Slashdot Mirror
UK ISP Disconnecting Filesharers
bs0d3 writes "A small VPN service, Koppla, has had its service terminated by its host, Santrex Hosting Solutions. Despite actively advertising their services to be oriented toward file-sharing including torrents and XDCC, even going so far as to put 'Seedbox Hosting | An Effective Solution' in the title of their contact page, the UK based Santrex will independently act to terminate users who are thought to be distributing content that they don't own the copyright to. This is regardless of whether the infringement is done by a third party, as is the case with a VPN service such as Koppla."
It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.
They have. They did. It's not you. It's not me.
I am not quite sure what the story is here. Okay, so it is a bit rought that a business was put out of operation because it was being used to VPN up some torrent files - but it certainly didn't look like they were trying to hide it.
I mean "Hey, we offer great ways to avoid being caught when uploading torrents..." then "Awww.... we got shut down for uploading torrents..." really aren't to far apart in any business plan that starts with the first.
On the upside, the article points out that new EU rules take any sniffing out of the requirements for an ISP. So maybe this won't happen again.
I am really unsure which side to take here. I don't support the ludicrous fines and penalties that all of the **AA goons are trying to enforce, but I also don't support a business model that seems to be basically aimed at people breaking copyright of others.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Filesharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement. For example a host could put up torrents of Linux ISOs. So advertising support for file sharing and kicking off folks engaged in copyright violations are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying this ISP is doing so in the best possible manner, just that advertising filesharing does not imply they are going to look the other way regarding copyright violations.
Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.
I'm thinking Honeypot, but I'm the paranoid sort.
This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material? I know, there are many legitimate uses for bittorrent, but I have a feeling that the kind of people in the market for anonymous bittorrent seedboxes are not the kind of people who are seeding legitimate torrents.
Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.
You're right.
This is the worst written blog article I have ever read (hopefully, someone will read this entry and fix it). They need to qualify who's doing what instead of using ambiguous pronouns for everything. It's only once you read the rest of the blog article that you understand what happened.
They advertised being seedbox friendly, not pirate friendly. Or are you saying that torrents can only be used for copyright infringement? Because that's what slashdotters have been claiming for years. Now that the claim is used against pirates, it's suddenly not true anymore.
They'll have to open all the mail in Britain to ensure that they aren't "distributing content that they don't own the copyright to". Convenient excuse, anyway; seems almost inevitable.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Once again, this issue is not about legal technicalities or technical workarounds... If you put up a service like the pirate bay it's laughable to claim that more than 1% of the usage is for non copyright infringement purposes. The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court (or with business relations like this case). Neither does the "Google can also be used to index torrents" argument. While technically correct the society is rigged to avoid technicalities in rules and take decisions based on intent. The intent of this service was clearly to profit from copyright violating distribution.
The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is not regulated. This is counter intuitive to the Internet as an invention and needs to be changed. The Internet has made such regulation incompatible with fundamental human rights. File sharing is not theft - it's how people will discover new information and consume culture from now and in the future. Business models will have to evolve from utilizing physical scarcity to utilizing distribution-as-a-service. When people finally start to see beyond the "file sharing is theft" and "allowing file sharing means artist shouldn't get paid" arguments/distractions we can have sensible debate and lawmaking. What would change if non-commercial file distribution would be legal/unregulated tomorrow? Think about that. The file sharers are already file sharing. Pandora's box has already been opened.
No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens. Not with a single customers, but if you get bunch of them. This is even more true for sharing hosting, because it drains the server resources immersible fast.
It's not entrapment either (and this is private company to begin with). Offering hosting is not a request to violate laws.
From Slashdot TOS:
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("Geeknet Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such Geeknet Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by Geeknet. In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
Not exactly. It's a store refusing service to someone who just happens to hang out with people they don't particularly like in their spare time.
No, not at all. There are linux torrents, world of warcraft patches and wikileaks insurance policies that are perfectly legal uses for torrents.
Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.
While there are many legal uses for torrent files and peer to peer, I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.
To pop my thoughts into a car analogy - You can put a massive super powerful engine into a normal car because you like the sound, but much more likely you want to go faster.
Again, as I said in the original post here - I don't support piracy, but I am dead against the stupidly over the top litigation that record companies are bringing against people for downloading a few songs. Two polar wrongs don't blend to make a right somewhere in the middle here.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute updates.
Pando Media Booster uses bittorrent to distribute updates, and is used by quite a few other games (League of Legends, Lord of the Rings Online, etc, etc).
Linux ISOs are hardly the biggest legitimate use of bittorrent.
Not a sentence!
If ever you want to see if an idea or concept is ludicrous or not, imagine yourself trying to explain it to an Alien race. You'd seem so petty and selfish for insinuating that you charge for information and claim complete dominion over things such as melodies, rhymes, sequences of tones and harmonies. Our race would not have achieved what it has if it weren't for every single contributing factor in the grander scheme of things. No one 'invents' anything alone, it's about time we start freely sharing what we have with anyone it can benefit.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
From the TOS...
That basically states: /. can do whatever it likes with whatever you write, whether you like it or not.
In all essence, you lost all copyright control on a post when posting it on /. because you cannot control a "perpetual, irrevocable" license.
The whole paragraph is a basic rubber-stamp boiler-plate formulation that makes a mockery of copyright.
ISPs should not be making the decision to cut a customer off based on the content they are retrieving and distributing, but only if they are attacking the network or otherwise trying to harm the network itself (or if there is a court order to disconnect a specific customer). What next, some ISP gets all "morality police" and starts banning customers for accessing porn, illegal drug information, or even political/social material that someone with authority at the ISP decided they didn't want to pass across their wires?
It'd be like the phone company disconnecting your service because you like to call phone sex lines, or the postal service refusing to deliver your mail because you subscribe to skin mags.
FC Closer
> it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material
After world harmonization with Berne, that would be practically all material, so... I think you rather meant "unlicensed, copyrighted material".
Okay, I'll be honest, I like getting free stuff via The Pirate Bay. I have been that way all my life, even before P2P came along. I listen to music on the radio and watch movies/programmes on TV for free, then switch channel when the ads come on. Yeah, I rob the stations blind when it comes to not paying attention to ads. Now I make use of free internet services with disposable email addresses, and always have AdBlock turned on. I "try before you buy" via torrents a lot, which I guess makes me a pirate.
Thing is I feel pretty good about it. I still spend money on media and services, more than I used to in fact. Part of that is simply down to having more disposable income as I get older, part of it is down to finding new stuff that I like enough to spend said income on. Now I can listen to or watch what I want rather than what someone else decides to broadcast I find more stuff that interests me. Sometimes friends lend me CDs or I go round to watch their DVDs (public performance), which sometimes leads to me spending money on merchandise and the like.
So yeah, I'm a freeloader, I "steal" in the non-theft-making-a-copy sense. But artists and media companies also need people like me to survive, and if you annoy me with DRM or legal shinnanigans you can be sure I won't give you a penny. And I do in fact practice what I preach: My hardware designs and software are open source, yet I also sell them and do okay out of it. People will pay for quality and convenience even when they can get your warez for free. The publicity and community support I get from being open/free is invaluable, and you only have to look at the fashion industry or Japanese manga/anime/game producers to see how well it works on a massive scale.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have been repeated told by other slashdotters that file sharing and P2P is not just for violating copyright and that by far the majority of P2P and file sharing traffic is for legitimate purposes such as distributing Linux. So, if the ISP is only cutting off those who are violating copyright law, where is the problem?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
But 99% of filesharing is infringing.
How do you know that? Considering that it's likely nearly impossible to identify infringing content, I don't see how anyone could possibly come up with an accurate measurement.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!