dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
10887

toro
join:2006-01-27
Scarborough, ON

toro to Rastan

Member

to Rastan

Re: Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costs

said by Rastan:

$11 per IP address seems low considering the amount of work and resources involved to match each IP with an account number and then store this information.

Except I highly doubt that each account is matched manually. I am pretty sure the work consisted in writing a script to extract that info. Once the script written, it doesn't matter if you run it 100 or 100000 IP addresses.
See »www.teksavvy.com/en/why- ··· -notices. Do you really think they are going to manually process every notice ?

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck

Member

it already should have been in some SQL database making queries pretty simple along with automation.

rodjames
Premium Member
join:2010-06-19

rodjames to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
Either way, if Voltage sends me a letter, it's going straight in the trash.

Thanks TSI for sticking up for us though.

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

TSI Andre to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
FYI:

»teksavvy.com/en/why-teks ··· decision
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to rodjames

Premium Member

to rodjames
said by rodjames:

Either way, if Voltage sends me a letter, it's going straight in the trash.

Thanks TSI for sticking up for us though.

Note that if Voltage sends you a letter, its been approved by CIPPIC, and you have a few choices.. If you do bin it, the judge will 100% give a statutory judgement against you. Whether they go for the max of 5k, or less, will be up to them.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

said by resa1983:

Note that if Voltage sends you a letter, its been approved by CIPPIC, and you have a few choices.. If you do bin it, the judge will 100% give a statutory judgement against you. Whether they go for the max of 5k, or less, will be up to them.

Really? Like.. Yes, if you are sued, and you ignore the suit, you'll lose. I'd expect more steps between getting a name and a judge ruling against a doe..

Specifically.. Say Voltage writes a letter stating their intentions to bring action against you. That isn't actually an action is it? Can they bring collective action against all the Does? I didn't think they could do that, I thought they'd have to sue each individually.
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983

Premium Member

said by Teddy Boom:

said by resa1983:

Note that if Voltage sends you a letter, its been approved by CIPPIC, and you have a few choices.. If you do bin it, the judge will 100% give a statutory judgement against you. Whether they go for the max of 5k, or less, will be up to them.

Really? Like.. Yes, if you are sued, and you ignore the suit, you'll lose. I'd expect a lot more steps in between though.

Specifically.. Say Voltage writes a letter stating their intentions to bring action against you. That isn't actually an action is it? Can they bring collective action against all the Does? I didn't think they could do that, I thought they'd have to sue each individually.

Well yeah.. There'll be a settlement letter.. Then if you ignore x of them, the individual suit.. Then they'll push harder for settlement at a higher price. Then the default judgement request.. The first ones, they'll file for default judgement, to scare others. If the default amount by the judge is reasonable (for people), they'll push settlements for amounts higher than default amount - keep in mind that despite the settlement letters saying a settlement amount, the actual settlement amount can be lower, and probably won't be public.. If the default judgement isn't reasonable (for people), they'll push more defaults.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to Teddy Boom

Member

to Teddy Boom
you'd be served with paperwork from the court, it wouldn't come directly from Voltage (this is if it actually goes to court and you ignore settlement).

personally i'd look at the settlement amount and if it's more than buying the video on Bluray or something then I'd refuse it and choose to go to court.

huh_wha
@start.ca

huh_wha

Anon

said by jmck:

personally i'd look at the settlement amount and if it's more than buying the video on Bluray or something then I'd refuse it and choose to go to court.

That's all it will take, just one person to mount a lucid, proactive defense, and the whole process will grind to a halt for Voltage. With all the jurisprudence coming out of the US declaring an IP address insufficient in and of itself to identify a defendant, this shouldn't take long.

I doubt Voltage will recover their costs.

HiVolt
Premium Member
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON

HiVolt to resa1983

Premium Member

to resa1983
I thought they weren't allowed to do settlement claims. Because that's just fishing for free money.

I thought they actually have to take you to court.

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
Linksys WRT1900AC
SmartRG SR505N
Huawei HG612

apvm to rodjames

Member

to rodjames
I don't think it is a good idea to bin their letter, at this stage they will most likely send you a letter either from them or their lawyer and ask for a settlement, if you do not intend to fight them in court, you can still negotiate a settlement amount but bear in mind if both parties agreed on a price, you better make sure they send you a letter in black and white that this is settled and will not take you to court after you paid. (do not pay them before this letter)

If you intend to fight them in court, you can ignore these letters and wait for the court papers, once you received these, hire a lawyer asap and do not ignore them, if you ignore court papers and do not appear in court, the judge will give default judgment against you.

It is better to check if your local University offer free legal advise (most do) and check out what is your position, bear in mind they can not help you much other than giving you a feel of the legal system.

In any case, there is no defense if you plan to tell the judge that someone hack into your system etc etc, you'll lose for sure.

I think the best bet for those who are involved is to negotiate a better settlement amount and call it a day. Our legal system is depends on who has the most money to hire the best lawyer. It does not worth it to hire a lawyer to fight this and please don't try to defend yourself in court without a lawyer, their lawyer will have a field day with you for sure and you'll end up looking stupid.

Gimli
Premium Member
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4

Gimli

Premium Member

disagree. Ill stand up there and tell them to prove that I downloaded that "item". The fact that I pay for an internet service at an address is not proof that I did anything. They can link whatever ip to me they want. You still need to prove that I... knowingly and purposely...did want you say i did....

this is all BS. Its taking advice like yours to pay these asswipes that keeps them going.

sorry - im in a pissy mood tonight... but you get the jist.

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON

apvm

Member

Well, good luck.

JAMESMTL
Premium Member
join:2014-09-02

1 edit

JAMESMTL to Rastan

Premium Member

to Rastan
said by Rastan:

Voltage is only interested in bullying people into settling, they don't want to go to court because all they have are IP addresses and that simply isn't enough. They didn't verify if any of the files were completely downloaded or how much data was transferred.

They monitor public trackers and it's a well known fact that certain large public trackers purposely insert randomly generated IP addresses into their peer list.

Do you have any information to support your claim that Voltage or any other company simply relied on the peer list as evidence of copyright infringement or is this pure speculation on your part?

This is not the first time i have seen this mentioned and it seems contrary to the documentation submitted in the Voltage vs Doe case involving TekSavvy

»cippic.ca/en/Voltage

and specifically the link to Voltage’s Notice of Motion (December 7th, 2012) available at »www.teksavvy.com/Media/D ··· tion.pdf

Which states:
7. The forensic software downloaded the copies of the Works available for distribution on the P2P networks and for each file downloaded recorded the following identifying information:

a. the IP address assigned to the peer by his or her internet service provider at the time it distributed the file;

b. the date and time at which the file was distributed by the seeder or peer;

c. the P2P network utilized by the peer; and

d. the file’s metadata, which includes the name of the file and the size of the file (collectively, the “File Data”);

8. Canipre analyzed each of the BitTorrent packets distributed by the IP addresses contained in File Data and verified that reassembling the pieces results in a fully playable digital motion picture that is one of the Works. Canipre verified this by viewing a control copy of each of the Works side by side with the digital media files being distributed on the P2P network and confirming that they were the same;

9. Canipre reviewed the File Data and identified the transactions associated with IP addresses for customers of TekSavvy in Ontario that used the BitTorrent network to reproduce and distribute the Works during the period of September 1 to October 30, 2012
It would seem to me based on the above that Volatge via Canipre did indeed establish a connection with each Doe and successfully downloaded an identifiable portion of the infringing work.

This would also make any claim that "trackers purposely insert randomly generated IP addresses into their peer list" worthless as Voltage would not have been able to download any identifiable packets of the infringing work from those fake addresses.

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

Mashiki

Member

The problem on their end of course is actually proving that the person at the IP address in question actually did the downloading. There's been a pile of cases in the US in the last year that have been thrown out because the judges have recognized that an "IP address" is not a unique identifier. Said cases can also be used legally to argue here in Canada that said IP addresses are not a identifier as well.

Plus, we've got all those problems with routers being hacked due to backdoors, bad password policies, only using WEP(I'm looking at you Bell) which can be cracked easily by brute force and so on.
vincom
join:2009-03-06
Bolton, ON

vincom

Member

i was hacked judge, it happened to sony so it can happen to me

anon99
@amanah.com

anon99 to TSI Andre

Anon

to TSI Andre
Is teksavvy going to appeal this decision, or leave it to stand as is?

Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON

Mashiki to vincom

Member

to vincom
said by vincom:

i was hacked judge, it happened to sony so it can happen to me

Pretty much. They have no actual proof that it's you, if you use a router who's to say it wasn't hacked and all the logs wiped. I can do it remotely on my router without a problem. Spoofing a MAC is trivial, spoofing a MAC of a connected machine is even easier, wait until the machine is powered down and spoof away.
Nemo888
join:2005-12-25
Canada

Nemo888 to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
I wonder how this would work out. I use a VPN for torrents but I used to leave my router unsecured. Neighbors had tons of kids and were of a fundamentalist religious nature. Those kids were locked down like prisoners. They downloaded like mad when my router was open.

I have documentation for payments to my VPN provider. Is facilitation liability? I would go to court. Tell the truth, no lawyer and let the opposing counsel act like a douche. Most judges don't care for that.
camelot
join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON

camelot to TSI Andre

Member

to TSI Andre
As others have said, can you not appeal this decision based on judicial errors in costs accrued?

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
Linksys WRT1900AC
SmartRG SR505N
Huawei HG612

apvm to Nemo888

Member

to Nemo888
Well, you better have all the documents ready and proof (time and date, logs etc) of your neighbors kids hacking into your router and downloading. Bear in mind, it will be your word of mouth against the other side's documented "evidence", you are right the judges don't care, what they care about is the "evidence".

Like I said earlier, it is time to look into this and get a feel what you'll be facing. Simply walk into the court and tell the truth is not enough, you'll be a douche yourself when the opposing counsel cross examine you. Here is a link for those who need it »www.law.utoronto.ca/prog ··· l-advice
cdnbikerdude
join:2013-12-05

cdnbikerdude

Member

I think the point being missed here is they don't want to go to trial with all these cases. They want to settle for a fee before hand. Going to trial (which is costly and time consuming) and setting a precedent in Canada that an IP address doesn't equate to a person.

rodjames
Premium Member
join:2010-06-19

rodjames to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
So I'll respond to it with a NO cat
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to apvm

Member

to apvm
said by apvm:

Well, you better have all the documents ready and proof (time and date, logs etc) of your neighbors kids hacking into your router and downloading. Bear in mind, it will be your word of mouth against the other side's documented "evidence", you are right the judges don't care, what they care about is the "evidence".

Like I said earlier, it is time to look into this and get a feel what you'll be facing. Simply walk into the court and tell the truth is not enough, you'll be a douche yourself when the opposing counsel cross examine you. Here is a link for those who need it »www.law.utoronto.ca/prog ··· l-advice

In Ontario these will be heard in small claims division if at all. The costs award structure, and the settlement offer variable, will dissuade them from litigating these.

I would expect the first one of us or even a guest to get a statement of claim to come in here where all sorts of technical defence arguments (around the very issues in this thread even) can be parsed. Then one needs to introduce these arguments by way of an "expert" into the record. Unlike the general division rules of civil procedure Voltages actual costs are not recoverable even if they prevail.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

And when Voltage monitors this thread (and they do), they will know your defense strategy before you walk into court.

Spike5
Premium Member
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON

Spike5

Premium Member

»www.pcworld.com/article/ ··· ing.html

rodjames
Premium Member
join:2010-06-19

rodjames to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
Hey voltage, your movie(s) all suck. After this whole thing started, any time I see the Voltage logo on a movie, I turn it off right away and refuse to watch.

In all honesty, I didn't download Hurt Locker, because everyone who saw it previous to me said it was a waste of time to see.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

And when Voltage monitors this thread (and they do), they will know your defense strategy before you walk into court.

Good point. But then again so does every other plaintiff in every other case once served with a statement of defence.
Expand your moderator at work

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
Linksys WRT1900AC
SmartRG SR505N
Huawei HG612

apvm to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costs

If their defense strategy is what they said they'll do, good luck to them telling the judge that some "kid" from outside hacked into their system or an IP does not represent the user at the time.

Finally, sure they can use those strategy but better prepare themselves with lots of paper work to back them up, you simply can not win by going into court and tell the judge to believe you without any hard evidence.