UK 'pirates' face £20 appeal fee

Interesing, thanks for that . . . the original TorrentFreak link with more detail can be found HERE


... Yeah so basically
1) Sometimes innocent addresses are added when the torrent is created
2) Other nodes can add innocent addresses which is what that company is doing.
Which is the dodgy part as it means that innocent people could become victim of this and it's very likely to happen. Anyone could do it.
I'm not quite sure how this can be deduced from the information available on your original link or the TorrentFreak link. It seems that what Pirate Pay were doing was to make the clients fail, presumably by flooding the link with garbage?

As I say, I really don't know much about Torrents, just that I don't agree with theft or "Piracy" as its fans disingenuously choose to call it ;)
 
Interesing, thanks for that . . . the original TorrentFreak link with more detail can be found HERE


I'm not quite sure how this can be deduced from the information available on your original link or the TorrentFreak link. It seems that what Pirate Pay were doing was to make the clients fail, presumably by flooding the link with garbage?

As I say, I really don't know much about Torrents, just that I don't agree with theft or "Piracy" as its fans disingenuously choose to call it ;)
We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other
So they changed the list of IP addresses that the clients had, so if someone was trying to monitor the network the same could be done with them and they would end up with a list of innocent addresses.
 
Oh, OK, I wasn't aware of that and to be honest, I can't claim to be an authority on Torrents anyhow.

LolMockhausen.

Got to love people agressively arguing a subject on which they freely admit to having little to no knowledge

you do a more than adequate job of making yourself look stupid and paranoid without any help from me :p

I'm guessing that's firmly aimed at yourself then? ;)
 
Last edited:
The problem is clearly the business model.

More and more companies need to look at the model that Steam created for games, and which the apple music store created. The second needs some more work, but is getting there.

I remember reading something about the steam summer sale which said, old games can be hugely revitalised by the sales, as it drives up the games ranking, in the most bought charts, which in turn increases purchases at full price following the sale...

kd
 
Louis CK made $1mill in 10 days by selling his latest stand-up for $5 with no DRM.

This isn't really a good example of anything, though, is it? The fact is that the piracy attitude of "sticking it to The Man" is terribly misguided and has all of the rigorous logic of an adolescent pink-mohawk. 90% of music piracy hurts the producers more than hurts the major labels. Ok, fair enough, if you are ripping Rihanna's latest album then, considering her own personal wealth, you are probably spiting the label more than you are denying her another bottle of Veuve Clicquot.

But most artists are not on major labels. Most artists have not been given 4-album record deals with an advance - and thus some financial stability by their craft. Take 'dubstep', just as an example, a genre that is now hugely popular and no doubt has lots and lots of teens and young adults downloading it. Who are you ripping off when you download those vinyl rips from the internet? It's not like Sony BMG is behind this musics' publication and distribution. You're downloading a copy of a release that probably had no more than 500-1000 copies pressed in the first place - because of financial constraints and cash-flow concerns at the small record label behind it - and then you waltz around the internet like a dick pronouncing your anti-establishmentarianism. Pirates are 90% of the time missing their target and hurting the wrong people, to the point where they can't defend their behaviour with this tired and cliché argument about "it's the evil corporations fault!!!!". Please, it's so puerile.

I would say as a rule that if you are a fan of any sort of specialist or truly 'indie' (as in independent) music, you probably should look a little harder at your justifications for piracy.
 
Last edited:
Weather you agree with piracy or not, it should never be down to an individual to prove their innocence.

I don't care how much the "creative industries" are loosing. If they suspect someone of breaking the law they should take them to court and prosecute using law which already exist.
 
The thing I want to know is how much money organisations are wasting on coming up with these new laws. It must be pretty costly paying people the come up with and write these documents and all the other bits and pieces to then in the end have it turned down. Then what do they do. Try and make some other stupid law. How about like already said, taking what people are saying and changing you're businesses model to it!
 
They keep loosing a fighting battle. They must distribute via cheaper methods like Steam, Netflix, LoveFilm e.t.c.

steam distributes at RRP, and is much more expensive than bricks and mortar shops.

at least untill somthing happens to alter how DD works.

but steam is often worth the cost for the service.
 
steam distributes at RRP, and is much more expensive than bricks and mortar shops.

Yet bizarrely people will spend all day in threads ****ging off bricks and mortar stores for being a 'ripoff' whilst happily spending more money on less product because it's on Steam :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom