dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6003
share rss forum feed

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
reply to d4m1r

Re: Proud of TSI for it's actions in Jan 14th hearing

not sure about this Damir ....


geokilla

join:2010-10-04
North York, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to drjp81

said by drjp81:

said by MoreFaxes:

Why celebrating? I don't see it.

1. The lawsuit is not terminated. It is simply postponed.
2. TSI's log is inaccurate and incomplete, by their own admission. Any TSI customer can potentially be wrongfully accused. Weren't there 40 mistaken ID from the last count? So anyone is at risk, including the law abiding netizens that never ever used a P2P.

So why are we still celebrating again?

Because we made progress towards real justice. Which is what anyone wants.

Real justice? Take a look at the verdict for the Nortel case. My auditing professor is going to be furious, along with many others.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question.

If some log files are missing or corrupt to an extent that their content cannot be trusted or reliably interpreted, you simply chuck them out and that does not affect the integrity of remaining good files.

The holes this may create in individual sessions' histories where the start/end of a given session may get lost or becomes uncertain are likely responsible for a large chunk of the 50% that got flagged as unresolved for other reasons than logs simply having expired.

If TSI's process is to piece together the history of each session from start to end, dropping any IPs where that history is incomplete, the likelihood of mistakes should be practically zero. That would both explain why TSI's alleged cost per IP is so high and why so many IPs were flagged unresolved.


rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to GeekJedi

I never said I shared the file :P


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to InvalidError

said by InvalidError:

said by JMJimmy:

Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question.

If some log files are missing or corrupt to an extent that their content cannot be trusted or reliably interpreted, you simply chuck them out and that does not affect the integrity of remaining good files.

The holes this may create in individual sessions' histories where the start/end of a given session may get lost or becomes uncertain are likely responsible for a large chunk of the 50% that got flagged as unresolved for other reasons than logs simply having expired.

If TSI's process is to piece together the history of each session from start to end, dropping any IPs where that history is incomplete, the likelihood of mistakes should be practically zero. That would both explain why TSI's alleged cost per IP is so high and why so many IPs were flagged unresolved.

True but if start/end aren't being logged reliably, who's to say the the "good files" don't contain errors as well? It really depends on the specifics of why those 50% were unresolved.

A hypothetical: Log Y... User 1 starts session with X IP log Y isn't terminated properly, User 2 gets X IP and system continues in log Y and log ends properly this time.

I'm not saying that's what happened, I have no clue of the specifics, only TSI does. What the court knows (at this point) is that 50% of the IPs submitted can't be connected to a given account. That casts a lot of doubt on the voracity of Voltage's evidence. We don't know if there was 1 reason or dozens for the unresolved IPs.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
reply to JMJimmy

+ TSI for the GOOD common folks and not copyright TROLLS looking to extort millions.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

True but if start/end aren't being logged reliably, who's to say the the "good files" don't contain errors as well? It really depends on the specifics of why those 50% were unresolved.

A hypothetical: Log Y... User 1 starts session with X IP log Y isn't terminated properly, User 2 gets X IP and system continues in log Y and log ends properly this time.

In general, computers do not make "errors" and when programmer fudge something simple like a log file up, it usually leaves some rather obvious signs such as garbled text, weird text alignments, unexpected new lines, etc. that have a tendency to break scripts or trigger parsing errors/warnings to get the operator's attention.

As for your hypothetical case, the "worst" case is 'A' ends up in the "unresolved" since the session's end time is unknown, which would be perfectly fine. Nothing happens to 'B' due to A's infringement since the ISP already knows for sure that 'B' did not own the IP when 'A' did. (Or nothing happens to 'A' due to 'B''s infringement since the ISP knows 'A' certainly no longer owned the IP by the time 'B' got it.)

Considering the amount of mind-numbing work involved, it is to ISPs' and their subscribers' advantage that the decision threshold to abandon researching individual IPs be as low as good faith can reasonably allow. Any reasonable doubt about the current IP-timestamp and the lease's timeline? Mark as unresolved. Next.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Ya - I'm a developer so I am vary familiar with these sorts of issues.

If the log system references an existing file (as you suggested) it could be appending to it instead of overwriting it in which case it might not be obvious. User A could be the one infringing and User B gets the notice... again this is all hypothetical.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

IF TSI and specifically CIPPIC wins, then I will eat crow. Lots of crow. More crow then any man deserves to eat. And I will do it gladly.

You'll have so many feathers sticking out of your mouth that people will think you're a cat that the struck the mother lode.

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

I'm not celebrating. All we have is a reprieve to a potential troll hell.

IF TSI and specifically CIPPIC wins, then I will eat crow. Lots of crow. More crow then any man deserves to eat. And I will do it gladly.

But not yet....

I wouldn't worry too much about that, basically the structure doesn't dictate that TSI can win.... or lose for that matter... Seeing as it's a motion to the court by voltage, it can only be granted or denied, so I think you're safe!

As for your statement of "all we have is a reprieve", isn't quite true. Yes it was adjourned, but it's with the caveat that the case will take more time than what was first expected. 2ndly it's been shown that Tek has sustained real costs in gathering the data and that they want to be repaid. Asking for payment before release was a VERY smart move. Any judge will see that an out of country party could walk with the info and not be held accountable for paying the associated fees.

What tek did today was essentially take the air out of the tires in a manner that didn't oppose the motion, but made voltage think twice about moving forward.

From what i've learned in civil courts, it's about cost/risk analysis. Is it worth pursuing from a monetary standpoint, as that's what it comes down to in the end.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

said by prairiesky:

From what i've learned in civil courts, it's about cost/risk analysis.

That is not applicable when individuals are involved only companies and even then personal motivations of directors may skew the cost/risk analysis.

That is the scenario Voltage is about to get into when they start to go after people on a case by case basis. Hopefully there is some backbone in those targeted.

quidnunc

join:2011-03-03
Richmond Hill, ON

2 edits
reply to drjp81

ot



AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to JMJimmy

LOL.. I bet there was plenty of scotches pounded by the Voltage team after yesterday's hearing.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


bgw

join:2008-06-28
North York, ON
reply to JMJimmy

Just wondering? And I may be a complete idiot by suggesting this (partly because I'm not following the case closely)...

Could the logs not matching up because Voltage's information isn't reliable? That fact that Voltage's list of infringing IP's is bad shouldn't reflect on TekSavvy's log maintenance but should reflect badly on Voltage's data gathering!


camelot

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable

1 edit

said by bgw:

Could the logs not matching up because Voltage's information isn't reliable? That fact that Voltage's list of infringing IP's is bad shouldn't reflect on TekSavvy's log maintenance but should reflect badly on Voltage's data gathering!

I'm sure that's one of the arguments CIPPIC will put forward...

Voltage tried this strategy a few years ago, and tagged IP's belonging to the Montreal Canadiens.

Quite sad, actually- that your ONLY piece of "evidence" is a dynamic IP address. Very weak.

It seems Voltage's revenue strategy is to put out garbage movies that no one watches, and then sue everyone for allegedly downloading them to recoup your losses.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to bgw

said by bgw:

Just wondering? And I may be a complete idiot by suggesting this (partly because I'm not following the case closely)...

Could the logs not matching up because Voltage's information isn't reliable? That fact that Voltage's list of infringing IP's is bad shouldn't reflect on TekSavvy's log maintenance but should reflect badly on Voltage's data gathering!

We don't know. I wish Marc would comment on this but I doubt he can. It could be a TSI issue, it could be a Voltage issue, it could just be IP info just isn't that accurate.

Re: Montreal Canadians thing... They identified that someone used the network in the arena they use was part of a swarm... that may have been the case. They didn't follow up on it because they'd have to sue the owners of the network who probably had very good lawyers and a lot of money - too hard of a target without a precedent in place.