Comments on: Odex vs PacNet ruling /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/ Anime, Games, J-Pop and Whatever Else Sun, 05 Jun 2011 14:44:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Après Singapour, ODEX frappe en France | Bikasuishin /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-95829 Après Singapour, ODEX frappe en France | Bikasuishin Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:22 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-95829 [...] été ternie par ces procédés douteux. Lorsque le fournisseur d'accès Pacific Internet a remporté son procès en première instance contre ODEX qui exigeait la divulgation des informations personnelles des [...] [...] été ternie par ces procédés douteux. Lorsque le fournisseur d’accès Pacific Internet a remporté son procès en première instance contre ODEX qui exigeait la divulgation des informations personnelles des [...]

]]>
By: Boon /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-85274 Boon Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:54:47 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-85274 Any way do odex obtain copy right of this animes to sue end users like to that we are actually infriging their copy right? what i heard that is they only have gundam seed. They cant just go around sueing people who is downloading animes Any way do odex obtain copy right of this animes to sue end users like to that we are actually infriging their copy right? what i heard that is they only have gundam seed. They cant just go around sueing people who is downloading animes

]]>
By: My 2 Cents’ Worth on the ODEX Saga « Difference: My Subtle Coherence /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83842 My 2 Cents’ Worth on the ODEX Saga « Difference: My Subtle Coherence Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:19:14 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83842 [...] - DarkMirage [...] [...] – DarkMirage [...]

]]>
By: John Law /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83623 John Law Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:09 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83623 At the end of the day, BayTSP (and probably other similar companies) are sending DMCA notices which claim that they detected a user uploading and downloading copyrighted files. This is a lie. They didn't catch the user in the act of downloading. A lying tracker, a peer using peer exchange, hostile web page, or buggy BitTorrent client could all result in a false DMCA notice. If your ISP forwards a DMCA notice from these guys, point them here. This research suggests that they have no evidence of wrong-doing. If ISPs learn that the folks sending them DMCA notices are not being completely honest, they may be willing to reconsider their position about how they respond to the notices. The people I work with at Carnegie Mellon seemed willing to reevaluate their policies given this evidence. I believe that ISPs should require that any peer-to-peer related DMCA notice include a statement regarding exactly what evidence of sharing was found. Ideally, the notice should contain evidence that could be corroborated with log files (for example, "we found that the client at 123.1.2.3 uploaded 1 MB of file X to 4.3.2.1". The ISP may be able to check that there was 1 MB of traffic between these two clients). A piece of good news for anybody who has gotten a bittorrent related notice from BayTSP: it doesn't seem like a studio could do much in terms of court action with the evidence BayTSP gives them. For the technically minded, I though I'd share some observations of the behavior of BayTSP's clients BayTSP's clients don't don't accept incoming connections, only send outgoing ones. I wonder what exactly this is for. Some of the BayTSP clients claim to be using Azureus (and support Azureus extensions), while others run libtorrent. I'm not sure why they are doing this When BayTSP's clients connect to a BT user, they claim to not have downloaded any of the file, but refuse uploads. Not only does this behavior not make any sense for an actual user, but it seems like BayTSP would want to accept data, which might provide proof of infringement. Some of the IP ranges I noticed coming from BayTSP were: 154.37.66.xx, 63.216.76.xx, 216.133.221.xx. Sometimes, they make themselves really obvious on the tracker. For example, 154.37.66.xx and 63.216.76.xx will send 10 clients to the same tracker all claiming to listen on port 12320. Maybe trackers should block these folks http://bmaurer.blogspot.com/2007/02/big-media-dmca-notices-guilty-until.html At the end of the day, BayTSP (and probably other similar companies) are sending DMCA notices which claim that they detected a user uploading and downloading copyrighted files. This is a lie. They didn’t catch the user in the act of downloading. A lying tracker, a peer using peer exchange, hostile web page, or buggy BitTorrent client could all result in a false DMCA notice.

If your ISP forwards a DMCA notice from these guys, point them here. This research suggests that they have no evidence of wrong-doing. If ISPs learn that the folks sending them DMCA notices are not being completely honest, they may be willing to reconsider their position about how they respond to the notices. The people I work with at Carnegie Mellon seemed willing to reevaluate their policies given this evidence. I believe that ISPs should require that any peer-to-peer related DMCA notice include a statement regarding exactly what evidence of sharing was found. Ideally, the notice should contain evidence that could be corroborated with log files (for example, “we found that the client at 123.1.2.3 uploaded 1 MB of file X to 4.3.2.1″. The ISP may be able to check that there was 1 MB of traffic between these two clients).

A piece of good news for anybody who has gotten a bittorrent related notice from BayTSP: it doesn’t seem like a studio could do much in terms of court action with the evidence BayTSP gives them.

For the technically minded, I though I’d share some observations of the behavior of BayTSP’s clients

BayTSP’s clients don’t don’t accept incoming connections, only send outgoing ones. I wonder what exactly this is for.
Some of the BayTSP clients claim to be using Azureus (and support Azureus extensions), while others run libtorrent. I’m not sure why they are doing this
When BayTSP’s clients connect to a BT user, they claim to not have downloaded any of the file, but refuse uploads. Not only does this behavior not make any sense for an actual user, but it seems like BayTSP would want to accept data, which might provide proof of infringement.
Some of the IP ranges I noticed coming from BayTSP were: 154.37.66.xx, 63.216.76.xx, 216.133.221.xx. Sometimes, they make themselves really obvious on the tracker. For example, 154.37.66.xx and 63.216.76.xx will send 10 clients to the same tracker all claiming to listen on port 12320. Maybe trackers should block these folks

http://bmaurer.blogspot.com/2007/02/big-media-dmca-notices-guilty-until.html

]]>
By: leefe /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83599 leefe Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:33:33 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83599 this piqued me quite alot.. hearing singnet just gave up the list easily the other time... nao pacnet proved that they do value customer privacy i think i'd want to switch ISPs... this piqued me quite alot.. hearing singnet just gave up the list easily the other time… nao pacnet proved that they do value customer privacy i think i’d want to switch ISPs…

]]>
By: babesonwheels /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83575 babesonwheels Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:54:05 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83575 No matter how you look at it, odex is finished for real. If odex were to win the pacnet case, it would keep on sending fine letters to anime downloaders and effectively stunt the growth of anime community in singapore. More people would despise odex. Which would all reflect in odex's sales. If odex were to lose the case, this means odex possess neither legal means nor credibility in the first place to make downloaders pay up the fine. One can expect to see no ebbing in anime downloads, in fact it's likely to rise. And the tarnished image of odex would forever be engraved in the mind of anime community and singaporean citizens alike. No one's going to buy their products. No matter how you look at it, odex is finished for real.

If odex were to win the pacnet case, it would keep on sending fine letters to anime downloaders and effectively stunt the growth of anime community in singapore. More people would despise odex. Which would all reflect in odex’s sales.

If odex were to lose the case, this means odex possess neither legal means nor credibility in the first place to make downloaders pay up the fine. One can expect to see no ebbing in anime downloads, in fact it’s likely to rise. And the tarnished image of odex would forever be engraved in the mind of anime community and singaporean citizens alike. No one’s going to buy their products.

]]>
By: quendidil /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83563 quendidil Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:36:49 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83563 Also the whole BayTSP situation sounds a bit fishy. Did Odex in fact pay BayTSP to track down downloaders? If they did why didn't they produce an affidavit from the guy at BayTSP? Also the whole BayTSP situation sounds a bit fishy. Did Odex in fact pay BayTSP to track down downloaders? If they did why didn’t they produce an affidavit from the guy at BayTSP?

]]>
By: TP /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83528 TP Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:29:10 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83528 I think this just proves that litigation is the only way to beat these crappy ISPs into submission. Heaven forbids such a litigatious society. That said, I'm also considering terminating my Singnet connection, given the above mentioned fact. I'm so not considering paying the termination fee, for the above mentioned reason: either they terminate me for free, or I can send a lawyer to court to do this. (BTW, it seemed to me that litigations are the way to go in the future of Singapore. GG, everybody.) I think this just proves that litigation is the only way to beat these crappy ISPs into submission. Heaven forbids such a litigatious society.

That said, I’m also considering terminating my Singnet connection, given the above mentioned fact. I’m so not considering paying the termination fee, for the above mentioned reason: either they terminate me for free, or I can send a lawyer to court to do this.

(BTW, it seemed to me that litigations are the way to go in the future of Singapore. GG, everybody.)

]]>
By: El /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83508 El Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:41:36 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83508 Well.I know which ISP to subscribe to once my contract with Singnet expires. Crap speed, crap customer service, now crap customer privacy policy too. Well.I know which ISP to subscribe to once my contract with Singnet expires. Crap speed, crap customer service, now crap customer privacy policy too.

]]>
By: galen /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-83496 galen Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:34:04 +0000 /websites/www.darkmirage.com-pre/2007/08/26/odex-vs-pacnet-ruling/#comment-83496 Eh, one little comment. Corporations do not give out receipts to other corporations. It's an invoice, given to tell you to pay. Anyway even if they don't have invoice, they should have signed quotation and signed purchase order. (Signed quotation not enough; just proves that they sought quotation from BayTSP, not that they actually hired them). Eh, one little comment. Corporations do not give out receipts to other corporations. It’s an invoice, given to tell you to pay.

Anyway even if they don’t have invoice, they should have signed quotation and signed purchase order. (Signed quotation not enough; just proves that they sought quotation from BayTSP, not that they actually hired them).

]]>