What do you mean we’re not invincible?
by schwim on Apr.21, 2009, under MPAA & RIAA
First, Facebook backtracked on their partnership with TPB. Then, Some of the big wigs got sent to the pokey. Now ISP’s are beginning to block access to TPB.
Everyone that is surprised that an entity that facilitates illegal file sharing is being picked on. Ok, all of you that raised your hands… you’re idiots. Don’t breed.
Since Napster took a dirt nap, everyone that was awake understood that any system that had a hub that could be targeted…. would be targeted.
The only system that has a hope of success is a system that doesn’t have a heart. A network that encypts the data and utilizes blind proxies to connect between each other would solve the issue of ISP’s blocking traffic due to connection destination and data or connection type(Comcast, anyone?).
This of course still leaves the issue of a method of network awareness to be resolved. You need a method of connecting users however, it either has to be hubless or has to utilize a system that isn’t aware of who it’s connecting. That seems to be the sticking point for current p2p systems.
I don’t use p2p for any reason so I don’t have any incentive to make a change, but I can’t help but find TPB’s lackadaisical approach to file sharing to be folly. Unless, of course, their intention was to do some time in prison. Then it makes complete sense. They’ve tried every scheme to try to get out from under copyright law, including the purchase of a micronation.
It’s completely irrelevant if the harassment against them is legal or not. It’s happening. Further, it was completely predictable. To cap it off, a lot of us could have won some money were we allowed to bet that it would be successful(ending in prison sentences for some).
If I were to give them any advice, it would be this:
Never pick up the soap. If you drop it, just let it go, man.
April 21st, 2009 on 6:40 pm
Hmmmmm….
TPB never intended to be surreptitious. That would be The Scene. TPB is the “point of the spear” for the activist movement. The issue is way larger than free movies or free music. But I won’t go into all that here.
April 21st, 2009 on 7:43 pm
They’ve definitely never been big on secrecy.
They gained their popularity at the fingers of those that need anonymity. It would be naive to not understand that 99% of the people that use their service will do so to transfer copyrighted material.
Even if they hadn’t taken into account that their service would appeal to those that trade files, it’s irrelevant what their intention was. As I said, they’re busy dealing with it, regardless of whether they wanted to be a part of it or not. If they wanted to be a “spear head” for anything other than file sharing, they fucked up big time by spending all their time dealing with it.
April 21st, 2009 on 8:38 pm
Hey Schwim,
I’ve never used TPB and don’t have a problem with anti-file sharing take-downs, as long as the evidence so supports. Even the odd prosecution of an illegal file-sharer is OK if the judge, in sentencing, realises that a downloaded file is roughly equivalent to keeping that VHS tape of the Sunday night movie instead of erasing it, and so maybe a six-figure fine is a bit over the top.
What gets right up my nose, though, is a service provider blocking access to the site . I see that as equivalent to the postal service deciding not to deliver to/from certain addresses, making that decision on a whim and without notice. Call it what you want – lack of due process, absence of natural justice or just plain wrong – but, in my opinion, the service provider has nothing to do with it, and asking them to act is like asking the airline to take responsibility for stolen property in someone’s baggage. (Hmmm. Actually, I shouldn’t give the airlines ideas). Customs and other law enforcement have that responsibility and that’s the way it should be.
Perhaps, if we all used encryption all of the time, the problem of what the ISP is or isn’t responsible for would go away.
As for “hubless” protocols, I dunno. I’m not a torrent user, so I don’t really have much to add. I like the idea of being able to maintain traffic of any sort at my and a few others’ discretion … which, one day, may be necessary for open political discourse.
April 21st, 2009 on 8:56 pm
Hi there Bert,
First and before anything else, I’m sure after your extended stay here, you know my stance on the current witch hunt that plagues the file sharing community, both legal and non. I would love nothing more than to see the complete and utter collapse of the major entertainment labels, simply because of the unfair tactics they have developed to scare people straight. Much of what they do is not only illegal, it’s often worse than what they accuse the defendant of.
The ISP blocking traffic needs to be handled by the end user. They need to drop the offending ISP en mass and let their pocketbooks do the talking. We however know that won’t happen, don’t we? It would be lovely for someone in the legal system to point out that this isn’t viable, but even if that were to happen, when would you see the culmination of the wrongs being righted? Maybe our children could visit the TPB through that ISP.
The blocking of the traffic is useless. Any user that has reason to use TPB knows about proxies and tunnels and won’t be affected by the actions taken. With a $10 a year hosting account, you can set up your own private proxy with a canned script that will get you around any ip, site or server specific block that your ISP attempts to enforce. These same ff the shelf proxy scripts offer encryption that to date, the ISP’s aren’t capable of decrypting efficiently enough to police their networks.
I don’t feel that what is happening to the guys at TPB is justified. I just think you’d have to be a moron not to see it coming.
April 21st, 2009 on 10:50 pm
G’day,
I wouldn’t file share myself, but on the other hand, I’d love to see the MPAA and RIAA fall in a screaming heap. The technology is almost at hand where we can dispense with the old model and do away with “music and film publishers” altogether. I’m a bit scant on details of a replacement model (isn’t that always the way
), but some of the alternative sites like Jamendo are showing the way. Even one-site-per-band or one-site-per-film-producer is an improvement, IMHO. We just have to figure out how to keep the artists clothed and fed, that’s all. 
April 21st, 2009 on 11:21 pm
Well, the reason the community for open music and movies are so small is because the established current system is just so darned convenient. I hand them $20 and they let me sit in the movie theater, or for $16, I can download an album to my iPod.
We as consumers are such ninnies. We’ll take anything that’s handed to us if it’s convenient. We’ll give away any rights that are supposed to be ours if you can remove two steps from the order process.
The reason these systems exist is because the consumer allows it. It seems oversimplified, but it’s really not. It’s the provider’s job to continue to take away services until we’re unhappy, then backtrack slightly so we’ll keep using their service. We just never told them to stop.
April 22nd, 2009 on 9:57 pm
Life must be soooo simple for copyright attorneys:
“let’s see…. there’s RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft. Everyone else on the planet is hell-bent to lick my candy for free.”
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/21/2041241