Action, Injunction, and Civil Search Order Obtained Against BeaverTV Monday 2014-05-1

[Gravedigger]

http://satscams.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/beaver-laptop.jpg

In March 2014, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership, NagraStar LLC, EchoStar Technologies LLC, and DISH Network L.L.C. commenced a civil action and executed an Anton Piller (civil search) order against Jeremy Latchford of Belleville, Ontario, John McSevney of Hamilton, Ontario, and Jeffrey Tufts of Kitchener, Ontario, at their respective residences. Latchford was active on piracy forum web sites under the usernames “thebeav”, “jeremyl”, “melly”, and “dn5050”. McSevney was known online as “johnny7107” and Tufts was known as “ruthie”.

The companies say that Latchford operated the BeaverTV and YearlyIKS services and that McSevney and Tufts were his primary resellers. The execution of the Anton Piller order resulted in the identification and dismantling of the BeaverTV North IKS server, the suspension of the BeaverTV South IKS server and the YearlyIKS server, and the seizure of technology and substantial evidence concerning the unlawful activities of Latchford, McSevney, Tufts and others. An injunction was obtained against Latchford, McSevney and Tufts restraining them from engaging in satellite television piracy.

This was another victory in the companies’ continuing efforts against satellite television piracy throughout North America.

[Recove52]

Guess this answers the Question about the border on wether or not NagraStar LLC, EchoStar Technologies LLC, and DISH Network L.L.C will pursue server activity in other countries: now the question is is wether they go after the endusers of these servers...

Good Luck
Rec

[hedley]

I'm guessing that they will only persue the north server, I doubt that they have legal rights for anything south of the border.

[1boxman]

Both bev and dn are together with nagara.. always have been . 2 different countries with different laws etc . They have gone after the servers and large farms .. only dtv that I know of have gone after the end user. I think its been beaten before ..lol

[hondoharry]

only dtv that I know of have gone after the end user. I think its been beaten before ..lol

Keep on lol'ing all you want, where were you for all the Wufman suits?

[1boxman]

Keep on lol'ing all you want, where were you for all the Wufman suits?

End user in canada ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm guessing that they will only persue the north server, I doubt that they have legal rights for anything south of the border.


Is south of the border meaning the US ? If so there is nothing stopping them from filling law suits in the US against end users there alleging fractions under US law if they gather evidence.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Don't think there were any end-user suits in Canada with regards to the Wuffpoop fiasco,but wasn't there end-user suits against several Canadians in the Dark Angel b.s.?


No they have not filled law suits against end users in Canada. I think ( speculating ) this is related to small financial judgments they could get in Canada against end users and also related to Bev who was sued successfully by Videotron for not doing enough against their piracy on their own system. Lawsuits could be filled without Bev but they are the ones with the biggest claim of harm in Canada against end users.



GS2

[1boxman]

Don't think there were any end-user suits in Canada with regards to the Wuffpoop fiasco,but wasn't there end-user suits against several Canadians in the Dark Angel b.s.?
Thats my whole point...about nag so far .

[1boxman]

Keep on lol'ing all you want, where were you for all the Wufman suits?

lol was for ..about beating on who will get sued (end user ) Other words..the discussion ..:tehe:

[surfinisfun]

No they have not filled law suits against end users in Canada. I think ( speculating ) this is related to small financial judgments they could get in Canada against end users and also related to Bev who was sued successfully by Videotron for not doing enough against their piracy on their own system. Lawsuits could be filled without Bev but they are the ones with the biggest claim of harm in Canada against end users.



GS2


Thats true, we have not seen end users in Canada served letters and some of the reason is because of the relatively small awards that they would most likely be entitled to pursue. Of coarse there are other reasons, most have to do with dn and the fact that they can't claim lost revenue from end users in Canada.

This case as far as the Canucks are concerned is a little different because of the north server being taken down on north soil.

Only question left would be if they want to pursue it to the the end user given the minimal awards available thru legal means.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Thats true, we have not seen end users in Canada served letters and some of the reason is because of the relatively small awards that they would most likely be entitled to pursue. Of coarse there are other reasons, most have to do with dn and the fact that they can't claim lost revenue from end users in Canada.

This case as far as the Canucks are concerned is a little different because of the north server being taken down on north soil.

Only question left would be if they want to pursue it to the the end user given the minimal awards available thru legal means.



Bev once sent out letters to end users. I posted a copy of the letter as others did on different sites at the time. Some thought it was fake but its my opinion it was real. Bev sent out the letters collected whatever they did from any who complied with it but never followed through with lawsuits. They could have plan it that way. In that case one could argue it was some form of illegal abuse of demand letters due to the fact of not filling any lawsuits. Don't think there were too many letters sent as there were not that many reports of people receiving them.


Bev sent out two letters. This goes back to 2007. First one demanding a $1000. Second one demanding $2,000. Now I have debated this issue before on what they can get on a Civil Judgment. Some argue no more than a $1000 on how they read the law. I read it that they can get more than $1,000. However if they are not entitled to more than $1000 according to the law as some read it than how can they demand $2,000 in their second letter.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Here is a copy of the second demand letter sent out by Bev. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Here is a copy of the first demand letter. Should have posted this first.



Bell ExpressVu is investigating individuals receiving Bell ExpressVu encrypted subscription programming without authorization. Illegal reception of Bell ExpressVu's programming is accomplished through the use of modified Bell ExpressVu access cards (sometimes referred to as "test cards"), modified free-to-air (FTA) receivers and other illegal signal theft devices.

We recently obtained business records of an entity that sold illegal signal theft devices. These records show that you purchased equipment that is designed to obtain unauthorized access to Bell ExpressVu's programming. We also obtained the business records of an entity that operated a web site that provided information and other services to individuals who were interested in pirating Bell ExpressVu's programming. These records show that you were a registered member of that web site.

We are contacting you because the operation or possession of illegal signal theft equipment to access Bell ExpressVu's programming constitutes a violation of the Radiocommunication Act (Canada) (the "RCA"). In particular Section 10(1)(b) of the RCA makes it a criminal offence to operate or possess any equipment or device for the purposes of decoding Bell ExpressVu's encrypted subscription programming signal without Bell ExpressVu's authorization. Any person found guilty of such an offence is liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to one year, or to both. In addition, Section 18 of the RCA entitles Bell ExpressVu to sue any person operating or possessing signal theft equipment contrary to Section 10(1)(b) of the RCA for any and all losses or damages suffered by Bell ExpressVu due to such conduct and to obtain other remedies against such persons including an injunction prohibiting such person from operating or possessing satellite signal theft equipment.

Satellite piracy is illegal and results in unfair express to Bell ExpressVu and its paying customers. For this reason, Bell ExpressVu actively pursues legal action against those engaged in the facilitation of signal theft.

Bell ExpressVu is willing to resolve this matter informally rather than commence a legal proceeding against you. In return for your cooperation, Bell ExpressVu is willing to settle its claims against you as of the date this letter provided that you:
a) execute the enclosed Settlement Agreement which sates, in part, that you will not purchase, use, attempt to use or possess illegal signal theft equipment or devices to obtain satellite programming in the future, nor will you have any involvement in the unauthorized reception and use of Bell ExpressVu satellite television programming
b) surrender to Bell ExpressVu all illegally modified Access Cards, FTA receivers or other satellite theft equipment or devices in your possession, custody or control
c) pay to Bell ExpressVu the sum of $1000 for your past wrongful conduct and the damages thereby incurred by Bell ExpressVu.

Should you fail to respond to this letter or should you choose to reject Bell ExpressVu's settlement offer, please be advised that Bell ExpressVu will take appropriate steps to protect its rights, including initiating legal proceedings in court seeking the award of damages and other relief.




GS2

[surfinisfun]

I'm not sure how relevant those letters are now, I'm guessing not very, considering many things have changed in 7 years.

Also, you have to consider who they were sent to and under what circumstances - ie:Running a server, re-seller, end user and/or on Canadian soil and so on.

Either way, its all speculation at this point on how they will proceed, or if they will try to do more in this case.

[iq180]

I would think that bell will do the same thing that DN done in the D.A. case, in other words,
Hold on boys she is going to be a bumpy ride up north,JMO.

[dishuser]

I would think that bell will do the same thing that DN done in the D.A. case, in other words,
Hold on boys she is going to be a bumpy ride up north,JMO.

I thought they only went after those that helped with cams?

[iq180]

I thought they only went after those that helped with cams?
I think they did go after end users in the D.A. case.
Think about it why wouldn't they go after end users, they have the server so they have the server logs, the IPs of the end users,
what ports & user passwords.
If they send out demand letters for $1000,00 dollars and the end user don't pay, they take them to court & get $1000,00 dollars
plus what is cost them to take them to court, it's a win=win for bell/nagra.
What I can't understand is why anyone would buy a PS code for a server that's in there own country, its got bad idea all over it,JMO,LOL.

[torpainter]

I think they did go after end users in the D.A. case.
Think about it why wouldn't they go after end users, they have the server so they have the server logs, the IPs of the end users,
what ports & user passwords.
If they send out demand letters for $1000,00 dollars and the end user don't pay, they take them to court & get $1000,00 dollars
plus what is cost them to take them to court, it's a win=win for bell/nagra.
What I can't understand is why anyone would buy a PS code for a server that's in there own country, its got bad idea all over it,JMO,LOL.

there is no evidence they went after end users

[mrpink]

there is no evidence they went after end users

know more then a few folks that decided to play with those boys even with the really bad forms of payment. not a single one ever got a letter or heard a thing after the server was busted.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm not sure how relevant those letters are now, I'm guessing not very, considering many things have changed in 7 years.

Also, you have to consider who they were sent to and under what circumstances - ie:Running a server, re-seller, end user and/or on Canadian soil and so on.

Either way, its all speculation at this point on how they will proceed, or if they will try to do more in this case.


They are not very relevant other than they would be alleging a similar infraction of the the Canadian Radio Communication as did seven years ago.


I just posted them because don't think too many people had seen them and as a reference as to what happened in the past.


People will still say they went after end users or demand letters were never sent. As far as I am concerned demand letters were sent out once seven years ago and no actual lawsuits were ever filled. To say they will is guessing so myself won't say that but will say it can be done so best not leave a paper trail to yourself even in Canada.




GS2

[Benney]

Not sure if it's relevant but it's a good read anyway.


http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/02/20/court-rules-isps-to-release-names-addresses-of-subscribers-linked-to-illegal-downloading/



http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/02/21/canadian-court-decision-on-illegal-downloading-protects-against-copyright-trolls-but-not-against-breaking-the-law/

[Satking]

My name ain't on it.. It goes in the garbage.

[dvp99ca]

Beaver pissed of the wrong person or people and he get it up the ass at the end. Everyone is looking to make a buck and if u screw someone over the wrong way then in this business watch ur back

[dvp99ca]

I still remember the webpage someone made of the beav and they put up his pic where he lives and the rest was history. Law enforcement should just sit back and let these guys rat each other out because everyone is greedy for more money

[Nostradamus]

you really need to get your facts straight regarding timeline of events but yep they are all playing a game and I ma pretty sure that DN has the name of the guy who ratted Beav out and they will just pick him up at the airport next time he visits family in US

[dvp99ca]

reading on other forums that beav was ddosing other servers and websites and people got pissed off and look what happened

[Marcella]

reading on other forums that beav was ddosing other servers and websites and people got pissed off and look what happened

FAIRY TALES can come true, it can happen to u ,when your young at heart.

[dvp99ca]

LMAO say dish and bev do have the servers with all the logs and there are say 10 000 ips they have a record of. Do u really think they can get anywhere with that case? The whole voltran case with teksavvy took 4 or 5 years and the courts finally gave up the names of the ips but other then that nothing else has happened. The Canadian judge said voltran couldnt issue any letters demanding money. I believe there are too many end users to go after its not a small amount because beav had alot of end users. Same thing with nfps god knows how many users they have if they ever get shut down then what?

[satcom staff]

LMAO say dish and bev do have the servers with all the logs and there are say 10 000 ips they have a record of. Do u really think they can get anywhere with that case? The whole voltran case with teksavvy took 4 or 5 years and the courts finally gave up the names of the ips but other then that nothing else has happened. The Canadian judge said voltran couldnt issue any letters demanding money. I believe there are too many end users to go after its not a small amount because beav had alot of end users. Same thing with nfps god knows how many users they have if they ever get shut down then what?

if dish did have access to the server they don't have too go after everyone just the heavy users and they could see who they are by looking at the server info. so they could break it down by going after the clients who paid for 1yr of service and leave everyone eles alone. this is just an example of what they could do.

[Nostradamus]

they would also pick and choose going after those who had something to lose like assets or prestige... more fun busting the mayor of some backwater burg than it is the guy who works at the local junk yard

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

LMAO say dish and bev do have the servers with all the logs and there are say 10 000 ips they have a record of. Do u really think they can get anywhere with that case? The whole voltran case with teksavvy took 4 or 5 years and the courts finally gave up the names of the ips but other then that nothing else has happened. The Canadian judge said voltran couldnt issue any letters demanding money. I believe there are too many end users to go after its not a small amount because beav had alot of end users. Same thing with nfps god knows how many users they have if they ever get shut down then what?



That is not accurate. The Court favored Voltage in 2011. Teksavvy is/was fighting the case but the judge granted Teksavvy more time to warn its customers. Teksavvy says they won't oppose the motion. I assume none of the other internet providers objected other than Teksavvy. ?



At a hearing in Toronto Monday, a Federal Court judge gave TekSavvy, which is not a party to the action, more time to advise the subscribers affected that they could be implicated in the case and should seek legal advice.

Voltage’s motion to compel TekSavvy to hand over the identities is set to be heard Jan. 14 and the ISP said as long as it can provide its customers with adequate notice, it will not oppose the motion.


Here is part of the original ruling from 2011



BETWEEN:


VOLTAGES PICTURES LLC


and


JANE DOE and JOHN DOE


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT


II. Introduction


[2] In BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, 2005 FCA 193 (CanLII), 2005 FCA 193, [2005] 4 F.C.R. 81, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the following:

[42] ... in cases where plaintiffs show that they have a bona fide claim that unknown persons are infringing their copyright, they have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action. ...


[3] The Court accepts the plaintiff’s position in support of its motion as follows:

(i) an order allowing for a written examination for discovery of Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP to be held so that they identify the names and addresses connected to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A of the Statement of Claim filed in this record; and

(ii) an order requiring Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP to disclose to Voltage Pictures LLC the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A of the Statement of Claim filed in this record.


[4] Voltage Pictures LLC is the owner of the copyright on the film Hurt Locker. The defendants copied and distributed this film over the internet without the authorization of Voltage Pictures LLC.


[5] Voltage Pictures LLC has identified the IP addresses used by the defendants, but only their internet service providers can identify them more precisely.



[6] Voltage Pictures LLC is seeking leave to conduct a written examination for discovery of the internet service providers so that they disclose the names and addresses of the customers corresponding to the IP addresses already obtained. Once these customers have been identified, Voltage Pictures LLC can send formal notices and, where applicable, add these persons as defendants to this action.


III. Facts


[7] The defendants downloaded, copied and distributed the film Hurt Locker through peer-to-peer networks on the internet, without the authorization of Voltage Pictures LLC. They did so anonymously; they can be identified only by their IP addresses (Affidavit of Daniel Arheidt, sworn on August 24, 2011, at paras. 23-25).


[8] An IP address is merely a series of numbers, as appears from the table attached as Annex A to the Statement of Claim dated June 20, 2011.


[9] The IP addresses in question belong to Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP (internet service providers) and are used by customers when they access the internet. The internet service providers record the use of their IP addresses and can identify who has used an IP address at a specific time and date (Affidavit of Daniel Arheidt at para 23).


[10] Voltage Pictures LLC must therefore call upon the internet service providers to obtain the names and addresses corresponding to the IP addresses that it has already obtained by consulting public sources.


[11] Without this information, Voltage Pictures LLC cannot identify those persons who have infringed its copyright and will be deprived of its right to bring an action against them.


[25] However, the appellants argued that the main issue on the motion was the identity of each person who is committing infringement of the appellants' copyrights. I agree and find that because this issue inevitably falls within the words in subsection 238(1) of the Rules as being "an issue in the action," rule 238 is broad enough to permit discovery in cases such as this.



[42] Thus, in my view, in cases where plaintiffs show that they have a bona fide claim that unknown persons are infringing their copyright, they have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action. However, caution must be exercised by the courts in ordering such disclosure, to make sure that privacy rights are invaded in the most minimal way.


[16] To obtain the name and address of a customer of an internet service provider, plaintiffs must prove that they have a bona fide claim against that customer and that they meet the criteria of Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules (BMG, above, at paras. 33 and 34).

[17] Voltage Pictures LLC has a bona fide claim against the defendants: it has brought an action against them for having infringed its copyright when they copied and publicly distributed the film Hurt Locker.


(3) The Court may, on a motion under subsection (1), grant leave to examine a person and determine the time and manner of conducting the examination, if it is satisfied that





(a) the person may have information on an issue in the action;







(b) the party has been unable to obtain the information informally from the person or from another source by any other reasonable means;



(c) it would be unfair not to allow the party an opportunity to question the person before trial; and



(d) the questioning will not cause undue delay, inconvenience or expense to the person or to the other parties.









[20] Voltage Pictures LLC does not know the names and addresses of the defendants. Since they are all customers of the internet service providers, the internet service providers can match the IP addresses identified by Voltage Pictures LLC with their internal records and provide the names and addresses of the defendants.



[21] This information is, in fact, relevant to this case.



[22] The internet service providers cannot disclose the names and address of their customers without an order of this Court.



Paragraph 238(3)(c) of the Federal Courts Rules – it would be unfair not to allow Voltage Pictures LLC an opportunity to question the internet service providers



[23] In BMG, above, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed:

[42] ... in cases where plaintiffs show that they have a bona fide claim that unknown persons are infringing their copyright, they have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action...



[24] Voltage Pictures LLC cannot assert its copyright or bring an action against the defendants if it does not know their names and addresses.



[25] Defendants should not have the possibility of hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and continuing to infringe the copyright of Voltage Pictures LLC.



[26] Voltage Pictures LLC agrees to reimburse any reasonable expenses incurred by the internet service providers in collecting the information sought.



[27] Obtaining the names and addresses of the defendants will speed up this action. Without this information, Voltage Pictures LLC cannot assert its rights.



[28] Voltage Pictures LLC is asking this Court that the minimum information necessary to allow it to assert its rights against the defendants be disclosed to it.



IV. Conclusion



[29] The Court grants Voltage Pictures LLC’s motion without costs given that the plaintiff’s motion is not contested by any of the internet service providers.

JUDGMENT

Further to the analysis undertaken, the Court orders that:



Voltage Pictures LLC proceed with a written examination for discovery of Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in order to obtain the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A attached to the Notice of Motion.



Within two weeks, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP disclose to Voltage Pictures LLC the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A. This disclosure shall be in Microsoft Excel format, with publishing rights, encrypted on a compact disk or any other electronic medium.



Voltage Pictures LLC reimburse any reasonable expenses incurred by Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in collecting the personal information identified in paragraph 1 of this order.



Without costs.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

Judge












GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

There was another case but its not posted. Below is from 2012. Don't know what happen since. But it looks like in Canada the courts are moving towards plaintiffs seeking internet providers to provide the information they are missing.




Last month a Federal Court judge in Montreal ordered Internet providers to turn over the names and addresses associated with about 50 IP addresses in a case brought by NGN Prima Productions Inc.




Following an important court ruling last week, thousands of Canadians are now at risk of being exposed to mass BitTorrent lawsuits. That’s the message from the boss an anti-piracy outfit who says is company has been monitoring BitTorrent networks for infringements and has amassed data on millions of users. The court ruling involved just 50 Canadians but another case on the horizon involves thousands of alleged pirates.

As reported here on TorrentFreak every other week, copyright trolls are alive and well in the United States and Europe.

“Pay us a cash settlement,” the trolls advise, “or we’ll make your life a misery.”

While Canadians are known for their love of online file-sharing, in contrast they have engaged in their pastime largely unhindered for more than a decade. But a court ruling last week has the potential to change the landscape in the largely sharing-tolerant country.

The case involves NGN Prima Productions Inc, a Canadian company active in the US copyright troll scene gathering cash settlements from alleged sharers of its action movie “Recoil.”

Not content with trolling within the confines of the U.S., recently NGN filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court in Montreal.

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.

To this end, the ISPs should be ordered to hand over the names and addresses of the subscribers in question so that NGN could pursue them for damages, the company insisted.

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.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

And upon further reading it does seem the actions are failing in court so my initial impression before reading this that courts in Canada were favoring plaintiffs seeking ISP's to hand over info was incorrect. From Nov, 2013




Canipre, Distributel, Distributel File Sharing Lawsuit, Distributel Lawsuit, Distributel Piracy Lawsuit, File Sharing Lawsuits Canada, Piracy Canada, Piracy Lawsuits Canada, TekSavvy, Unauthorized Downloading, Voltage Pictures, Canada Business News

A Canadian movie production company’s effort to sue unauthorized downloaders of its films has failed, with the company abandoning its lawsuit.

NGN Prima Productions launched a lawsuit last year against 50 unnamed internet subscribers who allegedly downloaded the company’s straight-to-video movies “Recoil,” “Crash Site” and “Dawn Rider.”

The suit asked several small internet providers — the largest of which is Distributel — to identify the subscribers, whose IP addresses were located using forensic software.

In court arguments earlier this year, Distributel fought back against the lawsuit aggressively, using a vast array of arguments to hold off NGN’s request and accusing the production company of “copyright trolling,” tech law expert Michael Geist reported on his blog.

The internet provider suggested NGN was misleading the public, entering into evidence a letter from NGN to an alleged copyright infringer, asking the infringer for $1,500 or face $20,000 in lawsuit damages.

But Canada’s recently-enacted copyright law caps liability for non-commercial infringement at $5,000, not $20,000.

Distributel argued companies that are filing these lawsuits appear to be targeting smaller internet service providers that have fewer resources with which to fight court battles. It pointed to a lawsuit, currently before the courts, by U.S.-based Voltage Pictures targeting customers of Ontario-based indie ISP TekSavvy.

This is not the first time that a file-sharing lawsuit in Canada has been abandoned; in fact, it appears so far copyright holders have gained little from repeated efforts to sue internet users over unauthorized sharing.

Voltage Pictures last year gave up on a lawsuit against subscribers of three internet providers — Bell, Cogeco and Videotron. The company never offered any reasons for abandoning the suit.

Another suit — Voltage’s suit against TekSavvy subscribers — is currently before the courts.



Wonder why they abandon their efforts on Bell, Cogeco and Videotron but not on Teksavvy. ?




GS2

[DualTest]

We all know how much of a fan Bell was of torrents. They throttled them at one time, maybe still are (I quit downloading long ago). They were trying to kill them from the start. It wouldn't have taken much for them to get onside with this.

And Copyright trolling, hmmm why does that sound so familiar? Sending out letters asking for thousands of dollars for copyright infringement, or go to court and risk losing more.

It won't be long until the start targeting streaming now.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

And further to the report in Nov, 2013, the court ruled in Feb, 2014 in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered that Teksavvy hand over the request information to Voltage. The court is to review the proposed letter to be sent to the subscribers of Teksavvy first. I doubt there is any further update on this and don't know if by any chance Teksavvy appealed this ruling. So as it stands as of now the Court in Canada has ruled in favor of the ISP handing over information so Voltage can pursue end users unless it was appealed. This ruling only applies to Teksavvy.


Also not sure why Voltage abandon their actions against the other IPS and continued with Teksavvy only.


I have attached the ruling. I think now we have a clearer picture what has happen in Canada from the beginning till now. I think too many times there are incorrect reports so by doing this we can see the different stages that has happened.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Its unlikely the case was appealed if Teksavvy is content with the ruling as per this article.




In a pivotal courtroom battle over unauthorized downloading in Canada, a Federal Court has handed down a major ruling – one that has all sides claiming victory.

Canadian Internet service provider TekSavvy Solutions Inc. has been ordered to hand over a list of names and addresses of its customers suspected of illegally downloading movies, in a landmark Federal Court decision.
More Related to this Story


The ruling is sure to grab the attention of millions of Canadian who engage in what is known as “peer-to-peer” file sharing on the Internet, which allows users to share copyrighted movies or other content for free. But its ultimate impact on anyone who illegally downloads material in Canada is harder to predict.

In a decision dated Feb. 20, the Federal Court of Canada sided with Voltage Pictures LLC, producer of the Oscar-nominated film The Hurt Locker and ordered TekSavvy to produce a list of about 2,000 names and address of customers associated with Internet Protocol (IP) addresses the film company alleges illegally downloaded its movies.

Lawyer James Zibarras, who acted for Voltage, said the decision marks a shift from a 2006 ruling that went against BMG Canada Inc., which was attempting to track down illegal music downloaders.

“That was heralded by many people as a kind of green light for downloading,” Mr. Zibarras said. “This is the first time that case has been reconsidered by the court.”

Voltage’s biggest win may come outside the courtroom, and be harder to measure. Even though the courts put several restrictions on the manner in which Voltage can use the customer information it will receive, many Canadian Internet users will undoubtedly see the news that the information has been handed over as a sign that they may be in for a lot more trouble if they download copyrighted content. Ultimately, such a reaction may result in a reduction, if not an outright end, of the unauthorized downloading of Voltage’s movies – without having to take every infringing user to court.

“We’re not going to seek their firstborns,” Mr. Zibarras said, arguing that small movie producers have been hurt by the revenue they lose as a result of illegal downloading. “But there has to be some recourse of rights owners.”

In the decision, Federal Court Prothonotary Kevin Aalto said Voltage’s communications with TekSavvy users must be approved by the court, and its demand letters will “clearly state in bold type that no Court has yet made a determination that such Subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages.” And any litigation it launches will be managed in connection with this case, the court ruled.

For its part, TekSavvy seized on these restrictions to put the court decision in what, for itself and its customers, is a more positive light.

“We are pleased with these new safeguards and are proud to have played a role in increasing the protection of consumers,” said TekSavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault, who added his company will not hand over any customer information until all the court’s conditions are met.

“TekSavvy will maintain a role in the court process moving forward to ensure that our customers’ rights continue to be at the forefront of these proceedings.”

But with both sides claiming victory, it still remains unclear just how broad the decision’s impact could be.

Intervening in the case, and essentially facing off against Voltage, was University of Ottawa law professor David Fewer, executive director of the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. While the decision does force TekSavvy to hand over the list of addresses for Voltage to pursue copyright infringement cases, Mr. Fewer said that the ruling clarifies what legal tests a copyright holder must meet and also imposes safeguards to block the activity of so-called “copyright trolls.”

Prof. Fewer had argued that allowing copyright holders to access contact information allows the creation of a “business model” that sends small-time users threatening letters demanding large payments for copyright infringement, as has been seen in the United States. Many people settle and pay instead of going through the greater expense of fighting in court. “From my view, it slams the door on the copyright-troll business model in Canada.”





GS2

[dvp99ca]

Like i said nothing is going through in Canada and all of a sudden dish and bell have thousands of ips and going to send everyone a letter LOL. Go for it let see what happens. With that many end users they will be in and out of courts for years. IP address is not enough if they have payment statements thats one thing but simple ip wont hold up as u seen in the cases above thats not enough evidence because with proper knowledge most people's wifi can be hacked

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Like i said nothing is going through in Canada and all of a sudden dish and bell have thousands of ips and going to send everyone a letter LOL. Go for it let see what happens. With that many end users they will be in and out of courts for years. IP address is not enough if they have payment statements thats one thing but simple ip wont hold up as u seen in the cases above thats not enough evidence because with proper knowledge most people's wifi can be hacked



With getting an Anton Piller order and executing it at a few locations its likely they have more than IPs. I don't know anything about Beavertv. How did someone get their service(s). ? I am assuming there was some form of payment and thus records of them.


However this does not mean there will be demand letters sent out in Canada. For me it comes down to the costs, time, propaganda versus the possible financial rewards and Judgements to be obtained.


Its a large undertaking to hire law firms across a country for filling. DN is use to this. Bev on the other hand is not and think they will be content that Beaver was taken down and that's it. They could again send out demand letters hoping to collect some funds but in this case I would suggest not acting and waiting for an actual lawsuit to be filled. In the US they can start off with demanding $3,500 and than going to court to get up to $10,000 for default judgements, not in Canada the way I see it. I don't see courts in Canada awarding more than what they would demand in a demand letter. I see a risk in the US with not reacting to a demand letter with paying more later that I am not sure I see that in Canada.


As always its best to check with a lawyer if anything ever came up. Myself and others are just giving opinions that should not be taken as professional legal opinions ever.



GS2

[1boxman]

There is one firm , out of Quebec I believe that maybe taking on the copyright downloads (psp etc) but not on board as of yet .There was mention at that time about satellite .

[dvp99ca]

Only way i seen people get demand letters is if dish finds the dealer issues a subpeona of paypal or cc records and then they issue the extortion letter demanding money. I challenge anyone to show me they issued an extortion letter by have an ip address because thats not enough evidence like i said anyone can get their wifi hacked.

[dishuser]

Only way i seen people get demand letters is if dish finds the dealer issues a subpeona of paypal or cc records and then they issue the extortion letter demanding money. I challenge anyone to show me they issued an extortion letter by have an ip address because thats not enough evidence like i said anyone can get their wifi hacked.you're a broken record

[kutter]

Only way i seen people get demand letters is if dish finds the dealer issues a subpeona of paypal or cc records and then they issue the extortion letter demanding money. I challenge anyone to show me they issued an extortion letter by have an ip address because thats not enough evidence like i said anyone can get their wifi hacked.

then explain why TekSavvy was forced to hand over some of it's customers personal info based on an IP alone :)

[sodusme]

I didn't read through the whole thread but I find this very interesting:


The suit asked several small internet providers — the largest of which is Distributel — to identify the subscribers, whose IP addresses were located using forensic software.

So hiring a college kid who's all hopped up on Monster Drinks and Doritos to look at a computer screen and see who's i.p. appears in the torrent swarm is "forensics" now? LOL These guys are so full of sh*t their eyes are brown. There isn't any "forensics software" used on torrent copyright infringement. Its quite simple you look at the swarm and take a screenshot of the i.p's and then WHOIS the i.p. and contact the ISP provider.

They want the judge and the unsuspecting internet user to think this is some big mystery and there is a lot of technical "know how" that goes into it. What a joke. LOL

[sodusme]

then explain why TekSavvy was forced to hand over some of it's customers personal info based on an IP alone :)

Because Canadian law differs from U.S. law. You wouldn't get away with that in the U.S.---guaranteed.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Because Canadian law differs from U.S. law. You wouldn't get away with that in the U.S.---guaranteed.


But we have been talking about a Canadian Civil bust, Teksavvy that operates in Canada, and Canadian law but really court decisions. If you read the laws you would not see that much difference. The ruling on Teksavvy could have been appealed where a higher court could have over turned the ruling. Teksavvy seemed to be ok with the compromise that there are conditions in placed to be followed before a demand letter could go out.


Courts could still rule in the US for ISP's to handle over info. Courts interpretate laws and they can rule and interpretate them differently between themselves. Than its off to higher courts to make the interpretation until that higher court interpretation could get appealed. There are 22 file sharing cases in the US where Voltage is listed as a Plaintiff. At lese it says that in the Teksavvy ruling. You should read the whole ruling as it goes into many details that it considered. The court made an effort to consider all parties points, the privacy act, Copyright act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It referred to the US litigation and England courts decisions on this involving Voltage. It reviewed some of the rulings in the UK and the US in great detail for consideration on its ruling. It really provides a lot of information to anyone who reads the rulings. The court has put in safeguards for the possible alleged infringers. The court is going to manage the conduct of Voltage described as a specially managed action with the court appointing a case management judge will be appointed. The demand letter can't go out without the review and approval of the court. In US cases Voltage as send out demand letters with their language and questionable conduct resulting in opinions from US courts about their conduct as being inappropriate. Here in Canada they can no even send out the demand letter with the court intervening to make sure its done properly with the right conduct.




GS2

[sodusme]

Yeah I got the gist of it.

My stand is, was and always will be that you cannot identify an individual from an i.p. alone. It doesn't matter to me how many safeguards are put into place to protect defendants from the plaintiff's "questionable" tactics. There just doesn't exist an effective way to look at an i.p. on a computer screen and say "John Doe was behind that i.p. and he owes us X amount of money". I can list about 6 ways that an i.p. can be stolen and yes we have beat this dead horse many, many times. I realize that its up to the i.p. subscriber to secure his equipment but that has no bearing on whether you owe XYZ company money for refusing to do that. That would be a contract with you and the ISP provider and while they could dump you off their service a third party cannot dictate that you pay up for infringement because you didn't secure your connection.

Here is an interesting read from a laymen in the information technology field who is basically reiterating what I have said here in the past of how its impossible to identify an individual from an i.p. AND of how "disjointed" pieces of a "file" or I'd go so far as to say even a "control word" don't make for copyright infringement.


http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/thoughts-on-why-its-impossible-to-prove-infringement-by-downloaders/

I think this paragraph sums it up best:


Pieces of a file are almost universally useless on their own: The pieces of a file that are shared are generally of very limited use on their own; in the vast majority of cases, without the first piece of a file containing header information that lays out the format specifications of the file, pieces are often completely useless and might as well be random noise. One could argue that having an unusable collection of pieces of the file cannot be considered infringement, because (depending on the file format) missing the header data, the end-of-file data, and/or intermediate data required to connect pieces is sufficient to make it impossible for the computer to reproduce a copyrighted work or a portion thereof from the incomplete file. Video streams in particular encode “key frames” every few seconds, and between those key frames, the only data is what has changed between each successive frame; thus, damage or missing data for a single frame in a video file will render hundreds of video frames thereafter useless.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yeah I got the gist of it.

My stand is, was and always will be that you cannot identify an individual from an i.p. alone. It doesn't matter to me how many safeguards are put into place to protect defendants from the plaintiff's "questionable" tactics. There just doesn't exist an effective way to look at an i.p. on a computer screen and say "John Doe was behind that i.p. and he owes us X amount of money". I can list about 6 ways that an i.p. can be stolen and yes we have beat this dead horse many, many times. I realize that its up to the i.p. subscriber to secure his equipment but that has no bearing on whether you owe XYZ company money for refusing to do that. That would be a contract with you and the ISP provider and while they could dump you off their service a third party cannot dictate that you pay up for infringement because you didn't secure your connection.

Here is an interesting read from a laymen in the information technology field who is basically reiterating what I have said here in the past of how its impossible to identify an individual from an i.p. AND of how "disjointed" pieces of a "file" or I'd go so far as to say even a "control word" don't make for copyright infringement.


http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/thoughts-on-why-its-impossible-to-prove-infringement-by-downloaders/

I think this paragraph sums it up best:



You as a defendant can come to court with your six ways explaining why it was not you or that your IP was stolen. Lawsuits are based on allegations that may or may not be true. You can defend against them. But to say a Civil allegation based on it being your IP can't be made I don't think is correct either. In any case that is an argument for you to make it court is the way I see it.


But you ought to read the ruling because the court has already said that the demand letter must contain as per the screenshot I attached saying it does not mean its you who did it. It is a safeguard already put in and lays the door why open to say you have the wrong person it was not me. If you read the ruling you'll see the court took a lot of time to try address issues including the one you expressed.



GS2

[kutter]

Yeah I got the gist of it.

My stand is, was and always will be that you cannot identify an individual from an i.p. alone. It doesn't matter to me how many safeguards are put into place to protect defendants from the plaintiff's "questionable" tactics. There just doesn't exist an effective way to look at an i.p. on a computer screen and say "John Doe was behind that i.p. and he owes us X amount of money". I can list about 6 ways that an i.p. can be stolen and yes we have beat this dead horse many, many times. I realize that its up to the i.p. subscriber to secure his equipment but that has no bearing on whether you owe XYZ company money for refusing to do that. That would be a contract with you and the ISP provider and while they could dump you off their service a third party cannot dictate that you pay up for infringement because you didn't secure your connection.

Here is an interesting read from a laymen in the information technology field who is basically reiterating what I have said here in the past of how its impossible to identify an individual from an i.p. AND of how "disjointed" pieces of a "file" or I'd go so far as to say even a "control word" don't make for copyright infringement.


http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/thoughts-on-why-its-impossible-to-prove-infringement-by-downloaders/

I think this paragraph sums it up best:

You know sod, I don't think anyone is denying that there are legitimate ways to defend allegations of that nature, but IMO a judge should not be making assumptions that would deny the plaintiff their rights either. The judge showed a great deal of common sense in balancing privacy concerns against the plaintiffs rights.

[kutter]

In reality, the judge is only saying that the owner of the account can be questioned and possibly held accountable if the plaintiff can show proof of a copyright infringement.

[sodusme]

I have yet to read this decision but really privacy issues and "plaintiffs rights" are a mute point. There is no possible way to identify an individual from an i.p. alone period. If I have some extra time I will read through it.

Now from what I have seen in these last posts its almost like the judge is saying "OK you can proceed with your case if you are making the claim against the i.p. and NOT the person". That goes against the judicial system as well as common sense. You must bring suit against an individual not an i.p.

While I appreciate the judges clever wording of: "any demand letter should stipulate that the person receiving the letter may not be the person who was responsible for the infringing acts" its a crock. So if its not the person who received the letter then who is it? The person named in the lawsuit has to be the questionable party. You can't sue a person for what their neighbor did. You can't sue a person for what a hacker did. You can't sue a person for what their house guest staying with them did. And lastly you cannot sue an i.p.

[sodusme]

OK just read through it.

Some glaring "misnomers" come to attention. The most serious one is "their unique i.p. address assigned to them by Teksavy". There is no such thing as a "unique" i.p. address on the internet. Unique denotes that one and only one exist. Even a "static" i.p. is vulnerable to theft and thus can be "duplicated". So how they can get away with saying that is beyond me.

Also this whole thing about privacy is like I said a "mute" point. The only thing these trolls have to go on is an i.p. address and the court has already established that it doesn't identify an individual.

Lastly you have the technology of how P2P works. You share "packets" which as this court document outlines are pieces of a file. Those packets as expressed in my other post do not comprise a "copyright" work as they are not in there entirety. Even someone who is in possession of an entire movie on the HDD is only sharing snippets or packets of said movie. They are never sharing the entire works in its whole. Its just not the way it works.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I have yet to read this decision but really privacy issues and "plaintiffs rights" are a mute point. There is no possible way to identify an individual from an i.p. alone period. If I have some extra time I will read through it.

Now from what I have seen in these last posts its almost like the judge is saying "OK you can proceed with your case if you are making the claim against the i.p. and NOT the person". That goes against the judicial system as well as common sense. You must bring suit against an individual not an i.p.

While I appreciate the judges clever wording of: "any demand letter should stipulate that the person receiving the letter may not be the person who was responsible for the infringing acts" its a crock. So if its not the person who received the letter then who is it? The person named in the lawsuit has to be the questionable party. You can't sue a person for what their neighbor did. You can't sue a person for what a hacker did. You can't sue a person for what their house guest staying with them did. And lastly you cannot sue an i.p.



So you prefer they name everyone who lives in the house as defendants including house guests and neighbors. Your just adding on the neighbor did it or the house guest did it as your possibilities. Its like saying the dog did it. You can always come up with theories/defenses in any case including murder cases.


Sorry but when they get to court the judge can decide based on testimony. The judge could very well believe the defendant that the neighbor did it if that is the claim.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

OK just read through it.

Some glaring "misnomers" come to attention. The most serious one is "their unique i.p. address assigned to them by Teksavy". There is no such thing as a "unique" i.p. address on the internet. Unique denotes that one and only one exist. Even a "static" i.p. is vulnerable to theft and thus can be "duplicated". So how they can get away with saying that is beyond me.

Also this whole thing about privacy is like I said a "mute" point. The only thing these trolls have to go on is an i.p. address and the court has already established that it doesn't identify an individual.

Lastly you have the technology of how P2P works. You share "packets" which as this court document outlines are pieces of a file. Those packets as expressed in my other post do not comprise a "copyright" work as they are not in there entirety. Even someone who is in possession of an entire movie on the HDD is only sharing snippets or packets of said movie. They are never sharing the entire works in its whole. Its just not the way it works.



So the demand letter should include that the IP is vulnerable to theft and can be duplicated. ? What your doing is taking your technical knowledge and than applying any possible theory why it might not be the defendant named.


All your arguments can be brought to court if you wish. You can state that in your answer to the complaint. You can bring your own expert to testify to that.


What your suggesting is that there should be no hearing unless you can rule out neighbors, guests in the house, stolen IP or whatever anyone thinks of before. What do you think court is for. ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

This really sums it up. <br />
<br />
<br />
If police find an illegal weapon in a house should they or the prosecution not make a charge to the owner of the home because it could belong to some house guest or...

[sodusme]

So you prefer they name everyone who lives in the house as defendants including house guests and neighbors. Your just adding on the neighbor did it or the house guest did it as your possibilities. Its like saying the dog did it. You can always come up with theories/defenses in any case including murder cases.


Sorry but when they get to court the judge can decide based on testimony. The judge could very well believe the defendant that the neighbor did it if that is the claim.



GS2

No what I'm saying is you cannot name anyone as you do not have the necessary information to do so. At best you can name an i.p. address and that is not enough. Ever seen a criminal case where there was no defendant named and only a 32 bit i.p. address named? Even if you have circumstantial evidence you have at a minimum a "suspect". That suspect has a name and is identifiable. With these yeah you have a "suspect" but he's known OR unknown as the case is more often than not by a 32 bit i.p. address.


So the demand letter should include that the IP is vulnerable to theft and can be duplicated. ? What your doing is taking your technical knowledge and than applying any possible theory why it might not be the defendant named.


All your arguments can be brought to court if you wish. You can state that in your answer to the complaint. You can bring your own expert to testify to that.


What your suggesting is that there should be no hearing unless you can rule out neighbors, guests in the house, stolen IP or whatever anyone thinks of before. What do you think court is for. ?



GS2

No what the courts are doing is ignoring technical know how. I'm sure you've heard "ignorance is no excuse" regarding breaking the law right? The same holds true on the other end of that spectrum "ignorance of technology is no excuse for litigation" IMO. The plaintiffs are bringing litigation on something that they have no idea of how it works and its obvious by reading this court document that no one involved in the case has a grasp of how this stuff works either.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

No what I'm saying is you cannot name anyone as you do not have the necessary information to do so. At best you can name an i.p. address and that is not enough. Ever seen a criminal case where there was no defendant named and only a 32 bit i.p. address named? Even if you have circumstantial evidence you have at a minimum a "suspect". That suspect has a name and is identifiable. With these yeah you have a "suspect" but he's known OR unknown as the case is more often than not by a 32 bit i.p. address.



After getting the information from Teksavvy they will name the account holder with clearly stating in bold that no court has made any determination that the subscriber is liable. Further to that any defendant has the right to seek a case conference with the case management Judge for issues arising from the proceedings. I have seen many cases where they don't name a defendant but use John & Jane Does in the meantime.




No what the courts are doing is ignoring technical know how. I'm sure you've heard "ignorance is no excuse" regarding breaking the law right? The same holds true on the other end of that spectrum "ignorance of technology is no excuse for litigation" IMO. The plaintiffs are bringing litigation on something that they have no idea of how it works and its obvious by reading this court document that no one involved in the case has a grasp of how this stuff works either.



The court has listen to both parties who submitted whatever technical issues there were on this. If Teksavvy did not raise the technical issue you feel is missing its not the court's fault. Any defendant can raise what you feel is missing on the technical know how.




GS2

[kutter]

No what I'm saying is you cannot name anyone as you do not have the necessary information to do so. At best you can name an i.p. address and that is not enough. Ever seen a criminal case where there was no defendant named and only a 32 bit i.p. address named? Even if you have circumstantial evidence you have at a minimum a "suspect". That suspect has a name and is identifiable. With these yeah you have a "suspect" but he's known OR unknown as the case is more often than not by a 32 bit i.p. address.



No what the courts are doing is ignoring technical know how. I'm sure you've heard "ignorance is no excuse" regarding breaking the law right? The same holds true on the other end of that spectrum "ignorance of technology is no excuse for litigation" IMO. The plaintiffs are bringing litigation on something that they have no idea of how it works and its obvious by reading this court document that no one involved in the case has a grasp of how this stuff works either.

What you seem to be missing is that the court has made no findings other than to say that yes the person that registered that account can be identified. They haven't ruled on anything else. Although they did limit how the plaintiffs can proceed.

[sodusme]

After getting the information from Teksavvy they will name the account holder with clearly stating in bold that no court has made any determination that the subscriber is liable. Further to that any defendant has the right to seek a case conference with the case management Judge for issues arising from the proceedings. I have seen many cases where they don't name a defendant but use John & Jane Does in the meantime.







The court has listen to both parties who submitted whatever technical issues there were on this. If Teksavvy did not raise the technical issue you feel is missing its not the court's fault. Any defendant can raise what you feel is missing on the technical know how.




GS2

So "after getting the information from Techsavy" they will proceed with litigation? So before "getting the information" what do they have? They have nothing---other than as I've said a 32 bit i.p. address. That is IMO not enough to proceed with litigation. I realize that all investigations start somewhere but these are people that have no investigatory experience at all I mean for crying out loud we are talking about a pr0n company getting your personal information based on an i.p. that they saw in a torrent swarm.

This would be different if it was the FBI or even local police department handling the "investigation" but its not. You have some two bit pr0n company playing Kojak here. "Yes your honor we saw an i.p. in a torrent swam and now we demand this persons personal information from XYZ internet company so we can sue his pants off".

You honestly feel there is nothing wrong with this? This is just another attempt at eroding our civil liberties and right to privacy. Then the company has the audacity to say in the court proceedings that because you participate in a torrent swarm that you give up your right to privacy because you knowingly put your i.p. out there. Yeah OK that's like saying "Because you sent that email using your public i.p. we have a right to read it and track you down". That's an absurd statement for that company to make. They should be counter sued and run out of business IMO.


What you seem to be missing is that the court has made no findings other than to say that yes the person that registered that account can be identified. They haven't ruled on anything else. Although they did limit how the plaintiffs can proceed.

And they shouldn't be allowed that much. I see where they will be allowed the name and address of the person but not the telephone and email. They shouldn't be allowed anything at all because as sure I'm sitting here there will be outright innocent people caught up in this witch hunt trolling. It happens every day of the week and as the court has already heard in this day and age people will pay up just to make it go away---whether they are actually guilty OR not.

So as I said SORRY you have an i.p. alone to start with you get nothing IMO. These copyright trolls are simply crying about a medium that they cannot control and cannot police. Everyone from presidents to ISP's has been trying to "control" the internet for as long as I can remember and its simply impossible to do so.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

So "after getting the information from Techsavy" they will proceed with litigation?


No they will then submit a proposed letter of demand the court will review first for seeing that it complies with their conditions they set out. If approved than those letters will be sent that will specially say that you who receives the letter doesn't mean your the one who committed the infraction.



So before "getting the information" what do they have? They have nothing---other than as I've said a 32 bit i.p. address. That is IMO not enough to proceed with litigation. I realize that all investigations start somewhere but these are people that have no investigatory experience at all I mean for crying out loud we are talking about a pr0n company getting your personal information based on an i.p. that they saw in a torrent swarm.

This would be different if it was the FBI or even local police department handling the "investigation" but its not. You have some two bit pr0n company playing Kojak here. "Yes your honor we saw an i.p. in a torrent swam and now we demand this persons personal information from XYZ internet company so we can sue his pants off".

You honestly feel there is nothing wrong with this? This is just another attempt at eroding our civil liberties and right to privacy. Then the company has the audacity to say in the court proceedings that because you participate in a torrent swarm that you give up your right to privacy because you knowingly put your i.p. out there. Yeah OK that's like saying "Because you sent that email using your public i.p. we have a right to read it and track you down". That's an absurd statement for that company to make. They should be counter sued and run out of business IMO.


No I see nothing wrong with it. I concur with this:




In my view, it would make little sense to require proof of a prima facie case at the stage of the present proceeding. The plaintiffs do not know the identity of the persons they wish to sue, let alone the details of precisely what was done by each of them such as to actually prove infringement. Such facts would only be established after examination for discovery and trial. The plaintiffs would be effectively stripped of a remedy if the Courts were to impose upon them, at this stage, the burden of showing a prima facie case. It is sufficient if they show a bona fide claim, i.e. that they really do intend to bring an action for infringement of copyright based upon the information they obtain, and that there is no other improper purpose for seeking the identity of these persons.


And this:




Modern technology such as the Internet has provided extraordinary benefits for society, which include faster and more efficient means of communication to wider audiences. This technology must not be allowed to obliterate those personal property rights which society has deemed important. Although privacy concerns must also be considered, it seems to me that they must yield to public concerns for the protection of intellectual property rights in situations where infringement threatens to erode those rights.


And this:





Also, as the intervener, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, pointed out, plaintiffs should be careful not to extract private information unrelated to copyright infringement, in their investigation. If private information irrelevant to the copyright issues is extracted, and disclosure of the user's identity is made, the recipient of the information may then be in possession of highly confidential information about the user. If this information is unrelated to copyright infringement, this would be an unjustified intrusion into the rights of the user and might well amount to a breach of PIPEDA by the ISPs, leaving them open to prosecution. Thus in situations where the plaintiffs have failed in their investigation to limit the acquisition of information to the copyright infringement issues, a court might well be justified in declining to grant an order for disclosure of the user's identity.

In any event, if a disclosure order is granted, specific directions should be given as to the type of information disclosed and the manner in which it can be used. In addition, it must be said that where there exists evidence of copyright infringement, privacy concerns may be met if the court orders that the user only be identified by initials, or makes a confidentiality order.



I think a court has to balance both rights and I think they have tried to do that with a confidentiality order.





GS2

[sodusme]

No they will then submit a proposed letter of demand the court will review first for seeing that it complies with their conditions they set out. If approved than those letters will be sent that will specially say that you who receives the letter doesn't mean your the one who committed the infraction.





No I see nothing wrong with it. I concur with this:


In my view, it would make little sense to require proof of a prima facie case at the stage of the present proceeding. The plaintiffs do not know the identity of the persons they wish to sue, let alone the details of precisely what was done by each of them such as to actually prove infringement. Such facts would only be established after examination for discovery and trial. The plaintiffs would be effectively stripped of a remedy if the Courts were to impose upon them, at this stage, the burden of showing a prima facie case. It is sufficient if they show a bona fide claim, i.e. that they really do intend to bring an action for infringement of copyright based upon the information they obtain, and that there is no other improper purpose for seeking the identity of these persons.

And this:


Modern technology such as the Internet has provided extraordinary benefits for society, which include faster and more efficient means of communication to wider audiences. This technology must not be allowed to obliterate those personal property rights which society has deemed important. Although privacy concerns must also be considered, it seems to me that they must yield to public concerns for the protection of intellectual property rights in situations where infringement threatens to erode those rights.



GS2

But once the letters are "approved" regardless if they comply or not the damage is already done. In other words at that very point you have lost your right to privacy based solely on a 32 bit i.p. address.

So in other words the court system doesn't care who's private, personal information you obtain so long as you intend to "sue" with that information. I'm not sure about anyone else but something doesn't seem just quite right about that. "Yes plaintiff can have the i.p. address holders private, personal information since plaintiff has shown that they intend to actually sue and not do anything else". How does that make any sense at all?

Regardless if a suit is with merit or without merit or being used as a legitimate copyright infringement enforcement tool or illegitimate the fact remains that your personal, private information has been handed out based upon a 32 bit i.p. address. Furthermore it hasn't even been handed to an investigatory team but to a pr0n company?!?!

You do realize that most pr0n companies are involved in organized crime right? Prostitution, racketeering, money laundering, identity theft and so forth. Not quite the kind of company that I would prefer having my personal information and I would wager to say probably not a company you would want having yours either?

Here is a little something to chew on while you contemplate how righteous these pr0n companies and their copyright infringement claims are:


http://obu-investigators.com/xuk/porn/meese/404-organized-crime-and-pornography.htm

And we as a society wonder why there is so much identity theft in this country.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But once the letters are "approved" regardless if they comply or not the damage is already done. In other words at that very point you have lost your right to privacy based solely on a 32 bit i.p. address.

What is the damage. Do you have any consideration for the damage plaintiffs suffer with their copyrighted material obtained illegally. What you want or are proposing is that Plaintiffs should have no rights to be able to try to seek offenders because of technology.



So in other words the court system doesn't care who's private, personal information you obtain so long as you intend to "sue" with that information. I'm not sure about anyone else but something doesn't seem just quite right about that. "Yes plaintiff can have the i.p. address holders private, personal information since plaintiff has shown that they intend to actually sue and not do anything else". How does that make any sense at all?

Regardless if a suit is with merit or without merit or being used as a legitimate copyright infringement enforcement tool or illegitimate the fact remains that your personal, private information has been handed out based upon a 32 bit i.p. address. Furthermore it hasn't even been handed to an investigatory team but to a pr0n company?!?!

You do realize that most pr0n companies are involved in organized crime right? Prostitution, racketeering, money laundering, identity theft and so forth. Not quite the kind of company that I would prefer having my personal information and I would wager to say probably not a company you would want having yours either?

Here is a little something to chew on while you contemplate how righteous these pr0n companies and their copyright infringement claims are:


http://obu-investigators.com/xuk/porn/meese/404-organized-crime-and-pornography.htm

And we as a society wonder why there is so much identity theft in this country.





Yes that's right they don't want to be handling out your information so it can be used in an abusive troll copyright fashion where there was never intent to sue. They want to make sure that if your information is given it won't be used to coerce you into a settlement with a demand letter to the point they are even forcing the plaintiff to even state in the letter you may not be responsible. The court is showing that they do care. The plaintiff could decide not even to pursue this if their intention was only to grab money from you with an intimidating demand letter. I think your looking at this without considering the rights of copyright holders. Your looking at this with saying they should not be given no rights whatsoever to try to pursue people who obtained their copyrighted materials unlawfully because of the technology in place. Its just too bad they should be **** out of luck with absolutely no recourse.


You said this could not happen in the US and the court ruled an IP is not a person. I said one ruling is not on other courts. Here is a ruling from 2013 from the District of Maryland that gave an order to a plaintiff to obtain information from an ISP with conditions. If you compare this to the Canadian court ruling you should appreciate the effort put in by the Canadian Court to consider all issues including from US and UK courts on the same issue.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I have to tell you there are many conflicting decisions in the US on this issue. Some are seeing a pattern of courts dismissing motions seeking info from ISPs while some don't see a trend yet.




GS2

[kutter]

But once the letters are "approved" regardless if they comply or not the damage is already done. In other words at that very point you have lost your right to privacy based solely on a 32 bit i.p. address.

So in other words the court system doesn't care who's private, personal information you obtain so long as you intend to "sue" with that information. I'm not sure about anyone else but something doesn't seem just quite right about that. "Yes plaintiff can have the i.p. address holders private, personal information since plaintiff has shown that they intend to actually sue and not do anything else". How does that make any sense at all?

Regardless if a suit is with merit or without merit or being used as a legitimate copyright infringement enforcement tool or illegitimate the fact remains that your personal, private information has been handed out based upon a 32 bit i.p. address. Furthermore it hasn't even been handed to an investigatory team but to a pr0n company?!?!

You do realize that most pr0n companies are involved in organized crime right? Prostitution, racketeering, money laundering, identity theft and so forth. Not quite the kind of company that I would prefer having my personal information and I would wager to say probably not a company you would want having yours either?

Here is a little something to chew on while you contemplate how righteous these pr0n companies and their copyright infringement claims are:


http://obu-investigators.com/xuk/porn/meese/404-organized-crime-and-pornography.htm

And we as a society wonder why there is so much identity theft in this country.

who's being righteous :)

so in your mind, any company or person, that was possibly involved in anything shady should be prejudged

[sodusme]

Because America was built on the constitution and bill of rights and you should not have your privacy given up based on the fact that you are using the internet with a 32 bit i.p. address. Also the...

[Nostradamus]

all about copyright... does DN even hold a copyright to their programming? Near as I know they just pay a fee to studios for the right to broadcast it, otherwise they should be able to sue Dave and cable companies as well. Seems to me the ones doing the suing should be the producers of programming instead and maybe they should be suing DN as well for illegally distributing their products due to the fact that they can not secure their signal

[Hannibalector]

all about copyright... does DN even hold a copyright to their programming? Near as I know they just pay a fee to studios for the right to broadcast it, otherwise they should be able to sue Dave and cable companies as well. Seems to me the ones doing the suing should be the producers of programming instead and maybe they should be suing DN as well for illegally distributing their products due to the fact that they can not secure their signal

absolutely beautiful and thank you been saying that for a long time

[Hannibalector]

who's being righteous :)

so in your mind, any company or person, that was possibly involved in anything shady should be prejudged

you know why do I have this feeling if the shoe were on the other foot you'd be arguing the other direction

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Well that is your opinion but many times courts in the US and Canada have to balance privacy rights against other rights. Nothing new here. <br />
<br />
<br />
No doubt companies can be abusive. But no doubt people...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

all about copyright... does DN even hold a copyright to their programming? Near as I know they just pay a fee to studios for the right to broadcast it, otherwise they should be able to sue Dave and cable companies as well. Seems to me the ones doing the suing should be the producers of programming instead and maybe they should be suing DN as well for illegally distributing their products due to the fact that they can not secure their signal


The issue of them owning copyrights has been brought up before in Court in one of the FTA lawsuits. The Court ruled that they have the right to sue under the DMCA. I know I posted that before and will later to show how the court dealt with that.


As far suing for not securing their signal they can do that if they want. In Canada Bev was sued for that reason by a cable competitor. They are however legally distributing the products. Ones who don't would be companies like Viewsat and all.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

The issue of them owning copyrights has been brought up before in Court in one of the FTA lawsuits. The Court ruled that they have the right to sue under the DMCA. I know I posted that before and will later to show how the court dealt with that.


GS2


Court's ruling




DISCUSSION
A. Standing under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Viewtech argues in its moving papers that EchoStar is not the copyright owner,
and thus lacks standing to pursue claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

of 1998 (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). EchoStar counters by
arguing that § 1203(a) gives any person who has been injured by a violation of the
DMCA standing to sue. 17 U.S.C. § 1203(a). Because EchoStar alleges that it was
injured by the interception and theft of its encrypted satellite signals (see Compl., ¶¶ 1-
7, 48, 54), EchoStar asserts that it has standing. The Court agrees.
It appears that the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the particular issue of
standing under the DMCA. However, several district court cases have dealt with this
issue.
In Comcast of Illinois X, L.L.C. v. Hightech Electronics, Inc., No. 03 C 3231,
2004 WL 1718522 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2004), a cable television provider filed suit under
§§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) against defendants involved in distributing devices used to
pirate cable channels. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other
things, that only copyright holders could pursue claims under the DMCA. Relying on
§ 1203(a)’s language that “any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202
may bring a civil action,” the district court held that standing was not limited to the
copyright holder:
The civil remedies provided in the statute do not explicitly state that recovery is
limited to the copyright holder. Therefore, as Comcast controls access to
copyrighted material and is a person injured from a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201,
we conclude that it can bring suit pursuant to the DMCA.
Id. at *6; see also CoxCom, Inc. v. Chaffee, No. CIVA 05-107S, 2006 WL 1793184 at
*10 (D.R.I. June 26, 2006) (citing Comcast and holding that “the entity which controls
access to the copyright material” could assert a claim under the DMCA); Greenleaf
CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Electronics, Inc., No. 99 C 7249, 2000 WL 715601 at *6 (N.D.
Ill. June 2, 2000) (holding that a cable provider was authorized to pursue DMCA claims
because it was a “person injured by a violation” of the statute); Real Networks, Inc. v.
Streambox, Inc., No. 2:99CV02070, 2000 WL 127311 at *6 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18,
2000) (finding that a non-copyright owner “has standing to pursue DMCA claims under
Case 3:07-cv-01273-BEN-WVG Document 22 Filed 02/05/08 Page 5 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6- 07cv1273
17 U.S.C. § 1203, which affords standing to ‘any person’ allegedly injured by a violation
of sections 1201 and 1202 of the DMCA”).
The Court agrees with these cases. Nothing in the DMCA limits standing to the
copyright owner. Instead, the statute states that “[a]ny person injured by a violation of
section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district
court for such a violation.” 17 U.S.C. § 1203(a). In fact, Viewtech concedes in its reply
that standing under the DMCA is not limited to the copyright owner because “[c]ourts
have given plaintiffs standing” when, under the authority of the copyright owner, the
plaintiffs have “control of the technological measure that protects the copyrighted
work.” (Reply at 1:27–2:1.) Viewtech argues, however, that EchoStar failed to
adequately allege that they have the authority of the copyright owner. The Court
disagrees.
EchoStar alleges that it contracts and purchases the distribution rights of
copyrighted programming from the copyright owners. (Compl., ¶ 3.) On a motion to
dismiss, the complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the
plaintiff’s favor. Walleri, 83 F.3d at 1580. Because EchoStar contracted and purchased
the distribution rights of the programming, it is reasonable to infer that EchoStar also
has the authority to control the measures protecting the programming. Therefore,
Viewtech’s motion to dismiss the DMCA claim is denied.




GS2

[kutter]

you know why do I have this feeling if the shoe were on the other foot you'd be arguing the other direction

LOL ... for all we know that particular company could be a victim of organized crime :)

[Nostradamus]

ROTFLMAO look at the forums see any thing organized? :D

[dishuser]

steal from the mob and end up in a corn field
steal from nagra and pay $3,500
seems to me nagra lets you off easy

[sodusme]

Well that is your opinion but many times courts in the US and Canada have to balance privacy rights against other rights. Nothing new here.


No doubt companies can be abusive. But no doubt people who download copyrighted material illegally want to try to hide behind privacy rights. I doubt you will acknowledge that but I have no probably when a company acts wrong. Wrong is wrong and it should apply all around including to those who infringe on copyrights.



GS2

But your "right" to a copyright shouldn't trump my "right" to privacy--no matter what you think (keyword there) I have done. I use the word "think" because you gotta realize again at that early juncture of the copyright infringement when they are capturing i.p.'s in that torrent swarm they have no idea who is behind that i.p. It would be different if there was a unique fingerprint like identification but there isn't. The FBI should be pursuing these cases as they have jurisdiction since its over state lines in most cases. Why are we letting some pr0n company police us?

In the U.S. its always been "your rights end where mine begin" and now we are getting away from that and its "OK" to trample all over someones rights to privacy if you feel they have wronged you in some way. Total B.S. IMO but I'm only one man and can't do anything about it.

You mention that judges are walking a fine line between privacy issues and enforcing statutes. I say bunk to that these judges are all too quick to help erode the very few privacy rights that we have left in America. And as long as big corporate with money can bring lawsuits to keep these fat, under worked judges on the bench then they are happy to side with them.

[kutter]

ROTFLMAO look at the forums see any thing organized? :D

organized confusion :D

[Hannibalector]

I love this part of Viewtech ruling


when, under the authority of the copyright owner, the
plaintiffs have “control of the technological measure that protects the copyrighted
work.

since when ?

[dishuser]

I love this part of Viewtech ruling



since when ?
since the beginning
you can't be that stupid...or can you?

[kutter]

But your "right" to a copyright shouldn't trump my "right" to privacy--no matter what you think (keyword there) I have done. I use the word "think" because you gotta realize again at that early juncture of the copyright infringement when they are capturing i.p.'s in that torrent swarm they have no idea who is behind that i.p. It would be different if there was a unique fingerprint like identification but there isn't. The FBI should be pursuing these cases as they have jurisdiction since its over state lines in most cases. Why are we letting some pr0n company police us?

In the U.S. its always been "your rights end where mine begin" and now we are getting away from that and its "OK" to trample all over someones rights to privacy if you feel they have wronged you in some way. Total B.S. IMO but I'm only one man and can't do anything about it.

You mention that judges are walking a fine line between privacy issues and enforcing statutes. I say bunk to that these judges are all too quick to help erode the very few privacy rights that we have left in America. And as long as big corporate with money can bring lawsuits to keep these fat, under worked judges on the bench then they are happy to side with them.

LOL ... you know damn well that the FBI and the RCMP would tell the companies to deal with it using Civil litigation, that's what it's for ... the settling of disputes between private parties :)

Your right to privacy goes out the window if your IP was used to do anything that's against the law.

[dishuser]

But your "right" to a copyright shouldn't trump my "right" to privacy--no matter what you think (keyword there) I have done. I use the word "think" because you gotta realize again at that early juncture of the copyright infringement when they are capturing i.p.'s in that torrent swarm they have no idea who is behind that i.p. It would be different if there was a unique fingerprint like identification but there isn't. The FBI should be pursuing these cases as they have jurisdiction since its over state lines in most cases. Why are we letting some pr0n company police us?

In the U.S. its always been "your rights end where mine begin" and now we are getting away from that and its "OK" to trample all over someones rights to privacy if you feel they have wronged you in some way. Total B.S. IMO but I'm only one man and can't do anything about it.

You mention that judges are walking a fine line between privacy issues and enforcing statutes. I say bunk to that these judges are all too quick to help erode the very few privacy rights that we have left in America. And as long as big corporate with money can bring lawsuits to keep these fat, under worked judges on the bench then they are happy to side with them.
so wpa2 is easily cracked?
send me a pm if so

[Hannibalector]

since the beginning
you can't be that stupid...or can you?

that's right they have never been in control of there signal since the beginning

now hush and let the adults speak

[dishuser]

that's right they have never been in control of there signal since the beginning

now hush and let the adults speakidiot
read what you quoted until it sinks in
I hate stupid and you're number 1

[Hannibalector]

idiot
read what you quoted until it sinks in
I hate stupid and you're number 1

aww you poor baby

[dishuser]

aww you poor baby

not poor
or stupid
can you say the same?

[sodusme]

LOL ... you know damn well that the FBI and the RCMP would tell the companies to deal with it using Civil litigation, that's what it's for ... the settling of disputes between private parties :)

Your right to privacy goes out the window if your IP was used to do anything that's against the law.

No it doesn't.

That is like saying someone saw your car drive away from a bank that was just held up so the cops can come kick your door in. There isn't any evidence of who was driving the car just like there isn't any evidence of who was behind the i.p. in these cases. Why is one any different than another? Because one involves big corporations that have money to throw around with their high priced attorneys that's why. The other involves some flat footed cops.

There are safe guards that ANYONE can put in place to keep content from being pirated. These companies choose not to for whatever reason. End of story.

I would really like to ask you and GS2 a question now? What would you do if someone stole your i.p. and committed a crime with it? They downloaded some copyrighted content and now you have gotten a letter threatening litigation? And please don't respond "That will never happen to me" 'cause it can just as sure as I'm sitting here typing this in fact if I was within leeching distance I would do it personally to prove to you that it could be done. It could happen to ANY of us and no I'm not immune either. I take extra precautions but if someone really wanted to steal my i.p. and was dedicated enough they could.

So put some thought into my question "What if it happened to you?" and would you be so quick to defend these companies and their right to your information and their right to sue you based solely on an i.p. alone?

[Hannibalector]

not poor
or stupid
can you say the same?

the fact that your posting that says otherwise

[kutter]

No it doesn't.

That is like saying someone saw your car drive away from a bank that was just held up so the cops can come kick your door in. There isn't any evidence of who was driving the car just like there isn't any evidence of who was behind the i.p. in these cases. Why is one any different than another? Because one involves big corporations that have money to throw around with their high priced attorneys that's why. The other involves some flat footed cops.

There are safe guards that ANYONE can put in place to keep content from being pirated. These companies choose not to for whatever reason. End of story.

I would really like to ask you and GS2 a question now? What would you do if someone stole your i.p. and committed a crime with it? They downloaded some copyrighted content and now you have gotten a letter threatening litigation? And please don't respond "That will never happen to me" 'cause it can just as sure as I'm sitting here typing this in fact if I was within leeching distance I would do it personally to prove to you that it could be done. It could happen to ANY of us and no I'm not immune either. I take extra precautions but if someone really wanted to steal my i.p. and was dedicated enough they could.

So put some thought into my question "What if it happened to you?" and would you be so quick to defend these companies and their right to your information and their right to sue you based solely on an i.p. alone?

I would defend myself. I've already told you that in a different thread. If I was innocent, there is no way I would pay up ... at that point it's simply a matter of principle.

By the way, it wouldn't matter how close you were to me, you would not leech from my system.

[dishuser]

the fact that your posting that says otherwise

wow
that's all you got?
then stick to topic stupid
can you do do that?
try the kiss method if you can handle it

[Hannibalector]

wow
that's all you got?
then stick to topic stupid
can you do do that?
try the kiss method if you can handle it

that simple enough for you ?...lol

[sodusme]

I would defend myself. I've already told you that in a different thread. If I was innocent, there is no way I would pay up ... at that point it's simply a matter of principle.

By the way, it wouldn't matter how close you were to me, you would not leech from my system.

LOL keep thinking that. ;)

I'm kind of like Clint Eastwood in the Unforgiven "I've hacked and cracked. I've hacked and cracked just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to hack you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned."

So please do not think it cannot happen to you. Some of the biggest corporations in America have been hacked and I can guarantee you that if someone can breech their systems running commercial grade Cisco equipment that a residence running a consumer grade router would be no match.

[kutter]

LOL keep thinking that. ;)

I'm kind of like Clint Eastwood in the Unforgiven "I've hacked and cracked. I've hacked and cracked just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to hack you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned."

So please do not think it cannot happen to you. Some of the biggest corporations in America have been hacked and I can guarantee you that if someone can breech their systems running commercial grade Cisco equipment that a residence running a consumer grade router would be no match.

LOL ... I was really only referring to the fact that I have wireless disabled ... so the neighbors or anyone sitting outside isn't getting in ...

[sodusme]

LOL ... I was really only referring to the fact that I have wireless disabled ... so the neighbors or anyone sitting outside isn't getting in ...

That's fine but what if you pick up a virus? Remember a stolen i.p. doesn't only have to come from leeched WI-FI. Now I know that you know of all the ways that an i.p. can be stolen and we could go back and forth for days on this.

Now you said how you would defend yourself obviously but would you still take the stance that these companies are free to order up your personal information from your ISP based solely on an i.p.? You would be "OK" with that? Or would you maybe be outraged and p!ssed off? Would you still say "Well they are just doing their due diligence in trying to figure out who did this". Now this is gonna cost you money remember? You're gonna have to spend money to consult an attorney.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But your "right" to a copyright shouldn't trump my "right" to privacy--no matter what you think (keyword there) I have done. I use the word "think" because you gotta realize again at that early juncture of the copyright infringement when they are capturing i.p.'s in that torrent swarm they have no idea who is behind that i.p. It would be different if there was a unique fingerprint like identification but there isn't. The FBI should be pursuing these cases as they have jurisdiction since its over state lines in most cases. Why are we letting some pr0n company police us?

In the U.S. its always been "your rights end where mine begin" and now we are getting away from that and its "OK" to trample all over someones rights to privacy if you feel they have wronged you in some way. Total B.S. IMO but I'm only one man and can't do anything about it.

You mention that judges are walking a fine line between privacy issues and enforcing statutes. I say bunk to that these judges are all too quick to help erode the very few privacy rights that we have left in America. And as long as big corporate with money can bring lawsuits to keep these fat, under worked judges on the bench then they are happy to side with them.



Well the Judges have sided on both sides. I guess they are fat and under worked if they side on the opposite of what you think they should.


It can be Porn or anything. Obviously you want to make it appear worse because its Porn. Are you against Porn ? Its a company period that is trying to stop people from in flinging on their copyrights. It can be music, it can be Porn, it can Satellite, it can be anything.


Not everyone feels people should be able to hide behind an IP as a privacy right when it involves something illegal.


When does privacy rights take a second place for you. ? If there is a lead with having an IP on a suspected child molester that requires the help of an ISP for identification what is more important for you ? the privacy right of the child molester or assistance granted by the court on the ISP. ? Sure is extreme comparison but its making a point that privacy rights become questionable when their is something illegal happening.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

No it doesn't.

That is like saying someone saw your car drive away from a bank that was just held up so the cops can come kick your door in. There isn't any evidence of who was driving the car just like there isn't any evidence of who was behind the i.p. in these cases. Why is one any different than another? Because one involves big corporations that have money to throw around with their high priced attorneys that's why. The other involves some flat footed cops.

There are safe guards that ANYONE can put in place to keep content from being pirated. These companies choose not to for whatever reason. End of story.

I would really like to ask you and GS2 a question now? What would you do if someone stole your i.p. and committed a crime with it? They downloaded some copyrighted content and now you have gotten a letter threatening litigation? And please don't respond "That will never happen to me" 'cause it can just as sure as I'm sitting here typing this in fact if I was within leeching distance I would do it personally to prove to you that it could be done. It could happen to ANY of us and no I'm not immune either. I take extra precautions but if someone really wanted to steal my i.p. and was dedicated enough they could.

So put some thought into my question "What if it happened to you?" and would you be so quick to defend these companies and their right to your information and their right to sue you based solely on an i.p. alone?


Driving a car near a bank that was robbed is not much evidence. But I have no problem if law enforcement wants to investigate the car to try to find out who owns it and than who was driving it near the bank. They won't need a court order from a court to get information from an ISP provider. However there is evidence of an IP that was used illegally. A court allowing the pursuit of that with saying a third party has information related to the IP that should be shared is not so disagreeable to me. I say that because if I had a business that people were stealing from it and there was information available that could lead to the person or persons I would be so pissed if it came back nothing can be done because of privacy rights. I just don't think your considering everyone's rights here.


My answer, I would defend myself against the allegation. Just because they got my name does not mean I am guilty. It will even say so in the demand letter. Do you realize how many innocent people have to defend themselves against allegations and criminal allegations when they are innocent to begin with including up to murder. It sucks big time but what do you propose as an alternative to the judicial system. ?


I will bring my family to testify I don't listen to music. I will bring my family to testify I don't know what peer sharing is or torrent software and have not installed it on my computer. I will hand it over for forensic examination showing it never had any software installed nor was the music ever downloaded on my computer. I will testify I have a hearing problem and wear hearing aids. I am just giving examples of what could apply or not to different people who are truly innocent.



GS2

[sodusme]

Well the Judges have sided on both sides. I guess they are fat and under worked if they side on the opposite of what you think they should.


It can be Porn or anything. Obviously you want to make it appear worse because its Porn. Are you against Porn ? Its a company period that is trying to stop people from in flinging on their copyrights. It can be music, it can be Porn, it can Satellite, it can be anything.


Not everyone feels people should be able to hide behind an IP as a privacy right when it involves something illegal.


When does privacy rights take a second place for you. ? If there is a lead with having an IP on a suspected child molester that requires the help of an ISP for identification what is more important for you ? the privacy right of the child molester or assistance granted by the court on the ISP. ? Sure is extreme comparison but its making a point that privacy rights become questionable when their is something illegal happening.




GS2

No I'm definitely not against pr0n. I'm making it sound worse because its obvious that you are not familiar with the ins and outs of the pr0n industry. I'm not saying I am but I do know that they are on how shall we say the "fringe" of society and their content is deemed "obscene" and "immoral" in most peoples minds. You do realize that 16 states still have yet to repeal their sodomy laws which also encompass oral sex in some states. So how are you going to publish a work (pr0n movie) which is deemed "illegal" in its own right and then cry because it was pirated? Really? Give me a break.

So because an i.p. (notice I didn't say MY i.p. because no one knows its "MY" i.p.) is being used that gives ANY company the right to claim "copyright infringement" and gather personal information from an ISP on me? I mean in a nutshell that is what you are saying. Now I know you will say "But they have to get subpoenas and depositions and they have to do this and do that" but it doesn't seem that hard to accomplish this IMO.

While I appreciate the thought you took for the analogy that is dealing with something criminal where you would have a trained, professional investigator obtaining your i.p. from an ISP---not some pr0n company, or Sony Pictures, or Time Warner Music or Dish Network or any of a number of other companies that are suddenly promoted to lead investigator by themselves because they saw an i.p. in a torrent swarm. Now granite Dish Network uses that one guy who DOES have some police background J.J. Gee I believe his name. But these other companies are probably not bothering to chase down forum posts, and Paypal records, and PM's from forums, and shutting down whole forums to obtain databases.

I'll go back to why isn't the FBI involved more in this? I know Kutter wanted to say because its "civil" and while I agree with that it ALSO crosses state lines which should trump the "civility" of the investigation. Its not like a husband and wife arguing here. You and him both say "crimes" have been committed, then let a professional investigate those crimes. Get the FBI involved they need to be investigating these claims of copyright infringement in the first place. Not some pr0n company and not some washed up policeman (J.J. Gee).

[kutter]

That's fine but what if you pick up a virus? Remember a stolen i.p. doesn't only have to come from leeched WI-FI. Now I know that you know of all the ways that an i.p. can be stolen and we could go back and forth for days on this.

Now you said how you would defend yourself obviously but would you still take the stance that these companies are free to order up your personal information from your ISP based solely on an i.p.? You would be "OK" with that? Or would you maybe be outraged and p!ssed off? Would you still say "Well they are just doing their due diligence in trying to figure out who did this". Now this is gonna cost you money remember? You're gonna have to spend money to consult an attorney.

I'm smart enough that I would never use my IP to do something illegal.:D I'm a firm believer in the system, so of course I would be quite disillusioned if the system failed me. I don't know that it would change the way I feel about this issue though. It would certainly cause me to be even more vigilant with my network security.

I realize that most people don't have a clue with regards to securing their network or protecting their own privacy. Which is the main reason why I believe that this ruling, more specifically the restrictions imposed by the judge, is a pretty good attempt at balancing the rights of both parties.

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that "your rights end where mine begin". However, the fact that your account was used for illegal purposes brings an entirely different issue into play.

You suggest that it's up to the company to secure their copyrighted works or it should be fair game. How far do you extend that premise. Is it acceptable to go into your neighbors mail box and steal their mail, or just read it without stealing it. Is it OK to take someone's car because they left their keys in it? Is it alright to enter someone's house because it isn't locked? Should your rights be denied because you didn't properly secure your belongings? You are only looking at one side of this issue and I suspect I know why :D

[sodusme]

I'm smart enough that I would never use my IP to do something illegal.:D I'm a firm believer in the system, so of course I would be quite disillusioned if the system failed me. I don't know that it would change the way I feel about this issue though. It would certainly cause me to be even more vigilant with my network security.

I realize that most people don't have a clue with regards to securing their network or protecting their own privacy. Which is the main reason why I believe that this ruling, more specifically the restrictions imposed by the judge, is a pretty good attempt at balancing the rights of both parties.

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that "your rights end where mine begin". However, the fact that your account was used for illegal purposes brings an entirely different issue into play.

You suggest that it's up to the company to secure their copyrighted works or it should be fair game. How far do you extend that premise. Is it acceptable to go into your neighbors mail box and steal their mail, or just read it without stealing it. Is it OK to take someone's car because they left their keys in it? Is it alright to enter someone's house because it isn't locked? Should your rights be denied because you didn't properly secure your belongings? You are only looking at one side of this issue and I suspect I know why :D

There is always going to be theft in this world. I have said many times over on this very forum that I would not go knock off a liquor store BUT that "intellectual" property i.e. copyrighted works are fair game. These items are intangible in most cases and they actually don't even comprise a "copyright work" anyways when you look at how a packet is made up. Most people don't know about that stuff you and I have had this discussion before so I'm sure you know of what I'm speaking of.

This is what I have a problem with: There exists technology to secure these copyrighted works. Yet these companies refuse to use it. Just as a person would use a mailbox that is in and of itself securing the mail. What if that person simply left the mail out in the open and then cried that it got stolen? A door on a home is securing the home whether its locked or not. What if a person had no doors on their home and then cried that people were walking in and taking things? You would probably laugh and say "Get a door on your house" right? The same thing applies here. You don't want people pirating your intellectual property then secure your sh*t. Plain and simple. The technology is out there so use it. Why would you not use it? By securing your copyrighted work with encryption you are thus putting it into a "container" and securing it.

[Condor]

LOL keep thinking that. ;)

I'm kind of like Clint Eastwood in the Unforgiven "I've hacked and cracked. I've hacked and cracked just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to hack you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned."

So please do not think it cannot happen to you. Some of the biggest corporations in America have been hacked and I can guarantee you that if someone can breech their systems running commercial grade Cisco equipment that a residence running a consumer grade router would be no match.
You don't hack, You crack...You said so yourself..Lol.....http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr298/bolivia_04/anon%20mex/Open_lock_zps3fb77410.png (http://s493.photobucket.com/user/bolivia_04/media/anon%20mex/Open_lock_zps3fb77410.png.html)

[Hannibalector]

No I'm definitely not against pr0n. I'm making it sound worse because its obvious that you are not familiar with the ins and outs of the pr0n industry. I'm not saying I am but I do know that they are on how shall we say the "fringe" of society and their content is deemed "obscene" and "immoral" in most peoples minds. You do realize that 16 states still have yet to repeal their sodomy laws which also encompass oral sex in some states. So how are you going to publish a work (pr0n movie) which is deemed "illegal" in its own right and then cry because it was pirated? Really? Give me a break.

So because an i.p. (notice I didn't say MY i.p. because no one knows its "MY" i.p.) is being used that gives ANY company the right to claim "copyright infringement" and gather personal information from an ISP on me? I mean in a nutshell that is what you are saying. Now I know you will say "But they have to get subpoenas and depositions and they have to do this and do that" but it doesn't seem that hard to accomplish this IMO.

While I appreciate the thought you took for the analogy that is dealing with something criminal where you would have a trained, professional investigator obtaining your i.p. from an ISP---not some pr0n company, or Sony Pictures, or Time Warner Music or Dish Network or any of a number of other companies that are suddenly promoted to lead investigator by themselves because they saw an i.p. in a torrent swarm. Now granite Dish Network uses that one guy who DOES have some police background J.J. Gee I believe his name. But these other companies are probably not bothering to chase down forum posts, and Paypal records, and PM's from forums, and shutting down whole forums to obtain databases.

I'll go back to why isn't the FBI involved more in this? I know Kutter wanted to say because its "civil" and while I agree with that it ALSO crosses state lines which should trump the "civility" of the investigation. Its not like a husband and wife arguing here. You and him both say "crimes" have been committed, then let a professional investigate those crimes. Get the FBI involved they need to be investigating these claims of copyright infringement in the first place. Not some pr0n company and not some washed up policeman (J.J. Gee).


I'm amazed that an issue of threats to homeland security such as breach of intellectual property is even allowed to be let go by a companies own discretion to investigate, but that would eliminate the right for companies like Dish Network to use there thuggery and run there profitable rackets, as long as H,N,B and JJ can show a return and generate revenue they're allowed to continue.
both kutter and GS2 think a company has a right to self police itself with respect to theft, how does a shop lifter get treated ? by the police? yet those racketeers or private firms aren't met with the same standard as treating a shop lifter, as long H.N.B can shake you down in court at there discretion all's well, where's that fair balance kutter and GS2 is looking for.

as long as Dish Network can show to the shareholders they are doing something everything is fine yet there signal remains unsecured and out in the open for IKS.

DN has had there signal breached for the better part of 12 years if not longer, at every turn they have never taken signal security serious enough, that whole SI department along with Ergen himself should have been fired long ago along witha public shaming to the shareholders

[kutter]

There is always going to be theft in this world. I have said many times over on this very forum that I would not go knock off a liquor store BUT that "intellectual" property i.e. copyrighted works are fair game. These items are intangible in most cases and they actually don't even comprise a "copyright work" anyways when you look at how a packet is made up. Most people don't know about that stuff you and I have had this discussion before so I'm sure you know of what I'm speaking of.

This is what I have a problem with: There exists technology to secure these copyrighted works. Yet these companies refuse to use it. Just as a person would use a mailbox that is in and of itself securing the mail. What if that person simply left the mail out in the open and then cried that it got stolen? A door on a home is securing the home whether its locked or not. What if a person had no doors on their home and then cried that people were walking in and taking things? You would probably laugh and say "Get a door on your house" right? The same thing applies here. You don't want people pirating your intellectual property then secure your sh*t. Plain and simple. The technology is out there so use it. Why would you not use it? By securing your copyrighted work with encryption you are thus putting it into a "container" and securing it.

It seems we must be talking about 2 different things. The providers signal is encrypted the last time I checked :laugh:

as for tangible versus intangible, there's little difference ... it still has a value ... that's easily demonstrated, otherwise why would so many people go out of their way to receive it without paying for it ... it requires an effort on a persons part because it is not broadcast in the clear, it is encrypted ... you can argue that's not good enough, but where and when do you draw the line ...

[kutter]

I'm amazed that an issue of threats to homeland security such as breach of intellectual property is even allowed to be let go by a companies own discretion to investigate, but that would eliminate the right for companies like Dish Network to use there thuggery and run there profitable rackets, as long as H,N,B and JJ can show a return and generate revenue they're allowed to continue.
both kutter and GS2 think a company has a right to self police itself with respect to theft, how does a shop lifter get treated ? by the police? yet those racketeers or private firms aren't met with the same standard as treating a shop lifter, as long H.N.B can shake you down in court at there discretion all's well, where's that fair balance kutter and GS2 is looking for.

as long as Dish Network can show to the shareholders they are doing something everything is fine yet there signal remains unsecured and out in the open for IKS.

DN has had there signal breached for the better part of 12 years if not longer, at every turn they have never taken signal security serious enough, that whole SI department along with Ergen himself should have been fired long ago along witha public shaming to the shareholders

Most stores simply call the police because it's less hassle than attempting to deal with it any other way, but they are not required to call the police. They have the right to deal with it in private if they choose.

[Hannibalector]

Most stores simply call the police because it's less hassle than attempting to deal with it any other way, but they are not required to call the police. They have the right to deal with it in private if they choose.

wrong kutter, shoplifting is a criminal offence under the criminal code of Canada and I'm pretty sure the same in the USA with respect to it being a criminal offence


http://www.law-faqs.org/wiki/index.php/Criminal_Code/Shoplifting


http://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Criminal-Law/202.aspx

theres plenty more

theft under $5000

[sodusme]

You don't hack, You crack...You said so yourself..Lol.....http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr298/bolivia_04/anon%20mex/Open_lock_zps3fb77410.png (http://s493.photobucket.com/user/bolivia_04/media/anon%20mex/Open_lock_zps3fb77410.png.html)

LOL um no comment. ;)

[sodusme]

It seems we must be talking about 2 different things. The providers signal is encrypted the last time I checked :laugh:

as for tangible versus intangible, there's little difference ... it still has a value ... that's easily demonstrated, otherwise why would so many people go out of their way to receive it without paying for it ... it requires an effort on a persons part because it is not broadcast in the clear, it is encrypted ... you can argue that's not good enough, but where and when do you draw the line ...

True it is not enough. Its a week encryption. DirecTV is encrypted but yet you don't hear about that being pirated. I won't get into the semantics of whether it is or isn't compromised but if it is--it isn't to the extent that DN's signal is.

Large ticket items at the store are also "encrypted". A TV is put into a box but that doesn't stop people from stealing them. So you know what stores did? They placed an anti-theft device on the box to prevent you from walking out with the entire box OR removing the item in the store. So basically I'm saying if something isn't working FIX IT. That's an obvious remedy that any moron can see and no I'm not making reference to you being a moron I'm speaking of these companies. If someone steals from you then damn you make it so they CANNOT steal from you. Problem solved. Then you don't have to go after i.p.'s and subpoena ISP records and go to court and "hope" you have the copyright infringer in the court room.

I never understood complacency. You know I'm a member of a couple hacking/cracking boards. One of them has the members list disable entirely and the other has it right out in the open for leeching. Which means anyone can copy that list and thus have the entire user database--not the passwords mind you but the users. So I asked the admin "What good reason is there to have the memberlist visible"? He replied "Eh we don't worry about it and there exists other ways to rip the member list so we leave it in the database tree". Um OK so would you NOT want to make it as difficult as possible to get that username list? Why leave that out in the open? That makes no sense to me. Same thing applies here. Why use a weak *ss encryption that you KNOW is compromised? Why not beef it up? Why not take very precaution known?


Most stores simply call the police because it's less hassle than attempting to deal with it any other way, but they are not required to call the police. They have the right to deal with it in private if they choose.

Actually yes they are. I have worked in several retail environments and by law you are not supposed to put your hands on any shopper even if you saw them slip something into a backpack OR down their pants. The reason is they can always say "I was going to pay for it" and then you open yourself up to a lawsuit. So no you ARE required to call the police--that is if you want it dealt with. You can follow them, keep them in sight, or whatever you want but you cannot put your hands on them and you are not supposed to even question them and you cannot detain them in any way, shape or form.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

When Porn is deemed illegal in whatever states than they deal with it. This has nothing to do with their copyrighted material. <br />
<br />
<br />
I am not the decision maker in court but I can see how courts want...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm smart enough that I would never use my IP to do something illegal.:D I'm a firm believer in the system, so of course I would be quite disillusioned if the system failed me. I don't know that it would change the way I feel about this issue though. It would certainly cause me to be even more vigilant with my network security.

I realize that most people don't have a clue with regards to securing their network or protecting their own privacy. Which is the main reason why I believe that this ruling, more specifically the restrictions imposed by the judge, is a pretty good attempt at balancing the rights of both parties.

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that "your rights end where mine begin". However, the fact that your account was used for illegal purposes brings an entirely different issue into play.

You suggest that it's up to the company to secure their copyrighted works or it should be fair game. How far do you extend that premise. Is it acceptable to go into your neighbors mail box and steal their mail, or just read it without stealing it. Is it OK to take someone's car because they left their keys in it? Is it alright to enter someone's house because it isn't locked? Should your rights be denied because you didn't properly secure your belongings? You are only looking at one side of this issue and I suspect I know why :D


Ever watch bait car on TV ? Lol they are even allowed to bait you into doing that and than arrest you minutes later in the car they specifically setup so they can shut the motor when they want to. Not sure you could do that in Canada though. ?



GS2

[Hannibalector]

where out of any of the cases that we've read about or the demand letters we've heard about has there been any testimony from any of the recipients that they were met with a criminal matter before...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm amazed that an issue of threats to homeland security such as breach of intellectual property is even allowed to be let go by a companies own discretion to investigate, but that would eliminate the right for companies like Dish Network to use there thuggery and run there profitable rackets, as long as H,N,B and JJ can show a return and generate revenue they're allowed to continue.
both kutter and GS2 think a company has a right to self police itself with respect to theft, how does a shop lifter get treated ? by the police? yet those racketeers or private firms aren't met with the same standard as treating a shop lifter, as long H.N.B can shake you down in court at there discretion all's well, where's that fair balance kutter and GS2 is looking for.

as long as Dish Network can show to the shareholders they are doing something everything is fine yet there signal remains unsecured and out in the open for IKS.

DN has had there signal breached for the better part of 12 years if not longer, at every turn they have never taken signal security serious enough, that whole SI department along with Ergen himself should have been fired long ago along witha public shaming to the shareholders



Huh ? most of the laws have Civil remedies built right into them. Why do you think its like that. ?


If your not happy about that than maybe you start a petition or go speak to local MP about eliminated all Civil laws.


Why don't you start of with the RC Act




Right of civil action

18. (1) Any person who

(a) holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,

(b) is authorized by the lawful distributor of a subscription programming signal or network feed to communicate the signal or feed to the public,

(c) holds a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or

(d) develops a system or technology, or manufactures or supplies to a lawful distributor equipment, for the purpose of encrypting a subscription programming signal or network feed, or manufactures, supplies or sells decoders, to enable authorized persons to decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed

may, where the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b), in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct, or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate.


And than you go can go international and tackle the DMCA.



(a) Civil Actions.— Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation.
(b) Powers of the Court.— In an action brought under subsection (a), the court—
(1) may grant temporary and permanent injunctions on such terms as it deems reasonable to prevent or restrain a violation, but in no event shall impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution;
(2) at any time while an action is pending, may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any device or product that is in the custody or control of the alleged violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in a violation;
(3) may award damages under subsection (c);
(4) in its discretion may allow the recovery of costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof;
(5) in its discretion may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party; and
(6) may, as part of a final judgment or decree finding a violation, order the remedial modification or the destruction of any device or product involved in the violation that is in the custody or control of the violator or has been impounded under paragraph (2).
(c) Award of Damages.—
(1) In general.— Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person committing a violation of section 1201 or 1202 is liable for either—
(A) the actual damages and any additional profits of the violator, as provided in paragraph (2), or
(B) statutory damages, as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Actual damages.— The court shall award to the complaining party the actual damages suffered by the party as a result of the violation, and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages, if the complaining party elects such damages at any time before final judgment is entered.
(3) Statutory damages.—
(A) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1201 in the sum of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service, as the court considers just.
(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.
(4) Repeated violations.— In any case in which the injured party sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that a person has violated section 1201 or 1202 within 3 years after a final judgment was entered against the person for another such violation, the court may increase the award of damages up to triple the amount that would otherwise be awarded, as the court considers just.



Maybe you could consider moving to some country that does not have Civil actions/laws if you can find one.





GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Why in the world do they need to be met with a Criminal matter first before some Civil action. The RCMP are on record saying that they will not pursue end users. They don't have the resources nor the...

[Hannibalector]

Why in the world do they need to be met with a Criminal matter first before some Civil action. The RCMP are on record saying that they will not pursue end users. They don't have the resources nor the time.


Seriously what world do you live in that you think either the RCMP or the FBI are going to start investigating end users. That's all we need is to take them away from fighting serious crimes to go after some illegal downloading by Skippy Swartz.




GS2

is theft a criminal matter yes or no

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Here.



Around the same time that the CRIA successfully took Demonoid offline, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) made it clear that pursuing Demonoid’s users is not a priority for them.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Why in the world do they need to be met with a Criminal matter first before some Civil action. The RCMP are on record saying that they will not pursue end users. They don't have the resources nor the time.


Seriously what world do you live in that you think either the RCMP or the FBI are going to start investigating end users. That's all we need is to take them away from fighting serious crimes to go after some illegal downloading by Skippy Swartz.




GS2

oh so now you don't think the breach of intellectual property is serious, the very thing that supposedly undermines an economy

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

is theft a criminal matter yes or no


It can be Criminal or Civil or both. What is your point.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Here.






GS2

please answer yes or no to whether you think theft is a criminal matter

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

oh so now you don't think the breach of intellectual property is serious, the very thing that supposedly undermines an economy


Of course its serious. Law enforcement is not going to waste their time pursuing end users. They will spend time on much bigger fish. What is it you don't understand about that ? They simply do not have enough manpower to after thousands and thousands of end users period. And they shouldn't.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

It can be Criminal or Civil or both. What is your point.



GS2

not it can be GS2 theft IS a criminal matter

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

please answer yes or no to whether you think theft is a criminal matter


I already did.


GS2

[Hannibalector]

Of course its serious. Law enforcement is not going to waste their time pursuing end users. They will spend time on much bigger fish. What is it you don't understand about that ? They simply do not have enough manpower to after thousands and thousands of end users period. And they shouldn't.




GS2
you're god damned rights they should and before the likes of private firms have the rights over the criminal code of Canada and the criminal code of the USA

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Excuse me go steal signals or you can be facing Civil theft of signals and be liable its that simple. You can face Criminal theft charges too. You can be facing both. Ask Kwak about that. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GS2

[Hannibalector]

I already did.


GS2

no you didn't you skated it

[Hannibalector]

kwaks not an end user

[dishuser]

kwaks not an end user
so he had a sub?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you're god damned rights they should and before the likes of private firms have the rights over the criminal code of Canada and the criminal code of the USA


No I don't want law enforcement wasting their time when they don't have enough time at times to fight serious crimes. That would be stupid to take resources for that.


Private firms are excising their Civil rights that are provided under the law. Really if you think that should not be allowed go speak to your MP and let me know the results.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

kwaks not an end user


And your point is ? Is that to say Civil theft laws only applies to dealers ?



GS2

[Hannibalector]

And your point is ? Is that to say Civil theft laws only applies to dealers ?



GS2

no the criminal penalties were in place as they should have been

[Hannibalector]

so he had a sub?

dunno ask him

[Hannibalector]

And your point is ? Is that to say Civil theft laws only applies to dealers ?



GS2

why was it ok to use both in kwaks case and not everyone else's ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Here just a few.




Florida Statute 772.11- A Civil Remedy for Theft and Fraud




Sec. 134.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the Texas Theft Liability Act.




North Carolina General Statutes § 1-538.2 Civil liability for larceny, shoplifting, theft by employee, embezzlement, and obtaining property by false pretense




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

no the criminal penalties were in place as they should have been


Huh ? both Criminal and Civil penalties are in place.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Here just a few.
















GS2

that doesn't show anything

[dishuser]

why?
you spoke on his behalf already

dunno ask him

[Hannibalector]

Huh ? both Criminal and Civil penalties are in place.



GS2


Huh ? ...............

[dishuser]

why was it ok to use both in kwaks case and not everyone else's ?

probably cause the fbi got their man

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

why was it ok to use both in kwaks case and not everyone else's ?


Who said it was not ok to use in everyone elses.


How many times do we need to do this. Law enforcement does not have the resources, manpower to go after tens if not hundreds of thousands of end users. So end users will probably never face Criminal actions.


Its really not hard to understand.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

why?
you spoke on his behalf already

yes I did was kwak a end user ? dunno ask him, was kwak a dealer ? pretty obvious

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Huh ? ...............


There are Civil penalties and Criminal penalties written in the RC Act as well as in the DMCA. Its written in the law = Both exist.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

that doesn't show anything


No its just shows Civil theft laws written in different US statues. Guess that means Civil theft does not exist in laws.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

it is the duty of those investigating to bring the charges of theft before a criminal court ffs what part of that don't you understand ? how can an investigation of a criminal matter go before a...

[Anubis]

no the criminal penalties were in place as they should have been

Criminal penalties keep on expanding as does theft of copyright materials. Does not matter if you are the source or the end user. The penalties are there and are based on severity of the infringement.
Since satellite is the topic here they have expanded beyond and pushed the limits to prosecute and because of past cases they go further which in my opinion is due to the current currency value they see at the time on the American dollar.

Is it right? No
Can a judge set precedence? Yes.
Can you dispute it? Yes
Will you win? No, based of the growing trend of pirating.

Plain and simple and in a nutshell folks.

By the way, this is JMO as I am not a lawyer but I have seen and read enough to know what the outcome will be.

[dishuser]

you better start studying law mr clueless <br />
then you'lll know why they don't have to proceed with criminal charges

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

The law applies to both Criminal and Civil. There is Criminal theft charges and there are Civil theft claims. The law provides for both. <br />
<br />
<br />
Its quite simple and sorry you are struggling with this...

[Hannibalector]

Branch of law. In the U.S., there are three broad branches of law: criminal law, civil law, and regulatory law. The criminal (or penal) system deals with offenses that are prosecuted by the...

[Hannibalector]

too much bullsh*t du is the reason why everyone looking the other way while law firms shake people down and the criminal code goes un noticed or a crime doesnt get reported

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Branch of law. In the U.S., there are three broad branches of law: criminal law, civil law, and regulatory law. The criminal (or penal) system deals with offenses that are prosecuted by the government - local, state or federal - and can be punished by monetary fines, loss of liberty (jail or prison), or in extreme cases, even loss of life (death penalty). The civil system deals with disputes between individuals or organizations (including in some cases government agencies), in which the party found liable is ordered to pay monetary damages and/or ordered to do or not do something (injunction). Regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over specific industries or activities and can impose fines and/or take away an individual's or organization's authorization to conduct business or engage in the regulated activity.

that does no good in telling why the criminal matter wasn't reported and dealt with



Why does some Civil proceeding have to be reported. ? that makes no sense at all. Where in the RC Act or the DMCA or any act say you have to report it to proceed with a Civil action.


Its a Civil matter



The civil system deals with disputes between individuals or organizations (including in some cases government agencies), in which the party found liable is ordered to pay monetary damages and/or ordered to do or not do something (injunction).



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

too much bullsh*t du is the reason why everyone looking the other way while law firms shake people down and the criminal code goes un noticed or a crime doesnt get reported


Law enforcement is not interested in Civil. They are using the Civil code in the act that gives them to the right to sue. Its written in the law. It has already been posted for you. It can't be more clear.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Law enforcement is not interested in Civil. They are using the Civil code in the act that gives them to the right to sue. Its written in the law. It has already been posted for you. It can't be more clear.



GS2

law enforcement is duty bound to be interested in criminal matters, it's written in the law it can't be more clear, they act when a complaint is lodged, those that have been at the end of the civil BS by way of H N B have been denied due process and have not been marandized

[kutter]

lol ... sure press criminal charges :) the cops show up, charge you, then there's such a backlog in the court system that they can't prosecute in a timely manner and guess what happens ? <br />
<br />
many...

[Hannibalector]

everyone is entitled to due process, please don't make excuses, maybe if those corporation paid a theft tax to supply more police ? they are after all in our communities and wish to be treated as...

[kutter]

everyone is entitled to due process, please don't make excuses

it's not an excuse, it's a fact ... have you paid any attention to the current backlog of cases in your province :)

[kutter]

everyone is entitled to due process, please don't make excuses, maybe if those corporation paid a theft tax to supply more police ? they are after all in our communities and wish to be treated as individuals

nice edit :)

they are in our community and are afforded the same rights as an individual

so they should not be required to pay any more for police services than you or I would :D

by the way the issue I was referring to is not really a lack of officers but rather inadequate resources to process all the court cases

[Hannibalector]

it's not an excuse, it's a fact ... have you paid any attention to the current backlog of cases in your province :)

so let me get this straight because of a backlog in the criminal system you want private laws that deny process and seek to remedy justice by way of 51/49 versus absolute ? you sir are insane

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

law enforcement is duty bound to be interested in criminal matters, it's written in the law it can't be more clear, they act when a complaint is lodged, those that have been at the end of the civil BS by way of H N B have been denied due process and have not been marandized


Really ? than why does the RCMP say they won't pursue enders users regarding satellite violations ?


But you don't have to lodge a criminal complaint to file a Civil action.


Let me know where you see that you need to file a criminal complaint. Here is the law.



hxtp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-2/page-9.html#h-9


18. (1) Any person who

(a) holds an interest in the content of a subscription programming signal or network feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,


(b) is authorized by the lawful distributor of a subscription programming signal or network feed to communicate the signal or feed to the public,


(c) holds a licence to carry on a broadcasting undertaking issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or


(d) develops a system or technology, or manufactures or supplies to a lawful distributor equipment, for the purpose of encrypting a subscription programming signal or network feed, or manufactures, supplies or sells decoders, to enable authorized persons to decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed


may, where the person has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) or 10(1)(b), in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct, or obtain such other remedy, by way of injunction, accounting or otherwise, as the court considers appropriate




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

everyone is entitled to due process, please don't make excuses, maybe if those corporation paid a theft tax to supply more police ? they are after all in our communities and wish to be treated as individuals


Due process ? sure you can plead not guilty in Criminal or Civil proceedings.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Really ? than why does the RCMP say they won't pursue enders users regarding satellite violations ?


But you don't have to lodge a criminal complaint to file a Civil action.


Let me know where you see that you need to file a criminal complaint. Here is the law.







GS2

you're not even pulling a rabbit out of your ass on that one

[Hannibalector]

Due process ? sure you can plead not guilty in Criminal or Civil proceedings.



GS2

OH so I or any reasonable citizen has a choice ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

so let me get this straight because of a backlog in the criminal system you want private laws that deny process and seek to remedy justice by way of 51/49 versus absolute ? you sir are insane


Private laws ? What are you talking about. There is no such thing. The DMCA is not a private law. The RC Act is not a private law.


I as a private citizen or a private company can use the law for Civil litigation. You can too. Ever watch Judge Judy or one of the others. These are all private citizens or businesses using a public law to sue.


Its not a private citizen using a private law. Its a law from the legislation, the Government. Sorry no such thing as a private law.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

OH so I or any reasonable citizen has a choice ?


You have a choice to defend yourself or not. You have a choice to use the law to sue someone. If you loan me money and I don't pay you back or breach the contract you can sue me.


GS2

[kutter]

so let me get this straight because of a backlog in the criminal system you want private laws that deny process and seek to remedy justice by way of 51/49 versus absolute ? you sir are insane

would you call the cops if you knew it was only going to cost you money to have someone prosecuted when the law affords you the right to make your case via civil law where you stand a good chance of being compensated for your loss ? :D

[Hannibalector]

Private laws ? What are you talking about. There is no such thing. The DMCA is not a private law. The RC Act is not a private law.


I as a private citizen or a private company can use the law for Civil litigation. You can too. Ever watch Judge Judy or one of the others. These are all private citizens or businesses using a public law to sue.


Its not a private citizen using a private law. Its a law from the legislation, the Government. Sorry no such thing as a private law.



GS2

civil bull**** is private law, the DMCA is a constructed document to protect corporate interests why cant you say that ? no corporation has the right to sub divert the law they seek to fit within

[Hannibalector]

You have a choice to defend yourself or not. You have a choice to use the law to sue someone. If you loan me money and I don't pay you back or breach the contract you can sue me.


GS2

did I commit a crime by not paying you back ???

[kutter]

civil bull**** is private law, the DMCA is a constructed document to protect corporate interests why cant you say that ? no corporation has the right to sub divert the law they seek to fit within

the DMCA protects anyone that holds a copyright ...

where's the sub diversion ? :)

[Hannibalector]

would you call the cops if you knew it was only going to cost you money to have someone prosecuted when the law affords you the right to make your case via civil law where you stand a good chance of being compensated for your loss ? :D

nice try kutter but I'm thinking it might be a good idea to call the cops to tell them a crime has been committed in every juristiction of the plaintiffs aspen and ask them why they didn't report it

[kutter]

nice try kutter but I'm thinking it might be a good idea to call the cops to tell them a crime has been committed in every juristiction of the plaintiffs aspen and ask them why they didn't report it

because they are not required to :)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

civil bull**** is private law, the DMCA is a constructed document to protect corporate interests why cant you say that ? no corporation has the right to sub divert the law they seek to fit within


It doesn't matter who it protects whether its a Corporation or some single artist. If you don't like law go speak to your MP.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

nice try kutter but I'm thinking it might be a good idea to call the cops to tell them a crime has been committed in every juristiction of the plaintiffs aspen and ask them why they didn't report it


So if I don't pay you back on a loan your going to report it as a crime. Lol they will tell you to take it to Civil Court.




GS2

[Hannibalector]

because they are not required to :)

wrong answer any person being an official officer of the court must report a criminal matter

[Hannibalector]

So if I don't pay you back on a loan your going to report it as a crime. Lol they will tell you to take it to Civil Court.




GS2

no collections is an option

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

wrong answer any person being an official officer of the court must report a criminal matter


Where do you come up with this stuff lol. And who is this official officer of the court your talking about. ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

no collections is an option


Collections. How does that work ? You live in BC and I live in Quebec. Your going to hire some hit man in Quebec to collect and than give someone a reason to call the police on yourself.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Collections. How does that work ? You live in BC and I live in Quebec. Your going to hire some hit man in Quebec to collect and than give someone a reason to call the police on yourself.



GS2

I dunno what does Shawn / Sean have to say ?

[Hannibalector]

it is the explicit obligation of any law enforcement officer to report a crime be it police officer or court appointed witness

[bigbadbrother]

This has all been said over an over again, just another broken record.

[Hannibalector]

This has all been said over an over again, just another broken record.


the only people that are here are idiots and or police or confidential informants just the way it is

dishuser <-----fill in the blank

[bigbadbrother]

the only people that are here are idiots and or police or confidential informants just the way it is

dishuser <-----fill in the blank

Then why are you here?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I dunno what does Shawn / Sean have to say ?


Have no idea who you are referring to.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Then why are you here?
eh shilo you keep a look now to xxx confidential informants up

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

it is the explicit obligation of any law enforcement officer to report a crime be it police officer or court appointed witness


How is this relevant even if it was true.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Have no idea who you are referring to.



GS2

didn't think so

[Hannibalector]

How is this relevant even if it was true.



GS2


really ? I'm serious GS2 there better be criminal reports happening soon

[bigbadbrother]

eh shilo you keep a look now to xxx confidential informants up

um yea alright . kind of odd that everything you go on an on about sounds just like you.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

didn't think so


So what was the point of it than.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Relax nothing is going nor needs to be change There is no need for there be criminal reports to file Civil lawsuits. <br />
<br />
<br />
The law calls for injured parties to file Civil lawsuits against those they...

[Hannibalector]

Relax nothing is going nor needs to be change There is no need for there be criminal reports to file Civil lawsuits.


The law calls for injured parties to file Civil lawsuits against those they allege to cause the harm. It allows you or anyone to do the same. They have small claims court where you can file for $50.00 against someone where no lawyers are required.


In Quebec you wait at lest two years before your complaint will be heard. The Courts are full. The Jails are full. Law enforcement no matter how much you complain is not going to take valuable time to investigate thousands upon thousands of end users who download illegally. I rather have them spend time if they have it looking for drunk drivers on streets who can kill people.


From Bill C2 hearings on the RC Act for satellite theft infractions a RCMP Director said the following.:-








GS2

who cares what a RCMP officer said he is not a ruling entity but he is demanded by law to adhere to the laws of Canada

[kutter]

who cares what a RCMP officer said he is not a ruling entity but he is demanded by law to adhere to the laws of Canada

I would imagine that Bell would be quite happy if the RCMP cracked down on end users .... but how would you feel about it :noidea:

[Hannibalector]

I would imagine that Bell would be quite happy if the RCMP cracked down on end users .... but how would you feel about it :noidea:

like I said to you at ncn I'd sooner see people get shakin down by the criminal system then get shakin down by a bunch of shysters from Texas in the civil system, where does one think 3500 or 10,000 is fair for in some cases less then 500 worth of tv

its a criminal matter that should at the very least be an option to the accused and should be reported

[sodusme]

The reason its deemed illegal in some states is because it breaks moral and ethical standards as set forth by the court system in that jurisdiction. I would almost bet that some of these copyright...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

who cares what a RCMP officer said he is not a ruling entity but he is demanded by law to adhere to the laws of Canada


He is just not an officer he is the director of the dept that looks at this type of activity. You should care because he's telling you they don't have the resources to go after end users and said so it a government committee looking at the law with all the minutes recorded online for anyone to look at.


You have this misconception that the law enforcement is some army out there just ready to investigate thousands of end users. You want that than petition that we all pay way more taxes.


It also boggles my mind why you would want law enforcement involved so end users could possible end up with some criminal record.


GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You don't get to choose. What do you expect that people will just turn themselves in and say charge me criminally or when facing a lawsuit say how about we drop this lawsuit and have the police come...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

The reason its deemed illegal in some states is because it breaks moral and ethical standards as set forth by the court system in that jurisdiction. I would almost bet that some of these copyright cases are in states where such material is deemed "immoral". So I guess I would ask two wrongs make a right in this case as expressed by you? I mean if the company is disseminating pr0n in a state where its known to be immoral or against public standards how are they then allowed to sue? Seems a little messed up to me. I mean if you go buy drugs and get ripped off you can't sue. So how can you spread indecent, immoral material in a particular state where it might be deemed that and then sue? And I can guarantee you that its being spread in states where its deemed immoral.

You have never been a victim of identity theft have you? If you had you wouldn't be so nonchalant with your personal information getting out. I have had my personal information breached and so has my wife. I also see what can happens to that information on a daily basis. It winds up for sale on the black market. So some guy working for a pr0n company gets your name, your telephone number, your address, and God knows what else from the ISP company. Now he knows where you live. He can look up your address and see if you live in a nice big fancy house. I know you will say "That stuff doesn't happens". Yeah just like the government would never "SPY" on emails either.


Seriously we are talking about the account holder's name and address. Its not so private people's names and addresses. People pay taxes on their homes to the city where they live.


What your talking about is blocking the identity of persons who downloaded illegally as now being a victim of identity theft. That is quite the leap.



GS2

[sodusme]

Seriously we are talking about the account holder's name and address. Its not so private people's names and addresses. People pay taxes on their homes to the city where they live.


What your talking about is blocking the identity of persons who downloaded illegally as now being a victim of identity theft. That is quite the leap.



GS2

That is exactly right and finally you have arrived at it.

What I'm saying is there exists enough avenues for people to steal someones information already and now yet again there is another avenue that exists. Do you not think that this information will somehow fall into the wrong hands--ever? I mean seriously you can't be that naive? And I don't mean that as derogatory when I call you naive. Certainly at some point that information will fall into the wrong hands. It happens with police stations, it happens with government agencies, why would it NOT happen with a private company that is allowed to obtain personal information from an ISP subscriber?

You know I saw a posting one time that said "What is the best anti-virus"? It showed a picture of a head and said the one between your ears. So in other words your brain is the best anti-virus. So what is the best copyright infringement enforcement? The one in your head between your ears. So instead of relying on i.p.'s, and ISP records, and judges, and subpoenas--why not just use your brain and secure your sh*t?

[surfinisfun]

That is exactly right and finally you have arrived at it.

What I'm saying is there exists enough avenues for people to steal someones information already and now yet again there is another avenue that exists. Do you not think that this information will somehow fall into the wrong hands--ever? I mean seriously you can't be that naive? And I don't mean that as derogatory when I call you naive. Certainly at some point that information will fall into the wrong hands. It happens with police stations, it happens with government agencies, why would it NOT happen with a private company that is allowed to obtain personal information from an ISP subscriber?

You know I saw a posting one time that said "What is the best anti-virus"? It showed a picture of a head and said the one between your ears. So in other words your brain is the best anti-virus. So what is the best copyright infringement enforcement? The one in your head between your ears. So instead of relying on i.p.'s, and ISP records, and judges, and subpoenas--why not just use your brain and secure your sh*t?

I think the providers would rather use the bait car tactic.

Most likely less cost and it turns in a nice little profit as a bonus.

[Hannibalector]

He is just not an officer he is the director of the dept that looks at this type of activity. You should care because he's telling you they don't have the resources to go after end users and said so it a government committee looking at the law with all the minutes recorded online for anyone to look at.


You have this misconception that the law enforcement is some army out there just ready to investigate thousands of end users. You want that than petition that we all pay way more taxes.


It also boggles my mind why you would want law enforcement involved so end users could possible end up with some criminal record.


GS2
I went for a drive this morning saw 4 cops driving in there cars doing nothing, just driving around, cops deal with shoplifting everyday when complaints are made

[Hannibalector]

yes I do get to choose and question things like why aren't lawyers and private investigators alerting authorities of criminal activity. <br />
<br />
now am I being mello dramatic on this ? yes I am but for a...

[kutter]

That is exactly right and finally you have arrived at it.

What I'm saying is there exists enough avenues for people to steal someones information already and now yet again there is another avenue that exists. Do you not think that this information will somehow fall into the wrong hands--ever? I mean seriously you can't be that naive? And I don't mean that as derogatory when I call you naive. Certainly at some point that information will fall into the wrong hands. It happens with police stations, it happens with government agencies, why would it NOT happen with a private company that is allowed to obtain personal information from an ISP subscriber?

You know I saw a posting one time that said "What is the best anti-virus"? It showed a picture of a head and said the one between your ears. So in other words your brain is the best anti-virus. So what is the best copyright infringement enforcement? The one in your head between your ears. So instead of relying on i.p.'s, and ISP records, and judges, and subpoenas--why not just use your brain and secure your sh*t?

Why is it a certainty that the information will fall into the wrong hands?

There's no denying that it's a possibility, but to suggest that it's a certainty is wrong.

LOL ... so you think that DN and Bell should take the leap and do a wholesale hardware swap ... all because of IKS ???

I have no idea how many people are using IKS, but I would imagine that it's a small number compared to what was going on when their encryption was whored out. I'm sure they are content in knowing that they've had a big impact on piracy and are probably satisfied with simply picking off any that are foolish enough to get involved in the so called private sharing. Besides, look at how easy it is to get content via the internet ... delivering content via satellite doesn't look as good as it used to and I'm sure these companies see the writing on the wall ...

[kutter]

I went for a drive this morning saw 4 cops driving in there cars doing nothing, just driving around, cops deal with shoplifting everyday when complaints are made

lol ... do you think they saw any people infringing copyrighted material while they were driving around ? :D

[Hannibalector]

Why is it a certainty that the information will fall into the wrong hands?

There's no denying that it's a possibility, but to suggest that it's a certainty is wrong.

LOL ... so you think that DN and Bell should take the leap and do a wholesale hardware swap ... all because of IKS ???

I have no idea how many people are using IKS, but I would imagine that it's a small number compared to what was going on when their encryption was whored out. I'm sure they are content in knowing that they've had a big impact on piracy and are probably satisfied with simply picking off any that are foolish enough to get involved in the so called private sharing. Besides, look at how easy it is to get content via the internet ... delivering content via satellite doesn't look as good as it used to and I'm sure these companies see the writing on the wall ...

I know I do, they're system is wide open with IKS, more then 12 years there crap has been hacked all because they were complacent with there systems constant rom revisions and nothing more, how does the SI department square that to it's shareholders at every meeting, how do they explain that to the likes of MLB, NHL, whatever content they distribute, like I said they all need to be fired for incompetence, I mean imagine the very name of SI, signal integrity now say signal integrity and IKS at the same time

[kutter]

I know I do, they're system is wide open with IKS, more then 12 years there crap has been hacked all because they were complacent with there systems constant rom revisions and nothing more, how does the SI department square that to it's shareholders at every meeting, how do they explain that to the likes of MLB, NHL, whatever content they distribute, like I said they all need to be fired for incompetence, I mean imagine the very name of SI, signal integrity now say signal integrity and IKS at the same time

There is no doubt that they are accountable to the actual content providers. That's probably just another lawsuit waiting in the wings :)

loss of the ability to provide their customers with PPV services like MLB,NHL ect will have an impact on their bottom line so I'm sure it's a consideration, however, hundreds of millions for a wholesale hardware swap doesn't look like it's on the table any time soon :D

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

That is exactly right and finally you have arrived at it.

What I'm saying is there exists enough avenues for people to steal someones information already and now yet again there is another avenue that exists. Do you not think that this information will somehow fall into the wrong hands--ever? I mean seriously you can't be that naive? And I don't mean that as derogatory when I call you naive. Certainly at some point that information will fall into the wrong hands. It happens with police stations, it happens with government agencies, why would it NOT happen with a private company that is allowed to obtain personal information from an ISP subscriber?

You know I saw a posting one time that said "What is the best anti-virus"? It showed a picture of a head and said the one between your ears. So in other words your brain is the best anti-virus. So what is the best copyright infringement enforcement? The one in your head between your ears. So instead of relying on i.p.'s, and ISP records, and judges, and subpoenas--why not just use your brain and secure your sh*t?


Lol you think your name and address is stealing your information. You seriously can't be serious with that. How many people or companies have your name and address ? Electric, Cable, Telephone, credit cards, the city where you live, insurance companies, banks, the list can go on and on.


All I see is every front being put up so people who steal signals can never be found out.



GS2

[kutter]

Lol you think your name and address is stealing your information. You seriously can't be serious with that. How many people or companies have your name and address ? Electric, Cable, Telephone, credit cards, the city where you live, insurance companies, banks, the list can go on and on.


All I see is every front being put up so people who steal signals can never be found out.



GS2

not to mention public phone books :)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

yes I do get to choose and question things like why aren't lawyers and private investigators alerting authorities of criminal activity.

now am I being mello dramatic on this ? yes I am but for a very good reason which I've stated already


Again because authorities don't have resources to spend time investigating. They even say they don't have the resources. Sure they know it happens. They know people smoke pot. They know people Jay walk or ever. They don't have the manpower to start investigating offenses like this and waste court's time when they won't even be able to show up and testify when the penalty probably could be just a fine. It would be a complete waste of time and tax payer's money being used for the wrong crimes.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Again because authorities don't have resources to spend time investigating. They even say they don't have the resources. Sure they know it happens. They know people smoke pot. They know people Jay walk or ever. They don't have the manpower to start investigating offenses like this and waste court's time when they won't even be able to show up and testify when the penalty probably could be just a fine. It would be a complete waste of time and tax payer's money being used for the wrong crimes.



GS2

didn't you hear about my drive this morning ?

[kutter]

didn't you hear about my drive this morning ?

yes, but they were probably on their way to pick up another shoplifter :D

[Hannibalector]

There is no doubt that they are accountable to the actual content providers. That's probably just another lawsuit waiting in the wings :)

loss of the ability to provide their customers with PPV services like MLB,NHL ect will have an impact on their bottom line so I'm sure it's a consideration, however, hundreds of millions for a wholesale hardware swap doesn't look like it's on the table any time soon :D

there's a lot of wasted space on them plastic cards, wouldn't have to be the whole receiver

[Hannibalector]

yes, but they were probably on their way to pick up another shoplifter :D

Gawd I hope so

[surfinisfun]

There is no doubt that they are accountable to the actual content providers. That's probably just another lawsuit waiting in the wings :)

loss of the ability to provide their customers with PPV services like MLB,NHL ect will have an impact on their bottom line so I'm sure it's a consideration, however, hundreds of millions for a wholesale hardware swap doesn't look like it's on the table any time soon :D

Although that is a very inflated cost imo, its still correct.

Cost vs reward would not motivate them to secure their system.

[Hannibalector]

Again because authorities don't have resources to spend time investigating. They even say they don't have the resources. Sure they know it happens. They know people smoke pot. They know people Jay walk or ever. They don't have the manpower to start investigating offenses like this and waste court's time when they won't even be able to show up and testify when the penalty probably could be just a fine. It would be a complete waste of time and tax payer's money being used for the wrong crimes.



GS2

you know all it takes is a complaint made right ? they are then forced to investigate the matter once a complaint is made, so if private investigators have information of criminal activity I would think it be incumbent for them to alert authorities, same goes for lawyers as they are officers of the court

[kutter]

there's a lot of wasted space on them plastic cards, wouldn't have to be the whole receiver

if it was that simple it would be done :)

the way I see it, short of new hardware and secure firmware they will be right back in the same boat ...

[kutter]

Although that is a very inflated cost imo, its still correct.

Cost vs reward would not motivate them to secure their system.

lol ... could be very inflated ... what does Charlie have 20 million subs ... I haven't looked at their stats for a couple of years so I don't have a clue ...

even if it was 15 million subs times a ridiulously low price of $20 a box plus shipping you would be over 300 million, or is there something wrong with my estimates or my math :D

[Hannibalector]

if it was that simple it would be done :)

the way I see it, short of new hardware and secure firmware they will be right back in the same boat ...

kutter it is that simple, seems to me theres an awful lot of distance between the rom and the tsop

[Anubis]

the only people that are here are idiots and or police or confidential informants just the way it is

dishuser <-----fill in the blank

I have been patient with your posts hanni.
You are now on a thin thread. Not line, thread. Understood?

[kutter]

kutter it is that simple, seems to me theres an awful lot of distance between the rom and the tsop

yup ... there's usually a couple of inches :D

[dishuser]

not to mention public phone books :)

people still have house phones?

[kutter]

people still have house phones?

I don't, but my wife brought a phone book home earlier this year and surprisingly, it's still full of names and numbers :D

[Hannibalector]

I have been patient with your posts hanni.
You are now on a thin thread. Not line, thread. Understood?

you and nostradamus should have meetings

[Nostradamus]

we don't need meetings.. we are both tired of your smart mouth.. maybe 10 days in the sin bin will mellow you out

[sodusme]

Why is it a certainty that the information will fall into the wrong hands?

There's no denying that it's a possibility, but to suggest that it's a certainty is wrong.

LOL ... so you think that DN and Bell should take the leap and do a wholesale hardware swap ... all because of IKS ???

I have no idea how many people are using IKS, but I would imagine that it's a small number compared to what was going on when their encryption was whored out. I'm sure they are content in knowing that they've had a big impact on piracy and are probably satisfied with simply picking off any that are foolish enough to get involved in the so called private sharing. Besides, look at how easy it is to get content via the internet ... delivering content via satellite doesn't look as good as it used to and I'm sure these companies see the writing on the wall ...

Because its a probability you know a statistic? Just like I know that when I crack a site a certain number of people will be using "123456" as a password, its inevitable. The more users on a site the more that increases my percentages. The more people who have your information the more it increases the odds that that information WILL fall into the wrong hands. Its a mathematical certainty.

I have thousands of hits on sites with users "123456" as a password to prove it happens. That isn't a "possibility" its a "certainty". Just like this topic we are discussing.


Lol you think your name and address is stealing your information. You seriously can't be serious with that. How many people or companies have your name and address ? Electric, Cable, Telephone, credit cards, the city where you live, insurance companies, banks, the list can go on and on.


All I see is every front being put up so people who steal signals can never be found out.



GS2

I would LOL at your naivety but to me identity theft is no laughing matter. Those companies that have my name and address are having it residing in an encrypted database on a secured server without every Tom, Dick, and Harry who works for them having access to it. Sure occasionally a breach of that information will occur. Its bound to happen like I said the more companies you deal with the more it increases your odds of that happening.

All I see is every angle being used as to why these companies have a right to do as they damn well please. I would bet a $100 that if you were faced with this type of bullsh*t happening personally to you that you would not take this chivalrous attitude towards it.

I don't mean this to sound how its going to sound but to think that you can never be a victim of this is either very dumb or very naive. I would like to think you are quite smart so I will suggest that you are just very naive.

I'll close with a nice little write up about what it is that people look for when stealing a persons identity.


http://manvsdebt.com/top-16-pieces-of-your-information-identity-thieves-crave/

Pay special attention to #12 and #3 respectively on the list. Also read why those are important and then maybe you won't be LOL and you'll realize how "serious" this matter is.

[Nostradamus]

not bad enough they can obtain the info but how do they store it? hard copy? on a disk locked in a safe or tucked away on some cloud server. Near as I can tell cloud servers serve one purpose and that is to share as much info as they can. personal computer? yeah right! Might as well be a kiosk in a food copurt at mall of america

[sodusme]

not bad enough they can obtain the info but how do they store it? hard copy? on a disk locked in a safe or tucked away on some cloud server. Near as I can tell cloud servers serve one purpose and that is to share as much info as they can. personal computer? yeah right! Might as well be a kiosk in a food copurt at mall of america

Well most will use a "hash" and in turn have that "salted" where a random number is either added to the front OR the end OR both of the password. I know companies do tape backups (hard copy as you called it) but I'm unsure if they back up a username and password database. I would assume they do as that is part of the server.

Take for example the recent Ebay hack. They have your email, they have your name, they have your phone number, and of course they have your username and password. Now the passwords were "hashed" which is a big long string of characters and then they were also "salted" which is they have a random number added to either the front or the back or both I can't remember. I read how they did theirs but it escapes me at the moment. Now after reading what it is criminals look for you'll realize how this can now be a nightmare for an Ebay user.

Ebay has actually said there are claims that the entire 240 million user database is available for sale on the 'net. They also say that is false that they have seen a portion of that list and although it holds users from a legit database it is NOT their database. So at this juncture they are saying the likelihood of that database actually being decrypted is slim to none.

[bigbadbrother]

we don't need meetings.. we are both tired of your smart mouth.. maybe 10 days in the sin bin will mellow you out

Thank you. his rantings get old real fast.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Because its a probability you know a statistic? Just like I know that when I crack a site a certain number of people will be using "123456" as a password, its inevitable. The more users on a site the more that increases my percentages. The more people who have your information the more it increases the odds that that information WILL fall into the wrong hands. Its a mathematical certainty.

I have thousands of hits on sites with users "123456" as a password to prove it happens. That isn't a "possibility" its a "certainty". Just like this topic we are discussing.



I would LOL at your naivety but to me identity theft is no laughing matter. Those companies that have my name and address are having it residing in an encrypted database on a secured server without every Tom, Dick, and Harry who works for them having access to it. Sure occasionally a breach of that information will occur. Its bound to happen like I said the more companies you deal with the more it increases your odds of that happening.

All I see is every angle being used as to why these companies have a right to do as they damn well please. I would bet a $100 that if you were faced with this type of bullsh*t happening personally to you that you would not take this chivalrous attitude towards it.

I don't mean this to sound how its going to sound but to think that you can never be a victim of this is either very dumb or very naive. I would like to think you are quite smart so I will suggest that you are just very naive.

I'll close with a nice little write up about what it is that people look for when stealing a persons identity.


http://manvsdebt.com/top-16-pieces-of-your-information-identity-thieves-crave/

Pay special attention to #12 and #3 respectively on the list. Also read why those are important and then maybe you won't be LOL and you'll realize how "serious" this matter is.


I never said identify theft was not serious. But lets be serious here. We are not talking about identity theft. We are talking about the account holder's name and address that in no way adds up to identity theft. Really have no idea how take it there with that.


What you want is any way to stop the plaintiffs whether its music or satellite or whatever from having any ability to identify people who steal in the name of what, Privacy and now identity theft. What's next ?


Don't be taking my Lol at getting someone's name and address that is had by so many as laughing at identity theft. That is bizarre. Do you give your name and address to Electricity companies, Cable or Satellite, or phone companies, cell phone providers and a host of others. ? Is that identity theft that your providing for these companies ?


If it happen to me I would take the same attitude. I would defend myself its that simple. I really don't think its going to happen to me because I don't participate in it. All your concern about innocents being brought into this really does not move me. Really how many innocents do you think there will be. How many were there with the Dave letters and DN letters ? They got your name and address because whoever you are paid for an IKS subscription and gave your information. Who's at fault there. There really isn't all that different.


If your concerned about identity theft with a name and address than don't be giving out to anyone including Paypal and all just leave without Electricity and what not.


Ya number 3 is about finding your full birth name. The other one is finding your address. You have given it to how many companies and people. ? In all this there is not one shred of evidence that any of these plaintiffs will or have used it for identity theft. That's exactly what a court will say. There is no evidence that your name and address is going to be used to steal your identity by the plaintiff. Your concern will be poop off. You have zero evidence that any of the plaintiffs are thieves or identity thieves. You might as well call any company you gave your name and address to as thieves or identity thieves. What you provided was a link to what identity thieves crave not anything that suggests Voltage or any others are identity thieves and they have been getting name and address for a few years now.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you know all it takes is a complaint made right ? they are then forced to investigate the matter once a complaint is made, so if private investigators have information of criminal activity I would think it be incumbent for them to alert authorities, same goes for lawyers as they are officers of the court


No they are not forced to investigate. They will tell you its a Civil matter. Call the police because someone threatened you on the internet on a chat forum while you were fighting with someone. They will come and tell you to get off the internet and avoid that person. I can go on and on but your dreaming if you think every time someone brings a complaint to the police they are now forced to investigate.


GS2

[sodusme]

I never said identify theft was not serious. But lets be serious here. We are not talking about identity theft. We are talking about the account holder's name and address that in no way adds up to identity theft. Really have no idea how take it there with that.


What you want is any way to stop the plaintiffs whether its music or satellite or whatever from having any ability to identify people who steal in the name of what, Privacy and now identity theft. What's next ?


Don't be taking my Lol at getting someone's name and address that is had by so many as laughing at identity theft. That is bizarre. Do you give your name and address to Electricity companies, Cable or Satellite, or phone companies, cell phone providers and a host of others. ? Is that identity theft that your providing for these companies ?


If it happen to me I would take the same attitude. I would defend myself its that simple. I really don't think its going to happen to me because I don't participate in it. All your concern about innocents being brought into this really does not move me. Really how many innocents do you think there will be. How many were there with the Dave letters and DN letters ? They got your name and address because whoever you are paid for an IKS subscription and gave your information. Who's at fault there. There really isn't all that different.


If your concerned about identity theft with a name and address than don't be giving out to anyone including Paypal and all just leave without Electricity and what not.


Ya number 3 is about finding your full birth name. The other one is finding your address. You have given it to how many companies and people. ? In all this there is not one shred of evidence that any of these plaintiffs will or have used it for identity theft. That's exactly what a court will say. There is no evidence that your name and address is going to be used to steal your identity by the plaintiff. Your concern will be poop off. You have zero evidence that any of the plaintiffs are thieves or identity thieves. You might as well call any company you gave your name and address to as thieves or identity thieves. What you provided was a link to what identity thieves crave not anything that suggests Voltage or any others are identity thieves and they have been getting name and address for a few years now.



GS2

I'm talking about the "possibility" of identity theft. I never said they are guilty of it. I said the probability and possibility was there. Why would the judge limit their access to information in Canada if he didn't feel the same way?

Yes I do give my information to the electricity company, and the cable company, and the cell phone company as well as others. Again though that information is entered into a database and it goes no further than the person typing it in (at least we hope that is the case), the database is then encrypted. I don't hand out my information for any other reasons except for a company that I'm doing business with--a legitimate one at that. And it appalls me that my information can be handed out so easily on a whim because a company goes to an ISP with a subpoena they have gotten (based on an i.p. alone). Which may OR may not happen behind my back and without my knowledge.

You can think it "won't happen" to you all you want. You don't have to participate it in it to have it happen. Do you think you have to participate in a gang to be shot by a gang member? We've already went over all the ways an i.p. can be stolen. You apparently have some kind of agenda or ulterior motive here as you are not willing to admit that this stuff happens to innocent people...and that is fine. I know otherwise and hopefully those reading my posts now realize otherwise.

I have made my stance known many, many times on the IKS situation. Knowing what I know about technology and how it works you are not actually pirating a "control word" as its not really in its entirety. It would take someone with the knowledge I have though to be able to defend that adequately.

I'm going to have to bow out now of this discussion as you have an extremely closed mind on this, and you are not willing to see any other views on this but you own and DN's and Nagras. I have made my reasoning on this as clear as I possibly can. Have a good day.

[kutter]

I'm talking about the "possibility" of identity theft. I never said they are guilty of it. I said the probability and possibility was there. Why would the judge limit their access to information in Canada if he didn't feel the same way?
nice way to word it ... once again you are attempting to make it sound like it's probable, when in fact it's possible but improbable :) ... if a name and address were sufficient to commit identity theft then why would any criminal organization not just get on their computers and type 411 into google or any other search engine ... you will get literally millions of identities to steal ...


Yes I do give my information to the electricity company, and the cable company, and the cell phone company as well as others. Again though that information is entered into a database and it goes no further than the person typing it in (at least we hope that is the case), the database is then encrypted. I don't hand out my information for any other reasons except for a company that I'm doing business with--a legitimate one at that. And it appalls me that my information can be handed out so easily on a whim because a company goes to an ISP with a subpoena they have gotten (based on an i.p. alone). Which may OR may not happen behind my back and without my knowledge.

You can think it "won't happen" to you all you want. You don't have to participate it in it to have it happen. Do you think you have to participate in a gang to be shot by a gang member? We've already went over all the ways an i.p. can be stolen. You apparently have some kind of agenda or ulterior motive here as you are not willing to admit that this stuff happens to innocent people...and that is fine. I know otherwise and hopefully those reading my posts now realize otherwise.

I have made my stance known many, many times on the IKS situation. Knowing what I know about technology and how it works you are not actually pirating a "control word" as its not really in its entirety. It would take someone with the knowledge I have though to be able to defend that adequately.
That's your stance but in reality all you've shown is that it's possible that any particular control word didn't get through, in reality the system functions as it should otherwise people wouldn't be buying into IKS.


I'm going to have to bow out now of this discussion as you have an extremely closed mind on this, and you are not willing to see any other views on this but you own and DN's and Nagras. I have made my reasoning on this as clear as I possibly can. Have a good day.

I would have to say that you've got it backwards, my mind is not closed nor have I come to any conclusion other than, if your account was used for illegal purposes that you can and in some cases will be held accountable. It's your mind that is closed. You are adamant that any infringement on your right to privacy should not be allowed in a civil action because you can raise some doubts about the credibility of the plaintiffs or their evidence.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm talking about the "possibility" of identity theft. I never said they are guilty of it. I said the probability and possibility was there. Why would the judge limit their access to information in Canada if he didn't feel the same way?

Yes I do give my information to the electricity company, and the cable company, and the cell phone company as well as others. Again though that information is entered into a database and it goes no further than the person typing it in (at least we hope that is the case), the database is then encrypted. I don't hand out my information for any other reasons except for a company that I'm doing business with--a legitimate one at that. And it appalls me that my information can be handed out so easily on a whim because a company goes to an ISP with a subpoena they have gotten (based on an i.p. alone). Which may OR may not happen behind my back and without my knowledge.

You can think it "won't happen" to you all you want. You don't have to participate it in it to have it happen. Do you think you have to participate in a gang to be shot by a gang member? We've already went over all the ways an i.p. can be stolen. You apparently have some kind of agenda or ulterior motive here as you are not willing to admit that this stuff happens to innocent people...and that is fine. I know otherwise and hopefully those reading my posts now realize otherwise.

I have made my stance known many, many times on the IKS situation. Knowing what I know about technology and how it works you are not actually pirating a "control word" as its not really in its entirety. It would take someone with the knowledge I have though to be able to defend that adequately.

I'm going to have to bow out now of this discussion as you have an extremely closed mind on this, and you are not willing to see any other views on this but you own and DN's and Nagras. I have made my reasoning on this as clear as I possibly can. Have a good day.



Identifying a holder's account with an IP is not acting on a whim. Innocent people are victims of identity theft. Where did I ever say different. ? Sure it happens to innocent people. What other people would it happen to. ?


You can have identity theft with any of the companies you gave your information to or by looking up on 411 if you believe that. Identity thieves if we follow your logic just need to look up your name and address in the phone book. Many times your information is shared with third parties or business partners or affiliates of the company you signed up with including in different countries. Ever read the fine print. Often your information is sold or easily given by phone companies even though they deny it. You can go online and pay to get a name and address to a non listed private landline or cell phone.



10. Privacy Policy:

Your registration data and certain other information about you are subject to our TOS. You understand that by using the magicJack and/or magicJack Plus device and/ or magicTalk and magicJack APP you consent to magicJack, LP and magicJack VocalTec Ltd.'s, and YMax Communications Corporation collection and use as set forth in the Terms of Service, including the transfer of this information to and from the United States and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by magicJack, LP and/or magicJack VocalTec Ltd., and/or YMax Communications Corporation, its affiliates and business partners to provide information about communications-related service and may enable and make better use of certain products and services.



There is no agenda or ulterior motive here. There is no closed mind here. Nothing you have said convinces me or makes a case that your danger of identity theft is anymore dangerous if a Plaintiff gets it versus someone getting it from the phone book. At lest with a Plaintiff and the case we look at they are under Court orders not to share it. I have seen people say through out the years I can beat it with various defenses, knowing technology but reality shows that if they make a case that is more believable than not that you did pirate the signal than the court can find you liable.



GS2

[sodusme]

nice way to word it ... once again you are attempting to make it sound like it's probable, when in fact it's possible but improbable :) ... if a name and address were sufficient to commit identity theft then why would any criminal organization not just get on their computers and type 411 into google or any other search engine ... you will get literally millions of identities to steal ...

That's your stance but in reality all you've shown is that it's possible that any particular control word didn't get through, in reality the system functions as it should otherwise people wouldn't be buying into IKS.


I would have to say that you've got it backwards, my mind is not closed nor have I come to any conclusion other than, if your account was used for illegal purposes that you can and in some cases will be held accountable. It's your mind that is closed. You are adamant that any infringement on your right to privacy should not be allowed in a civil action because you can raise some doubts about the credibility of the plaintiffs or their evidence.

I hate being sucked back in....but OK I'm a sucker for a lively debate. ;)

Lets look up the credibility of some of these plaintiffs shall we?
http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/did-your-isp-forward-you-a-dmca-copyright-infringement-notice/


“Copyright cops” who threaten users of BitTorrent trackers frivolously pursue anyone whose IP appears on their radar and their evidence would not stand up to even the most trivial review.


The copyright cops caught the user at this UW IP address RED-HANDED, INFRINGING ON THEIR COPYRIGHT!

The IP address being accused of BitTorrent-based copyright infringement belonged to a network printer.


There’s another experiment from 2007 which was performed with a specially written BitTorrent client which explicitly did not download nor upload any material, only jumped on a tracker and added itself to peer lists. This client, which was designed to be incapable of actually infringing copyrights, generated copyright infringement notices from BayTSP despite the fact that such infringement was simply not possible with that application!


They resort to legal threats and mass lawsuits against “infringing parties” but they advertise it to content owners and rights holders this way: “Monetize copyright infringement! We can bring you income from a surprising source: people who download your content illegally!”

Hmm suing a network printer and suing an i.p. that is incapable of ANY downloading or uploading plus advertising your "services" to copyright holders? LOL. Yup sure sounds to me like these are "upstanding" companies that are only interested in "protecting" their copyrighted material.


Identifying a holder's account with an IP is not acting on a whim. Innocent people are victims of identity theft. Where did I ever say different. ? Sure it happens to innocent people. What other people would it happen to. ?


You can have identity theft with any of the companies you gave your information to or by looking up on 411 if you believe that. Identity thieves if we follow your logic just need to look up your name and address in the phone book. Many times your information is shared with third parties or business partners or affiliates of the company you signed up with including in different countries. Ever read the fine print. Often your information is sold or easily given by phone companies even though they deny it. You can go online and pay to get a name and address to a non listed private landline or cell phone.






There is no agenda or ulterior motive here. There is no closed mind here. Nothing you have said convinces me or makes a case that your danger of identity theft is anymore dangerous if a Plaintiff gets it versus someone getting it from the phone book. At lest with a Plaintiff and the case we look at they are under Court orders not to share it. I have seen people say through out the years I can beat it with various defenses, knowing technology but reality shows that if they make a case that is more believable than not that you did pirate the signal than the court can find you liable.



GS2

Did you read the post earlier on why getting someones name and address was important? Its a "starting" process for more phishing. Please if you are going to refute what I say and make attempts to get your point across at least be kind enough to read the links I post as they are imperative to your "side". I read the links and documents you post so if you can please give me the same courtesy.

I know you couldn't have read it by your response. Hence the "closed mind" again rears its ugly head.

[kutter]

I hate being sucked back in....but OK I'm a sucker for a lively debate. ;)

Lets look up the credibility of some of these plaintiffs shall we?
http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/did-your-isp-forward-you-a-dmca-copyright-infringement-notice/









Hmm suing a network printer and suing an i.p. that is incapable of ANY downloading or uploading plus advertising your "services" to copyright holders? LOL. Yup sure sounds to me like these are "upstanding" companies that are only interested in "protecting" their copyrighted material.



Did you read the post earlier on why getting someones name and address was important? Its a "starting" process for more phishing. Please if you are going to refute what I say and make attempts to get your point across at least be kind enough to read the links I post as they are imperative to your "side". I read the links and documents you post so if you can please give me the same courtesy.

I know you couldn't have read it by your response. Hence the "closed mind" again rears its ugly head.

if getting someone's name and address is as harmful as you are suggesting then why haven't you or someone else taken 411 down ... there are millions upon millions of names, address and phone numbers all in one place ... :)

Like I told you before, the credibility of the plaintiff and their evidence can't be predetermined ... just because mistakes were made in some instances does not mean that's the case this time.

If it turns out that the law suit is just a fishing expedition, then I have faith that the judge will put an end to it ... I realize that you have little faith in the legal system, so I'm probably wasting my breath.

[sodusme]

if getting someone's name and address is as harmful as you are suggesting then why haven't you or someone else taken 411 down ... there are millions upon millions of names, address and phone numbers all in one place ... :)

Like I told you before, the credibility of the plaintiff and their evidence can't be predetermined ... just because mistakes were made in some instances does not mean that's the case this time.

If it turns out that the law suit is just a fishing expedition, then I have faith that the judge will put an end to it ... I realize that you have little faith in the legal system, so I'm probably wasting my breath.

Well I can tell you this 411 would be an excellent place to start. Scroll the list of people and look for "Mildred" or "Blanche" and you can be sure you have a senior citizen that is likely to give up more information in a phishing phone call. You can tell by a name in most instances how old someone is. This is how identity theft works. Its a guessing game and they don't have to always be right and most times they can obtain the rest of the information they need with a well placed phone call.

So those complaints of chasing down an i.p. belonging to a network printer and chasing down an i.p. from a device incapable of downloading or uploading and the copyright troll "service" being offered to copyright holders---are isolated cases then? LOL Is that what I'm to believe? So its probably not wide spread?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a phishing expedition. How are these companies storing the information they obtain from these subpoenas? Who has access to the information within their companies? Where is it stored? How long is it stored? Nobody knows the answers to these questions and like I said many times now---the probability is high that something will happen to that information. Do you think the judge is going to demand that these questions be answered? Highly unlikely. He's interested in his paycheck and whether he can sit on the bench until the next election.

[sodusme]

Hmm strange now this site says its VERY easy to send a cease and desist letter or a DMCA take down notice:


http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_penalties_false_copyright_infringement_cl aims


It’s often the case where someone will take authors’ original work without permission and reuse it in ways that the author hadn’t intended to or entirely objects to. Since its so easy to send a copyright-related cease-and-desist letter or a DMCA takedown notice, it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to stop some controversial reuse of your material or even punish that person for reusing your work in such an objectionable way.

But that goes against what you, kutter and GS2 have been saying here. I thought there was a lot of "work" and checks and balances by judges that went into this? I'm finding out differently now that I'm looking into it for myself.

[sodusme]

And another write up:


http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html


False copyright claims are more common than you think.


Did you know that content publishers often make false copyright claims? It’s true. The standard position of many publishers has become “we own everything, and any use we don’t approve of is illegal.”

Even stranger this website says there is NO penalty for submitting a false claim of DMCA violation:


http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/14/fight-against-false-copyright-claims-goes-to-capitol-hill/


While there are statutory damages for copyright infringement (even if very minor) there are no similar damages, or clear penalties of any kind, for submitting a fraudulent DMCA notice.

But I'm sure as kutter and GS2 say there is probably very little abuse and what abuse does take place will quickly be squelched by a God fearing judge just trying to do his job the best way he knows how. :innocent:

Right fellas? LOL

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I hate being sucked back in....but OK I'm a sucker for a lively debate. ;)

Lets look up the credibility of some of these plaintiffs shall we?
http://nctritech.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/did-your-isp-forward-you-a-dmca-copyright-infringement-notice/









Hmm suing a network printer and suing an i.p. that is incapable of ANY downloading or uploading plus advertising your "services" to copyright holders? LOL. Yup sure sounds to me like these are "upstanding" companies that are only interested in "protecting" their copyrighted material.



Did you read the post earlier on why getting someones name and address was important? Its a "starting" process for more phishing. Please if you are going to refute what I say and make attempts to get your point across at least be kind enough to read the links I post as they are imperative to your "side". I read the links and documents you post so if you can please give me the same courtesy.

I know you couldn't have read it by your response. Hence the "closed mind" again rears its ugly head.


So if getting your name and address is so important than why do you provide it. That article is relative to identity thieves and you have not shown one ounce of anything that makes any of the plaintiffs identity thieves.


Its likes proving some article on how thieves break into your house or something. None of what you posted or that link that I read helps anything because its directed to identity thieves and if you apply that than you might as well apply that to any company that you volunteer your information and say they are identity thieves.


Who wrote that article. ? he says he's no lawyer. Sounds like a hater of the DMCA.


Maybe I should post links to how much is lost on illegal downloading. Would that add to this debate. I don't think so.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Hmm strange now this site says its VERY easy to send a cease and desist letter or a DMCA take down notice:


http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_penalties_false_copyright_infringement_cl aims



But that goes against what you, kutter and GS2 have been saying here. I thought there was a lot of "work" and checks and balances by judges that went into this? I'm finding out differently now that I'm looking into it for myself.


And what is the point of that. First they are identity thieves and now they send out fake notices or something. Look if you think its fake just bring it up in court. Do you have any evidence that any of these plaintiffs sent out fake notices. What's next ? It seems your just going to go from one thing to another as a possibility yet you have no evidence they engaged in any identity theft.



GS2

[sodusme]

So if getting your name and address is so important than why do you provide it. That article is relative to identity thieves and you have not shown one ounce of anything that makes any of the plaintiffs identity thieves.


Its likes proving some article on how thieves break into your house or something. None of what you posted or that link that I read helps anything because its directed to identity thieves and if you apply that than you might as well apply that to any company that you volunteer your information and say they are identity thieves.



GS2

I provide it because I trust these companies based on the business I'm doing with them. The companies I wouldn't trust are copyright watchdog companies who I have no business relationship with and who's business I am not familiar with.

Exactly so the "threat" is there would you not agree? Just as it is with any company. You have already made that clear and I'm in agreement with you. The more companies who have your information the more likely it is that something will happen. I'm not arguing that.

I posted it to show you how easily ones information can be used for illegal gains. Lets face it when you do business with a waitress, when you hand your card to a gas attendant, when you swipe your card in the grocery store you could become a victim of identity theft. So why would you want to add an additional threat to the mix of having some copyright watchdog company having your information? Or better yet some pr0n company who is operating on the fringe of the law to begin with? That doesn't make good sense to me.

Is it because you are just hell bent on "doing the right thing" that you are willing to have your information handed over to anyone knowingly, or unknowingly? Seriously? You are awful trusting if that is case. I find that hard to believe that someone as worldly as you would be that trusting. But if you are---you are I guess.

[sodusme]

And what is the point of that. First they are identity thieves and now they send out fake notices or something. Look if you think its fake just bring it up in court. Do you have any evidence that any of these plaintiffs sent out fake notices. What's next ? It seems your just going to go from one thing to another as a possibility yet you have no evidence they engaged in any identity theft



GS2

Funny you should ask that.


http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=ip+address


On the whole, there isn't that much different about this ruling from a bunch of other recent rulings, but it's another one to add to the pile, and it gets clearer and clearer every day that the courts are now aware of how trolls are abusing the system, and less and less likely to allow such abuse.


This is only a district court ruling, but as a few other courts have made some similar claims, perhaps it can be useful in pushing back on standard copyright trolling, as courts become less willing to entertain fishing expeditions by trolls.


Discovery is not a game. Yet, plaintiffs in these types of cases use discovery to extort settlements from anonymous defendants who wish to avoid the embarrassment of being publicly associated with this type of allegation. Id. Such abuse of the discovery process cannot be allowed to continue.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I provide it because I trust these companies based on the business I'm doing with them. The companies I wouldn't trust are copyright watchdog companies who I have no business relationship with and who's business I am not familiar with.

Exactly so the "threat" is there would you not agree? Just as it is with any company. You have already made that clear and I'm in agreement with you. The more companies who have your information the more likely it is that something will happen. I'm not arguing that.

I posted it to show you how easily ones information can be used for illegal gains. Lets face it when you do business with a waitress, when you hand your card to a gas attendant, when you swipe your card in the grocery store you could become a victim of identity theft. So why would you want to add an additional threat to the mix of having some copyright watchdog company having your information? Or better yet some pr0n company who is operating on the fringe of the law to begin with? That doesn't make good sense to me.

Is it because you are just hell bent on "doing the right thing" that you are willing to have your information handed over to anyone knowingly, or unknowingly? Seriously? You are awful trusting if that is case. I find that hard to believe that someone as worldly as you would be that trusting. But if you are---you are I guess.


Well what kind of reason is that. Your trust them because you do business with them. What choice do you have if you want electrical power or cable/satellite or phone/cell service. ? Just because you don't do business with them doesn't mean they are more likely to be identity thieves.


I don't agree that a now created threat that the company are identity thieves gives any credence to them obtaining your information that has a court order attached to it that your information can not be shared that it will be used to steal your identity.



What you posted was how identity thieves can use your information. Its like posting how thieves can get your password to your bank card and than easily use it. I just don't see this being relative to Plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages unless you can show they are identity thieves.



GS2

[sodusme]

Well what kind of reason is that. Your trust them because you do business with them. What choice do you have if you want electrical power or cable/satellite or phone/cell service. ? Just because you don't do business with them doesn't mean they are more likely to be identity thieves.


I don't agree that a now created threat that the company are identity thieves gives any credence to them obtaining your information that has a court order attached to it that your information can not be shared that it will be used to steal your identity.



What you posted was how identity thieves can use your information. Its like posting how thieves can get your password to your bank card and than easily use it. I just don't see this being relative to Plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages unless you can show they are identity thieves.



GS2

OK you don't do business with me so how about you PM me your personal information then? Maybe your name and address and email and telephone number. I mean if you are that comfortable with people having it certainly you wouldn't mind if I had it....right? Or is there maybe a "trust" issue there? ;)

With as much red tape as this one company Voltage Pictures is going through you honestly think they are squeaky clean? That is laughable it really is. Can you prove that they will never abuse this information? No you cannot so I guess we are at an impasse.

Here is an attorney that says you (a copyright holder) aren't even given the remedy of suing an infringer that you are granted the relief of actually issuing a takedown notice only. Which is interesting since that would apply to D/N and Nagra also. Maybe someone should press that issue in the D/N and Nagra cases? Which is what I have actually been saying for months if not a year now is: Take down the servers and be done with it. Instead they prefer to issue "copyright infringement" notices to end users. Going to the well time and time again. Hmm very interesting.


https://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/tag/voltage-pictures/


Depending on who you ask, I’m a nice guy too. That being said, as soon as these attorneys decide to start filing copyright infringement lawsuits and they start suing defendants rather than focusing on taking down the infringing content which in my opinion is the remedy given to copyright holders by Congress via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), I leave my “nice guy” hat at the door and discuss the cases and their attorneys for what they are — copyright trolls.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Funny you should ask that.


http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=ip+address


Where is the evidence that these Plaintiffs are trolls abusing the system with what you posted. The Court it its ruling look at that and because they saw that Voltage was actually filling lawsuits than they did not fall into that category. I certainty agree if some plaintiff is abusing the system than they should not be granted the permission. But you trying to say they all do that by posting some negative comments does not wash. That would be like some Court calling out a defendant as a pirate thief and than other courts calling other defendants the same thing without even listening to the other defendants. Would that be right ?


Some courts don't grant the Plaintiffs an order for information from an ISP. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with courts that do with restrictions. Courts make decisions on the merits of the case presented.


You have a judgment and there are plenty of them that say the information can be provided as long as you do so with these rules. You have provided a real reason why that is not fair. I think its obvious your against Corporations who try to exercise their rights in Court against persons who pirate their system without payment. I am not. I know if I had a business and people were stealing from it I would try to do something about it and would be upset to learn the people who steal can hide behind an IP.


I am open to both sides. You are not. I am quite open when a court puts in provisions that clearly deal with abuse Plaintiff issues.


That's why we have courts because they can make that determination on a case per case.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

OK you don't do business with me so how about you PM me your personal information then? Maybe your name and address and email and telephone number. I mean if you are that comfortable with people having it certainly you wouldn't mind if I had it....right? Or is there maybe a "trust" issue there? ;)


Is my IP down as having downloaded something illegal that would require me to do that. ? You seem to be confusing the issue here. You don't want your ISP to had over your information that was caught as downloading something illegal for what reason now ? My personal information has been posted many times. You can probably get it online through a 411 search.



With as much red tape as this one company Voltage Pictures is going through you honestly think they are squeaky clean? That is laughable it really is. Can you prove that they will never abuse this information? No you cannot so I guess we are at an impasse.

Here is an attorney that says you (a copyright holder) aren't even given the remedy of suing an infringer that you are granted the relief of actually issuing a takedown notice only. Which is interesting since that would apply to D/N and Nagra also. Maybe someone should press that issue in the D/N and Nagra cases? Which is what I have actually been saying for months if not a year now is: Take down the servers and be done with it. Instead they prefer to issue "copyright infringement" notices to end users. Going to the well time and time again. Hmm very interesting.


https://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/tag/voltage-pictures/


Of course they are not squeaky clean. DN btw has a bad reputation in Court. But do you think all the account holders are squeaky clean of any wrong doing. ? The Court will decide. Your idea is that should not happen.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Hmm strange now this site says its VERY easy to send a cease and desist letter or a DMCA take down notice:


http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_penalties_false_copyright_infringement_cl aims



But that goes against what you, kutter and GS2 have been saying here. I thought there was a lot of "work" and checks and balances by judges that went into this? I'm finding out differently now that I'm looking into it for myself.


So having just look at that link it says:-



If you send a cease-and-desist letter to an infringer, there is a risk that the infringer may file a lawsuit in the infringer’s jurisdiction naming you as a defendant and seeking a declaratory judgment that your copyright is invalid. One recent court decision found that the sending of a single cease-and-desist letter into the state was enough to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in that state.


If you send a DMCA takedown notice that is both false and meant in bad faith (such as to harass, or doesn’t state a real claim), you have committed perjury. Though unlikely, if the party you sent the takedown notice to decided to pursue this in court, you could face all of the consequences that your state imposes on people who lie in court.



If you sue someone for copyright infringement in an attempt to harass that person and you lose because there was no infringement, the attorneys’ fees provisions may take effect, and you may be forced to pay the other side’s lawyer’s fees.


What was the purpose of posting that ? It goes into details about what could happen if someone sent a fake notice. I agree with it.


And how does this relate to Voltage ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

And another write up:


http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html





Even stranger this website says there is NO penalty for submitting a false claim of DMCA violation:


http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/14/fight-against-false-copyright-claims-goes-to-capitol-hill/



But I'm sure as kutter and GS2 say there is probably very little abuse and what abuse does take place will quickly be squelched by a God fearing judge just trying to do his job the best way he knows how. :innocent:

Right fellas? LOL



The other link you posted explained what the penalties could be for sending a fake claim. Maybe this website got it wrong. :no:


I know your busy trying to find things online but they contradict each other. Lol



If you send a DMCA takedown notice that is both false and meant in bad faith (such as to harass, or doesn’t state a real claim), you have committed perjury. Though unlikely, if the party you sent the takedown notice to decided to pursue this in court, you could face all of the consequences that your state imposes on people who lie in court.



GS2

[kutter]

I provide it because I trust these companies based on the business I'm doing with them. The companies I wouldn't trust are copyright watchdog companies who I have no business relationship with and who's business I am not familiar with.

Exactly so the "threat" is there would you not agree? Just as it is with any company. You have already made that clear and I'm in agreement with you. The more companies who have your information the more likely it is that something will happen. I'm not arguing that.

I posted it to show you how easily ones information can be used for illegal gains. Lets face it when you do business with a waitress, when you hand your card to a gas attendant, when you swipe your card in the grocery store you could become a victim of identity theft. So why would you want to add an additional threat to the mix of having some copyright watchdog company having your information? Or better yet some pr0n company who is operating on the fringe of the law to begin with? That doesn't make good sense to me.

Is it because you are just hell bent on "doing the right thing" that you are willing to have your information handed over to anyone knowingly, or unknowingly? Seriously? You are awful trusting if that is case. I find that hard to believe that someone as worldly as you would be that trusting. But if you are---you are I guess.

lol ... this is what the CIPPIC had to say about the ruling:

In early 2013, CIPPIC was granted leave to intervene in that motion. CIPPIC's interest in the case stemmed from its desire to (1) ensure that the test for disclosing identities associated with anonymous internet activity remains sufficiently robust to protect high-value speech, such as whistle-blowing and online criticism, and (2) ensure that copyright trolls did not set up shop in Canada, employing taxpayer-funded Canadian courts as tools in a shakedown scheme that has emerged in the United States and England.

The Federal Court's decision, released February 20, 2014, offers aggrieved copyright owners a carefully calibrated tool for seeking redress for good faith claims of copyright infringement while at the same time trying to slam the door on copyright trolls. The Court has asserted that these sorts of proceedings will go forward as a "specially managed proceeding", subject to robust judicial oversight designed to ferret out abuses, protect privacy, and deter profiteering in the name of copyright infringement.

here's a link to their FAQ clearly shows their stance on the issue of copyright trolls and should give you an idea of what the orgainization is all about :

https://www.cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Copyright_Trolls

I agree with their stance that this ruling will make it very difficult for copyright trolls to setup shop in Canada.

[kutter]

But I'm sure as kutter and GS2 say there is probably very little abuse and what abuse does take place will quickly be squelched by a God fearing judge just trying to do his job the best way he knows how. :innocent:

Right fellas? LOL

lol ... resorting to sarcasm I see ...

anyway ... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue :D

at no point in the discussion did I say that your arguments are not without merit, but IMO they can't be applied to all situations simply because the possibility exists ... that's why I believe that this ruling is the appropriate way to go

[sodusme]

Again you'd have to do some reading GS2. I can't do everything for you brother. You enjoy reading as you have a pile of D/N and Nagra court documents so what's the issue with reading through these...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I read them where is the evidence that these defendants did that ? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Where again is the evidence that these defendants did that. Looks like your cherry picking and trying to grab some...

[sodusme]

OK just so we are clear on why I won't post in the thread since you are obviously not "getting it" is this:

When you say things like "what is the sense of posting that"? That is a derogatory statement meant to infer that I have "no sense" obviously. Because if I had sense why would I be posting that? That is how you are making it sound.

Also when saying "whats the reason for posting that?" you make it sound as if I have a lack of "reasoning" when I can assure you my reasoning is definitely functioning at 100%.

It was just your demeanor when responding. If I am unclear on someones post I will simply ask them "can you explain what you mean by that"? or even "how is that relevant"? I don't get dirty and question their intelligence (or sense) like I feel you have been with your last posts. Its a dirty tactic and I don't appreciate it.

Now of course this the part where you come back with "Well gee I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said as derogatory".

I have seen it many, many times on these boards. Someone doesn't like the way things are going and they feel their point isn't being taken seriously or agreed with like it should so they get somewhat "miffed" and start personally attacking the poster. I've said it over and over and over again on these boards: Its OK to question me but DO NOT say derogatory things to me. I have been respectful of your opinion on here (although I don't agree with it) and I would expect the same of you in return. If you cannot abide by that and question me like an adult then I'll simply be done posting in this thread. You can say you meant those statements as "but I didn't understand why would you post that" and I would have to call B.S. on that. You are far more intelligent than that. But that matters not now as I have said my peace on this.

I really do have better things I can be doing.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

If you are filing lawsuits under improper "joinder" that to me is "abusing" the system. I'm not sure what you would call it?


Looks like I would call it a court opinion that some courts did not agree with but not abusing the system like you categorize by something you found that supported it. Looks like an issue for a higher court to decide on. All this comes down to if there should be separate trials than joining defendants together. I am ok with separate but how can you call it abusing the system with so many conflicting decisions. ?




First Time Videos v. Does 1-18, 2011 WL 4079177 (S.D. Indiana, September 13, 2011).


In this case, the court noted that other courts had “uniformly held that the privacy interest in [ISP account] information is minimal and not significant enough to warrant the special dispensation of anonymous filing.”

And the court rejected the arguments that the defendants were improperly joined into the action, noting the allegations in the complaint that the IP addresses were involved in a single Bittorrent swarm.


Would it help if I filled up posts with opposing opinions from Courts. But I am not going to classify them as a general blanket on all cases like your trying to do with grabbing some negative comments and than saying that's it they are all abusing the system when some courts don't agree.




Plaintiff owns the copyright in an adult film that a swarm of anonymous “Doe” BitTorrent users allegedly traded. So plaintiff filed suit for infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and issued subpoenas to the internet service providers associated with the IP addresses of the unknown Doe defendants.

After one of the Doe defendant’s ISP, Insight Communications, put her on notice that the ISP was about to turn over her account information to plaintiff’s lawyer, Doe filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The court denied the motion.

Doe had raised several common arguments in support of the motion to quash. But the court rejected each of these:

Plaintiff had no protectable privacy interest in her ISP account information because that was held by a third party, namely, the ISP. Moreover, the court found that a subscriber has no privacy interest when there is an allegation of copyright infringement. (It would have been nice had the court put the words “valid” or “prima facie” before the word “allegation,” but alas, it did not.)
Responding to the subpoena was not unduly burdensome to Doe. The burden, if any, in responding to the plaintiff’s subpoena, would fall onto the ISP, not the anonymous defendant.
The fact that Doe denied involvement with trading porn files did not matter at this stage in the litigation. The court held that the question of liability for copyright infringement should be determined when the parties are properly brought into the suit.
So the court concluded that the anonymous Doe BitTorrent user should be identified.



Whether joinder is proper is a central question in most of these cases, and federal courts are divided. Some courts have held joinder improper. See, e.g., IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1–435, No. C 10–4382 SI, 2011 WL 445043, at *3–*6 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 3, 2011); Elektra Entm't Group, Inc. v. Does 1–9, No. 04 Civ. 2289(RWS), 2004 WL 2095581, at *5–*7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2004); BMG Music, 2004 WL 953888, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 2, 2004). Others have held joinder proper. See, e.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1–15, No. 11–cv–02164–CMA–MJW, 2012 WL 415436, at *2–*4 (D.Colo. Feb. 8, 2012); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–176, 279 F.R.D. 239, 243–44, 2012 WL 263491, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.2012); Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1–1,062, 770 F.Supp.2d 332, 342–43 (D.D.C.2011); W. Coast Prod., Inc. v. Does 1–5829, 275 F.R.D. 9, 15–16 (D.D.C.2011); K–Beech, Inc. v. Does 1–57, No. 2:11–cv–358–Ftm–36SPC, 2011 WL 5597303, at *5–*7 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 1, 2011), Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1–55, No. 11 C 2798, 2011 WL 4889094, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 12, 2011); Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1–171, 810 F.Supp.2d 20, 26–28 (D.D.C.2011).




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Should we go with this than.



Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) requires that a subpoena be modified or quashed if, among other things, it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter.” SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). Relying on this rule, the Doe defendants argue that they have a First Amendment privacy interest in their subscriber information, and that the information is privileged and precluded from being subpoenaed. 5 ( See, e.g., Doe # 156 Mot. Quash 2, ECF No. 25.) However, this district, among others, has held that, in general, individuals who use the Internet to download or distribute copyrighted works are engaged in only a limited exercise of speech and the First Amendment does not necessarily protect such persons' identities from disclosure. See Third Degree Films, 2012 WL 669055, at *2 (“[W]hatever privacy interest that a customer may have in the contact information associated with an IP address is minimal at best.... Where the free speech at issue is alleged copyright infringement ... courts have routinely held that a defendant's First Amendment privacy interests are exceedingly small.



Sony Music Entm't, Inc. v. Does 1–40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 567 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that alleged illegal downloaders' First Amendment right to remain anonymous “must give way to plaintiffs' right to use the judicial process to pursue what appear to be meritorious copyright infringement claims”). More specifically, courts have consistently held that Internet subscribers do not have a protected privacy interest in their subscriber information—including names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-*556mail address—which they have already conveyed to their ISPs. First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1–18, No. 4:11–cv–69–SEB–WGH, 2011 WL 4079177, at *1 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 13, 2011); Achte/Neunte, 736 F.Supp.2d at 216 (D.D.C.2010) (collecting cases, including U.S. v. Hambrick, Civ. No. 99–4793, 2000 WL 1062039, at *4 (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2000)). Consequently, because defendants have already shared their personal identifying information with their ISPs, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy 6 in this same information now subpoenaed by plaintiffs. Nor can it be said that this information is privileged as defendants claim it to be.


How about this for your Porn issue.



6.

Defendants' reasonable expectations are not in any way impacted by the pornographic nature of the copyrighted work at issue in this case. See AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–162, No. 11–23036–Civ., 2012 WL 488217, at *4 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 14, 2012) (stating that unique privacy interests, such as “name and shame” issues associated with being tied to a copyright infringement suit for pornography, are not adequate grounds to support quashing a subpoena).


How about this for you did not do it and that although it is my IP anyone could have done it. Should we go with the below. ?




In addition, several defendants filed motions to quash on the grounds that they did not commit the alleged copyright infringement. ( See, e.g., Doe # 91 Mot. Quash 1, ECF No. 14; Doe # 499 Mot. Quash 1, ECF No. 43.) Like the undue burden argument, this argument is unavailing. It is a well-established principle that “no matter what reason is given for why a Doe Defendant could not have been the infringer ... such general denials of liability cannot serve as a basis for quashing a subpoena.” Third Degree Films, 2012 WL 669055, at *3 (citing First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1–76, 276 F.R.D. 254, 256 (N.D.Ill.2011) (listing cases articulating this principle)); see also Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1–5,000, 818 F.Supp.2d 28, 34–35 (D.D.C.2011); Call of the Wild Movie, 274 F.R.D. at 338. While defendants are free to present evidence to corroborate their denial of liability, and then move to dismiss the claims asserted against them, the court cannot quash a subpoena on these grounds. See Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co. v. Does 1–4,577, 736 F.Supp.2d 212, 215 (D.D.C.2010) (stating “denial of liability*557may have merit, [but] the merits of this case are not relevant to the issue of whether the subpoena is valid and enforceable. In other words, they may have valid defenses to this suit, but such defenses are not at issue at the [discovery] stage of the proceedings”); Fonovisa, Inc. v. Does 1–9, No. 07–1515, 2008 WL 919701, at *8 (W.D.Pa. Apr. 3, 2008) (stating that if a defendant “believes that it has been improperly identified by the ISP, [the defendant] may raise, at the appropriate time, any and all defenses, and may seek discovery in support of its defense”).



The point I am trying to make is you can take one court opinion that you think supports you and than say that's it an they are all abusing the system or take some privacy issue and say you are protected and it trumps everything when courts say otherwise or some do. Also a lot of things you bring up are for a court to decide like if your innocent or not.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

OK just so we are clear on why I won't post in the thread since you are obviously not "getting it" is this:

When you say things like "what is the sense of posting that"? That is a derogatory statement meant to infer that I have "no sense" obviously. Because if I had sense why would I be posting that? That is how you are making it sound.


Also when saying "whats the reason for posting that?" you make it sound as if I have a lack of "reasoning" when I can assure you my reasoning is definitely functioning at 100%.


Oh common now. Its not derogatory to ask why someone posted something and how does it relate nor ask about the reasoning behind it.



It was just your demeanor when responding. If I am unclear on someones post I will simply ask them "can you explain what you mean by that"? or even "how is that relevant"? I don't get dirty and question their intelligence (or sense) like I feel you have been with your last posts. Its a dirty tactic and I don't appreciate it.


You know there was nothing dirty here at all. I basically did what you suggested and asked how it related. To me its absurd your suggesting I was dirty or it was a dirty tactic.


Now of course this the part where you come back with "Well gee I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said as derogatory".


What I say and want to be clear is that there was nothing derogatory in what I said.



I have seen it many, many times on these boards. Someone doesn't like the way things are going and they feel their point isn't being taken seriously or agreed with like it should so they get somewhat "miffed" and start personally attacking the poster. I've said it over and over and over again on these boards: Its OK to question me but DO NOT say derogatory things to me. I have been respectful of your opinion on here (although I don't agree with it) and I would expect the same of you in return. If you cannot abide by that and question me like an adult then I'll simply be done posting in this thread. You can say you meant those statements as "but I didn't understand why would you post that" and I would have to call B.S. on that. You are far more intelligent than that. But that matters not now as I have said my peace on this.

I really do have better things I can be doing.


There is not one said derogatory towards you. There was nothing from me whatsoever that disrespected you. As said bow out if you want but this idea that I was dirty or use dirty tactics or was derogatory or anything really is a cop out not something I will not defend against.


There is not one derogatory comment made on or to you, not one single personal attack made to you or on you or anything improper whatsoever.


What's ironic about your claim of some personal attack is that it was you who made this comment below. I said nothing in return about you or anything. I guess knowing what I know now maybe should have said something like you tried to belittle me or us or something lol. But that would be so way out there like you are trying to do. I have no problem if you say we got it wrong in your opinion. Actually it was Kutter who commented that he thought you were being a bit sarcastic.



But I'm sure as kutter and GS2 say there is probably very little abuse and what abuse does take place will quickly be squelched by a God fearing judge just trying to do his job the best way he knows how.

Right fellas? LOL



GS2

[kutter]

OK just so we are clear on why I won't post in the thread since you are obviously not "getting it" is this:

When you say things like "what is the sense of posting that"? That is a derogatory statement meant to infer that I have "no sense" obviously. Because if I had sense why would I be posting that? That is how you are making it sound.

Also when saying "whats the reason for posting that?" you make it sound as if I have a lack of "reasoning" when I can assure you my reasoning is definitely functioning at 100%.

It was just your demeanor when responding. If I am unclear on someones post I will simply ask them "can you explain what you mean by that"? or even "how is that relevant"? I don't get dirty and question their intelligence (or sense) like I feel you have been with your last posts. Its a dirty tactic and I don't appreciate it.

Now of course this the part where you come back with "Well gee I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said as derogatory".

I have seen it many, many times on these boards. Someone doesn't like the way things are going and they feel their point isn't being taken seriously or agreed with like it should so they get somewhat "miffed" and start personally attacking the poster. I've said it over and over and over again on these boards: Its OK to question me but DO NOT say derogatory things to me. I have been respectful of your opinion on here (although I don't agree with it) and I would expect the same of you in return. If you cannot abide by that and question me like an adult then I'll simply be done posting in this thread. You can say you meant those statements as "but I didn't understand why would you post that" and I would have to call B.S. on that. You are far more intelligent than that. But that matters not now as I have said my peace on this.

I really do have better things I can be doing.

But it's fine for you to use sarcasm in an attempt to ridicule our opinions ?

I have pretty thick skin, so it will have little affect on me. I have found that it's quite normal for people to do stuff like that. I've engaged in it more than a few times myself. :) Usually not until someone else starts it though.

[Ineedanewusersname]

I'm depressed. How can you guys/girls response to some many post at once, with quotes, and make sense?

"Tis a holiday in USA anyway so have a cocktail and sit back and relax, at least for one day.

[kutter]

I'm depressed. How can you guys/girls response to some many post at once, with quotes, and make sense?

"Tis a holiday in USA anyway so have a cocktail and sit back and relax, at least for one day.

I wonder the same thing ... I can't keep up with them most of the time ...

I hope it isn't the conversation that's depressing you ...