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.

(The Week)   Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Hide behind proxies   (theweek.com) divider line 144
    More: Stupid, Copyright Alert System, Napster, illegal downloading, illegal downloads, Hayden Manders, RIAA  
•       •       •

8413 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Mar 2013 at 1:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 01:27:03 PM  
What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips
 
2013-03-04 01:47:51 PM  
I live in a small town with a co-op run ISP of less than 50k customers.  I'm thinking this will never happen here.
 
2013-03-04 01:51:04 PM  
It'll fail like the rest of the efforts.

Keep farking that chicken, entertainment execs.
 
2013-03-04 01:51:37 PM  
How many proxies?
 
2013-03-04 01:52:56 PM  
so if youre not in the big 5 isps then you are just dandy.
 
2013-03-04 01:54:03 PM  
Thanks to the use of other sorts of proxies I actually have enough money to just buy most of the media I want. The problem is the gap between what I want and what they make available.
 
2013-03-04 01:55:22 PM  
I sure hope Comcast doesn't assume torrent + video file content = copyright infringement. Torrents are popular because they are the best way to distribute any huge file, legal or not.
 
2013-03-04 01:55:46 PM  
mybfolder.org
 
2013-03-04 01:59:55 PM  

wildcardjack: Thanks to the use of other sorts of proxies I actually have enough money to just buy most of the media I want. The problem is the gap between what I want and what they make available.


That and that they want us to pay a "convenience" fee that makes digital media more expensive than physical media.
 
2013-03-04 02:00:57 PM  

skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips


The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.
 
2013-03-04 02:01:56 PM  

Marine1: It'll fail like the rest of the efforts.

Keep farking that chicken, entertainment execs.


This. By its very nature, if media can be played, it can be copied. Never going to stop it. Best thing they CAN do is to make media available online, instantly in a reasonable form for a reasonable price for people such as myself that don't mind paying for content, but absolutely demand full access to what I've bought.
 
2013-03-04 02:03:45 PM  

Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.


Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!
 
2013-03-04 02:05:01 PM  
"Stepped-up enforcement" didn't kill the Napster era, but Spotify and its competitors just might.

What! A change in business model that makes it easy to legally acquire digital music has led to a massive drop in piracy?It's not like people have been telling you to do that for 15 years now or anything.
 
2013-03-04 02:09:13 PM  

wildcardjack: Thanks to the use of other sorts of proxies I actually have enough money to just buy most of the media I want. The problem is the gap between what I want and what they make available.


So much of this expense could just be avoided by rights owners putting their content out there in digital streaming format for people to purchase. I know I'd pay $35/mo or so to be able to stream every movie in Netflix' library.

I still don't get what this fight is about, other than there are execs who simply cannot fathom the idea of changing business models.
 
2013-03-04 02:09:54 PM  

qorkfiend: "Stepped-up enforcement" didn't kill the Napster era, but Spotify and its competitors just might.

What! A change in business model that makes it easy to legally acquire digital music has led to a massive drop in piracy?It's not like people have been telling you to do that for 15 years now or anything.


I LOLd because SO MUCH THIS. I use 7Digital because they give you 0 DRMs with your musics.
 
2013-03-04 02:10:44 PM  

stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!


There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.
 
2013-03-04 02:12:26 PM  
VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.
 
2013-03-04 02:13:34 PM  

stonicus: How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename? Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!


True, but presumably it'd be more difficult for people searching for the former to identify the latter as a source for the content they want.

As they mentioned in the videos in the article, the copyright holders would need to actually download the potentially-infringing file, verify that it's their content, and then submit the information to the ISP.

Whether or not they actually do this is a different thing entirely...
 
2013-03-04 02:15:59 PM  
This actually may succeed in their goal.

Not suing grandma works in their favor for PR purposes.

I really have no idea why people are against the Six Strike rule. They wont give you six strikes at once. ISP's are in it to make money. Because of this there is an incentive not to disconnect you from your internet service as you no longer fork over the cash. How can that be abusable?
 
2013-03-04 02:16:36 PM  

SurfaceTension: wildcardjack: Thanks to the use of other sorts of proxies I actually have enough money to just buy most of the media I want. The problem is the gap between what I want and what they make available.

So much of this expense could just be avoided by rights owners putting their content out there in digital streaming format for people to purchase. I know I'd pay $35/mo or so to be able to stream every movie in Netflix' library.

I still don't get what this fight is about, other than there are execs who simply cannot fathom the idea of changing business models.


The fight is about a delivery model that went obsolete trying to prove they weren't.  It's like milk men suing you for sharing a gallon of milk with your neighbors, because they only make money on the milk they deliver, then trying to convince the public it's because we're taking advantage of cows.
 
2013-03-04 02:17:35 PM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.


Yup.

Living in Switzerland is nice too.
 
2013-03-04 02:22:26 PM  

Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.


But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.
 
2013-03-04 02:23:35 PM  
Didn't Skyfire break a billion dollars in revenue just this past week? Isn't it a top 10 grossing moving? Aren't movies breaking box office records every year? This whole witch hunt is empty and stupid if they are claiming it is due to pirates causing them to lose money.
 
2013-03-04 02:24:31 PM  
"File sharing 'sites' "?   Bwha ha ha ha

What is a "site"?    /sigh
 
2013-03-04 02:26:47 PM  

cman: This actually may succeed in their goal.

Not suing grandma works in their favor for PR purposes.

I really have no idea why people are against the Six Strike rule. They wont give you six strikes at once. ISP's are in it to make money. Because of this there is an incentive not to disconnect you from your internet service as you no longer fork over the cash. How can that be abusable?


I'm guessing you didn't read TFA.  Short version: Your ISP has no way of proving that the account holder is the infringer, nor do they have a way of differentiating a legal bit torrent download from an infringing one.  It may not be open to "abuse" per se, but it sure as hell has a lot of room for error.
 
2013-03-04 02:31:06 PM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.


i assume btguard is one of them.
 
2013-03-04 02:36:03 PM  

stonicus: Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.

But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.


Well yeah. But don't forget BitTorrent works by having hundreds of different hosts receiving and sending pieces of the file from and to hundreds of other hosts. I'm no lawyer, but I can see plausible deniability breaking down in that case.

Not to mention, *somewhere* a user is going to have to make the connection that "some_innocent_file.zip" is actually "some_infringing_file.mkv". If that connection is done offline (say a phone call), then you could probably have almost-foolproof deniability, but then the act of getting that file becomes a real hassle. Imagine hundreds of phone calls, even just saying "click on the link in my next email".

And face it, we're just talking about movies and music, not government-toppling documents. Who's really gonna do that for Skyfall.mp4?
 
2013-03-04 02:36:59 PM  

Mr Guy: The fight is about a delivery model that went obsolete trying to prove they weren't. It's like milk men suing you for sharing a gallon of milk with your neighbors, because they only make money on the milk they deliver, then trying to convince the public it's because we're taking advantage of cows.


You'd think the business people would be more savvy than that, though.
 
2013-03-04 02:47:22 PM  

Dinobot: Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.

i assume btguard is one of them.


You'd have to check their TOS or privacy policy. I haven't used them. I rarely use torrents.
 
2013-03-04 02:48:03 PM  

SurfaceTension: Mr Guy: The fight is about a delivery model that went obsolete trying to prove they weren't. It's like milk men suing you for sharing a gallon of milk with your neighbors, because they only make money on the milk they deliver, then trying to convince the public it's because we're taking advantage of cows.

You'd think the business people would be more savvy than that, though.


I don't see why you'd think that.  The music industry only exists because as a commodity, music was hard to package and ship, for how easy to produce it is.  Once physical media hit the stores, there was a package an "experience" as a hard copy, and the music industry worked very hard to seperate your perception of the value from your perception of how difficult to produce the actual content was.  Once they managed to get the world to let them put a price tag on a set time period of sensory manipulation, they've pushed even harder to seperate the act of creation from the commercial patronage.  They work very hard to convince public that sensory manipulation is a limited commodity, just because there's some level of skill involved with knowing consistent ways to manipulate brainwaves through preventing sensory adaptation.
 
2013-03-04 02:48:31 PM  
Don't know about movies, but there are multiple apps/sites that instantly convert youtube files to mp3. Way faster than any torrent or sharing site.
 
2013-03-04 02:49:36 PM  
Time for some honey pots.  Remember text can also be copyrighted.
 
2013-03-04 02:50:01 PM  
So can some kind, intelligent, doubtless good-looking person explain to me how I go about using a proxy to hide behind?
 
2013-03-04 02:56:22 PM  
 
2013-03-04 02:58:12 PM  

Suede head: So can some kind, intelligent, doubtless good-looking person explain to me how I go about using a proxy to hide behind?


Me? I like seedboxes more than VPNS.

Or the thing that dare not speak its name.
 
2013-03-04 03:04:58 PM  
It's been said before and it will be said again, piracy is a customer service problem. If you make things as easy for users as it is for pirates (relatively), then they'll choose the legal route. Here's a few ideas, build a service on this and it will thrive. I guarantee the money will come in so fast that you'll be burning it because you won't have room to store it.

(1) Allow users to get everything (movies, tv, etc.) through a single service (Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else) and single household account. I have one electric company, not one for my computer and one for my fridge. If you want to split TV and movies that's about as far as I'll tolerate.

(1b) No more "exclusives" with one service or another and everything should be streamed (looking at you Netflix).

(2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

(3) It's OK to put streaming TV shows on delay like is done with movies, but for Farks sake, make it consistent. Whether it's 2 weeks, two months or a season after initial airing, I don't care, but I better be able to count on it.

Cable will still live on broadcasting first run TV shows and sports.
 
2013-03-04 03:11:46 PM  

Spade: How many proxies?


www.allmystery.de
 
2013-03-04 03:17:55 PM  

majestic: Don't know about movies, but there are multiple apps/sites that instantly convert youtube files to mp3. Way faster than any torrent or sharing site.


Jesus, that's sad.
 
2013-03-04 03:19:26 PM  

stonicus: Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.

But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.



Don't think this is about criminality or that you will be hounded by the policia.  It's straight up revenue.  There will be a $35 'fee' to dispute a strike or block.  Regardless of the outcome.

This is non-appealable money generation that helps the ISPs line their pockets and look 'good'.  They don't actually care, and this is not about having people charged with crimes.
 
2013-03-04 03:19:52 PM  
Piracy will surely kill the music industry in much the same way that the VCR and Betamax killed the film industry.
 
Ant
2013-03-04 03:28:53 PM  
Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.
 
2013-03-04 03:28:59 PM  

ampoliros: It's been said before and it will be said again, piracy is a customer service problem. If you make things as easy for users as it is for pirates (relatively), then they'll choose the legal route. Here's a few ideas, build a service on this and it will thrive. I guarantee the money will come in so fast that you'll be burning it because you won't have room to store it.

(1) Allow users to get everything (movies, tv, etc.) through a single service (Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else) and single household account. I have one electric company, not one for my computer and one for my fridge. If you want to split TV and movies that's about as far as I'll tolerate.

(1b) No more "exclusives" with one service or another and everything should be streamed (looking at you Netflix).

(2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

(3) It's OK to put streaming TV shows on delay like is done with movies, but for Farks sake, make it consistent. Whether it's 2 weeks, two months or a season after initial airing, I don't care, but I better be able to count on it.

Cable will still live on broadcasting first run TV shows and sports.


You left out any part where the RIAA makes money.
 
2013-03-04 03:32:50 PM  

swahnhennessy: majestic: Don't know about movies, but there are multiple apps/sites that instantly convert youtube files to mp3. Way faster than any torrent or sharing site.

Jesus, that's sad.


Why?
 
2013-03-04 03:32:53 PM  

Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.


iTunes? Amazon Instant Video?

I believe Showtime sells their shows individually on those services.
 
Ant
2013-03-04 03:36:08 PM  

cman: Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.

iTunes? Amazon Instant Video?

I believe Showtime sells their shows individually on those services.


Do they really? Even the current season?
 
2013-03-04 03:37:17 PM  
The first "strike" is a simple notice that you have been observed pirating content, probably through a pop-up window on your computer screen.


This is already beyond their technical capabilities.
 
2013-03-04 03:39:54 PM  

Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.


Hey Ant,

Buy the DVD.
 
2013-03-04 03:39:55 PM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: Dinobot: Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.

i assume btguard is one of them.

You'd have to check their TOS or privacy policy. I haven't used them. I rarely use torrents.


According to their site their don't keep logs.
Privacy Policy
TOS
Mind you in their TOS they say you aren't supposed to engage in illegal activity which I would have thought meant torrenting copyrighted material, yet it advertises as a torrent privacy site, so I don't know.
 
2013-03-04 03:43:51 PM  

Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3


Um, no. I'm afraid you just flunked web 101.

Your ISP (and everyone in between) knows that you made a request to beemp3.com, but the HTTPS request itself is encrypted. This is trivial to verify, by the way. Just pull up Wireshark and see for yourself.
 
2013-03-04 03:44:35 PM  

Ant: cman: Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.

iTunes? Amazon Instant Video?

I believe Showtime sells their shows individually on those services.

Do they really? Even the current season?


No. I do see your point in that. However, Showtime made the show. They spent a large amount of cash on doing this. Do you not believe that one should be rewarded with financial renumeration for work? Is it really too much to wait for the DVD/iTunes release?
 
2013-03-04 03:46:18 PM  
as you cut down my speed i will cut down my payment
at that time i am paying for what i get
this will continue until we both hit 0
i may not have the internet but you have no income
lets see who cares more
 
Ant
2013-03-04 03:50:59 PM  

fo_sho!: Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.

Hey Ant,

Buy the DVD.


You have to wait for a freaking year!
 
2013-03-04 03:51:07 PM  
I canceled the news boards subscription because everything is getting taken down as soon as it goes up. VPN is now my friend.
 
Ant
2013-03-04 03:54:21 PM  

cman: Ant: cman: Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.

iTunes? Amazon Instant Video?

I believe Showtime sells their shows individually on those services.

Do they really? Even the current season?

No. I do see your point in that. However, Showtime made the show. They spent a large amount of cash on doing this. Do you not believe that one should be rewarded with financial renumeration for work? Is it really too much to wait for the DVD/iTunes release?


I would reward them with financial remuneration if they'd sell me the shows from the current season. Are they seriously trying to say they couldn't make money off $5 per episode rental fee from tens of thousands of viewers?
 
2013-03-04 03:55:24 PM  

stonicus: Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.

But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.


Except it doesn't work off filename. It works like this...

-- you're on Pirate Bay, see The Hobbit: An Underwhelming Journey, and you start downloading -- but you save it as "lol catz.rar" because you're wiley.
-- the MPAA also sees that torrent available. It starts downloading.
-- it looks in its torrent client to see which IPs are on the swarm. It jots them down on the back of their contract with Satan.
-- it looks up the IPs, notifies their ISPs, who sends you a digital finger-wagging.

So what you've saved the file as is irrelevant. They find you because you're on the swarm.

What's the total list of "associations" involved in this? Just MPAA and RIAA? Because if so, I think most of the private trackers will stay on the DL, and the porn guys are probably breathing easier (well, heavier, which is what they're after) since I don't think there's a porn --AA that can join this party.
 
2013-03-04 03:58:16 PM  
Who needs your copyrighted material? Open Source/GNU/Creative Commons/Public Domain are gaining so much ground you really don't even need to pirate anymore. While Big Digital tries to keep you only on their dimension of their product or elsewhere, a smart person can get all of the functionality of programs in easy-to-use, free projects. Now where you must stay on their dimension, because a label contains and artist/band you love, that's the fault of the artist. If you're resourceful, you can gain the ability to record, mix, master, create hard copies, and publicize for little to no cost compared to the record label giants. Hell, if you're really into low-lost production you can get a raspberry pi running ubuntu and connect it to a removable hard drive. Suffice it to say, if you are willing to learn and adapt, you can produce things for fractions or almost none of the cost.
 
2013-03-04 04:00:39 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Who needs your copyrighted material? Open Source/GNU/Creative Commons/Public Domain are gaining so much ground you really don't even need to pirate anymore.


Who needs copyrighted material when you have... copyrighted material? WTF?
 
2013-03-04 04:00:55 PM  

Ant: cman: Ant: cman: Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.

iTunes? Amazon Instant Video?

I believe Showtime sells their shows individually on those services.

Do they really? Even the current season?

No. I do see your point in that. However, Showtime made the show. They spent a large amount of cash on doing this. Do you not believe that one should be rewarded with financial renumeration for work? Is it really too much to wait for the DVD/iTunes release?

I would reward them with financial remuneration if they'd sell me the shows from the current season. Are they seriously trying to say they couldn't make money off $5 per episode rental fee from tens of thousands of viewers?


Most likely it is a marketing strategy. I have noticed this with a few other shows.

Person of Interest, for example, is being held back by CBS purposely to drum up interest in selling DVD's. They dont release it on iTunes. They dont release it on Amazon. Hell, Time Warner Cable doesnt even have it on CBS on Demand.

Its their content. Shouldn't they have a say on how their content is distributed?
 
2013-03-04 04:01:35 PM  
TOR project

/google it.
 
2013-03-04 04:02:33 PM  

hamsack: TOR project

/google it.


Oh they are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR
 
2013-03-04 04:03:09 PM  

cman: hamsack: TOR project

/google it.

Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR


My bad. Fixt
 
2013-03-04 04:03:14 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Who needs your copyrighted material? Open Source/GNU/Creative Commons/Public Domain are gaining so much ground you really don't even need to pirate anymore. While Big Digital tries to keep you only on their dimension of their product or elsewhere, a smart person can get all of the functionality of programs in easy-to-use, free projects.


How do the open-source 1080 rips of Game of Thrones rips compare to the HBO ones?

/hell of a lot more than the occasional app we're talking about
//And Gimp still isn't as good as Photoshop
 
2013-03-04 04:19:48 PM  

hamsack: TOR project

/google it.


it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!

what, Mr. Federal Officer Sir? I don't know anything about any child pornography. if any such thing happened to exist on my computer it's only because of the network i use to download Justin Bieber albums. (which is true, but won't hold up in court.).
 
2013-03-04 04:22:55 PM  

hamsack: TOR project

/google it.


If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.
 
2013-03-04 04:31:24 PM  
Even if this works, it will be self defeating.  It's this kind of thing that will get regular people pissed off enough and in large enough numbers to insist on breaking local monopolies.  Even if that didn't happen, what will happen is the inevitable growth of darknet, which cannot be controlled.
 
2013-03-04 04:35:57 PM  

MrEricSir: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

Um, no. I'm afraid you just flunked web 101.

Your ISP (and everyone in between) knows that you made a request to beemp3.com, but the HTTPS request itself is encrypted. This is trivial to verify, by the way. Just pull up Wireshark and see for yourself.


Unless I'm greatly mistaken (and I have to admit to not having read the RFC), your ISP knows that you made a request to 213.174.140.114 , which has no reverse DNS record and could be anything.  Which host you are looking for at that IP is not known.

/Though they could probably make an educated guess if you did a DNS query for www.beemp3.com immediately prior.
 
2013-03-04 04:38:23 PM  

Scrotastic Method: stonicus: Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.

But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.

Except it doesn't work off filename. It works like this...

-- you're on Pirate Bay, see The Hobbit: An Underwhelming Journey, and you start downloading -- but you save it as "lol catz.rar" because you're wiley.
-- the MPAA also sees that torrent available. It starts downloading.
-- it looks in its torrent client to see which IPs are on the swarm. It jots them down on the back of their contract with Satan.
-- it looks up the IPs, notifies their ISPs, who sends you a digital finger-wagging.

So what you've saved the file as is irrelevant. They find you because you're on the swarm.

What's the total list of "associations" involved in this? Just MPAA and RIAA? Because if so, I think most of the private trackers will stay on the DL, and the porn guys are probably breathing easier (well, heavier, which is what they're after) since I don't think there's a porn --AA that can join this party.


I meant the name on the tracker, not what I save it as locally.  The only initial metric they have to judge legality of torrents on is the filename.  A movie can be shown on the torrent sites as "newawesomemovieTRAILER.avi", when in fact it is the full movie.  Downloading a trailer isn't illegal.


 
2013-03-04 04:41:53 PM  

stonicus: Downloading a trailer isn't illegal.


Um...
 
2013-03-04 04:56:53 PM  

stonicus: Scrotastic Method: stonicus: Nexzus: stonicus: Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.

Bittorrent itself isn't illegal.  How will they know what I am downloading besides looking at the filename?  Rename "cool_new_song_I_don't_want_to_pay_for.mp3" to "pictures_of_lol_cats.zip", and voila!

There's still the tracker. The tracker knows the (alleged) filename and who is currently seeding and leeching the file. Whether you rename it is irrelevant.

But you have plausible deniability... "I thought it was cat pictures".  Criminal intent is destroyed.

Except it doesn't work off filename. It works like this...

-- you're on Pirate Bay, see The Hobbit: An Underwhelming Journey, and you start downloading -- but you save it as "lol catz.rar" because you're wiley.
-- the MPAA also sees that torrent available. It starts downloading.
-- it looks in its torrent client to see which IPs are on the swarm. It jots them down on the back of their contract with Satan.
-- it looks up the IPs, notifies their ISPs, who sends you a digital finger-wagging.

So what you've saved the file as is irrelevant. They find you because you're on the swarm.

What's the total list of "associations" involved in this? Just MPAA and RIAA? Because if so, I think most of the private trackers will stay on the DL, and the porn guys are probably breathing easier (well, heavier, which is what they're after) since I don't think there's a porn --AA that can join this party.

I meant the name on the tracker, not what I save it as locally.  The only initial metric they have to judge legality of torrents on is the filename.  A movie can be shown on the torrent sites as "newawesomemovieTRAILER.avi", w ...


Couple things. Last I checked many torrents come with multiple trackers, they aren't all going to be deceptively labeled. The downloader also doesn't determine what the tracker names the file, the uploader or site that it's uploaded to does. I'm also pretty sure the companies that roam torrents for copyrighted material for lawsuit ammo are capable of noticing when the file size for that so called trailer is large enough for the entire movie. Not to mention part of what the companies that are hired to find illegal downloaders do is sample the file being downloaded.

/only mildly torrent savvy. I could be wrong on several points.
 
2013-03-04 04:57:41 PM  

hamsack: TOR project

cman: Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR

the801: it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!

MrEricSir: If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.


Use TOR to find the torrents, then use OneSwarm for the actual torrenting.
 
2013-03-04 05:06:01 PM  
Downloading a piece of copyrighted material is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Some situations in which downloading a copyrighted work is not illegal:

If you already own the work, you can download a copy of that work without violating the law.
If you're making a parody of the work, you can download the work under the "fair use" doctrine.
If you have permission from the rights holder, you can download a copy of the work.

The difficulty that arises for most torrent users, however, is not that they downloaded the work, but because they have used bittorrent to get the file(s), they have also distributed the work, buy the very nature of how bittorrent works.
 
2013-03-04 05:10:36 PM  

Nexzus: skantea: What about using Https?  The 'S' being the operative letter.

/looking forward to some juicy tips

The 'S' will just encrypt the actual content. Your ISP still knows that you downloaded from the address https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

And most standard BitTorrent clients will still show who you're connected to, and who's connected to you.


To be clear, your ISP does NOT know you went to the address  https://www.beemp3.com/somesong.mp3

Your ISP knows you opened a connection on port 443 to a particular IP address, and they MAY know that you did a DNS lookup for beemp3.com. Everything after that, including the Host header and the file path are encrypted.
 
2013-03-04 05:17:33 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Downloading a piece of copyrighted material is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Some situations in which downloading a copyrighted work is not illegal:

If you already own the work, you can download a copy of that work without violating the law.


I think that this is correct in the spirit of the law. BUT, has anyone actually ever gotten this far?

Because, like, I torrent a lot. If I get nailed for grabbing something, what's to stop me from going to my friendly local used record store, buying a copy, and going to court all, "hey here's my copy, I just wanted it on my iPod too."
 
2013-03-04 05:20:21 PM  
So their entire plan rests on the big ISP's monitoring everyone's connections? Aside from the fact that most of them are incredibly incompetent (I'm looking at you Comcast), monitoring equipment at that scale costs money... lots of money.
 
2013-03-04 05:21:25 PM  
Oh, cool - a birthday green!

/subbette
 
2013-03-04 05:24:54 PM  
North Korea to the rescue!
 
2013-03-04 05:25:44 PM  
Serious question - is it really that simple to "hide behind a proxy?" Can you just change your IP address like that? I feel like you'd need to act as your own ISP, and if you have the ability to do so, why would you need an account with Time Warner anyway?
 
2013-03-04 05:25:45 PM  

Marine1: It'll fail like the rest of the efforts.

Keep farking that chicken, entertainment execs.


Well, they're phrasing it as an attempt to reduce false positives (people that don't really know they're breaking the law getting caught by the systems) rather than a way to catch more of the real, intentional criminals.

I actually don't really have an issue with this.  Stealing content is, after all, stealing content, if they're going after people distributing their shiat without permission rather than the random idiots that are just on the receiving end that actually fixes most of my objections to the copyright bullshiat, aside from the simple longevity of copyrights.
 
2013-03-04 05:40:52 PM  

Tommy Moo: Serious question - is it really that simple to "hide behind a proxy?" Can you just change your IP address like that? I feel like you'd need to act as your own ISP, and if you have the ability to do so, why would you need an account with Time Warner anyway?


You're not changing your IP, you're just routing all your requests through the proxy server (which is why it's called a "proxy.") As long as your proxy server never reveals who has connected to it, it's very safe. But good luck with that.
 
2013-03-04 05:52:46 PM  

MrEricSir: Who needs copyrighted material when you have... copyrighted material? WTF?


There's a difference between "lock it down with drms, ban any attempt to use it" type of copyright and those bolded which are technically copyrighted but honestly they're free for use and modify in most instances. Essentially while everything is copyrighted, there are those which really don't function anywhere close to the evil corporate monster of Big (Insert Industry Here).
 
2013-03-04 05:55:43 PM  

Tommy Moo: Serious question - is it really that simple to "hide behind a proxy?" Can you just change your IP address like that? I feel like you'd need to act as your own ISP, and if you have the ability to do so, why would you need an account with Time Warner anyway?


It's not quite that simple, but it is in a way. Right now your internet connection goes something like this: Computer----Router-----Modem---ISP----Outside world. That's not precisely how it works but it's close enough. Your ISP assigns your IP address to your modem, and unless you have a static IP for some reason (most average users don't) it changes occassionally. Each modem or hell any network equipment has a unique identifier called a MAC address. Your ISP keeps records of what IP was assigned to which MAC address at any given time. What a proxy server does it makes your connection look like this: Computer---Router---Modem---ISP---Proxy/VPN---Outside world. In a way it assigns your connection a different IP address before going to the rest of the outside world. The reason some proxies (the good ones) keep you private is that when companies that are tracking down people torrenting their material get to the proxy/VPN the company running the proxy doesn't give out or even keep records of who gets what IP. So say your modem gets an IP address of 123.456.789.101 from your ISP. When you connect to the proxy/VPN it takes that address and through it's equipment changes it to 125.532.879.103 before going on to the rest of the world. Now it doesn't keep track of what IP was changed into what so the folks tracking that info get stymied.

Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.
 
2013-03-04 06:07:39 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-04 06:09:53 PM  

Tax Boy: [i.qkme.me image 460x268]


Legal access to the same amount of content that VPN and seedbox gets you access to would cost a whole f*ck of a lot more than $50/mo.
 
2013-03-04 06:11:53 PM  
So, are they only looking at torrent sites?  If so, then I can already see a problem with this:

In the 1990s and early 2000s, people used file sharing sites like LimeWire and Kazzaa.  The groups like the MPAA and RIAA went after those sites and pressured the government to do something about illegal downloads.  Now those sites are dead (apparently).

In or about 2004 I learned of torrents and used that for file sharing.  Once I got into that I stopped using things like Kazzaa.  Now the MPAA, RIAA and the government is looking at torrenting.

So, the problem with this plan is that it does nothing, it seems, to people who use sites like filetube.com to download music, tv shows and movies.  Secondly, it assumes that anyone who downloads form a torrent site is breaking the law, which isn't true.  I took a copyright law course in college.  I bought the first six Star Trek movies on bluray.  Legally I can download them from a torrent site and as long as I have those six movies on disk, I can download those movies via torrent if I so choose.
 
2013-03-04 06:13:59 PM  

Great Janitor: I bought the first six Star Trek movies on bluray.  Legally I can download them from a torrent site and as long as I have those six movies on disk, I can download those movies via torrent if I so choose.


Except that, because of the way torrents work, you're not just downloading the movies, you are also distributing them, and that's what they can get you for.
 
2013-03-04 06:21:03 PM  

Teufelaffe: Great Janitor: I bought the first six Star Trek movies on bluray.  Legally I can download them from a torrent site and as long as I have those six movies on disk, I can download those movies via torrent if I so choose.

Except that, because of the way torrents work, you're not just downloading the movies, you are also distributing them, and that's what they can get you for.


That. The way torrents work is that while you download different pieces of a given file from the numerous other people sharing that file, you are also sharing the pieces that you've already downloaded. That's where the MPAA/RIAA and what not get you.
 
2013-03-04 06:21:54 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Tommy Moo: Serious question - is it really that simple to "hide behind a proxy?" Can you just change your IP address like that? I feel like you'd need to act as your own ISP, and if you have the ability to do so, why would you need an account with Time Warner anyway?

It's not quite that simple, but it is in a way. Right now your internet connection goes something like this: Computer----Router-----Modem---ISP----Outside world. That's not precisely how it works but it's close enough. Your ISP assigns your IP address to your modem, and unless you have a static IP for some reason (most average users don't) it changes occassionally. Each modem or hell any network equipment has a unique identifier called a MAC address. Your ISP keeps records of what IP was assigned to which MAC address at any given time. What a proxy server does it makes your connection look like this: Computer---Router---Modem---ISP---Proxy/VPN---Outside world. In a way it assigns your connection a different IP address before going to the rest of the outside world. The reason some proxies (the good ones) keep you private is that when companies that are tracking down people torrenting their material get to the proxy/VPN the company running the proxy doesn't give out or even keep records of who gets what IP. So say your modem gets an IP address of 123.456.789.101 from your ISP. When you connect to the proxy/VPN it takes that address and through it's equipment changes it to 125.532.879.103 before going on to the rest of the world. Now it doesn't keep track of what IP was changed into what so the folks tracking that info get stymied.

Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.


So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in you using a proxy?
 
2013-03-04 06:34:54 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: MrEricSir: Who needs copyrighted material when you have... copyrighted material? WTF?

There's a difference between "lock it down with drms, ban any attempt to use it" type of copyright and those bolded which are technically copyrighted but honestly they're free for use and modify in most instances. Essentially while everything is copyrighted, there are those which really don't function anywhere close to the evil corporate monster of Big (Insert Industry Here).


Sure. But keep in mind FOSS software, Creative Commons, etc. could not exist without copyright. Copyright is what makes copyleft possible.
 
2013-03-04 06:42:01 PM  

Tommy Moo: Dingleberry Dickwad: Tommy Moo: Serious question - is it really that simple to "hide behind a proxy?" Can you just change your IP address like that? I feel like you'd need to act as your own ISP, and if you have the ability to do so, why would you need an account with Time Warner anyway?

It's not quite that simple, but it is in a way. Right now your internet connection goes something like this: Computer----Router-----Modem---ISP----Outside world. That's not precisely how it works but it's close enough. Your ISP assigns your IP address to your modem, and unless you have a static IP for some reason (most average users don't) it changes occassionally. Each modem or hell any network equipment has a unique identifier called a MAC address. Your ISP keeps records of what IP was assigned to which MAC address at any given time. What a proxy server does it makes your connection look like this: Computer---Router---Modem---ISP---Proxy/VPN---Outside world. In a way it assigns your connection a different IP address before going to the rest of the outside world. The reason some proxies (the good ones) keep you private is that when companies that are tracking down people torrenting their material get to the proxy/VPN the company running the proxy doesn't give out or even keep records of who gets what IP. So say your modem gets an IP address of 123.456.789.101 from your ISP. When you connect to the proxy/VPN it takes that address and through it's equipment changes it to 125.532.879.103 before going on to the rest of the world. Now it doesn't keep track of what IP was changed into what so the folks tracking that info get stymied.

Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.

So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in ...


There's nothing illegal about using a proxy though. And before you go to the next step I think you'd jump to, it's not likely that ISP's will get involved in limiting what sites and addresses you connect to, there'd be a pretty huge uproar.
 
2013-03-04 06:45:25 PM  

Tommy Moo: So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in you using a proxy?


The neat thing about proxies is they are just like anything else you connect to on the internet, just your traffic pops out the other side of them and heads towards what you were really wanting to go visit.  Proxies can be configured to listen and repeat on virtually any port so its not like the ISP can just block one port and call it a day, an ISP would have to be actively blocking lists of proxies' IPs and/or inspecting all traffic coming in or leaving their network (good luck doing that in real time against even the most basic encryption).  So they can do something really dirty like start arbitrarily disrupting anything that's encrypted or even smells like torrent traffic (fark you rogers & bell canada) or they just let it go because if they pressed that they'll take enormous heat from other uses of VPN-like things, like people connecting to work or whatever.

So by default you can reach anything on the internet, your ISP would have to want to and expend pretty heavy resources to block proxy or VPN usage, and there's no money in it for them so I don't see that happening short of something really insane like the outlaw of encrypted  traffic on the internet...which would go over as well as you'd think it would.
 
2013-03-04 07:02:54 PM  

SurfaceTension: I still don't get what this fight is about, other than there are execs who simply cannot fathom the idea of changing business models.


There isn't any more to the fight than that. Paradigm shifts are terrifying to stake-holders who don't know if they can survive in a changed economy, so they are willing to expend vast resources to hold the tide as long as they can.
 
2013-03-04 07:23:01 PM  

MrEricSir: Sure. But keep in mind FOSS software, Creative Commons, etc. could not exist without copyright. Copyright is what makes copyleft possible necessary.


FTFY.

Nobody would mess around with those licences, if they didn't have to. The whole point of copyleft licenses is to subvert existing copyright laws and turn them to a different purpose. But it's the stringent copyright laws, and the way that they're applied with makes copyleft necessary in the first place.
 
2013-03-04 07:38:36 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Teufelaffe: Great Janitor: I bought the first six Star Trek movies on bluray.  Legally I can download them from a torrent site and as long as I have those six movies on disk, I can download those movies via torrent if I so choose.

Except that, because of the way torrents work, you're not just downloading the movies, you are also distributing them, and that's what they can get you for.

That. The way torrents work is that while you download different pieces of a given file from the numerous other people sharing that file, you are also sharing the pieces that you've already downloaded. That's where the MPAA/RIAA and what not get you.


Which is interesting, because as far as you know, all the other people in the torrent could have a valid fair use rationale for downloading it. It seems odd you can be "got" for helping someone else commit copyright infringement when you have no reasonable way of knowing whether they were or not. So even though you are "innocent", you should be assuming other peoples guilt otherwise you are complicit in helping them.
 
2013-03-04 07:42:29 PM  

Bad_Seed: MrEricSir: Sure. But keep in mind FOSS software, Creative Commons, etc. could not exist without copyright. Copyright is what makes copyleft possible necessary.

FTFY.

Nobody would mess around with those licences, if they didn't have to. The whole point of copyleft licenses is to subvert existing copyright laws and turn them to a different purpose. But it's the stringent copyright laws, and the way that they're applied with makes copyleft necessary in the first place.


Um, no. There's nothing more "subversive" about the GPL or CC than any other license agreement. Copyleft licenses might be worded differently than your standard EULA, but they're still EULAs.

Think of it this way: copyright gives you the right to decide who can legally copy your work. Period. A copyleft license would be meaningless without this right, as it could not be enforced.
 
2013-03-04 07:56:22 PM  

xria: Dingleberry Dickwad: Teufelaffe: Great Janitor: I bought the first six Star Trek movies on bluray.  Legally I can download them from a torrent site and as long as I have those six movies on disk, I can download those movies via torrent if I so choose.

Except that, because of the way torrents work, you're not just downloading the movies, you are also distributing them, and that's what they can get you for.

That. The way torrents work is that while you download different pieces of a given file from the numerous other people sharing that file, you are also sharing the pieces that you've already downloaded. That's where the MPAA/RIAA and what not get you.

Which is interesting, because as far as you know, all the other people in the torrent could have a valid fair use rationale for downloading it. It seems odd you can be "got" for helping someone else commit copyright infringement when you have no reasonable way of knowing whether they were or not. So even though you are "innocent", you should be assuming other peoples guilt otherwise you are complicit in helping them.


Not sure you're understanding things. Downloading isn't the copyright infringement. It's the uploading, or making it available for other people who may or may not have paid for the content. If you are allowing your torrent software to upload your pieces of the whole with the community at large, that is where you are infringing, and at that point you are not "innocent" as you said. They can't prove that you never had a legitimate copy of artist x's album and that you're legally downloading a copy as a backup. But they sure as hell can prove that you made that copy available to others which is illegal.
 
2013-03-04 07:59:33 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Not sure you're understanding things. Downloading isn't the copyright infringement. It's the uploading, or making it available for other people who may or may not have paid for the content. If you are allowing your torrent software to upload your pieces of the whole with the community at large, that is where you are infringing, and at that point you are not "innocent" as you said. They can't prove that you never had a legitimate copy of artist x's album and that you're legally downloading a copy as a backup. But they sure as hell can prove that you made that copy available to others which is illegal.


Well both are, just its much easier to prove the making it available angle.  Plus if they brought up the downloading angle they'd have to admit that they are participating just as much as the accused in providing these resources to others which always throws a big wet blanket on their integrity.
 
2013-03-04 08:17:03 PM  
I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures
 
2013-03-04 08:28:49 PM  
I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.
 
2013-03-04 08:30:29 PM  
The only way the copyright holders can see who is currently sharing the torrent is to be sharing it themselves.

That means that they are voluntarily giving away the content.  They chose to connect to the torrent and allow other people to download parts of the movie from them.

So suing people downloading the torrents is kind of like putting out free samples in a store and then filing shoplifting charges against the people who take them.

I wonder if anybody has tried using a version of that argument.  It's a moot point for me however.  I'm an old geezer so I usethe technology that has been around since the start of the internet.  It's faster and you don't have to worry about having your connection throttled or cut off if you aren't sharing yourself.
 
2013-03-04 08:31:04 PM  

MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures


The companies that put out movies and music and other copyrighted material hire tech firms and other companies that specialize in finding people that have been torrenting their property. These folks spend all day searching torrent sites for their customer's material. From there they can start torrenting that file themselves and get a list of the peers sharing the file. They take that list of peers (IP addresses) and find out what ISP controls the various IP's and sends the ISP a notice saying X IP at Y date participated in torrenting z file. After that it depends on your ISP what happens. Some will outright give up your name and address and so forth, others will just give you a warning and not give up your info right off the bat.

As far as how they know what it is you're downloading they have various methods of sampling the file to check it's contents.
 
2013-03-04 08:32:04 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.

So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in ...

There's nothing illegal about using a proxy though. And before you go to the next step I think you'd jump to, it's not likely that ISP's will get involved in limiting what sites and addresses you connect to, there'd be a pretty huge uproar.


Ok, I think I get it. So... is it easy for anyone to use one? Do you just go to www.proxy.com and then another website opens inside a frame within that site? They are probably maintained by people who want to make money off of them I imagine. Do you pay subscriptions? Or do you have to know how to run your own server?
 
2013-03-04 08:33:33 PM  

you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.


That system would probably work, but only if people could get everyone to adopt it all at once, which is hard. It would never gain legs if a handful of helpful people started naming their files obtusely.
 
2013-03-04 08:35:18 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures

The companies that put out movies and music and other copyrighted material hire tech firms and other companies that specialize in finding people that have been torrenting their property. These folks spend all day searching torrent sites for their customer's material. From there they can start torrenting that file themselves and get a list of the peers sharing the file. They take that list of peers (IP addresses) and find out what ISP controls the various IP's and sends the ISP a notice saying X IP at Y date participated in torrenting z file. After that it depends on your ISP what happens. Some will outright give up your name and address and so forth, others will just give you a warning and not give up your info right off the bat.

As far as how they know what it is you're downloading they have various methods of sampling the file to check it's contents.


Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?
 
2013-03-04 08:37:47 PM  

MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures


They go online with a bittorrent engine and download files which claim to be their movie.  Then they check it and see if it actually is their movie.  There is a unique (or as close to unique as you can get) checksum for that particular file and that is what the engine uses to seed and share it, not the file name.  So it doesn't matter what you call it on your personal computer.   All that matters is the checksum.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:54 PM  

Tommy Moo: Dingleberry Dickwad: Mind you that's not really exactly how it works, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can tell you the specifics and point out where I'm wrong, but that's the gist of it.

So if I'm following correctly, the information only goes to the proxy once it has left your house and gone through the ISP? Wouldn't that require Time Warner to be complicit in ...

There's nothing illegal about using a proxy though. And before you go to the next step I think you'd jump to, it's not likely that ISP's will get involved in limiting what sites and addresses you connect to, there'd be a pretty huge uproar.

Ok, I think I get it. So... is it easy for anyone to use one? Do you just go to www.proxy.com and then another website opens inside a frame within that site? They are probably maintained by people who want to make money off of them I imagine. Do you pay subscriptions? Or do you have to know how to run your own server?


Most are subscription based. You pay your monthly fee to route your internet traffic through them. Most of them will give you settings to plug into your browser or torrent client that tell that software to route through the proxy or VPN. Once you have that set up you're good to go.
 
2013-03-04 08:41:44 PM  

MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures


I'll pick torrenting since that's the most straight forward:  When you are downloading Assmasters VXXI:  The butterstick's revenge, you are doing so from a bunch of other people and others who join in later will in turn grab some pieces from you as well (this is a swarm, you all participate for the greater good, the greater good).  Now what the RIAA will do is join that swarm pretending to want to download the file as well but what they're really interested in is the addresses of all the others they can see in the swarm (everyone needs everyone else's address in order to talk, just the way its gotta work).  So now that they have this list of addresses they figure out the ones that the big America ISPs own and send them a message to the effect of "At 3am one of your perverted subscribers was downloading Assmasters VXXI:  The butterstick's revenge, please smite them for us, k thxbye".  The ISPs used to just send them back a message containing a seven legged spider but now they've all in the same bed (ewww) so instead they check their logs and see "Ahh yes, MBA Whore was using that address at that time, its gotta be him." and tick off a demerit point.
 
2013-03-04 08:46:58 PM  

Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?


That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.
 
2013-03-04 08:51:58 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?

That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.


Two ways. Peerblock and BTguard. Peerblock is free and simple to use, although you can't leave it on all the time as it will occasionally get in the way of Steam and other services you may run on your computer that require talking to a server somewhere. BTguard is a proxy and VPN service. You can choose just their torrent proxy service or their VPN service where you do all your browsing and torrenting through their equipment.
 
2013-03-04 08:53:39 PM  

you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.


You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.
 
2013-03-04 09:23:04 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: BumpInTheNight: Tommy Moo: Why do the torrent sites allow people to see the IP addresses of the peers? Couldn't they just show the files and keep who is putting them there anonymous?

That's how torrenting works though, you don't download the actual file from the torrent site you just download a list of people's addresses who have it or want it but just have some of it, then your clients all negotiate a big ol digital orgy and share share share until you tell it to stop.  You need each other's addressed to talk, there's just really no way around that part without introducing some central hub like the old napsters and stuff, but that opened them up to way too much liability and that's how torrents were born.

Now there's one way to be slightly faster then the other guy trying to outrun the bear:  Use something like peerblock, its like a firewall against assholes, its a giant list of all addresses suspected of belonging to assholes and it will stop your computer from talking to them and vice versa.  Your address still shows up on the asshole's torrent client but they can't pull a chunk of file from you and thus its harder to prove that your address was actually sharing anything with anyone.  Of course that only works if you have every asshole's address, but its better then nothing.

Two ways. Peerblock and BTguard. Peerblock is free and simple to use, although you can't leave it on all the time as it will occasionally get in the way of Steam and other services you may run on your computer that require talking to a server somewhere. BTguard is a proxy and VPN service. You can choose just their torrent proxy service or their VPN service where you do all your browsing and torrenting through their equipment.


Peerblock is a placebo.  Please put no faith in it.
 
2013-03-04 09:23:22 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Downloading a piece of copyrighted material is not, in and of itself, illegal.  Some situations in which downloading a copyrighted work is not illegal:

If you already own the work, you can download a copy of that work without violating the law.
If you're making a parody of the work, you can download the work under the "fair use" doctrine.
If you have permission from the rights holder, you can download a copy of the work.

The difficulty that arises for most torrent users, however, is not that they downloaded the work, but because they have used bittorrent to get the file(s), they have also distributed the work, buy the very nature of how bittorrent works.


This is absolutely not true.  Parody and sampling can be protected under fair use, but you still have to acquire the original format legally.  You can't illegally download something and then say "it wasn't illegal because I'm going to parody it."
 
2013-03-04 10:06:34 PM  

Ant: Hey Showtime,

Your cable channel sucks. I don't want it. Let me buy Dexter in individual episodes.


It can be done. Check to see if your cable has a content-on-demand feature. I myself started watching Dexter last season, and the on-demand feature had each episode of that season (but only that season) available the day after it first aired, along with a few bonus DVD-extra type things.

If you don't subscribe to the pay channel that offers the content, it will charge a rental fee and make the content available to you for something like 24 hours. If you do subscribe, the content for that channel is available free since you've presumably paid for them already.
 
2013-03-04 10:08:36 PM  
*paid for it. So much for proofreading.
 
2013-03-04 10:28:50 PM  
One problem.  My ISP offers me internet access.  They offer different price points for more or less bandwidth.  So, if people paying for the higher bandwidth get throttled, they're going to demand to be charge the lower price.  I just don't see any way ISP's are going to give up that kind of money.
 
2013-03-04 10:38:04 PM  

andrewagill: you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.

You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.


Yes, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would outline it. I've been thinking about this for a while. I always want to know more. This is all very interesting, not boring at all. But then again, I write php/sql/c# for a living, and thoroughly enjoy it, so what do I know about boring? I've read a little on magnet URIs but not enough to grok it.
 
2013-03-04 10:39:22 PM  
I love how if they accuse you of doing something wrong you can appeal for it for 35 bucks.  So even if your innocent to begin with you have to pay 35 dollars to submit your appeal to the RIAA/MPAA who I'm sure will admit if they are wrong.  It's a huge scam.
 
2013-03-04 10:59:50 PM  

ampoliros: It's been said before and it will be said again, piracy is a customer service problem. If you make things as easy for users as it is for pirates (relatively), then they'll choose the legal route. Here's a few ideas, build a service on this and it will thrive. I guarantee the money will come in so fast that you'll be burning it because you won't have room to store it.


I really don't see this as the case.  Music is dirt cheap and easily available through legal means and yet many people still pirate.  The fact is that, for some people, the price point for content is zero, and so long as it's freely accessible (even if illegally) that's how they'll get it.  They won't pay no matter what.

(1) Allow users to get everything (movies, tv, etc.) through a single service (Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else) and single household account. I have one electric company, not one for my computer and one for my fridge. If you want to split TV and movies that's about as far as I'll tolerate.

This has two issues.  First, there are the obvious monopoly concerns if there's only one provider of internet television services.  Second, you're dealing with dozens of different companies here, each with different sets of rights.  The networks have the first year (i.e. Hulu) rights while the production companies have the syndication (i.e. Netflix) rights.  And that doesn't even get into the fact that different networks have different ideas for monetization.  For example, Fox and ABC are currently in a tiff over Hulu, with one company wanting to pursue the free, advertising-supported model, while the other wants to pursue the subscription model.  Now throw a dozen more networks and two dozen production companies into the mix.  It's completely unworkable.

(1b) No more "exclusives" with one service or another and everything should be streamed (looking at you Netflix).

Exclusives are how companies differentiate themselves from each other.  That's like saying The Big Bang Theory shouldn't be exclusive to CBS and that NBC, ABC, and Fox should be able to air it too.

(2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

Netflix currently spends about $5 per month per subscriber solely on its streaming acquisitions, which it sells for $8/month.  That's almost half of all their revenue.  The problem is that the most popular shows command a very high premium.  The Big Bang Theory got $2 million per episode in its syndication deal, and that's considering that much of that cost can be made up with advertising.  Without advertising, that show would cost of Netflix at least $.50-$1/month for each subscriber for just one show.  You just can't get "everything" for $30/month.

(3) It's OK to put streaming TV shows on delay like is done with movies, but for Farks sake, make it consistent. Whether it's 2 weeks, two months or a season after initial airing, I don't care, but I better be able to count on it.

This is, again, going to depend on who you get the content from.  The networks won't mind giving it to you a week or two after broadcast, but the production companies are going to want you to wait until the show is released on DVD first so as not to cut into those sales.
 
2013-03-04 11:12:22 PM  

ampoliros: (2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).


If your primary concern is streaming selection, why are you bothering with Netflix? Buy or rent a-la-carte from iTunes and/or Amazon.
 
2013-03-04 11:27:36 PM  
rugman11: <people will still pirate because a price of zero always wins>

Nothing costs zero; piracy has costs to the pirate. As an example, the biggest cost to a pirate is time. The media companies can give you something piracy can't and that's instant gratification. Want to watch 'Life of Brian'? On Netflix I can start in 20 seconds or less in HD. If i'm going to pirate it, it will be quite a bit more than that (unless I'm clairvoyant or phenomenally prolific) and there's no guarantee that I'm not going to end up with a crap version or even the right movie at all.

<monopoly>

Clearly, you misunderstood. I don't want everything from one provider, I want to be able to go to one provider to get everything. I would prefer if there were a dozen services out there but my point is that I should be able to pick any one of them and get all I need.

<exclusives>

I'm not talking about first airings of shows here. What streaming service is Blockbuster for movies and syndication for TV. NBC gets their first run add revenue from TV and cable. Subsequent broadcasts don't get them nearly what they do for first runs. A better deal is to stream their subsequent runs. Ie, when it goes to streaming that becomes a syndication avenue. The streaming services will do what they do now and just have licences for all of NBCs content.

<price point><stream delay>

I'll group these because we can easily tie them together. You're talking about highly popular shows here. There are probably in the neighborhood of less than a dozen shows in a season that command that kind of money. Most of them release DVDs at the end of the season or the beginning of the next. It would be easy to also release that to streaming a the same time at a reasonable price point. As for DVD sales themselves, anyone can tell you that selling something multiple times for less beats selling it once any day.
 
2013-03-04 11:30:31 PM  

you guys are sooo cool: andrewagill: you guys are sooo cool: I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking about, but why not have it set up so that all torrent filenames are random characters, and have a search engine that you could search for some_content.mp3 and it then list and link to the proper torrent? i.e.:

some_song.mp3 -> s8d3l98f300ddde
some_video.mkv -> 32dq84f3lk2dono

So when they have your IP in a swarm, they can't say "your ip was downloading some_video.mkv". I guess they could say "your ip was downloading 32dq84f3lk2dono, which, according to "search engine X" is supposed to be some_video.mkv", which to me seems like pretty shaky evidence that you were downloading something infringing. what if another search engine listed 32dq84f3lk2dono as being legit_linux_distro.iso? There would be no way for them to know which search engine you were using, thus, no way to prove what it was you were, or thought you were, downloading.

You are basically describing magnet URIs.  They allow you to search for the sha1sum of the file's contents.  I suppose you could do the same for only the filename and hope that you get a consistent naming system, but it probably won't protect you.  The reasons why are pretty difficult to describe in a short space (not to mention fairly boring), but I'd be happy to outline the process if you'd like.

Yes, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would outline it. I've been thinking about this for a while. I always want to know more. This is all very interesting, not boring at all. But then again, I write php/sql/c# for a living, and thoroughly enjoy it, so what do I know about boring? I've read a little on magnet URIs but not enough to grok it.


I'm not sure how magnet URIs work in practice, but they're based on cryptographic hashes, which are pretty simple to understand.  A hash function takes the file contents, jumbles them up, and creates a much smaller number that's supposed to represent the whole thing.  Currently, these sums are usually 256- or 512-bit sums, which is usually good enough to uniquely identify what you are looking for.  Chances are, a system to conceal file names or contents would use a hash-based system rather than a random array, since you can automatically generate new entries.

But the attack has nothing to do with whether you use a system based on hashes or if you just use an array of random numbers.  The problem comes when you have some sort of master database of which obfuscated name corresponds to which real file.  This database needs to exist, and as soon as the ??AA is able to interface with this, they can find a sample file and download it.  Once they do that, they have several options at their disposal.

- They can safely say that that file is their intellectual property and sue anyone who has downloaded that file
- They can sue the people who own the server, find the full database of names and people who downloaded those files
- If they see that your computer downloaded that file, they can ask for a search warrant

There are ways around such a system, the most effective of which would be to use some sort of onion routing like Tor (though not using the standard client) or i2p, or to encrypt the information you are sending over that channel.  Even without that, you could alter the naming scheme to depend on something like time or IP address (or other uniquely identifying string in a darknet), which would make a simple log search more difficult, but at the same time, you're not going to be able to look at a centralized search engine to get your filename.
 
2013-03-04 11:36:56 PM  

MrEricSir: ampoliros: (2) Charge a reasonable amount. Right now, my Netflix account is $16-17 per month for what I feel is a nice but pretty limited selection. If they'd give me everything, I'd easily pay double and not even blink. Triple would be fine too if I really could get everything (ie, the old, weird stuff).

If your primary concern is streaming selection, why are you bothering with Netflix? Buy or rent a-la-carte from iTunes and/or Amazon.


It's just an example, I have other accounts that I use as I need. I can get a lot of stuff on Netflix that would cost me significantly more if ordered a-la-carte. I then have an Amazon account for the remainder. I don't care for the arrangement but it does currently cost less. Once the boy grows up a bit, the situation will probably change.
 
2013-03-05 03:49:32 AM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Most are subscription based. You pay your monthly fee to route your internet traffic through them.


Uh, what? How much are you really saving then?

Also, how do you know they're trustworthy? Aren't they overseas?
 
2013-03-05 04:38:35 AM  

Teufelaffe: hamsack: TOR project
cman: Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR
the801: it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!
MrEricSir: If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.

Use TOR to find the torrents, then use OneSwarm for the actual torrenting.


Did anyone shiat on this suggestion yet? Looks like a good plan to me...
 
2013-03-05 04:56:16 AM  
I use Peerblock so the RIAA can go suck my coQ.

Question: What if someone is on Disability and the RIAA sues them? Social Security/SSI is completely garnishment-proof. In fact, if the RIAA ever so much as asked the bank to look at the defendant's bank balance after being told he/she's sole income is Soc. Sec., they would be liable to have THEIR asses sued off.
 
2013-03-05 05:25:02 AM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: MBA Whore: I am not tech smrt.  Could someone explain how the ISP (or anyone) would know what I am downloading unless it is clearly labeled:  Big Boob Motorboat Adventures

The companies that put out movies and music and other copyrighted material hire tech firms and other companies that specialize in finding people that have been torrenting their property. These folks spend all day searching torrent sites for their customer's material. From there they can start torrenting that file themselves and get a list of the peers sharing the file. They take that list of peers (IP addresses) and find out what ISP controls the various IP's and sends the ISP a notice saying X IP at Y date participated in torrenting z file. After that it depends on your ISP what happens. Some will outright give up your name and address and so forth, others will just give you a warning and not give up your info right off the bat.

As far as how they know what it is you're downloading they have various methods of sampling the file to check it's contents.


A lot of the larger files my friend torrents end up being 50 or so little .rar files that have to be unzipped all at once.  How can a zipped file be sampled while downloading since the entire set of .rar files is needed to get at the actual file being torrented?
 
2013-03-05 06:25:05 AM  
Who the hell bothers with torrents besides zit-faced teenagers?

Good thing it's totally legal to record CD-quality streaming audio while listening to song tracks, which I do basically every weekend.
 
2013-03-05 07:14:23 AM  
6 months ago I would have said newsgroups are the solution, but it's FAR more difficult to find things on newsgroups now.  NZB aggregators are now offline (you can still search, but the sites that review the NZBs are gone).  Additionally, domestic news servers have now automated stripping any pirated content from their servers almost immediately after they are posted.

I've been told there are ways to find NZBs and non-domestic news servers that still provide pirated content...but it's only a rumor.
 
2013-03-05 10:49:24 AM  
I've been using BTGuard since November or so and I'm pretty pleased with it.  Spending $7 a month for the proxy is not too too much - one less trip to Taco Bell per month is a sacrifice I can live with.

ampoliros

I'm with you - give me one service for everything and I'll gladly subscribe, however I want them to cut through all that exclusives bullcrap.  Like it or not, the entertainment providers have to get used to the fact that technology allows for any content to be distributed as soon as it is released, so if they want to profit from that, they have to be the ones doing it, rather than the pirates.  You're not going to make me wait to watch Game of Thrones - sorry, but instant gratification is the new standard. (I use this as an example - I get HBO, but I totally understand why GoT is the most pirated show.)
 
2013-03-05 11:52:28 AM  

idesofmarch: I've been using BTGuard since November or so and I'm pretty pleased with it.  Spending $7 a month for the proxy is not too too much - one less trip to Taco Bell per month is a sacrifice I can live with.

ampoliros

I'm with you - give me one service for everything and I'll gladly subscribe, however I want them to cut through all that exclusives bullcrap.  Like it or not, the entertainment providers have to get used to the fact that technology allows for any content to be distributed as soon as it is released, so if they want to profit from that, they have to be the ones doing it, rather than the pirates.  You're not going to make me wait to watch Game of Thrones - sorry, but instant gratification is the new standard. (I use this as an example - I get HBO, but I totally understand why GoT is the most pirated show.)


The main reason to pirate movies is that they're NOT all available via streaming.  Netflix has far too many movies that are DVD-only.  I'd gladly pay $15-20 a month for everything they have on DVD if it was available via streaming.  I'd drop most of my movie channels.

That's the real rub...the cable companies are doing everything they can to prevent shifting the paradigm.  Since they're also ISPs for many people, they don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul.  I'm guessing that's part of the reason they're implementing download caps.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:26 PM  

mediablitz: Teufelaffe: hamsack: TOR project
cman: Oh Tor users are gonna LOVE you if you download torrents via TOR
the801: it only took me 3 weeks to download that Justin Bieber album i've been wanting!
MrEricSir: If you bothered to Google it, you'd find this page.

Use TOR to find the torrents, then use OneSwarm for the actual torrenting.

Did anyone shiat on this suggestion yet? Looks like a good plan to me...


I tried, but could never find a list of communities to subscribe to but a french one, with very limited stuff shared among people in that list.
 
2013-03-05 01:59:16 PM  
How am I supposed to get my bling if yous stealing my work?
i165.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-05 03:21:16 PM  
tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-03-06 08:33:29 AM  
Sticking with tvlinks until netflix release and flvtomp3 from youtube....
Haven't needed torrents in 3 years.  It is all out there.  If I really want something then I check it out from the library and let software handle the backup.  The thing is to be older and more patient.
 
2013-03-06 02:18:24 PM  

kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.


That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.
 
2013-03-06 04:58:01 PM  

Scrotastic Method: kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.

That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.


I hear ya, man.  I kept waiting for ala carte for two decades.  In the meantime they decided to raise my bill while chopping off channels left and right.  When they took TruTV (yeah stop laughing) I got ticked and hosed cable. Came back later but hopefully this can float you thru until they get their crap together ;)
http://www.tvpc.com/ChannelList.php
There are several links and you'll definitely want adblock plus to avoid some headaches.  Decent trade off though and a good jumping off site for similar ones.  I definitely recommend the MST3K channel that just streams those 24/7.  Oh and the chat window on the right makes fark politics tab look intelligent lol.  YMMV but we enjoy it and it simply rocks for any kind of work environment in which you are stuck lol.  Hats off :)
 
2013-03-07 01:41:21 AM  

Scrotastic Method: kimmygibblershomework: The thing is to be older and more patient.

That's the problem, though: they can have our money or they can expect us to be patient. It's not going to be both, not anymore.

It is not difficult for HBO, for example, to adopt the iTunes model. But they won't. We, their potential customer base, don't care about existing contracts or their '80s-era business model or the schedule their CEO thinks is best for Blu-ray releasing (why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet, for example). Because the world doesn't work that way anymore. They're not a cable company, they're a content generator, and if they or anyone else wants our money they need to step up their delivery of said content.


It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.

/behind zero proxies, got a letter from Comcast maybe about a year ago
//for downloading a GoT episode
///while I WASN'T running peerblock
////IDGAF, gonna remember to ALWAYS use peerblock
//until it doesn't work anymore
//jollyroger.jpg
/slashie
 
2013-03-07 04:16:23 PM  

Luminiferous Aether: Scrotastic Method: why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet

It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.


Looked it up. 2/19. Cool. I don't actually want to buy it, I just saw nerds freaking and thought that was a good example, especially since that famous cartoon is about how hard it is to legally watch that show. Still, it took them like 10 months to get it out, while actively preventing people from streaming or buying digital copies...very backwards.
 
2013-03-07 04:54:00 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Luminiferous Aether: Scrotastic Method: why the EFF is Game of Thrones season 2 not out yet

It is. I saw it on shelves at Target a week or two ago for $30.

Looked it up. 2/19. Cool. I don't actually want to buy it, I just saw nerds freaking and thought that was a good example, especially since that famous cartoon is about how hard it is to legally watch that show. Still, it took them like 10 months to get it out, while actively preventing people from streaming or buying digital copies...very backwards.


It's not really backwards.  You have to remember that HBO isn't in the business of selling shows, it's in the business of selling subscriptions.  85% of HBO's revenue comes from monthly subscriptions.  For HBO (as with most networks and production companies), they see DVD sets as an advertising tool as much as anything else.  HBO hopes that you'll buy the Game of Thrones DVD in February and then go sign up for a subscription to watch the new season in March.  Plus they get to double down on the advertising by running ads that market the DVDs and the new season at the same time.  If they made their shows available a month or two after the season ended (or worse made them available next day through a standalone HBO Go subscription), there would be less incentive for people to keep their monthly subscriptions, which would undoubtedly result in lower revenues.
 
2013-03-07 06:21:47 PM  

rugman11: It's not really backwards.


But like I explained a few posts above, it is absolutely backwards. THEIR business model does not dictate the wants of their potential consumers. I don't care how they WANT things to work, because it's the opposite what the people with the money want. "If we try and block all efforts at online and digital access maybe people will buy cable" is completely opposed to "hey HBO, you have this content, we want digital access right now."

So, it's backwards.
 
2013-03-07 06:52:00 PM  

Scrotastic Method: rugman11: It's not really backwards.

But like I explained a few posts above, it is absolutely backwards. THEIR business model does not dictate the wants of their potential consumers. I don't care how they WANT things to work, because it's the opposite what the people with the money want. "If we try and block all efforts at online and digital access maybe people will buy cable" is completely opposed to "hey HBO, you have this content, we want digital access right now."

So, it's backwards.


Except that it's not your stuff to take, it's theirs to sell.  If you don't want to buy it, fine, but don't then get all high and mighty and think that piracy is somehow justified because they won't package it in the exact way you want it.  I don't see people complaining that film companies should offer digital downloads the day a movie is released in the theatre because they "want digital access right now."  How is downloading a television show that's completely available to you (just not at a price you want to pay) different from downloading a movie that you can go see in the theatre?
 
2013-03-07 07:15:13 PM  

rugman11: Except that it's not your stuff to take, it's theirs to sell.  If you don't want to buy it, fine, but don't then get all high and mighty and think that piracy is somehow justified because they won't package it in the exact way you want it.


I didn't say piracy was justified. I was saying that if HBO doesn't adjust to the massive shift in content delivery that's occurred, then their customers are going to find other ways to get content. I use GoT as an example because of that cartoon that's always posted: unless you're an HBO subscriber you cannot legally view that show until it's on disc, about a year after air date. They should understand that in the modern world of iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc., that kind of wait is no longer acceptable to the consumer base.

 I don't see people complaining that film companies should offer digital downloads the day a movie is released in the theatre because they "want digital access right now."

And that's another thing I didn't say. And my example was a TV show -- of which a huge population can be watched day-and-date across any number of online/digital channels. And for a show like GoT, one of the most popular shows on Earth, it's glaring that they're an exception.

How is downloading a television show that's completely available to you (just not at a price you want to pay) different from downloading a movie that you can go see in the theatre?

Before GoT Season 2 -- my example -- came out on BluRay 2/19, it wasn't "completely available" to anyone. Your best bet was you happened to catch a repeat on HBO, possibly, but I doubt you could have sat down and watched the season in order at regular hours like when it first aired. "Been on vacation? Busy? Sick? Too bad, wait a year for the show to come out on disc." And THAT is my point: digital/online isn't hard. It's common. And HBO owns their shows. They need to start giving their customers what the customers are used to, what is now a standard practice for content delivery, otherwise the customers are going to find other solutions to the problem. Yes, it's a problem that HBO doesn't meet the needs of their consumers, and it's HBO's problem. Like I said, I don't care that they consider themselves a cable channel, I don't care that they want to make money on "subscriptions" and physical media sales: they're wrong because that's not how things work anymore. You are what your customers perceive you to be, and HBO is just another content generator. If they continue to stand between their audience and their content, the audience is going to go around them. Game of Thrones is the single most pirated show on TV. If HBO let you buy even a DRM-filled 720p file from iTunes that number would drop significantly. So, why don't they.
 
2013-03-07 08:15:47 PM  

Scrotastic Method: I didn't say piracy was justified. I was saying that if HBO doesn't adjust to the massive shift in content delivery that's occurred, then their customers are going to find other ways to get content. I use GoT as an example because of that cartoon that's always posted: unless you're an HBO subscriber you cannot legally view that show until it's on disc, about a year after air date. They should understand that in the modern world of iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc., that kind of wait is no longer acceptable to the consumer base.


I would strenuously disagree with you that there's been a "massive shift in content delivery" in television.  It's easy to think that, but the average person watches less than an hour per week of television online as opposed to almost 30 hours per week on television.  Even among adults 25-34, the average person watches barely an hour per week online.  The "modern world" may have iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix, but it still watches the vast majority of its television on television sets.

That said, HBO does deliver its content online, using HBO Go.  People ask why they don't offer it as a standalone service and they've said repeatedly that only 3% of their target demo are potential "cord-cutters," or people with broadband internet but no cable service.

Scrotastic Method: Before GoT Season 2 -- my example -- came out on BluRay 2/19, it wasn't "completely available" to anyone. Your best bet was you happened to catch a repeat on HBO, possibly, but I doubt you could have sat down and watched the season in order at regular hours like when it first aired. "Been on vacation? Busy? Sick? Too bad, wait a year for the show to come out on disc." And THAT is my point: digital/online isn't hard. It's common. And HBO owns their shows. They need to start giving their customers what the customers are used to, what is now a standard practice for content delivery, otherwise the customers are going to find other solutions to the problem. Yes, it's a problem that HBO doesn't meet the needs of their consumers, and it's HBO's problem. Like I said, I don't care that they consider themselves a cable channel, I don't care that they want to make money on "subscriptions" and physical media sales: they're wrong because that's not how things work anymore. You are what your customers perceive you to be, and HBO is just another content generator. If they continue to stand between their audience and their content, the audience is going to go around them. Game of Thrones is the single most pirated show on TV. If HBO let you buy even a DRM-filled 720p file from iTunes that number would drop significantly. So, why don't they.


Actually, anybody with HBO service can watch Game of Thrones online at any time.  If you wanted to watch GoT before the blu-ray was released, all it took was about $70 (the approximate cost of one month of basic cable with HBO).  That would have provided access to HBO Go and any episode of GoT.  HBO is absolutely delivering its content to its customers online.  The question is, "Who is an HBO customer."  HBO caters to its subscribers.  Sure, you might be able to get some of the 1/2 million or so Americans who pirate GoT to pay for it through iTunes.  But how many of the 10 million HBO subscribers who watch GoT would cancel their subscriptions and do the same thing?
 
2013-03-08 11:37:19 AM  

rugman11: That said, HBO does deliver its content online, using HBO Go. People ask why they don't offer it as a standalone service and they've said repeatedly that only 3% of their target demo are potential "cord-cutters," or people with broadband internet but no cable service.

I'd like to see their market research. If they believe that only 3% of their potential total audience are people that aren't paying for HBO, they are, and this is a technical term, batshiat insane.

rugman11: HBO caters to its subscribers.  Sure, you might be able to get some of the 1/2 million or so Americans who pirate GoT to pay for it through iTunes.  But how many of the 10 million HBO subscribers who watch GoT would cancel their subscriptions and do the same thing?


That's the point. Subscription is dead. Too many people have no interest, not enough money, etc. How many Farkers still have basic cable, let alone the extra for HBO? And I'd bet that Farkers tend to have a little more money than your average group of Americans.

But it's not just HBO. It's the NFL and a bunch of other groups, and you can extrapolate my argument out to the RIAA and MPAA as well. Too many companies believe that their way of doing things is right and correct, but the world has changed around them and they refuse to adapt. Cable TV? Physical media? Not allowing basic/affordable access to your product to all your fans (the NFL)? None of that works anymore. It's far too easy to give your customers what they want -- and they know that, so they expect it, so when you try and prevent their access, they turn on you. Access is too easy for the customer for the company to proceed according to their ideas. They are not a cable company/sports league/record label to the consumer, they are a thing that makes a thing -- a content creator -- and they should be able to view when/how they want it. Making the thing is as important as providing the thing now. That's the new reality for media companies.

None of that means piracy is RIGHT. But it makes piracy an obvious outcome.
 
2013-03-08 12:21:12 PM  

Scrotastic Method: I'd like to see their market research. If they believe that only 3% of their potential total audience are people that aren't paying for HBO, they are, and this is a technical term, batshiat insane.


No, 3% is the percentage of their market who currently cannot get HBO (because they don't have cable) but could get HBO Go (because they have broadband service).  Less than 5% of the American population has broadband internet but no cable connection, so the market for online disribution is very small, relative to the market for cable distribution.

Scrotastic Method: That's the point. Subscription is dead. Too many people have no interest, not enough money, etc. How many Farkers still have basic cable, let alone the extra for HBO? And I'd bet that Farkers tend to have a little more money than your average group of Americans.

But it's not just HBO. It's the NFL and a bunch of other groups, and you can extrapolate my argument out to the RIAA and MPAA as well. Too many companies believe that their way of doing things is right and correct, but the world has changed around them and they refuse to adapt. Cable TV? Physical media? Not allowing basic/affordable access to your product to all your fans (the NFL)? None of that works anymore. It's far too easy to give your customers what they want -- and they know that, so they expect it, so when you try and prevent their access, they turn on you. Access is too easy for the customer for the company to proceed according to their ideas. They are not a cable company/sports league/record label to the consumer, they are a thing that makes a thing -- a content creator -- and they should be able to view when/how they want it. Making the thing is as important as providing the thing now. That's the new reality for media companies.

None of that means piracy is RIGHT. But it makes piracy an obvious outcome.


You're extrapolating your experiences and thinking that they apply to everybody.  According to the latest Nielsen report, almost 90 percent of television households have either cable or satellite.  That's over 100 million households.  87% of broadcast television is watched live.  While online viewership is increasing, it still hasn't reached more than 2 hours per week in any demographic.

The problem that you seem to be ignoring is that it's impossible to change the model for one person (or one group of people).  This is what the RIAA found out ten years ago.  They caved in to the cries of "if you just gave us a way to pay for songs on the internet we'd stop downloading them illegally."  What happened?  They got screwed not by the pirates, but by the new model that was supposed to provide legal access to pirates and instead ended up unbundling their product for everybody.  That's bascially what you're suggesting HBO do: unbundle its product to appease the pirates.  Sure, they might end up making a couple million dollars on the 200,000 or so Americans who currently download their shows but would purchase online if the could, but how many subscribers would leave and do the same thing?  Right now, HBO has 28 million American subscribers and maybe a million people downloading their shows.  It would be insane to risk losing those paying customers on the off chance that they can stop pirates from being pirates.  After all, as the music industry has showed, you can't ever stop piracy.
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

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