Slashdot Mirror
Grokster Launches Fear Campaign
An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is reporting on Grokster's new scare tactic. Suddenly it's become taboo to head over to Grokster.com. In a transparent attempt to scare potential P2P users, Grokster.com has reinforced its anti-P2P sentiment. The visitor's IP address is clearly displayed in large font on the Grokser's homepage while indicating the address was logged."
Isn't it common to log an Ip address if you run a website? I do it all teh time
It should read...
The way they worded it makes it sound like it is even illegal for people to distribute their own materials that they have created themselves via P2P. So, I guess according to the powers that be, I'm now a criminal for using Gnutella to distribute my own stories and animations that I have created, and to which I own the copyrights.
Of course, it isn't illegal, but the way these warnings are worded can sometimes make it seem that way.
This space unintentionally left blank.
This reminds me of those banner ads that have freaked out so many (l)users in my family that bounce around saying "Your Computer Is Broadcasting an IP Address" as though the number is your SSN. I would guess (based on how many people I know who bought the software advertised by those banner ads) that this will probably scare a lot of people into compliance.
Another thing that I've noticed is that a lot of the same people who would be freaked out that a site knows their IP address ALSO tend to not realize that downloading stuff via P2P networks is not exactly legal.
I remember recently (like within the last couple of weeks) my aunt expressed amazment that all of the music downloading they had done was considered piracy. She'd also never heard of iTunes or any other way of buying music legally online.
It might be nice if they at least provided some links to places to legally get music for the people who genuinely don't know. For everyone else the whole thing is pointless anyway.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Oh, I'm quite sure it's logged - I leave logging enabled on my apache boxes also. And honestly, I don't care: even if they weren't currently being bombarded by mad slashdotters, my browser quite properly sent along a referred-by (because I haven't told it not to) that clearly says I went there by clicking on the story linked in TFA. So, assuming they actually chase down each and every one of the 250K uniques they get this evening and attempt to prosecute, it'd be trivial for me to show that I was not visiting grokster as an attempt to obtain software that's not being used lawfully, but rather as general interest following a news story where it led me.
In other words: what-evah!
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Humph, 99% of the world population is outside the USA & could not care less.
And the other 1% is in the USA and still could not care less.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And what exactly is the problem with visiting the site, anyway? On what grounds could they possibly sue you? It's such an absurd idea that I can't think of a legal theory that would sound even slightly credible to a three year old. You didn't distribute copyrighted material, and there's absolutely no evidence that you would even download the program, if it were available, let alone actually use it to illegally distribute copyrighted works.
It's not about knowing the public IP of the machine that issued the http request.
It's about sending lies and propaganda to the uneducated users.
We do know that visiting a site tells them about the IP address -- your, your proxy's or a random TOR server's; and also your browser's ID string which usually mentions your operating system.
But we, users who are knowledgeful about how this works, are not those who are the intended target of this scare campaign. Just as those who know how a washing powder works are not a target of most TV adverts.
People who are knowledgeful about washing powders balk at nonsence spewed in adverts, but this doesn't stop the nonsense from affecting 99% of the society.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The part of this that's interesting is not that they know how to display IPs. It's that they choose to do so in an attempt to scare us that's worth mentioning.
Mod parent up! Of course no one here is scared. Think about the clueless masses who don't even know what an IP is. All they'll see is "YOU HAVE BEEN LOGGED FOR VISITING THIS SITE".
For that matter, it's hardly illegal to visit a a P2P website (especially one which now has nothing on it) or use P2P software. That's like trying to scare somebody by telling them you saw them walk past a crack house that's been shut down anyway.
This literally made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
I used to have a music teacher who would spend the first half of each orchestra practice complaining about how many people weren't turning up to orchestra practice. Guess how popular her orchestra was?
I am trolling
The whole point of the exercise is for you to realize you'll spend the least money by settling, no matter what the facts of the case are. Lawyers like settlements, since they don't have to do as much work and they still get paid.
In the end it costs you minimum a couple grand to be sued even if you win, unless you can prove that was the intent of the suit. Good luck on that one - judges, former lawyers all, are in no hurry to discourage the filing of lawsuits. You'll pretty much need a memo that says "let's sue them until they run out of money, even though we don't have a case." Anyone who can pass the bar exam is too smart to write a memo like that.
In more civilized countries they have "loser pays" systems to discourage this sort of thing, but that's why lawyers donate millions to political campaigns, isn't it?
Isn't it common to log an Ip address if you run a website?
It is. Wouldn't their approach be much more effective if, in addition to logging your IP, they also installed a rootkit on your machine? That's legal, right? (And maybe they could make it so you're violating the DMCA if you remove it. Excellent.)
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
>It's about sending lies and propaganda to the uneducated users.
Agreed and this tactic is hardly new. I remember back when I saw a popup one of them used to say "WARNING YOUR MACHINE MAY BE BROADCASTING YOUR IP ADDRESS!" or something like that.
Scare-tactic sponsored by Grokster by logging your IP and mentioning it: 18 unique clicks
Slashdot story posting that mentions said scare-tacting: 182,395,483 unique clicks in 8 hours
102mb log file and an $8000+ bandwidth overage charge: priceless
There are some things scare-tactics can do. For everything else, use Google.
(I'll laugh when they try to open that log file in notepad before checking it's size...)
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
Bullshit. Most people use p2p programs to download content without the copyright owner's permission. You can cite as many iso downloads as you want, unless you can show me some real statistics that show 51% of downloaders do so with the copyright owner's permission, I don't believe that.
I agree with you and never said otherwise. The analogy was born of the idea that visiting a defunct web page that once hosted a p2p client was tantamount to downloading a p2p client for the express purpose of committing copyright infringement. Perhaps, if the client were still available from the site and one tried to download it, it might be more like buying a handgun.
Or, to modify your analogy a little, this "evidence" is tenuous because it is similar to presenting as evidence at this same murder trial a blurry video recording (since IP addresses aren't good evidence) of someone who resembles you looking at a broken firearm left over from WW1 that was on display at the side of the road, and then leaving empty-handed.
We're the MPAA. Our profits are slipping. What's the problem?
Maybe $10 for a movie ticket, $7 for a tub of popcorn, $5 for a soda or candy bar is a little much. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe laser pointers, cell phones and chatty kathies are ruining the experience. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe big-screen TVs make watching movies at home more enjoyable. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe showing 15 commercials before the movie starts is a little obnoxious. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe we're putting out absolute drivel that no one in their right mind would sit through. Nah, couldn't be it.
Maybe it's the online pirates, sucking down our profits over high-speed Internet connections. Yes, that's it! That's why no one goes to the movies anymore!
Call the lawyers!
I remember creating a list of CDs I wanted. They'd be prioritized. Some CDs would have multiple songs on them I liked; I'd buy those first. Others would have only one song.
Every once in a while, I'd splurge. I'd create a "mix tape", which was in fact a cassette tape with several singles recorded on it (yes, I'm old). This would require plunking down $15 on several CDs with only one song on it I like. Creating a mix tape like that would require somewhere in the neighborhood of $300. That was the only option to get those singles I enjoyed.
The RIAA had it good for years by monopolizing the means of distribution. Then the Net stepped in and I haven't forked down a penny for a CD in years. It started with FTP servers and search engines (remember share ratio?), migrated to Napster, then to the other P2P networks that operate without a central authority. I don't feel a speck of a guilt. The RIAA has been paid in full, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they owe me.
This loathesome bullying is typical of an industry that was jerking the public around for years and now is getting it back in spades. I'm glad. Let us eat cake.
That is a direct result of big government. In the US there are now so many laws, and the system is so complex and ambiguous, that it is literally impossible for an innocent man to defend himself. What's more, it is literally impossible for a man to be 100% law-abiding.
Imagine that -- an innocent man cannot possibly defend himself without hiring a professional to decipher the law. A system where there are so many laws that everyone is a criminal in one way or another. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon we're looking at the holy grail of "justice" for the power elite.
Your kidding me, right? You think that people, press included, have only known about NSA unwarrented wiretaps for the past year or so? A quick search of google groups shows usenet postings about Eschelon and Carnivore going back to the early 90s. The problem is that when you try to explain to most people what the ramifications of programs like these are, they generally either sort you into the 'tin-foil hat' crowd, or feel that if it does exist, it is 'Necessary'. What we are experiencing now is main stream coverage of old news. Then again, most people don't grasp the concept that their cell phone is a radio transmitter and not equivelent to a wired telephone, either.
"it's just a matter of time before somebody uses all of my proxies in series for criminal activities."
Not really - if everyone uses, say, three proxies at a time and your proxies represent 1% of the available ones (this would be a very generous estimate), that would mean only one in every million connections was only using your proxies. Not really worth waiting for.
Even this isn't strictly accurate as most people with any brains would not pick two proxies with similar IP addresses. This means you'd have to get accounts with dozens of different service providers, probably in different countries, which would make it extremely hard to operate even 1% of the anonymous proxy resource.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
The juxtaposition of your post and your .sig is entirely too amusing. :-)
~UP
Eat the Path.
I've only ever heard this out of the mouths of women on TV but have your heard the phrase, "If I can't have him NO one will!"?
If so I think it should now be obvious.
If they can't be the ONLY one's making money off music then NO ONE can.
Think about it. The internet allows for a new distribution channel.
The RIAA's members *CAN* utilize this new distribution channel instead of
or along side their current physical distribution channel but now they
have to, *OH MY GOSH*, compete on value and price. Those who can now
distribute via the internet via P2P, web, bittorrent, etc... can't just go
distribute physically like the RIAA's members can.
What has the RIAA been doing for years now? Going after ***EVERY*** online
distribution channel until they kill it or bring it over to the dark side.
Selfishness, Greed, and lust for control and power.
The only outwardly virtuous thing (from the perspective of anyone but them) about them in my opinion is their hubris. Great thing about them is they probably have no ability for reflection and so won't ever be able to say hindsight is 20/20.