[LINK] iiNet case now in court
stil at stilgherrian.com
Thu Mar 26 14:55:41 EST 2009
On 26/03/2009, at 2:44 PM, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> As well, DtecNet's evidence would likely consists of inspection and
> of individual packets of bit torrent data streams. If they solely go
> by the
> name of the file being transfered, that, IMHO, is not sufficient
> proof of
> copyright infringement.
> The question becomes whose copyright? Just because a bit torrent
> file is
> called "Crash 2003.avi" does not mean the file contains either of
> the two
> popular commercially released films called Crash.
Whether this specific technology does it this way or not, I don't
The BitTorrent protocol includes transmitting a hash of the file
contents, so the recipients cn be reassured they've got the right
file. One anti-piracy thingo which was described at a recent
conference matched that hash against a list of "known infringing
copies" of files.
Now that still doesn't address the fundamental question of whether a
copy of a file is an "infringing" copy, because that depends on the
And quite frankly I thought the guy selling this technology was full
of snake oil. I change one byte of the "infringing" copy an the hash
is different, and no longer on their list of "known infringing"
copies. Plus it all fails as soon as people turn on the encryption
tools in their BitTorrent clients.
Still, I'm sure he did a sufficiently impressive demo to get a few
dollars out of his investors... [sigh]
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
ABN 25 231 641 421
More information about the Link