Court orders Canadian Internet service to name illegal downloaders

[ReflexFX]

I thought more and more courts are leaning towards the fact that an IP alone does not qualify as enough evidence against an illegal downloader.

http://www.neowin.net/news/federal-j...t-infringement

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by pheoxs


That's for a block account non expiring, I typically only use a terabyte a year so for me it's 4$ a month with ssl. For my usage it makes more sense to stick to block accounts over unlimited monthly ones.

Ah, I see. Yeah for low-volume users that would be cheaper.

----------------------------------------------

I still don't understand how anyone can be accused of downloading anything when there are so many other ways it could have been downloaded, that they can't possibly prove anything even close to reasonable doubt.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

. I don't know why everyone doesn't do this.

My moral compass says paying to steal is wrong

[Alterac]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


My moral compass says paying to steal is wrong

Nail on the HEAD!

LOL.

[Mixalot27]

What about downloading through sites like rapidshare or icefilms? Can they trace your IP from doing this?

[nzwasp]

The max is $2000 not $5000. And it seems that the only way these companies can really get you is via bit torrent them spoofing a seeder and catching you that way.

Re rapidshare - they are just like megaupload however they cover there arses by taking down illegal content as soon as they see it.

[revelations]

I stopped downloading movies YEARS ago - why bother storing vast amounts of illegal data when you can just stream directly from sites like Tubeplus, putlocker, etc.

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by revelations
I stopped downloading movies YEARS ago - why bother storing vast amounts of illegal data when you can just stream directly from sites like Tubeplus, putlocker, etc.

Because no stupid ads, pop ups, and random malware trying to infect your computer if you click in the wrong place?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by nzwasp
The max is $2000 not $5000. And it seems that the only way these companies can really get you is via bit torrent them spoofing a seeder and catching you that way.

Re rapidshare - they are just like megaupload however they cover there arses by taking down illegal content as soon as they see it.

It's $5000 maximum for non-commercial infringement. Look it up, I'm going to bed and don't want to bother posting 5 links to it.

They don't catch you by spoofing a seeder. They scour torrent swarms and download a small piece of the torrent file from swarm seeders and compare the hash to a known torrent that is their client's property.

[revelations]

Originally posted by pheoxs


Because no stupid ads, pop ups, and random malware trying to infect your computer if you click in the wrong place?

We use FF with adblock + and have a dedicated (older, Vista) PC in the media room connected to a projector. Works great, has optical audio setup and no issues with HD streaming.

Run monthly scans and the only time weve had issues it has been hardware related.

[ZenOps]

Of course downloading and IP alone do not constitute illegality.

I mean the wayback machine downloads pretty much everything http://archive.org/web/

Kiddie porn, every hollywood movie ever made, secret military documents, you name it.

It uses webbots to automate an archive of as much of the internet as it possible can at as many points in time as it can. There is no human downloading every single http page, gif, music, or movie file.

It is very simply, a searchable snapshot of the internet at any given point in time - complete with all the good and the bad. It does not know copyright, nor does it care, it is the machine.

Besides, if they go by IP# - Then by that rationale, if I use Rob Anders telephone ID# and order up a bomb strike on Washington - then does that make Rob Anders responsible? I'm sure some people do see it that way. If I use a pay telephone, does that make the owner of the pay telephone number responsible for it? Good luck with that.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by revelations
I stopped downloading movies YEARS ago - why bother storing vast amounts of illegal data when you can just stream directly from sites like Tubeplus, putlocker, etc.

Gotta have some data for the digital apocalypse. Its never a bad idea to save a few tins of spam that you hope you never have to eat, but its nice to know its there.

[van]

We’ve seen it happen in the U.S. - Are ‘copyright trolls’ coming soon?

Email
Posted by Josh Tabish on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 22:47

Last week, Canada’s federal court handed down a ruling that media outlets across the country reported as having significant implications for Canadian Internet users. While the headlines have tended to focus on the threats to users’ privacy, and the possibility of U.S.-style lawsuits over alleged infringement coming to Canada, the real-world consequences may turn out to be much less dramatic, as new rules proposed by the court bode well for Canadians.

This past June, we alerted our community to legal action being taken against indie ISP TekSavvy by media giant Voltage Pictures. The company claimed that approximately 2000 TekSavvy customers had allegedly violated copyright by downloading movies Voltage held the rights to.

Now, over half a year later, the court gave its long-awaited decision, ruling against TekSavvy, and forcing them to hand over their subscribers sensitive personal information to Voltage Pictures.

While media across the country focused largely on how the court’s decision would permit ISPs to disclose massive amounts of their subscribers’ personal information, this may have been a bit sensational: in actual fact, the court’s decision came with robust rules for contacting Internet users who had allegedly infringed, and disincentivizes them from threatening alleged infringers with legal action. On the latter point, while many observers have expressed concern that the federal court ruling could open Canadian Internet users up to abuse from ‘copyright trolls’ – or outdated media conglomerates who file lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers to threaten and intimidate them into quick settlements – there are two significant silver linings.

First, as copyright expert Michael Geist highlights, the court appears to be sensitive to this threat of U.S.-style copyright trolling, and has created a set of rules for how Internet subscribers can be reached by companies alleging copyright violation, including mandatory court oversight of anything sent to subscribers.

Second, given our laws and the high costs of pursuing file sharing litigation against individuals, Geist argues persuasively that, “the combination of copyright reform, the Voltage decision, likely damage awards, and litigation costs will force would-be plaintiffs to reconsider their strategies.”

While the federal court ruling appears on the face of it to be a mixed bag, it may not it be a watershed moment for opening the floodgates for ‘copyright trolls’ in Canada. As Geist goes on to point out in a piece published today, Canada’s copyright laws ensure that in cases of infringement for non-commercial purposes, the award needs to be proportionate to the infringement. As a result, the economics of suing alleged infringers do not look good, and it’s worth quoting Geist at length on this point:

Even if Voltage were successful in convincing a court to award ten times the marketplace value of a $15 movie - $150 - the economics do not make sense. Assuming Voltage manages to convince 75% of recipients to settle for the $150 demand, the campaign would generate $225,000 in revenue. Yet that must be offset by paying the TekSavvy costs before any names are released (which alone were estimated at $200,000 at the federal court hearing), covering their own costs (assume a matching $200,000 to collect the IP addresses, retain experts, and fund the litigation), and dealing with thousands of demand letter recipients (if each letter costs $30 in time and money that adds another $45,000).

So, in a scenario like the one painted above, ‘Internet trolling’ in Canada is unlikely to let the trolls break even – let alone profit. Moreover, the threats to users’ privacy mentioned above will be governed by carefully crafted rules and court oversight. While the court’s decision appears at first to be a major strike against individual Canadians, the real-world implications look much less threatening.

In the meantime, your OpenMedia team is working with people all around the world to develop fair rules for sharing and collaborating online. You can join us by using our interactive drag-and-drop tool that allows you to take a stake in your digital future at OpenMedia.org/Crowdsource.

https://openmedia.ca/blog/we%E2%80%9...99-coming-soon

[Inzane]

I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

[firebane]

Originally posted by Inzane
I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

People think its perfectly ok to speed and still do it even when they get fined.

As long as people can get away with doing something they will.

There is no way to stop this so it will always exist. There are so many other avenues out there that people aren't aware of.

Napster got shut down so it music sharing went underground and became harder for awhile unless you knew where to go for music.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Inzane
I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

I think entertainment is vastly overpriced, especially for what we get.

And I go to theatres 4 times a month probably. I pay (and pay good money) to watch quality entertainment. I buy consoles, video games, box sets, theatre tickets, etc.

What I am unwilling to pay for is 200 channels of cable with nothing on. Netflix has proven time and again that the money you spend has NOTHING to do with the quality of service. In fact, with cable (until the PVR became readily available, and even then the systems are clunky garbage) you had to be a captive audience at a specific time so the cable companies could sell you as advertising viewers for a product you already pay for. It's absurd, and I refuse to support a broken industry (or the parts I don't like).

At the end of the day, I wouldn't pay for this entertainment (I've never had cable since 2006 when I graduated high school at 18, and I didn't download my first tv series until 2010) if I had to. I'd do something else. My "taking" of it affects no one, as they'd never get the money from me anyways. It makes no difference at that point

It's hard to argue about 1's and 0's compared to a physical product, it completely defeats the whole idea behind supply and demand as the supply is limitless. I also have a hard time feeling sorry for millionaires. Most have been stealing from the taxpayers in one form or another for decades.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Inzane
I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

All material in the world is not copyright. I believe most of the Three Tenors concerts (DVD now, but used to be CD) are all unecrypted and freely distributable.

The vast majority of books from the Middle east, Russia and China are not copyright, even now. Only in the last 90 years or so, mostly in north america has there been copyright imposed upon the masses. It is entirely possible in this day and age, depending on where you are brought up - to never have seen the © symbol.

Should the bible be ©? Should people be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for quoting scripture from it? Should people be jailed for making copies of it? Should university textbooks be ©, where the information in them is almost entirely put into public domain by scientists have died 2,000 years ago? Is it right to profit off a dead mans work? IE: Charge $300 for a university textbook that contains mostly the collected work of people long dead.

Should Mona Lisa get all the credit for her portrait instead of Davinci? Does the painter deserve no praise? Hollywood types usually side with the subject, and not the media (the painter) when it comes to royalties. Which is arguably, ass backwards (the subject or singer arguably deserves less to no credit than the recording studio media that makes him or her famous?) I wasn't all that long ago that singers would *PAY* radio stations to play their songs - aka Payola.

Hollywood requires © and $250,000 fines so that they can make $30 per DVD. But me: I'm still pining for the $1.25 theatre movies at Esso plaza.

Nowdays, most movies are worth about $.15 to me (without physical media) which is about right if you go by Netflix.

[taemo]

Originally posted by Mixalot27
What about downloading through sites like rapidshare or icefilms? Can they trace your IP from doing this?

wondering the same thing.
sounds like for now they are just trying to chase P2P users like torrent.
for hosting sites like rapidshare, mega, netload, those companies are not liable for what files are being shared on their servers no?

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Inzane
I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

No amount of excuses / reasons will ever really justify it.

That said, I download. However 90% of what I download I purchase later.

I don't have Netflix because I don't like waiting 4-6 months to watch a movie that is readily available for purchase - so when a movie comes out I download it. If I enjoy it, I purchase it. Blockbuster and Rogers no longer exist, and while yes there are things like Shaw / Telus on demand, I don't get to see bonus features for the $6+ i would pay to rent the damn thing and be allowed to watch it once.

I also don't subscribe to HBO - so the next day after it showed, I download the latest Game of Thrones. That said, the day it's released on blu ray, I purchase it.

Again, I can't really justify doing it - I know it's illegal, but reasonable/fast means to view content is ridiculously overpriced or insanely slow to release the product so I download to 'rent' and end up likely (like I said, upwards of 90% chance) purchasing later.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Inzane
I still don't get why or how so many people think its perfectly ok to steal a movie, song, game etc. they didn't pay for. Is it in any way connected to this sense of "entitlement" people seem to have more and more of these days?

I DL all my movies/songs but then will buy the hard copy of that I wish to support afterwords. My movie collection is small - mainly consists of Bond, Bourne, FnF, and anything with Olivia Wilde. lol

DLing my twisted justification to weed out the shit movies/songs that the industry pumps down our throats. If i like something enough, i'll end up buying it.