Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

8 Ways To Circumvent the PROTECT-IP Act

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the reserve-army-of-unemployed-pigeons dept.

Censorship 284

Dangerous_Minds writes "One of the things that the PROTECT-IP act is said to do is make DNS servers censor websites that have been accused of copyright infringement. Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid decided to look in to how many ways he could come up with that would circumvent such censorship. He found 8 ways to circumvent such censorship. The article includes pros and cons and links to guides on how to carry out these methods. The methods are: using a VPN service, using your HOSTs file, using TOR, using freely available DNS lookup tools, changing your DNS server to a non-US server, using command prompt, using Foxy Proxy, and using MAFIAAFire. If anything, the list raises serious doubts that the PROTECT IP Act will even put a dent on copyright infringement online."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Best idea (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017558)

Best idea: Don't use DNS servers located in the United States.

I mean, at the rate our country's going, it won't be long before other countries just start walling us in. Not out. In. "Those 'mericans are craaaazy. They think they own this shit. Well, this here is mah router, and this here is mah website, and those yankee bastards can eat a bag of dicks."

Progress: It's gonna happen, whether Uncle Sam wants it or not.

Re:Best idea (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017624)

Progress: It's gonna happen, whether Uncle Sam wants it or not

Uncle Sam ain't the one holding progress, it's corporate America and its shills who do, and it's nothing new either...

YOU DIDN'T ASNWER THE REAL FUCKING QUESTION: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017972)

How to circumcise the PROTECT-IP Act.

Re:Best idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018124)

Uncle Sam ain't the one holding progress, it's corporate America and its shills

So what you mean is "corporate America and its shill politicians".

Or more succinctly, "Uncle Sam", which is what he said.

I guess you missed the overthrow, but the Supreme Court and the late ObL played a very big part.

Re:Best idea (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017654)

Why did you give the person OUTSIDE of America the stereotypical redneck-american accent?

Re:Best idea (1)

ProfM (91314) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017666)

Huh? I read it with an Aussie accent.

Re:Best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017832)

Why did you give the person OUTSIDE of America the stereotypical redneck-american accent?

Huh? I read it with an Aussie accent.

Er, do you have any idea how Australians speak? That came across as *nothing* like an Aussie accent! I'm in the UK, and to me that was blatantly a US accent.

I'm sure you could try mentally reading it that way, but then you could do that with a German accent too. Or an Austrian one for that matter. ;-)

Re:Best idea (3, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018508)

Huh? I read it with an Aussie accent.

Whatever accent you used, the vocabulary is entirely un-Aussie."Eat a bag of dicks"? Never heard that. "'mericans"? We'd say "yanks", or "septics" for a more vintage slang. "Mah"? In Strine, we say "me" for my. Basically, Australian vowels are shortened, the opposite to southern USA.

Re:Best idea (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017916)

Well, in his defense, most of us in Texas don't really associate ourselves with the US government much. Seriously, if you see a guy from Texas overseas, will he ever call himself an American, or will he call himself a Texan? (I always chose the latter) And if our politicians get too out of hand, and we don't want them in Texas any more, we send them to the white house to get them out of the Governors mansion. And I think we are about sick of Perry... Sorry.

Re:Best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018004)

How nice of you to inform foreigners that you are from one of the worst parts of the US.

Re:Best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018240)

What happened to the eastern Texas courts then? Where are you going to ship those judges?

Re:Best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017812)

"...and those yankee bastards can eat a bag of dicks."

And then they'll drive away! [youtube.com]

Re:Best idea (2)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018018)

Stop making Snow Crash seem even more plausible than it is already.

SUPER DEFINITIVE Best idea (5, Insightful)

That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018186)

And all this just for the sake of the likes of Justin Bieber and Shakira and Hollywood so they can profit for the crap they do.

If you want to fight censorship you have to go directly to your " "artists" " and ask them why they work for a MAFIAA thats trying to fuck our internet. An active, longlasting and noisy boycott targetted to the "artist" him/herself is all You need.

But no! lets all fiddle with proxies and Tor so we can have our tunez and have the mental-fap that we 0wned the censorz and we can has "teh 1337est freedom"

Engineers think in solutions for engineers.. this is a problem that have root in society and how they consume media. Here we have 8 solutions the don't solve the inherent problem that is: Media industry have failed (You know it, they know it) and it's going down fucking everything in the way, because they can.

They are testing the waters and those 8 "solutions" are what they want to see, not the general public realization of the absurdity this is.

Re:SUPER DEFINITIVE Best idea (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018460)

An active, longlasting and noisy boycott targetted to the "artist" him/herself is all You need.

Right, let's get all those millions of 13 year old Bieber fans to join up.

Re:SUPER DEFINITIVE Best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018530)

You mad? You really think artists have a choice to work outside this system? Most of them don't even understand it because once they become successful the system drowns them in money and allows them to have the run of the world, jet-setting to exotic locales and buying whatever they want, when they aren't spending long hours creating more "art"(a debate that doesn't apply to this discussion.) A few people talking to them about broken media systems are just going to sound like crazies, and they're not going to care about that when they could just go play in a swimming pool full of money and forget about the problems they faced before they made it big.

The problem is far larger than a broken media system, as the public will come to realize soon enough. It encompasses every aspect of society. These are just temporary fixes to allow those with enough of a brain to use them to access media and enjoyment while the problem becomes apparent enough to the general public that something can be done about it. That something being NESARA.

Re:Best idea (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018494)

They don't have to wall the US out, all it would take is other nations signing onto an ICANN replacement. Then, even though an IP range may belong to foo.com in the US, everyone else will resolve it to bar.eb (for Elbonia), and their traffic would go to that site. Same with DNS. The international registry may say vendagoat.com goes to the site in Latveria, while in the US, it goes to a company that has had it for a while.

It would be a split, but it would be relatively easy to do if other countries decided that the TLD registry needed to be owned by someone else.

At any time, it wouldn't be hard for other countries, especially in blocs like BRIC to pick up their toys and go home. As of now, the only reason this hasn't been done is out of laziness -- ICANN and the existing IPv4 allocation methods work, so why bother changing? However, this can change at any moment.

Black Hats (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017580)

"One of the things that the PROTECT-IP act is said to do is make DNS servers censor websites that have been accused of copyright infringement. Drew Wilson ... found 8 ways to circumvent such censorship. ... If anything, the list raises serious doubts that the PROTECT IP Act will even put a dent on copyright infringement online."

Think of our legislators as black hats, poking holes in our network infrastructure because they are malicious pricks, or getting paid, or both, but the end result is that we learn how to make the network resistant to their attacks. In a way, they perform an important function. Sure, we all prefer white hats, but the black hats are out there, in congress, running major corporations, and even in the White House. Nothing is going to change that, so we must secure our network from the threat they represent.

Re:Black Hats (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017754)

They are more like script kiddies, playing with buzzwords they do not understand, not even realizing how ridiculous they look. They wield potentially very destructive tools without understanding the consequences.

Spin and make-believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017784)

I second that. Politicians live in a world of spin and make-believe -- the very antithesis to engineering.

Re:Black Hats (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017924)

They are more like script kiddies, playing with buzzwords they do not understand, not even realizing how ridiculous they look. They wield potentially very destructive tools without understanding the consequences.

Crap... If only I read this before I commented eariler... Sigh... I will try and mod you up in a different thread in compensation.

first comment? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017586)

I think it can be admitted after all the previous examples of IP protection schemes that this is only going to inconvenience those who actually follow the law. Everyone else will quickly find ways around whatever protection this legislation creates.

Re:first comment? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017646)

Excuse me? Don't be so quick to tie workarounds to illegal behavior. Even if you never visit a censored web site, you should change your setup to render DNS censorship ineffective. It is important to keep the tools of censorship dull, or we'll see the day when they're used against our freedom!

Missed the easiest (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017598)

Run your own recursive DNS resolver with DNSSEC validation. I recommend Unbound [unbound.net] , because it's easy to set up and it runs on Windows and Linux.

Granted, it is technically still possible to censor your results by intercepting your DNS packets, but if implementations of DNS censorship in other countries are any indication, running your own resolver works nicely.

Re:Missed the easiest (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017606)

If PROTECT-IP requires DNS severs in the US to censor domains, wouldn't that apply to your self run DNS server as well?

Re:Missed the easiest (2)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017614)

If you cared about following what the PROTECT-IP required, why would you be running your own server in the first place?

Re:Missed the easiest (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017620)

Well presumably there are sanctions for non-compliance in the act.

Re:Missed the easiest (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017676)

Well running your own server means most results will be from other dns servers so you will get the censored results one way or another.

Re:Missed the easiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017726)

It's a resolver, not a server. Technically there is no difference, but if you don't make this distinction, then all other resolvers, for example the one in your DSL router, are in violation as well. Those don't censor results either.

Anyway, you're just accessing publicly available information, and you're not even making that information available to others. If someone makes that a crime, I think it ought to be brought before the supreme court.

Running your own server gets around the primary use-case for a law which forces DNS servers to censor results: censoring foreign domains. All US-hosted censored domains are gone no matter what you do. Even a foreign resolver won't get you the information, because the domains can be turned off at the source.

Re:Missed the easiest (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018430)

Back in the day we didnt care about DNS anyways... we used IRC and IP addresses.
Guess what... it still works.

Re:Missed the easiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017820)

Presumably so, but if you're the only one using your DNS server, who apart from you will know?

But what matters is the million geek army... (4, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017658)

Legislation, even in a more dictatorial environment like China's is invariably slow and misinformed regarding technology. The delusion of those who think themselves in power can be stated in one sentence, "We think the internet is controllable."

And it is, sometimes, for a while.

More so in China where fewer wish to rock the boat (for the moment), but censorship is a complete fail in countries like the USA and Russia or the former Eastern Bloc countries. Too many unhappy, unemployed, poor engineers. Articles like this one point out just how futile and absurd such efforts are.

Information may not want to be free, but *people* sure are nosy bastards. You can bet they'll work around anything throw in their path, even if means going back to exchanging CDs, tapes or paper.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (3)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017826)

"We think the internet is controllable."

For the average Joe, which are most of the 'consumers', yes it is.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017876)

The average Joe should've never been allowed on the internet in the first place.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018076)

"We think the internet is controllable."

For the average Joe, which are most of the 'consumers', yes it is.

Yeah, but they have friends. I used to get asked about how to use Kazaa, Limewire, Bittorrent, etc all the time. Now that they've moved on to iTunes and Netflix, the requests are down considerably.

It will be interesting to see how the community responds to this.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017838)

In the US censorship is illegal. But the government breaks the law to turn everyone into lawbeakers. That's what makes China better than US. Their brand of evil is a little less hypocritical.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017870)

I haven't seen a tapedeck built into a computer in a long time, and CD/DVD is about to follow floppy.

My point is just 'look ahead'. Five, ten years. These bastard don't mind if it'll take five or ten to have a few nuisance technologies fade to obscurity. We need to figure out what to do about lockdown in digital, or it's just a matter of time.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018134)

there will always be peripheral devices. even when it's all plugged into our brains, we'll occasionally want a hard copy.

so when there's peripherals, there'll be mass storage devices.

they hold a bit more than a CD.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018400)

Anyone Anthropomorphizing Abstracts Are Asshats, Added An Alliterating Adult.

Re:But what matters is the million geek army... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018438)

Welcome to the typical politics of the USA.
We have smoke and mirror politics. They say they are doing something, and then cripple it at the end.
Holy shit, just look at the Ground 0 workmans comp that was passed last year. Took them 9 years to pass it, Jon Stewart to raise awareness and they passed it, except they added a few fuck yous in there... Mainly, not paying for cancer treatment. The #1 thing most Ground 0 workers have. Statistically this is impossible unless there was a specific event all of them can be related to, yet it cant be "proven" that working at ground 0 was the cause of the cancer.

aUStralia? (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017662)

When did we move down south and become the new aUStralia?

Non-US = silly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017674)

Am I incorrect when I say that the root DNS servers are controlled by the US and all other servers are programmed to follow them?
Switching to a non-US DNS server would be silly since the other server only mirrors the root server.
What I think we need is a decentralized DNS equivalent.

Re:Non-US = silly. (2)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017724)

there are a few root DNS servers located outside the US. The problem would be that the root servers would then be out of sink with each other. Not sure that it matters, maybe there is a way to keep a record around, but not send it to anything other than a root server.

Re:Non-US = silly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017776)

This is exactly what the people who made the internet are saying, and they are one of many groups of knowledgeable experts who wrote to the politicians to warn them about it. The integrity of the DNS will be broken because other countries will stop trusting the US-censored root server, thus giving us many small internets instead of a consistent big one. Of course, the MPAA's response to their concerns was "deal with it", which is also the politicians' response because they work for them.

Re:Non-US = silly. (3, Interesting)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018202)

Am I incorrect when I say that the root DNS servers are controlled by the US and all other servers are programmed to follow them?

The DNS system is a tree like hierarchy. The root servers only have the IP addresses of the next level, which is the .com, .org, .net and all the .[country code] (.uk, .dk, .se, etc).

It would not be possible to block illegalsite.dk using the root servers. You need the .dk servers to do that. The root servers could take the whole of .dk offline but that would be a major international crisis. Nobody wants that.

Now it is just as easy to get a court order in Denmark to block anything on a .dk domain. It is probably easier. But apparently the american lawyers are lazy and want to use the USA courts.

One can wonder however how it was that thepiratebay.org got blocked in Denmark. But not in the USA where they could simply turn off the domain since it is a .org.

What we have hear is a failure to communicate... (1)

NoExQQ (1961082) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017684)

How many times in any given week do I have to troubleshoot a network where the end user says "My Internet is down!" and it's a DNS related issue? Bottom line is that while the web is celebrating it's 20 year anniversary, we have an overwhelming population who don't understand how it works. It's that same population who has learned the absolute basics of downloading copyrighted music and movies for free. Search software brings up lists to download, installed software plays it. Idiot proof. So while we may read about 8 ways to bypass, I question how many people or incapable of using these ways and, if this DNS block won't actually reduce the usage substantially.

Europe has them too (5, Insightful)

ripdajacker (1167101) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017686)

In Denmark all the ISPs block The Pirate Bay. I've tried to get around it, turns out it's implemented using DNS, which a retarded chimpanse could circumvent.

The problem is it sounds good on paper. Blocking access to the sites like that gets most of the n00b people away to alternatives, but if you have any technical skill you can get around it. The alternative is some form of deep packet inspection, and no ISP wants that.

I can't see how the blocking makes any sense. It is not impacting piracy whatsoever. Every blocked site has alternatives, and they too will need to be blocked. At some point they will be, but only to give birth to even more alternatives. One buys an internet connection, and that should come without restrictions. It's like selling a car and trying to prevent the driver visiting some foobar number of places.

Inherent Flaw (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017688)

It doesn't matter what laws they have in place or the methods they use. We'll simply find ways around it. It's really quite silly, they're attempting to hold onto a system that's morally flawed and very nearly outdated by fighting a large number of talented tech saavy people on the internet. They'd have better luck trying to call the internet police on the trolls at 4chan.

does anybody think that laws prevent all crimes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017694)

Complete prevention is not the point, even complete prosecution isn't the point. Anybody can get away with speeding, or breaking in a locked door, or any number of crimes if the circumstances are right.

The goal is sufficient deterrence, or sometimes just evidence that you're engaging in behavior you know to be complicit in a crime.

It lets them have a way to act when it comes up.

Re:does anybody think that laws prevent all crimes (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017780)

The goal is sufficient deterrence, or sometimes just evidence that you're engaging in behavior you know to be complicit in a crime.

Which it will completely fail to do. The pirate sites can get non-US domains or the people accessing them can easily route around the problem at their end.

It's just more knee-jerk bullcrap from technologically illiterate politicians which harms fundamental Internet infrastructure while it can't possibly achieve what they say they want to achieve. On the plus side, maybe it will help the push toward eliminating DNS in favor of a decentralised alternative which can't be censored.

Re:does anybody think that laws prevent all crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018192)

Well, the failure of sufficient deterrence depends on the opinion of what's sufficient, sometimes it's not that ambitious, the low-hanging fruit is more often the target, and that routing around a problem leads to the second part of what I mentioned, evidence of complicity in the crime. That is an important part of it.

It's a lot more damning when they can show you not only opened a door, but wore a black outfit and carried a set of lockpicks. That'll be worse for you than if you were just caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

9th way (2)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017696)

Don't use domain names. The abstraction may be convenient, it may be useful, but it isn't strictly necessary. The IP address works just fine.

http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45] gets you to Slashdot with no DNS involvement.

Of course, the question is now around that missing abstraction. Do you trust me? Is that really Slashdot's address? Is it a rick-roll, a goatse, or a virus-laden fake? What most people don't consider is just how much they trust their DNS providers, but they do so with no authentication on that service. Many of the ways in the article are the ways that malware uses to subvert your relationship to your real DNS server.

Re:9th way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017722)

goatse don't click!

Re:9th way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017778)

goatse don't click!

A little reverse name lookup shows that you're lying.

You're probably hooked up to a goatse name resolver, where every third resolution returns your gaping buddy, just to remind you of why you love the Internet.

Re:9th way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017860)

Kinda breaks HTTPS somewhat.. Or at the least, makes it *very* fragile. (Since we are talking about trust)

Re:9th way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018426)

Also, name based Virtual Hosting is totally impossible

Re:9th way (0)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017866)

http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45] gets you to Slashdot with no DNS involvement.

Sorry, no. It would but slashdot does a redirect to the domain name. If slashdot.org were in fact blocked you would be viewing a page telling you to go directly to jail.


baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45]
* About to connect() to 216.34.181.45 port 80 (#0)
* Trying 216.34.181.45... connected
* Connected to 216.34.181.45 (216.34.181.45) port 80 (#0)
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> User-Agent: curl/7.21.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.21.3 OpenSSL/0.9.8o zlib/1.2.3.4 libidn/1.18
> Host: 216.34.181.45
> Accept: */*
>
< HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
< Server: Apache/1.3.42 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31
< Location: http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
< Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
< Content-Length: 297
< Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:45:09 GMT
< X-Varnish: 743370790 743370272
< Age: 37
< Connection: keep-alive

Re:9th way (2)

Rikiji7 (1182159) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018026)

Actually you just have to craft the http request accordingly:

echo -e "GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: slashdot.org\r\n\r\n" | nc 216.34.181.45 80
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Apache/1.3.42 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31
SLASH_LOG_DATA: shtml
X-Powered-By: Slash 2.00500120110805
X-Bender: You can trust anything!
X-XRDS-Location: http://slashdot.org/slashdot.xrds [slashdot.org]
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 86840
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:13:38 GMT
X-Varnish: 743390134 743389563
Age: 60
Connection: keep-alive

var pageload = { ...

Re:9th way (4, Interesting)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018144)

And how do you do that with a browser?

Interesting, another site, which happens to be blocked by DNS in my country, is also doing this rather stupid redirect:


baldur@pkunk:~$ host thepiratebay.org 8.8.8.8
thepiratebay.org has address 194.71.107.15

baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://194.71.107.15/ [194.71.107.15] ...
< HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
< Location: http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]

Now try it with the "official" DNS server:

baldur@pkunk:~$ host thepiratebay.org 212.10.10.4
thepiratebay.org has address 212.10.10.15

This is what the site looks like if you do not override the DNS server:

http://212.10.10.15/#Engelsk [212.10.10.15]

Text in english:

The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Telia Stofa, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography.

On recommandation of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police Telia Stofa has blocked the access to the internet page. If you have any objections against the internet page being blocked, please contact Telia Stofa.

The Danish Anti-Distribution Filter covering pictures and movies showing sexual abuse of children is part of a European police co-operation (CIRCAMP) for the prevention of commercial and sexual exploitation of children.

According to Section 235 of the Danish Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to disseminate, possess or for a payment or through the internet to become acquainted with child pornography. The maximum penalty can in certain cases be imprisonment for up to 6 years.

Information on criminal conduct on the internet may be passed on to the National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police.

Are you in need of help or guidance in relation to child pornography, please visit www.brydcirklen.dk.

In case you are wondering what The Pirate Bay has to do with child pornography, nothing. It was just easier to get this law into place using the "protect the children" argument. As soon we had this censorship system into place it got used for everything else too. You can expect the same with your new system in the US.

Re:9th way (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017882)

It seems to me that getting rid of DNS would mean named-based shared-hosting would cease to work. That would certainly increase IPv6 adoption since if every name-based host all of a sudden needed a unique IP address, they'd be totally depleted by sometime before I finish typing this message.

Of course, good luck getting people to remember http://20014860800c6a/ [20014860800c6a] for Google.

Re:9th way (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017898)

Okay, Slashdot really botched that IPv6 address...

ht tp://2001:4860:800c::6a

Re:9th way (2)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017936)

Don't use domain names. The abstraction may be convenient, it may be useful, but it isn't strictly necessary. The IP address works just fine.

...unless, of course, the server serves as host to more than one domain, and uses the domain name to decide which website to give you.

Re:9th way (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018166)

Or you have an SSL cert keyed off the domain name.

Way 9 (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017734)

Become very rich, bribe enough politicians with more money than the RIAA/MPAA offers, get them to change the laws.

Re:Way 9 (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018034)

No single person would have to 'become' very rich.

If only a million people would put money toward a fund that would make downloading movies and TV shows completely legal - even if its source is without a doubt questionable, for example, matching that of, say, a Netflix subscription, then....
$10/month * 1,000,000 people = $10,000,000/month.
$10,000,000/month * 12 months/year = $120,000,000/year.
$120,000,000/year * 4 years/term = $480,000,000/term.

I can bet you that the MPAA is not spending half a billion dollars on politicians every term. And Netflix's own numbers who far, far more than 1,000,000 subscribers.

There are, however, three flaws in the above:
1. We're assuming that politicians really are that easily, and quite literally, bought. I.e. if 'we' really were to put that half a billion toward the politicians, that the law would magically change.
2. 'we' are nowhere near organized enough to actually enable such a fund.
3. 'we' are cheap. Oddly enough we'll pay for Netflix because of its ease of use and all that (despite crappy selection - see older comment in my comment history), but once we make the connection that we'd be putting up a fund to make free what is already free (and only has a very slim chance of landing you in trouble), we suddenly don't particularly feel like paying anymore.

Re:Way 9 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018190)

Become very rich, bribe enough politicians with more money than the RIAA/MPAA offers, get them to change the laws.

The Pixar feature is a $200 million dollar production that will gross $1 billion dollars in its first run theatrical release. Tell me how you persuade the voter in California that pumping that much money into the state economy is a bad thing.

command prompt magically bypasses everything! (1)

ooohry (2431910) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017766)

6. Using Command Prompt Quick Explanation: In Windows at least, one can simply open up command prompt (explained in tutorial) and simply type in “ping [insert domain name here]” and obtain a server IP address for later use. nope! not really!

Re:command prompt magically bypasses everything! (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017824)

It works if you do it before they take down the domain, at least for a while.

Re:command prompt magically bypasses everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017902)

google cache would persist awhile

Re:command prompt magically bypasses everything! (1)

ooohry (2431910) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018000)

so it would work until they blocked it? :p nslookup site.com 1.2.3.4 where 1.2.3.4 is some foreign dns server and we'll talk, cmd.exe

User Verb (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017792)

The question ultimately is "What does the user DO to bypass these measures." In any of these cases, the user downloads and runs a small script, once. This makes getting illicit material a 2-step process, up from a 1 step one. The technical details of the script are so obvious that any coder could write it. That's better, but still a barrier so small you could trip over it. The past has proven that installing BitTorrent, Kazaa, or another single piece of software is no real barrier to anyone.

By comparison, Adobe's Creative Suite is pirated all of the time, but it is rather difficult to do so. You have to register with your e-mail address, and download a demo. You need to run a keygen. You have to modify your hosts files. You have to setup custom firewalls. Some software has to be allowed to connect to some addresses and not others. It's an actual preventative measure that requires constant vigilance from the end-user, and is quite the pain to attempt to defeat.

I'm all for technological measures to prevent casual piracy. But don't sacrifice infrastructure stability for a measure that has little chance of being effective. I'm sure we can come up with something better.

Re:User Verb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018084)

(Non-US-based) browser vendors could decide to ship such tools along with the browser. (And US-based ones could move.) And then we aren't even talking about the file sharing applications yet.

Re:User Verb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018212)

So, to download content illegally you run a script provided by the trustworthy pirates? The same ones that put malware into warez software? Nice, they can compromise your machine more easily than even putting together a "codec pack" now. "Run this script to get the free movies" and your machine is now a bot. Sweet!

"Dent" in infringement? (4, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017796)

"If anything, the list raises serious doubts that the PROTECT IP Act will even put a dent on copyright infringement online"

Let's be honest here... I doubt even the asshats who wrote the legislation thought it would do that. At best its real purpose is to create a mechanism the government can use to shut down websites.
=Smidge=

Is circumvention a crime? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017800)

Since you are in effect accessing sites declared "illegal for a US citizen to view", is the very act of trying to get around the DNS block considered 'intent' and grounds for search/seizures looking for evidence of downloaded files or just outright criminal charges from the act itself?

Don't laugh. its possible..

duh (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017942)

Yes, of course it's illegal. Hope they don't catch you.

Re:Is circumvention a crime? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018324)

There is nothing that says these web sites are "illegal for a US citizen to view". The websites were operating using a US controlled TLD, and were found to be promoting and facilitating actions voted illegal in the US. There is nothing illegal about going to these websites, only partaking in the actions that got their domain name rescinded. Similarly, there will be nothing illegal about going to these websites when they re-register against a foreign TLD.

Re:Is circumvention a crime? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018396)

If they make any claims of websites being illegal vs. some content being in violation of copyright law they are enacting unlawful censorship. It will be thrown out by the judiciary so fast we'll forget it was ever a problem.

They don't have to make it that good... (2)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017842)

If you can prevent most people from doing it, you can then start issuing insane prison sentences/fines on those who do. Isolate and punish. No one is going to give jail time or excessive fines...(right? please?)...to the 14 year old who stumbled on Napster, but the computer geek who "bypasses DNS" using a dangerous hacker operating system called "linux": http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml [techdirt.com]

In short, first you make sure only a tiny minority can sympathize with them, follow it up with character attacks, and BAMN: you can start sentencing people to a few decades in prison for a victim-less crime committed in their late teens.

Sure I'm being more than a little hyperbolic here, but the point is that the more steps you go to to bypass this sort of thing, the more you start to look like an unsympathetic, evil hacker to the nice gentlepersons on the jury...don't dismiss the value of making it harder for the average person to the censorship lobby's efforts.

Re:They don't have to make it that good... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018338)

You misunderstand. There is nothing here to bypass, as there is nothing blocking access to the site. The website was found to be promoting illegal activities, so their US controlled domain name was revoked. There is nothing preventing you from accessing it by the IP address directly. There is nothing preventing you from accessing it from an alternate domain name. Should they, for instance, re-register using a .co.uk TLD, it would now be up to the British government to decide whether or not they wanted to revoke this new domain name.

Shill site spam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37017910)

Zeropaid is nothing more than a greedy shill site playing both sides of the p2p legality game.
The guy who owns the zeropaid site ALSO owns a DRM company.

Really. go look it up. Doesnt give a damm about any of this. Just wants your page view.

whew (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#37017966)

Good thing I didn't RTFA.

Also, I use AdBlock Plus.

Who cares... it's an interesting topic. I clicked to read the comments. I left a few. Kindly piss off with your observations.

The ninth way... (4, Informative)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018030)

They haven't voted it in yet. It's on hold in the Senate.
Write your congresscritters (one rep, two senators). Include Senator Wyden, who placed the hold on it. Good old fashioned snail-mail. They pay more attention to that than to emails or phone calls. In your own words, tell them why it's a bad law and should not be passed. Be polite. Then tell them that you'll be paying special attention to their votes on the bill. Follow through on that - write another letter if and when they vote.

Re:The ninth way... (2)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018308)

They haven't voted it in yet. It's on hold in the Senate. Write your congresscritters (one rep, two senators). Include Senator Wyden, who placed the hold on it. Good old fashioned snail-mail. They pay more attention to that than to emails or phone calls. In your own words, tell them why it's a bad law and should not be passed. Be polite. Then tell them that you'll be paying special attention to their votes on the bill. Follow through on that - write another letter if and when they vote.

I've done this a few times, even for my state representatives but to no avail. The only thing that happens is that I get auto-added to their re-election campaign mailing lists. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing these people listen to is money.

Re:The ninth way... (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018374)

This is slashdot. We bury websites with traffic without even trying hard. Surely we can get up enough letters to Congress to get noticed.

Re:The ninth way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018518)

This is a bad law because I like downloading stuff and don't like having to pay for it and the people that make me pay for it are leeches who need a new business model that gives away creative content for free.

Innocent until proven guilty? (2)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018032)

I guess, in the USA at least, Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. If Sony, the MPAA, RIAA, and the ass hats they happen to be sucking off this week decide your server might be guilty, Your business is basically toast. What, you don't have reserves to deal with a 6 month outage while you pay a bajillion in legal fees to prove your right? Too Frking bad. This is the new media world after all. They make the rules. Law and constitutionality have NOTHING to do with any of this.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (2)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018108)

Don't worry citizen, I'm sure the entertainment industry would never use laws like this to get rid of sites that compete for users time like user generated content. That would be unethical.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (2)

Torodung (31985) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018306)

Some clever bastard thinks that if you tear gas the national mall, you are not technically silencing the guy at the end of the reflecting pool that is speaking. Just imagine old alabaster Abe Lincoln presiding over that sort of scene.

This is plain thuggery.

What about root server consistency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018102)

How are the root servers affected by this? Since they are consistent worldwide, does this mean us residents can run their own DNS servers, reference the root servers, and get around the censorship? Are the root servers going to go away and be replaced with a separate set of root servers in each country?

If doctoring the DNS servers and search engines fails to please the copyright holders, what's to stop the copyright holders from having a new law passed which from blocking access to offending sites at the IP address level in the consumer ISP routing infrastructure.

Copyright isn't censorship... (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018160)

If you're going to argue that copyright is censorship, then you have to also argue that laws against illegally selling copyrighted material is also censorship. Afterall, if "You can't give away free copies of other people's work without their permission" is censorship, then I don't see how "You can't sell other people's work without their permission" isn't also censorship. In other words, you're going to have to take the position that Walmart and Amazon.com should be able to print up all the copies of books, movies, software, and music that they want, and pay no money to anyone.

Honestly, all the "censorship" talk about copyright makes me imagine a spamlord complaining that he's being censored because he can't get his mass mailings out to everybody.

Re:Copyright isn't censorship... (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018264)

Honestly, all the "censorship" talk about copyright makes me imagine a spamlord complaining that he's being censored because he can't get his mass mailings out to everybody.

"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
--- George Orwell (1984)

Re:Copyright isn't censorship... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018304)

Like!

Re:Copyright isn't censorship... (2)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018418)

If the ONLY content on a particular website is copyrighted works being given away (distributed) without license and you can prove that the website/domain name will never ever ever be used for anything else, then you can claim that blocking said website/domain is not equal to censorship. Otherwise you should send the owner notice of violation and take them to court.

Home DNS Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018238)

How are they going to do this for those of us that run our own DNS servers at home? Good luck to them with that.

If PROTECT-IP passes. (4, Insightful)

Torodung (31985) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018296)

Two thoughts:

1. There is an immediate First amendment freedom of speech issue here, as speech will be silenced without due process. The abrogation of the right to speech is inherent in the abrogation of the ability to be heard in a public forum. If you tear gas the audience of the guy on the soapbox, you are still stifling speech. This silences speech, without any legal determination whether the speech is protected. Historical evidence has shown that laws of this sort will be abused to silence appropriate and protected speech. It will not fail to do this, because there is no process in place other than the will to power. We can bank on that. This aspect of the law should be struck down on basic Constitutional grounds (and it will be severable so it won't affect the rest of it, unfortunately.)

2. We are on our way to the Great Firewall. This is the exact same thing China does to websites that it thinks are against political interests. It's just that our political interests are based in the distorted idea that we can build an economy on censorship and artificial scarcity of information, in an age of unprecedented freedom and speed of communication which enabled that dream in the first place! It's a circular firing squad we're setting up here. We are on the wrong side of history if we let this pass or remain unchallenged. We are just absolutely brain-dead to shoot the nascent information economy in the face with the uncertainties this process will cause.

This provision is a myopic, special interest concern that fails to see that you can't have the good without some measure of bad. We should take the good and mitigate the bad. This is disrupting the whole damned thing, like a player who "wins" a chess game by throwing the board into the air. Write your congressperson a letter on letterhead. Call them. Visit them. March on Washington, if you are able.

For God's sake, we cannot let them do this. We're going for a triple-dip recession if we do.

Re:If PROTECT-IP passes. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018360)

For God's sake, we cannot let them do this. We're going for a triple-dip recession if we do.

That is: if we'll survive the second, isn't it?

Check your drug store. They've already lost. (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37018330)

Every drug store has blank DVDs and CDs at the front counter, in the impulse buy section, near the chewing gum and candy bars. Most computers come with a standard DVD/CD burner, and have for years. Why do you think people buy them? Look at the way personal computers are advertised: you buy a computer for Internet access, and you use the Internet for free music and video.

It's been obvious to most people for years now that there's no practical limitation on copying digital media. It's been common practice to do so for most people for years. First the technology changed, then popular practiced changed, then popular social standards changed. The law is the last thing to change.

The media industries are in the position of Wiley Coyote, having already run off a cliff, and just realizing that he's impossibly suspended in mid-air. They're just buying time, to crank out the last profits while they can. They know they're doomed.

KILL Switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37018524)

Members of US Congress and the US President and Staff and Department Heads work under the presumption of ammunity ... ammunity from local laws ... ammunity from State laws ... ammunity from Federal laws ... ammunity from US Contitutional laws ... ammunity from International laws.

With such false presumptions it is no wonder that Barak Hessien Obama II does what he does.

What the people of the world need is a KILL swithch on all members of US Congress, all US Cabnet Heads and appointed officials and the staff of the Presedent of United States as well as the XOUS.

The S&P downgrade should breathe some life into the US electorate.

--//++

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?