dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2823
share rss forum feed


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12

This ought to be interesting...



drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

Re: This ought to be interesting...EH TSI?

More importantly, is Teksavvy implicated/has been subpoenaed for this specific incident?

EH TSI?
--
Cheers!


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by drjp81:

More importantly, is Teksavvy implicated/has been subpoenaed for this specific incident?

EH TSI?

I'm curious if they've been subpoenaed for this as well, but i doubt legally their allowed to say. I'm no lawyer though


metalhawk

join:2007-02-06
Nepean, ON
reply to drjp81
quote:
The company claimed that data collected by anti-piracy company Canipre between September 1 and October 31 showed that 50 IP addresses allocated to four ISPs - 3 Web Corp., Access Communications Co-Operative Ltd., ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd - had engaged in copyright infringement of Recoil.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by metalhawk:

quote:
The company claimed that data collected by anti-piracy company Canipre between September 1 and October 31 showed that 50 IP addresses allocated to four ISPs - 3 Web Corp., Access Communications Co-Operative Ltd., ACN Inc., and Distributel Communications Ltd - had engaged in copyright infringement of Recoil.

Hah, i read the article and i some how managed to miss that. Speed reading through an article sometimes doesn't pay off lol

Nevertheless, they're gearing up to possibly go after more

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Tx

Re: This ought to be interesting...

"On Monday November 19 the Federal Court in Montreal granted the request and ordered the four ISPs to hand over the data within two weeks, in Microsoft Excel format and encrypted on a CD."

Encrypt using a OTP, delete the OTP key copies, delete your logs, hand over the CD

BrianV

join:2008-11-17
Long Sault, ON
kudos:1
reply to Tx
This scumbag company is actually calling around to copyright holders trying to market this as a package - for a fixed fee, they will give you access to the list of IPs who have downloaded their content.

I think this is as much a publicity stunt for product visibility as anything else...


mike0z

@teksavvy.com
doesn't it really come back to the "open wifi network" scenario, where your neighbor may very well be the pirate on your network?


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by mike0z :

doesn't it really come back to the "open wifi network" scenario, where your neighbor may very well be the pirate on your network?

There is no law that states to any newbie to encrypt their network so this argument has always been one i found interesting..

1. is it on the owner to encrypt or be victimized?
2. A newbie is expected to understand encrypting their network? So in order to avoid being targeted by these trolls, they're expected to hire someone to secure their home?
3. Teenagers, we can only do so much. Even a computer setup in the living area can be overlooked and stuff downloaded.

I find this whole thing too "open" and allows any billy joe bob to be prosecuted for something they had no intention of doing or knowledge of.

How the courts don't find this new "business" of pay up or else a sham is beyond me as well. The industry makes more money off these pay up or else schemes then they'd ever have imagined.

If only they'd adapt.


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to Tx
In any case the movie was crap. This is why they are trying everything to recoup their losses. I saw it at a friend's house.
--
Cheers!

dm1336

join:2011-08-07
Scarborough, ON
reply to Tx
This makes me want to go 'watch' the movie now
IMDB rated it 4.9 lol

funny0

join:2010-12-22

2 edits
reply to Tx
YOU all realize that unless someone has a warrant that its against the law to gather intelligence and scan your ip for protocol information

as a hacker i know this to be fact. SO the data they gathered is and has been gotten by illegal means and would be removed form court.
this is why fighting that vic toews internet spy law ( ergo without a warrant stuff ) was so important cause if it had gone through the harper govt could have let hollywood or this company gather this data and sue you....

AS that did not happen and no warrant was or has been granted its illegal and they can be sued under the privacy law of canada and the charter of rights and freedoms.

HAVE a nice fucking day hollystupid...nexxxxxxt...
these people need to use the privacy law and fight hard and also make use of the recent fall of vic toews warrantless spy law ( the company is acting like that law vic toews wanted exists and it DOESNT)and that like rob ford they aren't above the law ( this company that did this )


NytOwl

join:2012-09-27
canada
reply to Tx
I'm surprised no TSI staff member has chimed in on this thread yet.

I'm curious as to their stance on this.

callous10

join:2005-09-12
toron
reply to Tx
Odd how only the 3rd party ISP's are mentioned. Almost like they're afraid the big boys would laugh at them behind several lawyers

Jaxom

join:2012-03-10
East York, ON
reply to Tx
The new Canada...brought to you by the Harper Government and the Conservative Party of Canada. "We sell out to any corporation" is their motto.

We need only watch the USA for what is coming next. 6 strikes law on the internet?

Fyodor

join:2012-08-13
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

YOU all realize that unless someone has a warrant that its against the law to gather intelligence and scan your ip for protocol information

as a hacker i know this to be fact. SO the data they gathered is and has been gotten by illegal means and would be removed form court.
this is why fighting that vic toews internet spy law ( ergo without a warrant stuff ) was so important cause if it had gone through the harper govt could have let hollywood or this company gather this data and sue you....

AS that did not happen and no warrant was or has been granted its illegal and they can be sued under the privacy law of canada and the charter of rights and freedoms.

HAVE a nice fucking day hollystupid...nexxxxxxt...
these people need to use the privacy law and fight hard and also make use of the recent fall of vic toews warrantless spy law ( the company is acting like that law vic toews wanted exists and it DOESNT)and that like rob ford they aren't above the law ( this company that did this )

Bro... bro... you have no clue how the internet works.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

YOU all realize that unless someone has a warrant that its against the law to gather intelligence and scan your ip for protocol information

as a hacker i know this to be fact. SO the data they gathered is and has been gotten by illegal means and would be removed form court.
this is why fighting that vic toews internet spy law ( ergo without a warrant stuff ) was so important cause if it had gone through the harper govt could have let hollywood or this company gather this data and sue you....

AS that did not happen and no warrant was or has been granted its illegal and they can be sued under the privacy law of canada and the charter of rights and freedoms.

HAVE a nice fucking day hollystupid...nexxxxxxt...
these people need to use the privacy law and fight hard and also make use of the recent fall of vic toews warrantless spy law ( the company is acting like that law vic toews wanted exists and it DOESNT)and that like rob ford they aren't above the law ( this company that did this )

#1 hacker rule, you don't talk about being a hacker :/

#2. They do not scan our "protocol". They gather enough evidence through what is being shared (publicly available information) and the IP responsible. They then get courts involved to subpoena the client information matching the IP and prosecute from there. (Short version)

I share your same anger, but you gloat about being a hacker all the time which in my younger days my crowd would have shunned you. Don't brag about it weather you are or aren't. White-hat or otherwise.

Point is, gathering enough data of which is publicly available is simple. Getting the ISP to comply is a whole new story, thus verizon in the states is being sued for refusing to hand customer data over.

phippsju

join:2012-11-28
@Tx

Unrelated to your post, but, I absolutely love your creative icon!

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to Tx
Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by JonyBelGeul:

Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"

I absolutely agree with you, i was merely stating what these idiot lawyers think is all they need.

I stand by this very statement: IP is NOT a person. Burden of proof should still be on them, yet several convictions simply off an IP in the states of which i also find bs


EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to Jaxom
said by Jaxom:

The new Canada...brought to you by the Harper Government and the Conservative Party of Canada. "We sell out to any corporation" is their motto.

We need only watch the USA for what is coming next. 6 strikes law on the internet?

How soon you forget. This BS dates back to long before the cons came to power.
We have run out of leaders, all we have left are USA yes men.
Dig our sovereign nation begging to get accepted to tpp (which will encompass more US-centric IP laws), promising/signing anything in return for the unknown. An unknown that cannot be negotiated/renegotiated once revealed.
All behind closed doors.
I love our open democracy, at least I think I do, it's been a while since I've seen it in action.
--
~ Project Hope ~


davidl

join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by EUS:

said by Jaxom:

The new Canada...brought to you by the Harper Government and the Conservative Party of Canada. "We sell out to any corporation" is their motto.

We need only watch the USA for what is coming next. 6 strikes law on the internet?

How soon you forget. This BS dates back to long before the cons came to power.
We have run out of leaders, all we have left are USA yes men.
Dig our sovereign nation begging to get accepted to tpp (which will encompass more US-centric IP laws), promising/signing anything in return for the unknown. An unknown that cannot be negotiated/renegotiated once revealed.
All behind closed doors.
I love our open democracy, at least I think I do, it's been a while since I've seen it in action.

Kind of like what the Democrats did with the Obama Health Care law: "You have to vote for it before you find out what's in it"...we should sever ties with the United States before they sink like the Titanic.

I at least hope that Teksavvy is honourable enough to give us a heads up if some outside force is trying to get them to hand over our data. Better yet, the logs should be destroyed at the end of every day as a matter of course.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by davidl:

said by EUS:

said by Jaxom:

The new Canada...brought to you by the Harper Government and the Conservative Party of Canada. "We sell out to any corporation" is their motto.

We need only watch the USA for what is coming next. 6 strikes law on the internet?

How soon you forget. This BS dates back to long before the cons came to power.
We have run out of leaders, all we have left are USA yes men.
Dig our sovereign nation begging to get accepted to tpp (which will encompass more US-centric IP laws), promising/signing anything in return for the unknown. An unknown that cannot be negotiated/renegotiated once revealed.
All behind closed doors.
I love our open democracy, at least I think I do, it's been a while since I've seen it in action.

Kind of like what the Democrats did with the Obama Health Care law: "You have to vote for it before you find out what's in it"...we should sever ties with the United States before they sink like the Titanic.

I at least hope that Teksavvy is honourable enough to give us a heads up if some outside force is trying to get them to hand over our data. Better yet, the logs should be destroyed at the end of every day as a matter of course.

I believe Marc was just talking about it on another thread. By-Law they must keep logs for x amount of days


davidl

join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC
Well, what's to stop anyone from just editing a txt log file and putting in your IP address...

- Search 192.160.0.xxx
- Replace 192.168.0.yyy
- Save
- Exit

...he's *guiltayyyyyyy*...pay up sucka!

chalkdastick8

join:2007-04-27
Montreal, QC
reply to Tx
Dr. Michael Geist, a respected law professor at the University of Ottawa says:
Over the past couple of days, there have been multiple reports about the return of file sharing lawsuits to Canada, with fears that thousands of Canadians could be targeted. While it is possible that many will receive demand letters, it is important to note that recent changes to Canadian copyright law limit liability in non-commercial cases to a maximum of $5,000 for all infringement claims. In fact, it is likely that a court would award far less - perhaps as little as $100 - if the case went to court as even the government's FAQ on the recent copyright reform bill provided assurances that Canadians "will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement"
www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/)


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

1 recommendation

reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"

+1
IPV6 ALREADY!
--
Cheers!