Copyright infringement (DMCA) notices for unlicensed anime

[Mr.B0y]

Originally Posted by cbmfive

This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs.

Originally Posted by cbmfive

"This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs."

Wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing

You probably work for Comcast, it is good advice. Comcast is scum.

[valet]

Originally Posted by Mr.B0y

Any 10 year old from China, India or Indiana can "spoof" an i.p. address and become any one they want any time they want with minimal effort, any half assed attorney can prove this with one expert witness.

Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.

[Mr.B0y]

Originally Posted by cbmfive

This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs.

Originally Posted by valet

Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not going to get into this too deep because I'm sure your the same person working for the same company. You can try and scare every one and apply what ever tactics you want but the truth is out there and with just a little bit of Googling it wil plainly evident to any one out there other than a 10 year old that yes there are several "script kiddie" point and click I.P. spoof applications out there readily available to any one who wants to down load them and useable by any one with an opposing grip. Sorry Charlie, you won't win this one. I'm done. If any one has doubts look it up for your self and heavily suspect any one that is on the forum trying to scare you when they just joined today. PHU LEEEAZZZE!!!!!

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by valet

Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.

If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.

[Mr.B0y]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.

You go girl! You guys need to step up and go with this, protect your selves with knowledge. Beware of hired scum, looking for results so they can satisfy a contract or get a success under their belt, so they can do it to more people. You guys are smart you can figure it out. I won't have time to help you any more. I did my part. Be Smart!

This is the largest central point for fansubbers "YOU ARE A TARGET" this forum is a target.

[Vexx]

The problem is, Mr. Boy is making a lot of absolute assertions about what a jury or court will do .... this is "law", not "science". Some of his ideas are fair but the stuff surrounding it is tenuous.

Yes, an IP can be spoofed and there are forensics that can spot packet spoofing if the logs have been kept -- Comcast can only "prove" that *their* IP X transmitted to IP Y and only if they can show their network firewall was properly configured not to allow through packets forged to appear as if they came from inside. If someone "in India" was forging an IP X to seed torrents and a torrent monitor noted it, it won't even show up in Comcast's packet throughput logs. It'll only show up at all if another Comcast leecher was trying to lock on to it and then the Comcast firewall will drop it as a forged "outside" packet. If someone INSIDE the Comcast sandbox is forging IP of another subscriber, Comcast would have to demonstrate its routers were configured to prevent such a thing.

As far as wireless wardriving intrusion goes... some courts are ruling that the wireless owner is responsible for taking reasonable precautions (encryption/ssid).

On the other hand, it is probably a Good Idea to not admit guilt where there is none... or even where the legalities are disputable.

And it is a Good Idea to not fall into logical traps like "When did I stop beating my wife" questions.

Mr. Boy is not being very convincing by arguing that anyone who queries him is a Comcast plant.... and he's not coming off as terribly technically astute. He's sounding more like a journalist who spouts off "script kiddies" and ... hmmm, who is the one who just joined today, eh?

[cbmfive]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.

Originally Posted by Mr.B0y

You go girl! You guys need to step up and go with this, protect your selves with knowledge. Beware of hired scum, looking for results so they can satisfy a contract or get a success under their belt, so they can do it to more people. You guys are smart you can figure it out. I won't have time to help you any more. I did my part. Be Smart!

Odex can't prove it with just an IP address.

COMCAST CAN.

All your communications run over their hardware. They control it completely. They can go as far as hardware addresses. If you pay a cable bill, they know who you are.

Spoofing is a non-issue. Mr.B0y doesn't understand spoofing at all. In order for a transfer to take place, a two-way connection must be established. Spoofing is 100% one-way; there is no possibility that responses to spoofed packets can return to the actual originating computer, and therefore no possibility that a TCP connection will be established.

[Ranko]

Again does anyone know if one can use Tor to avoid stuff like this?

[Calawain]

Originally Posted by Mr.B0y

Spoiler for Length:

I had to get in on this and let every one in on a little secret...

There is absolutely no way possible that any one can prove in a court of law that an i.p. address is legal proof of your identity. Period bar none end of story. The way you end up getting sued is because you don't know this simple but sound legal precedent. You some how through the system that is set up to get you to legally take responsibility for something you didn't do such as...

A.) Leave a voice mail message stating that "you have removed the offending content from your computer".

B.) An email from your password protected and service provider monitored account stating that "You didn't know it was illegal, your sorry and that you wont do it agian."

C.) Explaining to a "service representative" that is most likely a contracted employee of a company hired to get you to legally take responsibility for something you didn't via a recorded conversation that "no I do not have an unsecured wireless router in my home it is all cable modem cat-5 and me doing the downloading."

Any 10 year old from China, India or Indiana can "spoof" an i.p. address and become any one they want any time they want with minimal effort, any half assed attorney can prove this with one expert witness. No jury in the world will ever convict some one with that much doubt. If you didn't download something then don't say you did in attempt to move process along thinking you are going to be left alone. DENY it, plain and simple no conversation just tell them NO and they will have to prove it. If you didn't fall for the myriad of tricks designed to "entrap" you into taking legal responsibility then they have nothing but a number that any one can fake.

I'm just trying to help. If Comcast didn't get loans from the the banks which in turn get loans from the American people to start their business I would be the first one to say run it how ever you want. If they didn't receive tax breaks for "infrastructure" building, I'd say "you earned it go ahead do your thing." That's not the case, they are profiting off of the backs of American citizens then taking their opportunity and screwing the same people that helped to get them where they are, they are truly SCUM.

So... Plain and simple do not admit that you have done anything wrong if you have not done anything wrong, private companies are not under any "entrapment" guide lines. They can use any means they see fit to try and get you to take responsibility for something you didn't do. JUST SAY NO.

Let me add this in because the Comcast employee knows he gets the last word on the bottom of the page....





Wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing

You probably work for Comcast, it is good advice. Comcast is scum.

Except that you're kinda wrong there. In Capitol vs. Thomas the attorneys tried to show that IP spoofing and other similar methods mean the IP address that the RIAA used could have been fake. The jury didn't buy it and she owes 220 grand. Note, that that case has a high possibility of being overturned based on bad jury instructions and other matters unrelated to IP address spoofing. But it goes to show that claiming it wasn't your IP address has so far not been a tenable defense.

[Mr.B0y]

Originally Posted by Calawain

Except that you're kinda wrong there. In Capitol vs. Thomas the attorneys tried to show that IP spoofing and other similar methods mean the IP address that the RIAA used could have been fake. The jury didn't buy it and she owes 220 grand. Note, that that case has a high possibility of being overturned based on bad jury instructions and other matters unrelated to IP address spoofing. But it goes to show that claiming it wasn't your IP address has so far not been a tenable defense.

She admitted to having the stuff on her computer that is what she did wrong.


"It's unclear why the plaintiffs called Hebemeier, as he really didn't do much to help their case. He confirmed the defense's timeline of events—that there was a real hardware problem over a month before Thomas got a letter from Charter Communications. He recalled telling Thomas after the letter arrived that "there's nothing there because the hard drive was wiped out and replaced" and confirmed that she used the e-mail address tereastarr@hotmail.com."

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Mr.B0y

There is absolutely no way possible that any one can prove in a court of law that an i.p. address is legal proof of your identity. Period bar none end of story.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.

Guys, don't assume that an IP address isn't enough. The burden of proof required in court in civil cases is NOT as high as it is in criminal cases. If it were a criminal charge, it would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're not risking being charged with a crime, though. You're risking a civil suit. The burden of evidence is not nearly so great. Your IP address is likely enough, unless you have proof of some hijacking or spoofing.

Originally Posted by Ranko

So TOR time?

Would routing my torrents around tor help out?

If done right, it could help. However, please, please, PLEASE do not do this. The Tor network is used by people in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to ensure their safety as they do things far, far more important than our anime watching. Everything we do over Tor uses the rest of the Tor network (including some very slow links in some very oppressed nations) to achieve this anonymity. They do NOT need to deal with the load of large file transfers (or, worse, the heavy traffic of BitTorrent). It would be slow anyway.

Ideally, I'd like to see a separate Tor network set up by people who are willing to contribute some resources to heavier-duty loads, or perhaps a network where those with few resources aren't called upon to handle so much of the load.

In the meantime, Azureus does have a plugin for the I2P network, which isn't as anonymous, but should handle the load far better. There's also the option of something such as a SOCKS proxy in a safe country.

I won't vouch for anything right now. I'm doing some research, and I'll post on it later.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Ranko

So TOR time?

Would routing my torrents around tor help out?

Greetings from ... (asks showmyip.com) ... Dubai! Yes, I'm posting this via Tor just for the heck of it. The problem with Tor is that there are about maybe 1000 server worldwide and it look like the numbers are beginning to saturate. Should Tor become more and more popular with the normal users it will break down in no time. It would of course be great if this would be the default mode of internet communication ... and if all communication would be encrypted. But how long would it remain legal? Not because of RIAA pressure. No no. Because of the pedophiles of course. And the terrorists. And the pedophile terrorists. The state cannot allow its citizens to communicate in private. That would be anarchy.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ranko

Again does anyone know if one can use Tor to avoid stuff like this?

I'd read this site: http://www.torproject.org/ for details.

They claim to work with most applications that use the TCP protocol but they also say this:

. First, Tor does not protect you if you do not use it correctly. Read our list of warnings and make sure to follow the instructions for your platform carefully. Second, even if you configure and use Tor correctly, there are still potential attacks that could compromise Tor's ability to protect you. Third, no anonymity system is perfect these days, and Tor is no exception: you should not rely solely on the current Tor network if you really need strong anonymity.)

So, it helps but since I've not personally tested it with torrent clients, I can't tell you much other than there will be a performance hit

The biggest problem is that TOR is used by people who are having real life-threatening issues ... I'd hate to see it swamped by torrenting. And as SoL says, then the pedophile terrorists would win (or was that The Man who would win?)

[IRJustman]

Originally Posted by cbmfive

Spoofing is a non-issue. Mr.B0y doesn't understand spoofing at all. In order for a transfer to take place, a two-way connection must be established. Spoofing is 100% one-way; there is no possibility that responses to spoofed packets can return to the actual originating computer, and therefore no possibility that a TCP connection will be established.

Not just that, it takes THREE steps to initiate a TCP session, two from the initiating peer, and one from the target. A spoofed connection would only stop at the first step which, on an older or improperly-configured system, would make it vulnerable to so-called SYN-flooding.

--Ian.

[Le Haitien]

Hey has anyone found a link between these dmca notices and high bandwith user
like I stated earlyer i have only gotten these warnings when doing large amounts of downloads. funny thing i was downloading 6 other movies at the same time and didnt get any notices for that. on the other hand i THINK this is just a scare tactic used by comcast to scare high bandwith userd from using their recources.

[idjot]

Why do people still think this is just a Comcat scare tactic when the notices have explicitly stated BayTSP and Odex are behind it and they have been received in numerous countries using numerous ISPs?

[Vexx]

If you'll pay attention, most of us now realize it isn't JUST a Comcast scare tactic - but it has become another tool used by Comcast. I suspect Comcast in particular is using any tool at their disposal to thump "hogs" on their network. Problem is more and more of the average population is streaming, etc so at some point most of their users are going to be "hogs" by their criteria.

Comcast is, at heart, a cable company -- it shows in their Internet policies. They don't *want* to have to upgrade, what is to them, a comfortable network. They have the idea that "hogs" (>10GB/month) will always be a small fraction of their population so beating them up is cheaper than upgrading the network. Not good long term planning, ay wot?

Eventually, if we can get actual competition in the internet arena rather than the phony competition the FCC pretends we have - Comcast will have to evolve to a tiered account structure that allows "hogs" to consume but it also gives them the capital to upgrade their networks (rather than just line the pockets of short-sighted shareholders who don't have that wonderfully tailored tax break to hold shares for a sustainable length of time anymore).

A DMCA note is just another way to control bandwidth to them (as well as drive people to their preferred 'passive user' model).

The BayTSP/Odex shenanigans is a different problem but what we want to avoid is ISPs like Comcast using these really flaky notices as they seem to be against people who actually *use* their connection.
The problem with these notices is that they're being sent to a countries that have rather different laws and jurisdictions so it seems on the surface that BayTSP/Odex is just being hooliganish so far.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Guys, don't assume that an IP address isn't enough. The burden of proof required in court in civil cases is NOT as high as it is in criminal cases. If it were a criminal charge, it would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're not risking being charged with a crime, though. You're risking a civil suit. The burden of evidence is not nearly so great. Your IP address is likely enough, unless you have proof of some hijacking or spoofing.

Even in a criminal case where the ip address isn't enough, it's all that would be needed to get a warrent which will turn up more than enough evidence to convict. That's all I was trying to point out there. It might not be proof itself, but it most certainly would be probable cause.

[DryMaltExtract]

Originally Posted by Samanosuke

But for how long ? aren't companies and such putting more and more pressure on the government to change the law about this ?
for now we are ok , but i fear it's not going to last long :S

IIRC we're not protected from pirating videos we're just not being gone after. With the movie industry constantly saying Canda is a hotbed for piracy I'm surprised nobody has been sought after yet. However I don't recall people being called out much in the US either. Music is the mainstream and supposedly more costly, so the focus is on that.

We are however protected from audio for now as long as we put it on a CD or an iPod etc. due to the levies (something Canadian artists support supposedly).

The funny thing is, it is still "illegal" in Canada to record using a TiVo like device or a VCR, which supposedly is why TiVos etc. have not taken off in Canada and are not widely sold. However they're looking to change this law as well as allow some things that are quite interesting.

First, a "time shifting" provision to grant Canadians the right to record television programming for personal, non-commercial purposes. The exception would legalize what is already a common activity for millions of Canadians and might fuel new products and services from Canada's telecommunications and consumer electronics companies.

Second, a "format shifting" provision that would legalize the transfer of content from one format to another. For example, it would expressly permit transferring music on a store-bought CD to an iPod or the transfer of video from a cable box to a personal computer.

Third, a modernized backup copy provision that would address today's consumer realities. The law already permits the making of a single backup copy of a computer program, rightly recognizing that software programs are intangible products that are susceptible to loss.

Today, digital data includes CDs, DVDs and video games, which all suffer from the same frailties as software programs, namely the ease with which hard drives become corrupted or CDs and DVDs scratched and non-functional. Modernizing the law should include bringing this provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make a backup copy to all digital consumer products.

If they make these laws correctly, we will still not be allowed to pirate say, PS2 games, however, if these laws are made with the consumer in mind, it should also mean that the ps2/xbox360/ps3 would, by law, have to be able to play these backups. It would also mean that DRM would be outlawed as it prevents you from copying from one medium to another.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/277621

It's going to be fun to watch the outcome of this.

[Vexx]

Odds are that most large corporations will shoot themselves repeatedly in the foot, all the "consumer units" will be pissed and inconvenienced, and the "brave new world" will continue to elude the hairless ape-descendents.