Why GNU/Linux Rocks

[devilock76]

Yah APPLE TV is also similarly priced and does pretty much the same thing too. I guess the difference is that the R Pi is also a full blown computer, and this is just one of many features you get. Kind of like how I could buy an Xbox for gaming at only $199 and it comes pre-configured for just that purpose, but it doesn't really compare to buying a whole computer which can do gaming amongst other things.

I got my R Pi for $35 shipped (they keep changing the price but had to honor the original prices), and already have a bunch of SP cards but the whole thing is just a toy anyways, I already have a roku and an xbox lol.

Apple TV last I checked was $99 actually. And I don't think it can use DLNA, I think it ties to your iTunes account which if that is all you use it is almost a step up from DLNA, and then you don't have to drive your Porsche to Blockbuster...

Ken

[devilock76]

This is an interesting article, looks like ISP's are finally going to play nice with copywrite holders and start cracking down on "pirates".

ISPs To Begin Punishing BitTorrent Pirates This Summer



As a follow up question, is there any way to make an FTP client log in via SSH and encrypt all download traffic during the session, so if for example you were downloading something from a server, the ISP couldn't see what it was? Hypothetically. Or is this how FTP works anyways?

Well first of all there is the SFTP protocol, Secure FTP. However they are talking about file sharing, and going after users posting stuff (I am assuming). Not sure what they are going to do about torrent downloads unless they are monitoring your network traffic.

If it comes to that I will download the torrent remotely with a server and then encrypt it coming to the house via SFTP. Since I have TWC.

Ken

[sgreger1]

If it comes to that I will download the torrent remotely with a server and then encrypt it coming to the house via SFTP. Since I have TWC.

This is the one I was referring to here ^^^. If someone were already downloading them remotely on a server in a foreign country with a foreign ISP, you could just easily SFTP if from that server to your local machine and there would be no way for them to say anything right? The way the new enforcement thing works is that copywrite holders tell the ISP "Hey this person is stealing our shit" and then the ISP send out a bunch of warning letters and maybe eventually shuts off your internet after 3 strikes. So they can't really track you downloading something off a server if you were to do that, only if you were actually downloading via utorrent or something from what I understand.

And they aren't going after only uploaders but also those downloading via bitorrent etc. Apparently they have companies that get on trackers and join the swarm and somehow get enough info to identify your IP address if you download.

[shikitohno]

This is an interesting article, looks like ISP's are finally going to play nice with copywrite holders and start cracking down on "pirates".

ISPs To Begin Punishing BitTorrent Pirates This Summer



As a follow up question, is there any way to make an FTP client log in via SSH and encrypt all download traffic during the session, so if for example you were downloading something from a server, the ISP couldn't see what it was? Hypothetically. Or is this how FTP works anyways?

For ways to transfer things that are more secure than standard FTP, there's SFTP, FTPS, and SCP. SFTP is probably going to be easy for you to set up, though if you've got ssh installed on the hypothetical remote server, scp will already be installed.

[sgreger1]

For ways to transfer things that are more secure than standard FTP, there's SFTP, FTPS, and SCP. SFTP is probably going to be easy for you to set up, though if you've got ssh installed on the hypothetical remote server, scp will already be installed.

So lets say the hypothertical remote server did have SSH installed, would an FTP client by default do thigns securely? I am not familiar with SCP so not sure if that is significantly different than the FTP process.

[devilock76]

This is the one I was referring to here ^^^. If someone were already downloading them remotely on a server in a foreign country with a foreign ISP, you could just easily SFTP if from that server to your local machine and there would be no way for them to say anything right? The way the new enforcement thing works is that copywrite holders tell the ISP "Hey this person is stealing our shit" and then the ISP send out a bunch of warning letters and maybe eventually shuts off your internet after 3 strikes. So they can't really track you downloading something off a server if you were to do that, only if you were actually downloading via utorrent or something from what I understand.

And they aren't going after only uploaders but also those downloading via bitorrent etc. Apparently they have companies that get on trackers and join the swarm and somehow get enough info to identify your IP address if you download.

Yes but a bit torrent is a passive connection typically. You open it, download, done. So in order to track it they have to be monitoring your inbound traffic.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Yes but a bit torrent is a passive connection typically. You open it, download, done. So in order to track it they have to be monitoring your inbound traffic.

Ken

My understanding is that the ISP plays no part in detecting anything, they just blindly and without proof send you warnings if they receive a letter from a copywrite holder that claims you downloaded something that belonged to them. They don't have to monitor or prove anything, the copywrite holder pays companies to identify who is downloading and then they tell the ISP, and the ISP mails you some letters. Am I getting it wrong?

[devilock76]

My understanding is that the ISP plays no part in detecting anything, they just blindly and without proof send you warnings if they receive a letter from a copywrite holder that claims you downloaded something that belonged to them. They don't have to monitor or prove anything, the copywrite holder pays companies to identify who is downloading and then they tell the ISP, and the ISP mails you some letters. Am I getting it wrong?

No you got it right, I just went back, I read it wrong. So the limited bit I do here and there is within reason I guess... well under their radar. Based on what they are saying the copyright owners will only be able to catch the people sharing the file, not those downloading.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Based on what they are saying the copyright owners will only be able to catch the people sharing the file, not those downloading.

I guess i'm not getting the distinction, if you are using a torrent client like Utorrent, it seeds it while it is uploading it so I don't see how you can download without sharing? And it sounds like they aren't going after high volume sharers or anything, just that they can detect if you torrented something off of the public trackers by joining the swarm and mornitoring it, so even someone who downloads 1 movie that they are monitoring would get swept up by this? Maybe I am overestimating their abilities here.

[devilock76]

I guess i'm not getting the distinction, if you are using a torrent client like Utorrent, it seeds it while it is uploading it so I don't see how you can download without sharing? And it sounds like they aren't going after high volume sharers or anything, just that they can detect if you torrented something off of the public trackers by joining the swarm and mornitoring it, so even someone who downloads 1 movie that they are monitoring would get swept up by this? Maybe I am overestimating their abilities here.

Possibly, but I don't see how they are going to manage to get access to that from foreign hosted sites.

Simple fact is I refuse to pay $3 the price to rent online in a format that limits the players I can use it on when I can go to redbox, rent the movie for the day when I am already going to the grocery store.

If online movie rentals were $1 then sure, why not. But that is not the model. Heck at this point with data buying a movie to own online should not cost as much as it does. $15 for a data file where I can buy the DVD for about the same, sometimes less.

I call BS on that, they have failed to meet my customer demand, so be it. They will learn the same lesson the music industry did.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Possibly, but I don't see how they are going to manage to get access to that from foreign hosted sites.

Simple fact is I refuse to pay $3 the price to rent online in a format that limits the players I can use it on when I can go to redbox, rent the movie for the day when I am already going to the grocery store.

If online movie rentals were $1 then sure, why not. But that is not the model. Heck at this point with data buying a movie to own online should not cost as much as it does. $15 for a data file where I can buy the DVD for about the same, sometimes less.

I call BS on that, they have failed to meet my customer demand, so be it. They will learn the same lesson the music industry did.

Ken

Oh I agree completely. Same thing with ebooks, they are like $14 now lol. Online rentals should be $2 at most imo. The fact is that whether they like it or not, they now have to compete with openly available torrents people can get for free. If they want to recover any money, they need to lower the price to compete. I would spend $2 if I could just quickly stream a movie to my xbox when my wife wants to see it instead of downloading it from somewhere and then loading it onto an Sd card to get it onto the Tv somehow (if I were to be the type who pirated).

[lxskllr]

Possibly, but I don't see how they are going to manage to get access to that from foreign hosted sites.

They way they've always done it is by joining a swarm, noting the ip addresses, then firing off letters to the ISPs, who in turn send a nastygram to you. There's a lot of technical problems using that technique, but since when do facts and science make a difference in our legal system?

[sgreger1]

They way they've always done it is by joining a swarm, noting the ip addresses, then firing off letters to the ISPs, who in turn send a nastygram to you. There's a lot of technical problems using that technique, but since when do facts and science make a difference in our legal system?

Yah this is it exactly. Now on the other hand, they can't really enforce this in any meaningfull way without spending a lot of money in court. I think they are just hoping to scare people via the letter. I'd love to see them take me to court and say "IP address xxx.xx.x.x stole our stuff!". I would just say that I leave my wifi on without password protection and that they can't prove it was me who did it, only that someone at the IP address may have done it. They would have to somehow manage to tie that IP address to me, sgreger1, which I think would be difficult. I am not sure though, but it seems costly to do that to millions of people. I think this is mainly posturing and scare tactics.

[shikitohno]

They don't necessarily have to tie the IP in question to one of your machines, sgreger. As long as they can demonstrate that the offender used your network, you can still get done for having enabled the crime by not having taken adequate precautions to secure your network. This is particularly true if they can demonstrate a history of traffic heading through your network that they could show you would have to be extremely incompetent to not notice. As long as they can show a history of traffic that it would be reasonable to expect you would notice the impact of (like your network lagging when no one is doing anything intensive in your house), and you don't take action to remedy the situation, you can get nailed.

[sgreger1]

They don't necessarily have to tie the IP in question to one of your machines, sgreger. As long as they can demonstrate that the offender used your network, you can still get done for having enabled the crime by not having taken adequate precautions to secure your network. This is particularly true if they can demonstrate a history of traffic heading through your network that they could show you would have to be extremely incompetent to not notice. As long as they can show a history of traffic that it would be reasonable to expect you would notice the impact of (like your network lagging when no one is doing anything intensive in your house), and you don't take action to remedy the situation, you can get nailed.

This in itself seems like a shoddy argument that a decent lawyer would be able to refute. I would ask, what is the precedent that states that I, as the user of a wireless router, am responsible to play sysadmin and monitor my traffic etc? Is every grandma with an internet connection expected to realize that the connection going slow may be due to a reduction in available bandwidth? No, they would just sway "damn internet is being slow again..." and go about their day.

Is there any law or precedent that says I am responsible for a crime if my neighbor downloads a movie while piggybacking off of my wifi connection? They don't know if I am tech savvy or not, I could easily claim that I am incapable of knowing everything that happens on my network, and that it couldn't possibly be a requirement for me to be responsible for this because maybe the hacker kids down the street did it and how would I know? Short of them kicking down my door and seizing my computer to see if I have the infringing files, I don't see how they could make a reasonable argument against me.

I know they have tried this and probably been successful, but I don't see how they could make an argument like this in court. Can they even prove that I have their movie? I would have more than enough notice to wipe it from the drive before they could subpoena the contents of my computer.

if they can demonstrate a history of traffic heading through your network

How would they do this without the ISP being complicit with his process? I suppose the ISP would easily give over the network traffic data if they asked for it, ****ing shills.