dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2186
share rss forum feed


Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Suspected = guilty no matter what

a suspected pirate may be allowed to visit only the top 200 Web sites until they stop illegal file sharing.
Totally unfair until you've got hard proof of me "pirating" I'm a paying customer and the ISP shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't visit because they suspect me of being a pirate.
--
That was the wild boar.... Moo!
My podcast: The Banzai Beat »www.banzaibeat.com


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by Chiyo:

the ISP shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't visit because they suspect me of being a pirate.

Their TOS already gives them that right.

It was inevitable that the ISPs got onboard with discouraging copyright infringement. They are the ones in the best position to be enforcement cops. The MPAA & RIAA are helping cover the costs. And the White House is backing the agreement. It isn't three strikes, but ISPs will take actions against violators they feel is appropriate.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


heat84
Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to Chiyo

said by Chiyo:

a suspected pirate may be allowed to visit only the top 200 Web sites until they stop illegal file sharing.

WTF? (Heath Ledger Batman pic here) What country was that that's trying to block specific sites (because they're porn)? Are we them now?
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR.


mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet

said by heat84:

said by Chiyo:

a suspected pirate may be allowed to visit only the top 200 Web sites until they stop illegal file sharing.

WTF? (Heath Ledger Batman pic here) What country was that that's trying to block specific sites (because they're porn)? Are we them now?

Since you had to ask, yes.
--
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me
You're a daisy if you do. - Doc Holliday
And as always, have nice day.


Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....

join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA

said by mob:

said by heat84:

said by Chiyo:

a suspected pirate may be allowed to visit only the top 200 Web sites until they stop illegal file sharing.

WTF? (Heath Ledger Batman pic here) What country was that that's trying to block specific sites (because they're porn)? Are we them now?

Since you had to ask, yes.

worse. the others usually do it out of moral justification and we do it out of money.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Their TOS already gives them that right.

Most peer to peer programs run randomized encryption by default, and DDL sites are inherently immune to this. Sure some non-tech savvy people will get caught in the crossfire, but the real pirates will keep on like usual.

As long as anti-piracy measures are this far behind I have no problem with them.

If this is how they are going to attack piracy, the pirates need not worry.


Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

said by Chiyo:

the ISP shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't visit because they suspect me of being a pirate.

It was inevitable that the ISPs got onboard with discouraging copyright infringement. They are the ones in the best position to be enforcement cops. The MPAA & RIAA are helping cover the costs. And the White House is backing the agreement. It isn't three strikes, but ISPs will take actions against violators they feel is appropriate.

How about MPAA and RIAA foot 100% of the cost. Why should an ISP shoulder the cost of the MPAA or RIAA recover its lost revenue (once lost revenue is actually proven).

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker

They aren't, and that's part of Karl's point. The few tend to ruin things for the masses. That theory isn't exclusive to ISPs, but they are the latest to clamp down. Thank your local copyright infringer....



Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Uncle Paul

said by Uncle Paul:

How about MPAA and RIAA foot 100% of the cost. Why should an ISP shoulder the cost of the MPAA or RIAA recover its lost revenue (once lost revenue is actually proven).

You have to keep in mind, Verizon and AT&T aren't just the ISP anymore. They are also selling the video service, audio channels, etc. Reducing pirated downloads results in more people subscribing to their premium channels. (or so they are spinning it)

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to mob

said by mob:

said by heat84:

said by Chiyo:

a suspected pirate may be allowed to visit only the top 200 Web sites until they stop illegal file sharing.

WTF? (Heath Ledger Batman pic here) What country was that that's trying to block specific sites (because they're porn)? Are we them now?

Since you had to ask, yes.

If they do block sites, they will get sued for civil rights violations. The only thing ISPs ToS can say they can block are expressly illegal sites, as in, the sites that host CP, and other bottomfeeder trash(criminal offenses). Since copyright infringment isnt not a criminal offense, they cannot block it. It will not happen anytime soon, and if it does, expect the EFF, and the ACLU to be involved.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:146

1 recommendation

reply to Chiyo

Not defending anyone here but through deep packet inspection they have the ability to determine if the files you are downloading fit the signature of a pirated file with little to no effort. I have no problems with them targeting pirated content (movies, music) for this specific effort simply because it is theft and there is no denying that part and if you need to send a legit file to a friend there are far more appropriate ways to do so anyway.

Other forms of P2P traffic should be excluded however and the industry does have the way to identify which is which and I won't entertain excuses from them claiming otherwise because I know better first hand. Now I realize you P2P purests will cry foul over my statement and I'm prepared to deal with it so flame on boyz
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope



TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless

said by BHNtechXpert:

Not defending anyone here but through deep packet inspection they have the ability to determine if the files you are downloading fit the signature of a pirated file with little to no effort.

Is that so? So my encrypted OpenVPN tunnel to Toronto is viewable by my local ISP? How so? For every measure there is a counter-measure. The way to stop this is not to force the square peg into a round hole, but to re-design the peg.

Attempting to force a 50 year-old business model into 21st century technology and culture, is absurd, and will certainly fail.

BTW, it was DPI which prompted me to go VPN, not piracy. If you start aiming binoculars at my windows, I will put up curtains. That's just human nature.

Bob
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"



camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Camelot One

said by Camelot One:

You have to keep in mind, Verizon and AT&T aren't just the ISP anymore. They are also selling the video service, audio channels, etc. Reducing pirated downloads results in more people subscribing to their premium channels. (or so they are spinning it)

Comcast, the new owner of NBC Universal, is also a content provider that wants to protect its content.


Tanshin

join:2009-07-18
West Simsbury, CT
kudos:1
reply to Chiyo

What happens if I go to download, say, Ubuntu via torrent because their servers are running slow? Does my initiation of P2P traffic that's unsecured, unmasked, etc make me a pirate to an ISP? How are they determining illegal file transfers vs legitimate file transfers?



BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:146

said by Tanshin:

What happens if I go to download, say, Ubuntu via torrent because their servers are running slow? Does my initiation of P2P traffic that's unsecured, unmasked, etc make me a pirate to an ISP? How are they determining illegal file transfers vs legitimate file transfers?

No you would have no issues there whatsoever despite what the less educated about the subject will say. They have the ability to know the difference.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:146

1 recommendation

reply to TamaraB

said by TamaraB:

said by BHNtechXpert:

Not defending anyone here but through deep packet inspection they have the ability to determine if the files you are downloading fit the signature of a pirated file with little to no effort.

Is that so? So my encrypted OpenVPN tunnel to Toronto is viewable by my local ISP? How so? For every measure there is a counter-measure. The way to stop this is not to force the square peg into a round hole, but to re-design the peg.

Attempting to force a 50 year-old business model into 21st century technology and culture, is absurd, and will certainly fail.

BTW, it was DPI which prompted me to go VPN, not piracy. If you start aiming binoculars at my windows, I will put up curtains. That's just human nature.

Bob

I wasn't talking about VPN's at all...wasn't even part of the discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't blame you for using a VPN tunnel and it is well within your right to do so. Nothing is going to stop that but the masses don't do what you do and ultimately that might actually promote the growth of new business in that arena to work around it. Also there is almost always a significant performance hit when you go the VPN route partly due to technology and the other the lack of decent provider out there. For a time this will certainly be a work around for those who insist on engaging in this activity BUT for most people this will be a deterrant which is ultimately the goal. They realize they can't stop it...they just want to limit it as much as possible.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope


Tanshin

join:2009-07-18
West Simsbury, CT
kudos:1
reply to BHNtechXpert

I suppose you could argue that there wouldn't be anti-p2p IP sniffers on those torrents, but how do you know that ISPs still won't classify it as pirating in a hasty manner? What if they want to save money and will just start looking at P2P in general (I believe Comcast throttles all P2P traffic already)? When an ISP accuses somebody of pirating, are they required to provide justification?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by Tanshin:

I suppose you could argue that there wouldn't be anti-p2p IP sniffers on those torrents, but how do you know that ISPs still won't classify it as pirating in a hasty manner? What if they want to save money and will just start looking at P2P in general (I believe Comcast throttles all P2P traffic already)? When an ISP accuses somebody of pirating, are they required to provide justification?

I think you misunderstand how this will work. It will still be MPAA & RIAA contractors monitoring P2P traffic, identifying violators, and then notifying ISPs. The ISPs won't be monitoring all P2P traffic themselves looking for violations. They only get involved AFTER someone else makes the accusation.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

They aren't, and that's part of Karl's point. The few tend to ruin things for the masses. That theory isn't exclusive to ISPs, but they are the latest to clamp down. Thank your local copyright infringer....

What exactly is being ruined?

Pirates will not be affected by this, obfuscation and encryption layers have been standard on P2P for the last few years.

Your ISP can't tell if your on a corporate VPN or P2P unless they actually peer with you.

Good luck with that.


Tanshin

join:2009-07-18
West Simsbury, CT
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Ah, well that makes me feel better then. If it was just ISPs then this would be totally wrong :P



axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

Why do "the masses" have to be inconvenienced then if there is no chance that the MPAA/RIAA can combat highly skilled P2P users? Your justification does not fit the perpetrator of the crime and yet you applaud the innocent being inconvenienced or potentially even being incorrectly accused? Where's the logic in that? Again openbox9 you seem to not understand how networks actually work and why punishing "the masses" does nothing to address the real problem.

Even considering the coming of IPV6 with everyone getting a unique IP address cannot surmount the encrypted VPN problem nor the private direct download services doing 30-day usenet backups. Until a major change in internet protocols occurs intellectual property owners are just going to have to cope. Suing the "low hanging fruit" users not skilled enough to cover their tracks again does not address the real problem.

Punish the real criminals, not your paying customers.

No I do not use P2P illegally nor do I condone that activity. I also however have not bought an MPAA or RIAA product (knowingly) for more than 10 years now until they come to their senses and stop suing and/or inconveniencing their paying customers.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker

Services aren't being ruined or impeded for the infringers. Rather everyone else, which is my point.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to axiomatic

Where do you see my applause for the inconvenience? I'm on the other side of this argument, so perhaps I made my point poorly.

Please, stop with the "that's how networks work" thing. It's irrelevant to most of your arguments.



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to openbox9

Oh, Well yea that's obvious.

Good thing I only use the internet to pirate.



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to BHNtechXpert

So when lots of people upload their data to the cloud for connivence or a backup those uploading their music and video collection will get throttled? Not likely but anyone using bittorrent for anything will see the hammer come down because it's not associated with a service that skims the money off the top.

It's just fully dumb to provide a data connection they turn around and tell people they need to stick to the popular commercial websites or get flagged as a pirate.

I'm my data and my rules where it goes, if you want to snoop on my data prepare for the consequences.
--
Say no to JAMS!



BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:146
reply to Tanshin

said by Tanshin:

I suppose you could argue that there wouldn't be anti-p2p IP sniffers on those torrents, but how do you know that ISPs still won't classify it as pirating in a hasty manner? What if they want to save money and will just start looking at P2P in general (I believe Comcast throttles all P2P traffic already)? When an ISP accuses somebody of pirating, are they required to provide justification?

I think you don't understand how DPI works. A Ubuntu file will have a significantly different "signature" or bit pattern than lets say a music or movie file will. Tagging a particular file would be useless because the pirates would just remove the tag. They can't however change the fingerprint or bit pattern of a copyright works however without having an impact on the quality of the movie or music and that's how ISP's will know the difference between the two.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
reply to Chiyo

these greedy assholes can fuck off.
200 websites probably all owned by the MAFIAA as your punishment.



C_Chipperson
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2009-01-17
00000
kudos:3
reply to Uncle Paul

Oh, Uncle Paul! You're gonna get caught no matter what for what you're downloading!!



SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to Augustus III

Money *is* moral justification in the corporate world!


Bangy

join:2000-12-20
Lincoln, RI
reply to FFH

Cox has been doing this already for years. Matter of fact, most ISP's do.