dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
28

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook to ByteMaster

MVM

to ByteMaster

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by ByteMaster:

Do you know why the police (here) has to either pull you over, or have a photo showing your face, when you do something in your car you're not supposed to? License plate holder is not always equal to person driving.

That principle doesn't hold with red light cameras and photo radar in provinces where those devices are in use. The owner of the car is held legally responsible and has to pay the fine, regardless of who was actually driving the vehicle. These provisions have been enacted in provincial legislation and, at least in Ontario, if you don't pay the fines, even if you didn't drive the vehicle, your license to drive won't be renewed.

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?

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

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

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

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 Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

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

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

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?
ByteMaster
join:2012-12-22
Halifax, NS

ByteMaster

Member

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
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

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

1 recommendation

elitefx to ByteMaster

Member

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 Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

1 edit

Tx

Premium Member

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
kovy7
join:2009-03-26

kovy7 to nanook

Member

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

elitefx to Tx

Member

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 Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

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

Tong to nanook

Member

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
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook to kovy7

MVM

to kovy7
said by kovy7:

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 Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

A Lurker to nanook

Premium Member

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

elitefx to Tong

Member

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.
kovy7
join:2009-03-26

kovy7 to nanook

Member

to nanook
said by nanook:

said by kovy7:

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 Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx to elitefx

Premium Member

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

1 recommendation

elitefx

Member

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 Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx

Premium Member

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.

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook to A Lurker

MVM

to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

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.

You're way overcomplicating the analogy. There's no need to spoof anything.

Joe owns a car. His wife Sally (or his son John or their neighour Boris or anyone else who borrows the car with Joe's permission...) drives it through a red light. A red light camera captures this, reads the plate number and sends a fine to Joe. Joe is responsible for paying the fine. The system doesn't car if Joe was actually driving the car.

Joe owns an Internet account. His wife Sally (or his son John or their neighour Boris or anyone else who uses Joe's Internet account with Joe's permission...) fileshares something that Voltage considers to be piracy. A Voltage program captures his IP addres, gets a court to make his ISP provide Joe's address and and sends a fine to Joe. Today Joe can argue that it wasn't him. But suppose legislation gets enacted that analogous to the red light camera. Then Joe is responsible for paying the fine. The system doesn't car if Joe was actually using his Internet connection to fileshare Voltage's material.

Again, today the onus is on Voltage to prove that it was Joe who actually infringed on their copyright. If the copyright legislation changes to be similar to red light camera or photo radar legislation then that onus will disappear. Joe will be responsible for the allegedly illegal actions of someone else.
Tong
join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

Tong

Member

One more thing compare this car VS IP thing.

If someone spoof your IP or your ISP miss assign or log your IP address to someone else, you have no ways to knowing that.

If someone stolen your car, most likely you will know that right away and report to authority, then you will be off the hook.

Unless ISP or Router providers find a way to detect someone is spoofing your IP address, ISP can log your IP address 99.99% correct, I doubt some law will pass base on that.

In addition, red light camera is a civil matter, which is the same as non-commercial infringement, that's why there is a reasonable fine, I won't take my family member over a $200 fine. If someone in the house take my car and start selling drug in it, then you bet I will take them to court.

I think high voltage is seeking commercial infringement I believe commercial infringement/counterfeiter is an criminal matter which you can go to jail for. if you they are seeking that, then they need to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. Either way, good luck with them.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

2 edits

elitefx

Member

After reading this article from a link posted above:

»www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/we ··· dex.html

There was this tidbit of info:

"In the data surrounding the threatening traffic, they found traffic containing "the perpetrator's" name and "ISP" account.

IMHO the IP spoofing/wifi theft excuses won't work.

About 5 years ago it was reported in the media that Microsoft developed and provided proprietary software to law enforcement across North America that tracks down cyber criminals/illegal traffic to a specific computer terminal beyond a shadow of doubt.

If Voltage has aquired a copy of this software or has developed their own then this would be a game changer.

You would literally need to prove it wasn't you at your computer at the time of the alleged offense. You would also have to testify as to who was using your computer, in your dwelling, to download the offending material. You would literally be convicting a loved one or friend to get yourself off the hook.

The above scenario is speculation BUT the Microsoft proprietary software exists and is in use today.

GermanVPN
@leaseweb.com

GermanVPN

Anon

Uh, we know how they acquired these IP's, and it wasn't sophisticated. Voltage isn't law enforcement, Microsoft isn't going to just give them software so they can become more profitable which is why its was collected the way it was.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

3 edits

elitefx

Member

said by GermanVPN :

Voltage isn't law enforcement, Microsoft isn't going to just give them software so they can become more profitable......

Actually, from what I've read, nobody has any specific information how Voltage retrieved the original illegal download info, just that they have it and are requesting IP verification data.

My post is merely a statement of publicly stated information and a possible scenario.

Acquire=by any means necessary..........

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

Tx

Premium Member

said by elitefx:

said by GermanVPN :

Voltage isn't law enforcement, Microsoft isn't going to just give them software so they can become more profitable......

Actually, from what I've read, nobody has any specific information how Voltage retrieved the original illegal download info, just that they have it and are requesting IP verification data.

My post is merely a statement of publicly stated information and a possible scenario.

Acquire=by any means necessary..........

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.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

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.

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

said by elitefx:

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.

Just a dumb question:

Why on earth would Voltage need to set up a torrent and resort to entrapment in order to capture the IP addresses of computers that are sharing their files? All they have to do is join existing swarms of their movies, as seeded by others, then record the IP addresses of all the connected computers. Virtually all BT clients provide this information.

What am I missing?

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

Tx to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
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