 jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
to rodjames
Re: Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costsHurt Locker is a very good movie. |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden : Off topic
|
| |
to JAMESMTL
Re: Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costsI don't think they provided proof that they actually followed all of these steps. Assuming that they did, there are still glaring discrepancies.
Page 2, point 5 of that pdf states (emphasis is mine), "Once a packet is downloaded by a peer, that peer automatically becomes a download source for other peers connected to the Bit Torrent
network who are requesting the file. Unless the settings on the user's BitTorrent
program are changed, every user who is copying or who has copied a file is simultaneously distributing it to every other user or peer connected to the BitTorrent network."
This is false. A peer will upload blocks (or pieces) of the file to everyone who is connected to their swarm, not to everyone connected to the tracker. Therefore, if there are 10,000 peers connected to a tracker, you might be connected to 50-100 peers. You will not transfer any files to all of the other peers connected to the tracker.
Also, the only setting that needs to be modified in order not to uploaded pieced of the file is the upload speed setting. It can easily be changed to 0kB/s.
Point #8 simply states that they've downloaded a piece of the file and that if all of the pieces (thousands) are reassembled, then it would create the file in question. This implies that they don't know what percentage of the file each of these alleged copyright violators have downloaded. Is downloading 1% or 10% of the new Hunger Games movie against the law? Does it constitute copyright infringement? I don't think so. |
|
 RizzleQCunningham's Law Enthusiast
Premium Member
join:2006-01-12
Windsor, ON
Ubiquiti U6-LR
|
to rodjames
In no way is The Hurt Locker a bad movie, unless everyone you spoke to doesn't like war movies. » www.rottentomatoes.com/m ··· t_lockerAlthough, most, if not all, of Voltage's other movies aren't nearly as good as this one. Slightly more on topic: Voltage claiming $884 alone solidifies their title as trolls. How they somehow expected anyone to believe that paltry amount could even cover legal fees for anything even remotely this big is unacceptable. They might as well have said $1. |
|
Sanek
join:2006-08-10
Kanata, ON |
to JAMESMTL
said by JAMESMTL: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 ··· Customer Notices/Notice of Motion.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. How are they going to prove they did that? Am I just supposed to take their word for it? In fact, I'm not really sure what they are hoping to get out of all of this. The courts are requiring them to get an OK for the content of any communications first and if they hope to take someone to court, any competent lawyer should be able to introduce enough reasonable doubt to make all of their "evidence" completely useless, since most of it seems to be data that they could have easily made up: a. the IP address assigned to the peer by his or her internet service provider at the time it distributed the file;
Lets grab one of Teksavvy IP ranges, say "107.179.128.0 - 107.179.255.255" - theres already several thousand IP addresses. You can then ping them to make sure they're online and say some of the online ones were up to no good. Lets say they actually saw this IP on the BT tracker they were spying on and lets say Teksavvy confirmed that a said infringing IP was connected to a said Canipre IP on a said port at a said date and time (man that might be a lot of stuff to pull from the logs) - I doubt they could confirm what data was exchanged at that time... b. the date and time at which the file was distributed by the seeder or peer;
Continuing the previous argument, this could just be the time when they saw the IP online. c. the P2P network utilized by the peer; and
Bittorrent? Tracker name? Both seem easy to get. d. the file’s metadata, which includes the name of the file and the size of the file (collectively, the “File Data”);
Just make one up: "Voltage.avi: 733,968,384 bytes" I mean you can obviously refine my point or just play dumb and claim you have no idea "what torrents is" - my point is I dont see how they can ever win to prove this on a case by case basis. Their only options seem to be to start trolling people for money, but the courts specifically prohibited this, so I doubt that would last long. Disclaimer: I'm obviously not a lawyer, not am I involved in this case in any way, so don't rely on anything I said for legal purposes. I am just curious about some technical aspects of this case and raising the questions here. |
|
zurk
Premium Member
join:2009-11-08
Beverly Hills, CA |
to Guspaz
this is very annoying. The order was perfectly correct.
Can canadian lawyers not think for themselves ? as a US lawyer I would have chewed through and got most of those costs reimbursed. Really poor legal strategy from Teksavvy. Please hire better lawyers. jeez. |
|
1 edit |
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. I have the luxury of time and the truth. I have receipts from my VPN provider. Torrents are the only reason I pay money for it. An IP does not identify me if an unsecured wireless router is being used. They might as well say somebody on my street. I want to waste their time in court and let them try and get 100$ out of me. If it was HBO i would just pay obviously. I watch a ton of their shit and owe them a few bucks. Voltage makes 99% crap that I would feel robbed if I watched it for free. Won't pay for what I didn't download. To me cost is irrelevant. If I am breaking the law call the police. Have them forensically look at my computers, tablets and phones. Otherwise go pound sand and stop wasting my time. I spent seven years fighting Veteran's Affairs. Voltage will be a cake walk. The Voltage business plan is to suck funds from investors telling them it is profitable when in reality any victory will by Pyrrhic. I will out wait them. |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
1 recommendation |
to Guspaz
As has been discussed before...
Apparently the trolls have a couple thousand Teksavvy IPs that they allege pirated a movie on torrentz. Of those couple of thousand IPs there may be only few hundred perhaps that are hip enough to argue the technicalities of the "evidence". The rest are just your run-of-the-mill internet browsers that may down load a movie or 2 after work.
The stuff in the Notice of motion is worded to intimidate and strike fear into your average user who doesn't know any better and it will probably play to these average users. These users are the cash cow for the trolls. They are the majority of alleged "infringers" that get scared and settle out of court so they can get rid of the trolls and avoid having to take a day off work to go to court. The trolls are trying to get the low hanging fruit without ever having to go to court. These average folks really need someone to advocate the technicalities on their behalf - hopefully without a massive legal bill.
There has been enough of this activity going on in the US to know this is the method of operation at work here by the trolls. |
|
| |
to Guspaz
that is utterly ridiculous, getting only $22k for all the services rendered. What kind of BS judge only awards $22k for services and labor that cost $350k? In the future, Teksavvy should refuse to give up any IP addresses unless their costs are paid upfront. |
|
|
| System |
to Rastan
Anon
2015-Mar-22 12:20 am
to Rastan
(topic move) Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costsModerator ActionThe post that was here (and all 6 followups to it), has been moved to a new topic .. » Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costs |
actions · 2015-Mar-22 12:20 am · (locked) |
| |
to zurk
Re: Voltage Pictures ordered to pay TekSavvy $22,000 in costs. |
|
| kanatamike |
to blaznazn224
Read the judgement. A lot of the cost was out of scope. |
|
| |
Flyonthewall to JAMESMTL
Anon
2015-Mar-22 1:15 pm
to JAMESMTL
Can they prove you downloaded the entire file in question, and not just a piece of it? They have to prove you have the whole thing, and if they can't track that, or didn't do the work to do that, for each and every IP, then it's nothing more than driving by and saying you think you say a picture on the tv screen through the window, but can't confirm if they were watching the movie or even have a full copy. |
|
| |
nanook
MVM
2015-Mar-22 1:40 pm
IANAL but...
If this got to court it would be a civil matter.
In a criminal charge the crown has to make their case beyond reasonable doubt. That's an onerous burden and rightly so because the penalties are so severe. A defendant can be found not guilty even if there's a lot of circumstantial evidence against them providing they can establish some reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury or judge.
But in a civil matter the plaintiff only needs to convince the judge of the defendant's liability beyond a balance of probabilities, i.e. that it's more likely that the defendant downloaded the file than that they didn't.
So in this case they could associate an IP to a specific router and to a specific MAC and to a specific swarm, etc. Then they'd "connect the dots" for the judge and leave him to conclude that it's more likely that you downloaded the file than that you didn't. If you argued that even if you did download the file you didn't get the entire file they could ask "why would someone download only part of a file with random segments missing that make it unusable?"
Now whether they'd succeed is another matter, as is whether it's worth their time in legal expenses in order to try to recover a few hundred dollars from the defendant. |
|
| |
Flyonthewall
Anon
2015-Mar-22 3:30 pm
So what would they do if you show up in court, wave a $5 bargain bin dvd of the movie, and tell them to go fly a kite? You paid for movie, case closed. |
|
| |
nanook
MVM
2015-Mar-22 4:01 pm
What if instead you'd been caught shoplifting that DVD and at your court appearance you offered to pay the full retail price for that DVD? After all, "You paid for movie, case closed." Hint: I'd advise you to resist the urge to tell the court to go fly a kite  |
|
| |
to Flyonthewall
If I read Voltage's Notice of Motion correctly what they are claiming is that Canipre downloaded packets or portions of the film directly from the TekSavvy users who were acting as seeders or peers. I believe they are also claiming that they examined these packets and found that they were part of a file which they determined to be a copy of the work. Having watched the movie is not a requirement when determining copyright infringement and neither is downloading or uploading a full copy. 3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof... I have no idea what "substantial part therof" is actually defined as but speculate that it includes any reproduction of the work outside of fair usage. |
|
| |
to nanook
That would be a criminal matter... this is a civil matter |
|
| |
to Flyonthewall
Having purchased a DVD does not give the purchaser the right to reproduce and distribute the work either physically or digitally over the internet. |
|
| |
to Guspaz
I'm curious if an IP hack to bittorrent could stop these lawsuits. Flag torrents to only upload to countries other than the one your IP is registered in. That would be a legal nightmare.
There is always a way around. |
|
 kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2015-Mar-24 7:30 pm
said by Nemo888:I'm curious if an IP hack to bittorrent could stop these lawsuits. Flag torrents to only upload to countries other than the one your IP is registered in. That would be a legal nightmare. But this is a US company, who "your" IP sent packets to, already outside of your country, this would have had no effect on this from when it started |
|
| |
to jmck
you are a voltage spy. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
to kevinds
said by kevinds:said by Nemo888:I'm curious if an IP hack to bittorrent could stop these lawsuits. Flag torrents to only upload to countries other than the one your IP is registered in. That would be a legal nightmare. But this is a US company, who "your" IP sent packets to, already outside of your country, this would have had no effect on this from when it started Actually, Canipre is a Canadian company, and Guardaley (the software used) is in Germany. Canipre only receives information for a login portal to comb the Guardaley server records in Germany. |
|
| |
huh_wha
Anon
2015-Mar-25 11:19 am
said by resa1983:Actually, Canipre is a Canadian company, and Guardaley (the software used) is in Germany. Canipre only receives information for a login portal to comb the Guardaley server records in Germany. I did not know this. So Canipre is... middleware as a service. And the records relied upon for this action live in Germany. One of the most active and astute hacker communities in the world. Priceless. |
|
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2015-Mar-25 11:37 am
To get full records like required for submitting for a lawsuit, takes a ton of time & expense. I don't know whether requesting this would end up having them dismiss or what.. Might just end up with you getting more than statutory damages against you, as the costs would be high.. |
|
| |
to huh_wha
said by huh_wha :said by resa1983:Actually, Canipre is a Canadian company, and Guardaley (the software used) is in Germany. Canipre only receives information for a login portal to comb the Guardaley server records in Germany. I did not know this. So Canipre is... middleware as a service. And the records relied upon for this action live in Germany. One of the most active and astute hacker communities in the world. Priceless. Canipre is actually a private investigations firm operating without a license and in contravention of Quebec & Ontario law. |
|
| |
to jmck
You should make a counter of of 3 to 4 times the DVD. The reason for this is if you go to court and then you lose and have to pay even $200 you won't have to pay legal fees if your settlement offer was even close to that number. |
|
| |
to Guspaz
Copyright troll in the states just got spanked badly. "Perfect 10 must pay $5.6m in legal fees following a failed copyright battle with Usenet provider Giganews . On the heels of a February ruling in which a California Court heavily criticized the adult publisher, this week Perfect 10 was described by a Judge as a serial litigator intended to function as a "tax write-off". » torrentfreak.com/perfect ··· -150325/ |
|
| Nemo888 |
to Guspaz
Another copyright troll told to go pound sand. Come back with a warrant, judge agrees. » torrentfreak.com/rightsc ··· -150511/ |
|
 MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON |
It's good to see the law swinging back towards the consumers now. |
|
