Whirlpool

Just wondering who has received a copyright notice from exetel since they've implemented their new system?

Apparently there is a link with the statistics but i can't seem to find it, so thought i'd do a WP poll

hmm awesome doesnt look too bad

Is there a common thread for people who receive them: eg. edonkey? I assume that pure torrent users running peer guardian type filters don't tend to get them?

that would be interesting. Anything? those that voted that they've got notices, any ideas?

deeps writes...

that would be interesting. Anything? those that voted that they've got notices, any ideas?

uTorrent + PG2 + protocol encryption

Does it make any differance???

I don't know.... but I haven't ever received any notices.

uTorrent + encryption : no notices here... But I dont run it 24/7 to get picked maybe? :S

Midnight Rider writes...

uTorrent + PG2 + protocol encryption

doesnt utorrent come with its own protocol encryption?

Unixorn writes...

doesnt utorrent come with its own protocol encryption?

Yes it does, and that's what I use.

What is protocol encryption supposed to do for you in this regard ?

If I'm employed by a movie studio to ID people downloading Oceans 13 over the next month, WTF would I be doing randomly sampling internet traffic to check if it was BT traffic, odds-on unrelated to my task ?

If I want to find out what IPs are downloading Oceans 13 I grab a BT client, grab the torrent and connect to the tracker which gives me all your IPs, the same as everyone else using BT.

The only way encrypting protocols would change this state of affairs would be if it was not compatible with the BT protocol and stopped you sharing files via BT. This would indeed protect you, although you can achieve the same results by uninstalling your BT client.

I assume that pure torrent users running peer guardian type filters don't tend to get them?

Why assume that?
BitTorrent is the P2P network where you declare what you are downloading to a remote, public server that can be polled by anyone. What exactly is running some local filter going to do for you after the fact?

There are BT clients with proxy options. These 'guardian lists' would appear to be most useful as a checklist for what proxies not to use for anyone wishing to compromise other users.

I think ForumAdmin has said that the Enforcer* (the P2P bandwidth management thing) can catch encrypted traffic, but I use forced encryption anyway because it does give me faster speed (I don't know why though).

Midnight Rider writes...

PG2 + protocol encryption

Does it make any differance???

Not much.

All they do is change their IPs and PG is useless till its updated.

mrsa writes...

but I use forced encryption anyway because it does give me faster speed (I don't know why though).

Thats because Many ISPs and backbone providers worldwide play with P2P traffic.
Some/many do not have the ability to detect P2P traffic if its encrypted.

Therefore if you force encryption they dont see it as P2P and hence leave it alone.

By forcing encryption your not avoiding anything Exetel is doing, however you do avoid some things that others do, which is why forced encryption is often faster.

I got one from another ISP and upon making inquiries found out that it was the actual ISP's firewall thingy that had detected download and subsequent sharing of copyright material. The tech guy explained it to me and said all it is is a warning and they work on a strike system. Worst case scenario... you get enough strikes and you'll be banned from your ISP.

all the blame is on uttorent 1.7+

Yeah, moral of the story.. Don't worry about the emails, just don't keep doing it!

shifter316 writes...

Don't worry about the emails, just don't keep doing it

Could I use the excuse I was asleep when it supoosedly happened ;)

deeperblue writes...

Could I use the excuse I was asleep when it supoosedly happened ;)

Yeah just tell them you don't know anything about it... I did. Had me shitting myself when I got it the email until I realised, worst case scenario...get banned from your ISP... oh well..

Never had one, seems like alot of people have though.
Just wondering you guys who have got them without incriminating yourself did you get busted for 0day content, or was it old >1yeah old stuff?

I use uTorrent, PG2, Private invite-only tracker.

Never had one :-)

Here is an interesting article on complaint letters.

slyck.com/story1547_Bust...right_Complaints

0day... It wasn't me that got pulled up for it..twas my bro... but as his stuff comes in via my IP.... shazzam... Dumbass... They're nothing to worry about.. Like I said, worst case, get banned from your ISP... don't really care.

kogi writes...

Here is an interesting article on complaint letters.

slyck.com/story1547_Bust...right_Complaints

That's an interesting read...highlights the pursuit of the torrent providers rather than the downloaders themselves.

Quote from Exetel:

Copyright infringement seems to be similar to speeding; almost everybody does it and not many people think that it is really wrong.

Like speeding motorists for the road patrol police, copyright infringement is viewed entirely differently by the owners of the copyrighted material.

Exetel has no interest in losing any customer.

Exetel, equally, has no interest in being dragged in to legal costs and wasting scarce management time caused by a customer who has, allegedly, infringed another person's copyright.

Like the compulsive speeder the compulsive uploader is going to get caught sooner or later.

It isn't the fault of the ISP, or of anyone else; it is the fault of the user who knowingly breaches/infringes another person's copyright.

Exetel, like any other commercial organization can't afford to be party to alleged copyright breaches.

Two undisputed strikes and the connection will be terminated.

just dont use uttorent 1.7+ and some public torrent sites

bemuse writes...

just dont use uttorent 1.7+

I'm using 1.7.2, any link that says this version is bad?

SpaceOne™ writes...

I'm using 1.7.2, any link that says this version is bad?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9CTorrent
On December 7, 2006, µTorrent was purchased by BitTorrent, Inc., as it was announced on their official forum. µTorrent will continue to have its own website and community for now, and the µTorrent code base will remain closed source. Ludvig Strigeus, the writer of µTorrent, will serve as a technical consultant, but BitTorrent, Inc. will do the majority of the development work

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent%2C_Inc.
According to the Company's website, the company has announced partnerships with some 35 companies, including:

* 20th Century Fox
* Comedy Central
* Lionsgate Films
* MTV
* Paramount
* Spike TV
* Warner Brothers


I remember reading further into this, unfortunately i no longer have the links sorry. Alot of Private trackers are banning Versions 1.7 Up.

ahhh <3 scaremongering.

1.7 was banned because of incorrect download/uplaod figures being reported
1.7.1 kept its ban because it wasnt respecting the private flag on torrents.
1.7.2 has fixed both these issues and is not banned on any private site i use.

DarkLotus writes...

1.7.2 has fixed both these issues and is not banned on any private site i use.

Same as me.. I haven't been banned either.

shifter316 writes...

Like the compulsive speeder the compulsive uploader is going to get caught sooner or later.

HA! Ever since i got adsl2 ive been uploading more than i download on each torrent and got one these emails just a few days ago, after about 7 months of peer to peering with exetel first on adsl now adsl2

Mine had a date, time, title, who it was from (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) and it has me massively concerned, are you people who have been issued with more than one not worried?

Heh

Not 1.

Lets hope i dont see any either.

Like i have said in the past: "People only go to Exetel so they can download Linux Distro's between 12pm and 12am!"

Also, Private Trackers are FTW.

XandirFan writes...

Mine had a date, time, title, who it was from (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) and it has me massively concerned, are you people who have been issued with more than one not worried?

Can't say I'm worried at all as each notice I've received from movie companies and the like have just asked me to stop sharing the file so I have each time.

I've mainly got infringements for the latest movies but they've been screeners or cam's which are poor quality versions so don't see what the fuss is about. If I bothered downloading something like that, its not like I was going to the movies to see it and if I liked it I'd most likely buy the DVD when it comes out.

Copyright laws need to be reviewed and changed to adapt to the way the internet is used these days but it's so complex an issue I don't know if it'll ever be right. Also by the time laws catch up with the real issues, there's usually a whole new technology or use of old technology throwing up questionable ethic's yet again that the law doesn't consider properly.

The quicker artists/companies stop fighting copyright on the internet and use it as a form for free worldwide advertisement and another source for income, the better imo.

the propaganda machine.

It might be worth changing your static IP if these people start to hassle you.

Anyway, what on earth is "copyright theft"!? I've reported these people
to the "Australian Federation On Crimes Against the English Language".

http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/108-The-end-of-File-Sharing.html

I agree with him..

I didn't vote because I'm with (leaving...) Soul. But I did have one of these notices months ago.

I think they mentioned the video file by name. The thing was, I had downloaded only a small part of it weeks earlier, but it was incorrectly named and was really something else – so I had canceled the download.

The email basically demanded I contact them immediately, and explain my actions, or I'd be prosecuted. Yeah right [yawn!].

So I emailed them in the USA, told them I had been downloading a file some fool had named the wrong title, and I'd canceled the download when I realised it was not what I was after – weeks ago – after only a obtaining a few percent of it.

But then I made a point of blasting them, saying if their movie wasn't so pityful, perhaps people wouldn't mind paying to watch it. Then I begged them to go ahead and prosecute me, because I knew it just wouldn't happen and suggested if they really thought they were losing money to downloaders, they could save a heap of money by not employing some pencil-neck to send threatening emails all day long.

bemuse writes...

just dont use uttorent 1.7+

Has nothing to do with utorrent. To this day, no one has detected it doing any sort of funny business. It was banned for bug reasons.

XandirFan writes...

are you people who have been issued with more than one not worried?

if with exetel it should be a worry.

unless they have changed their policy on those letters, you get three of them, they can give you the boot.

http://www.exetel.com.au/a_acceptable_use.htm

section 4.3 (quote)

"4.3) If Exetel reasonably suspects that a Customer is infringing a third party's copyright or if three (3) or more copyright infringement notices have been received in relation to a Customer's account and the Customer fails to provide a valid defence for such notice in writing to the issuer of the notice that is satisfactory to Exetel, Exetel may request the Customer to arrange for an equivalent service to the Service supplied by another carrier or carriage service provider within fourteen (14) days failing which the Service will be cancelled in accordance with the Agreement. "

http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/108-The-end-of-File-Sharing.html

That blogs stupid, drink driving can kill people file sharing takes money (if exetels filesharing customer base is only .25 of one percent, not much money) from film companys that are already rich.

so i guess the second one is time to worry, but i think i'll quell my downloading for a bit anyway.

XandirFan writes...

file sharing takes money (if exetels filesharing customer base is only .25 of one percent, not much money) from film companys that are already rich.

I'm sure the film company's lawyers will be very understanding of that fact.

I didnt think Exetel sent copyright emails anymore.

Bah! >_> last time I'll use a public tracker

XandirFan writes...

HA! Ever since i got adsl2 ive been uploading more than i download on each torrent and got one these emails just a few days ago, after about 7 months of peer to peering with exetel first on adsl now adsl2

Mine had a date, time, title, who it was from (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) and it has me massively concerned, are you people who have been issued with more than one not worried?

I got one from the same people recently. I have been a heavy downloader for years and this is my first copyright email.

When I used to run Windows I had Peer Guardian running all the time. When I changed to a Mac I got the Safepeer add-on for Azureus but the version of Peer Guardian I tried didn't work so I didn't have that on at the time... but I have it now. I don't know how relevant that is though.

I am not overly concerned. I stopped seeding the content in question but I didn't stop downloading... I would sooner let Exetel cancel my ADSL and churn to another ISP.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft should be lobbying the Australian Commercial TV Channels to air TV episodes in line with the US not bothering the people that do the downloading... Eliminating the need for people to download TV shows would be far more effective in preventing copyright infringement than the essentially useless threatening of individuals.

I have had two notices in the past 6 months regarding two different files. I guess with the 'three strikes' thing I'll have to continue being pretty careful. I'd be disappointed to leave Exetel cause I've overall been really happy with them...

nick68 writes...

I have been a heavy downloader for years and this is my first copyright email.

I don't know if WestnetSpace threatened you over televsion episodes, I haven't encountered anything here for that.

I DO suspect there is some significant risk being taken in regards to 'CD albums' though. This is where the ISP may lose something of its forecast earnings ie if do SWAT analysis (after disconnecting the alleged thief) then AFCAT would come under ' Threats.

I for one would like to maintain my unblemished record of having not received an allegation. But If AFACT is to increasingly seek out IP addresses ie from logged public torrents, then this will drive me toward SSL/news connection.

Gut instinct tells me the order of media that one should consider security in maintaining a private data connection goes something like this:
Televised media – safe to torrent
Books/Magazines – safe torrents
Movies/Software – SSL news better
Music – p2p probably spells trouble, so either a secure feed or purchase would be sensible.

Well I woke up this morning to find my account suspended until I explained my actions after apparently receiving numerouse warning emails from Exetel. Thing is I never received them.

Filled out their form and submitted with a message saying as much and it was immediately working again. Check my email and there are 2 copyright infringement notices sitting there.

It's a bit rich of Exetel to suspend my account before sending me the emails.

lol! I got one today too :P

Sprocket writes...

It's a bit rich of Exetel to suspend my account before sending me the emails.

Stop stealing and you won't have to worry about your account being suspended.

Wish I could purchase my TV shows online and ontime!

If this downloading is "stealing" – whats the difference between recording a tv show or a movie on a VCR or using Foxtel IQ that records paytv shows ?

Whats the difference in breaching copyright using either methods – ie downloading vs recording ?

If Movie executives are uploading movies/music/tv shows in a effort to catch downloaders – are'nt they automatically breaching/violating any copyright infringements by making it available in the first place ? they should also be held accountable for their actions by the copyright law in the US or where ever they are.

Also how do Australian ISP's confirm any received emails from overseas are genuine and not from imposters pretenting to be representing artists/movie companies ?

xnor writes...

stealing

Emotive, misleading, and just plain wrong.

wayne349 writes...

If this downloading is "stealing" – whats the difference between recording a tv show or a movie on a VCR or using Foxtel IQ that records paytv shows ?

Copyright theft is exactly that – theft. If you don't know the difference I would suggest you contact a lawyer for advice.

If Movie executives are uploading movies/music/tv shows in a effort to catch downloaders – are'nt they automatically breaching/violating any copyright infringements by making it available in the first place ?

The lawyers employed by the copyright holder would obviously have permission to download the copyright protected material. In the process of downloading they can log all the IP addresses that upload the content and pass on infringement notices to the owners of those IP addresses.

I'm sure it's possible to do this without uploading any data (or by uploading fake data). Even if real, copyright protected data was uploaded I'm sure the copyright owners wouldn't be suing their lawyers.

Also how do Australian ISP's confirm any received emails from overseas are genuine and not from imposters pretenting to be representing artists/movie companies ?

All infringement notices are digitally signed so their origin can be easily traced and confirmed.

Jaike writes...

Emotive, misleading, and just plain wrong.

If it's not stealing, what is it?

xnor writes...

If it's not stealing, what is it?

It is not stealing.

You are infringing a companies copyright.

It is still illegal (if they can prove it) but it is not theft.

You have possibly deprived them of money but you have not stolen money, so you did not steal.

You did not deprived them of any goods, so you did not steal.

How is it any different to recording the same thing on your VCR/DVD Recorder ?

wayne349 writes...

How is it any different to recording the same thing on your VCR/DVD Recorder ?

No different *except* they can catch you doing it.

Another point, if you would never have paid for something how can you be accused of stealing it?

For example you download a TV show you may never have otherwise been able to watch as it is not shown here or if it is it is on late or shown intermittently and you can't be bothered to see it on TV.

You would never buy it on DVD so what have they lost? What have you taken?

wayne349 writes...

How is it any different to recording the same thing on your VCR/DVD Recorder ?

I highly doubt anyone will be sued any time soon for recording stuff off TV/Foxtel.

xnor writes...

I highly doubt anyone will be sued any time soon for recording stuff off TV/Foxtel.

You are the one calling people thieves.

Are you saying there are different levels of thieves?

Have you ever recorded TV?

VeeP writes...

It is not stealing.

Many people disagree with you (including me).

Whether you download a movie or TV show from an unauthorised source or sell counterfeit DVDs on the street, you are stealing someone else's property and your actions carry serious legal consequences.

Unauthorized copies of film and television programs on DVD or other media are stolen goods.

Anyone who sells, acquires, copies or distributes copyrighted materials without permission is a copyright thief or "pirate". Downloading a movie or television program from an unauthorized internet site and then distributing it is no different than walking into a store and stealing a DVD off the shelf.

http://www.afact.org.au/enforcement.html
http://www.afact.org.au/moviethieves.html

What about getting a book from the library or hiring a video/DVD ?

The writer/artist does'nt financially benefit every time this occurs yet the the end user still obtains a full benefit from the item without paying the original cost of the item that would of been required if the user wish to keep it and the item is being 'shared' in the community.

xnor writes...

http://www.afact.org.au/enforcement.html

This is a LOBBY group for a variety of copyright holders.

This lobby group uses words like 'THEFT' and 'STEALING' for deliberate EMOTIVE reasons.

It is propaganda.

xnor writes...

Many people disagree with you (including me).

http://www.afact.org.au/enforcement.html
http://www.afact.org.au/moviethieves.html

Well I would like to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies.

They would say that wouldn't they?

Jaike writes...

It is propaganda.

What would you call it? Permanently Borrowing?

xnor writes...

If it's not stealing, what is it?

Let's be clear.

Copyright infringement notices are generated when a user allegedly SHARES copyrighted material.

So its not 'stealing' in anyway; but it may be infringing copyright by distributing.

Lobby groups (and others like yourselves) often misrepresent or fail to understand the difference.

Jaike writes...

Lobby groups (and others like yourselves) often misrepresent or fail to understand the difference.

They do this because people understand theft they don't understand or respect the term "Copyright infringement"

So they twist the truth.

Everyone here agrees it is illegal so why do they have to call it theft? That is why.

Jaike writes...

Copyright infringement notices are generated when a user allegedly SHARES copyrighted material.

They are sharing a digital copy of something they have obtained illegally. In my opinion if someone obtains something without permission and/or paying for it they have stolen it.

Dictionary.com defines stealing as:

to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

And, as a verb:

to commit or practice theft.

I would suggest that the above definition perfectly describes someone who downloads a TV show or DVD without permission of the copyright owner.

xnor writes...

They are sharing a digital copy of something they have obtained illegally.

Well probably obtained illegally. But they may have ripped a bought DVD or recorded it off the TV. (Mostly legal)

The FACT is (like I have said already).. "Copyright infringement notices are generated when a user allegedly SHARES copyrighted material."

This has ZERO to do with 'stealing'. (Even by your and dictionary.com's definitions).

And this thread is about the copyright infringement notices NOT 'emails about stealing or theft'

Jaike writes...

And this thread is about the copyright infringement notices NOT 'emails about stealing or theft'

This is true.
So how are people responding to the notices?

It might be worth changing your static IP if these people start to hassle you.

Anyway, what on earth is "copyright theft"!? I've reported these people
to the "Australian Federation On Crimes Against the English Language".

Completely agreed with.
They should fix their name up before sending any more stuff with their name attached to it.

wayne349 writes...

What about getting a book from the library or hiring a video/DVD ?

The writer/artist does'nt financially benefit every time this occurs yet the the end user still obtains a full benefit from the item without paying the original cost of the item that would of been required if the user wish to keep it and the item is being 'shared' in the community.

They get royalties, if their contract specifies it – some (usually small) percentage of the rental fee you pay.

Library's don't pay fees, and some do lend out DVDs/CDs now.

IMO, if someone (especially students with little income) is NOT going to purchase a certain video/software/music anyway, then the publisher doesn't lose a cent.

And more often than not (as far as I've seen locally anyway), people who pirate something now will be much more likely to purchase it down the track. If they didn't pirate it, chances are they wouldn't be interested later...

And sometimes people just don't want to risk $100+ on software or an older TV series (for example) and will download it to see if it's worth paying for. I did that with Miami Vice... Downloaded season 1, enjoyed and went on to purchase the highest priced special edition box set (and then downloaded season 2 while I waited for it to come in from USA).

tin writes...

IMO, if someone (especially students with little income) is NOT going to purchase a certain video/software/music anyway, then the publisher doesn't lose a cent.

people who pirate something now will be much more likely to purchase it down the track.

people just don't want to risk $100+ on software or an older TV series

None of the above justifies stealing copyright protected material. Your argument is akin to the one that says it's ok to shoplift because stores factor the loss into their pricing.

Bottom line, if you want to use copyright protected material then you need to comply with the copyright holders licensing agreement and costs. If you don't like that, tuff luck.

The copyright system needs to fall apart so that it gets rebuilt for the modern world. The music and movie distribution systems need to fall apart so that they can get rebuilt. Destroy and rebuild.

I have had one, just ignored it and turned on utorrent encryption following other peoples advice.

Reveler writes...

turned on utorrent encryption following other peoples advice.

This probably won’t do much to protect you from such notices. The encryption is only between you and the other peer. When the peer obtains your encrypted data they can decrypt it. Most copyright infringement is detected with the copyright holder (or a body responsible for protecting a copyright holder) acting as a peer and sourcing data from another peer.

xnor writes...

stealing copyright protected material.

'stealing' is an emotive term and just plain wrong; It is used to either confuse, mislead or out of ignorance.

shoplift

'shoplift' again emotive and plainly wrong.

imo, it is not okay to deliberately confuse copyright infringement with emotive concepts such as theft, stealing or shoplifting.

Reveler writes...

turned on utorrent encryption following other peoples advice.

all that will do is stop you getting data from the p2p cache.

the encryption is there to reduce the effect of p2p shaping systems, it does not help with these letters as the one you are connecting to (and so they are decrypting your data) is the one you do not want to talk to. (as mentioned above).

Rohan N writes...

Most copyright infringement is detected with the copyright holder (or a body responsible for protecting a copyright holder) acting as a peer and sourcing data from another peer.

If the copyright holder, or their authorised agent, actively participate in the sharing of their copyrighted material, aren't they implicitly authorising that sharing? Any data they distributed as part of the P2P cluster would then be considered free domain?

Flak writes...

Any data they distributed as part of the P2P cluster

except they can posion the torrent by uploading known bad data, or upload incomplete (but bad) blocks

though there is proberly a rule in laws at least that a given amount of flexability in doing something wrong is allowed when a authorised agent is "under cover".

though being authorised proberlys is where they can do what they want or need too, to catch people doing it.

xnor writes...

None of the above justifies stealing copyright protected material. Your argument is akin to the one that says it's ok to shoplift because stores factor the loss into their pricing.

Bottom line, if you want to use copyright protected material then you need to comply with the copyright holders licensing agreement and costs. If you don't like that, tuff luck.

The trouble with that argument is that people don't need to justify themselves to you, or to the people that enforce copyrights, they only have to justify it to themselves. If they believe that if they didn't get it for free they wouldn't purchase it, or that the price is not competitive, or for any other reason can justify to themselves downloading it for free then that is what they are going to do.

For example: I don't see what the problem with downloading TV shows is since they are aired for free anyway. I know that is not a valid excuse (there are DVD sales and advertising to consider) but I don't care, it's good enough for me.

I can give you 'excuses' for downloading music, movies and games as well. Once again you wouldn't consider them reasonable but I do and that is all that counts because I will go and download them and no one can stop me.

Copyright holders need to stop whingeing and wasting resources on ineffective enforcement of copyright and adapt their pricing and distribution to meet changing customer demands and behaviours. If they don't know how they can pay me to do it, I have plenty of ideas.

greenhawk writes...

though there is proberly a rule in laws at least that a given amount of flexability in doing something wrong is allowed when a authorised agent is "under cover".

I doubt a private citizen could be granted such "flexability", it would normally be afforded to police officers, etc, who have the appropriate audit and controls in place.

I think we have to be careful citizens when it comes to P2P usage, particularly music downloading – where applicable.

IMO Exetel is serious about disconnecting up to 1,800 (3%) of its 'least favorable' customers to insure the viability of the other 97% – noting the median usage might be around 10 GB per month in meeting the average requirement.

The owner (who diligently maintains the blog site: http://johnl.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/695-How-Ethically-Or-Morally-Guilty.......html) sets some high moral standards for himself/the community and I believe would have disconnected those he has consistently labeled as "thieves", "stealers" (- after referencing 'bank robbery' to describe some customers for their 'activity').

JL would have disconnected them^, I believe, if it wasn't for pro-environmental Steve Waddington his right hand man and counsellor who keeps the opinionated JL in check.

To be fair to JL, he is the 'face' or spokesman of Exetel, and the one being invited in to court in the event of MIPI or A FACT coming after his property (equity). So in that sense (ie invited to attend legal proceedings) it is obvious his attitude in blogs and forums will not deviate much from "I never condoned/authorised criminal activity on Exetel network, that is wrong, I would plainly terminate those connected"

They say a small amount of paranoia is healthy and it will just be remarkable if our 'small and sluggish' exetel is the one selected for 'Judgement day' – get rid of illegal bittorrent indeed, and prepare we must!

How are people responding to these notices
Choices

1) Ignore it

2) Respond to the issuer of the notice denying the allegation (you may choose to copy Exetel on this response)

3) Remove the copyright infringing material

Siggi writes...

And I have peerguardian2 running constantly, and it didn't make a diff in this case.

/forum-replies.cfm?t=1014099#r8

Muad'Dib suggests to use ipfilter with Block List Manager...

So whats is this best way to protect yourself from being watched??

anyone got a list of steps/programs to use to protect yourself??

GoodApolloIV writes...

So whats is this best way to protect yourself from being watched??

anyone got a list of steps/programs to use to protect yourself??

Step 1
Don't download torrents.
Step 2
...
Step 3
Profit.

Probably try Usenet if you want a proper solution, it ain't free but also isn't as easy to get peoples IP.
Torrenting has the issue that all your peers have your IP.

Flak writes...

I doubt a private citizen could be granted such "flexability", it would normally be afforded to police officers, etc, who have the appropriate audit and controls in place.

true, but then IP infriengment laws and rules are not considered as serious as drug trading, ect.

so rules around letting people comit in the process of catching others would not have the same controls in place.

greenhawk writes...

so rules around letting people comit in the process of catching others would not have the same controls in place.

That would suggest any punishment would be minor...

Cody Wilson writes...

That would suggest any punishment would be minor...

given most people in the US (as a example of it) are perfering to just pay a fine instead of taking it to court to see what a official punishment would be, I am guessing the cost of legal representation is one of the biggest deterents currently.

I got 2, 28 minutes apart from exetel. the first dated 5 weeks earlier, the second 2 weeks old. I had removed the offending item 10 days prior to receiving the notices. My account was closed by the time I got home. Only able to get to the exetel website. Unable to log in. Message that my account no longer exists when I tried to log in to find out what the next step is. (Guess that's one way to learn my lesson. )

As exetel promotes the use of torrents (says not to encrypt, to improve caching and download speeds) can anyone tell me where the guaranteed Legal torrents come from? I'm sure that all those people giving others a hard time about being lawbreakers must have somewhere to get legal stuff from....right.

I've heard nothing from exetel on whether I have been permanently disconnected, but have to assume I am, so when I move to my next provider, would prefer to stick to legal torrents if this is possible.

peakay writes...

I'm sure that all those people giving others a hard time about being lawbreakers must have somewhere to get legal stuff from....right.

Right.

when I move to my next provider, would prefer to stick to legal torrents if this is possible.

Here's a start for you...

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/

http://www.publicdomaintorrents.com/

http://www.legittorrents.info/

http://bt.etree.org/

http://linuxtracker.org/

Maybe some people need two ISP's. One for regular internet use and the other for torrents. That way when you get kicked off the torrent only isp you don't lose internet access and you can quickly sign up with another one.

sp0radic writes...

Maybe some people need two ISP's. One for regular internet use and the other for torrents. That way when you get kicked off the torrent only isp you don't lose internet access and you can quickly sign up with another one

Weclome to the world of HSDPA on your mobile :)

.

Midnight Rider writes...

Right.

Here's a start for you...

http://beta.legaltorrents.com/

http://www.publicdomaintorrents.com/

http://www.legittorrents.info/

http://bt.etree.org/

http://linuxtracker.org/

I'm Back online – YAY
Thanks for the sites MR. I've only been checking for about 2 hours now, but haven't found too much. I'll keep looking. Linux doesn't do anything for me so I'll skip that. I've checked about 60 movies on publicdomain, but they all appear to be so old, they are mainly black and white. Even stuff from the 90's would probably be OK as a starting point. Surely all these people downloading legal torrents aren't 70 year olds watching black and white movies. I found about 10 colour ones and have added them to my torrent list with around 30 other legal torrents to see what there is out there. Gotta try it I suppose.

I have a challenge – Can the group I'm trying to join (the legal torrent users) post say 5 movies or TV show torrents that are legal to download, worth the time to download and watch and not older than say 10 years. (site name and torrent name)
I look forward to the responses. Here's to Keepin' it Legal :)

peakay writes...

5 movies or TV show torrents that are legal to download, worth the time to download and watch and not older than say 10 years.

Most recent movies or TV shows are protected by copyright, and so are illegal to download.

I've checked about 60 movies on publicdomain, but they all appear to be so old, they are mainly black and white.

You shouldn't judge things by their age or colour. Quality viewing is not restricted to colour film. Why don't you run some of the titles through the IMDB and see what others think of them.

Midnight Rider writes...

Why don't you run some of the titles through the IMDB and see what others think of them.

I'm sorry to say that I'm lost here. of the 5 movies I downloaded last night, I was able to watch the whole lot in about 30 minutes because I could only handle about 5 minutes of each – absolute rubbish. I also downloaded around 10 other smaller "movies" from other sites recommended and the majority of them were either documentaries about things like a movie I'd never heard of, hobbies of some guy in the US or what looked like people's home video's. Do people actually download and watch 50GB+ (exetel's smallest download limit) of this stuff a month.

I don't have any of the publicdomain torrents yet, none completed. My last hope, hopefully something worth watching, thought I'd do what you said and check them out on imdb. I checked some of the ones I was downloading
the Fatal Hour – made in 1940 – what the!!
Attack from space – made in 1964 – rating of 3.3
Bank Alarm – made in 1937 ( did they even have TV then?) 5.0
The black godfather – 1974 – 3.4
The street fighter – 1974 – 7.0 out of 10 – woo hoo, maybe
The weapons of Death – 1982 – 2.8

(by the way, if anyone goes to publicdomain, you'll need to turn off peerguardian http blocking to get there – expect tracking cookies and once you start downloading, hundreds of peerguardian hits too)

Tell me MR – Honestly, do you really download 50GB+ a month of this stuff to watch??? I'm trying to be positive here, but honestly, most of this stuff is the kind of stuff that if it was the only thing on TV I'd rather turn it off and go and mow the lawn( and I have 2 acres, so it's not a minor decision:)
You must have some real sites somewhere, this can't be all there is for legal torrent use...........

P.S. I wasn't far off on the "did they even have tv then?" comment – I was curious, so I checked wikipedia – "Commercially available since the late 1930s, the television set has become a common communications receiver in homes..."
So, I guess, downloading that movie is like downloading "Pong for Vista" – ==== an original – I know I may appear a bit negative, I'm not meaning to have a crack at anyone, just a bit depressing trying to make this transition – Myer ----Lifeline

Some challenging questions, but I'll try my best....

peakay writes...

Tell me MR – Honestly, do you really download 50GB+ a month of this stuff to watch???

No, and I never at any time said I did.

I also don't download 50GB+ a month, and I have only ever downloaded a couple of items from any of those specific sites.

if it was the only thing on TV I'd rather turn it off and go and mow the lawn( and I have 2 acres, so it's not a minor decision:)

Well bully for you. You may have 2 acres of lawn to mow, but I have 100 acres of rural property to develop, so I don't have the time or the inclination to sit on my arse all day watching movies or TV series on the box. And they don't call me MR for nothing... if I'm not working on the property, I'm probably out riding somewhere.

You must have some real sites somewhere, this can't be all there is for legal torrent use...........

Since when did I become the official procurer of legal download sites??? And did I say those few examples were all there were??? Why don't you get off your arse and have a look for yourself.

FYI, I did you a favour when you asked if there were any legal downloading sites, and provided a few links for you...

peakay writes...

can anyone tell me where the guaranteed Legal torrents come from?

when I move to my next provider, would prefer to stick to legal torrents if this is possible.

/forum-replies.cfm?t=755648&p=5#r93

At no time did I make any guarantee that the media that was available from those sites would be 1) to your taste, 2) in colour, 3) made in any particular year, 4) be of a particular quality.

Nor did I say that they were the only sites where legal downloads were available.

The only criteria that you asked for and which I provided, was that the sites be legal, and that they have legal media available for download.

If you're only interested in recent popular stuff... the kind of stuff that is copyright... go and pay for it like most people do.

And if you don't want to do that, try Babelfish, Joost, or TVU.

I'm sure between the 3 of them you could easily find enough legal things (in colour and to your taste) to blow big holes in your 50GB+ each month.

Midnight Rider writes...

Most recent movies or TV shows are protected by copyright, and so are illegal to download.

Copyright emails are not caused by downloading; they occur if you share copyrighted material.

Jaike writes...

Copyright emails are not caused by downloading; they occur if you share copyrighted material.

So let me get this straight... are you proclaiming to all of the users here on Whirlpool, that it's perfectly legal to download copyright protected media, provided that you don't share it???

I'd be very interested to see any evidence which you can provide to support this statement. Any evidence whatsoever.

I say you're full of it, and cannot produce any evidence or proof to back up your statement.

I know you referred to "Copyright emails", but what we're really talking about here is the legality or otherwise of downloading copyright media, whether you share it or not.

So it doesn't matter if you get it using torrents (and in the process share it), or whether you download it from newsgroups without sharing, just like it doesn't matter if you rip it straight off a DVD and make a copy for your neighbour, or if you simply steal the CDs or DVDs from the local "sanity" store.

There's no differance at all.

The fact is that if you obtain copyright material without paying the price which the copyright owner (or it's agent) has requested for it, you are breaking the law, whether you share it or not.

If you do so using Exetel's network, you are acting in contravention of the agreement which you signed with Exetel, and they have the right to remove you as a user of their network.

Maybe what you're really trying to say is yes, it is illegel, but a user will only get caught if their IP address is one of the few that is caught in the net when the record or movie company reps go fishing for illegal downloaders.

Maybe what you're really trying to say is if a user uses newsgroups, they're much less likely to get caught stealing copyright material, which they really shouldn't be illegally downloading.

Maybe what you're really trying to say is "go for it, 'cos there's so many people doing it, that an individual user would be dead unlucky to get caught.. especially if they use newsgroups instead of torrents".

Is that what you're trying to say???

Midnight Rider writes...

So let me get this straight... are you proclaiming to all of the users here on Whirlpool, that it's perfectly legal to download copyright protected media, provided that you don't share it???

This thread is about receiving copyright emails.

And again, they are generated when a user SHARES material.

No copyright email talks about you downloading anything. They ar