🚀 go-pugleaf

JF Mezei wrote:
 
> Unless I get the list of IP addresses and the other data collected
> by Canipre, there is no way to make an educated opinion on the
> quality of the data.

The list of IP addresses they have (and why they can say with confidence
that any single one of them was infringing their copyrights) is one side
of the coin.

The other side is arguing that Tek Savvy's logging equipment, methods,
and software can (or can't) confidently be used to identify which
customer had a particular IP address at a particular date/time.

I'm more curious about that other side, and to what extent that either
Canipre or CIPPIC is fully aware of these details, or if TS would be
cooperative (or not) in providing those details to either party - or the
court.

Or do you think that an argument against disclosure would revolve around
arguments other than if IP-assignment logs can be trusted... ?

> in particular Canipre says it was able to extract only IPs of
> Ontario residents (which can't be done)

What is the difference between "extracting IP's" - vs observing (and
recording) the IP addresses of peers participating in a given torrent
over time?

My experience with what is knowable about those participating in a
torrent is limited to the list of peers and seeders that my torrent
client displays for any given torrent that I am downloading (which
frequently include IP's that geo-locate to a wide variety of
countries).  Would Canipre "see" different information when they are
doing their monitoring?

> Although nobody monitors this newsgroup, one also has to be careful
> about giving Voltage laywers a preview of the types of arguments
> CIPPIC might come up with.

Well, yes, but speaking as someone who is completely unfamiliar with
what sort of arguments have been put forward in previous situations in
court in the past, I wouldn't think that any new arguments or concepts
could really be brought forward in what today must be a "mature" field
of law...