Oink is no more

[wishface]

because the anti piracy people have lots of money and have it in for him. Plus it woud seem he has incriminating evidence on his machine (probably a load of ilegal mp3's himself). There's no way that defence is going to appeas a jdudge anymore than the idea that donations amade to the site won't be seen as not funding piracy. Even though that's not accurate.

It also implies that everything to do with that site was the fault of the users who chose to share illegal files while he didn't know this or couldn't stop that.

 

[dogmatique]

what good would the backsup be, don't the users have the actual files?

Um, if there's a backup of the whole site, all the users have to do is re-download torrents of files they were seeding, et voila!

Much easier than rebuilding from the ground up.

Pure speculation that it'll happen at all at present though...

 

[jæd]

because the anti piracy people have lots of money and have it in for him. Plus it woud seem he has incriminating evidence on his machine (probably a load of ilegal mp3's himself). There's no way that defence is going to appeas a jdudge anymore than the idea that donations amade to the site won't be seen as not funding piracy. Even though that's not accurate.

It also implies that everything to do with that site was the fault of the users who chose to share illegal files while he didn't know this or couldn't stop that.

Well... It appears the guy hasn't actually been charged with anything so far...

 

[wishface]

but arent the torrents in the hands of the users, particularly the uploaders? I thought that's how it worked.

 

[wishface]

Well... It appears the guy hasn't actually been charged with anything so far...

I notice also it says that bail was £0, which seems odd.

How does that work, and how do you bail someone with no charges?

 

[jæd]

I notice also it says that bail was £0, which seems odd.

How does that work, and how do you bail someone with no charges?

It means you want to keep an eye on someone while you still workout whether they're guilty of something or not..

 

[wishface]

It means you want to keep an eye on someone while you still workout whether they're guilty of something or not..

hmmmn, well i always thought that bail only applied if someone had been formally charged. Nevermind.

 

[dogmatique]

Bailed "pending further investigation".

BTW .torrent files are just the index files telling the client where to look and how to re-assemble the data at either end. The user uploads them to a torrent site for anyone to download in order to get the file(s) on offer. The user has the actual file. No data passes through the website other than browsing and the torrents themselves. (I'm sure someone will be along to correct me about the tracker, but that's the general gist.)

 

[Mapped]

but arent the torrents in the hands of the users, particularly the uploaders? I thought that's how it worked.

As far as I understand the torrent files were kept on the Oink server, that's where you downloaded them from. The torrent files themselves don't contain any copyrighted info they direct you to the mp3s etc. on other user's computers.

 

[wishface]

Bailed "pending further investigation".

BTW .torrent files are just the index files telling the client where to look and how to re-assemble the data at either end. The user uploads them to a torrent site for anyone to download in order to get the file(s) on offer. The user has the actual file. No data passes through the website other than browsing and the torrents themselves. (I'm sure someone will be along to correct me about the tracker, but that's the general gist.)

how can they tell people where to look wihtout giving away the location of that user's computer?

 

[subversplat]

how can they tell people where to look wihtout giving away the location of that user's computer?

It's probably all done dynamically - the seeder notifies the tracker of what it's got and where it is, the server holds it in RAM until a client needs the information and periodically checks that the seeder is still there. If the computer is turned off (say, by being unplugged by raiding police officers) all the IP information is lost until the seeders try to connect again.

 

[Fez909]

*edit* misunderstood the question being asked.

 

[wishface]

my question is then do they record the ip's of users as they upload?

 

[Mapped]

That blog says that the IP of a user uploading a torrent file onto the site is not logged.

However anyone downloading the actual content will be able to see all the IPs that are seeding the download to them as they need to connect to their computers to obtain the data.

The site wouldn't have recorded that info, but that's not to stop investigators downloading a few torrents before the site went down and taking a record of all the IPs seeding it.

 

[wishface]

Interesting; if that were the case I wonder if they would have seeded the files to further entrap people. That would strike me as morally questionable.

 

[butchersapron]

FFS.

They don't know how the thing works on the most basic level - they're not going to hang on and learn how to trap 7 leechers.

 

[Mapped]

I think we'll all be OK Wishface. They can't even bring charges against the guy running the thing, I think the users will be safe.

 

[dogmatique]

I think we'll all be OK Wishface. They can't even bring charges against the guy running the thing, I think the users will be safe.

Very good point!

 

[wishface]

well...yet

But don't forget he may not be in posession of anything illegal (which would apply to the users who dump their files). If he just hosts files that are torrents with incriminating sounding names (but contain no copyright material thus as torrents) then he may well be ok.

That might not be the case for users they choose to target.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

ASFAIK the torrent contains a hash which is computed so the torrent knows it's completed. This hash would be comparable to the original file. Therefore, if the police can obtain a copy of the files from the torrent(s) in question and show the hash value to be the same, this would lead to some incrimination.

 

[mauvais]

Bah, my excellent petition was rejected. Another blow for democracy.

 

[Nixon]

bollocks

 

[dogmatique]

Interesting...

 

[wishface]

ASFAIK the torrent contains a hash which is computed so the torrent knows it's completed. This hash would be comparable to the original file. Therefore, if the police can obtain a copy of the files from the torrent(s) in question and show the hash value to be the same, this would lead to some incrimination.

better hope mr oink and his evil crew really didn't log ip's.

 

[wishface]

Interesting...

stupid.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

better hope mr oink and his evil crew really didn't log ip's.

I didn't mean incrimination of end users. They are not been prosecuted as yet. They will be after prosecuting the site owner first off. They will need to prove that he was party to what was going on, they will have a fairly good case I would imagine. Actually going after the users will be a larger task but will be entirely possible presuming they have been looking at the place for a while.

.

 

[dogmatique]

stupid.

You've really, really got to get over it. There are plenty of users much, much more exposed than you.

Please stop going on about it. No really. You're getting boring.

 

[mauvais]

I was thinking a fair bit about this today.

There's no legal defence. That much is obvious.

However if someone put up a fence around every beach, hill, wood, river and natural feature in the UK, and charged you per footstep to enter into its area, would you pay? Or would you trespass not just over one fence, but all those you could?

If you were suddenly charged per word to read the classic novels and literature of our time - take for instance, the Bible - would you pay the corporations that licensed them, or would you find some other means of accessing them?

I don't want to escape paying, but I do want the same freedoms. I don't want to be charged per listen for decades of human endeavour and emotion - what, just because some faceless company paid a menial fee once? I'd happily pay the musical equivalent of a TV licence, to the point of even £1000 a year, but that's not enough, because they've got to be able to extort every last penny from their 'intellectual property'. Fuck that.

If I ever went to court, I'd plead guilty, because there's no legal parallel to my points. I'll be damned if I'm doing so without a little articulation though.

 

[dogmatique]

I like the public trespass analogy. So the p2p'ers are the equivalent of the "Right to Roam" movement of the thirties? Hmm.

We're obviously on the cusp of a new era of copyright -

At the turn of the century the "Music Industry" was a kiosk selling sheet music on Denmark Street.

After the various publishers got together, they decried Radio when it was launched as killing their business. People would no longer get together round the piano if the evil of radio had it's say.

What did radio do for music? Oh just a little bit, and the publishers profited so much they turned into the leviathons that control access to music to this day.

What gives them the god given right to control music in the way they see fit through the next millenia other than the copyright laws that they themselves lobbied for all those years ago?

Mmm Irrational ranting.

 

[wishface]

You've really, really got to get over it. There are plenty of users much, much more exposed than you.

Please stop going on about it. No really. You're getting boring.

I say stupid because a lot of these people seem to think they are on some right-on crusade against 'the man', and are blithely ignoring anything that happens. All this emotive talk, all the bravado is just ridiculous. People need to give this a break for a while at least; I certainly think it's ill advised to start bragging about a new oink or exhorting the virtues of other sites or whatever. But a lot of the posts i've read on sites like torrentfreak are full of this bullshit - these people don't want to face the reality that filesharing is illegal. End of story. We all know this, regardless. No amount of decryign the industry and calling 'the brethren' to fight in some kind of internet Long March will change that or defend that.

That's why i said it was stupid.

And if people are bored of reading my posts, well that's a cross i can bear. But if you don't think there will come a time when the authroities will bite back then you are living in cloud cuckoo land, and all those who seem to think those authorities are stupid luddites are being equally naive.