Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 259

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,046
    Satfix Buxs
    6,986
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 8,196x in 2,659 Posts
    Items Whiskey
Gift received at 12-12-2013, 01:32 AM from swanner
Message: I think You Deserve this, 
Cheers Mate...
swannerCrown Royal
Gift received at 06-27-2013, 10:55 PM from Anubis
Message: If you're having some ryes I figure I'd contribute.Trophy 3
Gift received at 12-15-2012, 12:02 PM from ICEMAN

    Default

    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

    Spoon Feeders FEED Bottom Feeders


  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dvp99ca View Post
    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

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    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

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  6. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    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

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  8. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    254
    Satfix Buxs
    14,108
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 187x in 101 Posts
    Items I-Phone
Gift received at 10-03-2012, 01:15 PM from ICEMAN
Message: merry chritmas friend

    Default

    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.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DualTest For This Useful Post:


  10. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    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
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Gunsmoke2 - GS2; 05-19-2014 at 07:24 PM.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    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

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  14. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    50
    Satfix Buxs
    225
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 31x in 25 Posts

    Default

    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

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to dvp99ca For This Useful Post:


  16. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dvp99ca View Post
    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

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  18. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    F.U.B.A.R
    Posts
    800
    Satfix Buxs
    1,148
    Thanks
    5,899
    Thanked 1,700x in 619 Posts
    Items ATVA BeerSome beerCamaro
Gift received at 08-28-2013, 07:04 PM from darlinkat
Message: zoom zoom baby !!!BurgerbeerCrown Royal

    Default

    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 .

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to 1boxman For This Useful Post:


  20. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    50
    Satfix Buxs
    225
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 31x in 25 Posts

    Default

    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.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to dvp99ca For This Useful Post:


  22. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    16,241
    Satfix Buxs
    2,380,488,878,337
    Thanks
    23,704
    Thanked 27,830x in 10,218 Posts
    Items DevilBeef
Gift received at 01-24-2014, 04:26 PM from swanner
Message: Thanks for Your Input, with all the Hot Heads around.. Should be cooked in No Time..LOLDish
Gift received at 12-15-2013, 09:10 PM from holly2012
Message: From an Old FriendDog
Gift received at 10-30-2013, 12:15 AM from Just_angel
Message: love chloe xoxoxWhiskey
Gift received at 03-27-2013, 03:33 PM from thebeav
Message: found this behind the dumpster at the casino when i was looking for W H :)Heart
Gift received at 11-20-2012, 12:22 PM from Just_angel
Message: x0x0A Beer
Gift received at 11-06-2012, 03:58 AM from Styx_N_Stones
Message: I seem to have accumulated too many beers... LOL!Crown Royal
Gift received at 10-11-2012, 03:49 PM from Just_angel

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dvp99ca View Post
    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

    DODGE the father

    RAM the daughter



    “Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.”

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to dishuser For This Useful Post:


  24. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Satfix Buxs
    881
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 307x in 163 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dvp99ca View Post
    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

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to kutter For This Useful Post:


  26. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    581
    Satfix Buxs
    1,281
    Thanks
    626
    Thanked 912x in 394 Posts
    Items Telescope
Gift received at 07-14-2013, 03:22 AM from nobody
Message: To help you on your quest ..gps
Gift received at 07-13-2013, 06:06 AM from nobody

    Default

    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

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sodusme For This Useful Post:


  28. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    581
    Satfix Buxs
    1,281
    Thanks
    626
    Thanked 912x in 394 Posts
    Items Telescope
Gift received at 07-14-2013, 03:22 AM from nobody
Message: To help you on your quest ..gps
Gift received at 07-13-2013, 06:06 AM from nobody

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    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.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to sodusme For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •