 HiVoltI Piss on BellPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:10
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Nightfall
Re: It's not that damn difficult What gets me, is that how can they for sure know that a shared file is an actual copyright violation. I can put 700mb worth of garbage in a text file, rename it latestharrypottermovie.avi and share it.
Also, bit torrent and most other P2P send little pieces of info to their peers. You almost never download the complete file from a single source, unless its just one seeder and you the one leecher.
How do they determine if what you're sharing is copyrighted and warrants prosecution? Do they download the entire file from you (and you only) with some concrete proof? Or is it just based on what appears listed as shared in your list, and they have no idea what the content actually is?
--
,,!,,('-'),,!,, |
|
|
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| said by HiVolt:What gets me, is that how can they for sure know that a shared file is an actual copyright violation. I can put 700mb worth of garbage in a text file, rename it latestharrypottermovie.avi and share it. Also, bit torrent and most other P2P send little pieces of info to their peers. You almost never download the complete file from a single source, unless its just one seeder and you the one leecher. How do they determine if what you're sharing is copyrighted and warrants prosecution? Do they download the entire file from you (and you only) with some concrete proof? Or is it just based on what appears listed as shared in your list, and they have no idea what the content actually is? I agree. Which is why downloading it would be the first major step. |
|
Reviews:
·ProLog
 ·DIRECTV
·Comcast
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:What gets me, is that how can they for sure know that a shared file is an actual copyright violation. I can put 700mb worth of garbage in a text file, rename it latestharrypottermovie.avi and share it. Good point. Wow could you imagine Malware that behind the scenes generates random data with popular music and movie titles, all connected to a Gnutella style network? The RIAA / MPAA could sue you, but in all honesty it could of been garbage data generated by Malware with the intent to flood the internet with fake files and frustrate everyone from the RIAA/MPAA to the users. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
Except, from what I understand, they haven't been downloading and confirming these things. They just have screenshots of alleged copyright infringement. Screenshots could easily be manipulated or, as HiVolt point out, show files that aren't really infringing despite their titles.
Combine this with Media Sentry (the source of much of the RIAA's evidence) apparently acting illegally in some states and the RIAA's blunders of suing people who are obviously innocent (don't own computers, own Macs when the software allegedly used was Windows only, are dead, etc). The RIAA doesn't care so much whether they actually target copyright infringers as they want some nice big numbers in their press releases ("400 more lawsuits filed") and nice settlement money flowing back into their pockets ("settle now or our price goes up").
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
geowil
join:2008-04-20
Laveen, AZ Reviews:
·Cox HSI
2 edits | reply to cypherstream
said by cypherstream:Good point. Wow could you imagine Malware that behind the scenes generates random data with popular music and movie titles, all connected to a Gnutella style network? The RIAA / MPAA could sue you, but in all honesty it could of been garbage data generated by Malware with the intent to flood the internet with fake files and frustrate everyone from the RIAA/MPAA to the users. i would rejoice, not because im a pirater (well not entirely true, i pirate what im considering buying and progs that are over priced [way over priced, like photoshop, not paying over 900 bucks for that **** lol], but i dont go crazy like most people do and pirate everything i see), but that we could get the riaa off everyone backs by screwing with their data (similar to the NoobAd data maker that the one poster has in his sig.). Maybe even open up the riaa for a few (or many more preferably) lawsuits for false accusations.
and it would be one of the very few helpful malware's that get made (so long as it didnt screw over the infected pc as well). |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:Except, from what I understand, they haven't been downloading and confirming these things. They just have screenshots of alleged copyright infringement. Screenshots could easily be manipulated or, as HiVolt point out, show files that aren't really infringing despite their titles. Combine this with Media Sentry (the source of much of the RIAA's evidence) apparently acting illegally in some states and the RIAA's blunders of suing people who are obviously innocent (don't own computers, own Macs when the software allegedly used was Windows only, are dead, etc). The RIAA doesn't care so much whether they actually target copyright infringers as they want some nice big numbers in their press releases ("400 more lawsuits filed") and nice settlement money flowing back into their pockets ("settle now or our price goes up"). No kidding. I never said they were, which is why they need to start doing their homework and stop trying to fast track these lawsuits. If they were following the rules from the start, they would be much better off today. Now, their credibility is damaged because of the crap work they have done in the past. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| reply to HiVolt
In a nutshell, and without excuciating detail because I'm not a mathemetician, P2P software works by creating an MD5 hash based on the contents of the file. There's a very high degree of certainty that files with identical hashes are the same, regardless of what the file is called on each user's storage medium.
They're "assuming" that if they find files on a peer that match the hash of their known copyrighted file, the contents of that file is the same as the content of their "control" and they can nab you for distributing.
I have no idea what the chances are of two files of identical size having different contents but the same MD5 hash. I'm thinking it's infintessimally small, like smaller than DNA-match-certainty type numbers. I do know if you download a movie, use editing software to clip a second off the front or the back, and re-hash it, you'll get a completely different result. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by jester121:In a nutshell, and without excuciating detail because I'm not a mathemetician, P2P software works by creating an MD5 hash based on the contents of the file. There's a very high degree of certainty that files with identical hashes are the same, regardless of what the file is called on each user's storage medium. They're "assuming" that if they find files on a peer that match the hash of their known copyrighted file, the contents of that file is the same as the content of their "control" and they can nab you for distributing. I have no idea what the chances are of two files of identical size having different contents but the same MD5 hash. I'm thinking it's infintessimally small, like smaller than DNA-match-certainty type numbers. I do know if you download a movie, use editing software to clip a second off the front or the back, and re-hash it, you'll get a completely different result. What you are saying is correct so far. The problem with your analysis is that the hash is not compared with a control copy but with the master copy that is being seeded/sent. Someone creates a copy and seeds it. This copy's hash is listed in the .torrent file that is made available from the torrent server. As clients use the .torrent file and the server, the master .torrent file copy is updated with the list of IPs of who has parts of the file. To see the contents of the file, the monitoring organization needs to download a full copy. As they do that the client tracks who is supplying each piece. This list will thus list who has parts of the file. Anyone listed as a leach has part of the file while being listed as a seed means you've downloaded the full file. So long as you sent a piece to the monitoring organization's client, you have at least part of the file. Once all the pieces have been captured a hash is made of the downloaded copy and compared with the one in the .torrent file. A match means that the copy is an accurate duplicate of the master copy being seeded. |
|
 SlickEnWPremium
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA | reply to geowil
said by geowil:said by cypherstream:Good point. Wow could you imagine Malware that behind the scenes generates random data with popular music and movie titles, all connected to a Gnutella style network? The RIAA / MPAA could sue you, but in all honesty it could of been garbage data generated by Malware with the intent to flood the internet with fake files and frustrate everyone from the RIAA/MPAA to the users. i would rejoice, not because im a pirater (well not entirely true, i pirate what im considering buying and progs that are over priced [way over priced, like photoshop, not paying over 900 bucks for that **** lol], but i dont go crazy like most people do and pirate everything i see), but that we could get the riaa off everyone backs by screwing with their data (similar to the NoobAd data maker that the one poster has in his sig.). Maybe even open up the riaa for a few (or many more preferably) lawsuits for false accusations. and it would be one of the very few helpful malware's that get made (so long as it didnt screw over the infected pc as well). You wouldn't pay for photoshop? |
|
 nekkidtruthYou fail at life.Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by SlickEnW:You wouldn't pay for photoshop? Well technically, he said he wouldn't pay $900+ for it as that is outrageously overpriced. Not that he would never pay a reasonable fee to purchase Photoshop.
--
Weeeeeee |
|
geowil
join:2008-04-20
Laveen, AZ Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| reply to SlickEnW
said by SlickEnW: You wouldn't pay for photoshop? sure i would if it was maybe in teh 120 to 300 range, but why sohuld I when Gimp has almost the same feature set as the Extended edition of CS3 and is free.
that being said, there are some things in PS extended that gimp doesnt have but its not enough to justify a 900+ price tag to me, which is why i would buy it if adobe were to lower the price by several hundred. |
|
