×

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!

UK ISP Disconnecting Filesharers

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-torrent-for-you dept.

Censorship 106

bs0d3 writes "A small VPN service, Koppla, has had its service terminated by its host, Santrex Hosting Solutions. Despite actively advertising their services to be oriented toward file-sharing including torrents and XDCC, even going so far as to put 'Seedbox Hosting | An Effective Solution' in the title of their contact page, the UK based Santrex will independently act to terminate users who are thought to be distributing content that they don't own the copyright to. This is regardless of whether the infringement is done by a third party, as is the case with a VPN service such as Koppla."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

106 comments

WRONG! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186620)

This is so wrong and such an invasion of privacy. The Internet is meant to be a bunch of dumb-swtiches, sending out packets to all of us, and none of it monitored or regulated. It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.

Re:WRONG! (5, Insightful)

another_twilight (585366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186644)

It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.

They have. They did. It's not you. It's not me.

Re:WRONG! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186964)

This is only true as long as there are spineless passives who actively defend their own enemy the way you do it. :/

If it weren't for you, every way too small group of loud assholes that ever became big would never had a chance. It's people like you who, when told to help us fight this shit, loudly declare that "they have already won" so you can justify always saying that "one can't change anything" and continue to sit on your asses!
It's the mother of all self-fulfilling prophecies.

I am sorry my fellow human, I don't want to ever hate another human... but you fill me with disappointment and deep disgust.

Re:WRONG! (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187160)

Take a pill, AC. another_twilight didn't say he liked it, or that he wouldn't do anything to stop it. For all you know he could planing a raid on the ISP as we speak. All the man did was state the facts. The people in charge right now, and for the foreseeable future ain't who you want it to be.

Re:WRONG! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189502)

Take a pill, AC. another_twilight didn't say he liked it, or that he wouldn't do anything to stop it. For all you know he could planing a raid on the ISP as we speak. All the man did was state the facts. The people in charge right now, and for the foreseeable future ain't who you want it to be.

Although his name *is* another_twilight, so we can assume he is at the very least partly responsible for why we can't have nice things.

Re:WRONG! (1)

another_twilight (585366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196106)

Yes, well. I was 'twilight' a bunch of places, but someone had already used that name by the time I created and account, here back around the turn-of-the-millenium, so ...

Then there was the book/movie. But that was OK. I figured it was a flash in the pan. Then there were the sequels.

But that's OK. I figure in 5-10 years I'll be able to use the name and only a few old farts will snigger.

Re:WRONG! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187406)

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Disapprove of the actions of the player, but understand that many of us can not help being children of our times.

The world is filled with people who don't even know what would be right, through no fault of their own, being born into the rotten state of things.

There are also many of those who'd know right from wrong, but can not be blamed for not wanting to put their ass on the line. I'm one. In principle I think people should be on the barricades, but my toddler trumps being shot or incarcerated, so I won't be there. If the kid grows up to go to the barricades, I'll join.

It's just the way it is. We need to work with that. Don't hate on the human. Pity them, perhaps, secretly in your mind. Tell them words of encouragement. Some of them may wake up and join you.

Re:WRONG! (1)

another_twilight (585366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196026)

actively defend their own enemy the way you do it

I am sorry, where do I defend this action? I was pointing out to the AC that was calling for action that action has been taken and neither he nor I are the ones who took it. I am sorry that facts offend, but there they are.

It's people like you who, when told to help us fight this shit, loudly declare that "they have already won" so you can justify always saying that "one can't change anything" and continue to sit on your asses!

Is it? What have you done? What are you doing? I saw a wonderful and generic call for 'action' like so many arm-chair generals do and pointed out that the 'enemy' has 'stolen the march' and have already acted. Please, offer me a suggestion of what I should be doing and I will discuss that - make generic noises about 'action' and I will gently tease.

To address your accusation more directly - I have written to my local member; I have participated in public discussions, government surveys and requests for comments and I have actively recruited people from the community to do the same with respect to legislation like this in my own country. I advise and provide assistance to friends and family on a range of technical issues and take the time and opportunity to explain why actions like this are bad for me, them and the community as a whole. If I can, I provide alternatives and workarounds.

I do not 'sit on my ass'; I strongly believe that the only change possible is that which happens individually and actively pursue exactly that.

Now, pull your head in; stop projecting and re-read what I wrote. The AC I replied to was the one calling for 'someone' to act. They offered neither useful suggestion nor, as far as I can tell, are doing anything themselves.

told to help us fight this shit

I don't like being 'told' anything, neither do most people. Especially not being 'told' to do something that in all probability I have been doing longer than they have even been aware of the issue.

Re:WRONG! (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200450)

We're talking about people being prevented from downloading copies of shitty Hollywood blockbusters and craptastic "chart" music or NFL video games, not the imposition of martial law and the brutal suppression of the freedom of the press by jackbooted thugs. Get some perspective.

Spend some time reading about politics and history instead of watching Transformers X and channel your anger into protesting against the corrupt late capitalist system instead of whining anonymously on the internet.

Re:WRONG! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187854)

Lovely bear keychain, so convenient and beautiful! As the gifts send to your friends, classmates and lovers.
You are worth it! More surprise on the www.bangtoysmall.com It's the right toys mall [bangtoysmall.com]! http://www.bangtoysmall.com

Re:WRONG! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186646)

It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.

Aliens [troll.me]?

Re:WRONG! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186860)

It's the goddamned motherfucking corporations and the big banks who are in charge, idiot child, and we all voted for the goddamned motherfucking politicians who were bought and paid for by them for the express purpose of bringing all this about, and all this shit started almost 80 years ago.

Re:WRONG! (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187304)

Winning an election does not protect filthy politicians who ignore the constitution. They are stil enemies of the Nation.

Re:WRONG! (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188334)

Whats worse is that the "sheeple" keep electing the same people time and time again.

Look at the recent result in the New Zealand poll, they elected exactly the same people who ran the place before, the same people who are in the back pockets of the big media companies (especially the big film and TV production companies), big financial companies and the US government (Google "Bruce Simpson" if you want to find out how much in the pocket of the US government they are)

...Woke Up, and Notice the world had changed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187364)

Hey, Idiot. You're way to late, maybe if you tried this fifteen-years ago it might have worked. Now the networked has been re-architected by the British Over Lords, so just pay your existence tax. Hint; your virus software scans all file on your computer, creates a signature of each file, these signatures are sent to the Over Lords. Signatures which have been flagged as copyright-enforceable files are processed appropriately, by either sent to law-enforcement, or copyright police, or just stoped at the routers. Hint; your computer once enable at the cpu level will lock-up and brick itself if these flagged-files are processed in an inappropriate way(Intel buys McAffee). Hint; your computer once connected to the network can be login to through the bios(uefi). Your software creates meta data which associates you to files it creates. Hint; SSD are notoriously unreliable, drive life expectancy less than 3-years, so prepare the proles for these failures by enticing them with the benefits of cloud-based-storage, and when the failures start to happen, prole being stupid brainless fools, they'll wish they'd stored their files in the cloud because now their inaccessible from the SSD drive. Hint; read the eula, files once placed the in the "cloud" allow the GODS to do what ever processing they desire to them. Hint; Microsoft adopt file system which allow you go back to a previous version of a file, so in effect nothing is ever deleted. Apple institutes never delete file system, Gnu/Linux gets their never delete file system with btrfs. Hint; encryption is the best way to regulate access to files, so cpu's(intel) performance has reached a plateau and will start to decrease because the proles need only the processing performance to view a web-page, so slow processor like ARM which are lousy at encryption will be used in laptops and servers. No longer will the proles have the processing performance to conveniently encrypt their file at greater than 2048-bit using elliptic-curve. Hint; open source project have been infiltrated by Knight of the Over Lords, to insure that the Over Lords will maintain their rule.

Same as booting a shoplifter out of a store... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186638)

Same thing as a store booting a shoplifter and banning their sorry ass. I'm amazed more ISPs don't do this to scofflaws.

Re:Same as booting a shoplifter out of a store... (4, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186908)

Not exactly. It's a store refusing service to someone who just happens to hang out with people they don't particularly like in their spare time.

Re:Same as booting a shoplifter out of a store... (1)

0xygen (595606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187762)

That analogy seems rather stretched... It seems more like Mr A ISP going into the store with a big bag, grabbing a pile of stuff, walking out without paying, ducking into an alley, giving it to an anonymous individual, then when the store refuses to allow Mr A ISP on their property, he says "But I did not steal the goods, I'm just a carrier, you cannot punish me, I was an innocent party getting paid to do it!".

Re:Same as booting a shoplifter out of a store... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190164)

This analogy is wrong. In that case the person is stealing something physical and they're directly committing a criminal offence. Whether or not you think filesharing is theft, it's not a criminal offense and the VPN company was just transporting bits anonymously, not sharing or downloading the files.

If you really need to push the filesharing is theft line, It's more like a gas station refusing to fill up a taxi cab of a company that's advertising shoplifting trips to cities. Then of course you're still equating it actual theft. So it's actually a taxi company that's offering trips aimed at people who want to go to shops to copy the things that are in them and a gas station taking a moral stance on that, when really it should be none of their business what that gas is used for.

Most ISPs have any filesharing provisions in their TOS - the reason probably shouldn't be shocking to many of us, and it's not a moral one. Filesharing pushes a lot of a data through their network and that means the margins on these customers isn't high enough to care about keeping them as customers. Most business customers, the ones they actually care about (see margins above) won't give a damn that the filesharers have been kicked out of the ISP, in fact they'll gobble up the line that kicking high bandwidth low value users out will improve their quality of service.

So back to the analogy it's a gas station offering fixed price fill ups to get you to town and you showing up with a big 18 wheeler with "FREE SWAG!" painted all over the side and them saying, no fucking way are we filling that!

Re:Same as booting a shoplifter out of a store... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200548)

Whether or not you think filesharing is theft, it's not a criminal offense

No, as always gets pointed out on slashdot, filesharing is not theft, nor any other criminal offence in most countries. It is, however.a civil offence. And in the same way that a company wouldn't repeat a libel (for fear of getting sued themselves) so you can't expect them to condone copyright infringement.

Whether or not you think that libel and copyright infringement should be civil offences capable of being pursued in the courts for damages is another matter, of course.

Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immunity (4, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186648)

I am not quite sure what the story is here. Okay, so it is a bit rought that a business was put out of operation because it was being used to VPN up some torrent files - but it certainly didn't look like they were trying to hide it.

I mean "Hey, we offer great ways to avoid being caught when uploading torrents..." then "Awww.... we got shut down for uploading torrents..." really aren't to far apart in any business plan that starts with the first.

On the upside, the article points out that new EU rules take any sniffing out of the requirements for an ISP. So maybe this won't happen again.

I am really unsure which side to take here. I don't support the ludicrous fines and penalties that all of the **AA goons are trying to enforce, but I also don't support a business model that seems to be basically aimed at people breaking copyright of others.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (5, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186678)

Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.

I'm thinking Honeypot, but I'm the paranoid sort.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186724)

Damn summaries and articles - or perhaps damn my comprehension ability today. I read that about five times as well as reading the article to try to work out why it was an issue.

If it is the parent company that is advertising itself as a pirate friendly ISP, then it's a bit of kettle and black pot, but at the same time, if Koppla is nice and clean, they will no doubt have zero problems switching over to another ISP with next to no problems or downtime for their customers.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (4, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186760)

They advertised being seedbox friendly, not pirate friendly. Or are you saying that torrents can only be used for copyright infringement? Because that's what slashdotters have been claiming for years. Now that the claim is used against pirates, it's suddenly not true anymore.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186934)

No, not at all. There are linux torrents, world of warcraft patches and wikileaks insurance policies that are perfectly legal uses for torrents.

Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.

While there are many legal uses for torrent files and peer to peer, I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.

To pop my thoughts into a car analogy - You can put a massive super powerful engine into a normal car because you like the sound, but much more likely you want to go faster.

Again, as I said in the original post here - I don't support piracy, but I am dead against the stupidly over the top litigation that record companies are bringing against people for downloading a few songs. Two polar wrongs don't blend to make a right somewhere in the middle here.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186994)

Torrents are used all over the place. I think you would be surprised at the break down of infringing vs non-infringing. I can tell you with certainly the last torrent I downloaded was not infringing. I am actually a little lost as to why I might use a torrent these days for infringing content when there are legal methods which hide the fact you are infringing much better. I'm referring to legitimate file sharing hosting operations.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187284)

Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.

Try asking your friends. Maybe you'll get a surprise, especially if you remind them about the WoW updates.

The last torrents I participated in were Linux distributions (Ubuntu & PCLinuxOS). In each case, I kept seeding until the traffic had essentially died away - that was after about 50GiB uploaded. In the most recent release, I restricted myself to Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu torrents, and left out the poxed Unity/GnomeShell Ubuntu. Mind you, I still run 10.04 on our home systems.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (0)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188754)

What about the Wu Tang Clan inspired Wubuntu, the latest version of Creaky Cow (ie, Mooobunto) and the frankly crap Pubuntu?

Copyright is now (practically) universal (4, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187382)

> it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material

After world harmonization with Berne, that would be practically all material, so... I think you rather meant "unlicensed, copyrighted material".

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188514)

I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.

What is pirated material? There is a huge grey area.

E.g. Is software that break US software patents, pirated software? Software patents are only enforceable in USA and a few other, more insignificant, bribemocracies.

E.g. If an artist use torrents to spread his creations to countries where (s)he doesn't have a distributor; is that piracy because people in countries where he have a distributor may download? Some countries even give the artists an irrevocable right to spread their own creations parallel to any distributor they have a deal with.

E.g. Is a torrent that contains technology that USA have declared should not be exported to some countries, illegal? (Not just cryptography software like OpenSSH, but also e.g. software used in healthcare or basic education, is illegal to export to some countries from USA. In these cases, USA is not supported by any other government I know of, but have forced some of them to withhold US export restrictions anyway).

Internet is international. What constitute IP Piracy is not international.

What I would like to see is a bittorrent tracker that enforce content declaration of who have an IP interests in each torrent. Then let me figure out if that ownership is applicable in my country. As it is now, it is almost always impossible to figure out the content of torrents and often it is impossible to figure out IP ownership of their content even after I have downloaded them (aside from open source software, I mostly use torrents to download academic papers, and obscure, mostly self published, movies, ebooks and music, where IP interests is hard to figure out if it isn't declared in the torrent description or content).

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (3, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186730)

Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.

You're right.

This is the worst written blog article I have ever read (hopefully, someone will read this entry and fix it). They need to qualify who's doing what instead of using ambiguous pronouns for everything. It's only once you read the rest of the blog article that you understand what happened.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186900)

Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.

You're right.

This is the worst written blog article I have ever read (hopefully, someone will read this entry and fix it). They need to qualify who's doing what instead of using ambiguous pronouns for everything. It's only once you read the rest of the blog article that you understand what happened.

Yeah. That's so damned weird, with that article! It happened to me too.

You see, I was reading this book. I read the book about 3/4 of the way through. I had no idea what the fuck would happen. There were lots and lots of loose ends and what-if's. It was only once I had read the rest of the book that I understood what happened with the plot. I just don't understand that.

I mean, it's almost as though I should take in the available information and THEN form judgments about it. But that's so odd, illogical, and unpredictable. No one would ever expect it. So anyway I thought I would write this Slashdot post to protest the absurdity. Maybe somebody will show me some sympathy and absolutely not, in any way, mock how self-important and entitled to instant everything I happen to be.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187000)

u mad bro?

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186812)

Koppla was an ISP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-level_ISP
Anyone offering hosting etc. services of somekind is one kind of an ISP. ISP stands for: Internet Service Provider, whether that is access to internet, or service within internet meant for somekind of communication (ie. webhosting, vpn, shell accounts, remote desktop, dedicated) is an ISP.

Re:Koppla wasn't an ISP, they couldn't claim immun (1)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188794)

Okay, so it is a bit rought that a business was put out of operation because it was being used to VPN up some torrent files - but it certainly didn't look like they were trying to hide it.

Although they advertised their intent, the very nature of their service makes me wonder how they got busted... I've long suspected that filesharing would move to entirely various VPN-like networks precisely to hide their traffic.

So I have to wonder, did Koppla get the boot solely for its PR, or for actual specific allegations of copyright infringement?

Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infringe (4, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186664)

Filesharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement. For example a host could put up torrents of Linux ISOs. So advertising support for file sharing and kicking off folks engaged in copyright violations are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying this ISP is doing so in the best possible manner, just that advertising filesharing does not imply they are going to look the other way regarding copyright violations.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186710)

Also, this HTML document is a file and Slashdot is sharing it.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186780)

Also, this HTML document is a file and Slashdot is sharing it.

That's OK. The copyright notice at the bottom of this page indicates that slashdot (well, its parent corp) holds the rights. :-)

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186866)

Comments owned by the poster.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (3, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186892)

And Slashdot's terms of service note that when you post comments, you give the parent company worldwide license to display, modify, etc lots of things. Which is kind of funny, considering we have had some articles how it's bad how much rights companies like Facebook and Dropbox demand from users when they use their services.

From Slashdot TOS:

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("Geeknet Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such Geeknet Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by Geeknet. In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (2)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187084)

From the TOS...

That basically states: /. can do whatever it likes with whatever you write, whether you like it or not.

In all essence, you lost all copyright control on a post when posting it on /. because you cannot control a "perpetual, irrevocable" license.

The whole paragraph is a basic rubber-stamp boiler-plate formulation that makes a mockery of copyright.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189018)

yes... but you are also solely responsible for the content of your posts should you slander or defame someone else - its a have cake/eat cake kinda thing ;-)

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38199514)

The whole paragraph is a basic rubber-stamp boiler-plate formulation that makes a mockery of copyright.

Not really, no. It's a publishing agreement, of exactly the kind that copyright was designed to allow. It is a little unusual in being irrevocable, but that's not wholly unreasonable given the nature of the work being licensed.

Note the rights it *doesn't* grant to geeknet: sublicensing, and moral right. Geeknet have the right to *transfer* their license to somebody else, but if they wish to do so they will have to stop publishing your comments themselves. This basically allows them to sell slashdot if they want to. But they don't get the right to farm out your comments to other sites, unless they're sites they operate themselves. They also don't get the right to strip your identification from the comment and claim it as their own work: they have to continue providing attribution as long as they publish the comment.

You should read a record publishing contract some day. It's almost as bad, and that's stuff peoples' livelihoods and life ambitions depend on.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186924)

Comments owned by the poster.

The GP referenced the file in its entirety and that is copyright geeknet.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186788)

It's false advertising anyway. Because every other ISP supports filesharing. It's pretty much the same thing that happened with the mineral water that prevents dehydration a few weeks ago.

Also, I could easy call it entrapment.

It will take some time but the EU will pass a few laws that will really cut them at the knees. We'll see who's laughing then.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (2)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186850)

No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens. Not with a single customers, but if you get bunch of them. This is even more true for sharing hosting, because it drains the server resources immersible fast.

It's not entrapment either (and this is private company to begin with). Offering hosting is not a request to violate laws.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186904)

No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens.

You need to go back to network school if you think open connections themselves inherently create drain on a "network".

If you're doing SPI or DPI, why should I care what that costs you if I didn't ask for that service in the first place. Even if I am sharing the server with others, then you I suppose we can agree on some kind of limitation on sockets, but that's another thing entirely.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186958)

Still, it's drain on the network and system on top of the legal issues. Many hosting providers rather just skip those customers and provide better service for rest of their clients. They are free to do so, too.

Other companies also don't allow porn for the same reason. It's a huge bandwidth hog. You say they should just get more bandwidth? Well, that would mean increased prices and might not even be possible everywhere. It's a lot easier to just refuse certain types of clients.

Many companies also refuse IRC servers or even IRC clients on their network, or they have a separate network for those clients, because of the possibility of DDOS. While non-IRC clients might get DDOS too, it's not as usual as with IRC. And if you do start to get DDOSed every day so that it affects the whole network or even brings it completely down, most companies will cut you off as you're causing lots of troubles.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187172)

Looking at the Internet i don't have the feeling that finding a hoster for Porn can be very hard....

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187208)

Yes, it's not hard. But still some companies don't want to deal with it. It was more true maybe 5-6 years ago when bandwidth was more expensive, and especially so with shared hosting.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190246)

Eh? I'm paying more for bandwidth than I did six years ago. Add the fact that I mirror my studio stuff (uncompressed or lossless compressed tracks) to a remote site for backup reasons via rsync, and I'd say the cost has more than tripled for the same amount of latency and bits over the wire.

I'd LOVE to live in a world where bandwidth is cheaper than it was in '06.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187274)

The more connections that are open, the greater the chance for bufferbloat to come into play. It's not really so much "inherent drain" as it is "shitty router implementations" but nonetheless, it can be a factor.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (4, Insightful)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186824)

Once again, this issue is not about legal technicalities or technical workarounds... If you put up a service like the pirate bay it's laughable to claim that more than 1% of the usage is for non copyright infringement purposes. The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court (or with business relations like this case). Neither does the "Google can also be used to index torrents" argument. While technically correct the society is rigged to avoid technicalities in rules and take decisions based on intent. The intent of this service was clearly to profit from copyright violating distribution.

The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is not regulated. This is counter intuitive to the Internet as an invention and needs to be changed. The Internet has made such regulation incompatible with fundamental human rights. File sharing is not theft - it's how people will discover new information and consume culture from now and in the future. Business models will have to evolve from utilizing physical scarcity to utilizing distribution-as-a-service. When people finally start to see beyond the "file sharing is theft" and "allowing file sharing means artist shouldn't get paid" arguments/distractions we can have sensible debate and lawmaking. What would change if non-commercial file distribution would be legal/unregulated tomorrow? Think about that. The file sharers are already file sharing. Pandora's box has already been opened.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186884)

The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court.

However when combined with "we disconnected clients identified as copyright violators" it will likely go much farther.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187880)

The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is regulated*

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189366)

Okay, I'll be honest, I like getting free stuff via The Pirate Bay. I have been that way all my life, even before P2P came along. I listen to music on the radio and watch movies/programmes on TV for free, then switch channel when the ads come on. Yeah, I rob the stations blind when it comes to not paying attention to ads. Now I make use of free internet services with disposable email addresses, and always have AdBlock turned on. I "try before you buy" via torrents a lot, which I guess makes me a pirate.

Thing is I feel pretty good about it. I still spend money on media and services, more than I used to in fact. Part of that is simply down to having more disposable income as I get older, part of it is down to finding new stuff that I like enough to spend said income on. Now I can listen to or watch what I want rather than what someone else decides to broadcast I find more stuff that interests me. Sometimes friends lend me CDs or I go round to watch their DVDs (public performance), which sometimes leads to me spending money on merchandise and the like.

So yeah, I'm a freeloader, I "steal" in the non-theft-making-a-copy sense. But artists and media companies also need people like me to survive, and if you annoy me with DRM or legal shinnanigans you can be sure I won't give you a penny. And I do in fact practice what I preach: My hardware designs and software are open source, yet I also sell them and do okay out of it. People will pay for quality and convenience even when they can get your warez for free. The publicity and community support I get from being open/free is invaluable, and you only have to look at the fashion industry or Japanese manga/anime/game producers to see how well it works on a massive scale.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201054)

The publicity and community support I get from being open/free is invaluable, and you only have to look at the fashion industry... to see how well it works on a massive scale.

If you think the fashion industry works like FOSS you're delusional.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (4, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186944)

World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute updates.
Pando Media Booster uses bittorrent to distribute updates, and is used by quite a few other games (League of Legends, Lord of the Rings Online, etc, etc).
Linux ISOs are hardly the biggest legitimate use of bittorrent.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187196)

No. But 99% of filesharing is infringing. Or crap put out by porno studios to get you to buy full-length films.

And Linux ISOs? What is this, 2002? It hasn't been even moderately hard to get Linux ISOs through http/ftp for *years*.

Re:Filesharing not synonymous with copyright infri (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190522)

But 99% of filesharing is infringing.

How do you know that? Considering that it's likely nearly impossible to identify infringing content, I don't see how anyone could possibly come up with an accurate measurement.

Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (2, Insightful)

Yossarian45793 (617611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186706)

This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material? I know, there are many legitimate uses for bittorrent, but I have a feeling that the kind of people in the market for anonymous bittorrent seedboxes are not the kind of people who are seeding legitimate torrents.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (4, Insightful)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186830)

What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

They allow you to be a respectable participant in the torrent networks, even if your personal machine is on dialup, a slow dsl connection, or is just turned off. Even more so if you have a really unbalanced up/down ratio, or if you have a draconian ISP that blocks torrents of any sort. Not everyone uses bittorrent for copyright infringement. They also improve the bittorrent network overall since seedboxes are usually closer to the backbone than your home machine.

Personally I get and distribute nightly builds of several projects using bittorrent. With a seedbox I don't have to worry about my personal machine being off the network at any particular time.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187036)

They allow you to be a *temporary* but supported participant. This is all that most of the copyright violators want or need, a verifiable address to work from, even if it's temporary. Temporary is *better*, it helps them avoid subpoenas for their billing address.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188708)

> Not everyone uses bittorrent for copyright infringement.
> Personally I get and distribute nightly builds of several projects using bittorrent.

You are the 1%.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201136)

> Not everyone uses bittorrent for copyright infringement. > Personally I get and distribute nightly builds of several projects using bittorrent.

You are the 1%.

I'm not quite sure what you did there. Are you trying to equate downloaders of copyrighted material with the Occupy protesters? Because anonymously sneaking out of paying for someone's work is not exactly civil disobedience.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186838)

It could be that they were threatened themselves.

After all, if there is enough evidence to show that they could be accused of doing the same thing, because they're far more public about their intent, they're in a far more vulnerable position themselves and they're far more likely to step all over the rights of their own customers to try to save themselves instead.

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (1, Redundant)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186854)

This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

Making some money from naive people thinking this kind of service won't be subject to regulations?

BTW, sharing copyrighted content is not illegal - sharing it without permission is. E.g. linux is still copyrighted, but sharing an ISO of the most linux distros is not illegal (not from the point of view of copyright, anyway, GPL grants you the permission).

Re:Santrex sells bittorrent seedboxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38199554)

This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

Yes, of course, because if I was performing an illegal activity that might cost me a small fortune in copyright infringement liability orders, the first thing I'd do is go out and give my credit card and contact details to somebody who would then perform said illegal activity in a completely traceable way for me, and would be compelled to hand out my identity to anyone claiming to represent the copyright holders at a moments' notice.

Something tells me most users of legitimate professional seedbox services based in copyright-friendly countries like the UK are not doing so for the purposes of copyright infringement. While BT as a whole might be mostly illegal, these services probably handle the legal side almost exclusively.

Now, set up such a service in one of those eastern European countries that's less than responsive to requests about copyright infringement, and maybe you're on the right track...

Lawlz santrex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186716)

Those scumbags? I'm amazed the money grubbers didn't purposely disconnect them so they keep the money and run like they do to so many other customers. Or at least provide them with shit slow service. At least now all their low end seedbox customers will cut and run. Please, if there's any company deserving of crashing and burning these rats are it. Nastiest and slimiest staff and management in the universe!

That crazy company actually threatened to sue me over my paypal dispute over $25! Really! They have the time to waste on that bullshit! Worse, they somehow have in their TOS that if you pay by paypal you get sued by them if you open a dispute!

I decided I'd keep their scumbag crap in my backpocket to release once it could do the most damage. This looks like a good time!

Why stop at Koppla (hoe about their ISP and so on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186758)

How about the ISP hosting Koppla as their service was also being used to do file sharing. It should not just ripple up and stop at Koppla, but all the way up to the very backbone that the data traveled on or it does not make any since. It would be a way to take out those that wish to control the net.

Guess the Royal Mail is next... (4, Insightful)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38186766)

They'll have to open all the mail in Britain to ensure that they aren't "distributing content that they don't own the copyright to". Convenient excuse, anyway; seems almost inevitable.

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188280)

Well, that depends. The EU's court recently ruled that ISPs are forbidden from inspecting for torrents. If packet inspection was used, it's in violation of EU rules which the UK is subordinate to. If the filesharers (or those doing legal fileshares, ideally) take the ISP to court for violating an EU directive and win - which they might well - then ISP disconnections will cease. At least until the corporations persuade there to be a new ruling - something Microsoft found the EU is not always amenable to.

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188332)

Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188788)

Well, here's the press reports [nytimes.com] on the ruling [techspot.com].

More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice [europa.eu], the judgement of the court [europa.eu], the directives involved [europa.eu] and the opinion of the court, but in French [europa.eu] ad the English translation isn't up yet.

This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188904)

The only thing which needs to be shut down in the UK, is your fucked up corrupt government.
The particular tool being used to brainwash you is: Problem, reaction, solution

Your comment, the "REACTION" stage, falls into the globalist fascist agenda.
"Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?"

When the "SOLUTION" stage comes look out!
You are going to get a one world bank
and a one world government

oh and that ISP, will either have a TOS/AUP that make it value-less or it will cease to exist.

I get it this is a story about an ISP not the UK government, but I really don't understand why you brits haven't picked up hammers and bats and gone smash their fucking spy cams, and skulls in already, guerrilla WF style.

Laws in the UK aren't laws at all, they're fascism. The only thing you have in the UK is a government of lawlessness, deception and slick talking aristocrats. Your government is an utter completely corrupt turd, Your chancellors and ministers are in effect your terrorists protecting the banksters. God bless the brits, but shame on the UK government, No make that "Fuck the UK Government "

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201260)

You are going to get a one world bank and a one world government

No, no it's Zionist Occupation Government. "One world" just isn't scary sounding enough.

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38190568)

Apparently if they feel that a service is, more often than not (never mind the fact that with something as broad as someone merely using bittorrent it would likely be nearly impossible for them to determine this), used to infringe upon copyrights, it should be shut down. Even if, at most, copyright infringement only causes a potential loss of potential profit. Just shut those services down. Who cares if someone was using it legitimately?

Re:Guess the Royal Mail is next... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201506)

Even if, at most, copyright infringement only causes a potential loss of potential profit. Yes, because no one ever actually downloaded anything rather than buy it, it's always "try before you buy" or stuff you would never have bought anyway.

I think the phrase you want instead of "potential" is "hard to quantify"

if only aliens were among us... (5, Insightful)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187052)

If ever you want to see if an idea or concept is ludicrous or not, imagine yourself trying to explain it to an Alien race. You'd seem so petty and selfish for insinuating that you charge for information and claim complete dominion over things such as melodies, rhymes, sequences of tones and harmonies. Our race would not have achieved what it has if it weren't for every single contributing factor in the grander scheme of things. No one 'invents' anything alone, it's about time we start freely sharing what we have with anyone it can benefit.

Re:if only aliens were among us... (1)

Walterk (124748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189538)

I'm sure if you explained it to the Ferengi, they'd want a piece of that pie.

Re:if only aliens were among us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189804)

No, no, you are so close and so wrong. It is obvious that we have the answer to the Fermi Paradox here.

Race becomes sufficiently advanced, race develops concept of intellectual property, race takes intellectual properties to the extreme, development halts, race never leaves the planet.

We would have no problem explaining the concept to them.

Re:if only aliens were among us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38199682)

I would be loling, except that your scenario could be plausible.
Intellectual property has held technological development back at least some 50 years, thought many historians would argue that is on the low side.
If a giant meteor hits in the 50 years before we are ready for it...

Bad idea (4, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38187294)

ISPs should not be making the decision to cut a customer off based on the content they are retrieving and distributing, but only if they are attacking the network or otherwise trying to harm the network itself (or if there is a court order to disconnect a specific customer). What next, some ISP gets all "morality police" and starts banning customers for accessing porn, illegal drug information, or even political/social material that someone with authority at the ISP decided they didn't want to pass across their wires?

It'd be like the phone company disconnecting your service because you like to call phone sex lines, or the postal service refusing to deliver your mail because you subscribe to skin mags.

Re:Bad idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38187962)

Nothing wrong with the provider of a service deciding how the service is to be provided.
Stop Net Neutrality Madness!
Censorship is bad, but depriving private companies of their right to determine which services and on which terms they are willing to provide to which segments of the market is insane.

Re:Bad idea (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188252)

Yeah, right. I personally think they should stop providing free emergency calls to people who happen to be in danger, especially since the danger is in no way the responsability of the provider. Allowing people to dial 911 for free is KOMUNYZIM.

Re:Bad idea (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38188300)

Net neutrality has nothing to do with what services the ISP can carry. It merely states that if you DO carry a specific service, you can't play favourites - all suppliers and all users should have equitable access to that service. However, net neutrality places no constraints on what types of services are carried, what total bandwidth is made available for that service, or whether that bandwidth can be reduced if higher-priority traffic needs it. It would equally be entirely fair under network neutrality to dictate that unresponsive flows (eg: multimedia streams that won't throttle back if you sent ECN notices or other such notifications) should be put in their own class and given a very limited fraction of the bandwidth to chew on.

DiffServ (differentiated services) with different policies per service is ENTIRELY in keeping with network neutrality.

Re:Bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193384)

And I do have a problem with someone telling me that if I carry a service, I can't play favourites.
This is called slavery, because it deprives me of the right to decide how to tailor my services to my desires.
This is the same argument as against anti-private-discrimination laws, which must be abolished.
Private property trumps customers' "rights" not to be offended, just as it trumps the "rights" to want to get a service from someone who does not want to provide it to them.

Re:Bad idea (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38196302)

Firstly, a service is not a property. It is a service. All services have laws which regulate those services. They sometimes even obey them. The banks didn't. They wanted to play favourites. Guess what -- didn't work too well, did it? You can call well-regulated industries "slavery" until you're blue in the mouth but no sane, rational person would support you.

Secondly, Common Carrier status grants carriers legal protection ONLY if they are indeed Common Carriers - ie: traffic-neutral. If you want to run a service with no Common Carrier protection, fine. Just be aware of what you are volunteering to sacrifice in the name of your "freedom".

Thirdly, no, "private property" does NOT trump customers "rights". Again, a service is NOT a property. (There is also no law or Constitutional amendment guaranteeing not being offended, so I have bugger all idea where you dredged that crap from.) The successful gay rights campaigns have produced case law (which is the law whether you like it or not) that states that customers DO have the right to obtain a service where, when it is denied, it is denied for discriminatory reasons alone. The law is the law. If you don't like it, move out. Your forefathers did when they didn't like European law. What's your problem?

Fourthly, it is most definitely not slavery. Nobody owns you, nobody can buy or sell you, get over yourself, you pathetic piece of shit.

Fifthly, you have the right to tailor your services all you like. You merely have NO right to discriminate as to who uses them.

Sixthly, the peering agreements of the Internet mean that violation of Network Neutrality is a breech of contract. Those who have broken with neutrality could potentially be sued to within an inch of their existence for such violations. They haven't been (for the most part, although there have been a few cases) because the major vendors want to see how this plays out in Congress first. If Congress sides with neutrality, expect the neutral vendors to become the ONLY vendors, having driven the others out of business with lawsuits or forcing them to hand over fibre and network centres as part of a settlement. Even if Congress doesn't side with it, expect lawsuits - it's just that the rewards will merely be in the tens of millions, not the tens of billions.

OVH is the problem and it's likely NOT P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188286)

I suspect the root cause of this will turn out to be OVH. They've become VERY anti-proxy in the last few months, and will frequently null route a machine for 'security' concerns such as port scans originating from a device... you'll get alot of these running a publicly accessible VPN endpoint.

Perhaps this VPN 'company' should invest in their own infrastructure and handle their own abuse issues.

Santrex is not an ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188556)

Santrex is not an ISP. It is a hosting company, and a black hat hosting company at that. Almost everything they host is do to with torrents, counterfeit goods, malware and fraud. They host several carding and hacking forums, several of their hosted sites were recently seized by US authorities. A tiny, tiny proportion of sites are legitimate.. but you should read some of the customer reviews of this company for the full story!

Santex Blows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188612)

Santrex has had a terrible reputation the past few years in the seedbox community. No serious uploader I know uses them. There are lots of scams/kids running so called seedbox companies, and Santrex is one of those people generally avoid if they know better.

Death by own sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38188968)

I'm just wondering if Santrex has some kind of forum or any other service where one can post a comment. I am sure that if few people post a comments pointing to "copyrighted material" then it should fall under Santrex' own "Santrex will independently act to terminate users who are thought to be distributing content that they don't own the copyright to. This is regardless of whether the infringement is done by a third party...".

I would be really interested to see how will Santrex deal with "third-parties" trying to bring him down using his own weapons. ;-)

Re:Death by own sword - MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38189036)

And I am wondering how would this type of social attack be usable against other companies like The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Microsoft and such.

I am sure that other companies facing lawsuits from these trolls would appreciate to have this kind of look-they-do-it-too argument for the court. ;-)

Just to find some catchy name for it...

Where is the problem? (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38189892)

I have been repeated told by other slashdotters that file sharing and P2P is not just for violating copyright and that by far the majority of P2P and file sharing traffic is for legitimate purposes such as distributing Linux. So, if the ISP is only cutting off those who are violating copyright law, where is the problem?

Re:Where is the problem? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38191510)

How are they identifying the alleged infringers? Are they making sure they get a court case before deciding that they're guilty?

That's my problem.

first mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38190826)

using santrex..
I used them once for about a month and I will never look back except for lesson learned.
I wasn't doing anything shady, they just are very shady. With how they run their business.
ie: here is a vps but we don't tell you we limit the file descriptors so you can't really do a dam thing with this unless you upgrade..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...