Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Virgin Media to slap down illegal downloaders

If you use SSL on your usenet connection, doesn't this eliminate them being able to sniff what your actually downloading, they maybe able to tell your connecting to giganews or whichever provider., but what your actually downloading will be hidden.

Anything that caused your IP traffic to be encrypted, like a VPN or encrypted proxy would make your downloads invisible as far as your ISP was concerned ;) Its been mentioned before in relation to hiding Bittorrent traffic

If your dns traffic was also pushed down the VPN (which it normally would be), then they wouldn't even be able to see what host you hit, let alone what messages you downloaded from it. Just using ssl to the usenet server itself would only hide the usenet session contents, obviously they'd still be able to see the real IP address of your usenet server. As long as that server had some legit content you should be fine as you could claim to be downloading that and they couldn't prove otherwise.

I have a concern that if you download an NZB file from somewhere like Newzbin.com, this can be monitored and they could know your downloading the greatest hits of metalica, based on the file name of the NZB.
Like I mentioned in the same post as above, I doubt that a file name match alone would be enough in a UK court. However it might be enough for a half-arsed ISP "noes, st0p tez haxxc0rs" offensive to justify chopping your connection while keeping their own arses covered :( If however they downloaded the exact message IDs needed to recreate the file themselves, then show that the NZB they extracted from those message IDs was copyrighted and show that you downloaded the exact same messages from the same server then I suspect you could be in trouble.

Still it's a hell of a lot of work to put a mechanism in place to detect this, when a simple VPN or ssl session hides it all !!

What a shame, they really should have banned strong crypto when they had the chance ;)
 
But plans for subscription based services now are announced which will let you download as much as you like!

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3661348.ece
First proposed, oh, over a decade ago, and utterly ignored... like selling over the net at all until quite recently for tha tmatter

Actually I think this is mostly spurred by the mobile companies, who are definitely interested in selling unlimited downloads by subscription. But they'll both manage to fuck it, I'm sure - they'll insist on DRM, they'll make the music non-portable and so on. I was doing an online panel survey the other week which was all about this, and the services they were offering were all pretty much worthless, tied to a network, tied to a phone, can't listen to it on PC or burn it... I suppose they will have to learn eventually.
 
I have a concern that if you download an NZB file from somewhere like Newzbin.com, this can be monitored and they could know your downloading the greatest hits of metalica, based on the file name of the NZB.

I think they'd have a hard time proving that you are downloading the data suggested by a downloaded NZB file, if you are using an SSL connection.

The NZB sites like Merlin's Portal are useful for giving you an idea of what's available, but you don't actually need to download the NZB.

If you know what newsgroup your file is hosted on, you just browse that newsgroup from within a newsgroup program like Altbinz:

For example, taking a quick look through alt.binaries.multimedia.vintage-film.post 1960


step1.gif



A typical 14 day period brings up the following: (remember that some premium usenet suppliers store files for 200 days, so you'll never run out of interesting stuff)

step2.gif


Let's pick Scorcese's "Last Waltz" - an 8 Gig file made up of 74 different parts. Just click on it, and altbinz will download all the parts automatically, and Unrar them all for you as well.


step3.gif


So, the pc is making 10 connections to the usenet server with a combined download of 1455 KB/s. Slightly quieter time of night & you'd get the full 2200 KB/s (assuming you're on Virgin 20Mb)

At the present rate, the 8 Gig DVD would download in 1 hr 31 mins!

Of course, this example is for illustrative purposes. You would, of course, go out & buy the DVD instead ;)
 
Erm. One thing. Does Virgin use static or dynamic IP? Does this mean that your 'onest law abidin' Virgin customer is going to have to keep a record of what IP has been assigned to them each time.

How is it going to affect legal use of Peer to Peer (linux distros, etc) software?

Or am I being fick here?
 
Erm. One thing. Does Virgin use static or dynamic IP? Does this mean that your 'onest law abidin' Virgin customer is going to have to keep a record of what IP has been assigned to them each time.
I believe ISPs track address assignments anyway. How long they retain their DHCP logs for is a different matter.

DHCP logs appear to be classed as traffic data under RIPA, but I can't be arsed to trawl through the docs online to see how long they have to hold onto it for.
 
are usenet downloads traceable (i started using easynews a couple of months ago) ?

:D

from TF:

Virgin Media in the UK has announced that it is working with the music industry to chase down its file-sharing customers and disconnect them from the internet. At the same time, it will offer an enhanced service which will see its customers get free Usenet binaries access, untraceable by the music industry.

So no. Well technically the ISP has your IP but the BPI won't.

I hope many, many customers leave Virgin. Technically it's illegal under EU law to monitor traffic.

I read a good article about this:

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally each year, costing record labels billions of pounds in lost CD sales.

...that the reason they lose so much money is the whole downloading craze has changed the way people buy music. Before they'd have to spend £15 to get the track or tracks they want. Now they can just download the one track wanted for 99p and so the record company loses 90% of revenue on the album as that was the yacht buying, coke snorting way to make a fortune in the 80s.
People who download tons of stuff wouldn't have bought that stuff anyway.
Fuck the BPI.
 
...that the reason they lose so much money is the whole downloading craze has changed the way people buy music. Before they'd have to spend £15 to get the track or tracks they want. Now they can just download the one track wanted for 99p and so the record company loses 90% of revenue on the album as that was the yacht buying, coke snorting way to make a fortune in the 80s.
People who download tons of stuff wouldn't have bought that stuff anyway.
Fuck the BPI.

If in 1999 the recording houses had banded together and setup an Online Music Store and sold tracks for $ 1 each I suspect that a lot the problems they have now (strong iTunes Store, zillions of downloaders) wouldn't have been so bad... Instead they faffed around with suing Napster...

Until iTunes came along there was no decent, reliable online Record Store so everyone downloaded...
 
Does anyone want to write, or post an existing, "idiot's guide to usenet", cos I am fucking baffled at the moment.
 
If in 1999 the recording houses had banded together and setup an Online Music Store and sold tracks for $ 1 each I suspect that a lot the problems they have now (strong iTunes Store, zillions of downloaders) wouldn't have been so bad... Instead they faffed around with suing Napster...

Until iTunes came along there was no decent, reliable online Record Store so everyone downloaded...

Couldn't agree more. Allofmp3.com demonstrated that there was a market for high quality 320k mp3s and FLAC files. The record labels had to be dragged kicking and screaming into 256k downloads. Too little, too late.

The Beatles signing up with iTunes was an indication that the big players realise that the game is up, and they might as well try and get one last bite of the diminishing cherry.

Still, at least it means lots of bands are getting out and touring more to earn some dosh, so the news isn't all gloomy ;)
 
Yes, you're right Dogmatique - still rumour at this stage :o

Wouldn't mind betting that the new Apple Records CEO gets it done soon, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom