Getting Close

[Chicane]

As most of you read el reg... does anyone else feel that the authorities are getting close to making any real impact on the p2p* scene

reference:

El Reg link 1 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/14/finnish_police_raid_bittorrent_site/)

El Reg link 2 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/15/dutch_raid_against_edonkey_sites/)

El Reg link 3 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/13/german_police_warez_customers/)

Also this article is the most interesting of them all... linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/10/sc_p2p_case/)

i quote: "... In addition, the court warned that legislators should not step in and crush a new technology just because it at first seems disruptive to a market. The movie studios, for example, tried to block the VCR, only to later benefit from a huge rental market."

For me this emphaises the fact that the movie industry allowed the VCR to continue in full knowledge knowing it could record anything on tv or sent via a signal.

So when i think about it there have been several items about an increase in illegal downloads, but huge sales increases in the global album markets:

Ref 1 (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33400.html)

Ref 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4044303.stm)

blah blah blah discuss.


*FFS no flames plz... this post has made no reference on how to use p2p for illegal activities...

[firestorm]

I think they are gettign closer, But tbh I don't think there is no way to catch the end user. Unless they do random searches on peoples homes and catch them in the act.

[Nivek]

police are going the wrong way, they should be doing the corporations for exploitation and like like.

Cartels in the single and album markets.

unlightly that they will catch anyone as long as they take basic precautions.

[Optimus]

that last link is...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/10/sc_p2p_case/

btw...

[Burto]

correct me if im wrong but isnt it illegal to upload copywrited material but they cant acutually do anything about you downloading it?

[Afty]

Originally posted by Burto
correct me if im wrong but isnt it illegal to upload copywrited material but they cant acutually do anything about you downloading it? No it's also illegal to download it, just not the same offence, much harder to prove and has considerably less economic effect, so they are targetting the uploaders.

Bit like drugs - it's illegal to buy Cannabis, but they don't go after the buyers/smokers, they go after the dealers.

[Freelance]

with bittorrent they can track the ip of each peer that connects to you

[Shazz]

they are no where even close to stoppoing p2p. The fact is if they close down 1 p2p client, somone will just come and launch a new one.

[Afty]

Actually "they" aren't far away from stopping P2P.

All they need to do is enact a single piece of legislation making ISPs financially liable for potential losses incurred, and the ISPs will shut down P2P traffic almost overnight.

*NEVER* underestimate your enemy.

[Freelance]

Originally posted by afty
...a single piece of legislation... in every country connected to the internet

[TE-Hellfire]

I don't think even the worst nerd would consider moving all the way to Canada just so that they can download the latest Hollywood brain-melter.

I can't think of hardly anything I'd want to download illegally now anyway. I probably genuinely enjoy 1% of all the films I see and even less in terms of music.

In the case of p2p, both the copyright holders and file sharers are as guilty as each other, but unfortunately, there's no laws at the moment against trying to charge £16.00 for the first Prodigy cd in HMV :rolleyes:

[Afty]

Originally posted by Freelance
in every country connected to the internet If it happens in the UK, then P2P would be over for *US*. And we're the ones who matter to *ME*.

If it happens in the US, and at the EU-legislation level, it would wipe the vast majority of file sharers off the net. That's 2 legislatures who have spotty track records when it comes to corporate influence - all that's needed is two.

Does that sound so unlikely?

[TheDon]

Originally posted by afty
Actually "they" aren't far away from stopping P2P.

All they need to do is enact a single piece of legislation making ISPs financially liable for potential losses incurred, and the ISPs will shut down P2P traffic almost overnight.

*NEVER* underestimate your enemy. Impossible for them to enforce.
Sure, you can shut down the traffic, as long as you can identify it.
Programs will quickly appear that build up private networks and encrypt the data being sent and make it impossible for an ISP to identify it as p2p traffic. (waste for instance which was made by nullsoft then later pulled by them because p2p warez networks build up using it.)
They can block the exisiting traffic, but then you just encrypt it and ram it down a different port. What then? Will they just close of the internet? Except for port 80 and have strict packet filtering on it to make sure only http traffic gets through? I hightly doubt it.

It is completly unpolicable to try to block p2p traffic. And plus, like it or not, p2p is the way the net is going in the future, the benefits for this technology are endless, just because one of the uses for it is piracy doesn't mean it should be shut down.

I know many small bands that distribute albums via BT, and that would get sunk by bandwidth bills if they were forced to host them. And more and more companies are switching to BT as a method of distributing large files, the WoW beta was distributed by blizzard solely over a p2p BT type app, and all patches were delivered the same way.
They simply cannot shut off this technology, it would stiffle the evolution of the web.

(Oh, and there was an interesting slashdot article about how someone wrote a p2p app in python in 15 lines to prove how easy it was.... so someone wrote one in perl in 9 lines to show how much easier it was in perl :D - )link (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/15/1953227&from=rss)

[Afty]

Originally posted by TheDon
Will they just close of the internet? Except for port 80 and have strict packet filtering on it to make sure only http traffic gets through? I hightly doubt it. If the law says they have to attempt this kind of solution, then they will do it.

The people who are saying "P2P is invincible" are merely short sighted. There are many ways to effectively spey P2P. Tiny example OTOH : count the number of peers a node currently has TCP or UDP connections open to (assume 1 minute timeout for UDP as it is stateless). If this number is more than, say, 4 then bin all the traffic.

Yes it would break things like P2P games, IM etc. but I don't think you realise how compelling the LAW can be - especially to businesses. As they have an obligation to mitigate risk, they often act pre-emptively or even beyond the requisites of the low just to ensure they are not at risk.

[Defcon]

Originally posted by afty
If the law says they have to attempt this kind of solution, then they will do it.

The people who are saying "P2P is invincible" are merely short sighted. There are many ways to effectively spey P2P. Tiny example OTOH : count the number of peers a node currently has TCP or UDP connections open to (assume 1 minute timeout for UDP as it is stateless). If this number is more than, say, 4 then bin all the traffic.

Yes it would break things like P2P games, IM etc. but I don't think you realise how compelling the LAW can be - especially to businesses. As they have an obligation to mitigate risk, they often act pre-emptively or even beyond the requisites of the low just to ensure they are not at risk.


Then what about the impact such a solution will have on the net as a whole, those few hundred million users worldwide that will have extremely restricted access to the net, potentially costing far more to internet companies than the losses of the movie and music industry put together. Think about how costly bandwidth is and how p2p actually makes wide file distribution costs considerably less for individuals and businesses alike.

There will always be a ways around p2p if you don't limit users net connections in some fashion.

If by some offchance it p2p networks are disabled. Then the spread of CD/DVD piracy will just increase dramatically.

[Afty]

Originally posted by Defcon
Then what about the impact such a solution will have on the net as a wholeWhat about it? Once enacted as a law, these concerns are moot. It is law, and it must be enforced. We live in the real world, not a fantasy one.

Case in point, software patents. Currently a SERIOUS battle rages around software patents in Europe - whether or not we adopt the idea of software patents hangs on a knife edge. In the USA they are already adopted and in use. To any two bit fool, it is obvious that software patents cause enormous amounts of harm the economy and to business, serving only to channel money to "specialist" lawyers (who in the real world are a waste of flesh) and to large companies with enormous portfolios or fraudsters who attempt to use Submarine Patents to blackmail entire industries at the point of a (the taxpayers') gun.

These were enacted, show no sign of imminent repeal and are harmful. Exactly the same situation could happen with P2P eventually. The larger corps, orgs and lobby groups have the ear of the government more easily, and will continue to campaign for strict laws. They have MONEY to spend, and money talks.Originally posted by Defcon
There will always be a ways around p2p if you don't limit users net connections in some fashion.There will always be ways around speeding if the police don't enforce it. There will always be ways around credit card fraud if banks don't track it. The presence of the word if in that sentence makes the first half of it pointless.
Originally posted by Defcon
If by some offchance it p2p networks are disabled. Then the spread of CD/DVD piracy will just increase dramatically. Yes it would increase. Studios would be happy to accept this trade off, P2P for physical media because:
-] Overall volume of works moved will be much MUCH lower
-] It is more time consuming
-] It is more financially costly than electronic P2P
-] It is INCREDIBLY less convenient
-] It is significantly less anonymous - investigation and enforcement costs would be lowered significantly.
-] Tax on blank media can simply be increased to cover this "potential loss" to the studios. Didn't know you paid that?
-] Distribution is more centralised and easier to crack down on. People have to physically meet.
-] Penalties for partaking in this sort of activity will be much more stiff due to the financial gain aspect - most likely jail sentences worse than many violent crimes.

All in all, users of P2P will suffer massively if they had to switch to physical media - volume would drop, financial costs rise and many would end up in jail.

On top of all that, the worst effect would be the same as the current effect of drugs and excise legislation - to force the financial gains from this activity underground, and funnel more profits into the hands of organised crime and paramilitary organisations.

[Dr_Dunce]

... and if all that happened..

there would be a possibility of prices being dropped xD


/me wakes up :(

.. or not :(

[Optimus]

Originally posted by Dr_Dunce ... and if all that happened..

there would be a possibility of prices being dropped xD I can't see prices ever lowering significantly...
The publishers and distributors would simply use the excuse that they are trying to recoup the costs of previous sales lost through piracy or something...

[Mu5icMan]

Just for input.

If i were to setup a site to download movies legally would you be willing to pay £40-£50 a month to download unlimited movies?

[maxrealism]

I think that the world of doom described above would encourage lots of private 'invite only' LAN parties to spring up all over the place. P2P would not die... just go underground. Granted blank media sales would rocket.

Can your isp filter HTTPS traffic (secure encrypted HTTP)?

Although If you had to (like with your firewall) register each process that connected to the internet that might be a solution for ISPs. That way they know what you've said you're using.

[Jobabob]

I think the bigger question is will all of this, if successful in killing off piracy 99%, actualy lower prices due to increased competition. Or, more likely, is it a load of hot air and they'll just charge the same amount as they did anyway

[Chicane]

just to revive the thread, im sure most of you will hate it but, i thought i would say farewell to http://www.suprnova.org and the other sites who seem to have been violently abused by the US government and shut down

may thee rest in peace...

[firestorm]

So the real asnwer is. To make up a Island where p2p is legal and have no tax :p oh and cheap beer \0/

[jugster]

Whats the address, im moving in..... :)

[TheDon]

Originally posted by firestorm
So the real asnwer is. To make up a Island where p2p is legal and have no tax :p oh and cheap beer \0/ Nah, the real answer is to take advantage of the hosting offered on sealand (http://www.sealandgov.com/) . No one can touch you when your site is hosted on an old abandoned military fortress that has since been occupied and declared as it's own country and protected by shotgun wielding locals.
Shame the bandwidth to this place is so expensive.

[Afty]

Indeed, hosting trackers/torrents on Sealand would make them immune to legal action, HOWEVER as soon as Sealands status started to have grave economic impact on certain industries, how long do you think it would take before certain vested interests removed either:

1] Connectivity
2] Supports (letting it fall into the sea)

[Optimus]

According to the Sealand site, it's located 6 miles off the coast...
Now, unless im mistaken, 'International Waters' is/are 12 miles out to sea...

or is that a US-only declaration?

[TheDon]

Originally posted by afty
Indeed, hosting trackers/torrents on Sealand would make them immune to legal action, HOWEVER as soon as Sealands status started to have grave economic impact on certain industries, how long do you think it would take before certain vested interests removed either:

1] Connectivity
2] Supports (letting it fall into the sea) I can imagine the mpaa and riaa declaring war on sealand :D
Now that'd be something for the news. "There be pirates on that there sealand!"

Originally posted by Optimus
According to the Sealand site, it's located 6 miles off the coast...
Now, unless im mistaken, 'International Waters' is/are 12 miles out to sea...

or is that a US-only declaration?International waters are 3 miles out afaik.

Also, there was a case where we sent some warships out to sealand because we were pretty pissed off at what happened, and people on sealand fired upon them. They were summoned to an English court as shooting the army as an English citizen is a very serious crime, and the court basically dismissed the case citing that they have no juridstiction outside of british terrotiry. Therefore recognising sealand as a seperate nation.

[Afty]

Originally posted by TheDon
I can imagine the mpaa and riaa declaring war on sealand :D They don't have to. They simply make peering with a country/entity that trades in (unauthorised) copyright materials a criminal offence under EU law - and bam. You have a data centre in the ocean that no ISPs will peer with.
Originally posted by TheDon
International waters are 3 miles out afaik ... the court basically dismissed the case citing that they have no juridstiction outside of british terrotiry. Therefore recognising sealand as a seperate nation. Territorials seas vary by nation, some claim 3 miles, others 12... There's also an "economic zone" generally accepted to be 200 miles for things like fishing quotas etc. etc.

While the court case was fascinating, the court only recognised the inhabitants of Sealand as not being within the jurisdiction of the court - we haven't "recognised" Sealand, and I don't think anyone else has either, so it occupies a similar position to Taiwan, except without the army and the missiles :)

[Skye]

Originally posted by afty

Bit like drugs - it's illegal to buy Cannabis, but they don't go after the buyers/smokers, they go after the dealers.

thank god they dont come after the buyers/smokers!!! i think half the people i know would all be sent to jail!