First copyright decision announced

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › First copyright decision announced

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#763168 15-Feb-2013 17:04

freitasm:
1080p: I'd even go so far as to generate a fake HTTP log showing no connections to the IP addresses listed at the time specified. They would have to refute that 'evidence' with their own which is unlikely to exist. :)

One word for this: Perjury. Good luck getting anything on your side after that is put in your records.

I was just typing something similar.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#763179 15-Feb-2013 17:40

Talk of faking evidence is just silly and not helpful to anyone who believes a notice has been sent in error.

1080p: Simply citing the fact that you think their detection systems are inaccurate (read: sending notices to MIT printers) and a screenshot of your empty C:\ drive.

University of Washington printers. The full paper is here: http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf

If you believe a notice to be incorrect then that research paper would deserve to be weighed in evidence by the tribunal.

Ideally you would complete a lot more research prior to submitting a response on that basis, but if that paper is the only thing you present it would deserve to be considered.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#763241 15-Feb-2013 21:19

I'm interested to know how evidence is being collected in these New Zealand cases. If someone is up to modifying some source code and compiling it, I'm keen to run it.

mruane

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

#763281 15-Feb-2013 23:06

Skolink: I'm interested to know how evidence is being collected in these New Zealand cases. If someone is up to modifying some source code and compiling it, I'm keen to run it.

If you read the decision by the tribunal (linked earlier in this thread), it is clear that the defendant was prosecuted, not for downloading the material, but for "distributing it to the public". That is mentioned in a number of places in the decision. Nowhere in that decision is there any mention of the defendant being accused of "downloading" any restricted material although the defendant unwisely admitted to that happening. The whole case appears then to be constructed upon the fact that the defendant repeatedly distributed the material to the public, which is against the law.

Based on that, if the P2P monitors are able to upload their material from your computer via a P2P network then that is all the evidence that they need to demonstrate that you are "distributing to the public". The assumption then is, if you are not seeding (also as mentioned earlier in the thread), it would be a challenge to demonstrate that you were in contravention of the Act.

So, if you are seeding copyrighted material into a P2P network that has public access, or downloading for that matter, from a P2P network - stop it! The law says that you are not allowed to do that!

Cheers Mike

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#763301 16-Feb-2013 00:11

From a technical perspective it is not yet clear what method the detection service or services employed are using. Are they relying entirely on published information and assuming the information is accurate? The research paper linked above shows detection services were relying only on published information at that time and details the significant scope in practice and theory for getting it completely wrong.

It would be a challenge to demonstrate contravention of the Act - except that the Act requires only a notice as evidence of infringement and nothing more.

You may be correct in your guess about how infringement is verified, but Skolink is talking about actually testing that hypothesis in practice.

mruane

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

#763368 16-Feb-2013 10:58

@gzt - I see - yes, you raise an interesting point. My assumption was that the ability to download a copyright protected file from say "your" computer, is prima facia evidence that "you" are "distributing to the public", however the method used to identify "your" computer and thus "you" is - so far as this Act is concerned - assumed to be valid i.e. you were the user of the specified IP address and the methods to identify the IP address of the source computer are in fact "provable".

I think there are similarities in the vehicle world. It is possible that as a vehicle owner you can be held responsible for the activities of a person operating your vehicle. If that driver commits an offence, it is you as the registered owner (even though you were not operating the vehicle) who bears the initial impact unless you are prepared to identify the driver or can demonstrate (i.e. prove) you could not have been operating the vehicle. But I believe you have to demonstrate that!

I imagine that if you could demonstrate to the tribunal that the methods used to identify "your" computer must have been incorrect, then all such cases would have to be considered unsafe. The tribunal would have no choice but to consider that - otherwise what is the role of the tribunal?

Cheers Mike

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#763398 16-Feb-2013 12:37

mruane: @gzt - I see - yes, you raise an interesting point. My assumption was that the ability to download a copyright protected file from say "your" computer, is prima facia evidence that "you" are "distributing to the public", however the method used to identify "your" computer and thus "you" is - so far as this Act is concerned - assumed to be valid i.e. you were the user of the specified IP address and the methods to identify the IP address of the source computer are in fact "provable".

It's not just the question of identifying the correct person, it is about how they identify that a particular P2P client does actually have a full copy of the file, and IS actually uploading the file to others.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mruane

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

#763424 16-Feb-2013 14:43

@skolink - I think the P2P network itself provides the first step in the process that a complete copy of a file is being made available. The fact that an individual is recorded as being a "seed" for a specific file means that they have all of the file available. However if that information is wrong, the next step will fail i.e. the actual download of the complete file. Once the file is downloaded, that effectively verifies the identification of the seed as being correct and also verifies that the individual was "distributing" albeit by making the file available.

The downloading of the complete file is the critical step that needs to be done to support a claim and I would be surprised if the Tribunal proceeded with a claim if that evidence was not produced.

Cheers Mike

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#763452 16-Feb-2013 16:22

mruane:
The downloading of the complete file is the critical step that needs to be done to support a claim and I would be surprised if the Tribunal proceeded with a claim if that evidence was not produced.

I would NOT be surprised. Detection methods previously have not involved downloading the entire file.
I know this for a fact because way back when the scheme was voluntary I got a detection notice from Xnet for a file I had only partially downloaded, and subsequently deleted without ever completing the download.

Even if the detection company do download an entire copy of the song from the accused, that isn't proof that it has been shared with anyone else not licensed to have a copy. I assume the detection company has some sort of unlimited license allowing it to legally download many copies off P2P peers.

mruane

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

#763477 16-Feb-2013 17:07

@skolink - interesting, I would be concerned if that could happen under the current legislation i.e. pinged for downloading a part of a file. I don't think that would stand up!

Cheers Mike

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#763617 16-Feb-2013 23:07

mruane: @skolink - interesting, I would be concerned if that could happen under the current legislation i.e. pinged for downloading a part of a file. I don't think that would stand up!

Cheers Mike

Pretty sure you don't need to have downloaded (or uploaded) the entire file to get pinged for copyright.

Consider how much of a loophole it would be of copyright only counted for an entire file. It would be a fairly easy way around it to simply cut out 1 second from any movie or song and you could claim that it was not the entire file and get away with it.

I beleive there are rules around how much of a copyrighted work you can use for it to not be copyright infringement. Is a pretty small amount. Just a few seconds for a song I beleive.

mruane

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

#765295 18-Feb-2013 17:06

NonprayingMantis: Pretty sure you don't need to have downloaded (or uploaded) the entire file to get pinged for copyright.

Not sure about that. You see the copyright owner has to assert that the material downloaded represents a copy of a work that they own the copyright to and then has to assert that you do not have permission to have a copy of that work and/or permission to distribute that work to the public. It would be difficult to assert that you do not have permission to have a copy of the work, because you could just as easily have purchased the work, in which case you can demonstrate that you do have permission to have a copy. However, what you can never do, is have permission to distribute the work to the public unless such permission has been expressly granted, so that is what you are most likely to be charged with as its very easy to prove.

At the very minimum then, what the copyright owner must have is sufficient material to determine that the "copy" is in fact a copy of "their" copyrighted work. I would argue that to do that, they probably need the complete work. If you had say 99% of the work, but were missing the header records so that the content could not be played, it would be impossible to confirm whose copyright you were violating - regardless of what name the file presented.

Hence the need to identify the "seeds"...

Cheers Mike

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#765348 18-Feb-2013 19:07

So this is how it works:

IP detection company downloads 100% of "Avatar.eztv.avi.666"

They compare entire file to original flim, match soundtracks and timings that are embedded in film
IP lawyer and engineer sign affadvit that the pirated file in question is a representative copy of the copyrighted work
Engineer notes Hash of file
Lawyer packages up all evidence collected including logs, original file and downloaded file
IP detection company go online, join a swarm sharing the same file (identified by hash)
IP detection company download fragment from each peer in swarm, match file hash and record originating IP address with time stamp
IP detection company provides evidence package including IP logs to Rights holder or agent

You don't need to be sharing the whole file, any fragment large enough to identify the hash

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6