dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
13
bgw
join:2008-06-28
North York, ON

bgw to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy

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

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

1 edit

camelot

Member

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

JMJimmy to bgw

Member

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.