| |
to AkFubar
Re: Proud of TSI for it's actions in Jan 14th hearingThey still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion. |
|
| |
said by morisato:They still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion.
As Ak said, they did request assurances of privacy. They also backed up CIPPIC, took issue with the affidavit from Barry Logan, but more than that they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. If TSI was able to associate 75% or more the odds are heavily in Voltages favour - at 50% it makes it that much harder for Voltage to claim their information is accurate. Combine 50% with all the arguments against IP info that means they've got a serious uphill battle that they're probably not prepared to fight. |
|
| |
to morisato
said by morisato:They still did not oppose the motion all they did is buy more time for someone else to do what they should be doing... IE oppose the motion.
This....The only good news that I saw coming out of court today is that at least TSI is working with CIPPIC and advocating for them to intervene in the case. Come to think of it, isn't that a little better actually? While I still wish TSI simply opposed the motion which would have stopped it dead in the water, at least an expert and pro-internet group such as CIPPIC is now involved in the case and in TSI's corner... |
|
| |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. The reason(s) why 50% of IPs could not be resolved to an account are important too and may not necessarily have any negative impact on the accuracy of the other 50% that were resolved. If the main reason IPs were not resolved is due to lost/corrupted logs or logs lost to normal file rotation, they have little to no bearing on accuracy. This is what people demanding shorter log retention are banking on and if TSI fails to get their costs paid by Voltage, they might decide to do just that so next time Voltage or other troll comes with 2+ months worth of IP logs starting weeks ago, TSI will be able to tell 'em they cannot do anything with logs older than 21 days and chuck the whole thing out instead of wasting $200k again. |
|
| |
said by InvalidError:said by JMJimmy:they gave the court a major point to consider: Only ~50% of the IPs could be associated. That has huge legal significance because this is a civil case and the odds are important. The reason(s) why 50% of IPs could not be resolved to an account are important too and may not necessarily have any negative impact on the accuracy of the other 50% that were resolved. If the main reason IPs were not resolved is due to lost/corrupted logs or logs lost to normal file rotation, they have little to no bearing on accuracy. This is what people demanding shorter log retention are banking on and if TSI fails to get their costs paid by Voltage, they might decide to do just that so next time Voltage or other troll comes with 2+ months worth of IP logs starting weeks ago, TSI will be able to tell 'em they cannot do anything with logs older than 21 days and chuck the whole thing out instead of wasting $200k again. Do we know this is the case for sure? Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question. |
|
koreybOpen the Canadian Market NOW
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON |
to d4m1r
said by d4m1r:Come to think of it, isn't that a little better actually? While I still wish TSI simply opposed the motion which would have stopped it dead in the water, ......
I disagree. It would have dragged this on and on and would end up with the courts using the new copyright laws against TSI and forcing them to give up the info anyway. TSI did exactly as I expected they would. The fact is, TSI if ordered will hand over the info, and will have no choice but to do so. |
|
| |
said by koreyb:said by d4m1r:Come to think of it, isn't that a little better actually? While I still wish TSI simply opposed the motion which would have stopped it dead in the water, ......
I disagree. It would have dragged this on and on and would end up with the courts using the new copyright laws against TSI and forcing them to give up the info anyway. TSI did exactly as I expected they would. The fact is, TSI if ordered will hand over the info, and will have no choice but to do so. This and if opposed and the motion went forward, they voltage could probably go after Tek for the court costs. We saw this today where they asked CIPPIC to cover today's fees to the tune of 2K if it was adjourned. Tek is playing this very smoothly. |
|
| |
to koreyb
said by koreyb:said by d4m1r:Come to think of it, isn't that a little better actually? While I still wish TSI simply opposed the motion which would have stopped it dead in the water, ......
I disagree. It would have dragged this on and on and would end up with the courts using the new copyright laws against TSI and forcing them to give up the info anyway. TSI did exactly as I expected they would. The fact is, TSI if ordered will hand over the info, and will have no choice but to do so. Wrong, if TSI just told them "No" right off the bat, Voltage wouldn't have furthered the matter at all...Because it is not efficient for them to do so. They are merely looking for ISPs to rollover so they can work with them....In this case TSI said "maybe" so Voltage is still working the case. If you look at their U.S operations, they almost NEVER actually follow up in the case...Because of this, it can be logically concluded that if TSI showed true resistance, this would already have been over because it would not be cost effective for Voltage to continue. This is what me and others familiar with these cases since their inception in Europe have been saying all along.... |
|
|
| |
Who7
Member
2013-Jan-14 4:32 pm
I'm not celebrating. All we have is a reprieve to a potential troll hell.
IF TSI and specifically CIPPIC wins, then I will eat crow. Lots of crow. More crow then any man deserves to eat. And I will do it gladly.
But not yet.... |
|
 MFidoMontreal
join:2012-10-19 |
to d4m1r
not sure about this Damir .... |
|
| |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question. If some log files are missing or corrupt to an extent that their content cannot be trusted or reliably interpreted, you simply chuck them out and that does not affect the integrity of remaining good files. The holes this may create in individual sessions' histories where the start/end of a given session may get lost or becomes uncertain are likely responsible for a large chunk of the 50% that got flagged as unresolved for other reasons than logs simply having expired. If TSI's process is to piece together the history of each session from start to end, dropping any IPs where that history is incomplete, the likelihood of mistakes should be practically zero. That would both explain why TSI's alleged cost per IP is so high and why so many IPs were flagged unresolved. |
|
| |
said by InvalidError:said by JMJimmy:Even so, it does go to accuracy. If log files are being overwritten prematurely with new data due to rotation or files are being corrupted that points to issues in the storage/software/processes/etc which calls the entire data set into question. If some log files are missing or corrupt to an extent that their content cannot be trusted or reliably interpreted, you simply chuck them out and that does not affect the integrity of remaining good files. The holes this may create in individual sessions' histories where the start/end of a given session may get lost or becomes uncertain are likely responsible for a large chunk of the 50% that got flagged as unresolved for other reasons than logs simply having expired. If TSI's process is to piece together the history of each session from start to end, dropping any IPs where that history is incomplete, the likelihood of mistakes should be practically zero. That would both explain why TSI's alleged cost per IP is so high and why so many IPs were flagged unresolved. True but if start/end aren't being logged reliably, who's to say the the "good files" don't contain errors as well? It really depends on the specifics of why those 50% were unresolved. A hypothetical: Log Y... User 1 starts session with X IP log Y isn't terminated properly, User 2 gets X IP and system continues in log Y and log ends properly this time. I'm not saying that's what happened, I have no clue of the specifics, only TSI does. What the court knows (at this point) is that 50% of the IPs submitted can't be connected to a given account. That casts a lot of doubt on the voracity of Voltage's evidence. We don't know if there was 1 reason or dozens for the unresolved IPs. |
|
| |
said by JMJimmy:True but if start/end aren't being logged reliably, who's to say the the "good files" don't contain errors as well? It really depends on the specifics of why those 50% were unresolved.
A hypothetical: Log Y... User 1 starts session with X IP log Y isn't terminated properly, User 2 gets X IP and system continues in log Y and log ends properly this time. In general, computers do not make "errors" and when programmer fudge something simple like a log file up, it usually leaves some rather obvious signs such as garbled text, weird text alignments, unexpected new lines, etc. that have a tendency to break scripts or trigger parsing errors/warnings to get the operator's attention. As for your hypothetical case, the "worst" case is 'A' ends up in the "unresolved" since the session's end time is unknown, which would be perfectly fine. Nothing happens to 'B' due to A's infringement since the ISP already knows for sure that 'B' did not own the IP when 'A' did. (Or nothing happens to 'A' due to 'B''s infringement since the ISP knows 'A' certainly no longer owned the IP by the time 'B' got it.) Considering the amount of mind-numbing work involved, it is to ISPs' and their subscribers' advantage that the decision threshold to abandon researching individual IPs be as low as good faith can reasonably allow. Any reasonable doubt about the current IP-timestamp and the lease's timeline? Mark as unresolved. Next. |
|
| |
Ya - I'm a developer so I am vary familiar with these sorts of issues.
If the log system references an existing file (as you suggested) it could be appending to it instead of overwriting it in which case it might not be obvious. User A could be the one infringing and User B gets the notice... again this is all hypothetical. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to Who7
said by Who7:IF TSI and specifically CIPPIC wins, then I will eat crow. Lots of crow. More crow then any man deserves to eat. And I will do it gladly.
You'll have so many feathers sticking out of your mouth that people will think you're a cat that the struck the mother lode. |
|
| |
to Who7
said by Who7:I'm not celebrating. All we have is a reprieve to a potential troll hell.
IF TSI and specifically CIPPIC wins, then I will eat crow. Lots of crow. More crow then any man deserves to eat. And I will do it gladly.
But not yet....
I wouldn't worry too much about that, basically the structure doesn't dictate that TSI can win.... or lose for that matter... Seeing as it's a motion to the court by voltage, it can only be granted or denied, so I think you're safe! As for your statement of "all we have is a reprieve", isn't quite true. Yes it was adjourned, but it's with the caveat that the case will take more time than what was first expected. 2ndly it's been shown that Tek has sustained real costs in gathering the data and that they want to be repaid. Asking for payment before release was a VERY smart move. Any judge will see that an out of country party could walk with the info and not be held accountable for paying the associated fees. What tek did today was essentially take the air out of the tires in a manner that didn't oppose the motion, but made voltage think twice about moving forward. From what i've learned in civil courts, it's about cost/risk analysis. Is it worth pursuing from a monetary standpoint, as that's what it comes down to in the end. |
|
|
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON |
peterboro (banned)
Member
2013-Jan-14 11:27 pm
said by prairiesky: From what i've learned in civil courts, it's about cost/risk analysis. That is not applicable when individuals are involved only companies and even then personal motivations of directors may skew the cost/risk analysis. That is the scenario Voltage is about to get into when they start to go after people on a case by case basis. Hopefully there is some backbone in those targeted. |
|
