ISP Requires to Disclose Piracy Tracking Source CodeAdded: Sunday, June 28th, 2015
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extratorrent.cc, 2015
Cox Communications has asked the court to order the anti-piracy firm to hand over its tracking source code. The Internet service provider claimed Rightscorp’s settlement scheme an extortion and is going to punch a hole in its evidence gathering techniques.
Piracy monetization firm Rightscorp is known for sending DMCA notices to ISPs on behalf of the movie studios, which include proposals to settle for a certain amount. However, not all US Internet providers forward these notices to their subscribers. For instance, Cox Communications call these letters an “extortion scheme” and throws them away. Now copyright holders decided to sue Cox over its inaction.
In response, Cox has demanded insight into the evidence gathering techniques from the piracy monetization firm. However, Rightscorp didn’t disclose all requested information. It claims to have handed over all source code, but the ISP explains that it can’t locate certain elements. Besides, Cox pointed out that Rightscorp had previously made such misleading statements in the past, but its expert has identified multiple components missing from the code.
Cox also complained that Rightscorp didn’t produce other documents describing the way it approaches alleged copyright infringers.
A number of expert reports are to be released soon, and now Cox Communications has asked the court to issue an order compelling the anti-piracy agency to hand over all missing information and documents. Apparently. Cox’s experts will point out various flaws in the tracking technique, including listing infringers by IP-address, which is wrong, because Cox regularly changes subscribers IPs.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.
Sunday, June 28th, 2015
|posted by (2015-06-29 13:35:56)|
|posted by (2015-06-29 16:44:17)|
|THAT'S the SAME argument I've had in the past with the Admins at ET ... Blocking an IP address is ABSOLUTELY USELESS with a DYNAMIC IP addressing scheme. Many ISP's in various countries reserve STATIC IP addressing for Internet Servers, Businesses, and Educational Institutions, and leave HOME addresses as Dynamic. This means that when ET blocks a users IP address, and that user has dynamic addressing, all they need do is power cycle the modem to get a NEW IP address. HOWEVER, if the NEXT person who's assigned the blocked address tries to access ET then THEY are blocked ... even if their account is still active (This HAS happened to me in the past, and I had to cycle MY modem to get access back again.)|
|posted by (2015-06-30 10:13:34)|
|Rightscorp appears to be one of the newer trolls. I am not a fan of Cox Cable, but I applaud what they are doing here, even if for their own reasons. I would suggest one stays tuned!|
|Yes, this is getting interesting, I had a feeling something was up when they threw all the peeps who used the diff. addresses under the wheel's even the ones who could not possibly have done the file sharing in question.|
Thanks Sam for keeping this article alive
|@Crash1 -- Blocking an IP address is ABSOLUTELY USELESS with a DYNAMIC IP. Agreed.||
Most Popular Stories