So, I got an notice from my ISP for downloading torrent

[Deathmanlp]

Try this https://torrentprivacy.com/. But you have to pay for it or just dont use torrents download from rapidshare megaupload etc.

 

[Adrian]

This is stupidity. I'd switch to another ISP if they interfere in my computing.

In my opinion, the ISP has no right to say what we can/cannot do on OUR computers. Sure it may be their service, but without us they have no cash source to keep the company going, they should respect our privacy and not tell us what we can and cannot do.

My advice, lobby for free distribution channels, don't pirate stuff. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't support the system.

I don't encourage pirating, but if someone wants to pirate, then let them. They get caught, its there own fault.

Nova, it may not be an issue of piracy but one of bandwidth. There has been riguorous debate amongst cable companies in regard to usage. This was an issue in Maryland where a company was going to change its subscription fees due to hi band width usage by some of its subscribers. Torrents are notoriously slow when there are only 1 -2 seeds and it could take days to get a file. Companies were considering charging us by a tier system.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Teerex:

If the log shows nothing other than amount and time, how does that identify the content and/or possible legal violations?

It may be true that "it is not the business of an ISP to know exactly what you were doing while connected", but that is not my question.

My first question is CAN ISPs retain more details than the time of the connection and the amount downloaded?

The second question is do some ISPs do so?

If you don't believe they can, I would ask why you believe that? There may well be a technical reason they can't. I am just asking.

If you believe they can, but don't, I would ask why you believe that? Do you have inside information?

You say "they do not do it." How do you know that?

If an ISP knows only the time of the connection and the amount of the download, how could anyone ever be prosecuted for any download?

 

[sup3rsprt]

If an ISP knows only the time of the connection and the amount of the download, how could anyone ever be prosecuted for any download?

Consider the numerous people who have been sued (and lost) without any proof whatsoever (besides IP address) that they were voluntarily involved in sharing copyrighted material.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

This is stupidity. I'd switch to another ISP if they interfere in my computing.

In my opinion, the ISP has no right to say what we can/cannot do on OUR computers. Sure it may be their service, but without us they have no cash source to keep the company going, they should respect our privacy and not tell us what we can and cannot do.

My advice, lobby for free distribution channels, don't pirate stuff. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't support the system.

I don't encourage pirating, but if someone wants to pirate, then let them. They get caught, its there own fault.

Nova, it may not be an issue of piracy but one of bandwidth. There has been riguorous debate amongst cable companies in regard to usage. This was an issue in Maryland where a company was going to change its subscription fees due to hi band width usage by some of its subscribers. Torrents are notoriously slow when there are only 1 -2 seeds and it could take days to get a file. Companies were considering charging us by a tier system.

I respect that opinion, though around here in the US there are not many Internet Service Providers that would even dare to put a cap on our monthly bandwidth, we pay monthly for unlimited.

If a company wants to 'restrict' us, and take that kind of action.. they may as well just put a cap on the bandwidth.

Now if you'll excuse me, theres some mountain dew that needs drinking.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Supersport:

I have tried to follow the legal cases as best I can.

I know many people have had issues because they made files available to others--sharing or uploading, as with a torrent. Some of these people have made a voluntary settlement of X dollars to get out of the jam, in which case there is no trial.

Others have simply been intimidated by notices from ISPs.

Do you know of any court cases with a jury verdict against a DOWNLOADER for DOWNLOADING only (not sharing, not torrents, not uploading) and can you point me to it? I may have missed it.

I fail to understand how anyone would even bring a case or a jury would ever convict UNLESS the content of the download was known. If the content is known, then presumably that information came from logs--thus my questions above.

Any links or solid info appreciated.

 

[sup3rsprt]

I know many people have had issues because they made files available to others--sharing or uploading, as with a torrent.

That's true. Usually it's the sharing part that gets people in trouble. Just downloading something from the web for example is probably not nearly as likely to get someone in trouble (not that I'd recommend it).

I suppose there's always the possibility of entrapment, whereby some organization makes their own copyrighted material available for download on the internet and then punishes people for downloading it.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Yes, entrapment is a possibility, but I have not heard of it being used against downloaders.

Even then, if the log contains only time and amount info, the entrapment scheme would fail. The plaintiff would have to seize the hard drive, show the files, and prove there was no other possible source for them. That hasn't happened. Without that, who is to say the defendant didn't download gibberish or content that is in the public domain?

There was a case recently in the midwest where there was a conviction. I think it involved someone having a couple of dozen files on their PC and sharing them through a torrent. The trial never established that the couple of dozen files were not legitimately obtained--she was convicted because she shared and because she had lied about several issues--such as changing her hard drive AFTER being told she was under investigation. They had a Best Buy receipt indicating a new hard drive installation.

 

[sup3rsprt]

The plaintiff would have to seize the hard drive, show the files, and prove there was no other possible source for them. That hasn't happened.

It has not needed to happen. Most people will settle before going to court, because of the likelyhood that court costs would be far greater than the amount they're getting sued for. That and the fact that they will most definitely lose the case anyway.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

You are right--most people settle.

The inference to be drawn from the tendency to settle is that logs would reveal guilt or the accused are afraid they might.

Logs could not reveal guilt if they contained only time and amount.

I have to assume logs contain additional info, or people ASSUME they do.

I know nothing about torrents and there may be some non-log method of tracking that stuff.

I am awaiting a case for downloading only that results in a jury trial in which logs are brought into court and relied on, one way or another.

I am also waiting for definitive statements from any ISP as to their log policy, in detail.

 

[sup3rsprt]

Logs probably do not contain much incriminating evidence (if any). But I don't really recall any cases where that mattered. Maybe the people were just guilty, or maybe they hired bad lawyers.

 

[Frostmourne]

Why don't you pay for direct downloads?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Not everyone wants to pay, not everyone has the money to pay.

 

[Frostmourne]

What, $US 90 or so a year for Rapidshare? Better than rubbish torrents.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

What, $US 90 or so a year for Rapidshare? Better than rubbish torrents.

I'm just saying, not everyone has the money.

 

[Frostmourne]

Fair enough, but Rapidshare is much easier then torrents.

 

[zx81]

What happened with our freedom?

zx81

What freedom? You are using the property of another to get online.

logicearth,

Thank you for your response.
You are right, property of another does not belong to you unless you pay for it.

Best regards,

zx81

 

[sup3rsprt]

What, $US 90 or so a year for Rapidshare? Better than rubbish torrents.

If you're willing to pay Rapidshare, why don't you just do the right thing and give the money to the people it belongs (the people who made the software, movie, etc)? Rapidshare profits from piracy so in my opinion they are just as much criminals as hardcore pirates themselves.

 

[mushroomboy]

Ok just so you don't spend money and get caught again.... Whatever you download your ISP can see... AKA they ALWAYS see what you download, no matter how much you pay for privacy. You may think "whatever, I do what I want" but in reality all your traffic goes through them. And if your smart you have already put all of this together, but for those who haven't I've got a good way to explain this....


You have 3 people, 2 on each end of a doorway and one in the middle of the room. The person in the middle (your ISP) owns all the space in the room and your goal is to transport goods without him knowing. Now if you have him transport the goods from you to your friend in a box (aka encryption on the internet) you get some "privacy" right? Well now he uses xray (packet sniffing, and various decryption methods) to see inside the box. Now what you say? Your screwed that's what!!!

Moral of the goal? Your ISP knows all, see's all, and hear's all. Your ISP OWNS your internet, so really don't wast money cause in the end it's still their internet.

 

[TheTeZ]

i believe it is the file you download, not that you download. They cant yell at you for dling torrents. what if you run linux? you need to dl them! microsoft has plenty of torrents. many reasons. A friend of mine dl'd autocad and got a notice, there are plenty of torrents out there that have ... bogus trackers in them, and if a company alerts your isp your isp is going to get in touch with you.