|
to Chiyo
Re: Suspected = guilty no matter whatWhat 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? |
|
BHNtechXpertThe One & Only Premium Member join:2006-02-16 Saint Petersburg, FL |
said by saladbar15: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 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? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jun-23 11:40 am
said by saladbar15: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. |
|
|
Ah, well that makes me feel better then. If it was just ISPs then this would be totally wrong :P |
|
BHNtechXpertThe One & Only Premium Member join:2006-02-16 Saint Petersburg, FL |
to saladbar15
said by saladbar15: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. |
|
Bangy join:2000-12-20 Lincoln, RI |
to FFH5
Cox has been doing this already for years. Matter of fact, most ISP's do. |
|