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.
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.
What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?
They allow you to be a respectable participant in the torrent networks, even if your personal machine is on dialup, a slow dsl connection, or is just turned off. Even more so if you have a really unbalanced up/down ratio, or if you have a draconian ISP that blocks torrents of any sort. Not everyone uses bittorrent for copyright infringement. They also improve the bittorrent network overall since seedboxes are usually closer to the backbone than your home machine.
Personally I get and distribute nightly builds of several projects using bittorrent. With a seedbox I don't have to worry about my personal machine being off the network at any particular time.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
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!
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".