Computers & Electronics

Got served paper from IP trolls for bit torrent copyright

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 9th, 2018 10:32 am
Newbie
User avatar
Apr 20, 2018
31 posts
5 upvotes
Woodstock
inhama wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 6:19 pm
All IP Address that have a P2P protocol have uploaded things. They need to prove x upload = y damages.
The amount of upload is in bytes, so I'm curious whether they can measure how much megabytes/gigabytes a person has uploaded.

What we know they have the dates of 1st and 2nd notice emails, but these dates are very questionable.
Last edited by skinnyguy on Jun 13th, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Jan 29, 2017
1026 posts
800 upvotes
inhama wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 6:19 pm
All IP Address that have a P2P protocol have uploaded things. They need to prove x upload = y damages.
By default yes, P2P relies on sharing but a user can be a leecher only at least on public trackers.
Deal Addict
Jan 29, 2017
1026 posts
800 upvotes
skinnyguy wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 8:16 pm
The amount of upload is in bytes, so I'm curious whether they can measure how much megabytes/gigabytes a person has uploaded.
They cannot but the actual amount is not relevant.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4101 posts
417 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
peli33 wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 8:19 pm
They cannot but the actual amount is not relevant.
I also think the amount is irrelevant.

Unless the defense can convince the judge that less than XX% of a movie upload/download does not constitute a copyright infringement under the law.

There are clips of movies all over the net - are all of these copyright infringements?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4101 posts
417 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
skinnyguy wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 8:16 pm
What we know they have the dates of 1st and 2nd notice emails, but these dates are very questionable.
Why do you think the dates are questionable?

I don't think even the times are questionable - all these time stamps are synchronized via the net and they won't be out more than a few seconds at most.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 31, 2017
2828 posts
994 upvotes
peli33 wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 8:19 pm
They cannot but the actual amount is not relevant.
cant say it is not relevant - there has never been a case that went to court in Canada yet. In the US the judges had to decide on this matter, but the Canadian judges might look at what the American judges went with and go with it.
Newbie
User avatar
Apr 20, 2018
31 posts
5 upvotes
Woodstock
krs wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 8:36 pm
Why do you think the dates are questionable?

I don't think even the times are questionable - all these time stamps are synchronized via the net and they won't be out more than a few seconds at most.
I believe these people who get served didn't even receive notice emails, if Roger sends you the 1st email, you'd normally stop your illegal activity and not waiting for the 2nd one.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4101 posts
417 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
skinnyguy wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 9:50 pm
I believe these people who get served didn't even receive notice emails, if Roger sends you the 1st email, you'd normally stop your illegal activity and not waiting for the 2nd one.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
Early on in this thread the recommendation was basically "ignore" the first notice if you received one.
Some may have stopped but others may have interpreted that advice as meaning to just continue what you are doing.

I'm not sure, but is it a requirement of the current Canadian legislation that a first notice be sent to infringers and if they then stop, no further legal action can be taken?
Newbie
Jul 8, 2013
64 posts
16 upvotes
Ottawa
inhama wrote:
Jun 12th, 2018 12:10 pm
I've gone around the block and I've been told that the settlements are around $3k-$4k CAD. I've been told that they're(The Plaintiff) very stubborn with the settlements.
...
IANAL but a settlement of 3-$4k for an offense which has never been adjudicated in this country and has a stipulated fine of 100-5000$ IF you are found liable, seems really outrageous to me. I would never pay that, people must be really scared if they are agreeing to this.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4101 posts
417 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
GoldCoast1 wrote:
Jun 14th, 2018 12:29 am
IANAL but a settlement of 3-$4k for an offense which has never been adjudicated in this country and has a stipulated fine of 100-5000$ IF you are found liable, seems really outrageous to me. I would never pay that, people must be really scared if they are agreeing to this.
Yeah, that sure doesn't make any sense.
If the 3-4K is actually true, I think it's either because of the perceived lawyer's fees if one takes that to court or if the defendant is distributing the movies - then I think the $100 to $5000 fine no longer applies and it could be anything.
The papers also refer to the $50K limit which may scare and confuse people but which was explained earlier in this thread.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
9285 posts
3345 upvotes
Toronto
krs wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 10:17 pm
I'm not sure, but is it a requirement of the current Canadian legislation that a first notice be sent to infringers and if they then stop, no further legal action can be taken?
That's really the question and on top of that, what if you continued to download and received a notice for a different product. Does that count as a second warning? I highly doubt it as these litigations are tied to a specific 'work'.
Newbie
User avatar
Apr 20, 2018
31 posts
5 upvotes
Woodstock
It's also possible that Airld Berlis sends letters to people as many as possible although a few of them didn't significantly seed the work,
If your IP gets detected by their forensic software, game over, you receive the letter.

They want to generate maximum amount of anxiety and they hope that these people would choose settle and not fighting to the court.
Last edited by skinnyguy on Jun 14th, 2018 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
4101 posts
417 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
koffey wrote:
Jun 14th, 2018 9:33 am
That's really the question and on top of that, what if you continued to download and received a notice for a different product. Does that count as a second warning? I highly doubt it as these litigations are tied to a specific 'work'.
The legal letter posted earler specifically talks about the defendant uploading "the work" - it's not about downloading.
And to me uploading and seeding are two different things.

And yes - the legal notice refers to a specific work (ie movie) and applies to that only - I don't know what the "First Notice" says since I never received one.
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2017
2562 posts
1722 upvotes
If you are participating in a torrent swarm, then everyone else in the swarm can see what portions of file you are offering. The copyright complainant would likely have to be prepared to prove:
a) that the file being offered was in fact the copyrighted work
b) that you had all or a substantial portion of it
c) that you were offering it for upload

This information is easily available to them, if they recorded it correctly and convince the judge that their techniques are valid and accurate.

Whether you were uploading or not, making an unauthorized copy is the basic illegal act. Offering it for upload just increases the likelihood of a higher fine from the court, and opens up the remote possibility that you could be sued for actual damages if there were a way for the complainant to prove lost sales due to your unauthorized copy being offered on the internet.
Deal Addict
Jan 29, 2017
1026 posts
800 upvotes
Exp315 wrote:
Jun 14th, 2018 12:02 pm
Whether you were uploading or not, making an unauthorized copy is the basic illegal act. Offering it for upload just increases the likelihood of a higher fine from the court, and opens up the remote possibility that you could be sued for actual damages if there were a way for the complainant to prove lost sales due to your unauthorized copy being offered on the internet.
Trolls are likely going to target lowest hanging fruits first to maximize chances of winning - those who upload and had multiple offences. Let's not forget the spirit of the law is to deter infringement and not provide a quick buck opportunity to trolls.

Top