What’s a “movie”? Is that like some kinda Olde English thing like castles and rickets?
And when people demand living wages, or properly priced housing, or affordable food, that shit doesn’t matter right?
Fuck the movie industry.
They were doing just fine until people started to hate theatres and so their main source of ripping people off faded away.
If it’s that big a deal go after the service providers for the servers, this type of shit just makes inhibiting free speech easier.
If I don’t want people using Truth Social I guess making a bunch of accounts to share torrent links would be enough to shut it down?
The MPAA still has never been able to demonstrate that privacy even has actual impacts on movie and ticket sales… When Netflix was super convenient and had a lot of content piracy went down. Turns out splitting to dozens of streaming services made it difficult enough that people just went back to sailing the high seas. So lower your prices, make it more convenient to pay for services and people will just do that instead.
They tried going after the servers and owners and found it impossible to defeat all the piracy sites. There are too many sites scattered across too many jurisdictions and new ones are created too easily. Instead, they want ISPs to do the work for them. When the ISPs fail the MPAA can sue them and make more money.
Yeah, well they should keep it up. If they can prove in a US court that a “website is bad” they can make the same argument in the jurisdiction the website is hosted in, the Internet is great because it’s not (mostly) stuck under a single country’s thumb
The MPAA still has never been able to demonstrate that privacy even has actual impacts on movie and ticket sales…
It does. If everyone paid for tickets in cash and never online, they wouldn’t be able to harvest user data.
Tor Tor Tor Tor Tor that’s the way the vpn goes.
(In the cadence of the thong song)
Don’t pirate over Tor
Why not?
The gist of it is that it bogs down the network.
You can still do it safely, but people on the internet will say no for the aforementioned reason.
There are only about 2000 exit nodes. I wonder how many are running on substantial hardware and internet connections.
Tor is a fed honey pot
You don’t understand how the technology works, do you?
I think the concept is if you own enough exit nodes and you have monitors at the backbone level you can correlate traffic with time-based attacks.
The current number of people using tor in a given time isn’t so insurmountable that you can’t throw a couple of data centers worth of VMs at The problem and they’ve had backbone monitoring for decades.
The thing is, the feds aren’t going to come knocking at your door because you are downloading movies. The MPAA figured out a long time ago that it’s a losing battle going after individual people downloading/uploading. If you were trying to use tor to hide behind doing things to harm other people, running terrorist networks and the like, there’s a reasonably good chance they could track you down if you were just using tour but they’d have to really want to do it, and that’s not going to happen for Steve’s half terabyte of CSI.
I don’t know if you know this, but the internet is a bit wider than the reach of the US authorities.
Having the ability to monitor Google and Yahoo datacenters still doesn’t mean that US feds can do anything about servers not located in the US.
They can’t physically go to another country do to cop shit. I don’t know how to say it more simply.
Hahahahaha
Darpa would like a word with you
And what would that word be, exactly? How will it change the fact that US feds can’t seize servers which exist outside the US?
Because the feds NEVER act out of their jurisdiction, RIGHT?
While TOR does accept funds from the U.S. federal government it is not a honey pot. Given tor is free and open source it is easy to verify the security of the software.
I use fedora btw (use open source software you fools)
If no one has told you yet. The feds busted a child porn network in the UK that used for because they were hosting over 65% of the exit nodes at the time. If your open source anonymous VPN is hosted by the feds, they can 100% see where the traffic is coming and where it’s going
The story you linked is from 2015, and has nothing to do with exit nodes. The feds bsuted the actual server that was used to host csam and kept it up while collecting user information for two weeks. Not exit nodes related.
There are many illegal sites hosted on tor that get taken down quite often. Tor in itself is not an insecure software and it proves that by readily having nefarious and illegal sites operate for long durations of time.
All the instances I have read about large sites that host some form of illegal content on Tor going down have all had quite unique and extensive efforts put in by law enforcement agencies to make the bust happen.
Please link to a story substantiating this. What I have heard of happening repeatedly is that they trick criminals into communicating outside of tor, running an executable, or just take over the endpoint and nail people eg take over dark web drug markets and use information to track down the folks using it.
I remember this story and re skimmed through the article, it has nothing to do with exit nodes.
As the article notes, it’s hard to tell just how much of the unmasking comes from exit node control. An exit node will only know what public services are being accessed, without knowledge of any of the user’s addressing/location data (since each node only knows that information about the single hop in each direction). Plus, I’m not even sure exit nodes are used at all when connecting to a tor-hosted service (no need to exit the tor network, after all).
It sounds like the servers are being compromised and then being used to exploit IP-leaking vulnerabilities in how the browser/plugins and Tor network connection are configured.
I’m sure they’ve got a lot of tricks up their sleeves, but exit node control seems like the least significant of them.
And it is very easy to verify that the feds control enough exit nodes to know that it’s a Honeypot.
The movie industry can’t bother to provide and preserve the movies they make, they should shut the fuck up.
Still waiting to see Dogma on Blu-ray…
Before it went into licensing hell it was available on Blu-ray. I own a copy.
Why?
Snoochi-boochis
To get a better look at Buddy Christ, of course.
The parasites that keep the money aren’t the “movie industry”, the people who actually work to make the movies are.
“you don’t get any residuals because the movie is still in the red decades later”
Mmm Hollywood Accounting… Misappropriate my residuals harder daddy!! 💦💦💦
Cool. Now all, of Google Drive is blocked because one guy hosted a movie there for a few days.
All it would take is someone getting AWS blacklisted for an hour, that law would disappear like it never existed.
Piracy Shield blocked a Cloudflare IP address recently too
Hahahahaha
As a guy from Russia, I must admit that vpns are not a big problem for censors. They can be easily blocked, including self-hosted ones by protocol detection. And DNS would not do much with IP and clienthello-based blocks. And most users are not enough tech-savvy to constantly switch to new protocols as old ones get blocked.
CBaaS
Censorship Bypass as a Service, where your new updates are your [unique user ID].com
Let us manage your bypass for you! Payable in crypto or cash.
Even HTTPS-incapsulated? C’mon.
That most users won’t care enough - that’s true.
Https does not actually make difference here. You can still detect VPN usage by unencrypted clienthello, encryption-inside-encryption, active probing, obscure libraries that vpn protocol depends on, etc.
WTF? How are you going to look inside HTTPS?
Or is the word “encapsulation” (misspelled it first) unfamiliar to you in the network context? Maybe shouldn’t argue then?
obscure libraries that vpn protocol depends on
What? Are you an LLM bot? Answer honestly.
At first, please, be a little bit more patient and no, I am not a LLM.
All https traffic is https-encapsulated by definition. And you can look inside https just fine. The problem is that most of data is TLS-encripted. However, there is so-called “clienthello” that is not encripted and can be used to identity the resource you are trying to reach.
And if you are going to https-encapsulate it again (like some VPN and proxy protocols do) data will have TLS-encription on top of TLS-encription, which can be identified as well.
And about libraries: VPN protocol Openconnect, for example uses library gnutls (which almost no one else uses) instead of more common openssl. So in China it is blocked using dpi by this “marker”.
However, there is so-called “clienthello” that is not encripted and can be used to identity the resource you are trying to reach.
Yes, so how is it going to inform you that this is a VPN server and not anything else? You put your little website with kitties and family photos behind nginx on a hosting somewhere, and some resource there, like /oldphotos, you proxy to a VPN server, with basic auth before that maybe.
And about libraries: VPN protocol Openconnect, for example uses library gnutls (which almost no one else uses) instead of more common openssl. So in China it is blocked using dpi by this “marker”.
Ah. You meant fingerprinting of clients.
Banning everything using gnutls (which, eh, is not only used by openconnect) is kinda similar to whitelists.
Both applicable to situations like China or something Middle-Eastern, but not most of Europe or Northern America.
It is going to show the censor that you are trying to reach different banned websites (and, probably, google, facebook, etc), all hosted on your server. Your beautiful website is all fine, but in clienthello there is still google.
It is not necessary fingerprinting of clients, you can fingerprint the server as well. GnuTLS for this particular purpose is used only by Openconnect and that is just an example. This tactic is very effective in China and Russia and collateral damage is insignificant.
And various western anti-censorship organizations wrote articles, that such methods are not possible in Russia as well, but here we are. China’s yesterday is Russia’s today, American tomorrow and European next week. Here it all started in the exact same manner, by requiring ISPs to block pirate websites. And between this and blocking whatever you want for the sake of National Security (for example, against Russian hackers) is not such a long road as you think it is.
You have no rights in Russia.
VPNs can’t be categorically banned in the US without major first amendment issues. It’s not a huge technical issue, but unless the courts just throw out the Constitution (a risk that we’re seeing too much of, but still a meaningful bar to cross), there are huge legal barriers to doing so.
Your government doesn’t need to care about legal barriers because you have a dictator who can act unilaterally.
You realize the tik tok ban bill is also going to ban the use of VPN’s right?
VPNs are not categorically banned in Russia either. Just 95% of them. Categorical ban is not actually required here. Government can just create licensing procedure and license only those VPNs, which follow “rules”. I do not see how this is different from ISP bans.
Entirely unconstitutional restriction of speech.
The government can shut down specific illegal acts, such as sharing other people’s intellectual property. They can’t ban tools or protocols, or do things that are functionally bans. There’s plenty of precedent of the government trying to restrict encryption and being shut down. Removing the ability to communicate securely is a first amendment violation.
By the same logic they should not be able to force ISPs to ban sites, but here we are. If they can enforce bans with ISPs, why can’t they do the same with VPN providers?
We are just a little behind trying to elect our new dictator…
But just for a day…
/S 🙄
Hmmm, yes. Build a whole generation of tech savvy people with knowledge of VPNs and that activelly hate your guts. I cannot foresee any way this could backfire.
Basically demands lawmakers for ISPs implement censorship tools.
Okay, I’ll use my own DNS provider
Maybe they will actually geoblock…
I’ll use my VPN.
I would propose a law that states " All companies must keep their data away from the Internet. If the data ends up in the Internet then it’s up for grabs by anyone"
Or just abolish copyright law altogether.
Nah, but definitely limit it to 10-15 years. The original term in the US was 14 years, with an optional, one-time extension for another 14 years. I’d be down with that.
Instead of being contempt with one yacht, they’re gonna do what they can to have zero.
When A24 and state run film studios like Vicscreen are the only ones making anything remotely worth the box office, you have a problem.
USDoJ: How about no.
Oh, right. This isn’t 1992 when the DoJ had balls and a constitution.
an industry which throws away finished movies because they don’t want to spend the money to release it?
yeah nah, you’re disqualified from an opinion on piracy.
Justice for Coyote Vs. ACME
It is obvious profit is not their concern.
Instead of releasing a film that by all accounts would have been profitable, so that they can create a loss for tax purposes.
Why not maximize.profits, even if it means more taxes?
The shareholders should have a legal case.
I think the shareholders with enough shares to have influence are the ones who encourage this sort of behavior - if it’s a long-term profit at the expense of short term, they aren’t interested
That’s my gut feeling on it anyways
Yeah! Like, just because you make something, doesn’t mean you get to decide what to do with it.
Movies are made by a lot of people.
Many people pouring time, effort, and creativity into a difficult art form.
You really think any of the people who actually made the movie had a say in the decision to shelf it?
No, of course not.
If I commission an artist to make me a painting, and I then decide to throw it in a storage bin (or the trash) rather than put it in a gallery - that’s my decision. Neither the artist or the general public gets a say in it. Claiming otherwise (especially in case of the public) is pure entitlement.
The artist would still be able to display it, even if just a high quality scan of an original.
If you commission the artist to make you a painting, with some portion of the price being a cut of the revenue generated by displaying the painting, you absolutely should not be permitted to just throw it in the trash.
There should be an inherent obligation to make a good faith effort to make the revenue you’re required to share.
Those people were paid for their efforts. Sure it might be disappointing for that effort to not see the light it day, but at the same time I’ll bet many are relieved their name won’t be attached to a poor product.
not paid well enough.
