It feels dirty to agree with an ISP on something. But even the worst corporations are on the right side of something from time to time I suppose.

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Meanwhile, VPN providers be like “come on download stuff 😉😉😉”, wouldn’t that be a much easier case for them to prove willful disregard for piracy?

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, but ISPs are rich and VPN providers are not. The most recent numbers I can find for Cox (2020) show $12.6 billion in revenue.

    • marx2k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve had VPNs email me that they’ll terminate my account if they find me pirating again after getting notified of DMCA. That was a few years ago by the same VPN I’m still with and have been pirating ever since. I haven’t gotten any more emails so either I didn’t get caught again or they’re just not notifying me any more.

      I didn’t want to lose the VPN though since it gives me a long term IP and allows incoming port for torrenting

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      A day is going to come when the VPNs are going to be targeted for regulation.

      It’s only a matter of time before someone shoots up a school with a 3D printed gun or Epstein’s a terabyte of child porn to a Senator’s office or some other silly bullshit, and then VPNs will become the whipping boy for our litany of problems.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Considering how many corporations rely on VPNs for their workers, I don’t think this would gain much traction.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          A number of countries are experimenting with registration of VPNs and blocking of TOR traffic.

          And there are more than a few VPN series that are explicitly or implicitly compromised by the security services in their own countries.

          I wouldn’t try planning to do the next 9/11 on a ProtonVPN, for instance. The NSA is all over that shit.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        In autocratic states where VPNs are blocked, they use VPNs that are harder to detect. So by the time they decide to criminalize VPN use in the free (read slightly less un-free) world, we’ll still have a cornucopia of options.

        It’s like FBI trying to ban encryption or get it regulated when we already have encryption technology that is deniable.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          n autocratic states where VPNs are blocked, they use VPNs that are harder to detect

          Paying for the VPN that’s harder to detect with my credit card which is very easy to detect.

          It’s like FBI trying to ban encryption

          https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/the-fbi-is-secretly-breaking-into-encrypted-devices-were-suing

          Devices are already riddled with backdoors imposed by federal authorities. The only real way to avoid them is to obtain a device not designed or assembled within the NATO block.

          Incidentally, import of these devices has become increasingly difficult, on the grounds that these devices may have backdoors implemented by foreign governments.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Devices are already riddled with backdoors imposed by federal authorities. The only real way to avoid them is to obtain a device not designed or assembled within the NATO block.

            this smells distinctly russian for some reason, anyway, just use open source software and hardware, the protection net while not perfect, is entirely open, and theoretically, capable of perfect safety.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              this smells distinctly russian

              Of course, disregard everything Snowden and Assange leaked. Your devices are secure, citizen. Carry on.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                my brother in christ you literally referred to it as the NATO block.

                What makes you think chinese devices don’t have backdoors for example? It’s also likely russian devices do, though idk how many if any they produce. We do know that russian malware often has a russian locale kill switch because apparently they’re a little silly like that.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  What makes you think chinese devices don’t have backdoors for example?

                  Incidentally, import of these devices has become increasingly difficult, on the grounds that these devices may have backdoors implemented by foreign governments.

          • djsoren19@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            In case you weren’t aware, it’s actually pretty easy to pay for a VPN in unmarked funds. Most will allow for BTC transactions, but some VPNs will even allow you to use giftcards for a place like Target.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Most will allow for BTC transactions

              This is the dumb guy panacea for committing every financial crime. You’d never even know the block chain is a public ledger.

            • Alk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Mullvad even lets you send them an envelope with cash in it, with no identifying info other than your account number.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well,

      a) even the labels and studios pirate stuff that isn’t theirs. They don’t really believe what they preach.

      b) All that content they produce involves unethical treatment of the actual creators and technical staff who are under-compensated, and often lose all rights to their own creative work. and

      c) regional blocks are just marketing bullshit, and is the primary thing VPNs advertise they’ll circumvent for you.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why should ISP lose revenue enforcing laws for another corpos benefit?

    If media industry was serious, they should pay for it 🫢

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Their game is just to try to make the ISPs liable; they don’t actually want it enforced. In fact, failure to enforce is the feature. They paint the ISP as complicit in the piracy then sue the ISP for hundreds of millions in damages hoping for a no-fault settlement. That’s a much better revenue stream than suing someone for 10k who can’t pay it.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn’t matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that’s even better.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      A lot of it is the sheer bureaucracy of chasing down actual pirates and weeding them from people who just happen to be on the same IP address.

      If one guy visiting an apartment block downloads a torrent from a public connection, what is ATT supposed to do? Shut down Internet to the entire building?

      This is an undue burden for ISPs, even if the content isn’t living in a gray zone of legality.

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah IP owners really want to have all the benefits of ownership with none of the drawbacks. After lobbying for and receiving a blank check to be able to rent seek indefinitely, they are constantly acting to outsource any cost of detection and enforcement of “their” property. Disgusting how goddamn entitled they are.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          this is why everyone should pirate literally anything they can, even if they don’t particularly want it.

          er, with a few very gross exceptions that shouldn’t exist.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        … IP addresses are assigned to modems… They don’t assign IP addresses to… Cables going to buildings I guess lol but ok.

        And if you’re in some fucked up place that has the entire apartment complex’s internet going to one modem, then God save your soul.

        • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for this. Even with CGNAT and related technologies, each modem still has a unique MAC address at the cable/DOCSIS level (even without loading Ethernet on top).

          Where you could be wrong is buildings with large networks, say an apartment building with wired Ethernet to all the units but all being routed through the same WAN(s), but even still I’d hope that the network is managed in a way that it’s not hard to tell which unit is which IP internally. Unrelated but I’d also pray that each unit is on its own VLAN for security.

          • Hexarei@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            There are some apartment buildings with shared Internet connections that are just open and public; It’s crappy but cheap if someone can’t afford individual connection

            • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Personally I’d die for Ethernet straight into my unit, I had that once in a new building and it was fantastic (though you still had to pay an ISP individually), if only to avoid cable modems and the like. My current cable ISP wouldn’t provision IPv6 to their very own (old, clunky) modem so I had to go out and buy one that doesn’t care whether or not it’s provisioned.

    • dumbass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ohh for sure, they know that if they get rid of the pirates, they’d lose half their customer base and will struggle to pay the CEOs bonus.

  • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Absolutely the correct stance, nothing dirty about it. At this point, for better and for worse, the Internet is a basic necessity. Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not water baloons, but some companies will cut off your water if you’re sharing it with a neighbor. (especially if that neighbor had their water cut off for not paying a bill)

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Garbage collection services dislike when people throw their garbage in neighbor’s cans even when the neighbor is paying for the larger can (e.g. the disposal volume being used). This has led to some garbage distribution piracy alongside recycling collection crews.

        In case you wanted some cyberpunk dystopia in your cyberpunk dystopia.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Two ways.

            The outer layer is the ad-hoc (often underground or criminal) system that serves to rectify a problem caused by the unjust rules of the legitimate system, in this case, refuse pirates who match overflow to underused capacity.

            The inner layer comes from service to the community becoming punk when the mainstream becomes destructive. When recycling bandits start redistributing garbage they go from being commensal with their neighborhood (causing some noise pollution and some additional mess) to mutualist (providing a service to the neighborhood they scavenge).

            • otp@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I appreciate the explanation, but I don’t think I follow what that has to do with cyberpunk.

              Wikipedia describes cyberpunk as “futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cyberware, juxtaposed with societal collapse, dystopia or decay”.

              I understand the relation to dystopia, and even your comparison to the punk movement, but I don’t get the cyberpunk comparison, lol

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Wow, that’s really odd. My garbage company doesn’t care what I do with my or anyone else’s can. I can even set mine on my side of the street, and as soon as it empties, refill it and move it across the street (there’s like a 15 min gap between them), and they literally don’t care. I also overfill it fairly often, and again, they don’t care. As long as the truck can pick it up and dump it, they’re happy.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I know you know this but it bears saying explicitly: it’s because pretty much all laws are out there to enforce property first. Humanity is secondary. We all know implicitly that it’s not illegal to share your water because it’s unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company’s profits, humanity be damned.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            For sure. Even when it isn’t a law the same outcome happens when corporations get the police to enforce their policies.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            We all know implicitly that it’s not illegal to share your water because it’s unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company’s profits, humanity be damned.

            it’s perfectly ethical, unless i’m stealing the water, they’re using the same water i’m using and that means i’m paying for it. It’s literally not a problem.

            It might cut flat charges but, get fucked.

            • feannag@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I think you misinterpreted, because you two are saying the same thing. It is ethical to share. Therefore, it has not been made illegal for being unethical (because it is ethical), it has been made illegal to protect profits.

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            How though? If you’re using extra water to share with your neighbor, and YOU still pay your water bill, they still get extra money for extra usage, right? It just comes from your wallet rather than your neighbors.

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Because your sharing your water with them disincentivizes their paying their bill.

              Extrapolating on this, if you could legally share your water with the neighborhood couldn’t an enterprising person with a zeriscaped yard sell their water to a thirsty lawned neighbor? That’s money the water company considers theirs

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I was thinking, imagine the media companies demand the power company turn off your power because you downloaded a pirated movie. Or gas stations stop selling gas to you because you speed.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or Nestle asked your water utility to disconnect your service because you’re drinking free water instead of purchasing theirs. Not a direct correlation but closer.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

      gasp!

      I do that ALL THE TIME!!!

  • BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can’t wait to find out which industry benefits the SCOTUS justices more.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    Here in NL the ISP’s are refusing to give client info to the government due to privacy policy, giving a big “go fuck yourself” to any agency trying to convict internet pirates. A judge needs to sign for an ISP to release information on soneone, which only happens with large criminal cases like drug sales and child porn distribution. The fight to change the law so ISP’s are forced to release all client info has been going on for years and years now, constantly ending in favor of privacy. ISP’s are asshole companies lurking for your money, but at least they protect client privacy over here.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Difficult to feel sorry for an organisation whose only responsibility is to generate profit for their shareholders. If their policy happens to align with normal human ethics it is a coincidence and they will not spare a moment to consider the plight of their customers when the shoe is on the other foot. Fuck them. Long live the pirates.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is less than interesting.

    ISPs don’t want to cut off their income here. I’m certain they have a very good idea of how many of their customers, especially those paying for higher tier plans, are either getting constant DMCA requests, or have a persistent connection to a VPN service. They have a good idea of how much money they’re making from people pirating content, so this position for them is hardly surprising.

    At the same time, I’d rather they fight with the copyright trolls than me. Regardless of the reason for why they’re doing it, it’s a good thing to fight for.

    IMO, they shouldn’t be responsible for this because they’re not tasked with enforcing laws. They must abide by them, and they have a legal, or at least, moral obligation to report any felonies/crimes that they’re aware of (with varying degrees of obligation depending on the severity of the crime. Eg, I’m less bothered if they don’t report, say, piracy, than I would be if they don’t report CP/murder/violent crimes, etc).

    If the LEO’s want a service cut off for a good reason, then let them get a court order for it. They should not be obligated by law to enforce such laws. Any enforcement should be handled by an independent organization, and be filtered through the court system as a check/balance for the whole cabal. They shouldn’t be forced to both find and enforce infractions. Reporting suspected infractions, maybe. Forwarding legal requests to customers, sure (like DMCA notices). Oblige disconnect requests from law enforcement by request (when confirmed necessary by courts in the presence of reasonable evidence), absolutely.

    But having the ISPs do all that themselves with little oversight, is both a danger to their clients, to their liability, and to the public at large, mainly in the context of free speech. The ISP is just the middle man, the messenger. They don’t host the content, nor should they police it, or the access you can get to it. I’m all for collaboration in the interest of enforcing the law, but putting the entire obligation on the ISP seems foolish to me.

    Cyber crimes is one area of law enforcement that I don’t think should be defunded. It may be that ACAB, but those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there.

    I dunno, just my opinion man.

    • would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there

      They’re the root of privacy problems, which is a non-trivial issue for many of us.

    • SkaBunkel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not sure how real companies handle this, but I can share what we did in a student organization at my university that provided internet to its members.

      Not only could we monitor who was downloading a lot of data, but we also received emails from legal organizations informing us that a specific IP in our network(All members had a public IP) had downloaded copyrighted content. They would ask us to disconnect that user. These emails typically came with an XML file attached, filled with legal information and details about the content being downloaded, often including the exact torrent filename.

      We built a system that would automatically parse the XML and forward the email to the user responsible. The subject line may or may not have been “Use a VPN, you idiot!” at some point.

      We also maintained a “high score” list to track what was trending. The last time I checked, Rick and Morty was in the top 3, but that was a while ago.

      • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Didn’t find anything from me… Then again I’m using a private tracker, which should insulate me from that. (Random people knowing, the ISP probs does know… But I don’t think they care)

        • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I didn’t find anything from me either. Since I’m using Alldebrid to download torrents. It’s a torrent cache that downloads the torrents to their own server and then you can download directly from those servers at high speed. And most of the time the files are already cached so you can download immediately.

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I use proton VPN for torrenting. It doesn’t show I’ve downloaded anything. I think that means my VPN is working? 😅

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Especially since it specifically highlights porn in a different color, it labeled my VPN IP as “Likes Porn”.

        • modus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Weird… I looked up the IP for my church group’s forum and it said the same thing.

  • Frozyre@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Cox Communications being the ISP for the customers.

    You will not ever, ever see Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum .etc doing this. They would happily snip your internet access and leave you high and dry.

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I work for Spectrum. I cannot officially speak for the company, of course, but…We don’t want to be doing this shit, either. We give people 12 strikes. First 4 I just a notice, next 4 is modem quarantine until notice is acknowledged, next 4 we also sent snail mail, with the last one being a 1 year suspension. Anyway, I worked in repair for 5 years. Not a single person at any level gave a crap. Sups, managers, VP’s. “We give them 11 chances to figure out they should use a VPN” was the common attitude. All these warnings and man-hours taking calls and dealing with unblocking modems is a waste of time and money.

      • Frozyre@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m going to have to slightly disagree with you here. Yes I know, I’m disagreeing with someone who actually works with the company. Based on pirate experience that I’ve noted over the years on Reddit’s piracy subreddit, what I’ve read on TorrentFreak for the first 9 or so years I’ve been reading it off and on and vice versa. Spectrum falls under the category of an ISP to be wary of.

        I was going to say that Time Warner also owned them, however, it’s actually the opposite. And now I’m knowing that Time Warner Cable isn’t really much of a thing anymore. But before it’s demise, pirates had been wary of it’s existence because of Time Warner’s relentlessness of targeting piracy.

        I’m going to guess that maybe the reason you’re saying all of these warnings is probably because there having been that shift in control. But I do recall that Charter/TW was not to be trifled with.

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    So I’ve rented a server for years. It’s in the US and it’s a couple bucks a month. It’s fun to play with and I use it however I want. I’ve had an email server, a next cloud instance, and an open VPN instance to name a few things on it. Well I decided to connect a torrent client from my home to the openvpn instance on my server to see if I could do it. It worked really well until the company I rent from forwarded the DMCA hit back to me for downloading Rick and Morty. I should’ve known better but I thought a nameless faceless server farm wouldn’t be worth the hassle of a DMCA but I was wrong.