dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to Ree

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

said by Ree:

And again, that's what my question is. Does it matter whether I share 1/1000 or 500/1000 or 999/1000 or 1000/1000 pieces? Any way you slice it I'm sharing something I don't own the rights to so I don't see what the difference is.

said by »laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts···html#h-4 :
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right
(a) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work,
(b) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work,
(c) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise,
(d) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,
(e) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work,
(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication,
(g) to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan,
(h) in the case of a computer program that can be reproduced in the ordinary course of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer program,
(i) in the case of a musical work, to rent out a sound recording in which the work is embodied, and
(j) in the case of a work that is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the copyright owner,
A single block is not substantial on its own in any way. In fact, with the way the Act is worded, that tiny non-substantial piece - remember, the Act requires a substantial part to be made available - in of itself isn't even a violation of the Copyright Act. Knowing this, a single unsubstantial block not only is of itself not an infringement of copyright, but also does not prove that copyright in of the entire work was made available for infringement by any specific user who may be named in a claim.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
said by Gone:

A single block is not substantial on its own in any way. In fact, with the way the Act is worded, that tiny non-substantial piece - remember, the Act requires a substantial part to be made available - in of itself isn't even a violation of the Copyright Act. Knowing this, a single unsubstantial block not only is of itself not an infringement of copyright, but also does not prove that copyright in of the entire work was made available for infringement by any specific user who may be named in a claim.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

So my next question is whether "substantial" has been defined (elsewhere in the act, in previous court cases, or whatever). It seems like the same thing I mentioned above could apply, but instead of sharing n-1 blocks, you share substantial-1. Not that I'm advocating this, just pointing out that it's a pretty big loophole.

And another question. If I make all 1000/1000 blocks available, but nobody ever downloads them, is that still a copyright violation? The reason I ask is because if Voltage (or whoever) only downloaded one block to prove what I was sharing was really their copyrighted material, and that's not substantial enough for a copyright violation conviction, is it enough to ask the courts to identify me so they can investigate further (seize my PC to check if I had the whole file, or just the 1 block)?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
The issue is that unless they obtain all 1000 blocks from you specifically and reassemble them into a working form, they have no way to verify that all 1000 blocks you made available in the swarm are actually a working version material they're claiming you infringed upon. Merely listing 1000 blocks available does not in itself constitute infringement as there's no way to verify the information was actually what you said it is. Without 1000 correct blocks of that infringed-upon material, you don't have a working copy of the file, and therefore aren't infringing on anything.

They can make whatever claim they want, there is still no way for them to prove that all 2000 of the IPs actually served up anything useful unless they downloaded a complete movie from each and every individual 2000s IPs at one specific point in time.

Now, hypothetically, even if they did do exactly that, then you get into the whole issue of being unable to prove that the person named in the suit was the one who actually made the material available for infringement.

This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.


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

Said by Gone See Profile
This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.

More like threat of lawsuits as by now we're aware these are extortion attempts. And if Prenda Law is any indication it could get even stickier down the road, they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

Said by Techdirt
So we move on to the next trick, which is that Guava / Prenda then sued all of the same people in ten different federal district courts. Yes, they basically filed identical lawsuits in ten different courts, all asking for discovery on the same exact list of 34 IP addresses.
---
The attempt to sneak through discovery without even naming the IP addresses as defendants failed in Cook County, so just file repeat federal lawsuits everywhere they can think of, perhaps hoping / figuring that at least one of the judges would agree to discovery, leading to the identities associated with those 34 IP addresses being passed over.

The article goes on to list several types of "tricks" they're employing. Its something of a bother. We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.
--
----|- Crazed Techie Crossing -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by TwiztedZero:

they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

...

We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.

The "layout" and procedural rules of our court system is different, so employing this kind of tactic would be impossible in Canada.

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

The issue is that unless they obtain all 1000 blocks from you specifically and reassemble them into a working form, they have no way to verify that all 1000 blocks you made available in the swarm are actually a working version material they're claiming you infringed upon. Merely listing 1000 blocks available does not in itself constitute infringement as there's no way to verify the information was actually what you said it is. Without 1000 correct blocks of that infringed-upon material, you don't have a working copy of the file, and therefore aren't infringing on anything.

That's true, it's entirely possible someone may be sharing 1 good piece and 999 junk pieces. So at what point do they have enough pieces to say "ok court, we think they're infringing, we'd like their name so we can check out their PC to see if they had the complete infringing file or not".

Or can they only gain access to the PC as evidence after a lawsuit is actually filed (which as others have pointed out, isn't likely to happen since it won't be as profitable as scaring people into settling)?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to TwiztedZero
said by TwiztedZero:

Said by Gone See Profile
This is why these "lawsuits" are so retarded.

More like threat of lawsuits as by now we're aware these are extortion attempts. And if Prenda Law is any indication it could get even stickier down the road, they're using the scattergun approach down in the States now.

Said by Techdirt
So we move on to the next trick, which is that Guava / Prenda then sued all of the same people in ten different federal district courts. Yes, they basically filed identical lawsuits in ten different courts, all asking for discovery on the same exact list of 34 IP addresses.
---
The attempt to sneak through discovery without even naming the IP addresses as defendants failed in Cook County, so just file repeat federal lawsuits everywhere they can think of, perhaps hoping / figuring that at least one of the judges would agree to discovery, leading to the identities associated with those 34 IP addresses being passed over.

The article goes on to list several types of "tricks" they're employing. Its something of a bother. We really don't want to see this sort of thing moving into Canada.

i'd be careful in canada doing that , your lawyer might get disbarred and you countersued....
loads a case law to prevent that and you aren't allowed in canada to basically sue me for the same thing twice let alone ten times at same time....you'd still have to alert the isp whom then could let everyone know and a serious class action for fraud could start on ya making you spend tons a cash you dont have...that is the game of these , use little cash and be a maffia style blackmail artist.

also filing hte cheapest court in cnada requires 120$
so thats 1200 bucks and you arent even in court for that 5 grand yet and then get juries on you asked by the defendant and its not financially smart to even bother...its why a load a lawsuits dont happen unless its fair chunk a money cause the time and effort and money is better spent.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.

funny0

join:2010-12-22

2 edits
said by JMJimmy:

Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.

on this type a suit in canada COULD have a mass lawsuit BUT Must apply to make it so....and thats up to the judge and i cold find no such case law or examples of copyright joinder for mass lawsuits like this cause no one has tried i suppose?....so
its not the usa

ontario quebec and bc have the most types a class actions and this is not listed ....enjoy....

that's if it were small clams ---120 just to file and if judge awards you and your lawyers costing you per day about 3 grand
you show up and ill ask you what if all 2300 want to be hear din court , law states they have the right
2300 half days
1150 days ?
at 3240 per day to get 100-5000 back that's awful risky business on non commerical and when this was files as commercial and it isn't and cant be proven....the joinder issue is moot.

btw its the provincial courts that do class action lawsuits perhaps someone needs to teach a lawyer WHERE TO FILE.They have filed for federal courts.One might argue that by doing so they cant mass sue people.BUT then they might at least be heard about there commerical aims bit which should still fail .

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Canada

OH BUT in may we had a decision that raises the bar on cases of class action and if you look down a bit to this section you will see the following which may apply to this type a case

The claim failed to specify which of the four corporate defendants had committed which impugned acts. Instead it improperly conflated them all as one entity, such that no defendant had sufficient information to know the acts alleged against it.

- does the ip address specifiy for sure it was a specific person?

THEY also to get class action status according to this ruling need to show evidence that these ips did the same thing....

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that "two or more" persons asserted the common claim. The Court cited an absence of evidence that others who had taken the drug were interested in pursuit of the claim. In any case, the class was defined too broadly in that it was not limited to any time period.

my example here would be if IP A downloaded 20% of file 1 , that is nto same as IP B downloading 30% of file 3 and so on...

also all i see is provinces that allow for class actions NOT federal courts...they filed in federal court for this information on mass to sue on mass .....i see no federal judge ever certifying them....and whatever province does do it usually would then make them all in one place....that might also fall under cruel and unusal punishment charter violation to do if a disabled ontario person cant afford to travel to defend themselves ....and thus is penalized more harshly then otherwise would happen..if at all saying they might even be innocent.


DSF2

@teksavvy.com
Just curious for those affected, did voltage target a specific torrent site/tracker ?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Depends on joinder. If joinder is permitted it's 100-5,000 x number of joined defendants for the $1,200 investment. If joinder is not permitted then it's $120 x number of defendants x number of times filed for $100-5000 per defendant.

However, in Canada it doesn't work the same way as the US. Our courts system is much smaller and isn't as easily abused.

i bet the rules on that would also allow all 2300 and there lawyers to have a say as most class action lawsuits have taken years i doubt that once that happens and everyone poor gets legal aid
voltage will drop it cause htey know it will drag on for a long time.

personally you have a right to hear the charges against you...
in most class actions that are the other way around the mass of people get ONE lawyer and speak for them against ONE defendant usually some big evil mean corporation.... imagine if tomorrow there was a class action versus 2300 corporations they stuff there lawyers into court and make it take 50 years....you get the hint mister voltage....

people need get tactical and go HEY YEA if they want a mass lawsuit then lets all gets lawyers and show up NOT ONE for all, but each get one lawyer ergo 2300 lawyers and make this last ten years and cost voltage millions in court fees and the legal aid system millions of tax payers dollars and i'll bet the law gets changed right darn fast cause tax payers dont want to be screwed Voltage woud go bankrupt....JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO SCO UNIX.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to DSF2
said by DSF2 :

Just curious for those affected, did voltage target a specific torrent site/tracker ?

no evidence of voltages has been presented other then a list of ips they claim with a 3rd party to have gathered....