Got A Call From My Isp Today, About Piracy...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

So today, im chilling, just playing some counter strike, when I get a call from ISP, charter communications. I was like, hmmm, what would they want.

So they guy is like, well we got a report from MediaForce, on such and such a date, that you, or someone behind your ip, was sharing a man apart tmd.avi on the kazaa p2p applications.

I was like, oh shit...

Hes like, we arent disconnecting you, nor will we over this, just know that sharing copyrighted materials is illegal, and we can be forced to disconnect you for it.

I said to him,
1. Those files arent on my computer (cuz they arent, i deleted them weeks ago),
2. I have no clue who was sharing them, as I wasnt, (bs, but hey, i had to make a case, lol)

He replied by saying, not to worry about it, but just remember the sharing of that stuff is illegal, and that i shouldnt be doing it... hes going to send me some email, stating the same, etc.

This isnt ment to scare anyone, so dont assume im trying to do that... I have commented recently, how I have been doing this for years, which i have, and never heard anything from any one. Funny how a week after making that comment, i hear something, what luck.

Well now I have, and I just thought I would inform you all. Ya know, at least they coulda bitched about a decent movie, or even a avi/mpg that was decent quality, lol... that movie was a pos.... hahahaha...

Im thinking that was before I was running peer guardian... ;) but i dunno, ill figure it out when i get the email. Ill post a SS of it when i get it too...

*btw... dont think this will hinder my bringing the latest goods from the net to the kazaa network... it wont... :beerchug: cheers!*

[MagicNakor]

Well, I think you're the first member over newbie status to get one of those. ;) I'm not sure whether congratulations or consolement is in order. :P

:ninja:

[dlingeverything]

At least the guy you talked to was kinda sincere (by what
i read) and didnt directly accuse you.

After all, ISPs like money. And that's what you give them
as long as you are connected with them :P

[Guillaume]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@21 May 2003 - 01:37
Well, I think you're the first member over newbie status to get one of those. ;) I'm not sure whether congratulations or consolement is in order. :P

:ninja:
Does that mean you wouldn't even feel some sympathy if a nOOb got busted?
I'm really, really disappointed :'(

[Schmiggy_JK23]

ya, thats another reason i figured I would let everyone know.

we have been pretty hard on the guests, and noobs who have commented on such things, so i figured, this would show, it is happening, etc... and just to let u know cats know, that its not impossible.

[MagicNakor]

Exactly. Recently we've been getting a lot of people with 1-30 posts (most often 1-3) saying, "Look what I got!"

Since it was, in most cases, their only post, they lack some credibility.

:ninja:

[4play]

Schmiggy_JK23 your the first person i actuall believe 100%.

with all the other being noobs you are always thinking is this one of the riaa scare tactics.

that is why we were always being hard on them.

[Jibbler]

Schmiggy my friend, this is interesting news. Media Force? Are they related to the Fantastic Four? But seriously, I'm very interested in this company, and how they obtain their information. I would love to know the specific methods that they use to determine if someone is sharing a given file, and how this company is being financed. I called their (212) number once before, they are out of Manhattan (that's New York City). All I got was a voicemail. I wonder if they would like us investigating their methods of doing business. :huh:

[Schmiggy_JK23]

well, I presume say The company that put a man apart is pissed about the grosses, of what was a shitty film.

So they hire media force, and say, hey, find who out there is sharing this film, and warn/prosecute them, etc.

Media force hops on kazaa... types in the name of the movie, pulls it up, sees say, 60 peeps sharing it... the start the download, tracking the ips via netstat, or some other complex program, which shows incomming transfers, with ips... they track the ips to their correct isp, as there are records of all ips, at all times, as its required for the isps to keep these... they send the letter to those isp's, and bang, the isp contacts me.

The specific means of tracking should come under question, i dont see that its illegal however, guess i start using more ranges with peer guardian, and try to be a little more cautious, etc... better to block a few innocent ips, then let a few non innocent ones in...

just really irks me, why couldnt it have xmen2, or two towers, irks me that such a shitty movie, got me my first warning, lol!

[slick nick]

I read in an article the giant film companies usually pay people like media firms to sic bots on p2p networks that search for files and log ip's of those who show up in the search and take screenshots of there shared folder. Media force has been disconnected p;lenty of times from my comp by peer gurdian. Baytsp broke down their methods. They probably all use the same methods.

[RealitY]

First off, I figured with their campaign, that by the end of the month someone would get of worth here would get nailed, lucky you huh.

My cable company put it simply, don't worry, but if your sharing the latest thing, you may gea call or a letter, since every time we get a complaint it is about current material.

How, as Jibber mentioned, well I keep my Peer Gaurdian visible while online and watch when I get blocks...

First, any time I search a popular file and start downloading a fake, immediatly following, the blocks start, usually about 5 to 10 of them.

Second, the other day I started getting quite a few hits, odd since I wasn't even downloading and my external was disconnected, leaving only a couple hundread files, most older low profile types. So, WTF then, funny you should ask, well while playing with ES5, I downloaded a movie trailer to a very popular movie which ended in up in my shared folder, which is the same for KaZaa, ES5 was not running, KaZaa was, as it always is from boot up. Since the trailer has the same name it was searched and then found and proposed to do whatever they do at that point, f**kers.

Knowing this just tell your ISP it was a trailer, which I don't think is copyrighted, or is it. :lol: :lol:

[TRshady]

BS <_<


































:lol: only joking, damn I was hoping this wouldn&#39;t happen to someone I trust. But then again I&#39;m sure I mentioned before that my friend got a call (from NTL) who was a bit more harsh as he was also going over the 1GB so he asked if he could quit and they said they&#39;d call him back ........................ never did. See, at the end of the day it&#39;s all about money.

[Eatchipz]

Hi is there any way my Service ppl which is NTL will not find out what I am doin Beacuse I am gettin Woried :(

[Schmiggy_JK23]

My main question is this...

How do they know the file on my hard drive was really that? Not me just faking people out, renaming files, etc?

unless they downloaded it, they really dont know do they? especially seeings as the so called file, isnt even on my hard drive anyhow now? there is no proof of what they found, to being copyrighted material... 1... like no one downlaoded a full copy of that from me, being an avi, they would need the full file, to show what it was, or avi preview, which i dbout they use, etc.

cant i, worse come to worse, in the future, say i get another one, move it to a cd, and say, hey, it musta been a fake, u know how fasttrack is? and what in all seriousness can they do?

[TRshady]

Originally posted by Eatchipz@21 May 2003 - 05:57
Hi is there any way my Service ppl which is NTL will not find out what I am doin Beacuse I am gettin Woried :(
please don&#39;t worry, the worst (well with NTL anyway) that can EVER happen is you will get a call asking you to stop, you say there deleted or whatever and stop using kazaa, for a while .......... Thats when I would stop but they always want to keep their customers and would not get you in any trouble.

[Eatchipz]

please don&#39;t worry, the worst (well with NTL anyway) that can EVER happen is you will get a call asking you to stop, you say there deleted or whatever and stop using kazaa, for a while .......... Thats when I would stop but they always want to keep their customers and would not get you in any trouble.

Thanx So u sayin I sould only stop untill they phone me.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by REALITY@21 May 2003 - 00:43
Knowing this just tell your ISP it was a trailer, which I don&#39;t think is copyrighted, or is it. :lol: :lol:
Trailers ARE copyrighted -- some websites have been &#39;attacked&#39; by the MPAA for uploading trailers to whoever wants them... because they weren&#39;t &#39;official distribution sites&#39;.

[TRshady]

Originally posted by Eatchipz@21 May 2003 - 06:17
Thanx So u sayin I sould only stop untill they phone me.
In a way, yes (If they will ever call you, which is unlikely).
They wouldn&#39;t do anything without a asking you to stop first.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@21 May 2003 - 07:07
My main question is this...

How do they know the file on my hard drive was really that?&nbsp; Not me just faking people out, renaming files, etc?

cant i, worse come to worse, in the future, say i get another one, move it to a cd, and say, hey, it musta been a fake, u know how fasttrack is? and what in all seriousness can they do?
First, I remember a post from some tard saying they downloaded Anger Management, it turned out to be a fake, but it sat in their shared folder overnight, well needless to say they got a letter about the uploading of that file during that night.

Second, they don&#39;t need to prove anything, your not in court, nor do I believe they would have much luck in an actual court case.

These people are here to scare us, and its working as new files are much harder to get sources compared to a year ago on KaZaa. As I have said before KaZaa has gone from my "hot babe" to "the old lady". I have recently been node hopping to europe and other coutries since when I try to find more sources when my node is in the states, sources seem rare. Also many of us use many other methods to get files and it is now questionable whether to share them on KaZaa.

If KaZaa does not start to implement remidies for this, their days are numbered. I think they should publicly advertise a healthy list of SOCKS PROXY5 sites that are reliable and fast, I would even "pay" (a word rarely used on this forum) monthly to have a good SOCKS PROXY5, just for a little peice of mind, after all it is already built into KaZaa.

In additon, I thought having Peer Gaurdian built into KL in the ad space would be nice. I started a topic HERE (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=33343&hl=ad+space) if your interested on making a comment. When I get mutiple hits, I drop my IP and request a new one.

By the way what does Peer Gaurdian stop, the Search, the Download, viewing Shared Folders, or all.

[MaxAndig]

Schmiggy:

:lol: They don`t need the download of a complete movie.

It`s sufficient for them to have a very, very small fragmented pice of the movie. It`s very easy to compare that fragment against the complete file and find out that the fragment is really a small part of the copyrighted material.

:huh: Copyright laws do not define how long a pirated piece of copyrighted material has to be&#33;

Only, if the fragment is in no - whatever - correlation to the copyrighted file, they have no proof of copyright infringement and will finally loose the case. :)

[RealitY]

Originally posted by MaxAndig@21 May 2003 - 07:50
Only, if the fragment is in no - whatever - correlation to the copyrighted file, they have no proof of copyright infringement and will finally loose the case. :)
Sorry, I got lost on the last sentence.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Heres what peer guardian does...

1. Mediaforce, baytsp, some asshole searches for "matrix reloaded ctp"
2. Say 3 sources show up, schimiggy, reality, and jibbler.
3. If media force attempts to download it frin schmiggy, from one of their "discovered ips" on the pg list, they wont be able to, cuz all transmissions from them, will be blocked like a firewall does, on schmiggys pc.
4. If reality isnt running pg, and the same person, same ip, trys getting that file, they would be able to download it, etc, and possibly verify its validity, fake or not.

now my question is, they cant really do shit just pulling stuff up in a search, because they havent verified what the file is, and surely it wouldnt hold up in court would it? and shouldnt my isp support in that matter... hey, so u have seen that file on his hard drive, do u know if its real or not? no they didnt, cuz they didnt download it from me....

but apparently they think, just cuz it shows in a search, you are busted...?? and the isp seemingly supports that tactic, to an extent

the same question applies the kids recent busted for swappin on the college networks, and running network search engines, which seemingly would be legit, cept for copyrighted materials... did they confiscate these kids pcs, and verify every file they charged them with, and show they were really copyrighted works? maybe they renamed a couple thousand files, just for fun, i know it seems silly, but in all seriousness... shouldnt they have to?

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by MaxAndig@21 May 2003 - 01:50
Schmiggy:

:lol: They don`t need the download of a complete movie.

It`s sufficient for them to have a very, very small fragmented pice of the movie. It`s very easy to compare that fragment against the complete file and find out that the fragment is really a small part of the copyrighted material.

:huh: Copyright laws do not define how long a pirated piece of copyrighted material has to be&#33;

Only, if the fragment is in no - whatever - correlation to the copyrighted file, they have no proof of copyright infringement and will finally loose the case. :)
but see, their current tactic often doesnt involve even downloading the material... i was readin about the riaa&#39;s current thing, merely listing those on searches who apparently had illegal files, and messaging them... i just read something, on some net site, of a person getting having some file on their hard drive, that had a name of some copyrighted music file, and it was a wav or mp3 also, and the RIAA sent them of those infamous kazaa msgs they are running now, when the file he had was totally legal...

if mediaforce used a similiar tactic, they would have nothing... and i can vouche for my downloads... as i dont erase them till viewing them, no one downloaded a bit of the file from me....

[RealitY]

My understanding, though I thought, given the workings of KaZaa, was that until the download starts they cannot extract an IP. So they would have to download and then pull the IP.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

well, i suppose my brother could have been messing with kazaa, but when i checked my dls, it didnt show up... maybe he enabled speed up for something, and thus, cleared them out at somepoint... i dunno any other explanation... as i never function as a supernode..

[RealitY]

Then I guess it stands to reason, they must download to extract your IP. I never keep the "clear uploads" on, so I can see what&#39;s going out.

BTW, anyone know a good SOCKS PROXY5? I am becoming more interested lately.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

same here on the socks

and i do think paul should look into contacting method about puting pg in with klite....

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@21 May 2003 - 08:21
and i do think paul should look into contacting method about puting pg in with klite....

Please state so in my POST (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=33343&hl=ad+space), if I get enough response I will force it on someone, or request the makers of Peer Gaurdian make a "pg.dll" file that can be loaded exactly like KaZap was.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

i guess overall, i dont like where this is leading...

i can see it now, in court, prosecutor: "well so so and the mediaforce, says he had this, at this time, heres the logs, etc... jury, he must be guilty&#33;"

seriously, media force isn the fuckin fbi, the police, etc... how does what they claim, or anyone besides those that enforce the laws in this country, have any bearing, or carry weight?

if the "league of women who think men are assholes" go to court, charging some guy with harrassment, and or rape... they arent automatically guilty... has to be some legal determination/investigation of guilt... by some who actually enforce the laws...

not some third party with financial interests...

catch my drift?

[RealitY]

Yup, though it all remains to be seen, though I figure we will see out of court settlements as were offered to the 4 colledge kids, as this brings more attention and hype for the campaign.

[wings1234]

hi, all, im from the uk, yes its a bit sad the we have to worry that we are shareing the new files, but lets stop and think for a min, in the uk the law is they have to come to your home and take your pc so the can prove in court, that you did have this film on your pc, but they are after the big fish the peeps that share kiddy stuff, and they should be going for them first, no time for us, at worst they cut off your cable, hey look on the good side youll save money, i hear you say that ntl will cut you off, if they did they would end up shuting down, coz no one would want ntl in the uk, if we can go to the othere companys, remember it us that keep them alive, if it gets out that ntl.uk are warnig there clients or worst off cutting them off, think what would happen to them , they have already been bailed out and are close to going under, the usa is diffrent i agree, but has anyone ever heard of anyone being taken to court in large numbers not small groups that they plaster all over the news, just think off the coast it would be to them,
take a risk and dont let them push us about, when i get the call from ntl, my reply, come and get your box, and off ill go to bt or freeserve and tell as many peeps in the uk what they did and say i get some peeps to change, then it will cost ntl big &#036;sss
with all the crime in the world they come after us, they have the nerve the have been robing us blind for years, we buy a cd that has room for another 5 songs but they dont coz it would lose them money as they could put them on the next cd, you tell me how is stealing from how.. ? :angry:

[Switeck]

Originally posted by REALITY@21 May 2003 - 02:05
My understanding, though I thought, given the workings of KaZaa, was that until the download starts they cannot extract an IP. So they would have to download and then pull the IP.
A wordsearch matches only nicknames with files -- it doesn&#39;t give out IPs to anyone as far as I know.

BUT... if you do find more files, user... THEN it connects TO that user-nickname and tries to list their files.

Peer Guardian should block that attempt, although they may briefly show an ip connection/route even though it&#39;s blocked on receiving.

But in almost any case, they shouldn&#39;t be able to see your files when they do that -- so it (SHOULD) look to them like a dead/incorrect address.

[RealitY]

Then does this mean the download never starts?

I figured if they search a file you have and find it, once they request the file it is denied, thus stopping the download and not allowing the extraction of the IP.

That&#39;s pretty much how I figured it.

[Jibbler]

I think that you all under-estimate the tools being used by the RIAA. They are most likely using private IP addresses to download files, just like you or I. PG probably does little to stop them from obtaining your identity. However, Schmiggy hit on the real issue at hand. If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded? :huh:

[todzuallen]

You people are scaring me.... hopefully If I try hard enough in a week I&#39;ll forget about all this. :lol:

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 May 2003 - 18:40
I think that you all under-estimate the tools being used by the RIAA. They are most likely using private IP addresses to download files, just like you or I. PG probably does little to stop them from obtaining your identity. However, Schmiggy hit on the real issue at hand. If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded? :huh:
Except the RIAA isn&#39;t too tech-savvy even today. They typically contract with other corporations to do &#39;copyright enforcement&#39; -- and THAT is still often done from companies that use business lines in big ip web ranges which can be discovered and blocked by Peer Guardian. It&#39;s a &#39;good-old-boy&#39; system that isn&#39;t so much efficient at nailing us as it is more like partners-in-crime. :P

If they&#39;re running &#39;personal broadband&#39; connections to do this, the ISPs would crucify them -- because they&#39;re running a business off of a consumer line. However, this wouldn&#39;t stop them from getting the only-slightly-more-expensive business-grade DSL/cable lines of more common ISPs to do their dirty work. And ISPs DON&#39;T give out what web blocks correspond to the business/consumer lines -- or probably even their ip ranges at all. So it&#39;s MUCH harder to find hostiles in those ranges, and even when you do they may be on dynamic ips -- although it&#39;s MUCH more likely that their ips (Business DSL/cable is almost always fixed ips) are fixed... even if they don&#39;t want them to be. :D

If Peer Guardian DOES have the would-be downloader in its range, they will be virtually unable to get even 1 KB of the file. The newer versions of PG are far better than the old ones at blocking extremely quick/short connections.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Switeck@22 May 2003 - 22:36
If they&#39;re running &#39;personal broadband&#39; connections to do this, the ISPs would crucify them -- because they&#39;re running a business off of a consumer line. However, this wouldn&#39;t stop them from getting the only-slightly-more-expensive business-grade DSL/cable lines of more common ISPs to do their dirty work.
The ISP only cares about money. The phone company offers business and residential service too. Order 25 residential lines for your home and the phone company won&#39;t even blink. You can only force people to use "business class service" if the physical location is zoned Commercial. However, it really doesn&#39;t matter. Have we even established if these are for profit companies? They could be non-profit for all we know.

Since we are on the subject, verified hashes will probably mean the of Kazaa. Once a file becomes verified, then anyone sharing it would be a potential victim of Media Force&#39;s tactics. In other words, they would not need to download the file from you, as long as they get an exact match for a file you are sharing. B)

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 May 2003 - 00:40
I think that you all under-estimate the tools being used by the RIAA. They are most likely using private IP addresses to download files, just like you or I. PG probably does little to stop them from obtaining your identity. However, Schmiggy hit on the real issue at hand. If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded? :huh:
Not only that&#33;
The RIAA is gonna use everything at their disposal,legal and illegal.
Your crazy if you think their not.
C&#39;mon these people were talkin&#39; bout are the scum of the entertainment industry.
Even their colleagues in the entertaiment industry has judged them so.
Thats pretty bad&#33;
Their gonna use viruses,fakes,technology, you name it.
They might even use her&#33;
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/allred1.jpg

[Switeck]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^+22 May 2003 - 22:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ShockAndAwe^i^ @ 22 May 2003 - 22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@23 May 2003 - 00:40
I think that you all under-estimate the tools being used by the RIAA.&nbsp; They are most likely using private IP addresses to download files, just like you or I.&nbsp; PG probably does little to stop them from obtaining your identity.&nbsp; However, Schmiggy hit on the real issue at hand.&nbsp; If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded?&nbsp; :huh:
Not only that&#33;
The RIAA is gonna use everything at their disposal,legal and illegal.
Your crazy if you think their not.
C&#39;mon these people were talkin&#39; bout are the scum of the entertainment industry.
Even their colleagues in the entertaiment industry has judged them so.
Thats pretty bad&#33;
Their gonna use viruses,fakes,technology, you name it.[/b][/quote]
If &#39;they&#39; are using proprietary tools or even some well-known 3rd party Kazaa Search software, they can link your ip to a file WITHOUT making a direct connection to you. But if you&#39;re behind a router, the ip they get will probably be 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x due to how Kazaa works (a bug/severe limitation of sorts.)

Even if they GET your real IP address, it&#39;s not till they test it for accuracy that they have more than an indirect link that you&#39;re doing something illegal. And Peer Guardian will block direct connections *IF* it works fast enough (at 100% aggression setting it probably does) and *IF* you&#39;re blocking the would-be attacker&#39;s ip address.

I&#39;ve followed developement of BearShare closely and used it enough to know about the hostile attackers on Gnutella that don&#39;t stop with just searching for illegal files -- they actively disrupt the entire network and crash computers. I haven&#39;t been able to determine the forces responsible for them though. :(
(The bunch in the 38.144.x.x range seem the most obnoxious, but aren&#39;t even the worst as of late...)

The Kazaa Viruses that are so popular (do a search for BearShare 5.1.1.exe or Ad-aware 6.5 (new).exe to see what I mean) may not be directly connected to RIAA/MPAA/BSA, but they may have told antivirus companies to &#39;drag their feet&#39; a little so as to let the viruses do THEIR work for them...
This is 1 reason why I don&#39;t think we can expect antivirus companies to protect us -- they&#39;d have to be actively running p2p software to diagnose some of those viruses...which the RIAA/MPAA/BSA may strongly discourage them from doing. (After all, they view those networks as purely illegal, as is anyone who connects to them...)

SOMETHING SEEMS to be directly disrupting the Kazaa/fasttrack network, not so much seen by the average user as disrupting of supernodes which route traffic -- thus occassional poor/no search results for many users. Either more and more ISPs are directly blocking/throttling Kazaa traffic due to &#39;pressure&#39; from RIAA/MPAA/BSA, or they&#39;re using some corrupter tools to directly hack the network... or both. They&#39;ve already asked for RIGHTS to legally use tools to remove/disrupt shared copyrighted content -- so I have little doubt that they&#39;ve already got such tools and have done at least limited trials on Kazaa.

It WILL get worse...

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 May 2003 - 00:40
If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded?&nbsp; :huh:
I thought that without a connection and being found only in a search, they could not see your IP. Though Switeck said...

they can link your ip to a file WITHOUT making a direct connection to you.
Well, how is this then, on a simple search you can see all the IP&#39;s that easily?
Switeck also mentioned...

But if you&#39;re behind a router, the ip they get will probably be 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x due to how Kazaa works (a bug/severe limitation of sorts.)
Odd, whay is this, since I am behind a router 192. but when I use many services my true IP always shows, even when using IRC. Is this a flaw of KaZaa only.

In addition I read an article that if someone had your IP, they could see your shared files without using nodes or KaZaa to do so, though the privacy patch may stop this.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by REALITY+23 May 2003 - 00:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 23 May 2003 - 00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@23 May 2003 - 00:40
If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded?&nbsp; :huh:
I thought that without a connection and being found only in a search, they could not see your IP. Though Switeck said...

they can link your ip to a file WITHOUT making a direct connection to you.
Well, how is this then, on a simple search you can see all the IP&#39;s that easily?[/b][/quote]They CAN&#39;T using Kazaa/Kazaa Lite++ alone -- it requires something LIKE Kazaa Search or DatReader. They probably have their own specialized programs to do so, but are partially foiled by Kazaa&#39;s annoying habit of giving the local ips out in the searches/download DAT files. This is why Kazaa Lite++ has a &#39;feature&#39; of removing local ips from DAT files on exit... because those ips are USELESS for actually finding someone to download from them.

They may not know the ip until they do the trick that I do -- message someone while watching TCPview to see what ip connection is made and then broken during the message transfer. Even blocking them with Peer Guardian in that case isn&#39;t enough to prevent a connection from being ATTEMPTED, which is spottable/loggable with the right software. TCPview is hit-or-miss on very short-lived connects. But Peer Guardian SHOULD be enough to convince them that they no longer have the right IP, due to connection failure -- it will appear the same as a user which has messaging disabled.
Switeck also mentioned...

But if you&#39;re behind a router, the ip they get will probably be 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x due to how Kazaa works (a bug/severe limitation of sorts.)
Odd, whay is this, since I am behind a router 192. but when I use many services my true IP always shows, even when using IRC. Is this a flaw of KaZaa only.It IS a flaw specifically in Kazaa.

Random Nut or one of the other Kazaa Lite++ developers would have to give you some more info about how they could convert your local ip to your real internet ip.

(This is mostly speculation on my part:)

The reason why RIAA/MPAA/BSA/whoever CAN find someone who&#39;s using a router is because they have a direct internet ip address.
Thus for even a semi-effective anti-piracy spying, they&#39;d need big blocks of ip addresses and many computers -- or a really powerful mainframe and very specialized software... possibly even fasttrack protocol and encryption codes. Also they could only do 1 search at a time -- unless their tools have advanced beyond that -- because Kazaa/KL++ only allows 1 search at a time.

At least in v2.0.0 and older, I used to be able to download files using a file resumer program if I knew the exact ip address and hash of the file. They may use something similar as well...
In addition I read an article that if someone had your IP, they could see your shared files without using nodes or KaZaa to do so, though the privacy patch may stop this.I think that was only possible with older versions of Kazaa.
Peer Guardian would DEFINITELY block that.

[MagicNakor]

Hmmm.....quote button&#39;s being very strange. No post.


...They may not know the ip until they do the trick that I do ...

Well, they do now. ;)

:ninja:

[Hdestm8r]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 May 2003 - 00:40
I think that you all under-estimate the tools being used by the RIAA. They are most likely using private IP addresses to download files, just like you or I. PG probably does little to stop them from obtaining your identity. However, Schmiggy hit on the real issue at hand. If a given file shows up in a simple search, does that make you guilty of filesharing, even if the file has never been downloaded? :huh:
Yes, having a file show up in a search does make you guilty of file sharing. That is the basic tenant behind what happens when people get a letter from their ISP about a file they are sharing and the RIAA or MPAA scanning your "Shared Folder". Even if NOBODY has ever downloaded it ,you are still offering the file for distribution which is illegal. All they need to do is VERIFY the file is in fact what it claims to be.

The "Verified" hashes that we use make it all the more easier to verify the fact that the file is indeed real and true. It makes the searches also easier as well since the RIAA or MPAA can limit the searches to a particular file. I think you said this as well "Jibbler"

[nueromancer]

You guys are making me nervous.

Is there anyway to block people from DLing from me if they are not sharing any files? It seems that if someone is sharing 0 files, they would be the "monitors." After all, they could not be breaking the law by sharing copyrighted material while they were searching for it. :D

(Of course that is easy enough to get around...) :(

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 May 2003 - 22:46

Since we are on the subject, verified hashes will probably mean the of Kazaa.&nbsp; Once a file becomes verified, then anyone sharing it would be a potential victim of Media Force&#39;s tactics.&nbsp; In other words, they would not need to download the file from you, as long as they get an exact match for a file you are sharing. B)
Did I just quote myself? :D

Seriously, are there any lawyers out there willing to comment on the legality of this specific issue? I want to know if finding a source for a verified is enough to be considered copyright infringement. :huh:

[RealitY]

Seriously, are there any lawyers out there willing to comment on the legality of this specific issue? I want to know if finding a source for a verified is enough to be considered copyright infringement.
Does it really matter legally, since no one is being charged on this basis alone, nor is anyone near being charged in a matter of this type. The Verizon case is simply a trial to see whats to come to find out if they can force ISP&#39;s to turn us over, but if so, there is little that can be be done with a screen shot of a shared folder, considering that is not proof of actual content or actual distripution. At the moment this is nothing more than a scare campaign, for now.

If they can get ISP&#39;s to turn us over instead of just warning us and track downloaded files, and start putting this all together, one step at a time, then we might need to worry, but that day is yet to arrive.

[RealitY]

They CAN&#39;T using Kazaa/Kazaa Lite++ alone -- it requires something LIKE Kazaa Search or DatReader. They probably have their own specialized programs to do so, but are partially foiled by Kazaa&#39;s annoying habit of giving the local ips out in the searches/download DAT files. This is why Kazaa Lite++ has a &#39;feature&#39; of removing local ips from DAT files on exit... because those ips are USELESS for actually finding someone to download from them.
Well I have noticed when using KaZuperNodes that my IP always shows as the 192. so I guess having router does help, though regarding your trick, does this mean I should turn off chat, and will it stop that from being able to happen. By the way the article I mentioned reading was on the KaZaa Search site, funny you mentioned it.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by MagicNakor+23 May 2003 - 05:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 23 May 2003 - 05:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
...They may not know the ip until they do the trick that I do ...Well, they do now. ;)[/b]I said they didn&#39;t know the ip, not that they didn&#39;t know the trick. B)
I meant they HAD to do that trick (or something similar) to actually GET your ip.

It seems by the many &#39;I&#39;ve got a nasty letter from my ISP&#39; that they know how to get ips from nicknames ALL TOO WELL. :(
However, the methods they use may still be rather labor/computer/bandwidth intensive -- which may be the reason why only a handful of people have reported getting them. The process COULD become so automated that they can find anyone sharing ANY file they care to monitor AND send out a nasty email to the appropriate ISP within under an hour. RIAA already claims to be sending out 1 MILLION warning messages a day, so that sounds like they&#39;re pretty automated already if you believe their claims. BUT, just because they can automate the task of messaging people doesn&#39;t mean they have the bugs worked out of the automated task of finding people&#39;s ips and emailing their ISPs.

Peer Guardian could slow that down if we can start blocking their server and pc farms dedicated to that task.<!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@24 May 2003 - 01:19

They CAN&#39;T using Kazaa/Kazaa Lite++ alone -- it requires something LIKE Kazaa Search or DatReader. They probably have their own specialized programs to do so, but are partially foiled by Kazaa&#39;s annoying habit of giving the local ips out in the searches/download DAT files. This is why Kazaa Lite++ has a &#39;feature&#39; of removing local ips from DAT files on exit... because those ips are USELESS for actually finding someone to download from them.Well I have noticed when using KaZuperNodes that my IP always shows as the 192. so I guess having router does help, though regarding your trick, does this mean I should turn off chat, and will it stop that from being able to happen. By the way the article I mentioned reading was on the KaZaa Search site, funny you mentioned it.[/quote]Turning chat off won&#39;t help any against their direct download attempts, it would only block their (possible, but doubtful) attempts to &#39;warn&#39; you that you should remove/delete those files immediately.

If they are compiling nicknames+ips+ISP+file lists and checking again hours/days/weeks later before reporting them to your ISP, the router will make you harder to find again -- not that finding someone on Kazaa (fasttrack networks actually) is easy in the first place.

If that article came from the Kazaa Search site, I would consider it DEFINITELY true at one time (for like Kazaa v2.0.0 and earlier) and probably true still.

[RealitY]

The only reason I mentioned turning chat off, was because I got the impression from you, the trick, an IP could be extracted by sending a message etc...

I will say I am glad my ISP carries dynamic IP&#39;s, and by changing the MAC in my router within a minute I have a new IP.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by REALITY+24 May 2003 - 04:04--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 24 May 2003 - 04:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The only reason I mentioned turning chat off, was because I got the impression from you, the trick, an IP could be extracted by sending a message etc...[/b]Yes, it can be -- I do it all the time and can do it on just about anyone I see in downloads/uploads/search... EVEN if they have messaging disabled.<!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@24 May 2003 - 04:04
I will say I am glad my ISP carries dynamic IP&#39;s, and by changing the MAC in my router within a minute I have a new IP.[/quote]Jumping ips yourself does little good if an exact date/time/ip/copyright violation is sent to your ISP. You&#39;d have to jump ips every time you get hit by one of their searches to foil their search method -- but by then it might be too late, and even if it worked it would kick you off Kazaa.

It&#39;s no idle threat of RIAA to say they can easily find you -- via link your ip (and time) with your shared files -- they CAN and HAVE done that numerous times. But this is only true in general, and may be FALSE if somehow disrupted by Peer Guardian, routers, proxy servers (although I think they can&#39;t work with Kazaa), or software firewalls.

More than 1 person, me included, has seen many ips blocked by Peer Guardian even when Kazaa *ISN&#39;T* running -- which MAY be normal behavior for Kazaa/Grokster/IMesh when ips of sources for each download is retried. (This is the &#39;excessive networking chatter&#39; that ISPs have cited as a big reason to hate p2p programs running on their networks...)
Likewise, LOCAL unfinished downloads MAY contain blocked ips as sources which when retried will no doubt trip Peer Guardian if you have it running.

REALITY,
You&#39;ve already proved they can message you even though you&#39;re behind a router and on a local ip of 192.

But the REAL acid test is if they can determine someone&#39;s ip if they&#39;re behind a router and how HARD it is for them to do so.
Also, what SOFTWARE are they using?
The more data/information we can gather (legally, of course)... the better.

If ANYONE can spot an incomming unrequested ip connection to your computer that is probably associated with RIAA/MPAA/BSA, find out what the other end is USING to try to connect to you. (you networking security experts/hackers out here will know what this means.)
This will be a relatively difficult task, and may be safer to run from behind a router where 1 computer is on KL++ (and blocking the ip using Peer Guardian/firewall/other) and another computer (which IS able to access that ip). A block comes up on Peer Guardian -- use the other computer to connect back and see what the ip packet response is.

[ToraBoraDweller]

Almost all types of trackage of users is permitted ,however your ISP is
bound by law to protect private information of users ,which differ from state to state
and country to country.
What those &#39;anti-piracy&#39;-organizations are after are of course the traffic-logs of the ISP.
I think it doesn&#39;t matter if you are behind a router because the physical address is logged too
with a time-stamp.
The general picture right now shows that R&#33;AA & co are trying to create precedents
which in future they want to follow up by class-action suits. B)

It&#39;s an interresting ongoing battle on an international scale, :pirate: and I wish you
Americans good luck (and good congressman) ;)

[RealitY]

Jumping ips yourself does little good if an exact date/time/ip/copyright violation is sent to your ISP. You&#39;d have to jump ips every time you get hit by one of their searches to foil their search method -- but by then it might be too late, and even if it worked it would kick you off Kazaa.
If I see numerous blocks on PG, then I jump IP&#39;s. Yes, I get kicked off any internet activity since I have to release my IP and then request a new one via changing the MAC in my router, though I am back online and KL continues on. If they are extarcting IP&#39;s and then attemting to get futher information from there, I&#39;m gone. Just one more safety, why not.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by REALITY@25 May 2003 - 04:08
If I see numerous blocks on PG, then I jump IP&#39;s. Yes, I get kicked off any internet activity since I have to release my IP and then request a new one via changing the MAC in my router, though I am back online and KL continues on. If they are extarcting IP&#39;s and then attemting to get futher information from there, I&#39;m gone. Just one more safety, why not.
Because the WHOLE thing that triggered Peer Guardian&#39;s warnings might be because you have a download which contains a blocked ip as one of its sources.

You might be literally jumping at shadows... those ips weren&#39;t trying to connect with you, you were trying to connect with them.

And they MAY not even be real hostiles due to over-broad block ranges of Peer Guardian.
If I get MANY blocks from a single ip or ip range, I&#39;ve done a little whois/reverse DNS lookups to determine if they&#39;re really hostile or not.
I&#39;ve already turned up 1 university that was supposedly a hostile p2p monitor.

I&#39;m trying to whittle my list down, but instead it keeps getting longer -- it&#39;s up to 244.5 million blocked ips in about 180 ranges.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Switeck+25 May 2003 - 15:46--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Switeck @ 25 May 2003 - 15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@25 May 2003 - 04:08
If I see numerous blocks on PG, then I jump IP&#39;s. Yes, I get kicked off any internet activity since I have to release my IP and then request a new one via changing the MAC in my router, though I am back online and KL continues on. If they are extarcting IP&#39;s and then attemting to get futher information from there, I&#39;m gone. Just one more safety, why not.
Because the WHOLE thing that triggered Peer Guardian&#39;s warnings might be because you have a download which contains a blocked ip as one of its sources. [/b][/quote]
I know, but like I said why not, besides most of my hostiles are very clear as to who they are. I currently have 210 profiles in mine, but usually it;s the same ones that show up.

[RealitY]

:rolleyes:

[CanYouDigItSucka]

I always thought that Kazaa would go the same way as napster.......surely the best way to stop us doing what were doing is to take out the suppliers.......and not the small fish like ourselves.

NTL who are my supplier recently supposedly put a cap on daily downloads thinking this would stop potential culprits and also beacsue they were getting complaints about the servers bandwidth running slow across the network.

I&#39;m sorry to hear that people are getting phone calls, emails. Myabe the isp&#39;s have to show legally that they are doing their part. BUt as some of you state they won&#39;t survive without us. "catch 22"

[james_bond_rulez]

dudes, filesharing must go on, it is a new revolution against those greedy companies and their futile attempts to take away our freedom to share the good stuff. artists and musicians and software companies are already making nuff money to get themselves high for the rest of their fucking lives. IT IS OUR RIGHT TO SHARE, fuck COPY RIGHT IT IS BULLSHIT. KEEP SHARING PPL. if my isp threatens to disconnect me, i am taking their routers down with me LOLOLOL. FREE FILE SHARING RULEZ

[dhaulk]

Ok hey call me a noob :D but I was just wondering about the peer guardian. specificly where can i get it and what does it do. :blink:

[RealitY]

Follow the links...

Peer Gaurdian (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.leonard1/pg/index.htm)
Updates 1 (http://www.p2pprivacy.tk/)
Updates 2 (http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp)

It blocks unwanted snoops.

[nueromancer]

Would not the best method be to use an other router like IRC or FTP (Sorry have not used either yet and don&#39;t know) And just rename your files before you transfer them? Then if the ISPs send you a letter saying "blankety blank" you can just say you transfer a lot of home movies to your friends?

Or would they actually be able to capture your "junk"?

Even at thirty and being around Pcs for 25 years I am sooooooooo dumb.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Switeck@25 May 2003 - 10:46
Because the WHOLE thing that triggered Peer Guardian&#39;s warnings might be because you have a download which contains a blocked ip as one of its sources.

You might be literally jumping at shadows... those ips weren&#39;t trying to connect with you, you were trying to connect with them.

And they MAY not even be real hostiles due to over-broad block ranges of Peer Guardian.
I&#39;ve already turned up 1 university that was supposedly a hostile p2p monitor.

I don&#39;t use PG for this very reason. By blocking IP ranges that are suspicious, you are probably stopping plenty of legitimate filesharers from downloading from you. Can you verify that the IPs on your block lists are really hostil? :huh:

[nueromancer]

I would use the quote but for some reason it does not seem to work correctly for me...

@Jibbler

I just recently got PG, because of the things I heard on this message board. Are you saying that it does not protect me at all? I am running XP Pro&#39;s Firewall also, but since I allow people to see and use my files, that really leaves me wide open does it not? You said PG only protects from people seeing my shared files,

then why are people still DLing from me?

Actually Jib, please respond PM, I have a lot to ask...

:ph34r:

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by nueromancer@26 May 2003 - 23:01
I just recently got PG, because of the things I heard on this message board. Are you saying that it does not protect me at all? I am running XP Pro&#39;s Firewall also, but since I allow people to see and use my files, that really leaves me wide open does it not? You said PG only protects from people seeing my shared files,
then why are people still DLing from me?

PG may be able to protect you from some attacks, but this is guesswork. You don&#39;t know the IP of the RIAA/MPAA, so you can&#39;t block them until you identify them. PG can block "known" IP addresses. If this makes you sleep better at night, well, grab 40 winks.

I also run WinXP firewall. It has no bells and whistles, but it works 100%. Its there to close ports, that&#39;s it.

When you share files, you have a port open. People outside can only see what is shared, they can&#39;t see it all. ;)

[RealitY]

In addition if you don&#39;t want people to see your full list of shared files, use the privacy patch.

[judgeofallandnothing]

i posted something like this before :( Comcast called me cause i shared the tmd version of goldmember when it was still in theatres. I think isps only go after u when ur sharing a tmd movie that is still being played in theatres. Cause any dvd quality stuff could just be a backup. I mean its not illegal to own a backup copy of a video. So yea....

P.S
I am a noob dont be too hard on me

[melgl]

i read in the Mirror today that kazaa is the most used thingy ever on the internet with 230 million downloads over the weekend....excellent :D

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Jibbler@26 May 2003 - 21:55
I don&#39;t use PG for this very reason. By blocking IP ranges that are suspicious, you are probably stopping plenty of legitimate filesharers from downloading from you. Can you verify that the IPs on your block lists are really hostil? :huh:
The excessive number of blocked ips is quite low compared to then number of known hostile ranges that ARE blocked.

We ARE hammering out exactly what ranges are &#39;good&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; -- and narrowing down many.

Sure, we end up blocking a LOT of oddball business ip ranges -- but many of them are just front/shell companies for RIAA/MPAA/BSA. This is reflected in the amount and kind of p2p traffic they generate as well as any paper-trails we have on them.

An ip can be back-fed into a reverse DNS lookup to spit out the &#39;owner&#39; of that ip range. Oftentimes, it only spits out the TOP owner, not the one who owns a subset of that. But many of the &#39;usual suspects&#39; turn up with THESE owners:
Media Defender
Retspan
Dotster.com
Cable & Wireless (GAINCME, OverPeer, MPAA, RIAA homepage sites)
Cogent Communications
Verio, Inc.

If I see THESE names show up in a reverse lookup, I don&#39;t much bother seeking a 2nd opinion -- because they have CONSISTANTLY shown themselves as being hostile.

[Jibbler]

Ok fair enough. Just realize that the "backdoor" is at your ISP headquarters, and not at the end of your firewall. The method they use to verify that you are sharing a copyrighted file isn&#39;t important. You can&#39;t identify every end user who downloads from you. So in my experience, PG is heavily flawed. :huh:

[RealitY]

Better than not, I have contless attempts from these ranges that were blocked.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Um, they did send me a hard letter, if any one cares. I would scan it, but apparently, our scanner is acting up big time. Maybe I can plug it into my machine, and xp can find drivers for it, as my moms old 98se machine doesnt seem to work right with it after a reformat.

Not that I think you guys dont believe me, cuz you should, but just to show it off, as a badge of honor, lol. first paragraph says this:

"Charter Communications has been notified by mediaforce that you have been involved in the exchange of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures, specifically: Filename : A Man Apart {2of2}.avi first found 28 apr 2003, 9:35:46 edt."

funny stuff

[zapjb]

I believe you. But I really really want to see a letter for once. :(

[randm01]

U WANNA SEE ONE??

To whom it may concern:


XXXXXX has received letters of demand alleging that through your account
with XXXXXX you are storing media in contravention of the owner&#39;s copyright.

If the allegations made in the emails are correct, your making the material
available for internet access constitutes an infringement of the exclusive
rights of the copyright owner to communicate the work.

The XXXXXX standard terms and conditions provide that it is a breach of your
contract to make available for download on the internet any material which
is the subject of copyright of another person in contravention of the
copyright owner&#39;s exclusive rights. This provision is necessary to protect
XXXXXX which does not approve of use of the internet in a manner which is
contrary to the rights conferred upon a copyright owner under the Copyright
Act.

If you have the consent of the copyright owner to communicate the work
through your internet connection, please immediately email me and the
copyright owner responding appropriately with all relevant details.

If, on the other hand, you do not have the consent of the copyright owner,
you are required to contact the abovenamed whose contact details appear in
the attached to confirm removal of the offending material shared through
your connection and providing undertakings in a form satisfactory to the
copyright owner that you will not in future infringe the copyright or moral
rights in the media.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response to this email within five days,
I will take it that you do not have any consent of the copyright owner to
make the film available on the internet and, regrettably, your internet
service will be suspended without further notice to you. In order to avoid
termination of the service, XXXXXX will need to receive confirmation from
the copyright owner that the situation has been rectified to its
satisfaction.

Yours,

XXXXXX Network Abuse
XXXXXXX.com.au
~

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mediaforce - Copyright Infringement"
To: XXXXXX.com.au>
Sent: Friday, May XXXXXXXXX
Subject: Case ID XXXXXX - Notice of Claimed Infringement


> Thursday, May XXXXXX

> RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Motion Picture Entitled
> XXXXXX
>
>
> Dear XXXXXX NET:
>
> We are writing this letter on behalf of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
("Warner Bros.").
>
> We have received information that an individual has utilized the
above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of
copyrighted motion picture(s) through a "peer-to-peer" service, including
such title(s) as:
>
> XXXXXX
>
> The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures
constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United
States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other
countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
>
> Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the
following:
>
> 1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct
described above; and
> 2) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse
Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.
>
> On behalf of Warner Bros., 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 Warner Bros., its respective agents, or the law.
>
> Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the
information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to
act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set
forth in this notification.
>
> Please contact us at the below-listed address or by replying to this email
should you have any questions. Kindly include the Case ID XXXXXX, 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
matter. Your prompt response is requested.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark Weaver,
> Director of Enforcement
> MediaSentry, Inc.
> 304 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
> New York, NY 10010
> (212) 925-9997
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Infringement Detail:
> Infringing Work: XXXXXX
> Filename: [tmd]XXXXXXX.(eso).ts.(2of2).avi
> First Found: X May 2003 XX:XX:XX EDT (GMT -0400)
> Last Found: X May 2003 XX:XX:XX EDT (GMT -0400)
> Filesize: 173,860k
> IP Address: XXXXXXXXXX
> IP Port: 1214
> Network: KaZaA
> Protocol: FastTrack
> Username: www.k-lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@KaZaA
>
>
> Infringing Work: XXXXXX
> Filename: [tmd]XXXXXX.(eso).ts.(1of2).avi
> First Found: X May 2003 XX:XX:XX EDT (GMT -0400)
> Last Found: X May 2003 XX:XX:XX EDT (GMT -0400)
> Filesize: 176,725k
> IP Address: XXXXXXXX
> IP Port: 1214
> Network: KaZaA
> Protocol: FastTrack
> Username: www.k-lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@KaZaA

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Jibbler@27 May 2003 - 20:23
Ok fair enough.&nbsp; Just realize that the "backdoor" is at your ISP headquarters, and not at the end of your firewall.&nbsp; The method they use to verify that you are sharing a copyrighted file isn&#39;t important.&nbsp; You can&#39;t identify every end user who downloads from you.&nbsp; So in my experience, PG is heavily flawed. :huh:No, it&#39;s not heavily flawed -- it&#39;s just heavily limited. What you&#39;re asking/wanting seems the same as asking your regular firewall to block RIAA/MPAA/BSA scans/attacks -- or for it to block email viruses. That&#39;s not its job -- it&#39;s job is to handle the known threats, not unknowns. They&#39;re not coming through the &#39;backdoor&#39; as unusual traffic or something designed to &#39;glitch up&#39; Kazaa... yet. Their point-of-entry is probably as legitimate Kazaa traffic probably even using regular Kazaa... with a few add-ons.

And if it&#39;s as easy to track us... as RIAA has claimed... then it should be equally easy for us to narrow down who these trackers are, if they&#39;re doing millions of tracking attempts daily from fixed ip ranges.

The method &#39;they&#39; are using to verify that you are sharing a copyrighted file is VERY important&#33;
If they&#39;re doing hacking attacks on people&#39;s computers at random -- just to see if any ip address is running a P2P file sharing program, and potentially locking up the computer in the process -- then they HAVE crossed the line and we need to do everything we can to deny them access.
If they&#39;re seeding p2p networks with trojans (fake files could qualify for this if they include special phone-home features) and viruses -- then they HAVE crossed the line and we need to do everything we can to deny them access.
If they&#39;re launching DoS attacks at ISPs or individual supernodes, causing reduced connectivity/search ability on Kazaa -- then they HAVE crossed the line and we need to do everything we can to deny them access.

But they&#39;re not going to tell US what they&#39;re doing -- or even tell our ISPs many details.
They&#39;ll just demand user details from ISPs using whatever evidence they got however they gathered it and threaten ISPs that fail to comply in full with all the copyright charges as well...

[zapjb]

randm01, not quite the real thing I&#39;m looking for. I want to see the LETTER. Not someone&#39;s typed or c&p version. Of course I expect personal info to be obscured. <_<

[randm01]

well thats alll ya gunna get cause it came as an email...whats the diff between a piece of paper with it on or to read it on ya screen...im guessing your not a believer...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

ill try to find time to today to get that scanner up and going for yall.

[zapjb]

TY Schmiggy_JK23 I would appreciate it.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by randm01@29 May 2003 - 05:26
well thats alll ya gunna get cause it came as an email...whats the diff between a piece of paper with it on or to read it on ya screen...im guessing your not a believer...
Who is your ISP?

Also, I am currently leaving KaZaa off to see what my PG does and I am noticing numerous blocks...
Connection forcefully closed on: 209.204.148.220 - BayTSP

WTF, I even emptied my shared folder, turned KaZaa off, and jumed IP&#39;s, and still 45 more blocks from these guys, what&#39;s the deal, who are these guys.

Considering I changed IP&#39;s, am I to figure my ISP is involved on some level or are they randomly slamming through IP&#39;s in my range? This whole thing is getting sick, and I am getting tired of KaZaa alltogether anyway.

[RealitY]

BayTSP, well HERE (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-523693.html?legacy=zdnn) is some info, seems they are using the hash.

[ninja6r]

Having read this topic I am slightly amused about people worrying about sharing files. If you are really worried just stop. If u stop now then you run zero risk end of problem.

The media companies are going to get more sophistcated in the tactics they use because of the amount of money involved. They are getting seriously worried and rest assured they will come out fighting.

If I was in the USA I would be worried but I am not. I live in the UK and as far as I know no one in the UK has ever been done for sharing files. My ISP encourages file sharing and it is according to them one of the reasons for getting broadband Whom am I to disagee with this view &#33;

I used to use Kazza all the time but the last month speed has been crap though my upload speed is always at full tilt. People are getting worried and are not sharing and thats a shame.

Rest assured the media companies also look at sites like this cause they would be silly not to. Kazza rocked but now bittorent is the biz. Super duper speed for now &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Dont worry be Happy :D

Have I made any sense ?

[neevakee]

I think it is funny i have msn dsl, you would think since it is microsoft I would have heard something by now but no.

[TheFilePirater]

lol i was downloading some songs and i saw "US Government" on my caller ID, i was so scared
*lucky me they were tryin to recurt my brother

[randm01]

Originally posted by REALITY+29 May 2003 - 20:39--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 29 May 2003 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--randm01@29 May 2003 - 05:26
well thats alll ya gunna get cause it came as an email...whats the diff between a piece of paper with it on or to read it on ya screen...im guessing your not a believer...
Who is your ISP?

[/b][/quote]
iprimus in australia

rang them and gave them a slightly heated discussion on the files in question as to their originality...told them the files were indeed fake files with black screen and no sound so i deleted them and informed them if they want to keep me and many other customers happy they should 1st email us and enquire about the alleged files....he was so nice to me and told me it was fine and he will make a note the files where never on my computer....so they lie to cover their own asses..i guess eventually someones gunna be made an example of....

[!shareitall]

I just received an email from Comcast a couple of days ago with a reference to a Universal Studio&#39;s File that they claimed was downloaded by them from my system.

The information Universal provided was the name of the Movie, Infringement source: FastTrack, file size, my user name@kazza, my ip address, the date and time they downloaded the file, my DNS name and it looks like the hash information for the file also?

says:
***** Begin PGP signature *******
Version 8.0

iqa/aw - etc.

****** End PGP Signature *********

The rest is warning verbage from both the ISP and Universal.

I was not running peerguardian or using the privacy feature.

I am running Win XP Pro with Sysgate Pro.

I can see them getting the user name and the hash, but now I am confused as to what Klite does as far as the IP address protection feature?

Aslo been getting Denial of Service attack message from my firewall since I received the message. I am not sure what this mean?

Anyway that&#39;s my experince with this subject. I didn&#39;t like it and feel like big brother is watching over my shoulder. I think the Movie Studio&#39;s are going piss off enough people that people won&#39;t go see a movie put out by a studio that has threatned them. I personally will probably only go and see one of there movies only if I think it&#39;s a great film. Whereas before this expericence I usually go to the movies at leat once every 2-3 weeks, sometimes more, sometimes less.

What do you think? I know most of the movies I see that are downloaded I&#39;ve already paid to see at the theatre already. So all they end up doing, for me anyway is pissing me off and then they complain about sagging sales figures. Maybe part of sagging sales are due to people like me having the same reaction.

;)

[randm01]

&#33;shareitall...your prolly more right than you realise..

[RealitY]

I used to go to a movie at times as much as twice a week, bought lots of CD&#39;s and DVD,s, after hearing about what they are trying to do with the Verizon case, no more. I find it very offending to attack an individual user under the cloak of the DCMA, so that they can attempt to turn someones life upside down and make an example of them. I praise Verizon for fighting this battle. It has been stated that this could clearly kick back on them. Attacking their own clientel, seems strange, this all leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I maybe see a movie once a month now, if that, as for the rest I purchace very little anymore, just my statement I guess.

[Texallen]

Originally posted by REALITY@30 May 2003 - 08:25
I used to go to a movie at times as much as twice a week, bought lots of CD&#39;s and DVD,s, after hearing about what they are trying to do with the Verizon case, no more. I find it very offending to attack an individual user under the cloak of the DCMA, so that they can attempt to turn someones life upside down and make an example of them. I praise Verizon for fighting this battle. It has been stated that this could clearly kick back on them. Attacking their own clientel, seems strange, this all leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I maybe see a movie once a month now, if that, as for the rest I purchace very little anymore, just my statement I guess.
You may have something there. The RIAA and MPAA don&#39;t realise they&#39;re alienating their customers. If all filesharers picked one day to NOT buy any CDs or go to any movies it could get their attention. With 4 million on Kazaa and all the other P2P users even,even half participation would have to knock a hole in their profits. After all,it is about the bucks.

[Cation84]

First of all I would like to confirm that there is no way to "hide" your IP address.
Thirdly I would like to give my 2 cents on how I would personally configure my comptuer and my kazaa lite to allow sharing and prevent ANTI-Piracy organizations from finding you unless you download directly from or send directly to them (duh).

First configuration element: Kazaa Lite itself.
Get Kazaa Lite K++ 2.1e Build3.
Most importantly you MUST go into the settings an ENABLE the "Option to prevent people from being able to see a list of all of your shared files." This will prevent people like RIAA and the MPAA from being able to determine that you are in fact sharing any files.
Secondly: A firewall.
I personally use the Kerio Personal Firewall because it is the most configurable windows personal firewall on the market that is free for personal use. I must warn everyone that this firewall does DEMAND that you know what you are doing with TCP/IP networking. It is not some child&#39;s firewall like blackice, norton, ZA, sygate, ect... that you just install and assume you are protected. RTFM on kerio, no joke. In this firewall you make the application based firewall rulebase. I personally choose to DENY all incoming to the kazaa lite application from any external IP and port to any local port. I also choose to ALLOW my kazaa lite application to send information form any local port to any IP and any external port. The main reason that I choose to do this is because you would hide your kazaa server on port 1214, you would prevent any queries to your kazaa but you would also still be able to upload. Youall can figure out the rest of the rulebase.
I&#39;m on a university network with admins that actively scan every 30min for every p2p app. I&#39;ve learned to "get around" (used carelessly) ISP&#39;s no matter if they are a college or a true ISP like version.
AIM SN "Cation84". I&#39;m eager to discuss my views.

[Speedeefeet]

Is it me or are there more and more posts about ISPs calling people up and the RIAA?

[Tyke]

If my ISP ever contacts me re: filesharing, I&#39;ll ask em why the hell they have a banner ad on cdcovers.cc (http://www.cdcovers.cc) if they are anti-piracy :lol:

[ijc_2003]

well what i noticed i had more ports scans from using emule i never noticed peer guaridain blocking anything from kazaa well not much and i&#39;am also giving up kazaa 2 too many fooking leeches not sharing until this problem gets sorted out i quit but i will not leave forum as this is a great place for Knowledge

i blocked about 20 fucking leechers in last half an hour i dont normaly sit and look @ uploads but this a joke
every user i ask before i block, you using privacy patch? anwswer whats that&#33;&#33; whats that, well fook of you leecher, thats how i asked meth from peer guardian if he would kindly put tcp.ip connctions back into peer guradian and guess what he says it, will be in next version as this gets requested alot, to many strange uploaders even blocking all those mother fooking companys 272 ranges 68977209 addreses.

also i i&#39;am suffering lots of D.O.S, firewall has been gone crazy last few days and i&#39;am using the latest version of zone alarm PORT UDP 137 NETBIOS ATTACKS and the funny thing is windows 2000 and XP use port 139 and now its port 139 TCP and UDP, THEY GAVE UP ON 137 THINGS THAT MAKE YOU HMMMMMMMMMMM FOOK ALL YOU COMPANYS every 2 secs port scan unblevable never seen this with any other version of zone alarm so i no zone alarm is doing its job.

sry for the caps guys.
i&#39;ve had a few beers lol