dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x
reply to UK_Dave

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

I was reading the post. In the post, there is a mentioning that TekSavvy told the people through E-mail that they can't throw out their system, format their HD because court might need to check them?

From what I understand, they can only ask someone to do that when there is a warrant or subpoena. Without them, people can do whatever they want. Because someone might have brought motion to you (Even they can't prove is you), can they ask or demand you to do that? I'm just wondering what is that all about?



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Tong:

I was reading the post. In the post, there is a mentioning that TekSavvy told the people through E-mail that they can't throw out their system, format their HD because court might need to check them?

And the question is, Which system can't they touch "or tamper with"?

I mean I'm just a normal family of 4. I have 6 computers here. The geeks here have 10.

Does teksavvy ask that the "account holder" not delete or wipe the account holders own computer? Or his wifes and kids computers as well?

Also who would pay for the forensics of a family of 4 hard disks? 6 computers could equal 10 hard-disks.

Also, that is a shit load of private information on disks like that. The wifes affair, the husbands mistresses names, what venereal diseases they may have, a kids suicidal thoughts, perverted thoughts, gay porn history, passwords to websites, passwords to emails, passwords to facebook, Bot passwords on IRC, passwords to gay porn sites, on and on and on and on.

In addition to the above, it could possibly show someone downloaded 0day warez, all top 100 IMDB movies that they never would have bought to begin with, loads of porn titles, on and on and on and on.

hmm

So is a family of 4 really expected not to touch anything on all 6 computers?

Also, once voltage and canipre gets those IP's I would expect voltage and canipre to build a history on these people. a search for every occurrence of a certain IP, setting up their canipre software to log all instances of that IP being found on torrent again (to show habitual use) on and on and on and on, even though it could be 6 different people...

hmm...

People here better learn how to spoof real quick.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Tong

Not having ever received one of the letters in question, I don't know.

But he did seem to be suggesting that when he said there is a 70% correlation between IP addresses and people, based on submitted hard drives.

I've asked hm for sources, he's going to look - but as you probably saw from my last post - he's got to be talking massive commercial infringement and duplication.

Anton Pillar orders are hard to get. They wouldnt be given for domestic addresses on the basis of no other evidence than an IP.


racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 edit

@UK_Dave

Yeah, I saw he is conversing. That's a good thing.

It's unfortunate he's quite one sided. But, his likely relationship with Canipre and Logan would indicate such.

I don't know what he is meaning of " intimations and personal intimidation". Maybe something is occuring on or about another forum or chat?

As for obtaining Anton Piller orders for the hard drives or PC's of private individuals, on the evidence in the affidavit provided so far - fat chance of that happening.

Fact is, the IP addresses were likely obtained by hopping onto Bittorrent, checking some files that were being downloaded, and recording the IP addresses in bulk. This initial search was completed over a course of a year or months, as the STI IP's would need to be gleaned from the overall mass search of IP addresses.

Then, the lawyers wrote the rest up that files were confirmed individually downloaded from each of the IP addresses, and each then confirmed for functionality, then each movie verified in a side by side viewing with an original control copy.
Logan doesn't have enough money to buy the hardware, properly licensed and educated staff, internet fibre connection contract, in order to complete such a task in around a 45 day window to analyze 60 days and 2300 occurences collected. Thats 144 days straight of non stop 24/7 movie comparisons. Let alone aquiring the data during the supposed 60 day period, weeding it from non TSI IP addresses, then attacking the TSI IP addresses only. Not impossible, but so expensive, difficult, improbable that it might as well be impossible.

Then there is the matter of using a third party software to do all the alleged work, all the data processing, etc etc, to which he is not educated, nor a designer or programmer of. Heresay anyone?

The affidavit is a fabrication, in whole or in part.


analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

1 recommendation

said by racer123:

@UK_Dave

Then, the lawyers wrote the rest up that files were confirmed individually downloaded from each of the IP addresses, and each then confirmed for functionality, then each movie verified in a side by side viewing with an original control copy.

I believe it was mentioned through Canpire that they downloaded a bit from all IP's and then they go one complete file from all IP not a complete file from each IP.

Also don't know how much if matters but Canpire in not an impartial third party but part of the copyright troll circle. Seems they would gain financially to make sure someone got tracked and busted. Seems like a phishing expedition for monetary value. How do we know they didn't seed the original torrent.
Expand your moderator at work

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to analog andy

Re: Blog - Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

quote:
I believe it was mentioned through Canpire that they downloaded a bit from all IP's and then they go one complete file from all IP not a complete file from each IP.

Also don't know how much if matters but Canpire in not an impartial third party but part of the copyright troll circle. Seems they would gain financially to make sure someone got tracked and busted. Seems like a phishing expedition for monetary value. How do we know they didn't seed the original torrent.
@ Analog Andy - I hope that is not the case... so if some guy's IP is flagged, and he uploads a 1 and a 0 (2 bits, or 1/4 a byte) then he's screwed. Wow, that's a REALLY loose standard of evidence.

You make a good point about Canipre. It's owner might have been and may be a private investigator, but Canipre itself is not, and Logan is not an IT or programming professional, nor a developer of the Guardaley software he relies upon. He might have been a private investigator in the past, and might currently be, but he is also a musician. Nowhere can I located an education or profession in software or computing. The German program Guardaley is under massive scrutiny in the USA as well, as previously noted.

This Voltage case is a pile of dung, piled on different kinds of dung. Then thrown at a wall. Hoping one of all the types of dung sticks.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

2 edits

said by racer123:

@ Analog Andy - I hope that is not the case... so if some guy's IP is flagged, and he uploads a 1 and a 0 (2 bits, or 1/4 a byte) then he's screwed. Wow, that's a REALLY loose standard of evidence.

Im trying to locate it but its written in one of the submissions/court papers someone link to on here.

Edit found it. Seems there was no way they could download 2300 individual copies of each movie andcheck them all against a master copy. That would take like 5000+ hours per show to watch each one.

6. Between September 1 and October 30, 2012, Canipre used forensic software to scan
BitTorrent networks for the presence of the Works. The forensic software searched
BitTorrent networks for files corresponding to the Works and identified the IP
address of each seeder or peer who was offering any of these files for transfer or
distribution. This information is available to anyone that is connected to the P2P
network;
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
(“ISP”) 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
4
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 (the “Distributors”);
10. ISP’s track the IP addresses assigned to their customers at any given time and retain
“user logs” of that information. Once provided with the IP address and the
corresponding File Data, ISPs can review their user logs to identify the contact
information of their clients who acted as peers to copy and distribute unauthorized
versions of the Works. Only an ISP can correlate the IP address to the real identity of
its subscriber;

racer123

join:2012-12-14
Hamilton, ON
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

Yeah, it doesnt specifically say how much data that needs to be provided - just that the IP is listed to a particular file part.

The problem is the Guardalay software is doing all the work, and he's trying to describe how it works and dumbing it down, when he doesnt understand it himself.