Copyright Modernization Act Now in Effect

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by photon

You can't block a computer getting your IP address if you're talking to that computer.

What you can do is have a list of IP address that you can block so that your torrent client doesn't talk to those IPs.

But that's dependant on knowing the IP addresses of the honey pots all the time which isn't guaranteed.

VPN and other tunneling services, can mask your IP; however that IP is still somewhere tied to you and it just move the jurisdiction of that private information.

If your goal is to avoid getting a letter, don't pirate or [Self Censored]

[REDVAN]

Is this $5000 per defendant, or $5000 per plaintiff?

Eg/ IF I download 27 WarnerBros movies and get sued by them- and found guilty, and have to pay them 5k, can Sony also sue me for 5k? Or because I have already paid the max to one, I am tapped out and can now download to my heart's content?

Just wondering this for a friend, by the way...

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Is this $5000 per defendant, or $5000 per plaintiff?

Eg/ IF I download 27 WarnerBros movies and get sued by them- and found guilty, and have to pay them 5k, can Sony also sue me for 5k? Or because I have already paid the max to one, I am tapped out and can now download to my heart's content?

Just wondering this for a friend, by the way...

It's actually all non-commercial infringement claims, in Canada the court system would be very unlikely to hit that limit though, probably looking at a judgement of under $100, my guess (cost of the movie + filing fee). I don't believe the courts would even entertain legal fees since the lawsuit could be taken care of in small claims court. So for 27 you would probably be look at ~500 dollars based on the opinions I have read and my interpretation of the law.

As stated in previous post I am not a legal expert, and this is just my interpretation of what I have read from the Canadian government and legal opinion articles on the matter.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by cdutka

VPN and other tunneling services, can mask your IP; however that IP is still somewhere tied to you and it just move the jurisdiction of that private information.

If your goal is to avoid getting a letter, don't pirate or [Self Censored]

Which makes this 'legal warning' from your ISP something you wouldn't receive, assuming your VPN exit point is in another country. Although, you still could receive a notice (through your VPN service) for infringing content from the country where you are exiting.

Of course, depending on your VPN service, this ties back to you pretty directly just like you said, so its not really much of a buffer, but it does exclude you from being the low hanging fruit that they pick on to 'set an example'.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by cdutka

It's actually all non-commercial infringement claims, in Canada the court system would be very unlikely to hit that limit though, probably looking at a judgement of under $100, my guess (cost of the movie + filing fee). I don't believe the courts would even entertain legal fees since the lawsuit could be taken care of in small claims court. So for 27 you would probably be look at ~500 dollars based on the opinions I have read and my interpretation of the law.

As stated in previous post I am not a legal expert, and this is just my interpretation of what I have read from the Canadian government and legal opinion articles on the matter.

Thanks for the reply- I was just using 27 as an example.

Good info, now I can continue downloading. I mean, I can tell tell my friend who sometimes uses my internet connection.

[photon]

Originally Posted by cdutka

VPN and other tunneling services, can mask your IP; however that IP is still somewhere tied to you and it just move the jurisdiction of that private information.

Yup that's true. There are some VPN services that claim to not keep log files and such as well which in theory would remove that tie, or purchase offshore VPN with CC's purchased from Russian CC thieves..

I think there's a torrent client out there that runs its own TOR type network to hide IPs (can't imagine how slow that would be).

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Which makes this 'legal warning' from your ISP something you wouldn't receive, assuming your VPN exit point is in another country. Although, you still could receive a notice (through your VPN service) for infringing content from the country where you are exiting.

Of course, depending on your VPN service, this ties back to you pretty directly just like you said, so its not really much of a buffer, but it does exclude you from being the low hanging fruit that they pick on to 'set an example'.

Will let's say your VPN service is in the US (where most Canadians would have there VPN), the privacy laws there are no where near as good so in theory the copyright holder could compel the VPN provider to tell it who was using the IP address for specific traffic. They could then use the Canadian law to send a notification to the IP address you connect to your VPN provider from.


Also small note the discussion here are about notices sent by copyright holders to users through ISPs.

This is not discussions about direct ISP notices from ISP to user, ISP notices are something completely different and basically means your ISP doesn't like you and other then your service getting cut has no real effect.

Originally Posted by Photon

Yup that's true. There are some VPN services that claim to not keep log files and such as well which in theory would remove that tie, or purchase offshore VPN with CC's purchased from Russian CC thieves..

I think there's a torrent client out there that runs its own TOR type network to hide IPs (can't imagine how slow that would be).

TOR lol, avoid that like it is the plague going on a sub-network is a good way to attract the attention of the NSA, FBI, CIA, RCMP, CSIS, CSE and any other letter service you really don't want looking at you. At least on the internet you are are part of a sea of information that isn't over analyzed.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by cdutka

Will let's say your VPN service is in the US (where most Canadians would have there VPN), the privacy laws there are no where near as good so in theory the copyright holder could compel the VPN provider to tell it who was using the IP address for specific traffic. They could then use the Canadian law to send a notification to the IP address you connect to your VPN provider from.

Exactly my point, but another (non-US) country might have entirely different laws and handle the situation in another way. I have no idea which countries would, and which are offered as exit nodes for main stream VPN providers.

Routing VPN traffic through the US to avoid file sharing laws in Canada would be a poor choice.

Also small note the discussion here are about notices sent by copyright holders to users through ISPs.

This is not discussions about direct ISP notices from ISP to user, ISP notices are something completely different and basically means your ISP doesn't like you and other then your service getting cut has no real effect.

Of course, my wording was not clear on that one, so thanks for clarifying it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by cdutka

It's actually all non-commercial infringement claims, in Canada the court system would be very unlikely to hit that limit though, probably looking at a judgement of under $100, my guess (cost of the movie + filing fee). I don't believe the courts would even entertain legal fees since the lawsuit could be taken care of in small claims court. So for 27 you would probably be look at ~500 dollars based on the opinions I have read and my interpretation of the law.

As stated in previous post I am not a legal expert, and this is just my interpretation of what I have read from the Canadian government and legal opinion articles on the matter.

I agree with your interpretation, but I think it is worth noting that until there is legal precedent set, anything we assume could be completely wrong.

[Drury18]

So I'm another in the "Don't Fully Understand" part of things.

I like to watch KHL and Czech League hockey games and obviously there are no channels that play that here nor are there packages to purchase such games in a legal manner. I do stream them from a site that streams a number of other sporting events (less on the up and up) as well as one that is linked directly by the one team to watch the games (one that looks to be an online TV channel rather then a ripped feed site).

Does this essentially put an end to that?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Drury18

Does this essentially put an end to that?

What this is talking about is if a copyright holder has your IP address they can send it to the ISP and the ISP will forward it to the right person (whoever had that IP address at the right time).

This is easy for the copyright holders to do because all they have to do is load up their software and download a torrent of Game of Thrones along with everyone else and quickly get a list of tons of IP addresses to use to send notices to.

In the case of those video sites, they're likely all streaming from some central server or location, so if I'm the Flames I can know the IP address of the server the stream is coming from, but I won't know the IP addresses of all the people viewing the stream.

To get those IPs I'd have to ask or compel whoever is running the server streaming the games to provide a list of IPs.

EDIT: The article does include "website hosts" but I don't know if that means they can request a website host to send a letter to everyone watching such and such stream at such and such time despite not knowing the IP addresses. If it does then that might impact those sites you're talking about if they were in Canada.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Drury18

So I'm another in the "Don't Fully Understand" part of things.

I like to watch KHL and Czech League hockey games and obviously there are no channels that play that here nor are there packages to purchase such games in a legal manner. I do stream them from a site that streams a number of other sporting events (less on the up and up) as well as one that is linked directly by the one team to watch the games (one that looks to be an online TV channel rather then a ripped feed site).

Does this essentially put an end to that?

People who are currently break the law by setting up streaming sites probably will not stop based on a new notification law in Canada.

As for you, I haven't seen a user of an illegal streaming service successfully sued, if anyone has a link to one I'd be very interesting. I am not sure what damages the copyright holder would have against you since there is no legal way for you to get the games.

They would be better to go after the site, which copyright holder have done. I believe the NHL just did this.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by cdutka

Will let's say your VPN service is in the US (where most Canadians would have there VPN), the privacy laws there are no where near as good so in theory the copyright holder could compel the VPN provider to tell it who was using the IP address for specific traffic. They could then use the Canadian law to send a notification to the IP address you connect to your VPN provider from.

I can't prove that they are telling the truth but many VPN's claim that they don't record any logs so even if they were asked for that information they wouldn't be able to provide it. It is also my understanding that some VPN"s give multiple users the same IP address so it would be nearly impossible to tell which user accessed which content. It that wrong?

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I can't prove that they are telling the truth but many VPN's claim that they don't record any logs so even if they were asked for that information they wouldn't be able to provide it. It is also my understanding that some VPN"s give multiple users the same IP address so it would be nearly impossible to tell which user accessed which content. It that wrong?

It is marketing and depends on the time of the request, if the state table currently has the record of the current connection being tracked then yes they could trace a VPN connection behind NAT. Also NAT tends to break P2P, so having multiple IPs on a single NAT would slow down your potential connection speeds.

I also highly doubt that they are piping all there logs to /dev/null, more then likely they have limited logging. Otherwise troubleshooting issues would be hard.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by cdutka

It is marketing and depends on the time of the request, if the state table currently has the record of the current connection being tracked then yes they could trace a VPN connection behind NAT. Also NAT tends to break P2P, so having multiple IPs on a single NAT would slow down your potential connection speeds.

I don't know the technical end of it but I have downloaded a file from a sharing service on a few occasions and got the message "this IP has recently downloaded in the last "X" minutes, please wait "X" minutes". Switching the VPN to a different location fixes it.

Originally Posted by cdutka

I also highly doubt that they are piping all there logs to /dev/null, more then likely they have limited logging. Otherwise troubleshooting issues would be hard.

They claim that they don't log anything. Maybe they are lying? I don't know.

[Jacks]

As a follow up, Torrentfreak did a review of VPN services and did a follow up last January.
https://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-s...dition-140315/

By popular demand we now present the third iteration of our VPN services “logging” review. In addition to questions about logging policies we also asked VPN providers about their stance towards file-sharing traffic, and what they believe the most secure VPN is.
—

1. Do you keep ANY logs which would allow you to match an IP-address and a time stamp to a user of your service? If so, exactly what information do you hold and for how long?

2. Under what jurisdictions does your company operate and under what exact circumstances will you share the information you hold with a 3rd party?

3. What tools are used to monitor and mitigate abuse of your service?

4. In the event you receive a DMCA takedown notice or European equivalent, how are these handled?

5. What steps are taken when a valid court order requires your company to identify an active user of your service?

6. Is BitTorrent and other file-sharing traffic allowed on all servers? If not, why?

7. Which payment systems do you use and how are these linked to individual user accounts?

8. What is the most secure VPN connection and encryption algorithm you would recommend to your users?
—
What follows is the list of responses from the VPN services, in their own words. Providers who didn’t answer our questions directly or failed by logging everything were excluded. Please note, however, that several VPN companies listed here do log to some extent. The order of the lists holds no value.

Private Internet Access

1. We absolutely do not log any traffic nor session data of any kind, period. We have worked hard to meticulously fork all daemons that we utilize in order to achieve this functionality. It is definitely not an easy task, and we are very proud of our development team for helping Private Internet Access to achieve this unique ability.

2. We operate out of the US which is one of the few, if only, countries without a mandatory data retention law. We explored several other jurisdictions with the help of our professional legal team, and the US is still ideal for privacy-based VPN services.

We severely scrutinize the validity of any and all legal information requests. That being said, since we do not hold any traffic nor session data, we are unable to provide any information to any third-party. Our commitment and mission to preserve privacy is second to none.

3. We do not monitor any traffic, period. We block IPs/ports as needed to mitigate abuse when we receive a valid abuse notification.

4. We do not host any content and are therefore unable to remove any of said content. Additionally, our mission is to preserve and restore privacy on the Internet and society. As such, since we do not log or monitor anything, we’re unable to identify any users of our service.

5. Once again, we do not log any traffic or session data. Additionally, unlike the EU and many other countries, our users are protected by legal definition. For this reason, we’re unable to identify any user of our service. Lastly, consumer protection laws exist in the US, unlike many other countries. We must abide by our advertised privacy policy.

6. We do not discriminate against any kind of traffic/protocol on any of our servers, period. We believe in a free, open, and uncensored internet.

7. Bitcoin, Ripple, PayPal, Google Play (Mobile), OKPay, CashU, Amazon and any major Gift Card. We support plenty of anonymous payment methods. For this reason, the highest risk users should definitely use Bitcoin, Ripple or a major gift card with an anonymous e-mail account when subscribing to our privacy service.

8. We’re the only provider to date that provides a plethora of encryption cipher options. We recommend, mostly, using AES-128, SHA1 and RSA2048.

In 2013 they answered this about IP addresses.
https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-service...-2013-edition/

We utilize shared IP addresses rather than dynamic or static IPs, so it is not possible to match a user to an external IP. These are some of the many solutions we have implemented to enable the strongest levels of anonymity amongst VPN services.

[1_Flames_Fan]

I just signed up for private Internet access VPN. Service works excellent for torrenting and hasn't affected my speed at all. You can pick a server from many different countries and according to them they don't keep any logs. I think it was about 40$ a year and they have a 7 day refund policy.

[EldrickOnIce]

I guess I don't understand this very well either.
Previously, the part you got in trouble for was the sharing/uploading of copyright content, not the download part - so torrenting could get you in trouble.

If I understand this new law correctly, a person who uses, for example, XBMC to stream content from online sources could be subject to penalty now?

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I guess I don't understand this very well either.
Previously, the part you got in trouble for was the sharing/uploading of copyright content, not the download part - so torrenting could get you in trouble.

If I understand this new law correctly, a person who uses, for example, XBMC to stream content from online sources could be subject to penalty now?

XBMC is not the problem, it is just a media interface the problem is the site that you stream from. Basically you can't violate anyone copyright through a streaming server, bittorrent, napster, limewire, IRC, NZBs ect. The only reason Streaming, IRC and NZBs aren't tracked is because they are not used by the vast majority of people. As streaming becomes a bigger source of Piracy it will get looked at closer.

The sharing upload and download until recent was always grey in Canada up until recently, you could really say pirating not for profit was legal, as you were able to trade recordings with others under the law. This was pre-internet law and meant for recording of radio songs, but that is no longer the case.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Are customers responsible for their own wireless security? Just curious what kind of defence you'd have if you claimed people jacked your wireless. Do they have to seize a device with a corresponding MAC address or is the IP address of your router enough?

I imagine they would be smart enough to have clauses in the act that can incriminate you on the grounds you have to be responsible for your Wi-Fi or everyone that gets caught would play that card.