Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Pirate Pay: The Start-up Looking to Eliminate Piracy

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 15, 2012 1:06:32 PM

Articles like this make me love Usenet :) 
Score
9
May 15, 2012 1:13:26 PM

I read it as "pirate Bay :/ "
Score
18
May 15, 2012 1:13:59 PM

As long as they only target specific files that they have first downloaded to verify that it is an infringing file, good for them.
Score
12
May 15, 2012 1:19:46 PM

Ha...there's no way to eliminate piracy. NO WAY. They screwed up when they made the internet. Should've thought of it then.
Score
13
May 15, 2012 1:23:59 PM

of the wayAs long as they only target specific files that they have first downloaded to verify that it is an infringing file, good for them.

yeah, I would not like to spend 50000 just for them to be rickrolled... :p 
Score
4
May 15, 2012 1:27:14 PM

So DDOS attacks essentially.. except legal? hrmm
Score
20
May 15, 2012 1:30:03 PM

Quote:
But nearly 50,000 users did not complete their downloads


That is but a drop in the sea that is BitTorrent. I'll hold off being impressed until they achieve something significant.
Score
6
May 15, 2012 1:41:20 PM

How to eliminate pirates?
Call them the Buccaneer Bay.
Score
6
May 15, 2012 1:41:28 PM

This isn't anything new. The MPAA and RIAA tried this years ago and failed to make a dent, so they gave up.

The way it works is simple. These guys connect to a swarm and start sending out garbage data. Your client then uses its limited resources to receive this garbage data, which gets discarded. If all of your connections are to these clients, your download never progresses.

In theory it's a nice idea, but the problem is that you can't possibly occupy every connection in the swarm. You can't control who connects to who, so the data is still going to get shared. In small swarms, this could effectively stop the downloads, but larger ones will just get a lower average download rate.

These people boast about stopping 50k downloads, but all they did was stop the downloaders temporarily. There is absolutely nothing that prevented them from getting a different torrent, or just trying again later.

What's more, it's not very hard to solve this problem in the clients. If clients share information about who is sending garbage data, then they won't get to serve said garbage data to anyone and the entire Pirate Pay system stops functioning entirely. They could try to exploit this by sending bogus notifications about valid clients, but just a little logic in the clients to require a majority swarm consensus or simply testing the clients themselves to be sure would stop that dead.

The strategy is totally untenable, and I'd think Microsoft would have the good sense not to invest in dead ends like this.
Score
26
May 15, 2012 1:50:49 PM

How to eliminate pirates ? Ask for decent prices on software materials ... but as greed is bigger than common sense ... We all love to see "old farts" having hundreds of milion/bilion dolars in their pockets! and calling the normal/poor ppl thieves!
Score
23
May 15, 2012 2:01:39 PM

Good thing these guys are around... without them no way Hollywood would make it

Look at avengers, i hope it makes its budget back, it will probably be really close
Score
5
May 15, 2012 2:19:08 PM

mobrocketGood thing these guys are around... without them no way Hollywood would make it Look at avengers, i hope it makes its budget back, it will probably be really close

I see what you did thar.

Personally, I use a private torrent site. Invite only, so very little worries about this practice.
Score
4
May 15, 2012 2:20:12 PM

esgdfghfThese guys connect to a swarm and start sending out garbage data. Your client then uses its limited resources to receive this garbage data, which gets discarded. If all of your connections are to these clients, your download never progresses.


The "normal/poor ppl" who pirate stuff because the prices are too high ARE thieves. Just because you can't afford to buy a $60 pc game or go to a $20 movie doesn't make it okay to pirate. It makes it okay not purchase. I don't have an issue with people pirating, but to blame it on greed from the artists making it is a joke.
Score
-15
May 15, 2012 2:26:26 PM

s3anisterThat is but a drop in the sea that is BitTorrent. I'll hold off being impressed until they achieve something significant.

i never studied this anywhere else but from what I can tell from the story is that number was just for 1 file, I suppose as a 'tester' - if they can stop 50K downloads on all files, that would be pretty amazing

I am just a little bit skeptical at how difficult/easy it would be to circumvent their system, especially if more people move to usenet, I find less fake files and more solid transfer rates and its pretty anonymous.
Score
0
May 15, 2012 2:35:33 PM

Quote:
We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other,”
Causing disconnection on other computers. Hacking is legal now? lol
Score
8
May 15, 2012 2:43:29 PM

Darknet anyone?
Score
2
May 15, 2012 3:05:30 PM

Of all places, Russia eh.
Score
4
May 15, 2012 3:57:30 PM

So, in essence, a copyright owner needs to pay for "protection" provided by a big Russian guy in a thick leather vest... :)  LOL
Score
11
Anonymous
May 15, 2012 4:34:30 PM

"Causing disconnection on other computers. Hacking is legal now? lol"

Anything is legal if Hollywood says it's to fight piracy.
Score
8
May 15, 2012 4:34:45 PM

SkiimThe "normal/poor ppl" who pirate stuff because the prices are too high ARE thieves. Just because you can't afford to buy a $60 pc game or go to a $20 movie doesn't make it okay to pirate. It makes it okay not purchase. I don't have an issue with people pirating, but to blame it on greed from the artists making it is a joke.


I'm not sure how pirating is thievery. There's the obvious argument where we say it's not stealing because we're just receiving a copy of it, but in terms of receiving something you have not paid for, it's not stealing unless a price is demanded. Thus...

Assumed innocence. By this I mean that I assume that the original uploader of the file obtained the correct licensing and whatnot for the file, and chooses to sell it to me and everyone else for $0.

Thus, by simply downloading the file, I have not to my knowledge committed wrong, and the responsibility for copyright infringement falls on the uploader.

Furthermore, the same assumption allows for peer sharing, where those of us seeding a file that we downloaded on the assumption that the original host has the correct licensing can't be held accountable for helping the original uploader distribute their file for 0$. (no different legally than helping any friend do some job out of the niceness of your heart)

It comes down to one of those, "I didn't know it was illegal!" kind of things, wherein you find out when you get pulled over on the highway that the speed limit was 40mph, without having seen a posted speed limit sign to tell you it changed from 65mph.

You don't have a legal obligation to check if the service you are provided comes from a legal foundation.

That all being said, as long as the company has proof that the file infringes a copyright, this technique is fair game, though they should be forced to inform all of the clients as to why they're interrupting/stopping the download.
Score
5
Anonymous
May 15, 2012 4:44:04 PM

Greenrider02, I am not an attorney but I think there's something to what you say. I believe currently they do usually go after people for uploading, not downloading...
Score
5
May 15, 2012 5:06:16 PM

JohnnyJohnsonAgainGreenrider02, I am not an attorney but I think there's something to what you say. I believe currently they do usually go after people for uploading, not downloading...


They do, but they go after any and all seeders, assuming guilt before innocence, not just the person who originally uploaded it.

The reason for this is that the most prolific original uploaders have prepared themselves way better against traffic snooping and IP identification with their own proxies and such. Or, they live in another country.

I'm not a lawyer either, but maybe I'll ask one and post what they think.
Score
2
May 15, 2012 5:12:59 PM

50 000 downloads ? HAHAHAHA. You should say 0,00000000000000000001% of total downloads in p2p network.
Score
2
May 15, 2012 5:22:57 PM

that IP you saw that downloaded that movie, it wasnt me, the judge said so
Score
4
Anonymous
May 15, 2012 5:34:06 PM

Piracy has been around since the dawn of civilization in one form or another, and it will never be eliminated. As for flooding a swarm with garbage data, the popular BitTorrent clients already have built-in protection against this. Combine that with an IP address blacklist and encryption, and the "Pirate Pay" system is no longer effective.
Score
4
Anonymous
May 15, 2012 5:58:11 PM

From the name Pirate Pay I thought this would be a way that people could pay the artists directly for songs and such they had downloaded - bypassing the record companies. I would think/hope that people would pay the artists if there was a way to do it without the MPAA or RIAA benefiting.
Score
6
May 15, 2012 6:31:23 PM


Poisoning torrent swarms seems an obvious counter similar to things used in the P2P days, the name implies it's a for-hire service so legitimate traffic will need to be protected.

I'd say they wouldn't make any money, but the MPAA/RIAA alone might make them rich regardless of how effective it really is.
Score
0
May 15, 2012 6:39:54 PM

Sounds kewl, but not too impressed.
Score
0
May 15, 2012 6:40:21 PM

Setup an FTP server...
Give the connection and login details to your family and friends...
There you go, file sharing of copywritten material without the risk of getting into trouble.
...
OR
There is another way to download almost anything and it's pretty much unregulated (cause people don't understand how to use it) but I'm not gonna tell you what it is. :p 
Score
-2
May 15, 2012 7:57:44 PM

Reminds me of Napster. Shutting them down has gotten rid of piracy. So this is also equally fool proof. Oh!...wait... :o 
Score
3
May 15, 2012 8:11:00 PM

Greenrider02 - you must be 15. And you're wrong. And time and time again, courts have found that ignorance of the law does not excuse your illegal actions. Clearly the uploader does not have the rights to sell any more than one copy of the work (the original they bought, not a copy of their original they retain) at any price. Therefore anyone downloading a copy, at any price, is also clearly breaking the law. I'm not judging the practice of torrenting, but your comments are ridiculous. You're breaking the law, you know it and so does everyone else. Take the risk and move on with life.
Score
1
May 15, 2012 8:33:38 PM

In mother Russia BitTorrent stops you.
Score
0
May 15, 2012 9:19:42 PM

shraven You're breaking the law, you know it and so does everyone else. Take the risk and move on with life.


And since we all know there has never been a law proven to be unjust and subsequently overturned, that comment is worthwhile.

/sarcasm
Score
2
May 15, 2012 11:23:11 PM

erunionAnd since we all know there has never been a law proven to be unjust and subsequently overturned, that comment is worthwhile./sarcasm


I don't really see your point. It's still law in the present even if it isn't in the future.

greenrider02I'm not sure how pirating is thievery. There's the obvious argument where we say it's not stealing because we're just receiving a copy of it, but in terms of receiving something you have not paid for, it's not stealing unless a price is demanded. Thus...Assumed innocence. By this I mean that I assume that the original uploader of the file obtained the correct licensing and whatnot for the file, and chooses to sell it to me and everyone else for $0.Thus, by simply downloading the file, I have not to my knowledge committed wrong, and the responsibility for copyright infringement falls on the uploader.Furthermore, the same assumption allows for peer sharing, where those of us seeding a file that we downloaded on the assumption that the original host has the correct licensing can't be held accountable for helping the original uploader distribute their file for 0$. (no different legally than helping any friend do some job out of the niceness of your heart)It comes down to one of those, "I didn't know it was illegal!" kind of things, wherein you find out when you get pulled over on the highway that the speed limit was 40mph, without having seen a posted speed limit sign to tell you it changed from 65mph.You don't have a legal obligation to check if the service you are provided comes from a legal foundation.That all being said, as long as the company has proof that the file infringes a copyright, this technique is fair game, though they should be forced to inform all of the clients as to why they're interrupting/stopping the download.


Take this fuzzy logic, represent yourself, and you'll surely be in a lifetime of debt. "I didn't know it was illegal" does not work. Unless you are torrenting from a licensed distributor the court assumes you were aware the distributor was unlicensed. You cannot buy merch out of the back of a car and claim you didn't know it was illegal.

And it's not stealing because no one put a price tag on it? Are you kidding me? Can I just come into your house and take your TV then? You didn't ask for a price on it.

Oh, and most judges are not too internet savvy. When you go in and claim you're just sharing with friends, they will still see that as you uploading the file to several people. This is how the RIAA justifies their excessive suit amounts in the millions.

Please stop using goofy excuses like this to justify it. You only make your cause look worse. Piracy may not be "theft", but you are taking someone's hard work without any reimbursement for it. We need legal reform of the copyrighting system and a way to circumvent industries like the RIAA.
Score
2
Anonymous
May 16, 2012 1:22:53 AM

Wow, I was expecting a service that allowed you to purchase digital goods very cheaply, or on sale every so often like Steam (old movies, etc)... I would have bought into that.
Score
1
May 16, 2012 1:27:37 AM

In first world countries it's illegal to block or modify communications without a judge's consent.

This will only work in countries that don't defend their people's rights. If that company tries to do their sh¡t in Europe, for instance, they'll get in trouble and so will Microsoft.
Score
2
May 16, 2012 2:12:15 AM

andfdfhdfsaefWow, I was expecting a service that allowed you to purchase digital goods very cheaply, or on sale every so often like Steam (old movies, etc)... I would have bought into that.


That's what I thought the story was about to when I first clicked the link
Score
0
May 16, 2012 2:15:40 AM

"$12,000 and $50,000, depending on the resources needed to defend their piece of work."
do they actually lose so much money because of pirates or they believe that they do lose more money because in their weird world everone who downloads a pirated content will buy it if they dont have a way to get it free.... im sorry idiots but if i can get a free ferrari ill take it, but it is very stupid to think that if you dont give it to me for free, ill just pop a magic wand and materialize 1 million buck to buy the car and some bling to show off
Score
1
May 16, 2012 2:26:49 AM

What's the point? People will stick get what they want easily.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 4:07:49 AM

shravenGreenrider02 - you must be 15. And you're wrong. And time and time again, courts have found that ignorance of the law does not excuse your illegal actions. Clearly the uploader does not have the rights to sell any more than one copy of the work (the original they bought, not a copy of their original they retain) at any price. Therefore anyone downloading a copy, at any price, is also clearly breaking the law. I'm not judging the practice of torrenting, but your comments are ridiculous. You're breaking the law, you know it and so does everyone else. Take the risk and move on with life.


First off, go fuck yourself, cause I don't like your attitude.

Next, real counterpoints. I'll go one by one. "time and time again, courts have found that ignorance of the law does not excuse your illegal actions." I'm not talking about ignorance of the law, I'm talking about ignorance of the licensing rights the distributor has, ie. assuming that THEY are abiding by the law, just like we assume Amazon, Steam, Gamersgate (other digital distributors) are paying their dues. I don't see an obvious stamp of approval saying, "Licensed Distributor" on any of those, and even if they did, a pirate distributor could just throw one up, what do they care? Am I to assume first that they are -not- abiding by the law? Or is it my job as a citizen to investigate every retailer I intend to use. Furthermore, if we go back to your line of thought, where ignorance of the law does not excuse you, I must say that it is troubling that ignorance of copyright violation will put you in debt and possibly in jail while management at CitiBank, Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs, etc are not only walking free but getting $30 million bonuses after destroying the retirement funds, pension funds, and mortgages of millions of Americans (and indirectly millions in Europe too). Ooops! Guess they made a mistake, no big deal, try again guys, here's more money. That's not justice.

"Clearly the uploader does not have the rights to sell any more than one copy of the work (the original they bought, not a copy of their original they retain) at any price." My last counterpoint also addresses this. I'm not sure what makes it so "clear" to you, but I am assuming that they DO have the rights, just like any other distributor. That takes care of the rest, except for...

"You're breaking the law, you know it and so does everyone else. Take the risk and move on with life."
Whether or not the law is being broken isn't really the point here, it's more that my participation as an accomplice in the law-breaking in this case is now the part of a victim. Having assumed and believed that they are a legal distributor, I have technically been defrauded (no real damage mind you, but I was forced to contribute to the fraudulent actions). Thus, my guilt is litigated.

Another point would be that I and many others believe the law is wrong. If I believe I am a good person (certainly better than Chris Dodd), then I'm going to ignore it as much as I can (as you said, there is risk involved), because I trust my judgment more than any politicians. I am free until I am caught, so risk vs reward. Same goes for speeding. Most of us do it. It's illegal, but if we believed there was a moral imperative, we would drive the speed limit during nice daytime conditions, we would reduce our speed 10mph from the limit at night, and by half. We don't do that. We drive as fast as we feel comfortable, weighing risks of crashing/fines against our impatience. (In a much more philosophical sense, if laws are not determined by moral imperative, what purpose do they serve? (Don't answer that, obviously we know most good laws keep stupid people from screwing things up for other people, and most bad laws are made by powerful people to help powerful people))

Your move.

kinggravesTake this fuzzy logic, represent yourself, and you'll surely be in a lifetime of debt. "I didn't know it was illegal" does not work. Unless you are torrenting from a licensed distributor the court assumes you were aware the distributor was unlicensed. You cannot buy merch out of the back of a car and claim you didn't know it was illegal.And it's not stealing because no one put a price tag on it? Are you kidding me? Can I just come into your house and take your TV then? You didn't ask for a price on it.Oh, and most judges are not too internet savvy. When you go in and claim you're just sharing with friends, they will still see that as you uploading the file to several people. This is how the RIAA justifies their excessive suit amounts in the millions.Please stop using goofy excuses like this to justify it. You only make your cause look worse. Piracy may not be "theft", but you are taking someone's hard work without any reimbursement for it. We need legal reform of the copyrighting system and a way to circumvent industries like the RIAA.


I'd like to refer you to several points above (without the vitriol, you didn't insult me). To reiterate, I am the one assuming I am downloading from a licensed distributor, and I've never heard of nor should I have any obligation to verify that.

"And it's not stealing because no one put a price tag on it? Are you kidding me? Can I just come into your house and take your TV then? You didn't ask for a price on it." The price tag is irrelevant, I was just going on the fact that it is, after all, free. Moreover, the distributor is GIVING me the file, I am not taking it from someone who does not want me to have it. To correct you, I would say that you come into my house, I offer you a free TV, and you accept. Why wouldn't you? You've got no reason to think I stole it, and since this is a product and not a copyable, copyrighted file, I am within my rights to give it to you.

"most judges are not too internet savvy." This is a problem that tells me that our court system needs some adjustments. Just as a judge passes (is supposed to pass) on a case when they have a personal stake in it, so should they when they have no idea about the subject matter. I would feel unqualified to make significant decisions about someone's life if the subject matter was not clear to me. But your point here simply reinforces mine above, where obviously the laws are flawed, and the wrong people are being punished for that (fits into the Wall Street analogy again as well). Thankfully you, noted this fact with your final remark.

I think that concludes my counterarguments, but let's take a quick look at reasons people pirate.

They can't afford it - Actually the least justified in my opinion, since if you have time to watch the movie/play the game, you have time to work for the money to buy it.

Telling the MPAA and RIAA to suck fat dicks - Justified, because they are awful, awful corporations that hold society and culture back, but overall ineffective, because the MPAA and RIAA react like stubborn teenagers and do the opposite of mature humans by doubling down the blame on THEIR OWN CUSTOMER BASE and throwing random punches (lawsuits) at people who are too small (don't have $500,000 lying around) to take a hit.

Path of Least Resistance - I believe that this is the most common reason, and often in its own way the most justified. The fact is that torrenting is really easy, and the more people that do it, the easier it is. Times are changing, obviously, with newer, easier digital distributors popping up (thanks to iTunes, Steam),
but it was and is still often true that it is difficult to purchase or watch a particular show/movie, especially new releases. The fact that companies like the MPAA and RIAA need blanket laws to support their failing business model means they aren't providing a service that people are realistically willing to pay for. We'll use the HBO show Game of Thrones as an example (really happened). Season 1 came out last year. As far as we can tell, there is no way to watch it even a year later unless you pay for an subscription to HBO (both expensive and a hassle), or buy the whole season at once for $60. That's six dollars for each hour long episode, when you can go see a 2.5 hour movie (Big screen, big speakers!) for $12. Kinda makes you feel icky, right? That's in addition to the fact that if you missed the first episodes but want to start watching mid-season (let's assume you have HBO as part of your cable), you won't be able to watch those episodes until months after the season is over, AND you are paying for HBO! Why not release the episodes for $3 right after the episode airs? I'm not sure, but I'd bet some of the 50,000 people I see downloading/seeding each new episode of season 2 every Sunday night on ThePirateBay alone would be okay forking over 3$ through PayPal or Amazon to be able to download it right then and there. Right now it's more convenient to torrent it, because waiting 2 months to be able to pay too much is not what people are lining up for (props for the sly Apple dig?).

I find myself drawing to the conclusion that the entire issue of piracy stems from stupidity, greed, and corruption on the part of people with the power to do it right.

TL;DR --> shraven slurps dong
Score
-4
May 16, 2012 7:04:36 AM

"no matter how hard you try you can't stop us now!!"
Score
1
May 16, 2012 4:43:20 PM

Greenrider02: Your ad hominem attacks aren't exactly helping your cause. Granted Shraven's "You must be 15" comment is also ad hominem, justifying your own ad hominem in this way falls under another fallacy: "Two wrongs (don't) make a right."

Now I'm not saying you have no valid points whatsoever (otherwise I'd be committing a fallacy called "tu quoque"), but I'd think you'd have a better audience (and fewer thumbs down) without the ad hominems.

So perhaps it'd be best to try another TL;DR summary.
Score
0
May 16, 2012 7:57:54 PM

killerb255Greenrider02: Your ad hominem attacks aren't exactly helping your cause. Granted Shraven's "You must be 15" comment is also ad hominem, justifying your own ad hominem in this way falls under another fallacy: "Two wrongs (don't) make a right."Now I'm not saying you have no valid points whatsoever (otherwise I'd be committing a fallacy called "tu quoque"), but I'd think you'd have a better audience (and fewer thumbs down) without the ad hominems.So perhaps it'd be best to try another TL;DR summary.


To correct you, ad hominem attack would be defaming his character for the purpose of invalidating his arguments. I was not saying he slurps dong; therefore, his points are invalid, but rather that all of his points are invalid (followed by supporting arguments); therefore, he slurps dong. Admittedly, that's not a remotely valid conclusion, but I really like putting the words "slurp" and "dong" together, and shraven was the obvious target.

As for hurting my cause and getting downvotes, I have to add that people can disagree with me, or my attitude/language, but their opinions mean nothing until they can provide suitable counterarguments to my own. An unfounded opinion is just an instinct, and instincts have little place in constructive discussion.
Score
-1
Anonymous
May 19, 2012 1:39:01 PM

Add 2 nodes to a swarm both masquerading as leechers (Node A and Node B).

When a 3rd party node (Node C - Pirate Pay) falsely reports Node A to Node B (or vice versa), we idenitfy the culprit easily and without much effort, the tracker then flags them as a malicious node and we all go about our business... while some idiot tries to figure out why they bothered to invest in this.

We've faced efforts from 3rd parties working on behalf of RIAA/MPAA/et al in the past, even as much as a decade ago they were attempting to DDoS FastTrack. They failed then, they've failed repeatedly since then, Aiplex has their asses handed to them for trying it... and this is doomed to fail.

Considering file sharers tend to be the biggest consumers of legitimately-acquired-content (purchased) according to multiple studies - How about finding solutions to some of the real problems in the world rather than just making things to help the entertainment industry gouge consumers more than they already do.
Score
0
!