Well said
 

People don't tend to be against things that they personally benefit from. ;) In this case, a win for the producers of content is a lose for those that profit/benefit from piracy. It's rather simple to put the nay sayers into the camp of "profiting/benefiting" from piracy. Of course, there are always those few that just post crap for sig whoring and to be a pain in the ass. LOL

Bump for AK and Copy Control killing even more and more filelockers...

on a serious note though. Sorry, all kidding aside.

How many filelockers have been killed exactly? I can't seem to find 1? Let me know pls.
kthxbye.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Sites like RapidShare herald the fact they provide content removal tools to rights holders, however this seems to shift the responsibility of policing content on a site.

If there were 10,000 file lockers with 10,000 content removal tools then the onerous task of policing content would be unmanageable.

File Lockers must be held accountable for the content they host, not shift the responsibility to rights holders who's content is being stolen.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/...-sharing-sites

Rapidshare could very quickly minimise harm to rights holders by simply deleting content which is shared on warez and piracy forums. Remove the incentive to share illegal content.

Are you suggesting that file lockers should manually inspect each and every single file uploaded? If I was using an online backup service such as a file locker the last thing I would want is people going through my personal files.

Maybe we should let the government inspect every single aspect of our lives on a day to day basis making sure we do not break the law. It's about time governments be held responsible for the actions of their population. If a person murders someone then their government is murdering someone to. This insanity needs to stop!

File Lockers don't need to manually inspect every file to find violations. You don't think a file name like "Young_Girl_Hight_School_16_Year_Old.part11.ra r" can be filtered against their appearance on illegal porn forums as this file was derived ?

It's actually not hard for File Lockers to automate the removal of a large amount of illegal and infringing files with a bit of creativity and terms and conditions which protect legitimate use of their service against illegitimate use.

However if they did that then they might not be so profitable. File Lockers aren't making their money from you uploading a midi file you share with a few friends, they're making money from thousands of people joining to download copyright or illegal content.

LOL, he wants the filehost to inspect files, and then not have DMCA safe harbor by doing so.
wizard.:1orglaugh

Most file lockers, in fact pretty much all of them, don't have DMCA safe harbour because the DMCA is a US Law and these sites reside outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, if you read my post above, you would understand that filtering and automating the process need not be difficult.

File Lockers who accept Paypal and have gone through Paypal verification as a file locker already allow inspection of their files, so nothing would change if they did do it manually.

Blah blah blah...
Hate, hate, hate...

On a serious note, while it is nice if they do, a file locker doesn't have to go offline. You simply only need to disrupt their affiliate program. When the monkeys are not getting paid, they stop uploading illegal material to that locker and move on to the next one. Like true monkeys, they swing vine to vine. But if you cut the vines off, one at a time, you are making progress.

If you want to see the damage done, go read the upload monkey forums. They are freaking out and not getting paid. No need to take the site offline.

It is honestly mind boggling that you naysayers don't have the mental capacity to understand this. Makes me wonder how you make it through the day without causing serious bodily harm to yourself.

As if they need US gov to block those linking sites through htaccess.

Previosly they boasted that they developed some very advanced bot which is so intelligent it's next to AI, and that this bot is constantly searching for pirates and finds and blocks them all. Well, now that this super smart AI bot ovbiously failed, they're looking for help of the US gov to crack down on linking sites.

Meanwhile any person who isn't US gov and doesn't have ultrasmart AI bots can simply Google "rapidshare warez" and find dozens of sites with the absurd amount of rapidshare links pointing to illegal content. Why can't Rapidshare do they same, and block at least some the most obvious offenders such as warez-bb through htaccess? They also have their referrer stats so they probably wouldn't even need Google to find those warez sites, at least several dozens of the biggest offenders, and block them. And also remove all files that were linked from those sites, ban posters and remove everything else that they uploaded. That move alone would cut piracy at Rapidshare by at least half, and will send a strong signal to all illegal uploaders not to use Rapidshare anymore. It can be done easily, in about a week or less. No US gov help or AI bots necessary. Any person from their in-house staff can handle that. Why do we keep hearing "innovation in the cloud" nonsense instead of real action? Well isn't that obvious :pimp

Pirates and their shit talks are beyond ridiculous.

:2 cents:

Give him a bro-hug

Not totally sure this is relevant to this thread but firstload.com which is advertising on http://www.filestube.com (a filelocker search engine) - with keywords that refer to stolen copyrighted content - is still using CCBILL as a payment processor !!! Just take a look on filestube.com' first 3 sponsored links and you'll see that firstload is charging access to Usenet with CCBILL (with the same keywords used by pirates to promote their links on Filelockers).

https://www.firstload.com/signup/ccbill_cc/index.php

Here's an interesting exchange we had with them:

@Alex911

There's no doubting that Usenet is a cess pool of piracy but given the nature of Usenet it's problematic from the point of view of preventing piracy. Certainly Usenet is way outside of the scope of the Stop File Lockers project.

Have you spoken with CCBill about their stance on the issue ?

Yes but firstload.com is still advertising stolen content on a Filelocker search engine! And using ccbill for processing...

Yes but with the general support, not with the fraud dpt (and it was before CCBILL decided to reject filelockers accounts).

Why give a bro-hug when a bro-bump is better? It keeps the thread alive and in the faces of guys who can't stand it but don't have enough self control to not post repeatedly in the thread.

Actually, no its not. Clearly you do not know how shit works because if you did you'd realize that usenet providers can drop news group.

Bro bump to give you a bro butt hurt? You know you like the butt hurt.

You assume way too much, so eager are you to make snide comments that you jump to baseless conclusions.

Firstly, my first exposure to Usenet was in the 80's when I used to manage a UUCP connected news server. Secondly you can drop any number of groups and people will just shift to alternative ones. Thirdly just because one Usenet provider drops a group doesn't guarantee others will and due to the rapid propagation of Usenet posts it's almost impossible to shut down piracy network wide.

So it is you, Notjoe, who has no clue how things work.

It's not a snide remark. The post I replied to said that it was problematic in preventing piracy on the news groups. The fact is, that it is not. If news servers drop the piracy groups then that is one less provider dishing out pirated content. If uplink servers drop the groups there then all the down linked news servers won't have them either. It's fairly easy to spot the piracy news groups as they, unlike the file hosts that you claim, do have petabytes worth of pirated content inside of them. New groups might appear (which takes a lot of posting to for it to happen) but then they can be dropped easily enough. Also, They're easily found using index websites that create nzbs. They'll always have the latest on which groups have the pirated content in them.

And yet its more thing you're avoiding...A service, and for all intents and purposes, the ultimate piracy file locker system conceived, is "outside the scope" of you.

Talk to me when you actually know what you're doing.

Disregarding the fact that this project is Stop File Lockers , not Stop Usenet, which has been explained to you many times yet in typical fashion you choose to ignore this: let me explain to you in simple language why Usenet is so difficult to control.

There are lots of News Servers around the world. Any one of them may create and drop groups. Other news servers may choose to carry or not carry groups from other news servers. The current state of Usenet is such that most news servers exchange with several other news servers so there is not the hierarchy that your post suggests.

Some large news servers may exchange posts with upwards of 6 or more other news servers, so while one group of servers dropping a group may result in that group not being carried on some of Usenet there will be others that continue to carry the groups.

Your understanding of the current state of play of Usenet appears to be limited because you assume that one upstream news server dropping a group will result in that group disappearing, this is not correct.

Usenet is notoriously difficult to control, in fact the whole design of Usenet ensures that it can usually withstand censorship, just as many Usenet servers stopped honoring cancel requests in the late 90s, most news servers now will not drop groups just because an another news server does, in fact they will usually just fill that group from one of the other several news servers they exchange news with.

I suggest you go thump yourself with a clue stick next time you want to debate the workings of Usenet with me, I have far more experience and knowledge of the subject than you obviously do

I didn't say that a group would disappear from all news group servers....I said that it would disappear from any of the news group servers which are downstream of the server which dropped the group.

If you're going to quote me at least do it right...it'd be the only think you've doing right out of this whole mess.

As I tried to explain in simplistic fashion there is not the hierarchy you think there is. Therefore one news server dropping a group won't do anything to the wider availability of that particular group.

Most large news servers exchange news more than one other news server therefore groups are populated from a number of other news servers.

Please do yourself a favor and go and educate yourself about this before weighing in on something you obviously don't understand completely.

Hit a raw nerve I did. Thanks for trolling.

dig420 has a very valid point about the impact all this will have on the vast majority of people the majority have stuff that they can find it or similar on legal porn tubes. Few have or promote a product worth buying, exclusive or unique. This industry. as we knew it. is over. And I'm not talking about offline of magazines.

Tubes sell traffic. They will work on the most traffic generating content. Until all the mainstream niches are saturated with free Tubes porn. Then there might be a time for looking harder at the smaller niches to see what's left.

Asian porn for now is one of the niches that will benefit from pirates being taken down. :thumbsup

:2 cents: Certain people have spent far too long wasting time, trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Telling people they are wasting their time trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Even destroying their business telling us. Unless they do have another reason.

Yes this is a tough fight, which for most forms of generic porn, my teens site included, will have little upside. However over industries who didn't self destruct by giving it away, will benefit from it.

Let me dumb it down for you in hopes you'll grasp the simple concept.

There are hub servers which are interconnected. These hub servers while interconnected will feed leaf servers. If you drop the groups at one of the hubs it will not propagate those groups to other hubs and/or leaf servers. That is not to say that other interconnected hub servers still wont carry them but any of the leaf servers which use the upstream hub will not have the groups.

What I also take away from what it is you're saying is that it won't be profitable for the news servers to drop those groups....so they wont and that is ok because of how news groups works...meanwhile, there is absolutely no other reason other than financial rewards to carry those groups.

Discussing this with you is pointless. You're technically wrong. Look at the paths of messages on any large news server and you'll appreciate the number of servers with which they exchange news. The old, generally hierarchical nature of news servers doesn't exist anymore.

In any case almost no news server today honors cancel messages and in the case of any individual news server if one server they exchange news with drops a group it's likely that another news server they exchange news with will still carry that group.

On profitability and finances I haven't said anything, so don't put words in my mouth champ.

You really don't get it do you ? This project is Stop File Lockers not Stop Usenet, not Stop Tubes or anything else you care to throw out there.

The title of this thread is Killing off File Lockers. We have stated numerous times that the project is limited to file lockers yet you keep coming back day after day saying we should be targeting other types of piracy.

I think he is trolling you in an attempt to side track you from paying attention to the task at hand. No one could be that thick. He is baiting you and taking your time, which is important. :2 cents:

I wont deny that there is a peer to peer aspect of how content gets sent from news server to news server but its not what one might see on torrent network. Teh internets don't go mad sending articles to everyone and where. There is still a topology to it somewhere. It really depends on the interconnects, the neighbors, whether ISPS have peering agreements with them and would permit article transmission through their private POPS (Point Of Presence). Why would an ISP pay to transfer HUGE amounts of data over their network to other networks when they can do with privately with those that they peer with. There is most certainly a topology to it.

QFT 8chars.

http://i.imgur.com/H6S6f.jpg

Notjoe, didn't you read the interview on AVN? AK helped make the internets in austrailia. He should know how newsgroups work for sure!

Just leave already.

You are so fucking annoying!

And what if I don't? Will you sick AK on me? Maybe he can contact my ISP and tell them since he doesn't see me downloading legal files that I must be downloading illegal ones and thus terminate my account :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

nah, he'll contact paypal first, and tell them you posted on a adult forum. get your paypal account limited. Then you can't pay your monthly internet bill. Then you can't buy food to eat.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

We reported this site to Paxum on the 17th however no action has been taken by Paxum.

Paxum have replied but we think the response is unsatisfactory.

We have been told that no action can be taken against unverified accounts. The account is still able to receive funds.

With all other payment and ewallet systems we have dealt with, Paypal, 2CO, Moneybookers, Payza etc they are able to terminate the account then present the message upon payment flow that the recipient is unable to receive funds.

One must question where the inbound payments end up if Paxum were to cancel the account AFTER it's verified. We have asked that question and are awaiting a response.

We believe Paxum have been tricky with their words. Paxum are doing nothing to prevent their payment system from being used by people to access stolen content in the case of this site.

Time to create a new thread to put Paxum back on the hot seat to adhere to their own stated policy?

Leave already.

You're so fucking annoying...

There was an existing thread from when we found Squillion were using Paxum.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072917

It's interesting to note that in that case also, Paxum said the account was an unverified account, Paxum say they do not act on unverified accounts.

When CCBill made the announcement that they would not deal with File Lockers, Paxum made a similar announcement riding on the coat tails of CCBill, however when push comes to shove all we find is that Paxum has been tricky with their words.

Maybe high up in the organisation of Paxum they see there's money to be made here. The news needs spreading around to legitimate users of Paxum so they can see who they deal with.

Did gideongallery buy notjoe's nick, or is notjoe just a trolling asshole?

I am sorry to hear that about Paxum.

So let me get this straight...Paxium will terminate a verified account which is processing for piracy websites but they wont terminate an unverified account? That is pretty fucked up. I'd think they'd be far more likely to terminate an unverified account since it isn't someone who has gone through the whole process to become verified.

Just because someone has an opinion which differs from those mostly expressed in this thread doesn't make them a pirate or someone who condones piracy.

It's completely out of line especially considering this statement

http://m2.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1071252

Paxum made a big deal of this during the CCBill/File Locker controversy and are now being tricky with words.

From Paxum

"Unverified accounts can receive funds, however in order for any Paxum account-holder to be able to access any funds in their account, they must first verify their Paxum account. The account in question is not verified."

"I wanted to clarify that while the account is inactive and unverified there is nothing that can be done to the account. If the account were to become verified and receive funds from sources that are in violation of our Terms of Service such as piracy sites, then we would be able to take appropriate action."

So while the account remains unverified the payment flow on a site like FileFap.com can remain in place.

Not good enough Paxum. If the payment flow remains in place then buyers will still be able to access infringing sites.

Sounds like a cash grab. If they never verify it paxum "holds" the money. When they DO verify it, they'll terminate it. Whether they will payout the account holder upon termination or keep the funds remains to be seen.

What does Paxum do with the money if the account won't get verified because of violation of the TOS?

Very good question, this is one I imagine Paxum will be answering pretty quickly.

Another very good question. Let's see what Paxum have to say about this.

See, I can be an asshole to everyone and not just you! :)