What will differentiate one user’s session from the other are the different port numbers tied to the same IP address.”

Ok, I admit that I didn’t think of that because I don’t have any real experience with local networks.

How about if I change it to; Each account has its own unique IP address at the time of use?

What will differentiate one user’s session from the other are the different port numbers tied to the same IP address.

True. What I meant, and what I probably should have made clear, was that every user has a unique IP address, at the time of use. A user may be assigned a different IP address every time they connect to the ISP, but whatever address they are assigned, will always be unique to them, for that session and can be tracked by the ISP. Of course if you pay for a static IP, it will always be the same.

The question of proxies did enter my mind and I was going to mention it, but I wasn’t sure if any ISPs send ALL traffic through a proxy, or just just certain protocols, like HTTP. I know I’ve seen the issue discussed with regard to hosting sites like Rapidshare (which uses IP addresses to identify non-paying users), but I can’t say I’ve ever seen it mentioned as an issue with P2P networks.

I personally have witnessed companies operating interdiction operations via such ISP companies acting in a proxy capacity, in fact I think its done on purpose.
The correct solution is to temporarily block the IP address as its what is well known as a “dynamically allocated IP” and likely to be in different hands in a short space of time often a week or two max.

Blutak fall over in their list making by adding such addresses as mentioned above to their lists for years and refuse to remove them regardless of them not even being in the hands of the enemy any longer than a fortnight, with anti file-sharing activities such as this occuring I urge no one to use blutak lists with PG.
I suggest trying to find one thats compatible with Peer Guardian but for the file sharing network you use as the smartest move, as I mentioned above blocking 1/3 of the internet (and rising) from filesharers is something the RIAA would be proud of.

No, every user has a unique IP address. They *HAVE* to, or the net doesn’t know where to send the data. IP addresses are like phone numbers, if you don’t have a unique one, people can’t call you.

A poor list is of little value when it blocks many major ISP companies, I along with others have asked blutak who compile the PG lists to justify blocking dynamic IP ranges that are 99% consumer used, they have not done so, in fact they deleted the posts from their forum, so you have a choice , use a blutak compiled list that blocks filesharers or find another list specifically for the network you use, I prefer the latter route, smoke and mirrors is for those who are easily confused and it seems nothing will change until blutak block the entire internet in their ludicrous lists.

Blutak – The RIAA’s friend.

But I don’t see how each user can have a unique IP address. As far as I know ISPs don’t work like that. They assign a particular one to a range of users.

In any case the law now states that making files available doesn’t prove distributing. So if u get one of these notices, don’t worry. Make them prove it. And cite this important precedent. Learn the facts.

The PG program itself is fine but while this blocklist lunacy continues it becomes the RIAA’s best friend, after all do any of you really believe the RIAA/MPAA have over 1/3 of all allocated internet addresses as this is what PG blocks.

Exactly what the RIAA want.

“Finally, I’ve also been saying this for years: someone needs to write a program that inaudibly changes the mp3 files slightly to alter their hash signatures. That will force MediaSentry, et al, to have to manually listen to *every* songfile they download. This is time-consuming in the extreme, and ensures the flood of DMCA Notices and subpoenas will be greatly slowed down.”

No, they’ll listen to ONE altered copy and then create a new digital hash for it which will then check for the altered copy of the song.

“PeerGuardian2 was my first though… it would work wonders”

The problem with PeerGuardian and other blocklists is that IP addresses can only be blocked AFTER they’re discovered. Media Sentry just needs to register some new IP addresses and suddenly, they’re not blocked anymore.

If you don’t share you are safe from them even without using any trick because there is no way they can get your IP. Just disable the sharing.

Even if you share your chance of being caught is extremly small. If you use peerguardian or an IRC proxy your chance are litteraly zero.

Dont’ feel guilty of you don’t share. Since this sharing thing is an exponetial to make an impact on the availability of file they will need to reduce file sharing to less that few percent. Since they are lowlife moron with no education or serious knowledge they don’t understand that!

I am running a server since more than 3 years sharing ton and ton of RIAA crap using the 3 majors p2p network at the same time, just to make them shit in their pans. And so far no news from them. I am not the only one to do this. Oh!!! and I am so scare!

Frankly if I was you I will not bother with what they sell and not even download it. Look at indies artists instead. Artists now can distribute their music themselves and no longer need the RIAA/MPAA mafia. Their is also some indies companies still selling great CDs and vyn at very very good price! Go withthem instead.
Use the RIAA radars http://www.riaaradar.com/ and the BPI radar: http://www.bpiradar.com/ To find out why not to buy.

Obviously If the case is not legitimate they don’t care and begin the extortion process anyway because it give the feeling that they are working hard while they are just a bunch of lazy parasites.

2) media sentry is not authorized yo spy and investigate people because they are not licenced as an investigators and as such are breaking the lawe of many state.

3) By downloading only a portion of a file corresponding to an IP address does not mean that the given IP address is the source of the song. Why? Because the track is downloaded via multiple computers most of then not even sharing or having on their harddrive the song.

4) it is easy to make limewire at the source level to display an altered IP address even one that does not exist.

3 and 4 explain why they show up with so many IP address that ever does not exist, exist for a very short time or randomly fall on people that don’t evenrun any file sharing software. Of course nor the RIAA or medai sentry will admit this because this is the entire extortion operation that will cramble if they do.

Anyway it will cramble eventuly but by lying about it they are bying the time that is going to make the class action law suit big enough to put them out of business.

2. “She also acknowledged that the RIAA can tell only when a song is being offered for users to illegally download; investigators have no way of knowing when someone else is actually downloading the song.”
Yay! Finally official recognition that the RIAA has no case! The copyright law states that ‘distribution must take place’ in order to classify the civil offence of ‘distribution of copyrighted materials’ to have taken place. Thus, every case in the works now has a justifiable defense against the frivolous claims being made that the distribution component of copyright law has been broken.

3. “a full-time RIAA employee reviews each case to make sure the claim is legitimate and that the alleged pirate is in the United States.”
Interesting that an inadvertant slip of useful info was given out: they only process American IP addresses. That means that everyone using p2p software should enable the use of off-shore proxies to make their IP addresses appear to be foreign.

That also explains why IRC has remained untouched: most, if not all, IRC servers are out of the U.S. and thus beyond the easy reach of the RIAA. I’ve been touting the advantages of IRC for years now. I also highly recommend a program called “Peer Guardian” (Google it) for anyone doing p2p or IRC communications. Look it up, you’ll understand why.

Finally, I’ve also been saying this for years: someone needs to write a program that inaudibly changes the mp3 files slightly to alter their hash signatures. That will force MediaSentry, et al, to have to manually listen to *every* songfile they download. This is time-consuming in the extreme, and ensures the flood of DMCA Notices and subpoenas will be greatly slowed down.