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."
Good thing he's a lawyer...
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Obviously we have to slashdot it. Why is there no link in the story?
Here: for those too lazy to type it out
Grokster.com
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.
They might have my IP, but I have theirs too! MUWAHAHA!!
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
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 context is the same as it has always been for the RIAA. In other words, every content protection measure (for that's all this is) is aimed at the people who are clueless about the law and the technology, and can be easily intimidated by such means. Unfortunately, that means we are talking about the bulk of the population of most countries ... fortunately, because most P2P users are clueless they're pretty hard to intimidate anyway since they have no idea what they're doing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
We traced the call... He's calling from inside your house!
They're hosted at ev1servers.net, meaning they're hosting this on a budget dedicated server.
The domain also resolves to s1.avres.net and avres.net.
They are running SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.6.1p2 on port 22.
They are running an internet-visible MySQL 3.23.58 server on port 3306.
They have port 21 (FTP) open and accepting connections, but disconnecting a second later
While SMTP (port 25) is closed, they are running an unidentified POP3 server on port 110.
They are running Apache 2.0.46. The box identifies itself as running RedHat, most likely RHEL3.
Amazing what you can find out by telnetting to a few common port numbers, no?
"The IP address, or Internet Protocol, is the unique numerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the Internet."
It's hardly unique, except if you consider it to be 0-dimentional.
Many computers can have the same ip at different times. Also many computers can have the same ip at the same time within the same network. Indirectly, in hacking cases, even two computers can have the same ip at the same time and not really be in the same network. Well, even one computer can have some different ips assigned to it... or even many networks connected to the same computer... I could go on multiple people using the same computer... or many.
Ugh... this is funny, now even I don't know if I'm being insightful, informative, or if I'm trolling some modern physics.
We're suing all of Scotland!
You can pay us in whisky.
Your fiendly RIAA lawyer.
Coral Cache
Nice to see that they're checking the X-Forwarded-For header...
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Hmmmm. I hope that they try to 'catch' me from this IP address. Especially as it is one of the transparent proxies of my ISP which is located in a seperate city to the one I reside in. To give them a fighting chance of 'catching' me, my name is David Smith, I was born in Lancashire in the 1970's, I'm 6'0" tall, I have long dark brown hair and a beard, I'm slightly overweigh because of Christmas (yeah right) but most importantly I'm not scared of rudimentary, ill-thought-out script gimmicks from another continent.
I'll expect the black helicopters to descend on me later today then...
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
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.
Maybe we just don't want u in our neighborhood.
Actually, the real reason you sue the doctor, hospital, and nurse simultaneously is as follows.
Suppose I go in for an operation, and it goes wrong. I don't know who or why, but somebody screwed up. I decide to just sue the surgeon. We litigate, he wins. Then I find out it was the nurse's fault for not doing something she should've done. In federal courts (and I think most state courts), I can't then sue the nurse for the botched operation. When I sue somebody, I have to make all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurence (here, the operation) or lose them forever. This is actually an efficiency rule, since it prevents one jerk from bringing up dozens of successive lawsuits until he wins. The courts want to hear a dispute and resolve it with finality.
In fact, this rule hurts plaintiffs, since all of a sudden they have to face down a literal army of defense lawyers; they can't divide and conquer.
The "loser pays" system certainly has its merits, but consider one of its main drawbacks: legal stagnation. When a plaintiff might get stuck with the total bill, he's more likely to not sue. Since courts can only decide the cases before them, the law develops and adapts as a result of actual cases; fewer cases means it won't keep up with the times as quickly. Many people here already think the law is too slow to adapt (especially in the tech sector), so a loser pays system would only make things worse in this regard.
Judges are indeed not thrilled with frivolous lawsuits. For one, each new suit means more work for them, and they're not paid by the case. Two, frivolous cases often don't present real and interesting legal issues; presiding over the frivolous case eats into the time a judge can spend on more interesting cases. There's a federal rule against filing frivolous or harassing lawsuits, and courts have great leeway to come up with creative punishments for violating that rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11).
IANAL(yet)