If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Torrent Freak)   Comcast continues to choke down their endless bag of dicks, as they announce plans to hijack user's browsers if they dare torrent Backdoor Sluts 9   (torrentfreak.com) divider line 193
    More: Asinine, Backdoor Sluts 9, Comcast, browser, Court of Arbitration for Sport, VoIP, consumer confidence, environmental mitigation, VPN  
•       •       •

8333 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 02:12:20 PM  

spentshells: BigLuca: ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?

I'm going to start downloading a 1080p version of Avatar over TOR right now.  Cause I'll need something to watch when I retire in 40 years.

you are being throttled big time

2.5 GB 1080 vids come down pretty quickly when not being throttled 35 down 3 up


Seriously? On TOR?  I think I averaged about 10b/s down when I tried to torrent.  Who does the throttling, the exit node?
 
2013-02-28 02:16:58 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.

Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.


You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.
 
2013-02-28 02:17:07 PM  
Would a 'Ghost Surf' program work?

/Just curious...already have BDS8 & 9
 
2013-02-28 02:20:16 PM  

Theaetetus: whizbangthedirtfarmer: ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.

Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.

You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.


Well, all Comcast did was give me one strike out of the four offered.  Considering I don't torrent much anymore (if at all), getting a lawyer involved also seemed counterproductive.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:21 PM  

syberpud: the801: Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.

Sounds like it would be easy to prove.  The pop ups would be annoying, but technically not prevent "access" since they are only trying to get your attention (if only to say they have complaints about you).

I wonder if this would prevent other protocols though - can you still send email?  IM? etc.?  Those aren't HTTP traffic so how do they disrupt those?  My guess is they don't since everyone is convinced "The Innerweb = HTTP".




What about blind people?
 
2013-02-28 02:28:28 PM  
Endless dicks?
Is that an Olive Garden entre?
 
2013-02-28 02:29:34 PM  
Has anyone used a seedbox? If so, which providers do you like?
 
2013-02-28 02:30:45 PM  

Theaetetus: You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.


Not really, no.  AFAIK nobody has ever actually been popped, or even threatened, for downloading something.  Copyright suits are frequently portrayed that way in the media in a fashion similar to the way all guns are glocks or AK-47s and all aggressive dog breeds are pit bulls.

The thing about torrents is that, by their nature, using them to download also turns you into a distributor, so while you may have been authorized to download it from them, the way you were doing it also meant you were redistributing it, which you weren't authorized to do.

/I don't necessarily agree that that's how it should be, but I'm certain that's how such a battle would be fought.
 
2013-02-28 02:32:11 PM  
So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?
 
2013-02-28 02:32:37 PM  
HOTY candidate.
 
2013-02-28 02:38:44 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


The reverse question is more interesting, really: What happens if they fail to do due diligence and claim that non-copyrighted material is in violation?
 
2013-02-28 02:40:43 PM  

China White Tea: AFAIK nobody has ever actually been popped, or even threatened, for downloading something.


Huh. So you're saying that guy was correct earlier when he said:

Theaetetus: It's one of the reasons that the RIAA/MPAA have never gone after leechers, but that's a little more difficult with torrents.

 
2013-02-28 02:43:59 PM  

China White Tea: Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?

The reverse question is more interesting, really: What happens if they fail to do due diligence and claim that non-copyrighted material is in violation?


For example, is "king Kong.zip" the pubic domain movie, Peter Jackson's king Kong or an open source game by pussylicker69?
 
2013-02-28 02:44:22 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yet another reason to want Google Fiber.

At least around here (heart of the Silicon valley), Comcast has actual competition, so they might be reluctant to be too difficult about that to the local population. Sucks to be in an area where it's Comcast or nothing.


That's us here in Houston.  Well that, and DSL (bleh), but it's Comcast only here.  If Google fiber made it's way out to Texas...yeah, I'd tell Comcast to suck off.
 
2013-02-28 02:47:18 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


I was musing the other day about obfuscating torrents by using descriptive names rather than their actual ones. Like, "that television show with the blond chick in the desert with pet dragons.avi" or "that animated movie by the mouse company with the red headed archery girl.mpg". Clip the last second off the credits and the hash would be different, too.
 
2013-02-28 02:49:40 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


This is a curious question I have as well.  Mainly b/c the few times I torrent (I purchase physical comic books, but also like to have the digital copy for my tablet, and think it sucks to pay for it twice), and some direct sites have a renamed zip file.  If they are just looking at your traffic, wouldn't it come up as that filename?

Also looking at VPNs, not sure which to go with at this point.
 
2013-02-28 03:03:11 PM  

FinFangFark: Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?

This is a curious question I have as well.  Mainly b/c the few times I torrent (I purchase physical comic books, but also like to have the digital copy for my tablet, and think it sucks to pay for it twice), and some direct sites have a renamed zip file.  If they are just looking at your traffic, wouldn't it come up as that filename?

Also looking at VPNs, not sure which to go with at this point.


I'm currently testing purevpn but I really don't know where it stands against the rest of them. They do have some nice features.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:45 PM  

Lanadapter: For example, is "king Kong.zip" the pubic domain movie, Peter Jackson's king Kong or an open source game by pussylicker69?


None of the above. It's a .zip file that you were just dumb enough to download off a torrent site.

If my ISP were doing this to me, I'd drop them, even if it meant going to dial-up. And I really doubt there are many places where Comcast has a total monopoly. You may think they do, but if you look closer you'll see about 20 options.
 
2013-02-28 03:10:27 PM  
They are busting people on porn too? Everything I have read about this mentions TV and movie studios issuing warnings, but not porn. Which seemed weird to me since that is probably a big chunk of torrent traffic.
 
2013-02-28 03:12:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Ostman: What's a VPN?
I know I'm inviting the wrath of farkers with actual computer literacy, but why do you apparently 50% of you use this?

Virtual Private Network. Commonly used by businesses when people want to work remotely. It's as if you had a really long-ass Ethernet cable running to your work, so that at home, you're on their internal network, have a company IP instead of your own IP address, etc. Any action you do is through their network rather than your own.

In this case, the "company" is usually some server farm out of the country or an ISP that has refused to scan packets for torrents. You connect to them via a VPN and all your ISP sees is encrypted traffic between your computer and the VPN host. No torrents, no porn browsing, etc.


Hmm, didn't know this even existed until today, thanks for explaining it.
How do you connect to, or get, a VPN? Is it a service you subscribe to, or a onetime download?
 
2013-02-28 03:14:00 PM  
I would gladly pay a subscription fee to a service that streamed movies I wanted to watch when I want to watch them. Netflix is great, but I'd pay $25/mo more if I could stream their entire library.

Until that happens, there are alternatives.

/download all my mp3 from Amazon because everything I want is available
 
2013-02-28 03:14:10 PM  

Ostman: Is it a service you subscribe to,


Yes.

or a onetime download?

The software for connecting to your VPN provider is. :)

Check out the aforementioned PureVPN.
 
2013-02-28 03:17:16 PM  

dready zim: funk_soul_bubby: Five midgets, spanking a man, covered in Thousand Island dressing... Is that making love?

maybe, maybe not but it`s ART!



img5.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-28 03:23:42 PM  

ManRay: They are busting people on porn too? Everything I have read about this mentions TV and movie studios issuing warnings, but not porn. Which seemed weird to me since that is probably a big chunk of torrent traffic.


They figured out that people are FAR more willing to discreetly pay a "penalty" and make it go away than they are to go to court to challenge the charge that they illegally distributed items from Randall Graves' (or RST Video's) video library.
 
2013-02-28 03:24:25 PM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

I would imagine it is the TOS to 'protect the network for all users' or some such.  That and their lawyers will be better than yours.

a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.


Can you point to a Federal law that prohibits a company and an individual from mutually agreeing to a service, part of which is to allow the company to redirect traffic that you send through it in specifically defined and agreed-upon cases?
 
2013-02-28 03:26:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: ISP started hijacking failed lookups and sending me to ad pages


MOTHERFARKERS.
 
2013-02-28 03:28:34 PM  

Weaver95: Theaetetus: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

They're not hacking your browser, they're doing a redirect. Same exact thing you get half the time when you go to a public wifi spot, fire up a browser and go to google.com and get redirected to the wifi provider's splash page asking for that day's code or to look at an advertisement or whatnot. The redirection happens entirely outside your browser - your computer thinks it's actually displaying google's home page to you.

so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?


If you were acting as a public DNS service doing this for the people using your service, sure.  Why would that be illegal?
 
2013-02-28 03:33:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: (Some matters, like murder cannot be consented to)

Consider euthanasia as a caveat to that.

Isn't euthanasia enacted (in OR, anyway) in such a way that the doc is essentially prescribing painkillers and leaving the room? (Yes, I know there's a 6-month waiting period as well as many hoops to jump through just to get the script, plus 60-some-odd percent of people don't end up using them. I mean philosophically.)

Friends of mine on whatever prescribed drugs often get a bottle with enough pills to kill or seriously injure them, yet this isn't "euthanasia". Sure, there's intent in the one case, but with the facts being essentially the same in both cases (you get enough pills to do major damage, and they have primary effects other than "kill you dead"), is there enough of an argument there that euthanasia is more like suicide (which there are laws against IIRC)?

// does it really matter?


Generally, what you're referring to is assisted suicide.  Euthanasia is when one person kills another.

It does matter because in one case you very easily can have a situation where a person is killed who doesn't actually want to be.
 
2013-02-28 03:35:59 PM  

syberpud: the801: Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.

Sounds like it would be easy to prove.  The pop ups would be annoying, but technically not prevent "access" since they are only trying to get your attention (if only to say they have complaints about you).

I wonder if this would prevent other protocols though - can you still send email?  IM? etc.?  Those aren't HTTP traffic so how do they disrupt those?  My guess is they don't since everyone is convinced "The Innerweb = HTTP".


The article suggests it just impacts web browsing as they don't want to interfere  with VOIP and other applications.

FTFA:  Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services.
 
2013-02-28 03:38:16 PM  

China White Tea: JinxedLynx: Forgot to add ...

I believe this policy of actions exists because the ISP does not want to be charged with aiding in the crime of copy right infringement.

The fact that this has never,  ever happened makes it obvious that there are no laws that allow for them to be charged in that fashion.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that the DMCA prevents them from being charged.

They help out because they don't want people clogging up their pipes.
 
2013-02-28 03:38:17 PM  
I'm essentially stuck with Comcast where I live and really need to get with this Seedbox action, possibly a VPN. If heavy torrent users can recommend something safe and cheap (I know, you don't get both, probably) that would be a huge help. Fark-specific Gmail in profile if you don't want to talk out in the open. Thanks everyone.

If it helps, my motion to the courts when my ISP was subpoenaed got my case dismissed, and I shared it after mentioning it on Fark, and it also apparently got a few Farkers off...I'm Total Fark because they gifted me. So, I've been here before, and have tried to help!
 
2013-02-28 03:58:17 PM  
Jackpot777:

That still watch South Park? No, lots of people still watch South Park.

Because this thread seems awful light on South Park references.
 
2013-02-28 04:00:21 PM  
There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?
 
2013-02-28 04:06:06 PM  

michiganman: There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?


Yes, see earlier in the thread. That's one of the reasons why they've never sued a leecher.
 
2013-02-28 04:07:01 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-28 04:31:23 PM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?


When you purchase Comcast's service you are agreeing to their terms of service which grants them the right to do this (ok, I haven't read the whole document in detail, but I imagine that you give away all of your rights in it like any other service agreement).
 
2013-02-28 04:37:09 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Flint Ironstag: Your contract with your ISP will include conditions about not using your connection for illegal purposes and giving them the right to interrupt or suspend access if you do. You have consented to this.

And there's the rub. There is a LOT of stuff your ISP limits, actually... you'd be kind surprised if you take some time and read the User Agreement.


Too busy stealing things and feeling self-righteous about it to read!

/download plenty
//but I have the good taste to admit it's theft
 
2013-02-28 04:44:00 PM  

Empty Matchbook: //but I have the good taste to admit it's theft


Aw, geez, now you've done it.

i66.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-28 04:50:25 PM  

ManRay: They are busting people on porn too?


Yes. The porn people are shockingly litigious, especially since they might only sell 5000 copies of any particular production in the first place.

Two things are interesting about that:

One is that a judge ruled that porn producers need to file suit in the jurisdiction where they believe the infraction might have occurred, and they need to obtain representation and pay to file for each infraction that they want to redress. This means that it is comparatively very expensive for them to pursue claims.

The second is that porn production companies are wise to that, so the notices they send out that spell out in excruciating detail what they'll make part of the public and therefore publicly-searchable record in the event that a filing must be made.

They made life difficult enough for the two biggest porn torrent sites to close up about a year ago. There are a few left and plenty of general purpose public sites still have tons of adult content. Ironically, the thing that porn companies like to whine about most is "Tube" sites full of streaming copyright violations. Most of the best known "Tube" sites are owned by the Brazzers network.
 
2013-02-28 05:12:25 PM  

Theaetetus: michiganman: There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?

Yes, see earlier in the thread. That's one of the reasons why they've never sued a leecher.


The above isn't necessarily correct. They can and do subpeona records of people leeching files. That's done over BitTorrent: they look for an offending torrent, enter the swarm, and jot down all connected IPs, regardless of completion percentage. They don't have to create the torrent themselves, hell, they don't even allege that you've shared at all in these subpoenas, just that presence in the swarm is enough to prove infringement. Thankfully, the courts have rejected this, and you can cite the precedent if you ever get subpoenaed.
 
2013-02-28 05:21:48 PM  
I wonder if this would later be extended to sites that ISPs don't agree with for whatever reason.
 
2013-02-28 05:36:59 PM  
wah I only get 6 chances before I get punished for stealing this isn't fair I deserve free shiat
 
2013-02-28 05:50:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Isn't euthanasia enacted (in OR, anyway) in such a way that the doc is essentially prescribing painkillers and leaving the room? (Yes, I know there's a 6-month waiting period as well as many hoops to jump through just to get the script, plus 60-some-odd percent of people don't end up using them. I mean philosophically.)


I've had two family members who signed up for the Death with Dignity deal.  I don't think there was a waiting period as they both had less then 6 months.  We did have to find an "impartial" non-family member sign an affidavit that this was their wish though.   Also they have to be coherent enough to ask for the pill without any coercion, which is a bit of a problem for elderly women taking enough morphine to keep a heroin addict high for a month.   We jumped through the hoops but in the end neither of them took the pill.
 
2013-02-28 05:55:34 PM  
I don't have a problem with this.  Don't steal shiat and this won't be an issue.
 
2013-02-28 05:59:47 PM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


Then everything will work, just like on any other day if you don't use Comcast's often broken DNS servers.
 
2013-02-28 06:05:00 PM  

likefunbutnot: BigLuca: Hidemyass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.
If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.

And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.


it's a little dated, but still may be of use..http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymit y-seri ously-111007/
 
2013-02-28 06:07:53 PM  
iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.
 
2013-02-28 06:15:25 PM  

ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?


meetthematts.com
 
2013-02-28 06:17:59 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The above isn't necessarily correct. They can and do subpeona records of people leeching files. That's done over BitTorrent: they look for an offending torrent, enter the swarm, and jot down all connected IPs, regardless of completion percentage. They don't have to create the torrent themselves, hell, they don't even allege that you've shared at all in these subpoenas, just that presence in the swarm is enough to prove infringement. Thankfully, the courts have rejected this, and you can cite the precedent if you ever get subpoenaed.


That's not correct. You're confusing two different things - leechers are people who don't upload a single byte. A swarm participant does upload, even if they don't have 100% completion. That's one of the advantages of bittorrent - if A has 100%, B can start downloading from A... And then when C comes along, C can start downloading the parts that B has gotten, even if B is still in the process of downloading from A. Accordingly, the upload bandwidth of each downloader is utilized to help out the next downloader and diminish the load on the host.
So, when MediaSentry or the like joins the swarm, they jot down all connected IPs  who send them data,regardless of completion percentage. But too be sure, each one of those connected IPs  is distributing at least some of the data. MediaSentry has to show that to get the subpoena, because merely being a room while others are infringing isn't enough to support a subpoena - they have to show that this John Doewas  actually distributing or copying the work.

Additionally, they don't look just for a byte or two. In practice, MediaSentry waits to grab the entire file from you, or at least a significant percentage (copyright doesn't require that you copy or distribute the  entire file, as long as you copy or distribute a significant portion). Frequently, to make their logs cleaner, when they have a target infringer, they'll block all other IPs from sending they bytes, so that they have a clean log showing that they obtained the file from you.

You are correct that courts are rejecting the subpoenas, but that's for an entirely different reason: there's nothing that ties an IP address to a specific  person, even if you can tie it to a specific router. If Bob Smith did the infringement, but Mary Smith's name is on the account, they'll end up suing the wrong person. Accordingly, their evidence to get the subpoena has to be more particular than a mere IP address.
 
2013-02-28 06:27:49 PM  

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: I don't have a problem with this.  Don't steal shiat and this won't be an issue.


Right.  Because everybody knows content providers are 100% accurate when pinpointing pirates, and have never targeted anybody by mistake.

/also, we could get into an argument about the use of "steal" here, but I'm sure you've heard it a million times before and don't give a shiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report