PDA

View Full Version : Copyright complaint regarding ubuntu



Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 04:18 AM
Hi, I received a notice of copyright infringement for uploading ubuntu 9.10 from my ISP. I was told by my ISP to bring the issue up with the copyright holder for ubuntu. This seems very strange and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything illegal with ubuntu.

I'll take a screenshot of the email and upload it here if anyone would like to see.

deancasino
January 10th, 2011, 04:23 AM
yeah, copy/paste the letter.

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 04:37 AM
Hello,

Our policies dictate that we send out every complaint we receive. We are not generating the complaints.

Unfortunately, you would have to take this matter up with their copyright holder or legal representative.

I do realize that this is a free program(http://www.ubuntu.com/how-can-it-be-free)(http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/alternative-download) however I suspect that they don't want personal users distributing copies since it could have been altered.


Sincerely,
Arielle
Consumer Client Operations
TELUS Communications
Internet Abuse Team Member
Email: theemail@telus.com
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/TISAA.do - TELUS Internet Services
Account Agreement
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/display.do - Acceptable Use Policy




-----Original Message-----
From: Me
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Abuse Teluscom
Subject: Re: Notice Of Copyright Complaint - Me - My IP

Ubuntu is an open source operating system. I downloaded the file from their
website www.ubuntu.com / http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download
with their own bittorrent tracker. The program is free and made to be
redistributed. I believe there might have been some sort of error.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abuse Teluscom" <theemail@telus.com>
To: "'Me'" <My Email>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Notice Of Copyright Complaint - Me -
My IP -


Hello,

I have double checked and found that the case is associated with connection
number <MyPhonenumber>.

If you are unaware of this sort of activity originating from your computer
you may want to check with other users in the household as well as for
viruses which could account for this sort of activity originating from your
system. If you are using a router with wireless capabilities, please ensure
it is configured securely. For more information on how to secure your
wireless router please check with the manufacturer. Preventing unauthorized
access to your router will likely result in better network performance. If
you have a router supplied by TELUS, then contact our helpdesk at 310 TECH
(8324). They can help you secure your wireless connection. If you have a
router purchased elsewhere, then contact your router's manufacturer for
further help.


Sincerely,
Arielle
Consumer Client Operations
TELUS Communications
Internet Abuse Team Member
Email: theemail@telus.com
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/TISAA.do - TELUS Internet Services
Account Agreement
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/display.do - Acceptable Use Policy




-----Original Message-----
From: Me [mailto:myemail]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 12:19 PM
To: Abuse Teluscom
Subject: Re: Notice Of Copyright Complaint - Me - My IP

Are you sure?



----- Original Message -----
From: <theemail@telus.com>
To: <my email>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 7:00 AM
Subject: Notice Of Copyright Complaint - Me - My IP -



We are writing to inform you that TELUS has received a complaint that
alleges that your TELUS Internet Service account has been involved in
copyright infringement. This complaint was traced back to your account
based on the IP address used at the time of this activity.

At TELUS, we respect our customers privacy: we have not provided your
personal account information to the complainant. It is TELUS policy to
disclose such information to a complainant in this context only if ordered
to do so by a court of law. Please visit
http://about.telus.com/legal/privacy/privacy.html for more information about
our privacy practices.

We do, however, want you to be aware that this complaint was received by us
and offer you the following information that may be of help to you:

If you are unaware of this type of activity originating from your account,
you may wish to inquire with others who have access to your account.

If you are using a dial-up account, change the account password to ensure
that only authorized users have access to it.

You may also want to check your system for viruses, which may explain why
this sort of activity is originating from your account.

If the ADSL modem is connected to a wireless router, please make sure that
only your authorized computers can connect to it and access the internet.
For help in securing the wireless router, please contact the router vendor.

If you are not aware of our Acceptable Use Policy, which strictly prohibits
use of our Service to infringe the copyrights of others, you may review at
http://www.mytelus.com/internet/policies/display.do. Please be aware that
violation of this policy could result in disconnection of your Service.

Below is an excerpt from the complaint that we received regarding your
account. We include it in this notice in an effort to help you identify the
activity that is in question.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Ken

Internet Abuse Team
National Internet Services Support
TELUS Communications
http//www.telus.com/internetabuse
Email theemail@telus.com
Please include the original email in any replies.


-~-

Excerpt from complaint:
---

IP Address, Date and Time, Title, Filename, Protocol
My IP,20110102024901,02 Jan 2011
02:49:01,,<![CDATA[ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso]]>,BITTORRENT,

IP Address: My IP
Distribution found at: 2011-01-02 02:49:01
Title of file:
Filename: <![CDATA[ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso]]>
File Sharing Network:


The copyright holder alleges that at 2011-01-02 02:49:01, they were able to
connect to the IP address MY IP. This IP address was assigned to
your connection at that time. During the connection they say that they found
that portions of the file was actively being distributed from your
connection. They conclude that as they were able to extract a portion of the
file <![CDATA[ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso]]> from your connection that
their exclusive distribution rights are being violated. They are asking that
the file sharing stops immediately. Please note, we can trace the IP address
to your account. The actual file could be shared from any computer behind
your router, including ones that connect wirelessly.

The timestamp is listed in the GMT. For a better understanding of GMT check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMT

Should you want further information on the complaint, please reply to this
email.

zami
January 10th, 2011, 04:53 AM
That is so odd.

I'm curious where the complaint originated from. It seems so unlikely someone actually at Canonical would complain, since filesharing Ubuntu is encouraged.

Are you torrenting anything else at the same time?

Maybe the complaint was meant to be about something else but someone just cut'n'paste the wrong info? (Like you're torrenting a movie and Ubuntu and whatnot all at the same time, and the complaint was supposed to be about the movie but someone got sloppy?) Do you have any "from" info on the complaint?

-zami

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 05:01 AM
Just a couple of obscure things from private sites, I'm kind of concerned about my privacy if they know what files I have if they are not actually targeting specific ones. I guess I'll keep seeding ubuntu but this is very strange and alarming.

Frogs Hair
January 10th, 2011, 05:03 AM
Does your ISP have any specific policies regarding the use of torrents ?

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 05:06 AM
Its fine - as long as it isn't violating a copyright.

cascade9
January 10th, 2011, 05:15 AM
*puts on paranoia hat*

I'll guess that your ISP (or 3rd party) knew you were torrenting, couldnt see the other .torrents you were using (private trackers), and just sent you a copyright infringement notice on whatever they could find.

*paranoia mode off*

I, personally, would be livid over this. I really doubt that the copyright holder (ubuntu/canonical) has made any allegation at all. Which means that the letter you recived is a misrepresentation.

"I suspect that they don't want personal users distributing copies since it could have been altered" sounds like a lame effort to try to get out of that misrepresentation, and show a total lack of knowledge of the ways torrent work. If you changed the .iso, it would have a different checksum, and would be a different torrent.

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 05:26 AM
Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking - but that would mean that the party would have to be specifically sniffing my outgoing connection for information about what kind of protocol I'm using and then to actually make a connection to download the so called evidence would require information about the tracker, no? Isn't the normal way that companies do this is by connecting to the swarm with some sort of bot? The reason I think that you might be right with your paranoia hat is because I don't think that anti piracy groups would be searching on torrent.ubuntu.com for copyrighted material - would they?

darkhelmetchris
January 10th, 2011, 05:55 AM
Interesting, and quite alarming. I believe it's worth noting that TELUS received a complaint and forwarded it along - from outside TELUS. This tells me that the complaint originated from an outside source, that somehow, had "overseer" access to your data transmission - if this is actually a true complaint and not an error or hoax. I believe that the second is more likely - that it is an error or a hoax. However, what really bothers me is this: was someone sniffing your connection without cause? If this were me that had received this complaint, I would have some serious questions to pose back up the chain: why is someone monitoring and investigating my data without just cause to do so?

This quote is taken directly from the Ubuntu site at http://www.ubuntu.com/project/open-source

In the spirit of open source, Ubuntu is absolutely free to download, use, share and improve however and whenever you like.- you are already entitled to change it and share it as long as you follow the license.

So basically, what I'm trying to get across is two points:
1. The one that registered the complaint should be able to provide a GOOD reason why they were looking at your data in the first place; this is a matter of personal privacy.
2. Having registered the complaint, it appears that the one making the complaint is either unaware or is against the spirit of Open Source; a sad state of mind to be in if I may be so bold as to say it.

I am not the least bit concerned to say that I happily copy/burn/share copies of Ubuntu on CD or via any other medium with my own family, friends, or passers-by on the street -- and I'm content in the knowledge that I am actually encouraged to do so.

stinkeye
January 10th, 2011, 06:11 AM
That sort of email usually contains a forward of the complainants email.

Eg
Fw: Case ID 12xxxxxxxx - Notice of Claimed Infringement Case ID 12xxxxxxxx - Notice of Claimed Infringement Thursday, 18 November 2010 4:59:40 AM
From:
"MediaSentryCopyrightInfringement" <CBSCopyright@mc.mediasentry.com>

Does it show Canonical as the complainant anywhere in the email.

stinkeye
January 10th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Interesting, and quite alarming. I believe it's worth noting that TELUS received a complaint and forwarded it along - from outside TELUS. This tells me that the complaint originated from an outside source, that somehow, had "overseer" access to your data transmission - if this is actually a true complaint and not an error or hoax. I believe that the second is more likely - that it is an error or a hoax. However, what really bothers me is this: was someone sniffing your connection without cause? If this were me that had received this complaint, I would have some serious questions to pose back up the chain: why is someone monitoring and investigating my data without just cause to do so?

Companies like MediaSentry (who are employed by the RIAA and mpaa) get the
information by joining the p2p network and downloading from you like any other peer.

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 08:13 AM
That sort of email usually contains a forward of the complainants email.

Eg

Does it show Canonical as the complainant anywhere in the email.

No - the email I posted was the entire thing.


Companies like MediaSentry (who are employed by the RIAA and mpaa) get the
information by joining the p2p network and downloading from you like any other peer.

The tracker I download the file from was tracker.ubuntu.com - doesn't that seem kind of odd?

stinkeye
January 10th, 2011, 08:19 AM
I would contact your ISP and ask for a copy of the original complaint as sent to them.

lovinglinux
January 10th, 2011, 08:28 AM
Don't worry. TELUS is just forwarding a complaint they received from a third-party, which clearly have no clue about what they are doing. You can safely ignore it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would send a mail to TELUS stating that the claim is unfounded, that I have the legal rights to distribute the file "ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso" by any means I like, including BitTorrent. I would also CC the message to Canonical legal team, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Software Foundation.

Those entities have the means to pursue legal measures against such harassment. The third-party company behind the complain has no right to claim exclusive distribution rights over an Ubuntu distribution and probably can be sued for harassment and false representation.

mastablasta
January 10th, 2011, 08:53 AM
yeah get Mark Shuttleworth and the gang of lawyers on their back. that will teach them... :-)

cascade9
January 10th, 2011, 08:58 AM
Don't worry. TELUS is just forwarding a complaint they received from a third-party, which clearly have no clue about what they are doing. You can safely ignore it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would send a mail to TELUS stating that the claim is unfounded, that I have the legal rights to distribute the file "ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso" by any means I like, including BitTorrent. I would also CC the message to Canonical legal team, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Software Foundation.

Those entities have the means to pursue legal measures against such harassment. The third-party company behind the complain has no right to claim exclusive distribution rights over an Ubuntu distribution and probably can be sued for harassment and false representation.

For a combination stormtrooper/'old skool' cylon, your pretty smart! :lolflag:

I'd probably do exactly that. If you've got the warning, its only a question of time untill somebody else does (if people havent already). They might not know that what they are doing is not only legal, but encouraged.

lovinglinux
January 10th, 2011, 09:28 AM
For a combination stormtrooper/'old skool' cylon, your pretty smart! :lolflag:

It's a combination of Cylon and Tux. :)

lovinglinux
January 10th, 2011, 09:32 AM
BTW, be nice with TELUS. They are not the bad guys here. They are just forwarding the message as they are required to and they are making sure to protect your privacy, by not revealing your identity to the company issuing the complain.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Drenriza
January 10th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Hi, I received a notice of copyright infringement for uploading ubuntu 9.10 from my ISP. I was told by my ISP to bring the issue up with the copyright holder for ubuntu. This seems very strange and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything illegal with ubuntu.

I'll take a screenshot of the email and upload it here if anyone would like to see.

Do you fear. Distributing Ubuntu is not illegal it is encouraged.
Also, you can go so far to take money for distribution Ubuntu.

But if you want. Contact Canonical and get an official reply.

cascade9
January 10th, 2011, 09:42 AM
It's a combination of Cylon and Tux. :)

I thought that there was a least a little stormtrooper in there. :S


BTW, be nice with TELUS. They are not the bad guys here. They are just forwarding the message as they are required to and they are making sure to protect your privacy, by not revealing your identity to the company issuing the complain.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Which company IS issung the compalints? If it wasnt canonical, its not a legal notice at all, its just spam (at best) and intimidation (at worst).

Without knowning the exact legal rights of all parties, I wouldnt go at telus that hard, but somebody needs to get in trouble over this....and its not Headcrab.

HermanAB
January 10th, 2011, 10:10 AM
BTW, in general, you are NOT allowed to redistribute Linux distributions to third parties. The only exception to the rule that I am aware of, is Scientific Linux, which explicitly allows redistribution.

For all other Linux distros, you need to remove all the trademark information and badge it as your own distro before you can redistribute.

Here is a howto guide for rebadging a Linux distro:
http://www.aeronetworks.ca/howtos/linux-rebadge.pdf

cascade9
January 10th, 2011, 10:35 AM
BTW, in general, you are NOT allowed to redistribute Linux distributions to third parties. The only exception to the rule that I am aware of, is Scientific Linux, which explicitly allows redistribution.

For all other Linux distros, you need to remove all the trademark information and badge it as your own distro before you can redistribute.

Here is a howto guide for rebadging a Linux distro:
http://www.aeronetworks.ca/howtos/linux-rebadge.pdf

Sharing an unmodified .iso (or givign away burnt copies of the .iso) does not count as redistribution AFAIK.

Headcrab
January 10th, 2011, 10:48 AM
BTW, be nice with TELUS. They are not the bad guys here. They are just forwarding the message as they are required to and they are making sure to protect your privacy, by not revealing your identity to the company issuing the complain.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Yes, I totally understand that - I just wanted to make sure that canonical wouldn't be the issuer of the warning.


But if you want. Contact Canonical and get an official reply.

How do I go about doing that?


Which company IS issung the compalints? If it wasnt canonical, its not a legal notice at all, its just spam (at best) and intimidation (at worst).

Without knowning the exact legal rights of all parties, I wouldnt go at telus that hard, but somebody needs to get in trouble over this....and its not Headcrab.

I'm not sure who started it.


BTW, in general, you are NOT allowed to redistribute Linux distributions to third parties. The only exception to the rule that I am aware of, is Scientific Linux, which explicitly allows redistribution.

For all other Linux distros, you need to remove all the trademark information and badge it as your own distro before you can redistribute.

Here is a howto guide for rebadging a Linux distro:
http://www.aeronetworks.ca/howtos/linux-rebadge.pdf

I simply downloaded the .torrent from http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/alternative-download I did not modify or repost the .iso to any other site.

cascade9
January 10th, 2011, 11:07 AM
Yes, I totally understand that - I just wanted to make sure that canonical wouldn't be the issuer of the warning.

How do I go about doing that?

You could try something from here-

http://www.canonical.com/about-canonical/contact


I'm not sure who started it.

Which might be typical of 'cease and desist' emails, or it might not. I've never got a 'cease and desist' email, so I've never had to look into it. Anyone actually know about this?

oldos2er
January 10th, 2011, 06:06 PM
do realize that this is a free program(http://www.ubuntu.com/how-can-it-be-...ative-download) however I suspect that they don't want personal users distributing copies since it could have been altered.

Of course it could've been altered. Maybe send the complainers (if you find out who they are) a link to the GPL.

Grenage
January 10th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Those letters are very common. A friend works with server farms, and they are constantly forwarding those kind of automated messages on to customers - they have to. You can ignore it.

lovinglinux
January 10th, 2011, 06:53 PM
Those letters are very common. A friend works with server farms, and they are constantly forwarding those kind of automated messages on to customers - they have to. You can ignore it.

But it doesn't make sense to receive such letter because of torrenting Ubuntu.

t0p
January 10th, 2011, 07:21 PM
But it doesn't make sense to receive such letter because of torrenting Ubuntu.

But torrenting anything is illegal!

Oh hold on... it's 2011. Sorry, just suffering from a bit of time-travel-jet-lag there...

stinkeye
January 10th, 2011, 07:25 PM
Those letters are very common. A friend works with server farms, and they are constantly forwarding those kind of automated messages on to customers - they have to. You can ignore it.
Yes I have received a couple of those but they are forwarded from your ISP
and show who made the complaint.

psusi
January 10th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Inform your ISP that the complainer is not the copyright holder and has no grounds to complain. They appear to be blanket complaining about any and all bit torrent activity, and should be ignored, if not sued for false representation and harassment.

Grenage
January 10th, 2011, 08:16 PM
But it doesn't make sense to receive such letter because of torrenting Ubuntu.

You're correct, of course, but it's not the first time I've heard of legitimate 'torrenters' getting these kind of messages. I'd also be miffed, but I'm usually looking for something to be miffed about.

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 05:05 AM
Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking - but that would mean that the party would have to be specifically sniffing my outgoing connection for information about what kind of protocol I'm using and then to actually make a connection to download the so called evidence would require information about the tracker, no?

No. BitTorrent works by enabling many downloaders to connect to each other so that every user can download pieces from every other user. As long as one peer has the whole file, or even that each piece of the file exists on at least one peer, everybody can get the whole file. To monitor such activity, a monitoring entity need only download the file via Bittorrent and keep track of who's offering what.


Without knowning the exact legal rights of all parties, I wouldnt go at telus that hard, but somebody needs to get in trouble over this....and its not Headcrab.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no single copyright holder for Ubuntu; it's a collection of software, mostly written by people with no official affiliation with Ubuntu. Most of it is GPLed, or at least released under some form of open source license.

I can speak with a certain degree of authority on one tiny bit of Ubuntu: My GPT fdisk (gdisk) (http://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/) program, which has been included in the last couple versions of Ubuntu, was released under the GPL v2. I did not authorize anybody to send out a cease-and-desist letter on my behalf. In doing so, the entity that sent the complaint is misrepresenting that they hold the copyright to my program. That pisses me off! If somebody wants to pursue them legally, I'll be happy to sign affidavits to the effect that I wrote GPT fdisk, continue to hold its copyright, and encourage its redistribution. (I lack the time or money to go after them legally myself, though.)


BTW, in general, you are NOT allowed to redistribute Linux distributions to third parties. The only exception to the rule that I am aware of, is Scientific Linux, which explicitly allows redistribution.

This is a safe default assumption; however, I believe it's unrealistically conservative for most mainstream distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.). I couldn't find anything explicitly affirming that redistribution of Ubuntu is permitted, but certainly it's built from freely-redistributable stuff. Debian explicitly states that it's redistributable. (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-redistrib.en.html) Fedora makes similar statements. (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution)

The main limitations to such redistribution is in the more commercial Linux distributions, such as Red Hat (the commercial side of Fedora).

Of course, the specific case here is one of a user downloading Ubuntu via a torrent, and therefore redistributing it as well. As you can find instructions on using BitTorrent clients to download Ubuntu (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BitTorrent) and links to the torrent files (http://torrent.ubuntu.com/) both in the ubuntu.com domain, it's hard to argue that Canonical doesn't permit redistribution via BitTorrent.


Sharing an unmodified .iso (or givign away burnt copies of the .iso) does not count as redistribution AFAIK.

Yes it does; that's the very definition of redistribution. If you modify it, it becomes a "derivative work" from a legal point of view.

Overall, this sounds to me like the RIAA's/MPAA's attack dog was being overzealous. Maybe they found a copy of the torrent file on the Pirate Bay or something and so assumed it was for a pirated program. This sort of thing has happened before and no doubt it will happen in the future. There's some push back against it, but AFAIK, the people pushing back are underfunded, and the copyright industry is successfully setting the tone of discussion in the mainstream media.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 05:11 AM
I have a great idea, the same a few other here. Download the official torrent from here, join the swarm, keep seeding when you've leeched it all, and tell your ISP and the complaint maker to take a jump:

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/alternative-download

It is a much better idea than seeding separately unless you have some specific reason to do so. If your intention is to help the community, joining the swarm is probably better. ;)

All the best.

Headcrab
January 11th, 2011, 08:34 AM
No. BitTorrent works by enabling many downloaders to connect to each other so that every user can download pieces from every other user. As long as one peer has the whole file, or even that each piece of the file exists on at least one peer, everybody can get the whole file. To monitor such activity, a monitoring entity need only download the file via Bittorrent and keep track of who's offering what.

But the thing is that if a watchdog is scanning a tracker for copyrighted material why would they be scanning torrent.ubuntu.com? If they knew I was torrenting they would need to connect to the swarm through the tracker first or do something otherwise sketchy I think, no?


I have a great idea, the same a few other here. Download the official torrent from here, join the swarm, keep seeding when you've leeched it all, and tell your ISP and the complaint maker to take a jump:

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ub...ative-download

It is a much better idea than seeding separately unless you have some specific reason to do so. If your intention is to help the community, joining the swarm is probably better.

All the best.

I DID download the file from the official source.

cascade9
January 11th, 2011, 10:05 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no single copyright holder for Ubuntu; it's a collection of software, mostly written by people with no official affiliation with Ubuntu. Most of it is GPLed, or at least released under some form of open source license.

I can speak with a certain degree of authority on one tiny bit of Ubuntu: My GPT fdisk (gdisk) (http://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/) program, which has been included in the last couple versions of Ubuntu, was released under the GPL v2. I did not authorize anybody to send out a cease-and-desist letter on my behalf. In doing so, the entity that sent the complaint is misrepresenting that they hold the copyright to my program. That pisses me off! If somebody wants to pursue them legally, I'll be happy to sign affidavits to the effect that I wrote GPT fdisk, continue to hold its copyright, and encourage its redistribution. (I lack the time or money to go after them legally myself, though.)

That actually wasnt what I meant, but good point.

I was think more about general due process issues. Headcrabs possible right to know who accused him/her (it?), does the ISP just foward any complaint in due faith (with or without knowing who made the accusation), possible "unreasonable search and seizure", etc.

BTW congrats and many thanks on GPT. If the new WD EARS disc I'm getting doesnt work with GPT, I know who to hassle :lolflag: Well, hopefully I get it, theres been a bit of rain here and it looks like the shop I source my parts from will be flooded out in 24-48 hrs, if it isnt already :(


Yes it does; that's the very definition of redistribution. If you modify it, it becomes a "derivative work" from a legal point of view.

Ahh, OK, thanks. I'd read the debian redistribution page, and the 1st section ("You do not need permission to distribute anything we have released") and made the assumption that as long as you didnt change anything, it wasnt a redistribution.
Overall, this sounds to me like the RIAA's/MPAA's attack dog was being overzealous. Maybe they found a copy of the torrent file on the Pirate Bay or something and so assumed it was for a pirated program. This sort of thing has happened before and no doubt it will happen in the future. There's some push back against it, but AFAIK, the people pushing back are underfunded, and the copyright industry is successfully setting the tone of discussion in the mainstream media.

I'm not sure it was RIAA/MPA, etc. who were doing this.

I'm actually very suprised that there isnt a general linux distribution/redistribution via torrent policy page, or at least one for/from the major distros.

IMO it would be a good idea for linux distros in general, or if that is unworkable then specific distros to try to set up such a policy.

*edit- there is ubuntu on TPB, but IMO anybody who gets a offical linux distro .torrent from TPB needs a headcheck, and/or a lesson on torrents and d/ling in gneral....

dcstar
January 11th, 2011, 10:26 AM
But the thing is that if a watchdog is scanning a tracker for copyrighted material why would they be scanning torrent.ubuntu.com? If they knew I was torrenting they would need to connect to the swarm through the tracker first or do something otherwise sketchy I think, no?
..........

As others have stated, respond to your ISP that no copyright infringement at all occurred and ask them to pass on - in the nicest possible way - that the original complainant is basically full of c**p and doesn't know what they are talking about.

Also you may want to request that the ISP demands an apology from the complainant for wasting their time and yours and offer them resources that highlight the difference between material that is allowed to be distributed and what is not.

tredegar
January 11th, 2011, 10:26 AM
This is typical activity from some low-life law firms, who think they are going to "make money fast".

In the UK "ACS:Law" recently lost their case (after their server was hacked and confidential internal e-mails, and data identifying people accused of downloading porn or illegally sharing media, were posted on the net late last year).

Here's a link (http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/1281601/acs-law-loses-peer-to-peer-file-sharing-court-cases) and another, on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law)

The OP should ignore the complaint, or seek legal advice to sue the complainant for harassment, threatening behaviour and extortion.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 02:15 PM
I DID download the file from the official source.

Stay in the swarm. Waste of time seeding apart from that. Bigger the swarm, centalised, faster download. ;)

psusi
January 11th, 2011, 04:12 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no single copyright holder for Ubuntu; it's a collection of software, mostly written by people with no official affiliation with Ubuntu. Most of it is GPLed, or at least released under some form of open source license.


Actually there is. Cannoniacal created the iso therefore, they are the copyright holder. It is a derivative work composed of many packages that are each separate works owned by different people, but Cannoniacal owns the copyright on the iso itself.

endotherm
January 11th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Stay in the swarm. Waste of time seeding apart from that. Bigger the swarm, centalised, faster download. ;)
I'm pretty sure he is telling you that that is exactly what he did. thats what the complaint email thread posted on page 1 indicates anyway.

@HeadCrab, will they provide any info about the plaintiff? I also wonder if this isn't the kind of thing they post at chillingeffect. there may be others receiving the same complaint.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I'm pretty sure he is telling you that that is exactly what he did. thats what the complaint email thread posted on page 1 indicates anyway.

@HeadCrab, will they provide any info about the plaintiff? I also wonder if this isn't the kind of thing they post at chillingeffect. there may be others receiving the same complaint.

Well, if that's the case, I would stop chatting about it here and start looking down legal avenues. That is a false accusation by the ISP and they have no right to comment or get involved. Legally, if I'm reading this right, OP would have the full backing of Canonical (as their copyright is copyleft almost - open dissemination) Canonical run their own servers. OP was, in that case, helping out the copyright holder by joining the swarm!


Could it be the ISP just doesn't like (or allow) torrent action? Some of them don't regardless of whom it is..

psusi
January 11th, 2011, 05:02 PM
Could it be the ISP just doesn't like (or allow) torrent action? Some of them don't regardless of whom it is..

From the tone of their emails, it sounds like the ISP is just blindly forwarding the complaint without understanding it or really caring. I didn't see any mention of any action they plan on taking at all, but rather they were just letting him know that they got a complaint, and he might be sued if he doesn't stop.

In other words, it's safe to ignore.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 05:05 PM
From the tone of their emails, it sounds like the ISP is just blindly forwarding the complaint without understanding it or really caring. I didn't see any mention of any action they plan on taking at all, but rather they were just letting him know that they got a complaint, and he might be sued if he doesn't stop.

In other words, it's safe to ignore.

+1. With ya'. ;)

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 05:06 PM
. posted in error. Duplicate. ;)

cascade9
January 11th, 2011, 05:16 PM
From the tone of their emails, it sounds like the ISP is just blindly forwarding the complaint without understanding it or really caring. I didn't see any mention of any action they plan on taking at all, but rather they were just letting him know that they got a complaint, and he might be sued if he doesn't stop.

In other words, it's safe to ignore.

They may very well be just forwarding the complaint, but if somebody did complain, they have no legal basis to do so.

I'd sort of agree about 'safe to ignore'..but that could come back and bite Headcrab on the butt. Sicne he said that he was torrenting "a couple of obscure things from private sites" (post #5) they could treat this as 'warning number #1' and/or legal notice if they get him for something else. It could lead to legal action being taken faster than otherwise.

The again, moving against the ISP could also make things move faster, as well so what Headcrab does is up to Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss (dr? professor? 'lord of the dance'?) Crab.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 05:36 PM
... what Headcrab does is up to Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss (dr? professor? 'lord of the dance'?) Crab.

lol. Good points made though and kind of what I was insinuating before. Is torrenting anything illegal?

This does open another can of worms. If a torrent site has not been closed for breaching any laws can you then persecute a user from torrenting? In that case, the torrent site lies beyond the law, yet the end user is unlawful? Points to ponder ...

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 05:50 PM
But the thing is that if a watchdog is scanning a tracker for copyrighted material why would they be scanning torrent.ubuntu.com? If they knew I was torrenting they would need to connect to the swarm through the tracker first or do something otherwise sketchy I think, no?

I think you're working under the assumption that whoever sent the letter to your ISP was working in good faith. My suspicion is that they weren't; they just went on a fishing expedition at as many torrent sites as they could find. They didn't do their homework and so they included one or more Ubuntu torrents in their sweep. After all, why should they bother? It's cheap to print and mail out letters, even if they make false accusations and claims. Actually tracking down copyright holders and determining what redistribution policy there is on the files is harder. They save that hard work for later, when they start demanding money, or perhaps even later, when they take people to court.

FWIW, it's not clear that they actually obtained the torrent information from Ubuntu. My knowledge of how torrents works is a little sketchy, but I know it involves downloading a single file (typically with a .torrent extension) from a site. The torrent file contains information on how to connect to a tracker that handles the clients that are downloading the file. AFAIK, the torrent file can be obtained from anywhere and it will work. Thus, it's entirely plausible that the torrent file from Ubuntu's site ended up on the Pirate Bay or some other such site and the organization that sent the letter got it from there. (The Pirate Bay site seems to be down or inaccessible at the moment, so I can't check what sort of Ubuntu torrents they've got right now to test this hypothesis.)

alphaamanitin
January 11th, 2011, 05:53 PM
Personally I would hound my ISP about this and really dig into it. I would probably then change my ISP after getting all the answers I wanted because I don't want to deal with an ISO that just blindly follows complaints.

AlphaA

lovinglinux
January 11th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Personally I would hound my ISP about this and really dig into it. I would probably then change my ISP after getting all the answers I wanted because I don't want to deal with an ISO that just blindly follows complaints.

AlphaA

They have to. Is not the ISP job to find if a copyright complain is valid or not. The are obligated to forward any cease-and-desist letter they receive. Besides, they have been very clear that they would only reveal Headcrab's information if they are request by a court of law. No reason to change ISP in my opinion.

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 06:04 PM
Is torrenting anything illegal, regardless of copyright laws?

No -- at least, not AFAIK, and with the caveat that I'm most familiar with US copyright law. Oh, and the standard IANAL disclaimer also applies. That said, I have followed the issue. (Read Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) regularly and you'll pick up the big events.) Some in the copyright industry would like to make torrenting illegal because it does make widespread piracy easy, but so far the attempts to make peer-to-peer file sharing (which torrenting is) illegal have failed. Instead, assaults on torrenting have largely focused on ISPs (getting them to block or throttle the ports used by torrent software) and on harrassment (as demonstrated by this thread and more severe cases). There have, of course, also been attacks on specific torrent sites, like the Pirate Bay.

FWIW, I personally prefer to download Linux distributions via BitTorrent simply because I want to contribute to a legal use of the technology as a defense against the claim, which is made by some, that it's used exclusively by pirates. If somebody tracks such things for honest research purposes and my own activity registers and is recorded correctly, it'll boost the "legal use" column just a little bit. I'd hate to see a technology with legitimate uses outlawed as a tool for piracy, even if it is used for that purpose by many people.

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 06:08 PM
They have to. Is not the ISP job to find if a copyright complain is valid or not. The are obligated to forward any cease-and-desist letter they receive. Besides, they have been very clear that they would only reveal Headcrab's information if they are request by a court of law. No reason to change ISP in my opinion.

Please keep in mind that the laws about such things vary from one country to another. In the US, for instance, there are DMCA takedown notices that require an ISP to shut down a Web site that hosts copyrighted content if the copyright holder complains; but most other countries lack such provisions. (This specific issue wouldn't apply to the case under discussion, though; I'm just using it as an example.) Some countries have instituted "three strikes" laws that require ISPs to shut off Internet access to users after they've gotten three copyright violation complaints. Actually, the OP might want to check if there's such a law in his/her country (Australia, wasn't it?). If so, it's important to get this "strike" removed from the record, lest it cause problems in the future.

zami
January 11th, 2011, 06:18 PM
I disagree about the letter(s) being "safe to ignore".

My husband was torrenting a UFC fight. UFC is pretty zealous about tracking that sort of thing down. They "found" him, and contacted our ISP. *We* were not going to be sued in this case, but UFC threatened to sue our ISP, if my husband didn't quit torrenting that file. They gave us 12 hours to comply (or some such) and then they'd have to cancel our service. They had no desire or need to fight with UFC, who were very much in the right.

Headcrab is in the right on this one, but does his ISP know that? Probably not, or they'd have told the complaint issuer to take a hike, right from the start.

So I think it's important Headcrab let his ISP know this complaint is false, harassment, etc - however he wants to word it and pursue it. But he needs to make sure he's in compliance with his service contract. If they tell him to stop, he needs to stop. Right or wrong, getting your internet connection cut off stinks!

(I was irritated my husband was doing this by the way. Just shell out the money for the fight to support it, if you like it so much. Or go to the sports bar.:rolleyes:)

-zami

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 06:20 PM
No -- at least, not AFAIK, and with the caveat that I'm most familiar with US copyright law. Oh, and the standard IANAL disclaimer also applies. That said, I have followed the issue. (Read Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) regularly and you'll pick up the big events.) Some in the copyright industry would like to make torrenting illegal because it does make widespread piracy easy, but so far the attempts to make peer-to-peer file sharing (which torrenting is) illegal have failed. Instead, assaults on torrenting have largely focused on ISPs (getting them to block or throttle the ports used by torrent software) and on harrassment (as demonstrated by this thread and more severe cases). There have, of course, also been attacks on specific torrent sites, like the Pirate Bay.

FWIW, I personally prefer to download Linux distributions via BitTorrent simply because I want to contribute to a legal use of the technology as a defense against the claim, which is made by some, that it's used exclusively by pirates. If somebody tracks such things for honest research purposes and my own activity registers and is recorded correctly, it'll boost the "legal use" column just a little bit. I'd hate to see a technology with legitimate uses outlawed as a tool for piracy, even if it is used for that purpose by many people.


Please keep in mind that the laws about such things vary from one country to another. In the US, for instance, there are DMCA takedown notices that require an ISP to shut down a Web site that hosts copyrighted content if the copyright holder complains; but most other countries lack such provisions. (This specific issue wouldn't apply to the case under discussion, though; I'm just using it as an example.) Some countries have instituted "three strikes" laws that require ISPs to shut off Internet access to users after they've gotten three copyright violation complaints. Actually, the OP might want to check if there's such a law in his/her country (Australia, wasn't it?). If so, it's important to get this "strike" removed from the record, lest it cause problems in the future.

+1 for both. Great and well thought out points and arguments. I would take this all the way and get to the bottom of it.

lovinglinux
January 11th, 2011, 06:22 PM
Some countries have instituted "three strikes" laws that require ISPs to shut off Internet access to users after they've gotten three copyright violation complaints. Actually, the OP might want to check if there's such a law in his/her country (Australia, wasn't it?). If so, it's important to get this "strike" removed from the record, lest it cause problems in the future.

Indeed. But wouldn't be hard to get free legal representation and win if they disconnect the user because of sharing Ubuntu.

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Indeed. But wouldn't be hard to get free legal representation and win if they disconnect the user because of sharing Ubuntu.

Perhaps. Do you really want to go without Internet access in the meantime, though? Better to research whether such laws exist in your country and what your ISP's policies are, and to act to have the complaint removed from any file your ISP might be keeping if there's any risk, just in case two more such complaints come in the future.

corrytonapple
January 11th, 2011, 06:49 PM
You should just keep seeding. Nothing has been done wrong. Bittorrents have build up a bad reputation because some paid software is distributed through a Bittorrent.

cascade9
January 11th, 2011, 06:57 PM
To put my own spin on srs569s post (as usual, nice post srs569 and I agree with everything you've said 100%), no, torrenting is not illegal in itself. Its only the material torrented that may infringe copyright. There is lot of music and video that is perfectly legal to torrent, besides things like linux distro .isos.

As an aside, AFAIK in some south american countries, even if you do infringe copyright its not illegal, provided that you havent profited from the infringement (and by 'profit' they mean 'sell or traded the material', not some nebulous 'you didnt have to pay for XYZ so you profited' arguement)

There is also legally/morally grey areas. I admit, I have torrented material that would count as 'copyright infringement'. But when you own the entire back catalog for a band, is d/ling .flacs of a live show (and all the original songs played you own anyway) and/or unreleased album (deleted, not 'hasnt been released yet') that is unavailable for purchase illegal? Possibly, but its not black and white.


Some countries have instituted "three strikes" laws that require ISPs to shut off Internet access to users after they've gotten three copyright violation complaints. Actually, the OP might want to check if there's such a law in his/her country (Australia, wasn't it?). If so, it's important to get this "strike" removed from the record, lest it cause problems in the future.

It was talked about here (I'm in .au) but hasnt come into force. I dont even know if its still on the table, with all the fuss over the stupid 'internet filter' going on.

3 strikes is law in France, New Zealand AFAIK and the UK has got some 'graduated resopnse' system now that I havent looked into.

Bucky Ball
January 11th, 2011, 07:02 PM
... all the fuss over the stupid 'internet filter' going on.

.

Yea, what kinda toss is that, ay? Never happen.

(Sorry to all non-Aus residents whom have no idea what we're on about.)

corrytonapple
January 11th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Yea, what kinda toss is that, ay? Never happen.

(Sorry to all non-Aus residents whom have no idea what we're on about.)
Nope, no idea. Do you mind telling us what this is about? I live in USA

Mr. Picklesworth
January 11th, 2011, 07:15 PM
For a combination stormtrooper/'old skool' cylon, your pretty smart! :lolflag:

I'd probably do exactly that. If you've got the warning, its only a question of time untill somebody else does (if people havent already). They might not know that what they are doing is not only legal, but encouraged.

What I'm immediately concerned about is they usually do this kind of thing in bulk. We're lucky the OP is confident and knowledgeable about Ubuntu. Hopefully anyone else who receives the complaint is, too.



Personally I would hound my ISP about this and really dig into it. I would probably then change my ISP after getting all the answers I wanted because I don't want to deal with an ISO that just blindly follows complaints.
First, they aren't blindly following a complaint; they're blindly forwarding a complaint. Actually, the two are almost opposites.


They have to. Is not the ISP job to find if a copyright complain is valid or not. The are obligated to forward any cease-and-desist letter they receive. Besides, they have been very clear that they would only reveal Headcrab's information if they are request by a court of law. No reason to change ISP in my opinion.
That, and Telus is pretty well the only good ISP we have left in Canada. All the other ones have a major conflict of interest by being TV companies foremost. That means they want the entertainment function of the Internet to die and will do everything they can to achieve that end. For example, throttling any and all BitTorrent traffic, artificially limiting upload speeds more than usual and begging the CRTC to let them limit traffic to YouTube and Netflix in favour of their own services.
Not that Telus us great, but they are a hair further from the abomination we're heading towards.

cascade9
January 11th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Never say never Bucky Ball. I'd be suprised if we dont get some internet filter at some point, the only questions are if we or some other western country gets it 1st, (OK, we are a banana republic, but lets not get bogged down on that) and how bad it will be.


Nope, no idea. Do you mind telling us what this is about? I live in USA

Have a look here-

http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Australian_Internet_Filtering

BTW, at least one of the mods/admins here thinks its a great idea (hint- the one most likely to shut threads) and this thread could already be considered a bit dodgy, so lets just leave it......here is a thread on the subject-

http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1529126

Edit- recuring discussions? Either somebody has had this happen before, or an admin/mod already doesnt like this thread. I'd guess the later....

srs5694
January 11th, 2011, 08:34 PM
There is also legally/morally grey areas. I admit, I have torrented material that would count as 'copyright infringement'. But when you own the entire back catalog for a band, is d/ling .flacs of a live show (and all the original songs played you own anyway) and/or unreleased album (deleted, not 'hasnt been released yet') that is unavailable for purchase illegal? Possibly, but its not black and white.

One thing to keep in mind with this sort of situation is that when you download a torrent, you also upload the torrent -- at least, assuming you're using a standard torrent client with typical configurations and no weird firewall settings. Therefore, even if you already have a legal copy of whatever you're downloading and so can claim you have a right to it from a moral perspective, you can't make the same claim about your sharing of the file with others via the torrent technology.

Of course, back to the case at hand, this is all perfectly fine; Canonical makes the torrents available and encourages their use. You can be sure they understand how the technology works. The authors of open source software, myself included, want to see it distributed. (Although on a very side note, I wish they'd update my own gdisk software in Ubuntu -- it's embarrassingly out of date!) I certainly can't speak for all open source authors, but I for one don't care if my software is distributed on user-created floppy disks, factory-pressed DVDs, HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, or RFC 1149 avian carriers, so long as the terms of the licence (GPL v2 in my case) are observed. What annoys me is that somebody, probably through negligence, has claimed that distributing my software is wrong. It's not.

Headcrab
January 12th, 2011, 08:27 AM
For the people that suggested it, I'm not going to go and sue anyone. :-s

I have been very happy with Telus' policies and I don't plan to change ISPs as some have suggested.

I will just probably write a polite email saying that the complaint is unwarranted.

stinkeye
January 12th, 2011, 10:06 AM
For the people that suggested it, I'm not going to go and sue anyone. :-s

I have been very happy with Telus' policies and I don't plan to change ISPs as some have suggested.

I will just probably write a polite email saying that the complaint is unwarranted.


Our policies dictate that we send out every complaint we receive. We are not generating the complaints.

Unfortunately, you would have to take this matter up with their copyright holder or legal representative.

...and ask for details on the complainant so you can do as they advise.

MonolithImmortal
January 13th, 2011, 07:13 AM
This thread is very relevant to my interests.

Headcrab, please keep us updated.

James78
January 13th, 2011, 02:19 PM
But torrenting anything is illegal!

Oh hold on... it's 2011. Sorry, just suffering from a bit of time-travel-jet-lag there...
Actually. Torrenting is not illegal. Torrenting copyrighted files and works that you have no right to is illegal. Also, torrenting is commonly used to share illegal information and files, but in and of itself is not illegal; this is why ISP's, server farms, administrators, etc, watch for that type of traffic. Do you seriously think that if torrenting were illegal, that Canonical would be knowingly doing it? They'd get sued really badly by some poor person or company who wants to get rich. Most open source companies that share and do a great deal of good to the community check the licenses before they do such a thing. They have to, or it means a big loss to them. Afterall, that's what companies big teams of lawyers are for.

Either way, the complaints you got are completely unfounded, and they can't sue you for doing that without loosing. As said earlier, if they did, that'd qualify under harassment and intimidation for no reason, where they don't even have the legal ground to tell you you can't share software that specifically says you can share it. This is why the GPL was made in the first place! If they actually try to do anything, places like the EFF will defend your rights. The EFF is a really great place, defending the rights of innocent people being picked in. :)

Grenage
January 13th, 2011, 03:13 PM
Actually. Torrenting is not illegal. Torrenting copyrighted files and works that you have no right to is illegal. Also, torrenting is commonly used to share illegal information and files, but in and of itself is not illegal; this is why ISP's, server farms, administrators, etc, watch for that type of traffic. Do you seriously think that if torrenting were illegal, that Canonical would be knowingly doing it?

He was being sarcastic.

psusi
January 13th, 2011, 03:47 PM
He was being sarcastic.

Hehe, yea, and time travel doesn't exist either ;)

James78
January 13th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Hehe, yea, and time travel doesn't exist either ;)
It does too! 8-[ :D

He was being sarcastic.
I know I know, just don't know anyone to take it seriously. :D

srs5694
January 13th, 2011, 06:39 PM
Actually. Torrenting is not illegal. Torrenting copyrighted files and works that you have no right to is illegal.

One small but important correction: Torrenting copyrighted files without permission of the copyright holder is illegal. This is important because open source software, including most or all software in Ubuntu, is copyrighted; it's just released under license terms that allow anybody to redistribute it. See the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) for more details.

Open source is different from public domain, which is a work that's been around long enough that the copyright has expired or for which the author has given up all copyright claims. (I'm not even sure if the latter is possible under US law at the moment.) Something in the public domain (say, the works of William Shakespeare) can be legally redistributed (including by BitTorrent), just like open source software, but the reason it's legal is different -- there's no longer a copyright, so in a sense, the work now belongs to the human race as a whole.

Open source and public domain also differ in terms of what can be done aside from redistribution. Open source licenses differ among themselves on this detail, but as an example, a program distributed under the GPL may be modified, but any such modifications must also be made available under the GPL. This prevents a scenario like a company modifying the Linux kernel (licensed under the GPL v2) in some minor way, distributing it in a proprietary product (like a TiVo or Android phone) and then refusing to make the changes available to others. If the Linux kernel were in the public domain, or licensed under some other open source licenses, this scenario would be OK.

johntaylor1887
January 13th, 2011, 07:19 PM
Which company IS issuing the complaints?

Probably MS. ;)

James78
January 14th, 2011, 04:08 AM
One small but important correction: Torrenting copyrighted files without permission of the copyright holder is illegal. This is important because open source software, including most or all software in Ubuntu, is copyrighted; it's just released under license terms that allow anybody to redistribute it. See the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) for more details.

Open source is different from public domain, which is a work that's been around long enough that the copyright has expired or for which the author has given up all copyright claims. (I'm not even sure if the latter is possible under US law at the moment.) Something in the public domain (say, the works of William Shakespeare) can be legally redistributed (including by BitTorrent), just like open source software, but the reason it's legal is different -- there's no longer a copyright, so in a sense, the work now belongs to the human race as a whole.

Open source and public domain also differ in terms of what can be done aside from redistribution. Open source licenses differ among themselves on this detail, but as an example, a program distributed under the GPL may be modified, but any such modifications must also be made available under the GPL. This prevents a scenario like a company modifying the Linux kernel (licensed under the GPL v2) in some minor way, distributing it in a proprietary product (like a TiVo or Android phone) and then refusing to make the changes available to others. If the Linux kernel were in the public domain, or licensed under some other open source licenses, this scenario would be OK.
That is of course what I meant when I said that.

Edit: But also, a good distinction you made there. ;)

sydbat
January 14th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Just to jump in...

As srs5694 has pointed out, each country handles things differently. In Canada (where Telus is), it is perfectly legal to "share files over the Internet" (as part of a Supreme Court decision in 2004). These files include music, video, software, etc, as long as no money is exchanged (all this is based upon Canadian and International Copyright law).

Therefore, I imagine that some US agency (likely RIAA / whomever as stated earlier) was 'sniffing' as the connection bounced through US nodes.

To the OP - Headcrab, call Telus, do not email them. Ask to talk with someone in their legal/fraud department and find out how legitimate the original email you received is. They will also tell you who sent them the complaint, if one was sent to Telus at all.

Finally, Mr. Picklesworth, I agree that Telus still allows us to use the Internet properly. I have friends who use Shaw and have nothing but problems with bandwidth restrictions. Of course, Telus is getting into the "TV / entertainment" business too, so things could go south at anytime...

sydbat
January 14th, 2011, 06:03 PM
this posted 3 times yay!!

sydbat
January 14th, 2011, 06:05 PM
This posted 3 times - YAY!!!

James78
January 14th, 2011, 06:56 PM
This posted 3 times - YAY!!!
Oh I know, it was sooo annoying!

CraigPaleo
April 26th, 2011, 12:01 AM
Bumping to show, regardless of the thread that was just closed in the Cafe, that this sort of thing does happen.