant not to let that sort of "principle" become copyright law through the efforts of MAFIAA lobbying. |
|
 elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1 | reply to ByteMaster
Seriously people. I'm starting to wonder what planet some of these comments are coming from. Anybody that thinks a Federal Court judge isn't going to hold the registered owner of an IP liable is delusional. If you think otherwise you've never been to court.
Just like somebody said about cars. You own it. It's yours. You're liable.
Let's all try to forget about the daydreaming and the "It wasn't me, I wasn't there" attitude and get back to the real world. |
|
|
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | said by elitefx:Seriously people. I'm starting to wonder what planet some of these comments are coming from. Anybody that thinks a Federal Court judge isn't going to hold the registered owner of an IP liable is delusional. If you think otherwise you've never been to court.
Just like somebody said about cars. You own it. It's yours. You're liable.
Let's all try to forget about the daydreaming and the "It wasn't me, I wasn't there" attitude and get back to the real world.
Uh bud, it's not the "daydreamers" making shit up. Courts are starting to see another side to these stories.
For a second answer my question truthfully and as best you can.
Detectives knock at your door with a search warrant for your computers. Why ? "Child pornography".
Firstly, let's say we're talking about you elitefx. Your house, your family, you. It's you who owns the account but let's also say you and i both know you're a stand up guy and know 100% you didn't do it.
Your argument is "You own it, your liable. Period!"
Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.
Edit:
It's not about letting pirates off the hook. It's about delaying these tactics until a better system is in place to better identify the person responsible, routers becoming a legal requirement to be secured. A law that requires people to further protect themselves. Without that, everyone is at risk. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | reply to nanook
Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers said by nanook:said by dillyhammer:It's virtually impossible to copy a car. Who's talking about copying a car? Let me try again. 1. A car owner is identified by license plate number. An Internet account owner is identified by the IP addresses they use. 2. A car owner can share their vehicle with other drivers. An Internet account owner can share their connection with others. 3. If the driver of a car commits a red light camera or photo radar violation then the car owner, not that user, is legally required to pay the fine. If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted. Now you might say that such legislation doesn't currently exist. I would point out that until red light cameras, photo radar and other such arbitrary fund generation opportunities became available to police and municipalities, neither did such legislation exist to cover them either. And since you brought up [barf] Vic Toews, what side do you think he would take on this issue—ours or Voltages? Do you think he might equate filesharing with child pornography, as he essentially did in the line that made him (in)famous? What happens when the car is stolen ? |
|
elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1 | reply to Tx
said by Tx:For a second and answer my question truthfully and as best you can.
Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.
We're talking apples and oranges. Kiddie porn is a Criminal Code offense and Copyright Infringement is under the Trade-marks Act and the Radiocommunication Act. These statutes deal with three types of crime:
•Copyright infringement
•Trademark infringement
•Theft of telecommunication service
You can't compare the two in any way, shape or form because of the reverse onus clause that comes into effect in certain criminal code statutes and situations.
IMHO What you're saying is more likely to apply in criminal code offenses where the liability lies with the perpetrator. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seatsPremium
join:2008-11-19
kudos:3 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by elitefx:said by Tx:For a second and answer my question truthfully and as best you can.
Your future is now based on your argument that everyone has been saying on here. Good luck.
We're talking apples and oranges. Kiddie porn is a Criminal Code offense and Copyright Infringement is under the Trade-marks Act and the Radiocommunication Act. These statutes deal with three types of crime: •Copyright infringement •Trademark infringement •Theft of telecommunication service You can't compare the two in any way, shape or form because of the reverse onus clause that comes into effect in certain criminal code statutes and situations. IMHO What you're saying is more likely to apply in criminal code offenses where the liability lies with the perpetrator. Actually I can, it's very relevant. It's regarding IP being a person and your bold statement that an account holder should be held liable. It's to those facts. Doesn't matter what code each law falls under. That's for later down the line. The methods used to locate are the ones under scrutiny.
You stated: "Account holder is liable for all activity"
It's not apples and oranges. The law about their activities comes in after the fact, not prior. Just because you have a different department hunting for you the methods used to accuse you are where the issue lays.
|
|
Tong
join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x | reply to nanook
You missed a point here from the start.
You own your car, you bought it, registered the car. You put the plate on your car. You can sell or buy an car.
You DON'T own your IP address, your ISP or AT&T does if you are in North American. You have no control who is using your IP or what your IP is, your ISP could have a incorrect reporting who actually have the IP address. They can't hold you responsible for something you don't own.
You might able to buy a specific IP address, but you still don't own the IP address. |
|
nanookPremium,MVM
join:2007-12-02 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to kovy
said by kovy:What happens when the car is stolen ?
You report it to the police and insurance.
If your car was unlocked and keys in the ignition then your insurance company won't pay up and the police probably won't spend too much time looking for it. If your car was locked you stand a better chance of getting help from both.
Further, IANAL but I suspect that if your stolen car is involved in an accident then the victims are more likely to sue if the car was unlocked and keys in the ignition. In that situation the insurance company will also try to disclaim liability.
Your point? 
P.S. I acknowledge that analogies usually aren't perfect, especially when extrapolated. |
|
 A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btwPremium
join:2007-10-27
Burlington, ON | reply to nanook
said by nanook:1. A car owner is identified by license plate number. An Internet account owner is identified by the IP addresses they use. A user here recently mentioned that he was able to spoof, in a torrent stream, a TSI IP number from a different account. Years ago I received a notice from Cogeco that shared my modem MAC (but not IP). It appears their notices match IP to modem MAC, then send out notices to their registered user for that modem. They did confirm that there were two matching modem MACs on the system (which happened from time to time). The IP in the notice didn't match my computer, or even city. The Cogeco rep admited the issue, and logged it.
So your analogy would be that someone cruises your town looking for a say... a grey honda* - write down your plate number - duplicates it, puts it on their grey honda then runs a red light. You get a ticket for running a red light (that you maybe didn't do). If you're lucky, you might be able to prove you weren't there at that time. If you're not, you are likely paying the fine.
Now make the 'fine' somewhere in the $10,000 mark, and they send you a letter saying 'pay $2500 and we'll drop it'. Unless you can easily prove your innocence (and with a car it might be easier), what do you do now?
* picked the car at random, someone spoofing an IP would just be looking for something that wasn't theirs. The license plate would be slightly more complicated as your plate on an obviously different vehicle might prove your innocence quickly. |
|
elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1 | reply to Tong
You guys can argue till hell freezes over. What I said about the judge ruling on registered IP owner liability is true. Unless you're willing to go to court and testify against a family member or friend then the IP owner will take the fall period.
This isn't my opinion. It's the way things are done in court. Unless parliament specifically addresses this issue and changes the way liability is determined. |
|
