dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
20329
« Netflix on NexicomWIND all but dead: analyst »
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 ... 11 · 12 · 13 · next

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook to TLS2000

MVM

to TLS2000

Re: Voltage vs Teksavvy decision

said by TLS2000:

There's still nothing to stop the court from ordering the disclosure of the hard drive's contents though.

Other than the attempted use of a "sledge hammer" to try to "swat a fly."
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

2 edits

resa1983 to TLS2000

Premium Member

to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:

Thanks. There's still nothing to stop the court from ordering the disclosure of the hard drive's contents though.

Honestly, it costs too much money for a plaintiff to analyze a single hard drive to make it worth it for non-commercial infringement, and the 5k cap statutory cap. The only reason they put that wording reserving the right to inspect your system is because:
1. It would scare people because who knows what a person is hiding on a drive these days, and push them to settle.
2. Voltage's lawyer was still pushing to go after people for commercial infringement just due to the nature of sharing it with others. The judge nixed that completely.

EDIT:
Best I can tell what happens when drives are handed over in the US, is that a copy is used for analyzing. Defendants give a list of file names of 'personal' files (usually medical), and the list is gone over with by both sets of attorneys, and agree (or not) to exclude those files from being copied onto the spare drive for analyzing.
But its rare.. I've seen it happen in only 1 case so far.. And that person had 3 drives (2 external). I do believe that was in the Bellwether, and the defendant had altered them.

In 1 case, a Defendant hired their own expert, who analyzed & provided a affadavit to the courts that none of the files were found on the system.

Either way, analyzing of hard drives is super rare.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to resa1983

Anon

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Geist's weigh-in this morning is pretty damn awesome.

Dunno. He predicts that the court will not go much above 100$ due to the retail cost of these bargain bin movies (and in some cases gross world wide revenue). I certainly hope he's right. But I have no faith in the courts to see things down to earth like he does.

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook

MVM

said by hmm :

But I have no faith in the courts to see things down to earth like he does.

That's playing into Voltage's paranoia. The judge who handed down the current ruling seemed to appreciate Voltage's real motives (a form of extortion) and set up some rules to thwart that.

It seems to me (and to the experts who've commented in public) that he came up with a reasonable balance. So we already have a court that "sees things down to earth."

Of course Voltage is free to proceed under these terms, hoping that the judge in their first case is less astute and rules in their favour. Presumably they've already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get to where they are now. If they want to go further it's going to cost them a lot more in fees. And even if they win their victory could be Pyrrhic (i.e. a $100 award.)

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
The FUD that is going around is amazing, on a "Linux Distro" site where I get my ISO's they're freaking out about the decision, even though none of them are Canadian, the courts sold out, Teksavvy sold out.. Voltage is going to make a killing.

Oh boy.
RobOutback
join:2011-07-18

RobOutback to Samgee

Member

to Samgee
said by Samgee:

said by TLS2000:

Thanks. There's still nothing to stop the court from ordering the disclosure of the hard drive's contents though.

There is nothing to support it happening either which is kinda the point.

If the court wants to allow a lawsuit, it pretty much has to permit hard drives to be analyzed. Otherwise, it would prevent Voltage from submitting evidence. The court isn't on anyone's side, it just cares about the law.

Handing over the names of people, but not allowing evidence to be collected doesn't make sense. The court already ordered that people aren't allowed to wipe their hard drives, so it clearly intends to allow such evidence.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

The drive failed, it was out of warranty.. sowwy
vincom
join:2009-03-06
Bolton, ON

vincom

Member

said by elwoodblues:

The drive failed, it was out of warranty.. sowwy

my dog ate it

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by vincom:

said by elwoodblues:

The drive failed, it was out of warranty.. sowwy

my dog ate it

Exactly , making people preserve their hard drives is a joke. Mine would have failed within ours of seeing this decision.
Samgee
join:2010-08-02
canada

Samgee to RobOutback

Member

to RobOutback
said by RobOutback:

The court already ordered that people aren't allowed to wipe their hard drives

No they didn't, where did you get that from? Voltage in their original letter said this, but it was never through the court. The court has said nothing related to hard drives.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by Samgee:

said by RobOutback:

The court already ordered that people aren't allowed to wipe their hard drives

No they didn't, where did you get that from? Voltage in their original letter said this, but it was never through the court. The court has said nothing related to hard drives.

The notice of the suit against the individuals (which everyone who's affected got), also included a C&D which requested that, which would be binding.

nanook
MVM
join:2007-12-02

nanook to elwoodblues

MVM

to elwoodblues
Um, whose drive?

Suppose a judge is willing to order that a hard drive be forensically analysed. An IP address only gets you the name and address of the person who subscribes to broadband service. As we've discussed already it doesn't prove that this is the person who allegedly downloaded illegally.

So whose hard drive(s) would a judge order to be analysed? Doesn't this create a catch-22, i.e. before you can order the analysis of someone's hard drive you have to demonstrate that they're most likely the person who downloaded illegally, something you're trying to establish by analysing the hard drive.

(Anyone who thinks a judge would order the analysis of all hard drives physically and/or remotely connected to all computers on the subscriber's LAN is nuts. Maybe if the RCMP/CSEC were looking for a terrorist. But for someone who is merely alleged to have downloaded a movie illegally?)
Samgee
join:2010-08-02
canada

Samgee to resa1983

Member

to resa1983
said by resa1983:

said by Samgee:

said by RobOutback:

The court already ordered that people aren't allowed to wipe their hard drives

No they didn't, where did you get that from? Voltage in their original letter said this, but it was never through the court. The court has said nothing related to hard drives.

The notice of the suit against the individuals (which everyone who's affected got), also included a C&D which requested that, which would be binding.

Sure, as would the destruction of evidence constitute a crime, but the court was not involved in the letter were they? It's just something their lawyer put together and not part of the judgement here.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by Samgee:

Sure, as would the destruction of evidence constitute a crime, but the court was not involved in the letter were they? It's just something their lawyer put together and not part of the judgement here.

Probably because it's not something he'd be dealing with.
If Voltage asked for a hard drive from one of the 1100 accounts, and they didn't cough up, they'd take it to the Special Judge to deal with, and not him.
RobOutback
join:2011-07-18

RobOutback

Member

It makes little sense to allow a lawsuit, but not allow evidence to be collected and presented. Hard drives are a necessary part of that evidence, and not at all unreasonable.

If Voltage is to prove copyright theft, then the court will have to examine where the evidence resided.

I read lots of people here trying to justify all kinds of illegal methods to withhold evidence. Good luck with that in court. The plaintiff's lawyer will eat you alive.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by RobOutback:

It makes little sense to allow a lawsuit, but not allow evidence to be collected and presented. Hard drives are a necessary part of that evidence, and not at all unreasonable.

If Voltage is to prove copyright theft, then the court will have to examine where the evidence resided.

I read lots of people here trying to justify all kinds of illegal methods to withhold evidence. Good luck with that in court. The plaintiff's lawyer will eat you alive.

They can collect the evidence.. They just must get a subpoena for it first (if the person doesn't want to hand it over first, and they don't have to).. But that means that Voltage would actually have to litigate the case.. And there's almost no chance of that happening. They're a notorious copytroll in the US, who to my knowledge, hasn't litigated a single case.

There's only been a few copytroll cases that have been litigated on the "evidence" - and that was only because a Judge said he'd toss all cases by this one company if 5 weren't litigated (Bellwether trial). If I remember correctly, 3 settled, 2 went to court. 1 later settled, the other lost & had a big judgement against him because he altered the data on his hard drives. But, they were all porn copytroll cases...

trolls_f_off
@afo-tm.org

trolls_f_off to RobOutback

Anon

to RobOutback
said by RobOutback:

It makes little sense to allow a lawsuit, but not allow evidence to be collected and presented. Hard drives are a necessary part of that evidence, and not at all unreasonable.

Would you allow the court to inspect contents of your phone on premise that you were in vicinity of a crime scene? Only on premise that someone thinks you possibly might be a perp? ON what grounds? For the "greater good"? PPZ

heh
@videotron.ca

heh

Anon

said by trolls_f_off :

Would you allow the court to inspect contents of your phone on premise that you were in vicinity of a crime scene?

Well, might as well say you don't own the IP. The ISP does. go check all my isps's hard-drives
foxz88
join:2010-09-02
canada

foxz88 to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
Exactly. And which hard drive? People have a lot of computers and laptops. Let's say I got 5 computers and 2 laptops. I could make 2 of them disappear and only keep those that I never ran a torrent program on. I would love to see them prove that I'm missing 2 computers. And in the meantime, forensic analyses on the remaining computers would cost a fortune. Anyway, they will never go this far. All of this is a scare tactic based on flaky evidence.
RobOutback
join:2011-07-18

RobOutback to trolls_f_off

Member

to trolls_f_off
said by trolls_f_off :

said by RobOutback:

It makes little sense to allow a lawsuit, but not allow evidence to be collected and presented. Hard drives are a necessary part of that evidence, and not at all unreasonable.

Would you allow the court to inspect contents of your phone on premise that you were in vicinity of a crime scene? Only on premise that someone thinks you possibly might be a perp? ON what grounds? For the "greater good"? PPZ

The analogy is if my phone number was used in committing a crime. Say I took a picture of kiddie porn with my smartphone and sent it out. In that case, the court would very likely order me to hand over my phone, so they could check the SD card for evidence. And they'd have every right if they wanted to allow the prosecution fair access to evidence.

In the Voltage case, they'll need access to hard drive evidence. If the court wants to allow a trial (which they appear to), they'll need to force people to allow access to their hard drives.

I have no idea why some people seem to think the court would permit a trial without any access to evidence.

hMm
@correioface.net

hMm

Anon

said by RobOutback:

I have no idea why some people seem to think the court would permit a trial without any access to evidence.

Why there is a trial if there is NO evidence except a claim (in a civil court) about some number written down by a German-made software (on systems running outside of Canada, in Germany) that on several ocasions was found flawed? IP =/= PERSON (already proven in a court of law).

Why the plaintiff does not want to find out (and not actively searching) who was the initial uploader of their bullshit loosing "works"? That is in case they are fighting a good fight to slay "piracy".
RobOutback
join:2011-07-18

RobOutback to foxz88

Member

to foxz88
said by foxz88:

Exactly. And which hard drive? People have a lot of computers and laptops. Let's say I got 5 computers and 2 laptops. I could make 2 of them disappear and only keep those that I never ran a torrent program on. I would love to see them prove that I'm missing 2 computers. And in the meantime, forensic analyses on the remaining computers would cost a fortune. Anyway, they will never go this far. All of this is a scare tactic based on flaky evidence.

They're not going to send you a letter politely asking you to bring all your computers to a location for forensic analysis. Someone from the court or police will show up at your door with a search warrant to collect all your computers, drives, and memory devices.

Yes, you could choose to permanently hide or trash 2 of your computers right now to prevent that possibility. But why trash or make inaccessible $1000 worth of computers in order to save yourself from paying a $1000 demand settlement?

Will they get search warrants for everyone? No, of course not. They'll only prosecute the first few cases. Some unlucky bastard will be made an example, in order to get the rest of the cases settled out of court.
RobOutback

RobOutback to hMm

Member

to hMm
said by hMm :

Why there is a trial if there is NO evidence except a claim (in a civil court) about some number written down by a German-made software (on systems running outside of Canada, in Germany) that on several ocasions was found flawed? IP =/= PERSON (already proven in a court of law).

If the evidence was that flimsy, the judge wouldn't have ordered Teksavvy to turn over the names.

hMm
@torservers.net

hMm

Anon

said by RobOutback:

If the evidence was that flimsy, the judge wouldn't have ordered Teksavvy to turn over the names.

Hence the safeguards to prevent trolling bullshit. Voltage is a known troll.
Samgee
join:2010-08-02
canada

Samgee to RobOutback

Member

to RobOutback
said by RobOutback:

Say I took a picture of kiddie porn

It's absolutely impossible to take anything you say seriously when you keep bringing this up.

Falc_O
@torservers.net

Falc_O to RobOutback

Anon

to RobOutback
said by RobOutback:

But why trash or make inaccessible $1000 worth of computers in order to save yourself from paying a $1000 demand settlement?

I smell Voltage troll here, trying to program brains of potnetial targets of an extortion scheme. Show your face already, Barry

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

cpsycho to RobOutback

Member

to RobOutback
Rob you dont seem to understand anything here. Firstly they have to send out a letter, that gives the person time to erase evidence (format). The collecting of a computer on the spot wont happen. people need their PC's and the government will not remove them from a persons possession for a simple civil case and no amount of forensic analysis will prove anything. If you say they can check install date. All someone has to do is:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\InstallDate
 
I think its that, or find the right key.

Voltage is going to run away from this or try and go after a very large distributor.
RobOutback
join:2011-07-18

RobOutback

Member

said by cpsycho:

Rob you dont seem to understand anything here. Firstly they have to send out a letter, that gives the person time to erase evidence (format). The collecting of a computer on the spot wont happen. people need their PC's and the government will not remove them from a persons possession for a simple civil case and no amount of forensic analysis will prove anything. If you say they can check install date. All someone has to do is:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\InstallDate
 
I think its that, or find the right key.

Voltage is going to run away from this or try and go after a very large distributor.

If you think that's going to fool forensic software or a court, you're wrong. If you try something like that, you'll be looking at a serious charge of tampering with evidence and contempt of court.

Seriously, you're looking at way too much risk to prevent forking over a out-of-court settlement of $1000 or so.

Voltage will be very happy if their mark tries this. The guy will be crucified by the court, and Voltage will happily point out that judgement in their next set of letters.

I don't think they're going to go away. Not until they try a case or two, to see what happens. There's too much profit to be made if they're successful. If they lose a couple of cases, they'll go away. But I think they're going to try a case they know for sure they're going to win.

They don't need to make money on the cases they try in court. They make their money from the out-of-court settlement that will follow.

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

1 edit

cpsycho

Member

You have no clue do you. All forensic software can do is check for deleted files and install dates. When you format amd use something called dban or another wiper program there is nothing left for forensics to find. All they can look for is install dates and if those point to before the download then that is all the forensics can tell them.

Go back to school and learn something about computers before spouting off BS.

Edit:

You could also use Disk Drive Secure Erase recommended by the nsa.
jamesvca
join:2012-12-13
Fruitvale, BC

jamesvca to RobOutback

Member

to RobOutback
There has never been a troll case that went to trial. That is last thing the troll wants because they would have to prove that the account subscriber is the person that clicked on the magnet link, and this is not possible to prove. The whole business model is built on the threat of litigation to force settlements from subscribers. Any troll cases in the US were always dropped when the defendant makes a stand.

Voltage at this point would like to drop everything and run, but they can't because then they would be silently admitting that their whole motive here is in fact copyright trolling.
I think you will see them doing something to keep this active for a while, and then drop out quietly later on.

My household has about 7 different devices using the same IP, not to mention about another dozen or so devices from the friends of the kids. So now, exactly which device do you want for your forensic examination?