Whirlpool

I just received a copyright infringement notice, after being with them for 6 months, I suspect if I get any more that I'll be forced to churn away, nuts to that, I'm going back to the 'node at the end of the month, full time.

Got any hints or tips for someone scared shitless?

Also, does this mean I'm a Terrorist now? :)

Buy a shit load of toilet paper. Try to avoid things like cauliflower, carrots and bananas, and lay off the Baked Beans.

Anyhow, why are you afraid? You should have known the consequences of your actions, or better yet, safe guarded the connection a little better with something like Peer Guardian :)

freax writes...

Also, does this mean I'm a Terrorist now? :)
No... so long as you don't go bombing an embassy, you'll be fine :)

freax writes...

Got any hints or tips for someone scared shitless?

I'll be captain obvious
Stop downloading copyrighted material??

Stay on topic or the thread will be closed.
The thread as it stands is on very thin ice.

freax writes...

I'm going back to the 'node at the end of the month, full time.

Are you suggesting 'node does not pass on copyright infringement notices?

freax writes...

I just received a copyright infringement notice, after being with them for 6 months, I suspect if I get any more that I'll be forced to churn away

What happens if you got the copyright infrigement notice when you were still on contract and exetel asks you to leave (or you decide to leave because of the notice)? Do you have to pay the early termination fees for breaking your contract?

freax writes...

I just received a copyright infringement notice, after being with them for 6 months, I suspect if I get any more that I'll be forced to churn away, nuts to that

You're concerned about getting another notice and being forced to churn away...

I'm going back to the 'node at the end of the month, full time.

..so your solution is to move to "node" anyway??? Curious.

Got any hints or tips for someone scared shitless?

My tip is to stop illegally acquiring copyright protected software, and then you can stop being scared. (Looks like the ESA have achieved their goal)

Also, does this mean I'm a Terrorist now?

My dictionary defines "terrorist" as "a person or group who terrorizes or frightens others", so by that definition it would seem that the ESA is the terrorist.

Private tracker! Private tracker! Private tracker!

Midnight Rider writes...

..so your solution is to move to "node" anyway??? Curious.

The ESA is pretty much toothless, so after further research, I'm sticking to Exetel like glue.

Peir Gaurdian will not stop the notices. How can it? Example. I am the ESA so I put up a torrent for a new movie. Said naughty user, eg you, download the file. ESA look at who is connected. Aha busted as I have your IP address. Nothing is going to stop that.

Anyway limited choices. Stop downloading torrents, Get a Usenet account or reduce ever so slightly your risk by private trackers. Just remember ESA can use private trackers as well.

Urban_Jungle writes...

I am the ESA so I put up a torrent for a new movie.

They share a new movie delibrately? Are they the copy right owners?

Surely, that is self-defeating.

You're not serious are you :).

Of course they do. Bit like the Police posing as 12yr olds to catch pedophiles, fake web sites to catch hackers etc etc. Very normal practice.

Pretty much if you do something illegal you will get caught eventually. So either take the risks or don't :).

Urban_Jungle writes...

Peir Gaurdian will not stop the notices. How can it?

By restricting connections to known IP's that have links with copyright holders.

Of course they do.

Where is your evidence?

Urban_Jungle writes...

Pretty much if you do something illegal you will get caught eventually.

You have been conditioned well by your family and paster.

Dude you can believe what you want.

Think how hard it is to change a MAC address and get a new IP :).

As I mentioned before, I got a notice two or more years ago – when I started to use torrents. Since then I am using PG 2 and IPfilter and so far have not received another one.

Urban_Jungle writes...

Think how hard it is to change a MAC address and get a new IP :).

IP's are not that easy to obtain. IANA doesn't give these out freely and if they did, it would take time. These are not the days of the 1990's.

That is why the lists of IP's are updated on a daily basis with PG2. Jaike and Maggon have valid arguments.

I mean... why would PG2 exist if it didn't work (at the very least, do something).

Urban, you need to read up on PG2 a bit more and actually find out what it does.

I got one and thought the standard reply is a good idea why not use only the notice's language admit nothing and mirror it back to your isp not the copywrite company. here is what my esa reply draft come out like oh yeh xxx means ip

An email has been forwarded containing

NOTICE OF CLAIMED INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY COPYRIGHT OWNER OR AGENT – STORAGE, CACHING, OR REFERRAL TO INFRINGING COPYRIGHT MATERIAL of ESA Reference Number: xxx-xxxxxxx.

Wherein it is stated that products protected by copyright are being infringed by material that appears on or is made available through xxx.xxx.xxx.xx, residing on your system or network, cached on your system or network, or referred or linked to by your system or network.

The fore mentioned notice lists an item that is hereinafter referred to as "Infringing Material.", I herebye state that the Infringing Material Does NOT appear on or is made available through xxx.xxx.xxx.xx and is not residing on the system or network of xxx.xxx.xxx.xx , is not cached on the system or network of xxx.xxx.xxx.xx , or referred or linked to by the system or network of xxx.xxx.xxx.xx .

Please keep me informed of any further action required or taken by esa

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is the U.S. association

ESA = USA

OP = Australia

What are the ESA going to do? Diddly squat methinks

Just scare tactics.. to persuade you to stop.

Also, one has to remember if you block their IP, what do they have against you? Maybe an IP (yours, for a split second) address that "you may" have downloaded/uploaded something, but because you didn't give any data to them (IP blocked) what proof do they have that you were leeching/seeding?

DATA is the key word!

An IP address is not enough evidence... it is when you start to perform unprotected seeding (leeching)... that's when you contract E.S.A – RAOFLMAO ;o)

kiplinght writes...

ESA = USA

OP = Australia

What are the ESA going to do? Diddly squat methinks

Does it matter where the company is from? Still seems to me they can do diddly squat as you put it. I got one a few days ago from AFACT-:

The details of the notice are:

Issued by:
Mr Neil Gaine
Director of Operations
Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft
PO Box 515
Mona Vale NSW 1660
Phone: +61 2 9997 8011
Fax: +61 2 9999 2466
Toll Free: 1800 251 996
email: info@afact.com.au
Web: www.afact.com.au
IP address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Date and Time: xxxxxxx
File Downloaded: Smallville.S07E17.blah blah blah.avi

First I've seen one from an Australian company and was especially surprised since the show is American. Seriously this stuff is confusing cause I'm allowed to tape a free to air tv show but I can't download it...wtf? Sadly laws are always behind what is deemed ethically right by the majority and technology moves so fast that it continues to cause big "grey" area's.

I pay for 84GB of usage/mth with Exetel, what do they seriously think people download to use all of that? I'm not shy to say I use most my quota up by downloading tv shows to replace the old method of setting up my VCR..please tell me whats so wrong with that?

Mozzar writes...

please tell me whats so wrong with that?

Nothing.
Just send them the boilerplate denial reply and keep going.

Urban_Jungle writes...

Example. I am the ESA so I put up a torrent for a new movie. Said naughty user, eg you, download the file. ESA look at who is connected. Aha busted as I have your IP address. Nothing is going to stop that.

I don't think this is even remotely likely scenario...

1) Is it entrapment? Like a police officer offering you drugs and then arresting you if you agree to buy. Not cool in court. What's the legal status of entrapment in Oz? It's a popular topic for US/UK cops and robbers TV episodes.

2) Once the entire torrent has been seeded it is perfectly possible and likely for people to download the whole thing without ever touching the original seeder. I seriously doubt a copyright holder is going to willingly seed an uncontrollable number of infringements in order to catch a just few infringers.

Casper writes...

Is it entrapment?

No ... entrapment would be if they encouraged you to break the law and then arrest you for doing so. Like them sending you an email saying "Come download the latest movie" and then send you a letter for doing so ...

Mozzar writes...

I'm not shy to say I use most my quota up by downloading tv shows to replace the old method of setting up my VCR..please tell me whats so wrong with that?

Ignoring the fact that it is illegal and you could be fined and or jailed for it, it is a breach of the Acceptable Usage Policy you agreed to when signing up with Exetel.

Specifically: 4.3) If Exetel reasonably suspects that a Customer is infringing a third party's copyright or if three (3) or more copyright infringement notices have been received in relation to a Customer's account and the Customer fails to provide a valid defence for such notice in writing to the issuer of the notice that is satisfactory to Exetel, Exetel may request the Customer to arrange for an equivalent service to the Service supplied by another carrier or carriage service provider within fourteen (14) days failing which the Service will be cancelled in accordance with the Agreement.

http://www.exetel.com.au/a_acceptable_use.php

xnor writes...

or jailed for it

Xnor, it has been pointed out by you yourself that criminal charges would most likely not be applied in Home downloading; only if done on a commerical scale.

To talk about gaolling ppl is disengenuios to say the last.

Jaike writes...

only if done on a commerical scale.

operate an isp, serve data to thousands?

we know isps are in bed with 'down loading'

what an intriguing relationship

Casper writes...

1) Is it entrapment?

goes under the heading of "honey pot".

Urban_Jungle writes...

Think how hard it is to change a MAC address and get a new IP :).

change your own ip address is possible, or even changing ISPs to get different IP range.

for a business to do it, it is not anywhere as easily as the IP range needs to be registered. It is also one reason why in ip filtering systems there is the option of ignoring connections from unregistered IP addresses.

kiplinght writes...

What are the ESA going to do? Diddly squat methinks

Hello National Treatment, WIPO, TRIPS and The Berne Convention. Intellectual Property is an international regime.

Mozzar writes...

Sadly laws are always behind what is deemed ethically right by the majority

I'm not sure the majority would agree with you there. I don't think piracy is "ethically right".

I use most my quota up by downloading tv shows to replace the old method of setting up my VCR..please tell me whats so wrong with that?

No advertisements = no money. At least that's the argument the copyright owners will spin. If the broadcaster doesn't get any cash they can't pay the copyright owner for a licence and then the copyright owner has no money and can't make anymore TV shows. Self-defeating systems ftw!

ZepperLepper writes...

IP's are not that easy to obtain. IANA doesn't give these out freely and if they did, it would take time. These are not the days of the 1990's.

ahahaha, ummm... you assume too much, in so much as they will only use a corporate account to entice you, have you not heard of such things like, oh, I dunno, maybe pre-paid/throw-away dialup accounts? that just about every service providor offers, especially in america, where they are a dime a dozen, and also dont assume that dialup accounts will have something such as identifiable to them, they are also cpe-123-456-789.foo.bar.example.com in many many cases.

However, the legalities of them being 'agent provocatuers' could be their own downfall, this is why they search out (using same above style accounts) like a normal user, looking for stuff they most known they have rights to protect, any user offering that file to them, is deemed a distributor and they are the ones they will get, but most people claim " h but I'm not sharing", little do they know that those programs also share out what you get in, even the 'chunks', meaning you dont have to complete the d/l before your systme will share out :)

Point to note however, that 90% of these are based on 'bot scripts' and I have seen many cases of them catching and condemning a user for well known open source software, so dont just blanket accept them, look at it for what it is,but ten you know when your breaking the law anyway so...

Jaike writes...

it has been pointed out by you yourself that criminal charges would most likely not be applied in Home downloading; only if done on a commerical scale.

This is true, however you will notice that I always prefix such statements with wording such as "it is unlikely".

To talk about gaolling ppl is disengenuios to say the last.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that individual home users will always be free from being sued for breaching copyright. It really is just a matter of time.

I would suggest that anyone receiving an infringement notice should stop and think about the possible implications of their actions.

saiphon writes...

No advertisements = no money.

The fact copyright owner ignores status of socioeconomic subgroups with (no) funds but to pay into the electronic model of home entertainment says they deserve their comeuppance at once.

hibernator writes...

The fact copyright owner ignores status...

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying copyright owners should have an onus on them to seek out their viewers' economic status and alter broadcast practices on a peer by peer basis?

Because... that's ludicrous.

If you mean something else then I'm a touch confused.

saiphon writes...

Because... that's ludicrous.

That's only my figurative speaking, what owners might sensibly should consider for TV Shows is something similar which has been done for music downloads – let people who are willing to part with a few dollars (per week say) an unlimited selection on the latest video media.
simple, easy, efficient – and when they do move to the online tune it won't be too soon.

OK what are you supposed to do (or have to do) if you get one?

I just got one from BayTSP for MGM.

Do Exetel expect me to respond to them or what?

Thanks

Some light reading...

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:gc2HoljyqW8J:www.afact.org.au/factsheets/Copyright%2520Infringement%2520Notices%2520FAQ.pdf+what+to+do+if+you+get+a+copyright+infringement+notice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au

http://www.zgeek.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-39714.html

I quote "I wouldn't reply. It's admitting guilt. If anything I'd just say that I don't have such material (which should be true as of now)."

I will have to agree:
#1 don't say a damned thing
#2 delete the email and the offending material, use some kind of protection, Safe Peer for Azuerus, (Azureus sucks bawlz tho), Use PG2 for uTorrent...or if that doesn't work, ipfilter.dat for utorrent: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ipfilter.dat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

http://jesus-is-a-pervert.blogspot.com/2006/05/protecting-yourself-against-bittorrent.html

#3 if you are guilty, whats the worst that can happen? your ISP disconnects you, gee wow...

*NO CARRIER*

i got a letter as well -

Issued by: Mr Neil Gaine Director of Operations Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft PO Box 515 Mona Vale NSW 1660 Phone: +61 2 9997 8011 Fax: +61 2 9999 2466 Toll Free: 1800 251 996 email: info@afact.com.au Web: www.afact.com.au

this website is nearly as transparent as the letter they sent, looks like they are trying to stop people selling them, maybe they should go the swap meet and catch the real criminals.

Thanks, my question though is what does Exetel expect me to do?

Am I supposed to contact the people in the email (which is what they are asking) or am I expected just to stop downloading a be a good boy from now on?

Do the email people contact Exetel again if I don't respond or what?

What have other people done?

xnor writes...

Ignoring the fact that it is illegal and you could be fined and or jailed for it, it is a breach of the Acceptable Usage Policy you agreed to when signing up with Exetel.

Is it illegal for me to use my VCR to tape a free to air TV show and watch for personal use within my home?

To my knowledge it isn't so why should downloading the TV show be any different. For those comments about lost revenue from ads, well I always forwarded the ad's on the VCR.

The whole issue is neither back or white and needs to be treated on a case by case basis imo.

Thanks, my question though is what does Exetel expect me to do?

I think they expect some form of reply as I have found that if I don't respond via email within a few days of receiving a copyright infrignement notice that they give me the good old http://blocked.exetel.com.au/abuse.php page and I'm forced to make a comment.

this being my 1st as well and i've been with exetel for 15months. I'm going to ignore it.

Mozzar writes...

I think they expect some form of reply as I have found that if I don't respond via email within a few days of receiving a copyright infrignement notice that they give me the good old http://blocked.exetel.com.au/abuse.php page and I'm forced to make a comment.

Ok thanks

But do Exetel expect me to respond to Exetel or to the Email people? Or both?

VeeP writes...

But do Exetel expect me to respond to Exetel or to the Email people? Or both?

Well in the email I got from them it stated-:

1) Ignore it
2) Respond to the issuer of the notice denying the allegation (you maychoose to copy Exetel on this response)
3) Remove the copyright infringing material

Going by that it seems they expect you to reply to company accusing you and cc: Exetel on the email.

I chose options 1 and 3 last time but found I still got blocked by Exetel and had to fill out a reason why they shouldn't ask me to move on.

For those that choose to ignore it, let me know how you go as I'd be interested if they block you as well, or perhaps I'm just on a special bad list since I've had quite a few of these emails. *shrugs*

Mozzar writes...

Well in the email I got from them it stated-:

1) Ignore it
2) Respond to the issuer of the notice denying the allegation (you maychoose to copy Exetel on this response)

Yeah but the email I got was simply forwarded by Exetel and does not have any Exetel comments in it.

It has a web link to reply to the copywrite people.

If I was to CC Exetel somehow what address?

Mozzar writes...

2) Respond to the issuer of the notice denying the allegation (you maychoose to copy Exetel on this response)

"I have made sure that there are no infringing files on my computer and have no intention of downloading such files in the future."

Renew IP address, rinse, then back to business.

Mozzar writes...

so why should downloading the TV show be any different.

Because of the LAW.

http://www.copyright.org.au/G063.pdf

hibernator writes...

"I have made sure that there are no infringing files on my computer and have no intention of downloading such files in the future."

Renew IP address, rinse, then back to business.

OK sounds good but who do I respond too?

So far all I have got is an Email FORWARDED by Exetel to me and addressed to Exetel.

It has a weblink to reply, do I use the weblink?

VeeP writes...

It has a weblink to reply, do I use the weblink?

I guess so?

Mozzar writes...

Is it illegal for me to use my VCR to tape a free to air TV show and watch for personal use within my home?

No, it isn't. Section 111 of the Copyright Act 1968 takes care of that.

For those comments about lost revenue from ads, well I always forwarded the ad's on the VCR.

It goes a little bit deeper than this, though. If federal parliament gets up and says it's ok to download TV shows then, arguably, more people will. In such a case fewer people will watch it broadcast on TV – an audience that will usually watch it "live" as opposed to videotaped. Given that most TV shows come out online before they make it to Australian TV the risk of disencentivising legitimate broadcasting is increased. Few people tuning in means less advertising exposure. You know the rest.

A better option, in my mind, is for the producers to cut out the middle man and broadcast the shows online, or provide them for download, either with a minimal fee attached or on an advertising heavy webpage. Alternatively, they can include ads with their releases. If it's an international release it may even cut down on releases which are HD rips from the US being posted onto international and Australian BT sites. If they can control the broadcast they can wrest some modicum of control over their content again.

The whole issue is neither back or white and needs to be treated on a case by case basis imo.

I think this is completely correct. The producers of new TV, film and music need to embrace distributed networking as a new method of dissemination. The next 20 years are going to be very interesting.

VeeP writes...

It has a weblink to reply, do I use the weblink?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Australia

Just be quiet! :D

saiphon writes...

No, it isn't. Section 111 of the Copyright Act 1968 takes care of that.

You need to read this: http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/G025.pdf

In particular, "On 11 December 2006, the Copyright Act was amended to allow people to record TV and radio programs, on private premises, to watch or listen to at a more convenient time. "

And, you need to be up-to-date if you want to contribute properly.

hibernator writes...

I guess so?

OK I went to the web page and said I complied

Selected
"Yes. I've complied and removed all copyrighted material for which I'm not the copyright holder from my computer and / or network."

Case is now "Closed" with them

Lets see what happens

Now off to change IP ......

Jaike writes...

Because of the LAW.

http://www.copyright.org.au/G063.pdf

Thanks for the link...was a very interesting read.

However it does clearly state that my personal use is considered as breaking civil law, not criminal law and that penalties equate to what the copyright owner has lost by me using it. Now that's the funny & sad part as I'd happily pay for it but can't get it any other way then to download via P2P or to legally record it off the TV in which case the copyright owner hasn't lost any form of income from me as I didn't watch TV (and hence the ad's).

There's piracy and then there's time-shifting.......obviously I consider my download habits to be in the time-shifting spectrum.

Mozzar writes...

.obviously I consider my download habits to be in the time-shifting spectrum.

Yes you do; and I am sure others do too.

But that is NOT the reality.

imo, it should be; but I dont run the show; and neither do you.

Sadly :(

Jaike writes...

Yes you do; and I am sure others do too.

But that is NOT the reality.

My opinion is once they broadcast it over the air unencrypted then all bets are off and it is time and place shifting.

Just made it up "time and place shifting."

On PeerGuardian-

A study was done to determine the method used by copyright holders to find 'infringing IP addresses'. The conclusion? Copyright holders don't try to connect to your IP to download the content, they just see your IP in the peerlist sent to them by the tracker, and send off the infringement notice to the ISP.

The only way PeerGuardian can stop you appearing in that peerlist is if they block the trackers IP – and that means no more downloading.

(Funnily enough, the latest peerguardian blocks one of the major private music trackers IP – heh)

CM Mike writes...

in the peerlist sent to them by the tracker

So, if we assume copyright holders don't use private trackers; we are laughing.

CM Mike writes...

A study was done

url?

Jaike writes...

So, if we assume copyright holders don't use private trackers; we are laughing.

Some private trackers are very easy to join, why wouldn't they simply join and get the list if IPs from the tracker?

For the difficult trackers they just have to invest some time.

I suppose their purpose is to spread FUD so going after the biggies is easier and gets the job done.

Jaike writes...

And, you need to be up-to-date if you want to contribute properly.

I'm sorry?

He asked if recording things with his VCR was an infringement of copyright. I told him it wasn't and cited the Copyright Act in its present form – arguably a far more primary source than the Copyright Council website. My response mirrors your own and I'm completely up-to-date with current copyright law. Perhaps you misread my post? Did you even read the section of the Act that I posted?

And, you need to be up-to-date with replies in this thread to contribute properly. ;-)

Why not use usenet to download, if you're going to download 'questionable' material? Much faster and I'm not sure how they'd track that.

aaron-aus writes...

Why not use usenet to download

Because usenet costs even more money? If people were willing to fork out money for these shows and things, why not just buy them legally?

I think the trend is certainly toward advertisement-free viewing, H264 270P shows, which you will pay your ISP to provide through P2P means or otherwise.

The risk with P2P is it comes under filesharing protocol which inflames interest groups who don't support that method of delivery, so that will cause heat with your IP.

The task is to outsource media management to a specialist in that field, such as GigaNews service or AstraWeb. The next fulfillment then is to populate cache streams of whatever traffic is redundant and provide economies via local stream.

I'm just less sure why they chose P2P to invest 400,000 dollars in which is of sparsely distributed nature and generates heat, over a more logical server and which proves a sure winner at other ISPs.(Internode)., hopefully they will think things over, and then just maybe a Christmas release?

Problem with shows over http^^ is that comes under 'flagrant' and not quite as efficient to supply in HD.

hibernator writes...

Problem with shows over http^^ is that comes under 'flagrant' and not quite as efficient to supply in HD.

What does this mean?

saiphon writes...

What does this mean?

fla·grant (flā'grənt)
adj.
Conspicuously bad, offensive, or reprehensible: a flagrant miscarriage of justice; flagrant cases of wrongdoing at the highest levels of government. See Usage Note at blatant.

saiphon writes...

What does this mean?

Just what it says, that loading obviously infringing multimedia copies onto a website then advertising availability may be held as "flagrant" disregard of copyright law. As Jaike had sought to demonstrate in another thread /forum-replies.cfm?t=1045467&p=3#r44 , degrees of conduct will vary and so to will damages awarded to the holder (see under: flagrant in the .pdf doc).

The appeal of shows and movies over http protocol may be that it undoubtedly removes degrees of technical separation making the material accessible to the widest possible audience, namely everyone who has operated a web-browser/played youtube.

To my knowledge Exetel doesn't cache http like it does bt so retrieving shows and movies in HD via http would not cost efficient compared to p2p, and probably next nntp.

hibernator writes...

To my knowledge Exetel doesn't cache http like it does bt so retrieving shows and movies in HD via http would not cost efficient compared to p2p, and probably next nntp.

Ah, this is the part I wasn't aware of/didn't understand. Thanks for clearing it up. I would have thought that most ISPs cache popular HTTP requests. Caching infringing material might be an issue, though.

Nikki – I know what flagrant mean ;-)

4.3) If Exetel reasonably suspects that a Customer is infringing a third party's copyright or if three (3) or more copyright infringement notices have been received in relation to a Customer's account and the Customer fails to provide a valid defence for such notice in writing to the issuer of the notice that is satisfactory to Exetel, Exetel may request the Customer to arrange for an equivalent service to the Service supplied by another carrier or carriage service provider within fourteen (14) days failing which the Service will be cancelled in accordance with the Agreement.

So Exetel just takes ESA's word for it on face value or did they actually check to confirm that you were downloading something illegally?

dodgy donkey writes...

So Exetel just takes ESA's word for it on face value or did they actually check to confirm that you were downloading something illegally?

They are not aloud to monitor what you download, without court order are they?.... Otherwise everyone that got illegal content would be up on charges today.

saiphon writes...

I would have thought that most ISPs cache popular HTTP requests.

Exetel might cache youtube and such http media
ref: Akamai in http://johnl.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/172-P2P-CachingUTubeHTTP-Caching.html

dodgy donkey writes...

So Exetel just takes ESA's word for it on face value or did they actually check to confirm that you were downloading something illegally?

Have a read
http://johnl.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/695-How-Ethically-Or-Morally-Guilty.......html
JL:Can I expect any such people who have done this to give me the $3,000 it cost to get this letter written?

...payed out of his pocket to keep those clients online.....

kiplinght writes...

Because usenet costs even more money? If people were willing to fork out money for these shows and things, why not just buy them legally?

I sorta see your point, but not really too valid – only saying so because sure, you pay for usenet, however, for $25 and you get 90GB, it's really not that much to pay for a)faster download speeds (normally maxed out), b)consistant download speeds, c)no uploading or waiting for seeds.

Just my point of view, I can understand if people didn't want to pay the extra dough.

hibernator writes...

allowing them to download 12GB

12gb :| ROFL ...that's 17 movies, or 34 tv shows at 30mins+ or 68 tv shows at 20mins..nothing.

And BT is for yesterday :)

Thanks for the good laugh though.

EDIT: The above article sounds like a 50s information movie..ala "suzy thought it was cool to go steady and french kiss...till she got pregnant!"

membreya writes...

"suzy thought it was cool to go steady and french kiss...till she got pregnant!"

This thread delivers.

/offtopic

They pay about $70 a month for a 20Mbps cable broadband connection allowing them to download 12GB.

LMAO. What have they got their firewall blocking it or something ?

The7thWiggle writes...

LMAO. What have they got their firewall blocking it or something ?

Yep, that's the famous lamer big pong "10GB Unlimted*-turned 12GB-liberty" uploads are counted-plan i was on before moving on to more progressive isp pastures right here.

and the highlight quote representing Australian ISPs from that article--

• "AFACT claims to have the IP addresses (of file-sharers), but it's alleged," says IIA executive director Peter Coroneos. "Even then the ISP can't say who at the address did the downloading. The due legal pr...' etc

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/illegal-downloading-hits-epidemic-proportions/2008/09/23/1221935645031.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Heh. me wonders if exetel count themselves in with that industry association. (you think maybe they do?:)

"I was forced to beak the law because I'm too bone idle to read my TV guide"??????????
"TV programs aren't real like Movies and songs so it's OK to steal them"????????

atm it is revenue, revenue /= profit, sure. however in the future can we not expect profit linked/based on incremental down loads?
(ie payg)

this is iptv by the news server load

CM Mike writes...

A study was done to determine the method used by copyright holders to find 'infringing IP addresses'. The conclusion? Copyright holders don't try to connect to your IP to download the content, they just see your IP in the peerlist sent to them by the tracker, and send off the infringement notice to the ISP.

Not sure whether thats true or not, but if it is then it doesnt actually prove you were infringing on any material.

I can easily add a torrent and choose not to download a single file out of it (say for example in Seeding-Only mode) and I will still show up in the list of IP's without infringing any material.

I addition to this, I've also received an infringement notice and I'm choosing option 1) Ignore it, and 3) Remove the copyright infringing material. That was over a week ago. Haven't heard anything since and theres nothing in the email that says anything about replying and letting them know what my action has been.

I agree with what someone said earlier, don't reply to it.

masadav writes...

I can easily add a torrent and choose not to download a single file out of it (say for example in Seeding-Only mode) and I will still show up in the list of IP's without infringing any material.

That would be a hard line to sell. Why would anyone add a torrent and then not download/seed it?

saiphon writes...

That would be a hard line to sell. Why would anyone add a torrent and then not download/seed it?

Get enough people doing it and the law will gradually change.

FTA (Free-to-Air) = FTD (Free-to-Download), IMO.

Doesn't mean I won't still watch some advertisements from time to time.

A consumer has the right to choose, and an equal right to privacy — which implies not being bombarded by unsolicited/spam after sharing with thine neighbor online.
Who do they think they are anyway???

saiphon writes...

I would have thought that most ISPs cache popular HTTP requests. Caching infringing material might be an issue, though.

Exetel runs the argument that cacheing is used freely RE http by many ISP's; and to cache p2p chunks is the same difference. (After all much/some of the http chucks may also be copyrighted too; and the copyright holders tend not to worry about that). The p2p cache does not contain contiguous movie files.

Jaike writes...

So, if we assume copyright holders don't use private trackers; we are laughing.

Private trackers work in exactly the same way. Consider the fact a lot of Oink's biggest uploaders were/are being prosecuted – though, this was due to their servers being taken, but still. There's no reason they can't 'watch' private torrents the way they do public. I mean, look – if you and I can get into them (which we can, and we both no doubt are on many – hell, take a look at your peerlist sometime, you'd be surprised how many IPs are top 10 aussie ISPs – probably all Whirlpool users too :P), then what makes you think 'they' can't get into them too? I mean, I'm a casual user, and I can get into pretty much private site I want right now because of contacts I've made on one of them. What's to stop somebody being paid by the RIAA/MPAA doing the same? I mean, if anything it should be easier – it's no longer a hobby, it's their job. They have all the time in the world.

url?

No idea, it was a couple of years ago I believe. I'll have a Google, but you're just as likely to find it. It wasn't anything huge, just a bunch of guys with access to a subnet of IPs – half of which had copyrighted material actually available, other half didn't (just announced to the tracker – didn't make or accept connections). IPs from both sides got infringement notices.

Hell, if you think about it, if they actually DID try to connect to check, that'd make being unconnectable a blessing, you'd never get busted :)

hibernator writes...

Heh. me wonders if exetel count themselves in with that industry association. (you think maybe they do?:)

ISP's are there to do a business, and they will protect their business, tehy are not there to protect you :)

freax writes...

Got any hints or tips for someone scared shitless?

Same since day 1... Don't use public trackers.

Wanderlei Silva writes...

Same since day 1... Don't use public trackers.

Yeah but some private trackers have extremely onerous rules almost designed to piss people off.

How do Exetel know that the P2P cache does not contain at any time any copyright files whether partial, complete or one single piece of data that is any different to what is contained in any copyright emails that they ( Exetel ) forward on to us informing us a breaching copyright, if we are guilty of having any such alleged data on our systems then surely Exetel are just as guilty of having the same data in storage ( albeit temporarily ) with their P2P cache ?

wayne349 writes...

How do Exetel know that the P2P cache does not contain at any time any copyright files

They don't look and plead ignorance.

They have the harshest policy on P2P yet spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make P2P faster for us and cheaper for them.

Plus they have the 48gig off-peak period which could not be designed better for the P2P crowd (well, without making it bigger)

So basically by Exetel having a P2P cache they are just as guilty of temp storage any offending data that we can also be accused of and if they plead ignorance, why can't we too and in replying to any 3rd party copyright breaches advise the data was actually retrieved from a local ISP cache but because i had DHT enabled on my torrent client at the time it showed i was also connected to other trackers although possibly no data transfered either in or out and if any did can you prove it and also prove i received enough data to be 100% usable as the copyright infringement file that you are accusing me of, that is a complete usable file identical to the claimed original you are representing.

Logging/tracing my IP does'nt mean intent as i maybe be using a static IP or just changed IP's to the one in question and you are now accusing me of someone elses alleged actions.

wayne349 writes...

actually retrieved from a local ISP cache

It doesn't matter. You don't have to infringe the original work – an intermediary will be fine: Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron; Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc

100% usable as the copyright infringement file that you are accusing me of, that is a complete usable file identical to the claimed original you are representing.

Doesn't matter; a substantial part will suffice: s14 Copyright Act 1968

wayne349 writes...

Logging/tracing my IP does'nt mean intent as i maybe be using a static IP or just changed IP's to the one in question and you are now accusing me of someone elses alleged actions.

Also irrelevant. Intention is not an element of copyright infringement. Also, ISPs can track which account was connected to certain IPs at certain times.

wayne349 writes...

So basically by Exetel having a P2P cache they are just as guilty of temp storage

Some people may believe that, however it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law. Keep in mind that ISPs have been using caching since the beginning of the internet.

why can't we too and in replying to any 3rd party copyright breaches advise the data was actually retrieved from a local ISP cache

Lol, good idea :)

but because i had DHT enabled on my torrent client at the time it showed i was also connected to other trackers although possibly no data transfered either in or out and if any did can you prove it

Nobody is proving anything, it is all one big allegation. If you feel so strongly about it, next time you receive an infringement notice, hire a lawyer and contest it.

saiphon writes...

Intention is not an element of copyright infringement.

This is not strictly true.

"There are a number of categories of criminal offences that apply to copyright infringement cases. Sometimes, the matter can go to court as an indictable or summary offence. Indictable offences are the most serious, and can be tried before a jury. Whether an offence is an indictable or summary one depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender."

http://www.copyright.org.au/G063.pdf

Jaike writes...

This is not strictly true.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. Copyright infringement can occur without intention: ss 35(2), 36(1) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Anyhow, I think this thread has reached the extent of its usefulness.

Well I just recieved my first and second notice today for the same file! And to make things worse, it wasn't me that downloaded it (I actually *own* this game)!

Whilst trying to sort out connection issues, and dl speed etc, I must have reset the router and forgot to put on a password, as when I checked our download today, a large chunk has been used up since last week and I have these 2 notices.

How does Exetel stand on mutiple "notices" for the same "offence"?
How do they stand on "outside" users connecting through my account?

Is there any way that they can retract the notice? I don't want to get 3 and lose my connection! I've passworded the network now, but still...

Machalel writes...

How does Exetel stand on mutiple "notices" for the same "offence"?

Are they from the same entity?

How do they stand on "outside" users connecting through my account?

It's your connection, in your name so you are legally responsible for it.

Is there any way that they can retract the notice?

No, but you can refute the allegation with the entity making it.

Yes, they are from the same entity "ESA" for the same file, about 20mins apart.

Will contacting ESA actually help? Or would it just make it worse (i.e. make myself stand out)

Machalel writes...

Will contacting ESA actually help?

If it were me I would just forget about it.

so...is this exetel's or the ESA's doing?

Machalel writes...

Yes, they are from the same entity "ESA" for the same file, about 20mins apart.

This douche bag is overseas why it's forwarded beats me.

If you use Gmail you can "Filter messages like these"; no point reporting them these dicks are overseas.