http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070613-att-willing-to-spy-for-nsa-mpaa-and-riaa.html?bub

any of ye chaps concerned as to where are things heading?

So...video games eh?

October 19, 2007 11:06 AM PDT

Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all
Posted by Declan McCullagh

For a few months Comcast has been the subject of scattered reports that say it throttles BitTorrent traffic.

TorrentFreak said in August that Comcast was surreptitiously interfering with file transfers by posing as one party and then, essentially, hanging up the phone. But when we contacted Comcast at the time, it flatly denied doing it.

Thanks to tests reported Friday by the Associated Press, however, it's clear that Comcast is actively interfering with peer-to-peer networks even if relatively small files are being transferred.

The tests involved transferring a copy of the King James Bible through the BitTorrent network on Time Warner Cable, Cablevison, AT&T and two Comcast connections (in Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco). Only the Comcast-connected computers were affected.

This is significant. The Gutenberg version of the King James Bible is only 4.24MB, which is relatively tiny and indicates that Comcast was singling out even small files.

Now, even though there's been some musing that Comcast can't do this, I'd be surprised if a court would say that it was somehow unlawful. Comcast's Terms of Service says: "You further agree to comply with all Comcast network, bandwidth, and data storage and usage limitations. You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy...if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violate this AUP, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate.

Which is pretty broad.

The danger for Comcast is twofold. First, its hyperactive filtering may zap perfectly legitimate file transfers, which seems to have happened in one case involving a customer using Lotus Notes.

Second, it encourages countermeasures such as obfuscating BitTorrent traffic or encrypting it. That means that future efforts by Comcast to manage its traffic may be far more difficult. (If Comcast had merely slowed down BitTorrent transfers instead of cutting them off completely, users wouldn't be escalating this arms race as quickly.)

Probably the best result would be tiered pricing. BitTorrent users who are heavy users of bandwidth would pay more, while average home users would pay less. It's not perfect, and lots of Internet users may not like a tiered pricing model, but it's probably better than escalating a technological arms race, or not being able to use BitTorrent at all.

call me paranoid.

Dunkelheit, you're paranoid.





Happy now?

ja ^_____^

if you had bought a ferrari, and you had the power to make an exact copy of it and give it to a friend.... would you do it? *inquisitive look*

yep.

that's my usual cheap-but-not-that-much argument to support piracy in some cases

http://digg.com/music/Oink_cd_Shut_Down

And now oink.cd has been shut down.

still think its all a joke?

That is sad news. Oink is where I found, among several/many others, Dev's music (I am in the process of buying his discography now, as I love the music, and respect the artist and that's how I roll). If not for Oink, I might not have heard it, and you folks wouldn't have the pleasure of reading my posts.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/w ... th-of.html

Great article. Gave me some good ideas on where the industry should go next, I just wish I had the resources to implement them :{