Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire
This isn't quite the same as what has been struck down. These are only warnings and a possible slow-down. They are not saying anyone gets disconnected. I still think it is rotten. I want a dumb-pipe to the internet.
Of course even these warnings/slow-downs are also easily circumvented through using a VPN, if it matters to you. At least until they ban encrypted traffic!
|
Heh, I'd like to see that happen.
As far as the warnings, from what they've said, it is supposed to be a 6 strike system. They send you warnings, and after the 6th, you're cut off. I remember when I first moved into my apartment, a few weeks after being there, I got 5 separate copyright notices, all dated for a time when I did not have the internet fully set up. I had a modem plugged in, but did not have a router yet, and did not have my computer set up (was in another county). Since I didn't have a router, I obviously didn't have wifi enabled in any capacity. If I didn't have a computer or router there, how could I have downloaded the 5 different things they claim I did? Most likely, they had logs saying that my modem had the IP after it came active, and the person who used it last had downloaded that stuff, and inadequate logs or research fingered me. Luckily at the time, the ISP was pretty lenient and said they'd not hassle me if I promised to not download anything like that, and to make sure when I got my wifi up that I had it encrypted. Under the system things are going to, those false positives would have still counted, and one more thing would have got my net connection killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
It's not a snap, but it can definitely be done. Companies like Websense already make a business out it, and a company like Verizon can easily put $10 million into a system that will save them huge amounts of bandwidth by throttling infringing material.
You're not allowed to download an episode of a TV show via an infringing method just because it's for "educational purposes."
|
See, that's the deal. There is no "infringing methods". It isn't how you do it, but rather the act itself.
As far as the rest, well, they can tell basic info from handling it, just on what they need to route the packets with, but they cannot tell anything about it without doing deep packet inspection. So, for instance, if you're an ISP and you're routing a deluge of UDP packets from a ton of connections, and occasionally connecting to say, thepiratebay.se, you can surmise that they're using bittorrent and are likely pirating. But you have no clue on exactly what they're downloading, or uploading. While they'd likely be right if they slapped you for the above, they have no proof. The Pirate Bay isn't exclusively pirated content. For instance, just the other day I downloaded a Linux ISO, that happened to be tracked by the pirate bay. Did I do anything illegal? No. If you just have the vague clues the ISP has, would it appear as if I did? Yes. Deep packet inspection, while possible, does have some issues. High overhead for the ISP. Unable to get anything of use if the traffic is encrypted. If you break the encryption to find out, you're then violating a few laws. Plus, the other legal consequences due to the relation to wiretapping. Deep packet inspection is basically recording everything you do, and putting it together in a coherent manner, more or less making a mirror of all your downloaded and uploaded content. They'd have to have your permission for doing that, or a court order. Plus depending on how they did things, they'd potentially be committing copyright infringement as well.
Also, with the way the laws are in the US, the person who does the uploading is the one who is actually breaking the law. Somewhat of a moot point, considering that typically with the modern P2P networks you're uploading before you're even finished downloading, but still an important point to consider. Reason is, you can block all upload, so you're downloading only, and try some tricks to fool the trackers into thinking you're uploading as well (most trackers cut off people who aren't uploading to people that they requested you upload to). From a legal standpoint, they couldn't do anything to you there. However, the way they've spun things around, they make people think it is the downloading that is the illegal part. You violate copyright by making a copy without permission, correct? When you're downloading, the copy is being made by the party uploading. The person downloading is only receiving the copy.