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 27
    More: Stupid, Copyright Alert System, Napster, illegal downloading, illegal downloads, Hayden Manders, RIAA  
•       •       •

8401 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-04 02:05:01 PM
5 votes:
"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 02:12:26 PM
3 votes:
VPNs that don't keep logs are your friends.
2013-03-04 08:30:29 PM
2 votes:
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 03:04:58 PM
2 votes:
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 02:48:31 PM
2 votes:
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 02:16:36 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-06 02:18:24 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-04 09:23:22 PM
1 votes:

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 08:53:39 PM
1 votes:

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 08:35:18 PM
1 votes:

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 07:38:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:25 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:35:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:17 PM
1 votes:
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 03:28:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:22 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:23:35 PM
1 votes:
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 02:17:35 PM
1 votes:

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


Yup.

Living in Switzerland is nice too.
2013-03-04 02:10:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:56 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:55 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:22 PM
1 votes:
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 01:52:56 PM
1 votes:
so if youre not in the big 5 isps then you are just dandy.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report