dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9619
share rss forum feed


Bad example

@24.114.49.x
reply to vincom

Re: Voltage decision is in

FYI, don't cite principles from criminal law to make a point about a civil case:

- the burden of proof is MUCH lower in a civil case

- if your car is involved in injuring someone, you may still be liable due to strict liability legislation (that's why you MUST carry liability insurance)... Even if you were not the driver!

- read the copyright legislation; there is a clause in there that resembles strict liability. Your connection is used for X copyright infringement, the account holder is liable.

Not saying I agree with the legislation, because I don't... It's actually a pretty raw deal for the average, middle class user.. But what else is new? What more could we expect from the current regime? (corporate stooges)

Just thought I'd mention those points to avoid the spread of more misinformation... and false peace-of-mind. If you must torrent, know the risks, and educate yourself on ways to mitigate that risk. Don't count on winning in court...

Which reminds me.. Why does everyone believe damages are capped at 5k? I read the Act - the copyright holder can elect to pursue statutory damages; however, the holder can also choose to pursue ACTUAL damages (unlimited). I don't see that option as offering any protection to the consumer. It may be far fetched, but, given what/who? We are dealing with, is it out of the realm of possibility that this is the route they may try to take?


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to iknow_t

said by iknow_t:

it wouldn't even get that far, first, voltage would have to PROVE who was using the IP address at the time to do the illegal action!. that's impossible!. unless someone confesses.

As mentioned above this is a civil case. They only have to show that it is more likely than not that a given individual or group was the party responsible for the breach of copyright. There's no "innocent until proven guilty" here, no matter how much we'd like there to be.


Bad example

@24.114.49.x
reply to Bad example

Correction...(account holders)

I was reading the portion of the act that deals with awareness and liability. 38.1(2) appears to apply only to commercial infringement... And does not mention the account holder ...However, if you read 27(2.3), it implies Internet sharing ("providing services") can be deemed in certain situations to have been commercial. It's not clear cut...More detail is provided at 27(2.4)... Of what the court may consider.
I'm interested to see how they decide to proceed.


pickles02

join:2011-04-19
reply to mike0z

said by mike0z :

but what about the future? ...

And how did canpire record the IP's? Did they have some sophisticated automated software that automatically filtered and recorded all teksavvy ip's? or did they have a few dudes working 9-5 staring at u-torrent writing down ant @teksavvy.com ip's? i guess well never know, but it seems wise to not download movies if you are a torrent user for the time being, or at least avoid voltage titles.

I don't think Voltage will be asking ISPs for more names and addresses until they've actually gone after some of the TSI customers they will soon have permission to contact. The judge noted his concern about privacy and companies not going on "fishing"expeditions. As for Canpire's alleged million IP addresses of downloaders, who else are they going to sell the list to until Voltage has shown that pursuing Canadian downloaders is worth the effort and expense?

There is a 3 year limitation on launching an action (asking for a court order for names and addresses counts as first step). That means that a current downloader who stops sharing files today cannot be prosecuted after February 2017. Anyone who downloaded/fire shared copyrighted material before the law received Royal Assent in June2012 would have a reasonable defence that they did so "unknowing" that it was an offence.

My bet is that major studios and recording companies will not go backwards and look to get money from past offenders in Canada. The negative PR from doing this could cost more than they would recoup. In my opinion, they will either ignore Canada (like Americans often do!) or come up with a different strategy (better offerings.cheaper prices at Netflix, etc.).

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

There may be a 3 year limitation on launching an action (legally), but realistically, anyone stopping downloading on TSI now couldn't be sued after 3 months, as that's how long TSI retains records for..

Probably about a year for the incumbents..

So, probably a large chunk of Canipre's 5 million Canadian IP addresses caught torrenting, is going to be thrown out as there'll be no info to get.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


RobOutback

join:2011-07-18

said by resa1983:

anyone stopping downloading on TSI now couldn't be sued after 3 months, as that's how long TSI retains records for..

That's what they claim. I wouldn't bet on it, though. A record of IP address, account name, and time connected doesn't take up much space. There's no maintenance reason for them to delete old logs. They may delete them after 3 months, but I bet it's not an automated process, and I bet that whomever does it may not even bother.

The 3 month claim is probably just their minimum retention period. Probably related to a backup retention period. That is, if they replace a server they'll lose the logs and just have the ones on a backup media for 3 months. But if they don't replace a server, logs may stick around for years.

I dunno, I'm just guessing based on how I saw maintenance and backups performed in Enterprise systems. We never deleted logs manually. The only stuff that got deleted were logs that had a maximum file size.

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

Marc has stated several times they only retain logs for 3 months for Billing purposes. Copytrolls can pound sand if they're looking for anything older. (The pound sand bit is from me, not Marc!)
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


RobOutback

join:2011-07-18

I know that's what he's said. I'm just saying, don't bet your life on it. Logs have a way of sticking around if not explicitly deleted. The guy handling deletions probably doesn't have it as a top priority.

Expand your moderator at work

Amur_

join:2010-12-10
Kitchener, ON
reply to resa1983

Re: Voltage decision is in

New article from openmedia.ca about the ruling.
»openmedia.ca/blog/we%E2%80%99ve-···ing-soon

While the headlines have tended to focus on the threats to users’ privacy, and the possibility of U.S.-style lawsuits over alleged infringement coming to Canada, the real-world consequences may turn out to be much less dramatic, as new rules proposed by the court bode well for Canadians.


JMJimmy

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

1 edit
reply to RobOutback

said by RobOutback:

said by resa1983:

anyone stopping downloading on TSI now couldn't be sued after 3 months, as that's how long TSI retains records for..

That's what they claim. I wouldn't bet on it, though. A record of IP address, account name, and time connected doesn't take up much space. There's no maintenance reason for them to delete old logs. They may delete them after 3 months, but I bet it's not an automated process, and I bet that whomever does it may not even bother.

The 3 month claim is probably just their minimum retention period. Probably related to a backup retention period. That is, if they replace a server they'll lose the logs and just have the ones on a backup media for 3 months. But if they don't replace a server, logs may stick around for years.

I dunno, I'm just guessing based on how I saw maintenance and backups performed in Enterprise systems. We never deleted logs manually. The only stuff that got deleted were logs that had a maximum file size.

PEPIDA is one reason why, but without getting into the legal end of things you've got a funny idea of what "not a lot of space" is.

250,000 users * (x number of requests in a period * IP length) + user's IP + datetime stamp.

X is variable but lets say on average users do 3,000 page views per month * 50 requests per page. You're talking up to 1.57TB of data/month for HTTP traffic logs alone. Add in P2P and those numbers climb very quickly and the resources required to maintain the logs become more and more expensive.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to Bad example

I believe you're onto something and don't doubt Voltage will pull that ace out of their sleeve.


RobOutback

join:2011-07-18
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by RobOutback:

said by resa1983:

anyone stopping downloading on TSI now couldn't be sued after 3 months, as that's how long TSI retains records for..

That's what they claim. I wouldn't bet on it, though. A record of IP address, account name, and time connected doesn't take up much space. There's no maintenance reason for them to delete old logs. They may delete them after 3 months, but I bet it's not an automated process, and I bet that whomever does it may not even bother.

The 3 month claim is probably just their minimum retention period. Probably related to a backup retention period. That is, if they replace a server they'll lose the logs and just have the ones on a backup media for 3 months. But if they don't replace a server, logs may stick around for years.

I dunno, I'm just guessing based on how I saw maintenance and backups performed in Enterprise systems. We never deleted logs manually. The only stuff that got deleted were logs that had a maximum file size.

PEPIDA is one reason why, but without getting into the legal end of things you've got a funny idea of what "not a lot of space" is.

250,000 users * (x number of requests in a period * IP length) + user's IP + datetime stamp.

X is variable but lets say on average users do 3,000 page views per month * 50 requests per page. You're talking up to 1.57TB of data/month for HTTP traffic logs alone. Add in P2P and those numbers climb very quickly and the resources required to maintain the logs become more and more expensive.

Teksavvy doesn't log page views, so you're completely wrong. They only log time of the PPP connection, the IP address assigned to you, the total amount of download/uploaded byes, and minutes you were connected.

That's only a few bytes of data per user per day. At most, a few megabytes in total per day. It would take them about a year to fill up 1GB of space, which is inconsequential.
Expand your moderator at work


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to RobOutback

Re: Voltage decision is in

Except they have hundreds of thousands of users, and log usage data regularly (even if they don't compile it regularly). TekSavvy's usage checker has a checkered history (heh) because their usage database ended up with huge numbers of records, requiring large amounts of computing power to handle.
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!



bryanviper

join:2002-10-12
Toronto, CAN
reply to resa1983

Is there a way we can find out from Teksavvy if we are on that list?


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

said by bryanviper:

Is there a way we can find out from Teksavvy if we are on that list?

You would have been contacted in 2012.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

JMJimmy

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

said by RobOutback:

Teksavvy doesn't log page views, so you're completely wrong. They only log time of the PPP connection, the IP address assigned to you, the total amount of download/uploaded byes, and minutes you were connected.

That's only a few bytes of data per user per day. At most, a few megabytes in total per day. It would take them about a year to fill up 1GB of space, which is inconsequential.

All ISPs would have to log each request - otherwise how would the police be able to prove that a pedo downloaded an image/video. They couldn't do it by simply saying they were connected at a given time, they couldn't even do it if they logged page views as they could be browsing with images disabled or without the plugins required for video.


bryanviper

join:2002-10-12
Toronto, CAN
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by bryanviper:

Is there a way we can find out from Teksavvy if we are on that list?

You would have been contacted in 2012.

Good to know, thanks
--
»www.MaximumRepair.ca
Computer Repair/Upgrades In Toronto.


TSI Andre
Got TekSavvy?
Premium,VIP
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:24

2 recommendations

You can also log into the MyWorld Portal (»myworld.teksavvy.com) and if you were on that list, you would see a bolded red message on the home page saying you were.


JMJimmy

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

said by TSI Andre:

You can also log into the MyWorld Portal (»myworld.teksavvy.com) and if you were on that list, you would see a bolded red message on the home page saying you were.

And if you don't have/don't want a myworld account?


TSI Andre
Got TekSavvy?
Premium,VIP
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:24

If you don't have one, create one

If you don't want one, create one


JMJimmy

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

said by TSI Andre:

If you don't have one, create one

If you don't want one, create one

I mean, is there an alternate method of finding out?


TSI Andre
Got TekSavvy?
Premium,VIP
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:24

At this time, no. Those who were identified when this first happen should have also received an email.


JMJimmy

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

1 edit

said by TSI Andre:

At this time, no. Those who were identified when this first happen should have also received an email.

I received 2, one saying I was, a later one saying I wasn't. Via phone (call arranged by you or Marc forget which) I got "I'm pretty sure you are" but it was never really clear. Either way, phone/email/website are not serviceable documents for court cases.
Expand your moderator at work