You lost the argument and you are so desperate to grab onto something. You are now nitpicking the analogy and the actual scientific possibilities to save face.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
BitTorrent Implies Guilt?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
You lost the argument and you are so desperate to grab onto something. You are now nitpicking the analogy and the actual scientific possibilities to save face.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I didn't lose. I'm not partaking in it anymore. Butting heads is all we're gonna do, as well as generate useless responses to otherwise interesting threads. I love how you accuse others of nitpicking when you're just as guilty of it. And it's good to see you still feel a need to prove yourself though.
Anyway.
People should know what they're potentially getting into when they download a torrent program. ISPs have every right for torrents to set off flags and determine if they need to warn a customer. Let the real offenders test an ISP's monitoring system.
People should what? You are advancing the RIAA/MPAA argument another step... now they should start sending DMCA notices to those that simply DOWNLOAD the BitTorrent application?
ISPs don't have "every right" to set flags on nothing. They're supposed to be "neutral carriers", and in fact the only real reason for them to set flags on torrents is rather simple: Money. Bandwidth costs money, so some ISPs do shape their networks. Most of them see the whole DMCA thing as a PITA (it also costs them money, administrative resources, etc) but they have to comply to stay clear.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 345
Bingo. ISPs don't have 'every right' to do jackshit that invades my privacy. Their only job is to provide me with the bandwidth that I'm paying them for, and NOTHING else. My transaction with them goes exactly that far... I pay them money; they give me bandwidth. No more, no less
And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.
And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Slow down. You're advancing it, not me. People should know what they're doing when downloading a torrent program, not agree/disagree to use it for legal purposes beforehand. A little behind-the-scenes knowledge, if you will. Limewire asks about your intentions though.
From the opposite direction, if someone torrenting gets a notice from their ISP, they at least shouldn't be surprised. They also shouldn't lash out on the internet.
Come on, news channels have reported on l33t speak, claiming parents consider it a secret hacker code. Are we surprised torrents concern people? We always assume the worst of people. It's natural.
They're supposed to, yes, but I'm sure they'd rather avoid companies warning them about customers participating in illegal internet activities. What if it becomes frequent? Then they're focused on and considered a bad ISP, even though it's no fault of theirs that many of its users happen to possibly do illegal things via their service.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Have you read your TOS in full? Just about every TOS I've read says something about having the right to terminate service at any time for any reason.
But I didn't say anything about preventing you from using the bandwidth. Just warning you about what you're doing. What if you were falsely accused of downloading illegally but had no proof? If someone complains to your ISP that you were doing something questionable, they have every right to relay that complaint to you in the form of a warning, if they are to be neutral.
If an ISP can detect your questionable activities, just know that people who care to do something about them can too.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 345
That is a completely different discussion. This isn't about the RIAA/MPAA complaining to an ISP because they traced some IP number on a tracker. This is about the ISP pre-emptively preventing me from connecting to a tracker because I might be doing so for illicit purposes. The issue is that the ISP can't judge whether the torrent is illicit or not.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Sure, but don't you think other ISPs monitor activity, even if they don't dish out warnings? What if they're selling collected information? Like said previously, money greatly influences network structure. You have no idea what the ISP is doing, and yet BayTSP issued a warning and now we know.
And some think ISPs are changing. Everyone's getting stricter. Why not ISPs? They're still providing a service that they don't have to provide. I highly doubt their TOS is completely void of anything pertaining to this.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 345
That's just speculation. If true, it would be just as immoral (or in the case of selling the information, illegal in many countries). Doesn't affect the argument though.
Eh? Who is getting stricter? Corporations? A corporation is more than free to block whatever traffic it feels like for as long as it's paying for it. I have no idea what you mean.
Ok, here's a better analogy.
Internet connections are being used to download copyrighted materials. You have an internet connection, therefor you are guilty of downloading illegal material.
Do you use instant messenger? Pervs and pedo's use instant messengers to try to lure young victims away from their homes. You must be a pedo if you use IMs.
Do you use myspace? Child molesters use myspace to try to lure young victims out of their homes. You must be a child molester if you use myspace.
Internet connections are being used to download copyrighted materials. You have an internet connection, therefor you are guilty of downloading illegal material.
Do you use instant messenger? Pervs and pedo's use instant messengers to try to lure young victims away from their homes. You must be a pedo if you use IMs.
Do you use myspace? Child molesters use myspace to try to lure young victims out of their homes. You must be a child molester if you use myspace.
Have you read yout TOS in full from your ISP? I have read my ISP TOS front to back. There is definitely some stuff in there that gives the ISP more power than you would think they should have. The parts I quoted earlier in this thread show part of it. Some ISPs reserve the right to deny you service because you were exceeding the current available bandwidth on the network. That means that you could be well within the limitations of the connection that you pay for and be denied service. The ISP really does reserve the right to do some interesting things when it comes to your service. I strongly recommend you read your TOS front to back. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything overly alarming in there. But the ISP definitely has more than "ZERO right" to prevent a person from using that bandwidth however he or she sees fit.
That's correct. The whole point about this isn't even about Net Neutrality or the validity of the DMCA or copyright rules... it's about the bullying of some company that doesn't even bother to check who is really downloading something illegal and just fire threats without second thoughts. It's just the same model of "sue first, ask later" that their bosses uses...
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 345
Sorry, bad phrasing. Properly it should have been: They have zero right to do that behind my back. If it's explicitly stated in the ToS then they can do whatever is stated in it. I'm only referring to the things that aren't. If it's explicitly stated that I can't use torrent (or some other protocol) then I am, of course, free to take my business elsewhere.
The issue at hand, however, is the term 'what the ISP deems acceptable'. If I sign a one year contract with an ISP, only to find out that torrents aren't 'deemed acceptable' due to some stigma of it being associated with piracy, then it's become the subject of this topic. That is why I mentioned 'Terms of Service' to begin with... Unless it's explictly stated, I'm simply being subjected to a whim.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 345
And to clarify, it's more of an ethical issue than a legal one.
(OT: is there no edit function?)
(OT: is there no edit function?)
Indeed, I agree with you there. I personally think that some of the stuff listed in the isps TOS can be questionable. Basically it is inspecific, causing some grey area.
no, I never said its not used for multiple uses so save the naive rant. I clearly state I know many who use torrents and they all use it for one use! it is an admission.So people don't use bit torrent for WoW updates, Linux Distro's that are freely distributed and ENCOURAGE downloading them over bittorrent (so they save money on bandwidth), and home made videos/movies/sketches that are not copyrighted?
Using your level of understanding, a DVD burner or CD burner is an admission of guilt, because I just assume that anyone who has one must be burning illegally obtained music, copying cds, or copying DVDs. Why else would you need one? Backup? HAH! Yeah, right....
owning a dvd burner or any type of decrypter is an admission as well since it typically has one purpose.
BTW: the change to the lame analogy works now
working for ISP's for 10+ years, you're right. but wait...one day soon some lovely person will change it all for us. I for one cannot wait! be the martyr who finally abolishes anonymity and makes us responsible for all our actions via IP. something that should have been implemented since day #1
G'ßöö;1030617926 said:no, I never said its not used for multiple uses so save the naive rant. I clearly state I know many who use torrents and they all use it for one use! it is an admission.
owning a dvd burner or any type of decrypter is an admission as well since it typically has one purpose.
BTW: the change to the lame analogy works now
I'm glad you liked it
I think most would disagree with you here. Just because you hang out with people that like to use bit torrent for evil, doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who use it for good.
I use it to distribute pamphlets on how to prevent STDs and helping feed the homeless.
What I find disturbing of all this is the concept of "Do you have Bittorrent? then you are admitting your guilt!!!". I for one firmly believe that you can't judge anyone just based on that, it's just a step far from minority report and a pre-crime department...
Do you have Bittorrent installed? you are a pirate, because only pirates would need such program! The **AA will sue you into oblivion!
Do you have a CD/DVD burner? you are a pirate, because only pirates burns disc! The BSA will confiscate the offending machine, your car and your house as well!
Do you have TrueCrypt installed on your machine? you are into child porn, because only paedophiles need to encrypt files! The police will take you in custody (and who knows what will happen to you!!!)
Do you use Linux? you are an evil hacker, because only hackers use Linux! The FBI will prosecute you (and maybe later you'll get a nice job with them)
Disturbing, like I said...
Do you have Bittorrent installed? you are a pirate, because only pirates would need such program! The **AA will sue you into oblivion!
Do you have a CD/DVD burner? you are a pirate, because only pirates burns disc! The BSA will confiscate the offending machine, your car and your house as well!
Do you have TrueCrypt installed on your machine? you are into child porn, because only paedophiles need to encrypt files! The police will take you in custody (and who knows what will happen to you!!!)
Do you use Linux? you are an evil hacker, because only hackers use Linux! The FBI will prosecute you (and maybe later you'll get a nice job with them)
Disturbing, like I said...
Well, let's see...
- I have 2 DVD burners, which I use to commit piracy on a fairly massive scale.
- I run Linux, and I am a hacker (in the proper sense of the word).
- I don't have TrueCrypt installed, but then again I'm not a perv. who's into child porn...
I'm just playing devil's advocate of course - I agree this kind of "jumping to conlusions" is foolish, especially in any situation where fines/penalties are going to be assessed. Anyway it's sad that these unjustified conclusions are often true ..
Personally, I'm not doing much to prove them wrong... PS
Didn't some guy invent a "jump to conclusions mat"? IIRC, it's this mat.. with conclusions written on it.... that you can "jump to"... Actually it's the dumbest thing I every heard of, never mind... (Sorry, I just watched Office Space again recently...)
-prof
My friend has gotten 3 warning letters from Comcast saying he had better stop using Bittorrent or they will cancel his service. Do other countries with their massive bandwidth and cheap prices do this to THEIR customers? Or is it only here in the good ol' USA, where they charge 3 times as much for 1/20th of the speed?
Im downloading from bittorrent almost 24/7. No notice from comcast yet..but I suspect that if they did we'd cancel our tv service and they'd loose their $120-$150 a month from us.
shadowwyvern
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 604
It is funny in a service-centered business (isps), how alienating your customers and not protecting their right to privacy makes you a "good" isp and doing what you are supposed to and taking advantage of the safe harbor clause of the dmca makes you a "bad" isp.
And bittorrent has so many legitimate uses. I want to strangle someone every time I hear some company apologize for slowness as a result of a lot of people downloading a few files (like MS with the vista open beta). It is the same stigma of p2p that causes the obvious solution to be ignored that has caused idiots to buy into this latest crap.
And as someone mentioned, if BT gets blocked or starts to generate trouble, there is always encryption, TOR, etc to fall back on.
And bittorrent has so many legitimate uses. I want to strangle someone every time I hear some company apologize for slowness as a result of a lot of people downloading a few files (like MS with the vista open beta). It is the same stigma of p2p that causes the obvious solution to be ignored that has caused idiots to buy into this latest crap.
And as someone mentioned, if BT gets blocked or starts to generate trouble, there is always encryption, TOR, etc to fall back on.
The guy was actively opening connections to trackers that he believed that his ISP was monitoring for illegal file sharing (and he was correct in his guess). His ISP isn't monitoring trackers hosting Linux distros or WoW patches, and thus he didn't nor wouldn't recieve a letter regarding those sorts of torrents. With this in mind, the highway analogy simply doesn't work. A better analogy would be a wife finding her husband calling 1-900 sex chats. When confronted, he could say that he was simply talking to the women on the other end about what to get his wife for Valentines Day, but lets be realistic here--we know 99.9999% of the men in this predicament would be having phone sex. The exception proves the rule in this case.
I'm glad you're not a lawyer. (Or a judge.)
matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i got a letter from my school once alleging i was downloading chornicles of riddick. i wasn't but my roomate was (cause his antec psu melted). so i get in trouble for it. oh well. i just wrote a letter saying i didn't download it and i even watched it in theaters, which was true. and the internet was backup! ah the joy of backup when it came out a month later .
i remember my roomates friend letting me buy a whole bunch of blank dvd's from him because his laptop burning didn't recognize them. ah good times
. i remember my roomates friend letting me buy a whole bunch of blank dvd's from him because his laptop burning didn't recognize them. ah good times
Actually, that analogy wouldn't work either.
A husband calling into a 900 chat would be actively engaging regardless if he was asking for advice or if he was seeking friendship. By communicating, you have bi directional flow of traffic, therefore, you have an active communication method.
Now this analogy would work if the husband called 900 sex chat and before they can pickup the phone, he puts down the phone... so it's registered in his calling history but no data flow was established. This would be more in the lines of the actual case... now lets break it down:
Husband: Caller/Downloader
Communication Method: Phone/Internet
Wife: Wife/ISP-RIAA-MPAA
900 number: 900/Torrent
CallerID: CalllerID/Tracker
Husband (downloader) makes the 900 (launches bittorrent) call over the phone (internet) but hangs up before he can establish a connection which shows on his callerid (tracker). Later on in the day, he is questioned by his wife (MPAA-RIAA-ISP) for calling the 900 number (using bit torrent) for a dirty deed (pirating).
Communication established on both analogy and actual event occurrence? No.
Therefore, we can conclude that the latter analogy actually would be the most correct analogy for the original article.
You're right in some respects, but not in all (I should've been more detailed in my explanation). He doesn't simply hang up after calling the 1-900 line (the tracker).
It gets a bit fuzzy here because the analogy doesn't entirely work (in part because there's no real real world scenario I can come up with truly represents the BT protocol). The guy is using a torrent file for a copyrighted show. He connects to the tracker, gets a list of IPs, and gives his IP as being interested in the content. Then he sits back and refuses any connections that come his way. His client is acting like a standard BT client in every way except downloading/uploading. He still communicates with the original tracker once in a while to get an updated list of others sharing files, and his IP continues to show up in the tracker with a note saying "Connect to me, I'm dealing with this content too!" He's at a crackhouse, asking for drugs, but anytime anyone offers it to him, he says "No thanks" and anytime someone asks him if he has any, he says "Not yet" and continues to hang around. He's still at the crack house when the DEA/NBC scopes the place out and sees him there. They assume, whether right or wrong, he's dealing in drugs/Scrubs.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't normally connect to servers claiming to be sharing illegal content when I'm really just running a social experiment. Had this guy done this on a tracker that hosts nothing but legitimate content like Linux distros or WoW pathes, there wouldn't be an issue. However, he wasn't at the farmer's market, he was at a crack house.
. . . after that, me too.Eickst said:
I don't think it's going to be possible for you nor I to come up with a correct analogy as it's really impossible to represent it as you mentioned.
True, poking at the beast will provoke it. I think he wasn't really interested in if they find out about him or not, I think he was more interested in of what they accuse him of. They accused him of downloading files and sharing those whiles in which he didn't do... I think that was the result that he was aiming for. Now it is quite hard to find out if someone downloaded an entire show or if they downloaded half and disconnected... I think it would be unrealistic for them to track who downloaded how much of what content... I think it might even be impossible as the torrent doesn't have to download from the same seeder next time it connects.
But I agree, had he downloaded legitimate safe content, no one would have contacted him... the fact that he went to connect to those torrent trackers indicates interest in that file.
Torrent downloading is a hard case to press, because the user might not have finished the download, might not be the actual user (war driver), or might never connect to the same seeders and completely download the file.... so in that sense it would be very hard to say that they did download it or didn't.
Also, on the same note, I don't agree with the RIAA/MPAA's ethics and methods of pursuing these people. They are making these files widely available and are allowing people to download it and catch/trap them like that... to me this is luring people in. If they went after the seeders, none of this would have been an issue as people would be too terrified to seed... however, it seems as if they are the ones seeding and catching the downloaders.... which is no suprise... there are more downloaders than seeders and the MPAA/RIAA is always after money... I am surprised that the media industries haven't been posting up websites and videos on youtube and logging the information of anyone who watches it.