dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

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?


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?


JohnDohnut

@teksavvy.com
said by hm :

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,

Voltage has replied ?
Where, when ?

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

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to JohnDohnut
said by JohnDohnut :

said by hm :

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,

Voltage has replied ?
Where, when ?

Voltage objected to CIPPIC's intervention. CIPPIC responded to the objection.

»www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation

Newer stuff at the top, older stuff at the bottom.

Voltage's response is 1 of 2 and 1 of 2
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Gorgonzola

@videotron.ca
So any news this week?

I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution".

TSI was order to send the notice out upon receipt of the Voltage draft.

So.. um.. have these voltage vultures given TSI a draft yet? Anyone know?

Has the new Email gone out yet?

Marc, any news on anything?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
I posted an update in the TSI thread, but I'll repost here:

On Monday, the case was released to have CIPPIC's motion to intervene decided. No clue as to time frame.

Yesterday Judge Mandamin (the judge who recommended a 1 day special hearing for hearing the evidence), wrapped up a major case - most likely the major case he stated he thought would get in the way of him being able to take over the Voltage case.

Its very possible that now that Judge Mandamin's case is resolved, he will take over the Voltage case.

I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Gorgonzola

@videotron.ca
said by resa1983:

I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue.

If there's no Email by tomorrow then CIPPIC is going to have call bullshit on voltage. As well as TSI's lawyers.

3 weeks is more than enough.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
Plus theres this : Distributel is now FIGHTING the court order to disclose their customer information!

So I guess theres more action afoot - On other fronts.

bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON
And south of the border...

"IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model.""

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml


hm

@videotron.ca
said by bullwinkle:

And south of the border...

"IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model.""

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml

That's quite a nice analogy the judge makes.

This snapshot allegedly shows that the Defendants were downloading the copyrighted work—at least at that moment in time. But downloading a large file like a video takes time; and depending on a user’s Internet-connection speed, it may take a long time. In fact, it may take so long that the user may have terminated the download. The user may have also terminated the download for other reasons. To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence... ....


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gorgonzola
said by Gorgonzola :

So any news this week?

I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution".



Marc, I believe this now makes it one month.

Any news at all?

Get the draft yet to send to people?


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Still no draft.


hm

@videotron.ca
:/

Ty For the reply Marc..

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Still no draft.

Not surprising. We all know they don't want people to stop sharing, cuz it means they might be able to sue more people.

That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP