P2P-Zone - Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)

- Peer to Peer (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=13489)

Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian

P2PNet News

MediaForce, a hired Warner Net security firm which uses its mediaSentry to automatically scan p2p nets for "copyrighted works", has targeted a Canadian Grokster user for alleged copyright infringements.

mediaSentry trawls the Net looking for 'illegal' file sharers and when it finds one, shows the p2p app and sharers' IP addies. Address owners are then Whois-ed, MediaForce contacts the ISP or block owner involved and the downloader gets a 'Stop it or Else' notice.

The Grokster user says, "I, like millions of others am simply using the internet to use services like Grokster, and Kazaa, otherwise, why have a computer? I simply download music and movies from other people, and share them as does everyone else. I have no desire to reproduce or distribute anything. I do this, I assume like most, for my own private use. This seems absurd that they can somehow hack into my computer to see what I am doing in the privacy of my own home."
http://www.p2pnet.net/news/mediaforce1.html

let me know if you've gotten one of those.

- js.

Re: Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
This seems absurd that they can somehow hack into my computer to see what I am doing in the privacy of my own home."
- js.

If you're doing it online - it's not the privacy of your own home.

By it's very nature you are advertisting the fact you are sharing files to other people. The legal issue aside, this is definately not a privacy issue.

Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian

Quote:

Originally posted by Malk-a-mite

If you're doing it online - it's not the privacy of your own home.

By it's very nature you are advertisting the fact you are sharing files to other people. The legal issue aside, this is definately not a privacy issue.

i disagree. points of law are rarely so simple. for instance it's "great" that record companies can claim digital networks are somehow so fundamentally different from what came before them that they require whole new laws to regulate them. but are they really? i don't think so. consider telephone conversations, occurring on huge global digital networks. they are considered so private and untouchable even the government can't access them without court ordered warrants, even ones broadcast over the air on cell-nets, even advertised ones like 800 and 900 numbers.

just because a copyright holder sees a potential land grab doesn’t make it legal, or even moral. warner bros. is acting in neither capacity in this instance. just temporarily powerful perhaps, like a bully.

- js.

this is ridiculous. there is no law in canada (that i'm aware of) that says you cant share this and that over a p2p network

Quote:

Originally posted by schmooky007
this is ridiculous. there is no law in canada (that i'm aware of) that says you cant share this and that over a p2p network

The Copyright Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Re: Warner Bros. Threatens Canadian

Jack - I focused on one point.

The person claimed his computer was hacked into.
It wasn't.

If I stand on a street corner screaming that I have WinXP for free to anyone who wants it. I don't get to complain about it when people find out.

Broadcast file sharing networks are not private.
People need to understand that - them maybe we can work on securing them.

Phone networks are point to point connections.

The nature of the file sharing networks are not.

If we were doing VPN tunnels to share files yes I'd agree with you. But the current state of p2p is nothing like a phone call.

* I just keep editting this as I think of stuff.

Back to the street corner - closer to the method we use in p2p. If people walk up to me and ask if I have drugs/nukes/small children and I say yes.... only to then find out that they are a cop I can't claim it wasn't fair.

If you don't know who you're trading with you assume a level of risk. If you are comfortable with that level, trade away. If not, come up with something better.

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts

i disagree. points of law are rarely so simple. for instance it's "great" that record companies can claim digital networks are somehow so fundamentally different from what came before them that they require whole new laws to regulate them. but are they really? i don't think so. consider telephone conversations, occurring on huge global digital networks. they are considered so private and untouchable even the government can't access them without court ordered warrants, even ones broadcast over the air on cell-nets, even advertised ones like 800 and 900 numbers.

just because a copyright holder sees a potential land grab doesn’t make it legal, or even moral. warner bros. is acting in neither capacity in this instance. just temporarily powerful perhaps, like a bully.

- js.

^---------------- He uses p2p file sharing aswell Britney.
He is stealing your pennies too!

PS. Keep this tip under your hair weave and don't tell Hillary.
Your the pop princess. You rule. With you speaking out on TV
hopefully we can stop people from downloading mp3s.

i think computers and telephones are similar...
they are just from 2 different technical eras..
basicly both are units installed in some ones home ..ect ,for the use of comunication...
point to point? telephones have been able to do conference calls for 15 yrs or so now and the call travels thru several exchanges to get to its destination.....ok thats not a network...but
for all the diferences in HOW they both work
i can see many similar patterns in how they look
the roles they serve in a home or office...
to me it seems like the computer wants to be a replacement for the telephone......
it wont be long before telephone companys stop installing telephones and people will get computer phones that do every thing your latest p4 does now....in 10 or 15yrs maybe

and that privacy on one should be different to another seems like bad kama to me...

but good for the law makers the want to swing things in the corporations favor

MALK :)in some way i think this maybe some kind of natrual law
of file share:

Quote:

"If you don't know who you're trading with you assume a level of risk. If you are comfortable with that level, trade away. If not, come up with something better".......Malk-a-mite

im sure that is doesnt' have much to do with it
but for some reason i found it relevent...
reminded me of life b4 the internet....

Quote:

from: where wizards stay up late
In 1969, ARPA awarded the contract to build the most integral piece of this network -- a computerized switch called the Interface Message Processor, or IMP -- to Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), a small Cambridge, Massachusetts company. A half-dozen engineers at BBN, who called themselves the IMP Guys, knew it was possible to do what larger companies -- including AT&T and IBM -- had dismissed as impossible. But making computer networking possible required inventing new technologies. Working around the clock, the IMP Guys met a tight deadline, and the first IMP was installed at UCLA nine months after the contract award. A nationwide network called the ARPANET grew from four initial sites. Protocols were developed, and along the way a series of accidental discoveries were made, not the least of which was e-mail. Almost immediately, e-mail became the most popular feature of the Net and the "@" sign became lodged in the iconography of our times. The ARPANET continued to grow, then merged with other computer networks to become today's Internet. In 1990, the ARPANET itself was shut down, fully merged by then with the Internet it had spawned.

some one let me know if they have read this book....might have to search the local library :)
(geeze ...i had almost forgotten about them)

What I find interesting here is that the ISP in question handed over that user's name to Mediaforce without any compelling legal reason. Could I claim a copyright infringement from some random IP address, send it (a faked document) on in a printout to this ISP; and get the persons name?

That's why the courts are supposed to come in between. If that ISP is giving out names of what people do on the net without any legal requirement to other companies um... I'd jump ship from that ISP fast.