Sensible Erection | A Sensible Post for once..

Monday, 5 April 2004

A Sensible Post for once..

I've been looking around for some time regarding the p2p networks affected by the BPI and RIAA lawsuits/warnings, however i'm trying to find out whether or not bittorrent is targeted yet by these nazis... oh sorry 'organisations' and as yet have not found any articles that tell me this. Anyone have a clue? Oh and it couldn't be a ronald post without some trolling, so here goes... Little Hell loves teh c0ck... oh yeah, a classic.

[by Ronald_McDonald@1:17pmGMT] [+8 Informative]

Comments

TLRedhawke said @ 1:24pm GMT on 5th Apr
Bittorrent is unlikely to be targeted, as it does not require any sort of identification, and is not conducted via peer to peer networks, but rather by direct connections between individuals. That, and far fewer people use it for "illicit sharing of music" than file sharing programs. In general, you're safe, not because the industry thinks it's ok, but because it's a hell of a lot harder to track it. So much so that it isn't worth the effort, especially when it becomes hard to confirm music is being shared rather than something else.

Halcyonide said @ 1:36pm GMT on 5th Apr
Harder to track? AFAIK Bittorrent is, by design, easier to track, since it's meant for legit businesses to share documents inside their own network, not illegal filesharing. In fact, with BT it's possible to track down whoever released the file in the first place.

TLRedhawke said @ 1:43pm GMT on 5th Apr
You're right that the source of the file is easy to track, but let's remember, the RIAA is going after downloaders. The downloaders of a file are not so easy to track, because they don't need to be logged in to a network to access the file. Thus far, the RIAA has been tracking users by username, and the IP address associated with it. Since IPs are dynamic, without the username, the game becomes nothing but guesswork. Hell, even with usernames, the RIAA has screwed up. In Canada, if the recent pro-uploading ruling hadn't come down, such claims may be possible, as it would be the uploaders sought out.

Halcyonide said @ 1:59pm GMT on 5th Apr
"You're right that the source of the file is easy to track, but let's remember, the RIAA is going after downloaders"

They are? I have been continously under the impression that the RIAA is after _uploaders_, people who _share_. Why would they be interested in leeches?

Crysallis said @ 2:03pm GMT on 5th Apr
Exactly. The RIAA/MPAA wants the distributers, the sharers, the uploaders. If you are strictly a downloader but share your downloads folder and happen to accumulate a large quantity of copyrighted files, you may suddenly find yourself being a target. The unofficial "magic number" is currently 1,000 copyrighted files shared, but the RIAA/MPAA has gone after users that have shared less -- probably because they do not want to give any file sharers a comfort level.

TLRedhawke said @ 2:03pm GMT on 5th Apr
Yes, downloaders. Have not the stories of the grandfather whose grandchildren downloaded music, and other such people being sued not come to your attention? US law states that downloading is a violation of copyright law, as well as uploading. However, there are more major downloaders, so the RIAA has gone after them. The CRIA is attempting to go after uploaders, as the Canadian Copyright Board has stated that downloading is legal, because a levy is paid on blank media to allow copying of copyrighted material.

Crysallis said @ 2:20pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:1 Informative]
No, you are reading the description of the suits wrong. Downloaders, such as the "grandfather whose grandchildren downloaded music", inadvertently become distributers when they download a large amount of copyrighted materials. The RIAA/MPAA would never have gone after those users had they simply removed the downloaded content from the shared folders.

The RIAA/MPAA is not running honeypot games, they are running scanners searching for file listings and cross-checking those listings with copyrighted material listings. Once large numbers of matches are found, the legal hounds step in and begin the subpoena process. Downloaders are only targeted if they become distributors by allowing their P2P software to continue to default to allowing uploads.

Don't share if you don't want a potential subpoena. If you must share, read websites like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (link).

Crysallis said @ 2:00pm GMT on 5th Apr
(1) Not all IPs are dynamic. (2) The RIAA/MPAA documents Kazaa usernames not for identification purposes, but for legal filing purposes. IP addresses and subpoenas to ISPs to release the identifying information sourced from those IP addresses is what the RIAA/MPAA is after. (3) The RIAA/MPAA has left Bittorrent relatively untouched thus far because, quite simply, not enough Bittorrent users exist and those same users do not share anywhere near the amount of files that users such as those on Kazaa do.

joeyjoejoe said @ 1:27pm GMT on 5th Apr
Doesn't this kind of thing belong in a chat? We got rid of Ask SE for a reason: posts like this.

TLRedhawke said @ 1:33pm GMT on 5th Apr
Actually, this was one of the rare instances where an Ask SE was perfectly valid. We got rid of it because it kept getting used for stupid questions which could have easily been solved via a Google search. This particular information isn't readily available, and as such, I find that this post is quite valid. You sort of have to privy to particular legal information in order to kno what's going on with everything on the digital copyright front.

joeyjoejoe said @ 1:42pm GMT on 5th Apr
ok I stand corrected

maryyugo said @ 1:30pm GMT on 5th Apr
Kazaa Lite++ purports to shield your ISP ID so it might be hard for RIAA to target those who use it because there's an extra hurdle to proving who they are... the program is still widely available though unofficially and it works great. For example, you can download Lite using the old shitware-laden Kazaa.

Crysallis said @ 1:44pm GMT on 5th Apr
No, Peer Guardian is not safe from the RIAA/MPAA. Lite and k++ editions that run Peer Guardian only block known RIAA/MPAA IP ranges. There is nothing preventing the RIAA or more importantly it's vendors from jumping ranges to continue identifying file sharers of copyrighted materials.

Peer Guardian does nothing in making it "harder to prove who they [file sharers] are". All it does is attempt to block known RIAA/MPAA scanners is considered a small notch above not running Peer Guardian at all.

Simply put, if you have a considerable amount of copyrighted files you want to share, you best not do it on networks like Kazaa.

Spunky_Monkey said @ 1:38pm GMT on 5th Apr
Bittorrent can't be shut down for the same reason that a hotlink to a file on a server can't be shut down. Also the software is open source and genuinely has legitimate purposes (as opposed to the pseudo-legitimate "lets's only share copyright-free music" thing you get with Kazaa et al) so I doubt development will stop any time soon.
All the file sharing lawsuits so far have been about exactly that - file SHARING. With bittorrent you are mostly downloading, so the only person who could be held responsible is the owner of the server on which the seed is located.
To summarise: downloading = safe, hosting a seed = prepare for some prison loving.

Crysallis said @ 1:53pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:2 Informative]

Bittorrent can't be shut down for the same reason that a hotlink to a file on a server can't be shut down.

What? You can easily shut down hotlinking on a web server. Just drop in a .htaccess code bit like below:

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?sensibleerection.com.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?sensibleerection.com:80.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://64.237.36.49.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://64.237.36.49:80.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule .*[Jj][Pp][Gg]$|.*[Gg][Ii][Ff]$ http://www.portalofevil.com/

Bittorrent can't be shut down because the files are not centralized on a single or limited number of servers. Bittorrent files are distributed amongst multiple nodes sharing the load expense. If you killed one node, even the originating host, the other nodes will pick up the slack and continue the distribution.

Trigger said @ 2:04pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:2 Funny]
Ooo I love it when you talk dirty. :D

Spunky_Monkey said @ 2:18pm GMT on 5th Apr
Yeah, I phrased that totally wrong. I did, and still do, have a point, but I am too lazy and drunk to make any sense right now so I'll stfu.

DrPascal8 said @ 7:39pm GMT on 5th Apr
HAWHAW URLTOYS PWNS REWRITECOND ...

[wink]

<3

DuncmanG said @ 1:46pm GMT on 5th Apr
My guess is with whatever you're using, the chances aren't that likely. Recent decisions have come down pretty hard against the RIAA.

For example: They're not allowed to file group lawsuits anymore (gotta do 'em one by one!!), a study came out last week that said that downloading music didn't hurt CD sales, and I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to get user information through the IP addressed they pick up anymore.

With whatever you choose to do, good luck!

TLRedhawke said @ 1:50pm GMT on 5th Apr
According to US law, the RIAA can still get a hold of personal information from the ISP based on IP address. Only in Canada has such a thing been tossed out. However, following the Canadian ruling, the standards of evidence required to get such an order will likely increase.

sophmeat said @ 1:46pm GMT on 5th Apr
+1 Ask SE done right.

Crysallis said @ 2:12pm GMT on 5th Apr
The best solutions for not getting busted by the RIAA/MPAA dragnet is one of the following:

Do Not Share
Simple as that. Download as much as you want but do not share even a single file. Read your P2P documentation and make sure you understand what directories the software is opening for sharing and understand how to turn those off. This is, by far, the best method of making sure you never get heat from the RIAA/MPAA.

Share, But Share Smart
If you decide you do want to share, then take as many steps as possible to avoid unknowingly distributing personally identifying information. Use Peer Guardian (Win32; link) and ID3 Remover (link). Peer Guardian will give you a very small shield against RIAA/MPAA/vendor scanners, but is by no means airtight. ID3 Remover will strip your MP3s of digital fingerprints. Also, consider using alternative P2P software that does not expose your IP address in transfers. Freenet and Filetopia are two examples. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's website has even more information on this topic here.

Answering your question Ronald, the RIAA/MPAA is not yet interested in Bittorrent because there are bigger distributers to bust within Kazaa and the other P2P networks. This does not mean they will never go after Bittorrent users, but for now they are focusing on the heaviest offenders that are using the easiest and most widely publicized applications.

Ronald_McDonald said @ 2:18pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:-1 Overrated]
Omg... what have i done! I've created an interesting post... i hang my head in shame.

I posted this question mainly because our house in England just got an email from our ISP informing us that we were being monitored by the bloody BPI... bastards.

Crysallis said @ 2:21pm GMT on 5th Apr
The only thing left to do now is kill God's children.

Jaxon said @ 3:05pm GMT on 5th Apr
BitTorrent is a protocol, there isn't a central network to join all the users together. Lots of people can get a file fast, but there is nowhere near the library of files you can get from a centralized (ed2k, Kazaa) network.

And don't get to gung-ho on privacy with BitTorrent either. The tracker for a torrent keeps track of all users and their IP. Anyone can easily access the tracker. Any client with the correct file hash gets the IP of anyone with the file on that tracker.

The easiest thing to do is to stop pirating software.

DrPascal8 said @ 7:43pm GMT on 5th Apr
But X-Box games call my name from Suprnova daily... I won't even start on Empornium. :-)

callerID said @ 3:05pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:2 Underrated]
soulseek.
you have the option to only share on your user list. easy as 1-2-3.

callerID said @ 3:08pm GMT on 5th Apr
once they drop the prices of software, i will stop being a pirate. ;)

Rammek said @ 4:49pm GMT on 5th Apr
Oh that's a good one. What price is good for you? Remember, in order for software to keep coming out somebody has to pay for it.

If you stopped pirating it all the time, then the prices never woulda been as high as they are now. See insurance industry rates and scams.

DespairKitten said @ 6:46pm GMT on 5th Apr
I call bullshit. They're quick to blame pirates for high prices, and always have been. Back when CDs first came out, very few could copy them... but this didn't drop the prices.

If you stopped pirating it all the time, the prices would stay exactly the same, but the companies would earn more.

Jaxon said @ 7:48pm GMT on 5th Apr
The point is, don't expect everthing to be handed to you on a single platter. You are already ripping off companies for their work, bitching about not being able to do it anonymously just adds to that.

Crysallis said @ 10:10pm GMT on 5th Apr
I agree with Blaxon, but I have a strange set of personal fouls when it comes to this topic. I download and share a lot of media files, but I also buy a lot, if not equal to the amount of content I download over P2P, then very near. When it comes to movies (DVDs) and games (PC/console), I always buy. Not just because I like supporting the companies that produce the software, but because I really like to have original packaging. CDs are much more dispensible to me now, but I still hold a lot of value in movies, software, and games.

felix said @ 12:42am GMT on 6th Apr
i feel much the same way. gotta have the packaging.

personally, my downloading is pretty much restricted to music. i buy what i can, but a lot of the stuff i download is out of print or very hard to find. plus, i refuse to usually pay more than $14 for an album, as there is no reason an album should cost that much. just the record companies being greedy and reaming people as hard as they can. if the artists got most of the money, i'd gladly pay more than $14, but sadly most don't.

btinker said @ 3:54pm GMT on 5th Apr
I looked at my music library and a significant portion of my files are either ripped from my vinyl collection or are from independent labels. I share the folder thru soulseek (no user list)

Can they still fuck with me? Why should they care?

711 said @ 4:11pm GMT on 5th Apr
Anyone using filetopia? how about Waste?

daboo said @ 5:58pm GMT on 5th Apr
I think Waste is one of the best options out there. The problem is you don't have as broad a variety of files as you do on other fileshare programs.

Waste done right can be a really great thing...getting it done right is the problem.

Jaxon said @ 10:19pm GMT on 5th Apr
You are missing the entire point why Waste was designed. P2P filesharing wasn't at the top of the list.

karnaugh said @ 11:27pm GMT on 5th Apr [Score:1 Underrated]
Waste is brilliant if you've got a small tight-knit group of friends who want an easy way to essentially combine collections. It's no Kazaa, but 10 people with 20k files each can make a decent collection. And there's nothing like 1536-bit RSA to help you sleep at night.

maryyugo said @ 8:25pm GMT on 5th Apr
would it be safe to share using Kazaa Lite++ with a good commercial anonymous proxy server?

Influenza_epidemic said @ 1:29am GMT on 6th Apr
If proxy is set up correctly. Have you checked it?

raygun said @ 2:12am GMT on 6th Apr
since noones said it yet: there have been a few popular bittorrent sites that i've frequented that have chosen to shut down after getting warnings from the RIAA or MPAA. (anyone remember the first bytemonsoon?) so they are aware of BT, and they are watching.

f00m said @ 2:22am GMT on 6th Apr
Ummm, IRC anyone?

I hear Direct Connect is good, but I've never used it extensively myself.

Ronald_McDonald said @ 6:43am GMT on 6th Apr [Score:-1 WTF]
I'm praying for someone to create a p2p program that completely screws over the riaa... if only.

jriskin said @ 8:58pm GMT on 7th Apr
So the answer to this thread is...?

NO ONE HERE SEEMS TO KNOW...

But my guess would be thats a good sign that they haven't gone after any BT individuals. They have said in the past they are only targeting users sharing 'over 1000 music files', which in a weird way rules out individual BT users.

But, alas, don't expect them to sit still, the world have piracy has been around decades and like the war on drugs, and the war on prostitution, the war on terror, and the other futile attempts out there, neither side will ever give up.

idlewise said @ 5:31am GMT on 2nd Jan
..