• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Oh SH|T!!!!! BUSTED BY Timewarner Cable!!!!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Check out this thread

Timewarner Cable/ Road Runner is blocking file sharing.

1) You are basically breaking your ISP's EULA by using your computer and their network as a server.

2) since kazaa are easily accessable and monitored, RIAA and MPAA have hired several 3rd party research companies to monitor IP's transferring questionalble copyright material and in turn these companies call up your ISP's and your ISP then calls you up and this is probably what happened but RR is more than happy to block kazaa or other file sharing programs.

>consider yourself lucky it was a call from TW, not the FBI knocking on your door at 6:00AM with a warrant

the reason the FBI is not doing this is because they wont even blink at anything under $5K and that's why these 3rd party hounds are harrasing you.
 
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
The phone call (and most of the time a letter) is called a takedown. There is a program there running which scans P2P networks looking for names of copyrighted apps and then gets the IP address of the person serving the apps up. It basically is to get you to take the apps down.

I think it's mostly a RIAA, MPAA thing but I bet Time Warner (they make films don't they) is involved with it.

The truth is the that software like Photoshop shouldn't cost $500 plus, ordinary people can't afford it. I don't why they don't have some kind of software club you could join to get software at cheaper prices for regular people.

PS: Dog waffle is pretty good freeware equal to photoshop.
Click to expand...

Where does one acquire Dog Waffle?
 
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
You sure it wasn't just one of your buddies messing with you? That would be one hell of a prank!
Click to expand...

hahaha that reminds me of a story. my freshman year in college ( 3 years ago ) when napster was big and our school talked about how sharing mp3's was bad. well we decided to play a joke on one of my buds that lived in our hall, we pretended we were resnet (our network service on campus) and said that we had tracked him down and found he was sharing mp3s and we would be over to check his computer shortly.

well he flipped, formatted his HD 7-8 times, hid all of his warez apps and deleted every mp3 he owned in a matter of a few hours. we didnt' even have time to tell him it was a joke before he did it. haha, the funny thing was that he wasn't pissed, he was just thankful that it was not the real thing.
Click to expand...

That was stupid of him.. why couldn't he just hide his old drive and swap in a clean drive?
 
Originally posted by: ObiDon
me "Oh Sh|t!"
Click to expand...
Did you really say that? 🙂

I'm surprised that all he told you to do was unshare your stuff. I thought all the cable ISPs were anti-server?
Click to expand...

they are anti-server, but i actually asked my local Timewarner branch if p2p programs were allowed. They said as long as i wasn't abusing the bandwidth, it wouldn't be considered a server, but they could change that at any time.

-=bmacd=-
 
1. BS: You've made it up.

or

2. BS: Someone is BS'ing you.
They're gonna check back in 24 hours, and if it's not gone, consider yourself busted"
Click to expand...
And "they" are going to check back how? W/out actually physically checking your computer - no one can verify whether you've complied with "killing" the listed programs.

W/out a search warrant - NO ONE has the legal right to search or seize your computer. If this 3rd Party Company is "researching" and adding people to their Lawsuit, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THEY GIVE PEOPLE A VERBAL WARNING AND A CHANCE TO CLEAN UP!? The nature of sourcing 3rd Party interest to arbitrate or fact find is to receive non-biased reporting and influence in an otherwise one sided matter. WARNING users to clean up their file sharing programs does not constitute unbiased 3rd party involvement and does not act in the best interest of the securing party.

Not to say somewhere this type of enforcement isn't taking place - or is in the works. Just that this particularly described scenario would not have come to light in the manner it did and be expressed by someone "Steve" (in claims/night tech/Dude, you're getting a Dell) the way you claim he did it.

HOWEVER,

If you read TW's (and most other Cable ISP's) acceptable usage policy, you'll see that Server's of any kind are not supported or allowed and that the ISP reserves the right to discontinue service if it is determined that bandwidth usage is being abused.

It's easy to track Kazaa w/out implementing special software. It's easy to pinpoint Game servers w/out requiring packet sniffing software. It's easy to detect mail servers in environments that aren't logistically supported for that kind of traffic.

Time Warner doesn't need 3rd Party interest to Cap or Cut service - it's in their service agreement that they can regulate their bandwidth. "Steve" can most certainly call you up and tell you that you're making unauthorized use of bandwidth, using Kazaa inappropriately in regard to TW's service agreement and he can most likely interrupt your service - but he can most certainly not offer you amnesty simply by telling you to "kill" the software from your shared folder and you won't get busted.

Soon enough we'll be seeing crack downs of software pirating through file sharing in one form or another. In one manner or another, it is already taking place. But not the way it is described in this thread, and not by Steve.

 
WTF Sketcher...are you calling me a liar? I have nobody to impress here, so back the fvck off of the BS story. Steve knew the exact files that i was sharing and that i was using kazaa. Sure, it's easy to run a check and see that port 1214 is being overly used by a p2p proggie (like kazaa or old morpheus) and a packet sniffer with some time could reveal the names of data being transferred through my bandwidth, but who'd go through all that trouble for nothing? Steve didn't tell me to disable file sharing or stop using kazaa...he told me to stop sharing the three files that were brought to his attention.

-=bmacd=-
 
🙂

I think you've got yer underwear pulled up a bit too tight there sonny.

So, my point isn't that TW "Steve" didn't call you about some kind of issue. My point is that (wait, let me read back over what I wrote...) Yes, my point is that a 3rd Party company wouldn't empower TW in that way, w/out formal complaint tracking, w/unprofessional dissertation, using "first name only" contact warning and vague absolution if you "comply" w/in 24 hours of insinuated deadline.

TW is w/in full authority to come down on you for unauthorized bandwidth usage (I'm not arguing whether or not you have issues there). My point is the manner in which you say it was expressed to you in the fashion that you described.

It just wouldn't happen that way. A 3rd Party would not benefit from TW warning the very users it is supposed to be gathering information on. It's called a conflict of interest. The only companies that would give a hoot about MS and Adobe products specifically are MS and Adobe. Those two companies would certainly make sure that any 3rd party interest they secured would operate in "at least" a non-biased fashion (w/the intention of using accurate fact finding for legal proceeding).

I use Kazaa, I can very easily connect to you or any other Kazaa user and log their IP. Anyone could be using a "honeypot" to target a user and then browse their shared files to see what else they have. A "honeypot" example: Let's say that I'm George Lucas and want to bust people downloading Clones. I just run a Kazaa client and put a file out there named "Clones". Then I log all IP's that attempt to download it. Then I browse the Kazaa clients of the IP's I've tagged, and have a pretty good idea of who might be worth spending a lot of money on making an example of.

But there are a whole bunch of issues, other factors, coding and such that so much more accurate than that low tech example. It's not surprising that "Steve" could tell you which files you had. I can tell you which files you had. What is surprising is that Steve, working for Time Warner, on behalf of some 3rd party, would so unprofessionaly compromise a legal fact finding case in the manner that you described.

Now, perhaps you were just a bit rattled that TW was upset w/you for unauthorized Bandwidth usage and Big Brother started to seem a little scary. Hey, it makes for a Great Story! There's no argument there. Just doesn't cut the mustard in the legal sandwich department.

1. The files were brought to Steve's attention by who?
2. How were they going to check back in 24 hours, and did they do so?
3. And even if you weren't sharing the files anymore, you could still be in illegal possession if you burned to disk or moved the files. I'm sure "they" would be interested in prosecuting you beyond a simple phone call if that were the case.

But no, I'm not calling you a liar. 😉

**EDIT**

By the way, you mentioned that the call was for your Mom. That said, the account must be in your Mother's name if she was the point of contact. With that understanding, it is your Mother that is liable for the bandwidth usage and or software on the computer being that she is the registered owner of the TW service (not that you couldn't be implicated and also held responsble, she would just be the starting point). TW can enforce no legal proceeding against other than legal ownership of service. If they did warn YOU and not your Mother, they are acting inappropriately if not illegally in nature.
 
Originally posted by: Sketcher
🙂

I think you've got yer underwear pulled up a bit too tight there sonny.

So, my point isn't that TW "Steve" didn't call you about some kind of issue. My point is that (wait, let me read back over what I wrote...) Yes, my point is that a 3rd Party company wouldn't empower TW in that way, w/out formal complaint tracking, w/unprofessional dissertation, using "first name only" contact warning and vague absolution if you "comply" w/in 24 hours of insinuated deadline.

TW is w/in full authority to come down on you for unauthorized bandwidth usage (I'm not arguing whether or not you have issues there). My point is the manner in which you say it was expressed to you in the fashion that you described.

It just wouldn't happen that way. A 3rd Party would not benefit from TW warning the very users it is supposed to be gathering information on. It's called a conflict of interest. The only companies that would give a hoot about MS and Adobe products specifically are MS and Adobe. Those two companies would certainly make sure that any 3rd party interest they secured would operate in "at least" a non-biased fashion (w/the intention of using accurate fact finding for legal proceeding).

I use Kazaa, I can very easily connect to you or any other Kazaa user and log their IP. Anyone could be using a "honeypot" to target a user and then browse their shared files to see what else they have. A "honeypot" example: Let's say that I'm George Lucas and want to bust people downloading Clones. I just run a Kazaa client and put a file out there named "Clones". Then I log all IP's that attempt to download it. Then I browse the Kazaa clients of the IP's I've tagged, and have a pretty good idea of who might be worth spending a lot of money on making an example of.

But there are a whole bunch of issues, other factors, coding and such that so much more accurate than that low tech example. It's not surprising that "Steve" could tell you which files you had. I can tell you which files you had. What is surprising is that Steve, working for Time Warner, on behalf of some 3rd party, would so unprofessionaly compromise a legal fact finding case in the manner that you described.

Now, perhaps you were just a bit rattled that TW was upset w/you for unauthorized Bandwidth usage and Big Brother started to seem a little scary. Hey, it makes for a Great Story! There's no argument there. Just doesn't cut the mustard in the legal sandwich department.

1. The files were brought to Steve's attention by who?
2. How were they going to check back in 24 hours, and did they do so?
3. And even if you weren't sharing the files anymore, you could still be in illegal possession if you burned to disk or moved the files. I'm sure "they" would be interested in prosecuting you beyond a simple phone call if that were the case.

But no, I'm not calling you a liar. 😉

**EDIT**

By the way, you mentioned that the call was for your Mom. That said, the account must be in your Mother's name if she was the point of contact. With that understanding, it is your Mother that is liable for the bandwidth usage and or software on the computer being that she is the registered owner of the TW service (not that you couldn't be implicated and also held responsble, she would just be the starting point). TW can enforce no legal proceeding against other than legal ownership of service. If they did warn YOU and not your Mother, they are acting inappropriately if not in illegal in nature. Just another reason why I think this all makes for a good story and compelling read, but little more.
Click to expand...

Well it could have happened but that 4rd party law suit they are talking about probably doesn't even exist.

 
Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Well it could have happened but that 4rd party law suit they are talking about probably doesn't even exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that 5th party lawsuit thing just wasn't tucked in very well. Sensational compelling rumor building tinder - what makes it sensational is that it "could" happen. Just not quite that way.

Awe come on BMACD, we're all chums here... well most of us are 🙂

 
Originally posted by: Bkas
That's why you disable file sharing with others.
Click to expand...
You can disable file sharing, but YOUR downloading can still be tracked and though you're not sharing, your content can still be catalogued.

I have 7 computers online in my SOHO, 3 of which are running Kazaa. I've configured one to download only/blocking supernode and disabling file sharing, one to allow file sharing and use NTFS permission only and the other two function as a default unrestricted client. I can catalogue all 3 of the Kazaa clients. It's not that you are disabling available connections from other users - your information is still going out. Perhaps you can't get at the content, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not you're traceable and liable.

Don't get caught up in the Firewall myth either. Few people know how to configure Firewalls properly to effectively blind communication. ZoneAlarm is excellent but not on point configurable. I'm NAT routed behind a Watchguard Firewall and have tested ZoneAlarm on the gateway and desktop as a triple threat lock down. Works great. but I can still catalogue Kazaa clients from the outside. You just have to know what you're doing.

Downloading content only/not sharing is only a particular issue. The primary would first be that you've downloaded illegal content in the first place. Liability for sharing is just the next logical step in the prosecution.

 
Isn't RR an AOL/TW company? Which is a member of the MPAA/RIAA, isn't it? So RR has to be sympathetic to "piracy" issues, and has in fact been port-blocking P2Pers in Texas (but denying it).
Basically though, most ISPs will comply and scare off "abusers" b/c otherwise the ISP is threatened with a lawsuit. So rather than tell the offended company to f/off and smack down the user themselves, they take the spinless way out and become the whore/enforcer for the "offended" (and threatening) company.
 
Originally posted by: Rallispec
eh.. i guess all these years of being a dork and not pirating software are finally paying off.
Click to expand...

I'd buy software, but most of the stuff I want is way outta my price range (so I don't get it, at all, even illegally.) But I believe if prices were more reasonable, there would be a lot less pirating.

 
Originally posted by: db
Isn't RR an AOL/TW company? Which is a member of the MPAA/RIAA, isn't it? So RR has to be sympathetic to "piracy" issues, and has in fact been port-blocking P2Pers in Texas (but denying it).
Basically though, most ISPs will comply and scare off "abusers" b/c otherwise the ISP is threatened with a lawsuit. So rather than tell the offended company to f/off and smack down the user themselves, they take the spinless way out and become the whore/enforcer for the "offended" (and threatening) company.
Click to expand...
Certainly Plausible
 
Originally posted by: absolutiza
you sure this wasnt a friend playing a prank?
Click to expand...

yes...i'm absolutely this was a legit Timewarner phone call. Why is this so hard to believe? I almost wish that A) i never wasted my time posting the truth or B) tape recorded the whole phone convo between Steve and I.

-=bmacd=-
 
Originally posted by: bmacd
Click to expand...
yes...i'm absolutely this was a legit Timewarner phone call. Why is this so hard to believe? [/quote]

1. The files were brought to Steve's attention by who?
2. How were they going to check back in 24 hours, and did they do so?
3. Why did they let YOU off the hook if it's your Mother's registered account? (an assumption because they called your Mom, not you).
4. Why would a 3rd Party company warn you/let you clean up if their purpose is to gather factual data for TW/MS/Adobe?
5. Why did the caller identify himself as "Steve" (first name only)? Any legal implication would require him to fully disclose his name.


A). 3rd Party securities in situations such as this require professional and accurate assertions - non found here.

B). Simply "Killing" a program from shared folders does not release the incumbent from alleged illegal use of software. Copy's anyone?

C). The "mystery" of how "they" knew exactly which files you had is not a big deal - nearly anyone can achieve the same results.

D). TW is concerned about bandwidth, Software Co's are concerned about software - TW wouldn't call you about software. MS would.

E). Read all of my previous posts in this thread - add it all up - just doesn't pan out to be legitimate in this case.


That's why it's all so hard to believe it's true. Just try reasonably answering any of the questions I posed in my threads. You can argue one or two of them, but you'll not be able to rebuff them all - unless it really happened.

And it's not all an issue of whether or not this SORT of thing can/will/is happening somewhere, the issue is that it didn't happen to you. Mabye some issue of Bandwidth and mabye a reference to Kazaa by tech support, but I'm certain no legitimate 3rd Party influenced TW's call to your Mother, nor did "Steve" have the authority to clear you of such implication simply by warning you.

**Why is this such a big deal and why can't you just let this thread die!? Because you, by starting threads like this are spreading paranoia and distrust in an already precarious environment. We don't need more Big Brother antics - there are enough legit concerns as it is. Besides, I'd like to know when it really does legitimately happen to someone and not be bothered with all this superfluous "crying Wolf" blah blah blah.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top