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

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.

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.)

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).