Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

9 Responses to “HBO: The Vigilantes”

1. Reader's Write Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 7:08 pm

   I do not have much love for HBO, but I have to side with them on this one. I attack spammers when they abuse my inbox. Since HBO believe that people are “stealing” their programming, they have taken their own private action. Technology can and will overcome what HBO is doing at this point. HBO is like a pimple on my butt, annoying but easily taken care of.

2. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 9:23 am

   You believe its OK for HBO to engage in lawless mob rule or vigilantism? In other words, IN CERTAIN cases it’s OK to take the law into your own hands – especially if you KNOW you’re right? Breaking the law is OK as long as it corrects other things that break the law?

   That’s scary! I guess you probably feel that the RIAA and MPAA should be able to do whatever they feel like doing to so-called copyright infringers, no matter how radical? I don’t like the way Congress spends my tax dollars – is it okay for me to sabotage their web sites? By your logic, I am fully within my rights because I believe that Income Tax is unconstitutional but that our lawless politicians circumvented the constitution in order to impose this tax, and that Supreme Court Justices escaped impeachment when, in fact, they failed to honor their oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution” and therefore the American people (or any individual American citizen) has the right to take it upon themselves to punish those who went unpunished.

   I don’t know who scares me more – the leader of a great Democracy who lets the whole world know that he feels that torture is nothing more than a tool to be used to get to the truth – or people like you who need no justification, and no color of law, to attack those who irritate him.

3. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 11:48 am

   DDos attacks are illegal. Someone report HBO to the FBI and then we’ll see how much of the US legal system is owned by the entertainment cartels.

4. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 3:58 pm

   Before the Internet was highly regulated by government, those who used the Internet policed it themselves. Spammers and those who hosted them were quickly taken care of by their angry victims. What I am saying is that there are reletively few people out there with the cash to buy governments, control the courts, and make whatever kind of law they want get passed. There are, however, quite a few smart people (relatively speaking) that are able to provide mutually beneficial solutions to problem. The problem is that the rich usually have precedence over the smart. Their greed is what controls the rules, government operations, and the courts. The laws are made to service the top richest people.

   What I am saying is that we need to change the laws, and when changing the laws for the good of the people become near impossible, then there needs to be a change in government. This is the basic idea behind the beginnings of the War for U.S. Independence. We need out country back!!! Any time the governments steps into a situation, I find that it becomes much worse off. Don’t foget, that there is laws against electronically redistributing some copyrighted materials. You say that vigilante action is wrong, so how would you handle someone who breaks into your house and rapes one of your family members?

   Those who regularly look at this site are mostly appalled at the fact that the **AA’s are suing the pants out of filesharers (as I am), yet they balk when one of these cartels take action on their own to protect themselves. I, however, believe that even big companies have the right to defend themselves technologically. The trouble is, the same court decision (or law) that is used against the cartels to prevent filesharing will most likely be used a hundred fold more harshly against individual people who want to keep the cartels from snooping into their computers or conducting undercover operations against then.

   When communicating online, what is happening is packets of information are being passed back and forth. When i reveive a bad packet, i reject it. When I receive a bunch of bad packets, then I redirect them. What will end up happening is that ISP’s will get tired of what HBO is doing when it starts causing them problems. HBO will either have to quit or their network will be null routed. If neither of these happens, then hackers will write some code that will turn HBO’s attacks against itself. I apply the same principle to spam. When I receive it, I poison the spamvertised site with bad information, usually with the name, telephone number, and address of someone that will cause them a great deal of trouble if they are called without permission. The trick is to turn the powerful establishment against itself.

5. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 6:05 pm

   Check pms

   regards

   SlyckNick
   (ever Slyck’s reluctant lawyer)

6. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 7:37 pm

   As a matter of fact, I do believe that the income tax amendment was not properly ratified and therefore the income tax in in fact unconstituional. In fact the Congress and Supreme count DID circumvent the Constitution. So, when the lawmakers and courts become the prime lawbreakers , we in fact have a state of anarchy where the lawbreakers rule by force. I say it is OK to use force in return. If HBO wants to use vigilante attacks against us, then it is OK for us to do the same to them as far as i am concerned. It is more dangerous when the masses act (unlawfully) under the color of law than when they act obviously in an ublawful way. Doing wrong under the color of law serves to distort the laws that keep us free. It serves to undermine the sense of right and wrong.

7. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 11:08 pm

   This is only my perspective and therefore from a UK specific viewpoint. Much will (or should) apply to most Commonwealth/Eu countries, but unsure re the USA ????

   I’m not entirely comfortable with the Gen Kanai information, it reeks of hearsay. The DDoS bit in particular. If his ISP is caching (and they are certainly buffering) then the tracker could well remain connected for some time after he had broken the direct connection, and therefore pumping out packets.

   This wouldn’t amount to a DDoS attack, as it would be an incidental function of the buffering/caching employed by his ISP.

   Dealing with the specific items, and from a UK lawyers’ perspective:

   1. Yes there is a due process. You would have to apply for an injunction. However, the transfer in this case was initiated by the downloader, thus he invited the communication in the first place.

   2. A DDoS attack is by definition a malicious action originating from multiple sources intended to shut down the target system and endanger other users of that system. http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid14_gci557336,00.html

   In this instance, the person being “targeted” has invited the preliminary connection, and there can be no certainty of unlawful intent on the part of the other side. For example, the victim’s ISP could be buffering or caching the incoming packets, therefore there would be a delay in breaking any connection.

   3. No. It is an harassment, as in, an act intended to cause fear, distress and loss of a service to the victim. It requires a deliberate, unlawful intent on the part of the attacker for prosecution to be successful.

   4. Whilst it is the law of the country in which the victim actually lives/operates that prevails, the enforcement action is usually taken by the local authorities in the originating country. In the case of serious crimes, Interpol are involved.

   5. As (3) above. It would have to be reckless or deliberate. If it were accidental, then the accused would be expected to fully cooperate and prove that this was the case.

   6. Unlikely on both counts.

   7. In all probability, HBO are their own ISP and can do what they want

   8. You would be hard put to show that the denial of a product which you were seeking to obtain for free – thereby depriving the owner of their copyright fees – amounted to suppression of free speech. In any case, the greater wrong would prevail, in other words, it would be reasonable to commit a minor wrong to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

   9. Firstly, there is no factual evidence that HBO are blocking anything that they do not own the rights to. Secondly, they are entitled to protect their legitimate business interests

   10. No. The law requires that they take a reasonable position. They would have to seek an injunction against you, as flooding your email address could jeopardise other users.

   11. No. You would have to adopt a reasonable position and first issue a cease and desist letter, and consider an injunction. Or simply call the police and report this as commercial copyright infringement.

   12. No. You can issue an injunction (restraining order), obtain a garnishee order http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/garnishee-order.htm?id=612&ginPtrCode=00000&PopupMode=false against their bank and seize their bank funds until they paid up. Or simply call the police and report this as commercial copyright infringement.

   _________________
   SlyckNick http://www.slyck.com
   No shame in being English or a lawyer

8. Reader's Write Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 4:17 am

   OK, here’s the email I got from Cox on behalf of MediaSentry on behalf of HBO:

   From: Cox Abuse Tracking System <abuse@cox.net>
   Date: 2005/10/11 Tue AM 04:31:32 EDT
   To: anon7@cox.net
   Subject:[10.11.2005 1234567] Notice of Copyright Infringement

   Dear Customer,

   We are writing on behalf of Cox Communications to advise you that we have
   received a notification that you are using your Cox High Speed Internet service
   to post or transmit material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant’s
   members. We have included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the
   provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), which is codified
   at 17 U.S.C. § 512, upon receiving such notification, Cox is required to “act
   expeditiously to remove, or disable access to” the infringing material in order
   to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. Accordingly, Cox
   will suspend your account and disable your connection to the Internet within 24
   hours of your receipt of this email if the offending material is not removed.

   Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a subscriber
   accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of infringement
   and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to be reinstated.
   To do so, however, the response must meet certain criteria. Pursuant to
   section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)), you have the right to submit to
   Cox a counter-notification which, to be effective, must include the following
   elements:

   (a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber;
   (b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has
   been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was
   removed or disabled;
   (c) a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith
   belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or
   misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
   (d) the subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number and a statement that
   the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for
   the judicial district in which the address is located.

   In the event that you submit to Cox a counter-notification that includes these
   elements, Cox will forward your counter notification to the complainant and
   advise them that Cox will cease disabling access to the allegedly infringing
   material in ten (10) business days. Unless the complainant notifies us that it
   has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in the
   allegedly infringing activity prior to the expiration of those ten (10)
   business days, Cox will reactivate your account.

   For answers to frequently asked questions, please follow the link below:

   http://support.cox.com/sdccommon/asp/contentredirect.asp?sprt_cid=c2a30ae8-d706-4f6e-beb9-618ea54d1791

   Sincerely,

   Cox Customer Security

   — Original Message —

   ——=_NextPart_0020b25c02075b07d5
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   =EF=BB=BFTuesday, October 11, 2005

   Cox Communications, Inc.
   1400 Lake Hearn Drive, NE
   Atlanta, GA 30319 US

   RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Television Program Entitl=
   ed
   Rome

   Dear DMCA Agent:

   We are writing this letter on behalf of Home Box Office, Inc. (”HBO”).

   We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-refe=
   renced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyrigh=
   ted television program(s) through a “peer-to-peer” service, including such =
   title(s) as:

   Rome

   The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted television programs =
   constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United=
   States Code Section 106(3). =20

   Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the follo=
   wing:

   1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct describe=
   d above; and
   2) Take appropriate action against the account holder (if other than the in=
   dividual whose access has been disabled) under your Abuse Policy/Terms of S=
   ervice Agreement.

   On behalf of HBO, owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material=
   at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief=
   that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by =
   HBO, its respective agents, or the law.

   Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the Stat=
   e of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information=
   in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on beha=
   lf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in thi=
   s notification.

   Please direct any end user queries to the following address:

   Steve Rosenthal
   Legal Department
   Home Box Office, Inc.
   1100 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10036
   212.512.1780 =E2=80=93 phone
   212.512.5854 =E2=80=93 fax
   infringements@hbo.com =E2=80=93 email

   Kindly include the Case ID 12345678, also noted above, in the subject line =
   of all future correspondence regarding this matter.

   We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this ma=
   tter. Your prompt response is requested.

   Respectfully,

   Mark Weaver,
   Director of Enforcement
   MediaSentry, Inc.

   ——————————
   Infringement Detail:
   Infringing Work: Rome
   Filepath: Rome.S01E07.HR.HDTV.AC3.5.1.XviD-NBS.avi.torrent
   Filename: Rome.S01E07.HR.HDTV.AC3.5.1.XviD-NBS.avi
   First Found: 10 Oct 2005 21:29:55 EDT (GMT -0400)
   Last Found: 10 Oct 2005 21:29:55 EDT (GMT -0400)
   Filesize: 715,004k
   IP Address: 68.111.12.34
   IP Port: 16955
   Network: BTPeers
   Protocol: BitTorrent

9. Reader's Write Says:
   March 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

   My question is, after you get this email, are you blacklisted or watched for anything else you download or can they even do that?

Leave a Reply