Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TF] iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TF] iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy - Page 2

post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Magix View Post
if an ISP regulates content on it's wires then yes, it is the ISP's fault for not regulating it properly. Otherwise it's entirely on the user.

That's how Apple wound up in a lawsuit over some of the apps in the app store. Even though apple didn't do anything but put an approved sticker on it, it is still responsible for regulating it.
But that's because Apple chooses to control every app in the store an manually approve them before they become available to the public.
For an ISP to do that would be completely infeasible.
Echo
(8 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K Asus Maximus V Gene Asus Radeon HD 7970 3GB Mushkin Blackline 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCaseOther
2x Samsung 830 256GB Seagate Barracuda 3TB Silverstone Temjin TJ08-E BeQuiet E9-700w 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel i3-3225 ASUS P8B75-MLX Corsair Ballistix Tactical Western Digital Red 
OSPowerCaseOther
Ubuntu Corsair CX500M Norco RPC-4224 LSI SAS 9207-4i4e HBA 
Other
Chenbro CK22804 24-Port SAS Expander Card 
  hide details  
Reply
Echo
(8 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K Asus Maximus V Gene Asus Radeon HD 7970 3GB Mushkin Blackline 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCaseOther
2x Samsung 830 256GB Seagate Barracuda 3TB Silverstone Temjin TJ08-E BeQuiet E9-700w 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel i3-3225 ASUS P8B75-MLX Corsair Ballistix Tactical Western Digital Red 
OSPowerCaseOther
Ubuntu Corsair CX500M Norco RPC-4224 LSI SAS 9207-4i4e HBA 
Other
Chenbro CK22804 24-Port SAS Expander Card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 15
iiinet is mean as, good job
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Adz] View Post
But that's because Apple chooses to control every app in the store an manually approve them before they become available to the public.
For an ISP to do that would be completely infeasible.
That's why most don't even go near that hill, much less look over it to see how far down the drop is.. However (I can't read the article) if they were filtering ANYTHING of their incoming traffic then it's considered and thereby ALL incoming traffic is considered filtered. Put short: if my ISP said, "We're not allowing any traffic on port 666 (Doom 1 for those that didn't know) incoming to our isp." Anything I do from that point on is considered the fault of the isp...

Real world example: Several universities have actually lost lawsuits on this kind of thing for the internet they offered to their dormitories. Now the student got all sorts of a crap storm raging their way but the university was held at fault.
Nightshade
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-4930k Asus Rampage IV Extreme EVGA - Titan-X Superclocked EVGA - Titan-X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
64 GB Corsair Vengance DDR3 OCZ Agility 3 Intel 540 240GB 7200 RPM Platter Drive 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Mushkin SSD Watercooled Windows 10 Pro x64 ASUS ROG Swift 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Black Widow Chroma Corsair RM1000 Corsair 900D Razer Deathadder Chroma 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Steelseries Soundblaster Z Speakers: Logitech z5500 
  hide details  
Reply
Nightshade
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-4930k Asus Rampage IV Extreme EVGA - Titan-X Superclocked EVGA - Titan-X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
64 GB Corsair Vengance DDR3 OCZ Agility 3 Intel 540 240GB 7200 RPM Platter Drive 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1TB Mushkin SSD Watercooled Windows 10 Pro x64 ASUS ROG Swift 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Black Widow Chroma Corsair RM1000 Corsair 900D Razer Deathadder Chroma 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Steelseries Soundblaster Z Speakers: Logitech z5500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Magix View Post
That's why most don't even go near that hill, much less look over it to see how far down the drop is.. However (I can't read the article) if they were filtering ANYTHING of their incoming traffic then it's considered and thereby ALL incoming traffic is considered filtered. Put short: if my ISP said, "We're not allowing any traffic on port 666 (Doom 1 for those that didn't know) incoming to our isp." Anything I do from that point on is considered the fault of the isp...

Real world example: Several universities have actually lost lawsuits on this kind of thing for the internet they offered to their dormitories. Now the student got all sorts of a crap storm raging their way but the university was held at fault.
Indiscriminately blocking traffic on certain ports or protocols is one thing. If the block port 666, everything on that port gets blocked regardless of whether it's Doom 1 or a folding client. If they block everything on the UDP protocol, everything gets blocked regardless of whether it's bittorrent or anything else.
It's also very cheap and easy for the ISP's to do that.

But what the rights holders want is to block only their content (or disconnect the people sharing it), regardless of what port or protocol. That means scanning every single packet of data on every port of every protocol for matching content, determining that it isn't a person making a backup to an off-site backup facility, isn't obtaining a copy of something they already legitimately own, isn't covered by fair usage and is definitely an infringement by the person who holds the account, rather than a neighbour who has connected to the network.

In this particular case, it's even more absurd. The rightsholders simply send a list of IP addresses to iiNet and expect them to send warning letters or suspend the accounts. No evidence, methodology or anything else convincing at all. It would be the responsibility of the accused to actually find out why.

Here's a similar (hypothetical) situation:
A photographer stands at the side of a busy road and photographs a number of cars driving along. He then sends a list of registration/license plates to the department of transport (or whoever owns the roads) and demands that they send speeding tickets or revoke their licenses for speeding.
Once the drivers have received warnings/been suspended, it is their responsibility to find out why, and what evidence was submitted.
A snapshot of the vehicle does not show any evidence of speed, it's just a snapshot of a single moment.

That's pretty much exactly what's happening. Wouldn't you then agree that the department of transport shouldn't send out warnings or issue suspensions until the accusers can provide substantial evidence?
Echo
(8 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K Asus Maximus V Gene Asus Radeon HD 7970 3GB Mushkin Blackline 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCaseOther
2x Samsung 830 256GB Seagate Barracuda 3TB Silverstone Temjin TJ08-E BeQuiet E9-700w 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel i3-3225 ASUS P8B75-MLX Corsair Ballistix Tactical Western Digital Red 
OSPowerCaseOther
Ubuntu Corsair CX500M Norco RPC-4224 LSI SAS 9207-4i4e HBA 
Other
Chenbro CK22804 24-Port SAS Expander Card 
  hide details  
Reply
Echo
(8 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K Asus Maximus V Gene Asus Radeon HD 7970 3GB Mushkin Blackline 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCaseOther
2x Samsung 830 256GB Seagate Barracuda 3TB Silverstone Temjin TJ08-E BeQuiet E9-700w 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel i3-3225 ASUS P8B75-MLX Corsair Ballistix Tactical Western Digital Red 
OSPowerCaseOther
Ubuntu Corsair CX500M Norco RPC-4224 LSI SAS 9207-4i4e HBA 
Other
Chenbro CK22804 24-Port SAS Expander Card 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 15
Suing companies is too profitable to not attempt it. Fail here win somewhere else but you gotta keep trying. This is the new business model of the future. SO INSANE...
Angry Monster
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 4770K MSI Z87 G45 HIS R9 290 G-skill Ripjaws 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 640GB Sata III LG DVD RW Corsair H70 W8.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
42" Sharp Aquos K800 EW 650W Antek 900 
MouseAudio
R.A.T. 9 Soundblaster xi-fi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
Angry Monster
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 4770K MSI Z87 G45 HIS R9 290 G-skill Ripjaws 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 640GB Sata III LG DVD RW Corsair H70 W8.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
42" Sharp Aquos K800 EW 650W Antek 900 
MouseAudio
R.A.T. 9 Soundblaster xi-fi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TF] iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy