What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
40 Comments
- kopiwrite, on 11/15/2009, -1/+60Wikileaks FTW
- growvideos, on 11/15/2009, -1/+36Just another money making scheme by bullying and scaring people.
- CaptOblivious, on 11/15/2009, -1/+31If the original rights holder licensed someone to put the movies on P2P, how is it even possible that it would be illegal to download them?
Is the fact that you share out the blocks you have already downloaded the sole infringement in their case?
Do we need a "leech only" bit in the P2P protocol?
That way if they share out file they are legally entitled to (as above) and they do not set the leech only bit, then you you clearly have that fact for your defense.
IE: the rightsholder did not mark the torrent/file as restricted, therefore it was clearly unrestricted?
Just a thought to help "fix" this truly ***** up business model. - slapo12, on 11/15/2009, -1/+24See ya, credibility
- haikuFU, on 11/16/2009, -0/+14If bittorrent was a UDP based protocol, it would be very very easy to spoof IP's. Consider the following scenarios:
- Client makes a request to a host that has the file. Host sends chunks of the file to the client but spoofs the source IP as coming from something else.
- .torrent files filled with BS IP addresses of people that have the files. They might, they might not. They are probably not even running bittorrent. But, your client sends out requests to all of them for the file, and the ones that have it respond and spoof the source.
- Bittorrent clients send out periodic requests from a ***** IP. It generates a bit more traffic, but it keeps these people from figuring out that the only IP's requesting data are the ones that are truly downloading/sharing it.
It would make it nearly impossible for these companies to operate. And while IP spoofing is dependent on your router/firewall and your ISP putting proper security controls in place to prevent it (most do not), it would still be enough of a problem for these outfits to where 99.999% of what they were doing would be a wild goose chase. Nearly everyone they accused would be innocent, and the public outcry would be far more intense than it is now.
The reason this works with UDP and not TCP is because TCP must perform a 3-way handshake to establish the connection, which basically verifies that this is your true IP address. With UDP, there's nothing like that. Either your content makes it to it's destination, or it doesn't.
Bittorrent probably isn't the right thing to call this. It could be based on the bittorrent code, but should probably be called something else since BT has a lot of very legitimate purposes. - tgc1, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10I'm curious what the secret international copyright treaty is going to do for things like this. Me thinks there are a lot of insidious companies who have their hands in a new cooky jar which is, at least in part, aided by the government through one sided legislation.
- dengzhi, on 11/16/2009, -2/+11digg advertising is just getting out of hand...first front page stories provided by advertiser that we can't comment on.. and now side bar dugg stories related to the sponsor?
- jorgio, on 11/16/2009, -0/+9So you mean to tell me this whole thing has to do with money?
crazy - Mankind121, on 11/16/2009, -2/+11Sounds like extortion to me
- InactiveUser, on 11/16/2009, -1/+9So this is why we pay taxes, so courts can fart ass around with scumbag lawyers serving no real purpose other than tying up valuable and limited court time and all for a profit based on extortion.
Who is breaking the law again? - curtisag, on 11/16/2009, -0/+8Why the hell hasn't someone done that already?
- captininsanity, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Sometimes you got to do this stuff yourself. There was no BT before someone decided to make it...
- RogerMcDodger, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7This is extortion.
- norman619, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6I hardly knew thee...
- w1cked1, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5Did you even read the article to know what you're responding to before making an ass of yourself? No of course you didn't.
- JohnFlux, on 11/16/2009, -1/+6It also makes it easy to DoS anyone you want. Just sign up to lots of torrents using your enemy's IP address.
- theonlywizdum, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5Sure, as long as they're prosecuting someone that isn't you, who cares?
- txballer, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4Get firefox and Adblock Plus, if enough of you do this they'll cut back on the ads.
http://adblockplus.org/en/
I don't mind the banner ads but those fake digg story ads are getting out of hand. I don't like being tricked into viewing an ad. - TheGuruStud, on 11/16/2009, -3/+7MrBabyMan isn't human!
- w1cked1, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4Actually they're file sharers. Pirates have boats.
Technically if anyone in the story is a veritable pirate it would be those who baited and then extorted the users of the legal content they had offered them. Didn't read the fukn story, did ya *****. - InactiveUser, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4He is sky net?
- w1cked1, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4If you ever get a letter like that, first send them a half million dollar bill for having taken the time to read it.
Follow it up with your response; "Go ***** yourselves". Then send them another half million dollar bill for "consulting".
That's the language they speak. - TheGuruStud, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Possibly. We will only know when the nukes launch....
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Well, the onus of evidence is still always on the person distributing content to show that they are authorized to do so. But one could(emphasis on could, this is not automatic) claim that there was a clear implication they could if the owner authorized it to go on P2P, at least from an equity standpoint, because P2P technology is usually set up to automatically redistribute the file and it is reasonable to assume that someone using it should be aware of that.
Unfortunately, this evidence was not available at the time. If it had been, perhaps a lawyer could have advised fighting the charge rather than just settling(although it would probably still cost more) during a consultation. If one of these incidents had gone to trial(unfortunately doesn't look like it) and/or a subpoena had been issued that targeted a document like this, however, it could mean quite some serious charges for this firm. - AlienMushroom, on 11/16/2009, -0/+3Sue until their wallets bleed out.
- mithrasinvictus, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2It looks like the firm never intended for any of its claims to see trial. I hope they get sued.
- sango, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3so disgusting
- Kuci06, on 11/15/2009, -0/+2porn makes the world go 'round
- w1cked1, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1Yep, they're going to alienate their user base until it's just them left clicking on their own banners.
- INTERNETMASTER, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1hopefully they don't come after me :o
- chriscanada, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1This has been going on for a while. I'm a member of a gay themed torrent site with lots of gay porn. It's a fact that a lot of the members are in the closet, hiding their sexuality from there wife's, family they live with, etc. These company's have been exploiting this fact and going after the users of gay themed torrent sites.
- DaviDTC, on 11/16/2009, -1/+2Cause you couldn't middle/right mouse click on the abp logo to turn it off?
- sw0rdz, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1Not surprised. Is it me or are movies becoming available to download via Torrent come out earlier each year? There are cases where movies come out in DVD quality, while the movie is still in cinema. Why shouldn't the companies do it? With the economy not being so well, people spend less on entertainment, and for those who really like entertainment, they download. Those types of people are rising in numbers. So companies to need to make up for the loss in DVD sales and start sicking out their dogs (lawyers) to make up for that lost. In my experience, most people I've heard download movies, can't afford to buy them. If that is true in the bigger spectrum, then the companies that pay 1,000's of dollars to sue these people, will become futile
- crossmr, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1you would need evidence to show you knew it was the rights holder that was distributing the files. If somehow it was revealed that the rights holder was using a certain screen name or IP address before you began downloading it, it might be a defense.
- gasoline, on 11/16/2009, -1/+1Didn't want to refresh and lose opened comment threads.
Hitting ALT+R, "iexplore digg.com" and enter wasn't that hard. - Luzo33, on 11/16/2009, -1/+1By the way, I didn’t get my cut for these trolling efforts.
- gasoline, on 11/16/2009, -1/+1Adblock.
Had to fire up IE to see what you're complaining about. - InactiveUser, on 11/16/2009, -6/+2Yes serving the best interests of the people..
- candorny, on 11/16/2009, -17/+2so? Lotf of people make money trying to protect assets.
Torrent if you want. Chances are you will not get caught. But don't bitch if you do. You are not supporting some noble cause by torrenting. You are simply a cheapskate who feels entitled to everything like a 5 year old kid. So don't cry if that sense of entitledment gets you in trouble. - krosack, on 11/16/2009, -19/+3Yeah but these are pirates so forgive my lack of tears.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is