Over 82% of the Internet is controlled by the MPAA!!!

[NIK]

This is from the top (non-stickied) thread on the kickass torrents "torrent software" forum.



...and those "in favour" (on the first page at least, which is all I bothered checking) outnumber those who aren't retards by 6 to 1

FFS

[kjf]

So for everyone complaining they can't complete a download because they can't connect to any seeds...

[NokTham]

Well, if that keeps on growing, I guess world's governments wont need to worry about a blacklist to "stop" piracy, PeerBlock is already taking care of that.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

I call bullshit on those assumptions.

Here's a little information to help you avoid these errors:
IP Block Lists Myths Misconceptions

I spend quite a bit of time finding those online spies and none of the typical lists
block noticeable numbers of legitimate peers of any P2P network.

If any residential ranges move and get blocked they are immediately unblocked.

You can get lists that block whole countries but if you don't live in dangerous or
aggressively censorious states like China or Turkey, you don't need them.

Getting a toothless DMCA complaint letter to your ISP means nothing because the
copyright trolls still can't touch you and don't have your name. Even though they
could see your IP address on trackers or in swarms, the blocklists stopped them
from downloading  from you; so they can't subpoena your ISP for your identity.

If the complaints don't scare you (they shouldn't) you don't need a VPN $ervice.

[kjf]

I call bullshit on those assumptions.

Getting a toothless DMCA complaint letter to your ISP means nothing because the
copyright trolls still can't touch you and don't have your name. Even though they
could see your IP address on trackers or in swarms, the blocklists stopped them
from downloading from you; so they can't subpoena your ISP for your identity.

There's no bullshit.


There are those running so many different lists problems like this are inevitable.

The point is that PeerBlock and the like always have and always will be useless when it comes to p2p. The monitors aren't going to publish what IP addresses they are using, and whether or not they can connect to you isn't going to stop them from sending the letter.

They are well past trying to get subpoenas, and even if they weren't, don't think a little connectivity detail would stop them from filing for one.

They aren't interested in taking anyone to court anyways. Which is why they have switched to the nasty settlement letters, which PeerBlock isn't going to stop.

I'm not saying these lists don't have a place. Just that they are of little use with bittorrent.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

There's no bullshit.

There are those running so many different lists problems like this are inevitable.

That's one of the myths listed on that page. It is profoundly difficult to block
significant quantities of residential IP addresses because a special effort must be
made to do so. Blocking three quarters of theoretical IP space doesn't even come
close to blocking a significant number of P2P users because the vast majority of
IP addresses are not, and never will be, used by residential internet users.

The point is that PeerBlock and the like always have and always will be useless
when it comes to p2p. The monitors aren't going to publish what IP addresses they
are using, and whether or not they can connect to you isn't going to stop them from
sending the letter.

There's another couple of myths. You should check out the link. ;]

They do work. Not one person over the last 15 years was actually sued or otherwise
suspended offline while they used blocklists in their P2P apps and used firewalls.
It hasn't happened because the critical step of downloading from the user is always
needed for any action beyond sending letters to third parties.

It doesn't matter if trolls don't "publish" their addresses [Actually, some do ;]
because their activities are necessarily noisy and therefore easy for someone with
plenty of experience to find and block. Most have been blocked for years and never
moved to avoid the blocks because they know they can still find the people who
don't try to block them, falsely believing it's impossible that lists may work.

Lists may not give total theoretical invulnerability but they do shift the odds from the
likes of being struck by lightning [the typical frequency of complaints] to the distant
possibility of being killed by a meteorite [sued] and, so far, that  has not happened.

They are well past trying to get subpoenas, and even if they weren't, don't think a
little connectivity detail would stop them from filing for one.

There are still a few who are trying to do just that, and it's getting less profitable.
The courts require evidence. They always did, and always will.

Claims that someone was using P2P without actual downloads to back up the claim
are rejected by all courts because that's what courts must do. They have no choice
because they are bound by laws and procedural rules that govern their every action.

They aren't interested in taking anyone to court anyways. Which is why they have switched
to the nasty settlement letters, which PeerBlock isn't going to stop.

There have been plenty of automatically-generated complaint notices but since they
can only claim to have seen IP addresses involved with P2P activity, the complaint
must stop there and virtually everyone but the gullible ignores them.

Those "settlement" letters are no different from legitimate DMCA complaint notices.
You can ignore them because they don't have your identity, and only those who
make the mistake of revealing themselves are known to the trolls. One ISP actually
started stripping out the "settlement" offers from the notices because the DMCA
does not give trolls the right to piggyback extortionate ploys to the existing process.

I'm not saying these lists don't have a place. Just that they are of little use with bittorrent.

They are valid for all P2P networks because all the trolls in all the networks get the
highest priority. Bittorrent is no exception because it is still on the internet, just like
all of the other P2P applications; and we treat them all equally, no matter how rare.

I get the impression you haven't read the Myths/Misconceptions yet, because you
are just repeating them so far.

[connor17]

Not receiving a notice is the norm, so it doesn't prove anything. In most countries all this debate is pointless, and gives the wrong impression that filesharing is "problematic", it isn't.
The problem is the copyright monopoly, not filesharing, so this problem should be approach from a privacy angle (The letter), instead of a technical one.
So the best answer would be VPN and not peerblock.
My two cents

[kjf]

That's one of the myths listed on that page. It is profoundly difficult to block
significant quantities of residential IP addresses because a special effort must be
made to do so. Blocking three quarters of theoretical IP space doesn't even come
close to blocking a significant number of P2P users because the vast majority of
IP addresses are not, and never will be, used by residential internet users.

Do you think that there are only official sources for lists? You think the first post of this thread is about educated usage?

The point is that PeerBlock and the like always have and always will be useless
when it comes to p2p. The monitors aren't going to publish what IP addresses they
are using, and whether or not they can connect to you isn't going to stop them from
sending the letter.

They do work. Not one person over the last 15 years was actually sued or otherwise
suspended offline while they used blocklists in their P2P apps and used firewalls.
It hasn't happened because the critical step of downloading from the user is always
needed for any action beyond sending letters to third parties.

OK, I should have been more specific. I used P2P when I should have said "bittorrent."


Blocklists have little to do with the reasons "Not one person over the last 15 years was actually sued or otherwise
suspended offline."

Blocklists may be a lot more useful with other forms of P2P where it is a lot easier to demonstrate that someone is sharing infringing content. But the fact is few bittorrent users have ever been brought to trial, and PeerBlock and the like have nothing to do with that.

They are well past trying to get subpoenas, and even if they weren't, don't think a
little connectivity detail would stop them from filing for one.

There are still a few who are trying to do just that, and it's getting less profitable.
The courts require evidence. They always did, and always will.

Claims that someone was using P2P without actual downloads to back up the claim
are rejected by all courts because that's what courts must do. They have no choice
because they are bound by laws and procedural rules that govern their every action.

All very true. But there isn't any evidence you can present to a court that would demonstrate that you did download from the people named in a law suit, unless you are naming the entire swarm. Try proving to a court the fact that you got 2 or 3 pieces of part of a file demonstrates clearly that they person seated on the other side of the room was engaged in copyright infringement. It's not impossible, but it will be expensive.

All that is irrelevant, because they aren't really aiming to prove anything. They know the expenses to prove innocence will drive people to settle. Things conclude with said settlement and then they throw out some bullshit press release.

So, sure, maybe you might have been protected in this extreme case because they never would have been served those two or three pieces. But chances are also you could win the lottery and sue them instead.

They aren't interested in taking anyone to court anyways. Which is why they have switched
to the nasty settlement letters, which PeerBlock isn't going to stop.

There have been plenty of automatically-generated complaint notices but since they
can only claim to have seen IP addresses involved with P2P activity, the complaint
must stop there and virtually everyone but the gullible ignores them.

Those "settlement" letters are no different from legitimate DMCA complaint notices.
You can ignore them because they don't have your identity, and only those who
make the mistake of revealing themselves are known to the trolls. One ISP actually
started stripping out the "settlement" offers from the notices because the DMCA
does not give trolls the right to piggyback extortionate ploys to the existing process.

I never said otherwise. Call it what you want, but to the end user who doesn't know better, it is scary. I was just pointing out the fact that blocklists won't stop those letters.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

That's a far cry from saying they are useless:

1. They do reduce the number of letters because most trolls do try to download packets and quit when they can't.
2. Trolls cannot go any farther than that because they can't download (and yes, they do have to prove it if they go to court.)
3. By blocking all those trolls you save both the number of connections and the bandwidth they waste. Performance goes up.
4. Experiments in disrupting P2P (including BT) were all blocked, and likely always fail when blocked; so they stopped trying.

Just because somebody can send toothless complaints and extortionate bluffs doesn't make the most efficient, easiest first
line of defense worthless at all. This is why all P2P developers, without exception, support large blocklists by default.

When scared users show up here they can be reassured of the weakness of the trolls and they can do something about it.
For most of us, blocklists can do just enough to keep trolls on the other side of the fence and people in dangerous places can
also spend a little money for VPNs when the law fails to protect them as it should. It's a simple message free of doom and gloom.