Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 40

Kymmy · 27-11-2009, 17:56

Here we go again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm

Turkey Machine · 27-11-2009, 19:03

IP addresses can't be admissible in a court of law because they can be spoofed. So why the hell do they think they can get away with it?!

**Chris** · 27-11-2009, 19:03

Because a lot of people don't know that, and panic at the first mention of the word 'court'.

Kymmy · 27-11-2009, 19:05

And if you read the article thier "experts" say that you can't spoof IP's on P2P ...

Turkey Machine · 27-11-2009, 20:24

Spoofing IPs on P2P is the way piraters get their goods in the first bloody place.

Toto · 27-11-2009, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

Spoofing IPs on P2P is the way piraters get their goods in the first bloody place.

Perhaps you could explain that?

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

IP addresses can't be admissible in a court of law because they can be spoofed. So why the hell do they think they can get away with it?!

LOL, you practice law do you?

Turkey Machine · 27-11-2009, 23:31

No, but a friend who does has said that it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Clever people who use P2P change their IP on a very frequent basis whenever they connect to a swarm or a tracker, so that they don't use the same address twice to avoid being tracked. It could be related to the overboard encryption they use, which might rehash the IP address you broadcast. If you happen to use any of those IPs and Davenport Lyons finds it in a list they've bribed the ISPs for, you get the "pay us or go to court" notice. If I ever received one of those lists, I'd take it to court no matter what the outcome was, because they need to know that what they do is just plain wrong and can't be held up and they should be held accountable for it.

Toto · 28-11-2009, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

No, but a friend who does has said that it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Clever people who use P2P change their IP on a very frequent basis whenever they connect to a swarm or a tracker, so that they don't use the same address twice to avoid being tracked. It could be related to the overboard encryption they use, which might rehash the IP address you broadcast. If you happen to use any of those IPs and Davenport Lyons finds it in a list they've bribed the ISPs for, you get the "pay us or go to court" notice. If I ever received one of those lists, I'd take it to court no matter what the outcome was, because they need to know that what they do is just plain wrong and can't be held up and they should be held accountable for it.

I was almost going to take your comments on board and provide an answer to your statement, then you used the term "bribed ISPs for".

You obviously do not understand the process that DL or ACS have to go through in order to get that data, it certainly isn't bribery.

It amazes me how much "spoofing" goes on in p2p traffic according to those who regularly use that term, its amazing that any files actually reach their destination IP addresses with all that going on.

**Chris** · 28-11-2009, 00:06

I think the point being made is, not how much spoofing actually goes on, but the fact that it can be done is one of the reasons why it would be very difficult to prove beyond doubt in court that someone was actually file-sharing.

Another reason would be the fact that just because someone's PC broadcasts to a torrent swarm that it has a file called 'Star Wars', does not prove that there is actually a copy of Star Wars on that PC, nor that it has been shared. The only way to prove that the file is there, that it contains copyright material and that material has been shared without permission, is for the lawyers to get a complete, working copy of it from the defendant's PC. That is as good as impossible to achieve.

Mr Angry · 28-11-2009, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

.... That is as good as impossible to achieve.

Hence why it's no longer a prerequisite.

Kymmy · 28-11-2009, 08:46

Personally I think the underlying point here made with the spoofing comments and also previous comments is that ACS and thier clients are not looking at copyright protection, but instead at another revenue stream for thier products/services. Why else do they baulk at taking further action against anyone who denies the act and only seem to take monies from those who admit liability or further action against those who seem ignorant of the circumstances

**Chris** · 28-11-2009, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Hence why it's no longer a prerequisite.

Please expand ... ?

Toto · 28-11-2009, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Please expand ... ?

I don't wish to second guess Mr Angry, but he may be eluding to the fact that you don't need to offer the whole part of the work to have breached copyright law, only a reasonable part of it.

**Chris** · 28-11-2009, 10:48

A good point, but if ACS are relying on the filename being offered, have they even proof of a reasonable part? I could create a torrent file right now, I could call it 'Star Wars' and upload it. But I don't have a copy of Star Wars on my computer, or anywhere else in the house for that matter.

Kymmy · 28-11-2009, 10:53

But none of your torrent mislabled star wars would match any part of the original, I believe that they do at least confirm that the part they download does at least match the hash of a pirated copy