TekSavvy → Voltage vs. John Doe Jane Doe - June 25th Hearing - Audio

Here is the audio hearing from June 25th.

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

Here is a summary log that we created to help navigate:

Voltage Pictures LLC v. John Doe, Court File No. T-2058-12
Unofficial Log of Recording of Hearing: June 25, 2013

Time
3:55 - Introduction and Administrative Matters
8:30 - Voltage Submissions Begin
1:07:40 - Morning break
1:08:18 - CIPPIC Submissions Begin
2:02:25 - Voltage Responding Submissions Begin
2:26:50 - CIPPIC Reply Submissions Begin
2:34:45 - Voltage Reply Submissions Begin
2:39:00 - TekSavvy Submissions Begin
2:41:19 - Lunch break
2:42:02 - TekSavvy Submissions Continue
3:20:33 - Voltage Final Submissions Begin
3:45:30 - Final remarks of the Court
3:46:28 - Court rises

Loverly, now I just need a transcriber. . . cause audio is like . . . oh right *silence*

Big job, I know. But oh well. I don't expect anyone will textify all the audio's.

Works for me...

oh wait... yeah sorry Twizted... not for you huh

Works for you, you have ears that actually work. Mine no service since the day I landed on Earth.

sorry.. that's all we have. no transcript was provided.

You could try running it through YouTube's auto-closed-caption software. Then you can read all about the vault edge pick chairs loss hoot against cho and gene dough :P

How exactly can I download that to listen to the few minutes before I showed up? The streaming keeps cutting out.

Try this:

http://offliberty.com/#https://soundcloud.com/teksavvy-solutions-inc
 

Note: didn't listen to the resulting file myself, but it does seem to download the MP3.

Awesome ty! Downloading now without problems. :)

EDIT: Or not.... Packetloss @ TORIX is causing the download to die. :\

Voltage's lawyer (Zibaris?) stu-stu-stutters a lot in parts

then he'll go minutes without doing it

it-it-it-it-it's like a poker tell

the stutter gets almost comical around the 1hr 2mins mark

after he accidentally says 'we've got an evil - EVEN! - playing field'

edit: not trying to make fun of him btw, it's just without anything visual it's easier to focus on when he's unsure of himself

dude should try to take a breath and pause instead of going into repeating word loops

I was just listening to the whole thing again. Looks like the upload didn't catch the tail end.. There is roughly 1 hour missing at the end. We will fix it as soon as possible.

It is too bad the last bit was missing. From the tweets I was reading for the rest of it, Teksavvy really went to bat for the subscribers.

There are a few questions I wanted to throw out though. It seems the software that Canipre uses is about uploads? Wasn't Voltage misleading about how their software works? How can you claim file size is an accurate indicator that it is a movie, while only downloading a tiny packet from the uploader? What about mis titled files? Voltage is acknowledging non commercial infringement? (because they brought up the $5000 cap) Judge also leaned towards non commercial right? (friday night movie with friends)

I am glad Teksavvy brought up the difference between the infringer and the subscriber. Particularly in the average 4 person household. Can someone clarify the ramifications of this? Particularly who gets targeted if Voltage gets to send out ransom letters? I am assuming you cannot just use the IP, there has to be a name. However threatening the parent with litigation when the child was the one downloading...isn't that a problem for Voltage?

The last part will be added. We received the audio late Friday.. Looks like it got cutoff somehow when the technical bits were being handled. As soon as its added, I'll post.

I highly recommend that you listen to the entire thing. The judge zeroes in very quickly on the issues he is bound by and is quick to point out when anybody is too far off track. He had a tight grip on the issues and challenged all arguments at every step. It is simply not possible to avoid the hard reality of this whole thing once you've listened to it all. All the materials referenced are posted on our site as well. You have everything you need to see exactly what was discussed.

Thanks for making this available Marc. I'll definitely be listening to it once the complete copy is made available. I don't want a cliffhanger ending waiting for Part II...lol

yeah, got the corrected version late last night. should have it up sometime today. I'm also trying to see about a transcript.

ok, it's up there now.. you'll notice that it goes to 3:46:57 now..

Thanks Marc - very interested in listening to it.

Canipre doesn't have monitoring software of their own, they use Guardaley's software. The same software that has known bugs that make its results inaccurate.

Canipre's own CEO isn't even sure how it works based on his remarks in the cross examination of his affidavit. Since the motion is entirely based on the evidence gathered by Guardaley's software, I think the judge should require a Guardaley representative to testify and explain how the software works.

When CIPPIC's lawyer asked Canipre's CEO if the software captures and reports IP addresses as infringing copyright even if they don't download the entire file, Canipre's CEO couldn't provide a definitive answer. This is unacceptable.

The plaintiff is required to provide the details not the software company, however, the plaintiff can submit an affidavit from GuardaLey if they don't understand the software fully (the CEO of that company has done so in other cases in the US).

The bugs you ascribe to the software were detected in version 1.2 (a 2009 version) and the 1.42 (a 2012 version) has not been tested so they may or may not be present (likely are).

As to the downloading of the entire file, he didn't answer in cross but it was in his original affidavit - the program compares an [undisclosed] number of info hashes against a single file.

Again, in 1.2 50% of the file is a falsified bit field and they continue to operate their legit honeypot 50%. What's not clear from any reports/affidavits is whether the info hashes compared are part of the honeypot or exclude the honeypot. It's also not clear how Canipre verifies/obtains the first file or at what point the bit field is falsified. They are known to have staff operating in some release groups which could mean they're also the ones providing the original file... it could also mean they are helping to infringe on others copyrights to further their speculative invoicing scheme.

Canipre's CEO was asked if Guardaley can distinguish between an IP address that has downloaded 100% of the copyrighted file and an IP address that has only downloaded a small part of the file and the CEO was not able to provide an answer.

We all know that if Voltage Pictures obtains the identities of the people accused of copyright infringement they will begin harassing them with letters demanding thousands of dollars in return for not pursuing a lawsuit against them.

The responsible thing to do would be to ensure that Guardaley's monitoring software is accurate and has the ability to verify that the IP addresses in question have actually downloaded the entire file instead of spitting out reports immediately after a small chunk of the file has been downloaded.

As for honeypots, I think they provide this service. But what I found more interesting is that Canipre's CEO stated that his company pays fees in order to access private FTP's that host copyrighted files. Right after he made this statement, his attorney told him to stop talking.

Hi does anyone know when a decision will be made?

Judge siad it wouldn't be the week of the hearing, or the following week as he'd be on vacation, but 'soon'. So probably sometime in the next 2-3 weeks.