Slashdot Mirror
DALnet For Chatting, Not File Sharing
PFAK writes "DALnet IRC Network, formerly the world's largest IRC Network has announced that the IRC network has implemented a new "policy" that will phrohibit "Using a channel for the primary purpose of facilitating the transfer of files", as of March 1st, 2003. This will be another staggering blow for the formerly largest IRC network in the world, this comes after one of the many suprises on DALnet, such as the recent DDoS attacks against the network."
What do you mean, this will be another staggering blow? They're improving their service. IRC is for chat. I don't see how sending away warez kiddies damages their network, let alone how it deals them a "staggering blow".
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
IRC sucks for file sharing anyway, so why would it be a blow to the network if they restricted it?
I fail to see the problem!
Free your mind!
Since when does anyone has the "right" on filesharing over IRC??
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
As a former DALnet operator / administrator and a rather long time user I can say that DALnet is simply continuing to shoot at an already bloody and bullet-riddled foot.
Way back in the day there was a lot of talk about banning child pornography (which is something that everyone can actually agree is morally wrong, as well as illegal). It was decided not to, on what I think was good advice, because the second you become a moderator of content you open yourself up to legal trouble if you fail to properly moderate that content.
Now some might say that DALnet isn't actually moderating any content, because it's worded in such a way that it simply disallows the channels. However, to disallow these channels DALnet must explicitly moderate content. It must find this 'abusive' content and put an end to it, thereby making it a moderator.
It is, in fact, the official position of DALnet staff (or so I hear) that this is the belief on the network. That the way this clause in their AUP is written prevents them from being considered a moderator. I think this is a big mistake on their part, and will ultimately come back to haunt them.
That said, DALnet has a long history of being utterly incapable of enforcing their own policies, and this is just one more of them that will probably not ever see any real enforcement. For example, DALnet was (when people could get on it) the haven of mass advertising, not to mention a breeding ground for drones and IRC worms. Despite some futile attempts to stop these activities, DALnet has been basically completely incapable of doing any serious work on these fronts.
To add to this, DALnet and its sponsors have been beleaguered by kiddies with a massive array of DDoS weaponry. They have utterly failed to address the issues which have, in large part, led to their current troubles. The main issue is that DALnet harbors a group of extremely absuive operators who basically take enjoyment out of pissing off the kiddies because they feel "invulnerable." Instead of actually just removing these destructive individuals, DALnet has kept them on and "told them not to do it anymore." Basically tantamount to saying "we don't care, keep DDoSing us."
I don't think that the few people left on DALnet right now need to worry too much about this policy, it won't likely be enforced much, if at all.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
Okay, here's a problem. I have a channel on DALnet which I use solely for the purpose of being locatable so that people can get a script from me via XDCC. Basically, it is a filesharing channel. That's all it is. The purpose for the channel is to get files from me. I am, according to DALnet staff who I mentioned this to, actually violating the policy.
My script is in the public domain though, and I'm certainly not violating any laws. Besides this channel, any group of people who, say, engage in shareware/freeware trading will also get bitten. I think it's a shame that legitimate users are going to get screwed by this misguided policy.
Or we would if there were any hope of it being enforced.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
I'm a little confused by this step. Do they really think file sharing has anything to do with the DDoS attacks? Just who do they think DDoS-ed them all the time. My guess it's the kiddies that love file-sharing.
I'm not saying you should facilitate them but by pissing 'm off there's no way the DDoS attacks will stop. Ignoring just might be the way to go. But then again, that's just my 2 cents
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
Gag, now I get to read tons of posts by warez kiddies talking about how stupid this new policy is.
Actually, it is a great move. Why should their resources be used for channels that title themselves "MP3 trading" or "0-Day Warez", where the only point is to trade files (mostly illegal). IRC (Internet Relay CHAT) is for online chatting. The only 'chatting' that goes on in the warez channels is queue updates.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a "Public domain graphics" channel or "0-Day Open Source Trading". If I do a channel list to find interesting channels, I really don't want to have my list filled up with warez crap channels.
It's not like they are taking away the ability to send a file to someone. You still can DCC someone a file, just channels where the sole purpose is to trade files is prohibited.
Bravo!
At this point it would be nice an interview to the IRC admins of DALnet to find out whether this is a result of a legal threat or just their opinion.
Maybe they got the attention of media after their DoS attack hence the attention of legal authorities? who knows, but I'd be really interested to find out.
And btw, yes, it is mostly warez what is shared on IRC.
To be honest, I've never seen "legal" anything being shared on irc except via DCC between users, on bots there is always some kind of illegal distrbution or just at the 99.9% of the time.
Well good on them. This is one small step in right direction. Now all they have to do is figure out a way to prevent all that unregulated "chat" sharing and rampant free exchange of "information" and the internet will, once again, be free for democracy and automatic shopping by net "enabled" refrigerators.
KFG
Seriously, since when did DCCs impair or otherwise affect the normal operation of Dalnet? They don't run over the "dalnet", but apart from a few simple negotiation messages it runs completely separate of it. That D in DCC stands for Direct, you know.
And unlike Napster/KaZaA, IRC does not come with built-in search, a good file server, minimum shared, quotas or "ranking" of contribution. Nothing that should bring them at legal risk unless paper manufacturers gets sued for what you can write on the paper.
Also, will this mean that OPs will start logging DCCs and crossreference with the channels you're on to determine if a channel is being used to transfer files? Or is this some "Uh, yeah if we see 'em" policy? Because the first would be a rather big invasion of privacy, the second would simply lead to more hidden channels...
But I suppose everyone that cared about chatting has found a more stable home than Dalnet in the last month or two anyway (we did), why not scare off the file traders (that usually only care about making their sends/gets connected) too...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Hmm...
No Seriously, the anonymous coward has a semi-good point...
What is the point of IRC without the "l337" file sharing?
Hasn't its chatting capabilities been made obsolete by Instant Messengers and chat rooms such as Yahoo! chat?
Well most of the warez channels have left the network anyway. I guess they decided to take advantage of the opportunity to introduce this policy, without being faced with thousands of existing channels to shut down. Although it does seem a little weird for a network that has lost 100000 users in the past year to start kicking channels off the network.
But the RIAA hasn't exactly taken the moral high ground in the file sharing wars. Did anybody consider that perhaps it was the RIAA or somebody hired by them to conduct the attacks on DALnet? I used to log in to DALnet when I could, and checked out one of the mp3 rooms and I could see where the RIAA would want to put a stop to them.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a "Public domain graphics" channel or "0-Day Open Source Trading". If I do a channel list to find interesting channels, I really don't want to have my list filled up with warez crap channels.
So use openprojects.net...always fun techie people to chew the fat with.
I suppose there is one reasonable assumption -- most of the DDoSes that go on are likely warez-channel related, so perhaps it'll reduce warfare on DALnet...
May we never see th
The people running it decide to enforce a policy against channels designed exclusively for file trading -- chat channels not being used for chat.
Because someone has once again made it a little harder for people to steal software and music and exchange pornography (much of it going to under 18 year old children) these people are threatening to leave an entirely free network?
DALnet is provided as a free service to thousands using not-free bandwidth and servers and other resources of those that run and support it. "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" seems appropriate to say here.
Where is the legitimate complaint? They won't shut you down if you do a few exchanges of files (even if those files or that activity might be considered illegal by some). They are only shutting down channels that spew files and are not for the purposes of the network they built and offer. DALnet never claimed to be a file trading network and now they intend to lightly enforce their use policy. How is that unfair to the unpaying, leeching hordes complaining now?
Sounds to me like Napster whiners. Sounds to me what Kazaa users will be whinning about when it too is shut down.
Now... imagine; what if the usenet stopped allowing binary posts (ignore the technical aspect for a moment, assume it became a "policy" somehow). Ooohh.. I can hear the kiddies crying out as if a trillion posts were suddenly canceled.
Hasn't its chatting capabilities been made obsolete by Instant Messengers and chat rooms such as Yahoo! chat?
I don't think that its "chatting capabilities" have been made obsolete by IMs, because with an IM, you only have your friends on your list, and you wouldn't meet any one new.
I can sort of agree with things like Yahoo chat, although I don't use it. Its kind of like IRC, or talkers (they still exist), but with pictures. The younger crowd (not the l337 h4ck3r5) who don't know about things like IRC or talkers, will use what they come across first, which is most likely, yahoo, or msn. They'll also use what their friends use.
So, I don't think IRC has been made obsolete, but uptake of it by newer users might not be brilliant.
Dirk stood in the Stanley
Sorry - I don't see how this is a 'moderation'
To me moderation in the technical sense means one of two things.
1) Messages are reviewed by a moderating team before being publicly posted such as mailing lists
2) Messages are freely posted but a moderating team montiors them and removes ones that do not abide by the terms of use.
Since when did restricting what services your users can use become 'moderation'?
DALnet is still an unmoderated medium for CHAT - you can say what you like, organise a bank heist, tell all your l33t friends about the latest hijacked webserver your using to serve your warez. Nothing in this policy implies any moderation of speech.
I can speculate why they are enforcing this policy. When you run a community service where time, money, resources and effort are donnated by a large number of people for a certain purpose and a large number of the users use it for an entirely differnet purpose, costing you a lot of resources, and then also attack the service so that user you want to support can't use it, I guess I personally would be a little pissed.
The users they want are the users that want the services DALnet was originally designed for.
Do you think losing lots of hangers on is really going to worry them - every user on the system costs some supporter of DALnet money somewhere, its not like a membership site where they get revenue. Explain to me if I run a DALnet server why exactly I should be worried about losing users that use my box to swap warez, p0rn or coordinate a Sub7 attack on another machine?
When I find my webserver compromised and used as a warez server, are you saying I shouldn't lock it down because this will " undoubtedly upset someone with the means to launch an attack equivalent to the attacks {I} suffered recently"??
DALNet is a free service, they are not required to provide YOU with what YOU want, they are not a government aganecy or a paid membership site. YOU have a choice of IRC servers, and if you don't like any of them go ahead and set your own up.
Doesn't this new policy,announced in the midst of all the DDOS attacks, seem kinda like slapping a new coat of paint on a burning building?
Anyway, I'm kinda saddened to see this happen. Not because I ever used Dal for file sharing, but because it seems like the first step on that looooong slipperly slope of regulating the network. One of the charms of Dal has always been it's freedom. It didn't matter how obscure your interest, or how strange your kink... there was probably a Dal channel with a few people just like you. Now they're shutting down the file sharing channels. Maybe next week they'll shut down the "illegal" channels... the pedos, the bomb makers, the druggies. The week after that? Who knows?
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
Actually I have always found the child porn chans much more annoying.
You would think those chans would produce a hell of a lot of vigalante DDos attacks so why don't they close those first?
If you can't swap in a channel, then have them sign on to AIM, or MSN, etc...
Will is shut DALnet down? certainly not! I've learned more on IRC than I have in most of my computer classes. People will still use it, as long as there are dorm rooms.
thelikesofwhich.com
And it won't just be the warez kiddies leaving in droves. Their friends, friends of their friends, and people just looking for the 'popular' IRC network will find themselves somewhere other than DALnet.
Trying to get fuckers on IRC to switch networks is like pulling teeth. They act like you've asked them to switch blood type. A few people might leave, but people on IRC are so lazy, shiftless, and stupid in their network-loyalty that getting them to move would require tactical nuclear devices, not simply the removal of a few large fserv channels.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Why is this post under "YRO?"
Using DALnet (or any other IRC network) isn't a RIGHT. It's a privilege.
DALnet is simply saying, "This kind of behaviour is not what we want on our systems."
Now, if they can ever get out from under the DDoS attacks, we'll see if this makes a difference anywhere.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
The mark of a good troll is that you can't tell if it's really a troll. With that in mind: How do you think a DCC connection is negotiated? By telepathy? A DCC request is a private CTCP, which is encoded as a private message. DCC, by definition, does use the server.
"We didn't deal crack out of your house; we just met here several times a day to arrange our crack deals, and the crack deals wouldn't have gone through unless we met here first-- but we have a right to use your house." Why do people persist in claiming they have the right to use private property (like a DALnet server) to do something the owners don't want?