dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31059
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by MaynardKrebs:

No way that Voltage can now use the "Time is of the essence" card.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to show here. It's pure BS. Shows they ren't in it to protect their works. They are in this court case for a payola scheme only. Nothing more and nothing else.

Hope CIPPIC caught this one and tosses it in someones face. Especially the judge.

d_source

join:2011-01-18

Also, was it not Voltage or Canpire who was originally seeding the files? Have they sent a cease and desist letters to themselves as well?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Click for full size
downloadVoltage-Reply.pdf 787,077 bytes
I've been sitting on this for a few days because I figured I'd give CIPPIC a chance to do a writeup on their site (TSI IRC folks have seen it though), but they've been really busy with the Shaw/Rogers deal, and dunno if they have the time right now.

This is CIPPIC's response to Voltage's objection to their intervention. Also touches on 'privacy' following BMG.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to d_source

said by d_source:

Also, was it not Voltage or Canpire who was originally seeding the files? Have they sent a cease and desist letters to themselves as well?

Doesn't matter. The government of Antigua got WTO go ahead to ignore American copyright and they're going to launch a warez site.

See: »torrentfreak.com/antiguas-legal-···-130128/

(also see: »www.antigua.gov.ag/article_detai···egory=38)

I Email that government a few days ago at:
foreignaffairs-AT-ab.gov.ag
Outlining what has been going on with the copyright extortion in both American and Canada (with relevant links) and asked that they put every single film created by Voltage online. Told them they would then forever become internet hero's in both countries (and the world for that matter) and go down in the annals of internet history and folklore.

I got a reply back a couple of days ago thanking me for my support and if they go ahead as planned they will indeed consider this because it would create: (quote) "tremendous lulz while pursuing this great injustice by the United States of America" (end guote).

Voltage will maybe have to sue the world as a next step in their extortion racket.

*shrug*

Everyone should Email them as a show of support and solidarity.

Plus it's fun to see a little tiny country kick ass like that.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

The CIPPIC pdf is pretty much uneventful. But it is what it is.

Any other news on this?

Been a couple of weeks since the judge told voltage to give Teksavvy a new draft to send to the identified IP's.

Has teksavvy received this draft yet? Anyone have a copy to post (scrub the meta-data pls).

Any other news at all?

When do they all meet again?

Is there another court date?

What's next?

Did Voltage skip town w/o paying? If so, can teksavvy go to court and make a move to seize any Voltage assets in Canada to recoup costs? Would and should Teksavvy do this if Voltage did skip town to avoid paying?



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

Late yesterday Judge released reasons for adjournment..

we just posted them on our site:

»www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Marc, any word on Voltage's C&D letter that they were supposed to draft & get out right away? (lawlz)

The longer they delay the C&D letter, it just proves more & more that this isn't actually about their copyright, but that litigating p2pers is their only cash stream.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



Dr Facts

@gc.ca

said by resa1983:

The longer they delay the C&D letter, it just proves more & more that this isn't actually about their copyright, but that litigating p2pers is their only cash stream.

Yeah, we all know it's BS but you'd think Voltage would be keen to maintain the fiction that their business is being harmed by torrenting rather than their ability to make movies people would want to see.

I'm starting to wonder if they read the tealeaves and realized that the judge is going to make them work harder for the names and numbers? In this latest from the judge he also seems to have serious doubts about IP address's meaning people rather than devices. In other cases that's been a death blow to the trolls.

Is there any time limit on Voltage to make their next move or can they keep this going indefinitely?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

The only problem is that Voltage knows that this judge might not take up the case - he said quite clearly he didn't think he'd have the time for it, with him having another major case.

If the other case resolves itself, he'd probably pick it up, and do a great job actually listening to the issues, and understanding the intricacies.

If the other case doesn't, he'd be passing it on to a round robin type deal - any judge can pick it up.

I'm thinking this is what Voltage might be waiting on. Finding out whether Judge Mandamin will pick it up, which would mean Voltage loses their 'easy' win. If they choose to fight still, it'd be harder. No ISP has ever fought this far before - 2 ISPs in the US are just doing this now, but it looks like we're a little ahead of them.

Off hand, I love how Mr. McHaffie (Teksavvy's lawyer) told reporters how to remember how to spell the Judge's name: Mandarin, but change the r to an m.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



Dr Facts

@gc.ca

said by resa1983:

The only problem is that Voltage knows that this judge might not take up the case

Will another judge come to another conclusion? And if they do get a new judge wouldn't that one take his recommendations about there needing to be two sides under consideration? That seems a pretty valid point when coupled with it being new legislation.

But Voltage not rushing out the C&D is just weird.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

Click for full size
Capture 1. Intervention
Click for full size
Capture 2. New notification
ty for the reply and link.

In the Judges reply/ruling these two things, I guess, would be what I am asking (refer to the two screen captures).

Capture 1:
So now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied, is there supposed to be a date issued now where the Judge will decide to allow or disallow the intervention by CIPPIC? If so, any info on when the Judge will sit down to decide this?

What goes on now? When?

Capture 2:
This shows what the Judge stated about the new Email/notice that is supposed to go out because Voltage complained that it was of the utmost importance that these people cease the p2p activity associated with their works, which they claimed these people haven't done.

Has this very important draft been done yet? Given out to the people associated with the IP's yet? Any copy that can be posted?

Or have they not bothered with this very important undertaking that they complained about?


JohnDohnut

@beanfield.net

Voltage have not bothered to send a "STOP SHARING" message yet, no. Which is very strange, because it is a simple thing to do and it clearly hurts them not doing it.


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by JohnDohnut :

Voltage have not bothered to send a "STOP SHARING" message yet, no. Which is very strange, because it is a simple thing to do and it clearly hurts them not doing it.

Voltage could have had their lawyers draft in under 2 hours. Any law firm which doesn't have template letters on file is just plain pathetic, or extremely disorganized and not worth working with.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


JohnDohnut

@beanfield.net

Indeed. I'm hoping this is an indication that they have given up on the whole thing.



Fresh Meat

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

The vulture's lawyers could be playing a game here as well...



JohnDohnut

@beanfield.net

said by Fresh Meat :

The vulture's lawyers could be playing a game here as well...

I can't see any way that stalling the draft would benefit them.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Fresh Meat

said by Fresh Meat :

The vulture's lawyers could be playing a game here as well...

I think the only game they could play is a
"We gave them our draft and they haven't sent it out yet."
for TSI to respond via a filing/in a hearing:
"You gave it to us 10 minutes ago."

Which still looks shitty on Voltage.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Fresh Meat

@videotron.ca
reply to JohnDohnut

said by JohnDohnut :

said by Fresh Meat :

The vulture's lawyers could be playing a game here as well...

I can't see any way that stalling the draft would benefit them.

Well if they play a game about how they couldn't get around to it for whatever reason till a month after the fact, they can claim another month of so-called damage. In addition to this they can try and show how these people just continue distributing it. Also, they can try and show how these particular IP's for the works in question are not the typical snag-and-disappear type.

I do believe I recall reading on the shill website (IP enforcement or whatever it was called) that they were particularly interested in a certain group of file-sharer. Those that keep certain works up and on-going for months.

Keep in mind this court filing isn't just the average grab-and-go file sharing by the average person going by the wording of it, but rather commercial distribution.

So it could very well be in their best interest to drag the draft on as long as possible to show this.

IP's collected in September for distributing certain works and still being distributed by the same IP in Feb of the following year kinda looks bad for whoever that IP belongs to. Don't you agree?

Just saying...

So yeah, I can see some benefit even if the judge does end up chewing them a new asshole for dragging it on and not doing anything.

And yeah, of course it goes to show it wasn't so urgent as they told the judge.

2 sides to every coin I guess.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by Fresh Meat :

I do believe I recall reading on the shill website (IP enforcement or whatever it was called) that they were particularly interested in a certain group of file-sharer. Those that keep certain works up and on-going for months.

That would be crappy, because I'm sure there quite a few dynamic IP addresses in there.. It would be very possible for a sharer to hit on another sharer's old IP address, and make it look like the first person was still sharing the file. If they present a new list like that, Teksavvy would have to the work again to be able to refute what Voltage says. More costs...
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Fresh Meat

@videotron.ca

Yeah i'm sure there are lots of dynamic IP users there. But, static IP's are big with teksavvys customers it would appear. At least it used to be, and they fought for this at the CRTC and people pay extra for it.

And since we really don't know all the details, who is to say that they haven't been selecting or observing certain IP's for 3 months (prior) before they gave their current list to TSI?

I know if I was the vulture I would make a list of 5000 IP's on day one. 30-days later I would make another list of 5000 IP's. and another 30 days after another list of 5000 IP's. I would then cut it down to repeating IP's since after 90 days we could more or less consider the IP's static (even after a couple of weeks the odds are good).

But yeah, I'm sure there were lots of dynamic one in there.

What is happening is one of the dangers of having a static IP. Thus the reason why I stated when this first hit the fan that I would ask for a new static ip (on privacy grounds), or drop the service of paying for a static IP then renew it a month later to get a different one.

I think everyone who takes newsgroups or voip is static. Plus those who just want a static and pay extra. And I do believe mlppp uses static (not sure) but it used to be part of the package.

Would love to get my hands on the IP's to check them all out. I would also pass them all through proxycap (or similar) to check for any opens.



Fresh Meat

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

The more I think about it the more I think the 1000 IP's that were dropped from the "lawlsuit" were the dynamic IP's. The balance are either cable or static. with some dynamic maybe.

Which reminds me (I have dynamic), I haven't reset my modem the past 2 months and make another fake MAC to get a diff IP. I will do this within a week. I tend to do this every few months (as mods with IP access will know). Otherwise videotron will keep you on the same IP for almost a year.

That is not good, privacy wise. And people should know this.

That leaves a big hole no matter what log retentions are, even if log retention was 1 day. You have voip or other with the likes of teksavvy and it's a privacy problem with these type trolling lawsuits since they give you a static. I do believe it's part of the E-911 solution with TSI, which makes sense on one hand and a problem on the other hand. Marc would have to detail the specifics of this.

But a static = problem.

From a privacy standpoint, the only way I can see around this would be if Teksavvy could somehow separate voip from net and tunnel only net via a proxy to give a diff IP, while voip gives true IP.

Anyone on the same page following me? Or am I wrong?

Years ago there was a Montreal company who did this, their current name is/was Radial Point (Bell bought them). Prior to that they had a diff name and I don't recall it. U.S. FBI and CIA came down on them. Was on the front page of the Montreal gazette at the time. Late 90's. Since they couldn't trace people.

But that is the only way to prevent this. Similar to Acanac's online PC, but this went though like 12 PC's with diff IP's.

In other-words, proxy-chaining, which is better than the regular vpn.

Today, people could buy this type of service, or create their own like I do with hacked PC's as I detailed in the teksavvy forum. But a bought service like this.. hmm... I only know of one.. JonDo, »anonymous-proxy-servers.net/

The free service will chain you through 2 proxy's. The paid service through a few all in different jurisdictions. Thus diff priv laws and retention laws depending on the country of the chain in your proxy.

anyhow.... I'm sure with the group of people in this forum only a handful are following.

But if TSI would come out with this type of service, or even become a service operator for the likes of JonDo (and they could since they sit on BW and IP's), I would buy them.

Privacy sells.

Anyhow....

Marc, out of the 1000 IP's, how many of those are static?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by rednekcowboy:

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

said by rednekcowboy:

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100.

So roughly a 10% margin of error, or am I over-simplifying it?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Think its oversimplifying the numbers, yes, as they'd already begun work on the 4k, when the new list came in.

As well, they had to do the entire 2200 list.

So, 5% ish.

Keep in mind this was also done in a hurry so that they could get notices out, and that since then they've gone through the list twice again to make sure they got it correct.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

Yeah. I agree with that.


hm

@videotron.ca

So back to the question posed further up...

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied, is there supposed to be a date issued now where the Judge will decide to allow or disallow the intervention by CIPPIC? If so, any info on when the Judge will sit down to decide this?

What goes on now? When?

Any info at all?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

I don't think anyone knows right now.

I *think* any judge at this point can pick up & make the decision on CIPPIC's intervention, and I think that's what we're waiting on now.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



JohnDohnut

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm

said by hm :

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,

Voltage has replied ?
Where, when ?