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

[skace]

*** Sorry if this was addressed, I replied as soon as I read it =/

DexVx, checking overall bandwith consumption is retarded. First off: I pay 80 dollars a month for my bandwith, if someone is going to monitor it and say "OH NO YOU CAN ONLY USE AS MUCH AS THE GUY WHO PAYS 30 A MONTH" then why the hell am I paying out the nose? If you have a group of friends online, there is a lot you can transfer between them that could use up bandwith:

1. Live video feeds / Webcams
2. Roger Wilco
3. Video Game servers
4. Homemade mp3s / music / videos (my friend actually makes his own movies of skateboarding / etc and encodes them into avi files)
5. Video game maps / addons / skins (Counterstrike = 100+ MB, most apps < 100 MB, the average CS model is greater than 1 MB)
6. Homemade artwork / demos (Average video game demo = 1mb - 30mb. Average picture depending on quality = 100kb - 2mb)
7. Fansubbed Anime / unlicensed movies from other countries (legal until licensed in your country)
8. Video clips (Sites that host common video clips like Star Wars / LOTR previews hit max bandwith FAST)
9. Websites

Need I go on? I'm sure I can find more, none are illegal. Infact most people with a halfway decent website quickly hit maxbandwith and are forced to either sell a product (t-shirt?), ask for membership, or shutdown.

So no, bandwith monitoring alone, is just a nuisance and a quick way to lose customers. I don't know the way to stop piracy, but I don't think any type of monitoring / web enforcement will be the true solution. I think the solution will have to come at the distribution of applications / cost efficiency.

In regards to the actual topic: bmacd, glad you got let off...

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

You know, this comes up every time.

Every program on all my computers is legal. I have no MP3s that were not distributed by the author or label freely.

So, I more than meet my own ethcal standards. Moreover, my standards do not change based on the wealth of a person, size of a company, or how offensive someone is to me.

Amused one, ever recorded a TV show onto VHS? Ever copied a VHS tape for a friend? Ever let a friend borrow a game you own so that he could copy it? Ever made copies of a program that was on floppy disks? Ever used a shareware program past its experation date (30 day trials usually)? Ever copied a radio song onto a casette tape? Ever copied a casette tape for a friend? Ever made a 'mix casette' and let a friend borrow / record it?

If you have done none of these, then I will truly be impressed.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: bmacd

yes...i'm absolutely this was a legit Timewarner phone call. Why is this so hard to believe?

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.[/quote]

1. More than likely by a consulting company hired by the BSA or RIAA or MPAA to monitor the P2P networks.
2. The consulting company would keep a tally and remonitor any flagged connections.
3. The intent of the consulting company contacting RR and having them contact you is to get the material removed from the connection. Lawsuits cost money, it's easier to scare people into taking the stuff down. Most people comply the ones that don't are made examples.
4. As noted above the intent is to scare people into complying because lawsuits cost money. It's much easier to scare people.
5. Because TW/RR was fullfiling their obligation under the DMCA to avoid being sued. The requirements of this aversion of suit require them to make due dilligence to remove any copyrighted material from their network after being notified.

It's pretty simple, the company hired to scan P2P networks for copyrighted files calls TW and tells them the IPs of those people sharing copyrighted materials and reminds the ISP's that to avoid civil liability themselves they are obligated to make due dilligence to remove the material from their network. Had the party in question refused to remove the material, two courses of action could have been taken. TW/RR could have terminated the account of the person violating copyrights or the consulting company would have been notified and TW would have been resolved of responsiblity by providing contact information for the party in control of the IP in question. Privacy laws would not allow the disclosure of the acccount information without this requirement being fullfilled or a warrant issued by a Judge.

Your assertians on this matter fail to take into account the laws regarding the transfer of private account information and the ISP exemtions of the DMCA. You really should study this more before you blast him for it being bogus. His scenerio is in fact entirely plausible under our current legal system and your challenge of it based on those grounds it entirely dismissed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Amused one, ever recorded a TV show onto VHS? Ever copied a VHS tape for a friend? Ever let a friend borrow a game you own so that he could copy it? Ever made copies of a program that was on floppy disks? Ever used a shareware program past its experation date (30 day trials usually)? Ever copied a radio song onto a casette tape? Ever copied a casette tape for a friend? Ever made a 'mix casette' and let a friend borrow / record it?

If you have done none of these, then I will truly be impressed.

Hell he's never driven over the speed limit!

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: rahvin[/bYour assertians on this matter fail to take into account the laws regarding the transfer of private account information and the ISP exemtions of the DMCA. You really should study this more before you blast him for it being bogus. His scenerio is in fact entirely plausible under our current legal system and your challenge of it based on those grounds it entirely dismissed.

rahvin

Thank you for your informative and detailed, however somewhat misguided reply.

1. I did not fail to take into account laws regarding the transfer of blah blah blah blah... I simply did not need to extend detail in those areas being that it is this instance that is in question, not whether or not it is plausible. Of course it's plausible.

2. Read my posts again. I never once stated that it's not possible, plausible, likely or otherwise. In fact, I even state that it is likely, has and is going on somewhere.

3. Where you are somewhat misguided in admonishing, is that my issue here is that though a similar scenario is plausible - based on the information that bmacd provided and in the manner in which he "detailed" the event - it wouldn't have happened that way. I think you yourself, when reading the points I've expressed, furthered by the detail you've espoused, and with an obvious understanding of how it would actually shake down - would agree that it didn't happen to bmacd the way he describes it.


A). My assertions are entirely accurate - read them again, in context.

B). I haven't simply blasted him for his post, but asked him to detail and explain the assertions that HE'S made (which he hasn't answered any one sufficiently). If he can answer them and dispell even the cursory points I've brought up - then whamo, it's another ball of wax.

C). I don't need to study this more, as my disagreement isn't in the details of the legal action itself. My disagreement is in what bmacd said and how he said it happened. I can't believe that with as much detail as you seem to be in command of, you'd actually think that this entirely plausible scenario actually happened to bmacd.

Perhaps it's just that you don't quite understand my challenge... now that's worth dismissing.

-Sketcher

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: Sketcher


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.

1. I dunno...nor did i care to find out at the time. He said a third party company investigates these matters and they reported them to my TW server admin. I was a little more worried about a lawsuit against my parents for something stupid i did online.
2. They had my IP...for all they knew, i had a static IP and were going to run a quick scan 24 hours after. Besides, all they would of had to do was already knowing the server where the IP originated from, just run a port/IP scan for any IPs with port 1214 open.
3. I've talked to Steve many times regarding tech support for my troubled RR cable connection. I didn't tell him that i was the man in the house, i simply asked to take a message. After he said something about my RR account and kazaa, i acknowledged responsibility, i told him i'd take care of the problem.
4. I think rahvin's answer about the scaring the customer off instead of pursuing a lawsuit seems to fit here. I'm not a lawyer, nor do i pretend to be. But, i am a Timewarner customer and i think they'd rather keep a customer paying $85 a month and fixing a small problem that they probably deal with on a daily basis than lose our account.
5. See answer #3.

Look Sketcher, i may not be a on the debate team or pretend to be Mr. Politician knowing all laws regarding my privacy/internet usage, but i know i'm not a liar...no reason to be. I don't see why you're trying to prove me wrong here or make me look like a fool, but this is getting out of hand. It happened...and i posted near immediately after it happened. Get over it...sh|t happens to the best of us, and you need to relax a little and take a break.

-=bmacd=-

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: rahvinYour assertians on this matter fail to take into account the laws regarding the transfer of private account information and the ISP exemtions of the DMCA. You really should study this more before you blast him for it being bogus. His scenerio is in fact entirely plausible under our current legal system and your challenge of it based on those grounds it entirely dismissed.

rahvin

Thank you for your informative and detailed, however somewhat misguided reply.

1. I did not fail to take into account laws regarding the transfer of blah blah blah blah... I simply did not need to extend detail in those areas being that it is this instance that is in question, not whether or not it is plausible. Of course it's plausible.

2. Read my posts again. I never once stated that it's not possible, plausible, likely or otherwise. In fact, I even state that it is likely, has and is going on somewhere.

3. Where you are somewhat misguided in admonishing, is that my issue here is that though a similar scenario is plausible - based on the information that bmacd provided and in the manner in which he "detailed" the event - it wouldn't have happened that way. I think you yourself, when reading the points I've expressed, furthered by the detail you've espoused, and with an obvious understanding of how it would actually shake down - would agree that it didn't happen to bmacd the way he describes it.


A). My assertions are entirely accurate - read them again, in context.

B). I haven't simply blasted him for his post, but asked him to detail and explain the assertions that HE'S made (which he hasn't answered any one sufficiently). If he can answer them and dispell even the cursory points I've brought up - then whamo, it's another ball of wax.

C). I don't need to study this more, as my disagreement isn't in the details of the legal action itself. My disagreement is in what bmacd said and how he said it happened. I can't believe that with as much detail as you seem to be in command of, you'd actually think that this entirely plausible scenario actually happened to bmacd.

Perhaps it's just that you don't quite understand my challenge... now that's worth dismissing.

-Sketcher

On the contrary I think you are entirely full of it. I do in fact believe it would have happened exactly the way it was detailed because this would have been an administrator issue. I firmly believe that most ISP's in an attempt to be customer friendly and avoid termination of every account using Kazza that they would in fact contact them and tell them to knock it off. This is substantiated by the fact that TW R/R probably realizes that 90% of the abuse is done by teenagers without their parents knowledge or consent and rather than terminate good customers its easier to scare them into disabling the files. This is further substantiated by the state of our economy and the undoubtable desire of TW to NOT have bad revenue numbers in a quarter that could result from the termination of 5% of their subscribers.

It would in fact be rather shortsided to believe that TW would approach this from a full legal bearing as you assert. This would not only cost them money it would cost them customers. As I have already stated the goal is to scare everyone to stop doing it then go after the trouble makers as examples and publisize it. As you assert to involve a full legal process to contact people to scare them would in fact cost TW a LOT of money.

Based on the assertion of bmacd it's not unreasonable to assume that the local TW manager would contact the local users rather than handling it from a much more expensive and time consuming corporate center.

As I said, I read your posts and I think you continued attacks on the events are uncalled for, unsubstaniated and completely unfounded. There is no reasonable reason to doubt the events unfurled exactly as bmacd said and unless you can provide direct and substainial evidence that he is in fact lieing I think you should withdraw your assertions that he is and appoligize.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Sketcher must have an assload of underage donkey porn... its the only explanation I can think of for his obscenely complicated security arrangment.

 

[Cheval]

It's real nice that these companies that blow their stacks over piracy really practice what they preach

While Microsoft cracks down on software pirates the world over, the software giant itself was quietly convicted of piracy charges in France last fall--and the case, while supposedly under appeal, may cost the company some business.

The French division of Microsoft is facing a fine of about $422,000 for illegal use of another company's source code in an animation program called Softimage 3D. The program has been used to create such films as The Matrix, Men in Black, and Star Wars. But the dispute itself was cited by a governmental buyer who contends Microsoft should not complain about pirates when it is guilty of the same transgression. Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.

Did Microsoft Flirt With Piracy?

I'm not saying yay or nay over any of this (been involved in enough of these discussions), I'm just throwing this article out since I've followed Softimage since the early '90s.

Carry on.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: -=bmacd=-
1. I dunno...nor did i care to find out at the time. He said a third party company investigates these matters and they reported them to my TW server admin. I was a little more worried about a lawsuit against my parents for something stupid i did online.
2. They had my IP...for all they knew, i had a static IP and were going to run a quick scan 24 hours after. Besides, all they would of had to do was already knowing the server where the IP originated from, just run a port/IP scan for any IPs with port 1214 open.
3. I've talked to Steve many times regarding tech support for my troubled RR cable connection. I didn't tell him that i was the man in the house, i simply asked to take a message. After he said something about my RR account and kazaa, i acknowledged responsibility, i told him i'd take care of the problem.
4. I think rahvin's answer about the scaring the customer off instead of pursuing a lawsuit seems to fit here. I'm not a lawyer, nor do i pretend to be. But, i am a Timewarner customer and i think they'd rather keep a customer paying $85 a month and fixing a small problem that they probably deal with on a daily basis than lose our account.
5. See answer #3.

Look Sketcher, i may not be a on the debate team or pretend to be Mr. Politician knowing all laws regarding my privacy/internet usage, but i know i'm not a liar...no reason to be. I don't see why you're trying to prove me wrong here or make me look like a fool, but this is getting out of hand. It happened...and i posted near immediately after it happened. Get over it...sh|t happens to the best of us, and you need to relax a little and take a break.

-=bmacd=-

Thanks -=bmacd=-,

Now see, your thoughtful and relevant answer seems to quiet the screams of paranoia here.

1. I made accusatory remarks to get your attention (because at first blush, there are simply so many questionable aspects).

2. I asked you questions to validate the experience which you had described in what could be considered sensational terms.

3. Initially, you didn't answer, instead displayed indignation by exclaiming WTF and Fvck. (which I could see as a reasonable response ).

4. rahvin steps in and uses bigger words than I did, and is much more paranoid about big brother than most - so I re-direct.

5. I try to explain that rahvin is stroking the wrong cat, that I wasn't questioning plausibility but probability (obviously didn't work).

6. -=bmacd=- addresses each of the questions I've raised (and I think satisfactorily). (W/out using WTF & Fvck, this is respectable).

7. rahvin flashes his barstool lawyer card & impresses me w/statements like "is substantiated by the fact that TW R/R probably realizes ".

8. Referring to #7, if it's FACT - why would there be a PROBABILITY of realization - Never mind, too many issues in all that spooge. I can see how many, even yourself might believe the assumed detail and command of knowledge you are dealing is iron clad. It's not. I mean, you consistently, incorrectly use absolute terms to describe vague concepts. Using bigger words inaccurately doesn't make it any more believable. It makes it laughable.

(referring to rahvin)You are certainly passionate about what you espouse. I even think you are "right on" about quite a few of the points you express. But get over this pseudo lawyer insistence of playing Judge Judy - I mean, even her script writers don't make the mistake of mixing non-factual percentage % statistics with broad sweeping supposition buoyed by the excessive use of .25 cent words in inaccurate form. And because I brand you with inaccurate usage of terms beyond your comprehension, I'll quit using them myself - I wouldn't want to be called the pot calling the kettle black now would I!?

(Note the disarming and coy smiley's - they're meant to impart a feeling of good will and light humor.)

9. rahvin I would say you are really only slightly misguided in direction. Kind of like using a shotgun to snipe a long range target. You're aiming in the right direction, but you're using the wrong weapon. In this regard, your signature is prophetic. Alright, I'll leave you alone now.

-=bmacd=- I will apologize to you not for my accusations, but for how I accused you. I didn't give you much of a chance right off. I used a few of those bold inaccurate judgments that I accused rahvin of using. For that I absolutely, sincerely apologize. Reading rahvin's posting, I see how it is just plain not nice to do that. Sorry.

As for the accusations, well... you've addressed them as requested. Thanks for doing that. It makes it more believable, not that you truly have to prove yourself - but it does stop all the rabblerousing now doesn't it!?

So, -=bmacd=-, pleased to meet you. Nearly getting nabbed by the internet police can be a rude wake up call eh!? Reminds me of the time when Shirley from Mediacom called me about running my Counter-Strike game server 24/7!! (No b/s, well, alright - her name wasn't Shirley, but it really happened). rahvin, I'll PM you if I need someone to run interference...

Originally posted by: MushroomStamper
Sketcher must have an assload of underage donkey porn... its the only explanation I can think of for his obscenely complicated security arrangment.

There's AGE legislation on Donkey's!? I didn't know that (and why are you PM'ing me asking me to share? )

 

[Jzero]

You guys who are arguing about the validity of this, I posted a link to a company that does this within the first 40 posts of this thread.

 

[Sketcher]

Thanks Jzero,

I checked out the link earlier - though, we're not arguing about the validity of the action. It was a somewhat heated debate on whether or not it actually happened to -=bmacd=-.

-Sketcher

 

[LANMAN]

Originally posted by: Citrix
argh, everytime i hear the BSA commercial on the radio it just pisses me off to no end. They act like they are a government agency with the power to do anything they can to sniff out illegal software. They give the impression that they will come and bust down your door to investigate copy right infringements. They have a saying in their ad, "you could find yourself the subject of a BSA investigation" ooooooo try to get past the front door buddy.

Won't hold any water with me either. Make me wonder if the BSA really stands for "Bull S**t Accusation" :Q

--LANMAN

 

[chickendinner]

In the US, there is a "internet privacy act" signed by clinton that makes it illegal for anyone of those companies to browse through your files.

 

[tm37]

Amused one, ever recorded a TV show onto VHS? Ever copied a VHS tape for a friend? Ever let a friend borrow a game you own so that he could copy it? Ever made copies of a program that was on floppy disks? Ever used a shareware program past its experation date (30 day trials usually)? Ever copied a radio song onto a casette tape? Ever copied a casette tape for a friend? Ever made a 'mix casette' and let a friend borrow / record it?

Wow you really have NO CLUE about FAIR USE LAWS. There is accually a law that allows you to copy music for your freinds and family (napster tried using this in it's defence). How ever the courts have ruled that MASSIVE FILESHARING is distribution and doesn't fall under FAIR USE laws for media.

Software is another matter however and while I have in the past copied games I don't anymore and all my software is LEGAL. And it is perfectly LEGAL to copy floppies for back-up archive purposes but you are unwilling to see the difference between Burning a CD for a friend or giving millions of users ACCESS to download it off your computer.

 

[dealseaker]

i know i am a newbie here and all but i got a letter in the mail and i use kazaa too, my letter said something about movies and stuff, i got them out of my shair folder and have not heard from them again, oh well, someone will figure something out, lol

 

[bmacd]

Sketcher: Apology accepted. Nice to meet you

-=bmacd=-

 

[Cuda1447]

I don't think its that big of a deal since kazaa is spyware/virusware anyway. Don't use it, I doubt they are tracing those countless # of smaller programs (I.E. Direct Connect) So just go use one of those. Waaay better! Kazaa is evil!

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I don't think its that big of a deal since kazaa is spyware/virusware anyway. Don't use it, I doubt they are tracing those countless # of smaller programs (I.E. Direct Connect) So just go use one of those. Waaay better! Kazaa is evil!

It depends what you're looking for. Kazaa (or fasttrack network) is probably the largest p2p network (users/shared files). The larger the p2p network is (users/files), the larger the potential abuses are, however it is also the easier/more cost-effective for copyright 'enforcer' to scan for their materials and file complaints.

If your network is small, they wouldn't bother about it.

 

[ebaycj]

I love it how people act like they're the greatest, most noble human being on the earth because they follow laws.

It just really bugs me when people classify something as ethical or unethical based on its legality under their country's law (which is made not by the people, but by the diplomats and corporations, at least in the USA).


really extreme example (skip this if you're squeamish):
sex with children is (in most people's opinion) unethical, under any circumstances. Though it is illegal in many countries, there are some regions where it does not fall under legislation. if someone goes to one of these countries, and proceeds to have sex with a child, is it any more (or less) ethical than if they would have done it in a country where it is illegal? no.


Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it unethical.
Likewise, just because something is legal, doesn't make it ethical.


just ranting about so-called "good citizens" i guess-

ebaycj

 

[DWM]

Find another CLEAN P2P not Kazaa or musicity.their out there .

 

[MrPhelps]

I would wonder how true this could be or is it urban legend? Do they cache??? They say they only do one day.

Seems like it would be difficult to trace. Maybe I am just stupid.

How about some expert opinions!!!

 

[Minkee]

It is illegal to run a webserver of any sort on RR. I know this because I have tried to run a webserver on there. I have also been in trouble a few times for sucking bandwith more malicious reasons and was reported to RR a couple years ago.

Just don't share your programs on kazaa. It is really just that easy. I don't let people download pirated software off of me in kazaa. The only reason I have ever pirated software was because of the simple reason that I can't afford it. I can't afford video editing software, sound editing software, or graphic editing software. I am just a student and if they dropped the price of these programs below 80 dollars I would most likely buy them then. Honestly, who wants to pay 500 dollars for photoshop?

 

[Dreadogg]

Usenet regulars batten down the hatches. We have another crop of newbies incoming.

LOL

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Hubris

That reminds me of an incident at Cornell...I was downloading about 15 300MB files (movies) and uploading 15 300MB files, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! :Q

So, after a few weeks of this, I get a call from Resnet saying that I'm using up a majority of the college's outgoing bandwidth, and that people were unable to access the internet because of me! :Q

I stopped uploading (but not downloading ) and never heard from them again. To this day I don't know if it was legit or not, but it sure suprised me!

They've instituted a new policy this past Spring; you can transfer (both up AND down) 27 gigs every three days. Any more than that and they put you on a throttled connection for three days. They do that three times, then write you up and shut off your connection. I got throttled once.

27 GIGS?? Jesus christ man be happy with that.. I have 6GB a MONTH dl and 1GB a MONTH ul with my cable