dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6201
share rss forum feed


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
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


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by dillyhammer:

A car can't be spoofed so easily.

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.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

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


nanook
Premium,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?


DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
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


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·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.


DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

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


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
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.

ByteMaster

join:2012-12-22
Halifax, NS
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!


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by ByteMaster:

Over my dead body!

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:2

1 recommendation

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.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
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.
Expand your moderator at work

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:2
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.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
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.



nanook
Premium,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 Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
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:2
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.


kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to nanook

said by nanook:

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.

I don't know, maybe my IP was "stolen" used by someone else ?

Also, don't forget in the end... I have a DHCP IP adresse and not a static.


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

said by elitefx:

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.

lmao!!

Exactly the answer i expected. The answer of someone who cannot answer, you have no answer to it and you know i have a point but you cannot answer it without agreeing to it. It may suck, it's not pretty, but it's the truth.

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

Right now i have a few neighbours. 2 with WEP, 1 with nothing and another on basic WPA. I can crack all the basic WPA in an hour and WEP in 30 seconds or so. I can get each one screwed because, well they're liable.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Tx:

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

You missed your calling. You should have been a lawyer. I truly hope legislation is written to bring your views to life in our justice system..........


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

said by elitefx:

said by Tx:

It's not about what the law is, it's about what is right.

You missed your calling. You should have been a lawyer. I truly hope legislation is written to bring your views to life in our justice system..........

Again, i have to say, it's not about the law... it's about what's right and wrong. Feel free to go back and answer my question that you avoided to answer knowing there is no "right" answer to it because it's a shit end of the stick kind of deal.

Your statement that an owner of an account should be held liable then goes out the window should this owner be you. It's a scary real life situation that no one wants to be in (those who are innocent that is) and being liable under your claims is unjust.

As i said previously as well, many judges are starting to see the other side of this IP is not a person argument.

dad_of_3

join:2004-05-31
SE Ontario
reply to ISpeakForYou

Imagine your a teacher. Lets say you have a "troublesome" student in one of your classes. Lets say you fail this particular student, or give this student a detention, or some form of punishment w/e. Lets say this student decides to get revenge on you. You may wake up the next day and find your house has been egged, or toilet papered....ha, ha..an inconvienance yes, but no real harm done..However, lets say this student really wants to get some serious revenge in. What's stopping said student from sneaking into your yard at night with a laptop and connecting to your wifi (secured or not, gaining access is apparently fairly simple). What's stopping this person from downloading something incriminating through your wifi, say a voltage pictures production, or worse.

Please stop and consider the ramifications.

Now, you can replace "teacher" with "retail outlet worker", and student with "disgruntled customer", etc, etc, etc.

This is actually quite scary..To repeat what so many others have stated so many times here, the issue is not whether you "infringed" anything, but how voltage is targeting Canadians. Many innocent people will get scooped up in this trolling expedition. It could literally cost innocent people thousands of dollars to prove their innocence. In some cases this could bankrupt individuals, or at the least cause serious financial strain.



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

said by dad_of_3:

Imagine your a teacher. Lets say you have a "troublesome" student in one of your classes. Lets say you fail this particular student, or give this student a detention, or some form of punishment w/e. Lets say this student decides to get revenge on you. You may wake up the next day and find your house has been egged, or toilet papered....ha, ha..an inconvienance yes, but no real harm done..However, lets say this student really wants to get some serious revenge in. What's stopping said student from sneaking into your yard at night with a laptop and connecting to your wifi (secured or not, gaining access is apparently fairly simple). What's stopping this person from downloading something incriminating through your wifi, say a voltage pictures production, or worse.

Please stop and consider the ramifications.

Now, you can replace "teacher" with "retail outlet worker", and student with "disgruntled customer", etc, etc, etc.

This is actually quite scary..To repeat what so many others have stated so many times here, the issue is not whether you "infringed" anything, but how voltage is targeting Canadians. Many innocent people will get scooped up in this trolling expedition. It could literally cost innocent people thousands of dollars to prove their innocence. In some cases this could bankrupt individuals, or at the least cause serious financial strain.

This is exactly it and what i'm trying to say. Right now i could get 3 of my neighbours in deep deep trouble right now if i wanted. usually there are more secured networks around here but right now i have 3 open networks.

One of these neighbours is a dickhead and loves being an ass with the kids around here. Oh how much trouble I could cause him if i wanted to. Maybe 20 years ago when i was much younger and found rooting boxes fun... i was stupid then, but there are still stupid kids, and disgusting individuals that will abuse another account to further their own interests/activities leaving you holding the smoking gun.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to ISpeakForYou

It'll probably take somebody spoofing a bunch of Federal Court judges and all the Federal cabinet ministers home IP addresses and catching them all in a kiddie porn crackdown before anything meaningful in terms of driving through the understanding that an IP address does not equal a person.



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

said by MaynardKrebs:

It'll probably take somebody spoofing a bunch of Federal Court judges and all the Federal cabinet ministers home IP addresses and catching them all in a kiddie porn crackdown before anything meaningful in terms of driving through the understanding that an IP address does not equal a person.

I shouldn't even be saying this, but wouldn't that be something? To see a judge back peddle out something he just ruled against someone else?

Unfortunately these things are covered up daily if anything serious happened

cynic10

join:2011-02-05

2 edits
reply to Tx

That's the scary thing. So many of the vocal people have the thinking those who are complaining are guilty and on top of that they seem to lack knowledge in IT and how networking/internet works.

These people needs to be educated or taught a thing or 2. My neighbor wifi' is unprotected and if I'm so inclined I can use theirs and get them in trouble but I'm not like that.

This article provide an interesting read on ISPs that protested the request by copyright trolls and set precedents after having won appeal and why TSI should follow suit. Because you know the outcome of it all will affect all ISP in Canada as this being the first mass lawsuit that I'm aware of on copyrights.

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···ll.shtml

As the first comment by one of the user "A bunch of those tech savvy users on slashdot pointed out that TekSavvy was a good one to be with for Canada. If they are looking to destroy the good image they have with the techies, this would easily do it in a single move (or failure to move as it is)."

He couldn't have said it better.

TSI, make note. We're all reading and watching your actions all over the countries, not just Canada.


graniterock

join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to dad_of_3

said by dad_of_3:

Imagine your a teacher. Lets say you have a "troublesome" student in one of your classes.

....

Replace Teacher with neighbourhood lawyer and troublesome student with creepy neighbour and you get this nightmare. This creepy neighbour spent 2 weeks cracking a wifi network and tried to ruin this guys life:

»www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/07/13/···dex.html