Tracing file sharers

[Sysman]

Remember that this is a civil court, not a criminal one. They don't need to prove anything.

They just need to show that their version of events is more likely than yours ("balance of probabilities").

<cynical mode>



It depends which side has the fanciest lawyers.

</cynical mode>

[Ardesco]

They aren't looking in unencrypted packets to see what people are downloading, they are joining the P2P and torrent networks and harvesting IP addresses that connect to their specially customized clients and download copyrighted material. SSL won't stop them doing that.

Personally I'm 50/50 on the rights and wrongs of this. These people have a legal right that is being systematically eroded simply because technology has advanced and we seem to live in a society that refuses to respect laws that aren't enforced with an iron fist.

On the other hand, it's easy to look at a major record or film company and see a victimless crime, or rationalize that the artists themselves aren't losing out, although this view is somewhat misguided I think.

Chuck it through a proxy then so that they cannot trace it back to your IP. There are ways around all the detection techniques

[DaveB]

Chuck it through a proxy then so that they cannot trace it back to your IP. There are ways around all the detection techniques

Depends on who is running the proxy. The days of freely available truly anonymous proxies have gone. The vast majority of public proxies these days keep logs for their own safety. A Sub Poena to the operator will get your IP address, it just takes a little longer.

Those that are around for genuine reasons and dont keep logs tend not to support file sharing or other questionable services.

[Ardesco]

Those that are around for genuine reasons and dont keep logs tend not to support file sharing or other questionable services.

Questionable services???

I get all my linux distro's using torrents, also ID releases all linux server binaries through torrent these days.

It is not a questionable service, it is a perfectly legitimate service that the record labels are trying to spin as questionable.

As for the proxy thing, who said it had to be a free anon proxy? If people who are downloading dodgy stuff really are looking to protect themselves they could quite happily pay for a service based in say China, Russia, etc Would be perfectly legal and the record labels will have problems getting the information out of those countries.

The not so legal route, hackers with botnets selling off the ability to proxy through compromised machines (which will only lead to innocent people getting accused of downloading stuff)

It's like trying to scan brainwaves to see if somebody is thinking the wrong thing...

[doodab]

If you are just downloading linux distro's you have nothing to worry about and don't need to use a proxy do you?

[Fred Bloggs]

Remember that this is a civil court, not a criminal one. They don't need to prove anything.

They just need to show that their version of events is more likely than yours ("balance of probabilities").

So, if I swear on oath that I had done factory reset on the router and simply forgotten to switch the security back on, how could that be challenged by probability? Serious question, BTW.

[DaveB]

Questionable services???

I get all my linux distro's using torrents, also ID releases all linux server binaries through torrent these days.

It is not a questionable service, it is a perfectly legitimate service that the record labels are trying to spin as questionable.

As for the proxy thing, who said it had to be a free anon proxy? If people who are downloading dodgy stuff really are looking to protect themselves they could quite happily pay for a service based in say China, Russia, etc Would be perfectly legal and the record labels will have problems getting the information out of those countries.

The not so legal route, hackers with botnets selling off the ability to proxy through compromised machines (which will only lead to innocent people getting accused of downloading stuff)

It's like trying to scan brainwaves to see if somebody is thinking the wrong thing...

Questionable from their perspective. They need to keep a low profile in order to avoid pressure being brought to bear on their ISP's. Not permitting filesharing is a good way to do that. Any anonymous proxy service that allows filesharing will be jumped on by the recording industry as soon as they find it and it takes deep pockets and very good lawyers to fend them off.

[Not So Wise]

or rationalize that the artists themselves aren't losing out, although this view is somewhat misguided I think.

Not really that misguided due to two factors

a) For the artist/record company to "lose out" it would have to mean the downloader would buy the product if it was not available for free. But if that is not the case then no one actually loses anything. And in many (most) of these cases the downloader would not buy the product if they had to pay, hence the creative industries have continued to grow despite the massive increase of torrenting. All the reports of downloading costing industrys millions/billions are a load of codswallop based on the misconcention/outright lie that "every download = lost sale"

b) These industry "collection/enforcement associations/agencies" are notorious for paying nothing back to content creators. Basically nearly every penny they earn just goes either into their pockets or into funding for chasing more people, what little remains goes to the record companies, nothing ever makes it to the actual artist

[doodab]

Not really that misguided due to two factors

a) For the artist/record company to "lose out" it would have to mean the downloader would buy the product if it was not available for free. But if that is not the case then no one actually loses anything. And in many (most) of these cases the downloader would not buy the product if they had to pay, hence the creative industries have continued to grow despite the massive increase of torrenting. All the reports of downloading costing industrys millions/billions are a load of codswallop based on the misconcention/outright lie that "every download = lost sale"

b) These industry "collection/enforcement associations/agencies" are notorious for paying nothing back to content creators. Basically nearly every penny they earn just goes either into their pockets or into funding for chasing more people, what little remains goes to the record companies, nothing ever makes it to the actual artist

If you look at download + CD sales now .vs. CD sales in the late 90s before downloading caught on, there is a noticable drop. Those who argue otherwise tend to look at figures showing a recovery from 2004-2005 and onwards by which point illegal downloading was well established and the bulk of the damage had been done.

I agree a proportion of downloaders wouldn't actually buy the products but I don't think it's most. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many people who used to download illegaly have switched to pay services such as iTunes now they can get what they want legally, and if illegal downloading weren't actually possible I would expect a fair proportion of those left would buy things rather than go without.

We are talking about more than just record companies & artists, there is an entire ecosystem of studios, hire companies and studio musicians who are struggling more than ever to make a living. Soemthing like 80-90% of the major recording studios in the UK have closed in the last few years, and studio rates are way down. The film industry is another kettle of fish, here I think less people bother with downloads because the quality is so crap.

I agree their tactics have been unnecessarily agressive, and not all of the money goes to artists directly, but the fact of the matter is that industry risk taking and investment in new talent has declined considerably.

[NotAllThere]

What would happen if everyone (i.e. a large number of people) used something like Tor. Then we'd all be proxies... (sorry if it's a dumb question).