dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6141
share rss forum feed


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

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by elitefx:

said by Tx:

Actually they setup a torrent themselves (a trap) and collected the IPs of those. This was the info provided how they did it when this was first announced.

Just an observation:

How on earth can Voltage set up a Torrent to publicly share a file and then somehow try to sue that same public when they download and share the file Voltage provided for free distribution.

That's more than entrapment, that's just completely bizarre. Sounds like a bunch of noobs just playing a game.

IMHO that's where the defense is. Nobody has done anything wrong. Voltage provided a Free copy for Free public filesharing on a Free public filesharing site.

IMHO the judge will toss this quicker than a rotten piece of fruit. Voltage's entrapment scheme and pending lawsuits will bring the administration of Canadian justice into disrepute. Something the legal system is very defensive about. Justice needs to be seen to be done fairly. The bar is set very high.

Honestly this is what i read happened and i wondered the same thing.. Asking the exact same question how this isn't entrapment. I've read a few articles that this is how they managed to get so many

Warez_Zealot

join:2006-04-19
Vancouver
reply to ISpeakForYou

said by ISpeakForYou:

I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers that have not yet spoken out about this.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is that an IP address does not identify a person. This can be seen in a recent NewYork ruling under US law here: »securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/297···-lawsuit
And it's no mystery why the judge has that viewpoint.

It is absolutely unbelievable that in 2012, it is still insisted that a person can be identified based on an IP address. Every single internet connection has only 1 IP address. That means that if you live and share your internet with your family, every single computer connected to your internet network shares the exact same IP address.

I'll agree with this. An IP address can only ID the institution who owns the net block/subnet. Residential ISP's usually assign an IP via DHCP, so that is kinda scary that they try to ID customers based on that. (unless they keep extremely good ARP records and can match up the MAC to the CPE) But since ARP records in networking devices aren't logged, I have no idea how this is done.

Anyhow, residential ISP's are lame. Companies like Teksavvy got hammered by Bell and now they need to play dirty like the big guys, and as a result they are not as innovative/customer friendly anymore.
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."-Malcolm X


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

1 edit
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

said by elitefx:

said by Tx:

Actually they setup a torrent themselves (a trap) and collected the IPs of those. This was the info provided how they did it when this was first announced.

Just an observation:

How on earth can Voltage set up a Torrent to publicly share a file and then somehow try to sue that same public when they download and share the file Voltage provided for free distribution.

That's more than entrapment, that's just completely bizarre. Sounds like a bunch of noobs just playing a game.

IMHO that's where the defense is. Nobody has done anything wrong. Voltage provided a Free copy for Free public filesharing on a Free public filesharing site.

IMHO the judge will toss this quicker than a rotten piece of fruit. Voltage's entrapment scheme and pending lawsuits will bring the administration of Canadian justice into disrepute. Something the legal system is very defensive about. Justice needs to be seen to be done fairly. The bar is set very high.

Honestly this is what i read happened and i wondered the same thing.. Asking the exact same question how this isn't entrapment. I've read a few articles that this is how they managed to get so many

There is no such thing as entrapment in civil law. Entrapment is a concept outlined in criminal law, and it only applies to the actions of police officers.

That's not to say a judge couldn't rule that voltage basically gave away their product, but since it's the uploading of the torrent (not the downloading) that is at the core of the complaint, I don't think it's likely that this would be considered relevant.


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

said by The Mongoose:

There is no such thing as entrapment in civil law. Entrapment is a concept outlined in criminal law, and it only applies to the actions of police officers.

That's not to say a judge couldn't claim that voltage basically gave away their product, but since it's the uploading of the torrent (not the downloading) that is at the core of the complaint, I don't think it's likely that this would be considered relevant.

Have to admit though, it would be an interesting argument, no?

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Tx:

said by The Mongoose:

There is no such thing as entrapment in civil law. Entrapment is a concept outlined in criminal law, and it only applies to the actions of police officers.

That's not to say a judge couldn't claim that voltage basically gave away their product, but since it's the uploading of the torrent (not the downloading) that is at the core of the complaint, I don't think it's likely that this would be considered relevant.

Have to admit though, it would be an interesting argument, no?

I think if the downloading were the source of complaint it could work...the uploading is going to be tougher. I still think the core argument in the context of Canadian civil law has to be the simple one: That the alleged infringement is not severe enough to justify the violation of privacy. The law requires that the alleged violation meets this test, and I think it can be demonstrated that it fails.

We'll see what tack CIPPIC chooses to take.


elitefx

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

said by The Mongoose:

I think if the downloading were the source of complaint it could work...the uploading is going to be tougher.

Agreed. One could argue that the file that Voltage made available for Free download is simply a copy of a copy of a copy, and that without a notice included in the torrent download to the contrary, users taking advantage of this Free offering would be completely unsure whether the version they received, and consequently shared, was a demo copy with the copyright restriction/protection removed.

The benefit of an issue of doubt in a court case always goes to the defendant.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

You'd have thought Voltage in their wisdom would've just added in a copy of their Letter of Extortion along with the downloads. Oh gee.



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

1 recommendation

reply to ISpeakForYou

Bunch of hypocrites: Hollywood Studios Caught Pirating Movies on BitTorrent

quote:
New data uncovered by TorrentFreak shows that the MPAA might want to start in-house, as plenty of copyrighted material is being shared by employees of major Hollywood studios. With help from BitTorrent monitoring company Scaneye we found that BitTorrent piracy is rampant in Hollywood.

Let’s take a look at some of the files these Hollywood studios are sharing, starting with Paramount Pictures.

Keep in mind that what we show here is just a small fraction of the files that are actually being shared. It’s the tip of the iceberg...

Ray_A

join:2008-10-28
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

No mater the case, it is the right idea, never let younger kids have computers in their own rooms

As if this will solve the problem!....Their computers are in their pockets these days, they are called smartphones, with access to everything the internet has to "offer" and possibly using their parent's WIFI connection at home. At school or street they may just be using their wireless data plan which incidentally happens to be on their parent's account too.

velocity7

join:2009-05-20
reply to ISpeakForYou

OP: Don't speak for me either, thanks.

Expand your moderator at work

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to TwiztedZero

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by TwiztedZero:

You'd have thought Voltage in their wisdom would've just added in a copy of their Letter of Extortion along with the downloads. Oh gee.

That's not possible.

80289148

join:2012-12-24
reply to ISpeakForYou

said by ISpeakForYou:

I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers that have not yet spoken out about this.

You do not speak on behalf of anyone but yourself. You did not ask permission to speak on anyone's behalf.


GermanVPN

@leaseweb.com
reply to ISpeakForYou

I think they would have joined a swarm, but judging by the list of crap that was downloaded they may have had to start the torrent themselves because nobody else would have taken the time to rip/post that content. Only Killer Joe was a title I've ever heard of.



GermanVPN

@leaseweb.com
reply to nanook

Never mind the endless copy after copy of Academy Award screeners that are leaked. Also the crossframe Xmen Wolverine that fell out of the studio. Its just not as attractive to go after the internal issues.



GermanVPN

@leaseweb.com
reply to Ray_A

Being Christmas I was at my parents house and our daughter had her Tablet there. I wanted to connect to their wireless and sure enough I see "Default" on the list of 10, and its theirs. Wide open despite the fact I had WPA on for them 6 months ago. I became too much to deal with guests etc so they disabled. Pull out their bill and they had a usage overcharge through Cogeco and they have a single laptop they look at emails with, but somehow used over 100GB last month.

I hopped on the router and I see 3 IP's connected that aren't ours. Needless to say I wrote them down, kicked them off and blocked them, and re-enabled WPA but I'm more than confident there is going to be a 3-5% error rate on these cases where dumbasses like my parents have a case of "old" and just leave themselves wide open. Its those people I worry about, because they are going to be extorted into a $5K settlement for just being too old.



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

said by GermanVPN :

Wide open despite the fact I had WPA on for them 6 months ago. I became too much to deal with guests etc so they disabled. Pull out their bill and they had a usage overcharge through Cogeco and they have a single laptop they look at emails with, but somehow used over 100GB last month... Its those people I worry about, because they are going to be extorted into a $5K settlement for just being too old.

I'm beginning to wonder if a good defence is to run a wide-open router then, if the extortion letters/lawsuits arrive, demand that they prove in court that the pirate was really you.

Suppose you have an open router. There are a couple of ways to control who can actually can use it, (a) MAC address filtering to allow only PCs that you recognize or (b) regular monitoring for unauthorized leechers, then block by MAC addresses before they eat up your bandwidth usage. (I understand that some modern routers provide open access to "guests" where you can regulate how much speed/bandwidth they get. True?) In those sorts of scenarios how would the extortionists be able to make their case?

(Recall that in the Robocalls investigate the authorities found instances that "Pierre Poutine" used an open router to do his dirty deeds. The authorities, at least so far as we know, ran into problems with identifying Pierre from that router but, more relevant to this thread, didn't charge the owner of the open router.)


elitefx

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

2 edits
reply to GermanVPN

said by GermanVPN :

Its those people I worry about, because they are going to be extorted into a $5K settlement for just being too old.

Ya know, I'm really starting to wonder about the validity of this whole copyright infringement/distribution thing.

Imho the only party that has a reasonable chance of being convicted for copyright infringement is the party that put up the original torrent. In this case it was Voltage themselves.

Even in kiddie porn cases, to get a conviction, the police need to seize the hard drives with the offending material on them. Just having an IP isn't enough. The court still requires hard material evidence and proof of possession for distribution purposes.

They need to physically link the offending material to a specific person while that specific person is in the act of distributing it.

You can't tell a judge we're "95% sure it was him".....and "no, we don't actually have the physical evidence"

I mean, even if the burden of proof is lower in civil court you'd need to walk into court with more than your own paperwork in your hands to get a judgement of $5000 against somebody.


noemails

@bell.ca
reply to graniterock

2300 hunderexd court cases...voltage doesnt have that kinds of money,.tack on airfare and hotels....teksavvy should play for 2300 registered letters to voltage and see who signs for them and wait to see what happens.....when you send the registered mail addresss it from the ip address