By now, most of you will know I'm no fan of blocklists. The simple fact is that even with the best will in the world, they're still often wildly inaccurate. Generally, the people you target with blocklists don't tend to be very cooperative with those that want to block them.
I've mentioned before how ineffective P2P blocklists have been, and even the website ones don't work. The Italian block of the Pirate bay has been overturned, and if anything drew more traffic to the site, as did the Danish block. The Fin's have decided to go one better though, and block a site in the name of protection; protection from the scourge of the internet – Child Pornography.
It's such a shame then, that the site blocked by Finnish ISP DNA is that of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The W3C is a standards body, that amongst other things sets the standards for the HTML that created this page. To presume that such a site would distributing child porn is ludicrous in the extreme, however customers of DNA that attempt to visit the site of the standards body get redirected to this site.
The Finnish Pirate Party (or Piraattipuolue) also objects to this, with party spokesman Kaj Sotala saying “If the website of a large, well-known and significant organization can end up blocked, is there any reason to believe that some smaller and less known sites doesn’t share its fate? Based on experience so far, none whatsoever”. They also call on the government to stop wasting resources on these lists, which just try and cover up the problem, rather than trying to address it.
I heartily agree. I've seen countless times that people rely on blocklists to try and defer judgement. “The list said it's bad, so it must be”.There are doubtless going to be people who will think their computers have been compromised as accesses to a highly regarded site bring child porn warnings. In the same way, people who use programs like PeerGuardian think that they are being bombarded with connections from antip2p companies. “It said that MediaDefender was hitting me with 20 requests a minute” is the typical response when asked to elaborate, “so that's how I know they've been doing it.”
The response is the same in both cases – how accurate is the list? If the list is not accurate, not reliable, no matter what it says you can't believe it. If you replace every MediaDefender label on a PeerGuardian blocklist with “God”, when you torrent, are you not only proving the existence of God, but that he likes to download Heroes as well? Both blocklists are just labels on IP addresses that someone has created. The Finnish list is on a definitive subject, by a government agency, with accountability, and it still gets it wrong. Are a couple of paranoid kids, having to guess at IPs and refusing, ever to be accountable going to be more accurate?
Spreading the underlying truth about P2P on both sides of the argument, from Neuron to Neuron
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
ESET - PG2 is malware
Original story - TorrentFreak
A Personal Perspective
Sometimes, there are stories where the twists and turns are mindboggling; where the statements and positions made by some groups make you wonder if they live in the same world. There are times when you not only want to report the news, but comment on it as well. I must admit, writing the above story, it was hard to keep objective, and I must thank my researcher for keeping me focused. However, a role reversal such as this, involving a group I have covered before (and kept an eye on since), is one I could not personally let go without some sort of comment.
Perhaps the greatest irony in this though, is the attitudes of the Bluetack people, when they're on the receiving end, In short, both NOD32 and PeerGuardian2 are programs that run on a computer, and use updatable lists to identify bad, or potentially bad items. Both also allow entries on the list to be circumvented, with 'exclusions' or 'allow' lists. However, if an entry is added to the Bluetack lists that deemed unwelcome by some, you will find the Bluetack people all over the net, saying “just add it to the allow” and “better to be safe than sorry”. However, someone does it back, they go demanding, inciting harassment, and making abusive assertions. It would appear that what is sauce for the goose, is not sauce for the gander.
Of course, in the end, it all depends who you trust more to be accurate and diligent in their lists. Either a large international company that makes it's business from the accuracy of lists and it's reputation, or a group of anonymous people on the net. Perhaps the most telling fact is that whilst a Bluetack admin was able to post addresses and phone numbers for multiple ESET offices, there are precisely zero phone numbers, addresses, or even real names listed for Bluetack. Were they to disappear tomorrow, with the $3,300 or so donated for future server costs, there is no way to know who has it. There is a lot of trust in some easily discarded internet identities. In short, this might explain their attitudes – when they finally can't bluff/lie/exaggerate their way out of yet another paranoid, and ill-justified addition to their list, they can simply drop the identities.
If Bluetack were serious about what they were doing, and wish to actually build some credibility, perhaps they could start by standing behind their decisions. Starting by revealing who they are, and acknowledging personal responsibility for their blocks. Of course, they will decline on grounds of privacy (which is why they have anonymizing services like Tor and Relakks blocked), and possibly claim that revealing their real names will lead to harassment or similar. Personally, if they REALLY believed these blocks are justified and legitimate, they have no reason to worry. Finally, it amazes me that whilst those that run PeerGuardian feel themselves to be net-savvy, and would never run a program sent to them out of the blue, by someone they don't know, they will not only run, but defend data and assertions made by people who deliberately go out of their way so as to be unidentifiable. Indeed, the only reason such a group would operate in this manner would be to make it near impossible to be held legally accountable for their actions or statements.
A Personal Perspective
Sometimes, there are stories where the twists and turns are mindboggling; where the statements and positions made by some groups make you wonder if they live in the same world. There are times when you not only want to report the news, but comment on it as well. I must admit, writing the above story, it was hard to keep objective, and I must thank my researcher for keeping me focused. However, a role reversal such as this, involving a group I have covered before (and kept an eye on since), is one I could not personally let go without some sort of comment.
Perhaps the greatest irony in this though, is the attitudes of the Bluetack people, when they're on the receiving end, In short, both NOD32 and PeerGuardian2 are programs that run on a computer, and use updatable lists to identify bad, or potentially bad items. Both also allow entries on the list to be circumvented, with 'exclusions' or 'allow' lists. However, if an entry is added to the Bluetack lists that deemed unwelcome by some, you will find the Bluetack people all over the net, saying “just add it to the allow” and “better to be safe than sorry”. However, someone does it back, they go demanding, inciting harassment, and making abusive assertions. It would appear that what is sauce for the goose, is not sauce for the gander.
Of course, in the end, it all depends who you trust more to be accurate and diligent in their lists. Either a large international company that makes it's business from the accuracy of lists and it's reputation, or a group of anonymous people on the net. Perhaps the most telling fact is that whilst a Bluetack admin was able to post addresses and phone numbers for multiple ESET offices, there are precisely zero phone numbers, addresses, or even real names listed for Bluetack. Were they to disappear tomorrow, with the $3,300 or so donated for future server costs, there is no way to know who has it. There is a lot of trust in some easily discarded internet identities. In short, this might explain their attitudes – when they finally can't bluff/lie/exaggerate their way out of yet another paranoid, and ill-justified addition to their list, they can simply drop the identities.
If Bluetack were serious about what they were doing, and wish to actually build some credibility, perhaps they could start by standing behind their decisions. Starting by revealing who they are, and acknowledging personal responsibility for their blocks. Of course, they will decline on grounds of privacy (which is why they have anonymizing services like Tor and Relakks blocked), and possibly claim that revealing their real names will lead to harassment or similar. Personally, if they REALLY believed these blocks are justified and legitimate, they have no reason to worry. Finally, it amazes me that whilst those that run PeerGuardian feel themselves to be net-savvy, and would never run a program sent to them out of the blue, by someone they don't know, they will not only run, but defend data and assertions made by people who deliberately go out of their way so as to be unidentifiable. Indeed, the only reason such a group would operate in this manner would be to make it near impossible to be held legally accountable for their actions or statements.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
PINAC : Business Stats
As part of an ongoing update, I am reprinting old pieces of mine here as well. This piece originally appeared here on www.piracyisnotacrime.com in Late 2004, and referenced the top of this no-longer published page on piracyisacrime.com
Ben jones
A Problem for Business
Every weekend, 7,000 open markets in the UK trade in pirate videos and DVDs.
Every weekend, eh. Exactly 7,000? Is that based on examination of every open market in the UK? More likely that's a figure extrapolated from a small sample area; or, in simple-speak, they scaled up a small area to the size of the UK and rounded. It’s a made up number. There isn't even an 'approximately' there.
Seizures of pirate DVDs increased by a massive 405% from 2002 to 2003 and the seizure level throughout this year is looking to be dramatically up on this figure. Actions against DVD piracy web sites for the first quarter in 2004 are already at a similar level to that for 2003.
If they made 10 seizures in 2002, and 40 in 2003, that's a 400% increase, so is 1 to 4. It says nothing about the level of seizures in 2003 or 2004 because it doesn't give a FIGURE, or HOW those figures are reached. Is it the number of seizures? The number of discs seized? The number of titles? Besides, since these seizures and actions are obviously 'A problem for business' (else why would it be here) then they need to be stopped.
The value of the black market in pirate DVDs in the UK is estimated at between £400 million and £500 million in 2003 and is expected to exceed £1 billion within three years.
Estimated by whom? On what basis? The MPAA estimates that its members lose approximately "$3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy". So, accordingly, nearly 1/3 of that is to counterfeit sales in the UK alone. When you add in the fact that the MPAA’s figure includes revenue lost to FREE downloads, then it’s pretty obvious that someone’s telling lies. It’s ridiculous to believe that the UK’s responsible for HALF of the MPAA’s WORLDWIDE losses. So, either the MPAA is understating their losses (extremely unlikely) or PIAC is overstating in an attempt to mislead. (source: http://mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.htm, first paragraph)
Downloading of illegal film and television files has tripled in the last twelve months and over 1.6 million people are now estimated to be downloading illegal films and TV shows every week.
Again, it is hard to see what the point of this is. The majority of those downloading TV episodes are those unable to see them any other way. Ex-pats in the USA, for instance, have no other way to keep up with The Bill. It's not as if this was a potential ad-watching customer lost. Indeed, it's a potential ad-watching customer to be GAINED, as in general, people will request the show to be shown on their local stations. To also put in context, remember that, on the BBC and ITV, 1.6M viewers is average for most shows. How many times a week does Coronation Street or EastEnders pull 10x that many viewers?
That’s TV; as for movies the main problem is simple to understand – the cost. Downloading takes time, and blank media. A pirate copy is just cheaper. In neither case is the quality so good, so it MUST be something about the price, and maybe the distribution method.
Ben jones
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Reading Comprehension is not Required for Microsoft
Sometimes, it's clear that people have difficulty reading, other times it's clear they have difficulty writing. A lot of the time, people who suffer in both these cases write on blogs, and call themselves some kind of expert. Of course, the very worst of these, are those that are computer programmers. Have you looked at programs these days? They're sometimes ten times the size equivalent programs were a decade ago, and run generally about the same speed as those equivalent programs did on the computers of the time, and they certainly don't do even four times as much as those programs of the Win98 era did. The only area which has kept up with the bloat, has been bugs (and the associated patches and fixes). Why I have brought this up, is due to a 'writer' called John Carroll, who 'blogs' for ZDnet.
In this article, he supposedly goes through the Pirate Party of the US website, and looks at their issues. It is here that he shows those very values of a writer I stated at the top.
I looked at the issues page, and indeed the entirety of the website, and couldn't find any such definition. It would appear that his definition is based on the following statement (taken from the first paragraph of their copyright page).
Of course, he then makes the classic argument, that copyright infringement is theft. There are many varied definitions of theft, but the general theme is that it is the taking of property from one person, by another without permission, depriving the original owner of the property. Copyright infringement however, can best be described as the reproduction of a piece of copyrighted work without the permission of the rights owner. The main difference is that the original owner still has their item, and is not deprived of it. I'm not even going to go into the whole shoplifting is the same as downloading analogy (I will just say that the movie studios still get paid for shoplifted DVDs, its just the retail stores that lose out). He is reinforced in this by the CEO of a pre-press company, who says “How many members of this new Pirate's Party do you think make their living as artists, musicians, writers, programmers, designers, or journalists. I think I already know this answer.” I know there is at least two, but then I actually bother to look up facts. A little research gave me the answer that the spokesman quoted before, is writing a book (and has a patent, as well as worked on TV shows, including one for ZDTV/ZDnet, back when John Carroll was still just an angry forum user) whilst the 'interim administrator' in Utah is a journalist. Want more? Rick Falkvinge, the head of the Swedish Piratpartiet, used to work at Microsoft (as a project leader, no less) and a smaller software company. It might seem that the CEO would be better off playing golf, that trying to play at political pundit.
Of course, dealing with people who have their own agenda, and Carroll's may be for his job. With the success of Joost (created by the same people that brought you kazaa), and other IPTV projects, perhaps he fears that he'll be left to misread websites, and spout poorly-reasoned (and worse researched) drivel.
In this article, he supposedly goes through the Pirate Party of the US website, and looks at their issues. It is here that he shows those very values of a writer I stated at the top.
The Pirate Party defines copyright as only being suitable to recoup costs. After that, companies and individuals should not be able to control the distribution of their intellectual work.
I looked at the issues page, and indeed the entirety of the website, and couldn't find any such definition. It would appear that his definition is based on the following statement (taken from the first paragraph of their copyright page).
As such, the Framers instituted copyrights for “limited times” only; once an opportunity to recoup costs had passed, open distribution could once again be in an open manner.
In short, Mr. Carroll sees "once an opportunity to recoup costs had passed" and reads "as soon as costs have been recouped". It is exactly that kind of poor linguistic comprehension that has put the US in the terrible state it's in. Furthermore, it's clear that only the littlest of effort was made in researching this, and even the multitude of other articles that have appeared in the past week about the Pirate Party were ignored. Had he read more than the first paragraph, he would have seen just how far his assumptions, and their resulting arguments, are from the mark. Let me refer to Variety, for instance, which is pretty much the news source for the entertainment industry. In their latest issue, they include an interview with a spokesman for the US Pirate Party. he says "But in an age of massive distribution, it should be easy to recoup investment and make money in 14 years."
Of course, he then makes the classic argument, that copyright infringement is theft. There are many varied definitions of theft, but the general theme is that it is the taking of property from one person, by another without permission, depriving the original owner of the property. Copyright infringement however, can best be described as the reproduction of a piece of copyrighted work without the permission of the rights owner. The main difference is that the original owner still has their item, and is not deprived of it. I'm not even going to go into the whole shoplifting is the same as downloading analogy (I will just say that the movie studios still get paid for shoplifted DVDs, its just the retail stores that lose out). He is reinforced in this by the CEO of a pre-press company, who says “How many members of this new Pirate's Party do you think make their living as artists, musicians, writers, programmers, designers, or journalists. I think I already know this answer.” I know there is at least two, but then I actually bother to look up facts. A little research gave me the answer that the spokesman quoted before, is writing a book (and has a patent, as well as worked on TV shows, including one for ZDTV/ZDnet, back when John Carroll was still just an angry forum user) whilst the 'interim administrator' in Utah is a journalist. Want more? Rick Falkvinge, the head of the Swedish Piratpartiet, used to work at Microsoft (as a project leader, no less) and a smaller software company. It might seem that the CEO would be better off playing golf, that trying to play at political pundit.
Of course, dealing with people who have their own agenda, and Carroll's may be for his job. With the success of Joost (created by the same people that brought you kazaa), and other IPTV projects, perhaps he fears that he'll be left to misread websites, and spout poorly-reasoned (and worse researched) drivel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)