the link solution...
bozak
when YSI'ing or using any other file sharing program they always
ask for an email address to link it too...
from now on we can send them to this email addy:
recmusi...@gmail.com
email me at bozak1 at gmail dot com to get the password...
you can also put the link in a draft as well...
name what the file and put the link in the body of the mail...
hope this works...
--
No heart? I'm all heart, MOTHERFUCKA!!!
Cuba Gooding Jr. as Rod Tidwell in "Jerry Maguire."
Cos360°
" bozak" <the...bozak1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:I91Rf.21720$_f4.3990@trnddc03...
> there is an email address that was created for link requests...
> when YSI'ing or using any other file sharing program they always
> ask for an email address to link it too...
>
> from now on we can send them to this email addy:
> recmusi...@gmail.com
>
> email me at bozak1 at gmail dot com to get the password...
>
> you can also put the link in a draft as well...
>
> name what the file and put the link in the body of the mail...
>
> hope this works...
>
if they really want to getya, the RIAA will simply get the file companies to
pass on your IP address along with the time you viewed the site/sent the
file. if your logging on home from home...then it's as good as a
fingerprint.
if your uploading from work or a public space, it's still pretty accurate
but they would have to get your sys admin to pass on his log of private
addresses. Considering some companies use DHCP, that could make it difficult
any considerable time after the fact. If they are using static IP's (some
companies do, for the exact legal situations as above)...once again, as good
as a fingerprint.
- Kwaj
bozak
"Cos360°" <kw...@NOSPAMiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4414a500$0$23298$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> " bozak" <the...bozak1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:I91Rf.21720$_f4.3990@trnddc03...
>> there is an email address that was created for link requests...
>> when YSI'ing or using any other file sharing program they always
>> ask for an email address to link it too...
>>
>> from now on we can send them to this email addy:
>> recmusi...@gmail.com
>>
>> email me at bozak1 at gmail dot com to get the password...
>>
>> you can also put the link in a draft as well...
>>
>> name what the file and put the link in the body of the mail...
>>
>> hope this works...
>>
>
> if they really want to getya, the RIAA will simply get the file companies to pass on your IP
> address along with the time you viewed the site/sent the file. if your logging on home from
> home...then it's as good as a fingerprint.
what can they do if they dont know who is downloading what in the
first place...
hence different name of file, and not blasted all over usenet...
hello, mcfly...
Seb
> if your uploading from work or a public space, it's still pretty accurate
> but they would have to get your sys admin to pass on his log of private
> addresses. Considering some companies use DHCP, that could make it difficult
> any considerable time after the fact. If they are using static IP's (some
> companies do, for the exact legal situations as above)...once again, as good
> as a fingerprint.
Nope, even with DHCP, you can always link an (IP,time) tuple to a
physical box: DHCP servers log ARP addresses when they issue a lease,
and companies most definitely keep those logs for a long ass time, if
anything just to be in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley.
--Seb, "Try to wet me, I multiply like gremlins"
Cos360°
well. using that approach...you'd want to go as far as renaming the ID3 tag.
Even then, a reasonably unsophisticated algorithm could cross reference your
mp3s based on your FCS or simply the length of songs with a known
database...and identify the songs even if they had no titles. Windows Media
Player does it purely based on song length and is reasonably accurate in
determining an albums title from a set of MP3's unlabelled mp3s. And they
are not doing anything difficult.
Once again, if they want to getya..they will. In the same way that Dre and
Metallica got people booted off Napster back in the day by court access to
Napster servers...they could do it now if they want to. But they won't
IMO...for now anyway...and if they do, they'll make test cases out of a hand
ful of people and move on.
But if you want to insist on using the renaming files approach...just
realise the more effort you put into concealing the music/media, the less
grounds you have for claiming ignorance if you were caught.
Cos360°
"Seb" <s...@foo.com> wrote in message
news:slrne19bd...@foo.befour.org...
the ARP address log would do it. I am not aware of the compliance aspect of
IT but I would have figured they had something in place. It still puts the
honus on your sys admin though to get organised
Mind you though, you can still spoof your standard MAC address...that's not
quite illegal yet. I did it from time to time during college, particularly
when I felt my sys admin was being a bit too intrusive with regards to
peer-to-peer programs.
suntzu
well, it's not in the interest of the filesharing service to put more
effort than is necessary into keeping the network clear of pirated
content. the riaa has definitely gained a lot of undue rights and
influence over the last few years, but they can't really compel
filesharing services to use the best possible algorithms for weeding out
stuff that shouldn't be there. as it is, i doubt services like ysi or
megaupload are required to police their content actively... i think they
just have to take down links that are reported and are infringing
someone's intellectual property rights. and i think they just cover
that by letting anyone remove any link, which errs on the side of
caution for them, legally. maybe they blacklist by keyword, but i doubt
it, because i've seen some file names that i'd have thought wouldn't
have made it past that sort of filter (e.g. stuff from game's album last
year).
no matter what, really, you can't claim ignorance if you get caught, so
you might as well try not to get caught. most of the cases that people
are winning against the riaa are because the riaa had such thin evidence
that they couldn't bully their way into victory.
you're just minimizing your risk here... the riaa would have to act
quickly and spend a great deal of money to get someone who was using
this system, and it probably wouldn't be worth it for them.
Cos360°
"suntzu" <sun...@freeshell.notpartoftheaddress.org> wrote in message
news:dv2cum$d5l$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
agreed, its not in their interest but the companies can be ordered to police
what is being exchanged, if the RIAA decided they were going to prosecute
individuals. It's been done with Morphues and Kazaa. In both cases they
prosecuted a handful of individuals but directed the majority of their
resources on the companies. so my point is, if your trying to conceal the
music in an attempt to not be prosecuted...there's no point...if they wanted
to find out what was being traded, they would. but they were never go
further than a handful of people.
> no matter what, really, you can't claim ignorance if you get caught, so
> you might as well try not to get caught. most of the cases that people
> are winning against the riaa are because the riaa had such thin evidence
> that they couldn't bully their way into victory.
you sure can claim ignorance, depending on what your sharing. It's not
illegal to share mp3 files or videos...and in the event that your caught,
your defense could easily be that you didn't know. attempting to conceal
what you share would make it more difficult
> you're just minimizing your risk here... the riaa would have to act
> quickly and spend a great deal of money to get someone who was using
> this system, and it probably wouldn't be worth it for them.
well. my point exactly - they won't bother with individuals.
Seb
> Mind you though, you can still spoof your standard MAC address...that's not
> quite illegal yet. I did it from time to time during college, particularly
> when I felt my sys admin was being a bit too intrusive with regards to
> peer-to-peer programs.
that's true... Real sysadmins only hand out DHCP leases to
pre-registered MAC addresses though :>
Cos360°
> On 2006-03-13, Cos360° <kw...@nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > Mind you though, you can still spoof your standard MAC address...that's
not
> > quite illegal yet. I did it from time to time during college,
particularly
> > when I felt my sys admin was being a bit too intrusive with regards to
> > peer-to-peer programs.
>
> that's true... Real sysadmins only hand out DHCP leases to
> pre-registered MAC addresses though :>
>
that was my problem with our sys admin. he spent more time being a nuisance
than actually administering...so I worked around him (and kept myself from
potentially being prosecuted).
Cos360°
"Cos360°" <kw...@nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4414c123$0$23345$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
let me explain the prosecution comment a bit more. our university was raided
two years ago by RIAA in conjuction with the equivalent australian body and
the police.
their goal, was to track down a couple of machines with mp3s on them...warn
some and prosecute the biggest offenders. I got neither (not that I kept
much on my research machines anyway) and I think it was mainly because my
MAC address changed reasonably regularly. ;-)
Seb
> that was my problem with our sys admin. he spent more time being a nuisance
> than actually administering...so I worked around him (and kept myself from
> potentially being prosecuted).
I'm not sure you understood me: nuisance or not (in the case of a
corporate IT department, complying with regulations can hardly be
construed as an intent to be a nuisance), setting up a
MAC-address-based acces control list for DHCP *will* prevent you from
working around anything or anyone.
Cos360°
I did get you.
I was highlighting is that our sys admin did none of that and if he was
really competent he would/should of.
he rather resorted to hassling you when ever he worked out who you
were...which for anyone who spoofed the mac, was hardly ever.
purrffecttbliss
The RIAA doesn't see the big picture and has it all wrong anyway. I
personally know a bunch of people who bought Ne-Yo's album (which
debuted at #1 on Billboard) because they or someone they knew DL'd
the advance and really liked it.
I also know a bunch of northerners who probably wouldn't have bought
albums from Paul Wall, Chamilionaire, Mike Jones, Young Jeezy, Lil
Wayne etc. right off the bat if it weren't for the bootleg mixtape
circuit and the internet.
Simon Burrows
be to hijack and spoof my IP address, they throw the case out on
grounds of reasonable doubt.
Cos360°
"purrffecttbliss" <purrrfffe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rlla12d2cdndou0oq...@4ax.com...
I agree. MP3's have exposed a lot of people to a lot of new music.
The argument is as well, it has forced record companies to actually put out
consistent albums. Usher and Mariah still sold well...because they had
consistent albums.
- Kwaj
suntzu
fair enough, but i think subpoenaing kazaa's search records (or
searching their network and tracing the IPs of seemingling infringing
results) is much easier than subpoenaing an individual email account.
>
>> no matter what, really, you can't claim ignorance if you get caught, so
>> you might as well try not to get caught. most of the cases that people
>> are winning against the riaa are because the riaa had such thin evidence
>> that they couldn't bully their way into victory.
>
> you sure can claim ignorance, depending on what your sharing. It's not
> illegal to share mp3 files or videos...and in the event that your caught,
> your defense could easily be that you didn't know. attempting to conceal
> what you share would make it more difficult
>
i don't see how you can claim ignorance. i don't think i've heard of
any cases, even 6 or 7 years ago when this stuff first started picking
up, where someone claimed ignorance and got off.
i mean shit, they've sued grandmothers who didn't have any sort of
filesharing software installed, let alone "knew what they were doing",
so i doubt any of us would get any mileage out of that excuse.
>> you're just minimizing your risk here... the riaa would have to act
>> quickly and spend a great deal of money to get someone who was using
>> this system, and it probably wouldn't be worth it for them.
>
> well. my point exactly - they won't bother with individuals.
>
i guess, but i'd rather err on the side of paranoia, within reason.
suntzu
yup - but they don't get it, and they're going to fail as a result of
that (which is fine by me, i just wish the process would speed up a
bit), unless they either figure things out or legislate their business
model into effectiveness. hopefully the former, rather than the latter,
if they do end up sticking around.
there's so much stuff that i've purchased because of downloads...
filesharing has allowed the recording industry to make a lot of money
off of me that it wouldn't have otherwise gotten. i just wish they were
a little less spiteful about it.
thaMANSTA
> I'm not sure you understood me: nuisance or not (in the case of a
> corporate IT department, complying with regulations can hardly be
> construed as an intent to be a nuisance), setting up a
> MAC-address-based acces control list for DHCP *will* prevent you from
> working around anything or anyone.
Unless you sniff ARP and use someone else's authorized MAC address.
-thaMANSTA
suntzu
yeah, but that's not really reliable, right? because you could create a
race condition where service depends on who the DHCP server responds to
first, correct (assuming both network adapters try to use the network at
the same time)? or does the same response traffic just get delivered to
both machines? if it's the former, it seems like the network connection
would be very flaky (esp if the DHCP lease was short)... if it's the
latter, it seems like the network connection would be unusable for both
machines, because they'd each get all sorts of responses they didn't ask
for.
i was never a networking guru by any means, but it seems like this would
only work if you were spoofing a MAC address with a legit DHCP
registration for a machine which never actually tries to use the
network. i was the dorm computer help person my senior year of college,
and i seem to recall them advising us to look for ARP spoofing if people
have strange and otherwise unresolvable network flakiness that doesn't
seem like a hardware problem.
actually, i guess if they're not on the same subnet, but use a common
DHCP registry which hands out IP addresses to known MAC addresses
regardless of subnet (which seems like it might be plausible at
universities and large corporate sites), then it might work afterall...
that was fun, i haven't thought about network trickery like that in a
couple years. although, and they might've closed this loophole by now,
when i was in school the easiest way to get a free net connection was to
just hardcode your IP address, DNS server, gateway, etc... all you had
to do was copy the DNS info from someone with a legit connection and
pick an IP that wasn't likely to be handed out (first three octets of
what everyone else in the dorm used, then make the last octet something
greater than the lowest IP in the dorm plus the number of residents).
i think it's funny that most of the jobs i had at school required me to
turn in people if i found them doing that sort of thing, even though i
was more likely than 90% of the students to be doing that myself (and
actually gave people advice on how to do it a few times). which i guess
is probably true for at least half the people who work IT jobs on any
given college campus.
sub-threads that devolve into incredibly nerdy OT discussions are the
1337th element.
Seb
> thaMANSTA wrote:
>> Unless you sniff ARP and use someone else's authorized MAC address.
>
> race condition where service depends on who the DHCP server responds to
> first, correct (assuming both network adapters try to use the network at
> the same time)? or does the same response traffic just get delivered to
> both machines? if it's the former, it seems like the network connection
> would be very flaky (esp if the DHCP lease was short)... if it's the
> latter, it seems like the network connection would be unusable for both
> machines, because they'd each get all sorts of responses they didn't ask
> for.
The latter.
> that was fun, i haven't thought about network trickery like that in a
> couple years. although, and they might've closed this loophole by now,
> when i was in school the easiest way to get a free net connection was to
> just hardcode your IP address, DNS server, gateway, etc... all you had
> to do was copy the DNS info from someone with a legit connection and
> pick an IP that wasn't likely to be handed out (first three octets of
> what everyone else in the dorm used, then make the last octet something
> greater than the lowest IP in the dorm plus the number of residents).
Not that many companies do that kind of egress filtering nowadays
(where only DHCP-handed IPs can access the outside world), but it's
fairly easy to deploy (technically speaking) with the right OS.
> sub-threads that devolve into incredibly nerdy OT discussions are the
> 1337th element.
hell yeah.
Simon Burrows
I can feel much more confident about buying CDs I like and so I buy
more.