161–170 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The RIAA doesn't have to sue to make OP's life miserable. They have enough lawyers on the payroll to drown him in perfectly legal demand letters. Go one step further and assume the demand letters are harassment - what's OP going to do, sue the RIAA?
Nahh, for a bunch of annoying letters take them to small claims court. Cheap for you, expensive for them, and you win if they don’t show up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely a few. Media companies often send out infringement notices to ISPs to be forwarded to the user and I would guess this is how they get those IPs
No tracker necessary, you can just use DHT: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/
Edit: Nope I'm wrong, different type of hash it seems...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the police understand this nuance? Especially since most of the traffic that will go through there is probably copyright infringement? They'll just see tracker and assume it's illegal.
Traffic doesn't "go through there", that's the whole point of P2P. All a tracker does is let people find each other.
So yes, data "goes through it". Do you think law enforcement understands the nuance of metadata vs actual data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because knowingly helping people commit crimes generally counts the same as committing the crime yourself. I.e. federally in the U.S. under 18 USC 2a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 The software you're running being "simple" isn't a defence for doing illegal things with it - like aiding others commit crimes. There are a few internet/copyright safe harbor provisions (in the US) that might maybe (probably…
Wouldn't particular knowledge be required? I'm sure Google devs know in the abstract that Google search is used by criminals to help them in committing crimes, but that clearly is not illegal in and of itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He did not choose the domain name by chance. He chose it because he observed it was previously in use as a tracker for copyright infringing torrents. The police/courts/jury is not obliged to put blinders on just because you would prefer if they did. The mere fact that the domain name was previously used for this is almost certainly probable cause to get search warrants that will almost certainly provide the requisite…
They explicitly used it to download "Linux isos", which are highly likely not copyright infringing (they are usually free to distribute). Eg. Canonical distributes Ubuntu via BitTorrent too: https://ubuntu.com/download/alternative-downloads Edit: I missed the "uh," in the OP: I stand corrected.
I used to think those old trackers were long dead, but it’s wild to see them still pulling in millions of peers. P2P may have faded from the spotlight, but the infrastructure never really went away.
I guess...the question is...who? Surely people have to pay to keep these peers just running. 3.1 million is how many millions of dollars in infra per month? I guess it's distributed amongst millions or thousands of people, sure, or may be most of them are bots.
> it peaked at about 1.7 million distinct torrents across 3.1 million peers
Most people don't regularly prune their torrent library.
> Is this legal? Why wouldn't it be? You're not actually hosting a tracker in this case, only looking at incoming connections. And even if you do run a tracker, hard to make the case that the tracker itself is illega. Hosting something like opentrackr is like hosting a search engine, how they respond to legal takedown requests is where the crux is at, and whatever infra sits around the tracker, so police and courts c…
Is this legal isn’t a useful question. The better question is how likely are you to get sued? With civil lawsuits it doesn’t matter if it’s legal you can be sued and harassed by lawyers if you get on their radar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to sue. Send a cease and desist and your average hacker like OP will take it down in a hurry...
I think the point is that you can't count on that and need to assume that you are going to attract actual lawsuits. DMCA provides easier take down options for copyright owners but AFAIK does not compel them to make use of those options before going to court.
In other words, you can DDoS any ip for the cost of registering a domain and publishing a specific DNS record.
Is it really going to be all that bad? The BitTorrent clients I’ve used all seemed pretty polite, backing off for like 60s at least for each tracker they can’t connect to. If you buy one of the dead tracker domains and point it at an IP of someone else, but their services aren’t even listening on the port client wants to connect to (and don’t speak BitTorrent even if the port happened to coincide), I can’t imagine th…