Comments on: BitTorrent: toying with the MPAA?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 03:56:46 +0000

my guess is that they assumed torrentspy et al would fold under the legal pressure as the other sites did..

there is also a major difference between the sites visibly.. bittorrent.com doesnt actually “get their hands dirty” by calling out tv shows, movies, games, etc etc.. thats kindof a slap in the face if you want to keep your DMCA privileges..

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:26:44 +0000

Routers have MAC addresses too - so they still know whose house the file sharing is being done at, and therefore the account holder is still liable.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:02:23 +0000

Er… you are of course aware that BitTorrent.com will have a log of the IP address of everyone who uses their site to access a ‘pirate’ torrent? Can you not put two and two together?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:43:33 +0000

AFAIK Torrentspy responds to such takedown requests as well, so the original quetsion still stands: why isn’t Bittorrent.com being sued too? Or could it be - perish the thought! - that the MPAA is just trying to intimidate torrentspy and isohunt, knowing it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 08:58:28 +0000

The only thing that Bram promised the MPAA was that they would strictly adhere to DCMA take down request procedures. In most cases index entries are only removed from bittorrent.com after a complaint is received.

It still remains to be seen whether indexing torrent files that are not stored on the index site’s assets are indeed ‘contributory’ infringement. This is not one, but two levels removed from the actual infringing files.

If two clicks away constitutes infringement, does three? If three does, does four as well? If any level of recursion in the click-stream constitutes infringement, then we might as well just bundle up the internet and throw it away.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 08:49:21 +0000

Using an ex-territorial proxy server will seriously hamper efforts to obtain the identity of the individual sending and receiving packets through the proxy. A great many of these proxy servers do very little, ephemeral, or no logging. Data that was never collected nor stored at the time of alleged misconduct can not be turned over no many how many subpoenas are issued.

MAC addresses are only relevant on the local ethernet, until the first gateway is encounterd. If you have a router on your home network, you MAC address does not leave the house.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 08:39:53 +0000

are you serious? dynamic ips don’t protect you. no one on the internet is anonymous. (bitch and moan all you want, it is technically IMPOSSIBLE for your IP to be hidden if you intend to receive packets)

a subpoena with the time and date of the alleged illegal activity and the ISP will dig through its databases for the IP address and the MAC address that it corresponds to. then they cross reference the MAC address with the account holder that device belongs to.

point 2: setting up a site to catch IP’s may indeed be illegal (entrapment). but IANAL

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:53:37 +0000

Also kind of pointless if your isp uses dynamic ip assignment like mine does.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:05:20 +0000

this is a bit paranoid, and it would be a gross violation of the privacy policy on their site..

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:42:19 +0000

I bet they’re just collecting IP addresses. Don’t use Bittorrent.com.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:23:28 +0000

Are we sure that all of the torrents are real? What are the chances that the MPAA has put up some of its own to catch users?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:57:58 +0000

There may be greater value for the MPAA in having torrent announcements forwared to them as soon as they become available and monitored for activity. That would make them complicit though.