697
Then pirates will just get smarter. No way for them to see who is watching all of these movies with their VPN and Debrid service.
Lol.
Do ISPs like making money?
Then they shouldn't disconnect users who pirate.
I get notifications from my ISP all the time. They don't do anything though because they like the money I give them.
I've been torrenting movies and software since 2000, no vpn, like I literally have torrented damn near everything I've watched for decades and have only gotten a notice once and it wasn't even me. It was from a temporary roommate who had watched a movie on a pirate streaming site.
So that tells you how good and accurate their detection techniques are.
Their methods are fine, they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them. The main reasons you wouldn't get notices are getting lucky, not seeding much, not torrenting things that are being monitored, or having an ISP that doesn't care much.
The single notice from the streaming site makes sense, pirate streaming sites are usually honeypots or heavily monitored.
My routine is always use piratebay, never use a pirate streaming site, no new or big studio releases, no porn, not seeding for long and choosing less active torrents. I can't say much for how effective it is since I've never gotten hit so I can't really experiment (I've had five or six ISPs in two different countries).
they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them.
And I don't even understand how this would hold up if it ever went to trial. How can an IP owner "pirate" their own IP? Even when they outsource it to services who do this they're still giving permission for the IP to be distributed.
It's like hiring someone to "steal" your own TV, putting it in a back alley and then accusing whoever takes it of being a thief.
It's generally seen as okay on a similar level to undercover work. They do it for Investigation reasons, the torrent was already uploaded before they joined, their monitoring serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and they're authorized by the copyright holder (themselves) to do it. They didn't put the movie or whatever out there themselves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
ha. all of my traffic is encrypted and routed through at least 3 pirate friendly countries and servers that don't keep logs. good fucking luck inspecting those packets.
Always make sure that QBT uses your VPN's network interface. I got some DMCA emails despite split-tunneling a VPN recently, and I realized it was bound to all interfaces by default - that's no good.
Better to just configure a firewall properly so that no packets can go outside of the vpn tunnel.
How is that better? If you configure your firewall rules incorrectly, this protects you against that. This ensures you have no connection if your VPN isn't on/isn't working.
Thats what the firewall rules do too, don't allow internet connection if there's no vpn connection.
Firewall is a system-wide solution that always works, while qbt config relies heavily on the application implementing interface binding properly. Which it doesn't fully btw.
According to the article this is the USA. How on brand.
Based on that logic, ammunition and arms manufacturers should be held liable for damages as well.
Yes, but that would mean that logic has any bearing on what the Supreme Court decides to do
I hate that you're absolutely correct
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I'm not a judge, but isn't internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.
This would be the case had net neutrality not been killed off nearly a decade ago
Net neutrality is why your online jokes were censored under Biden
-- John McRacist, Republican congressman, former CFO of Evil Inc., former lawyer of Vile Ltd., member of Christofascism Society and Roman Salutes to Jesus
Not even piracy. Accusations thereof.
I'm pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don't have a right to electricity, or even water. They'll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.
And now look how well that's turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey's paw...
load more comments
(18 replies)
If it's upheld, that's the precursor to full-blown info blackouts, just cut off internet to anyone 'accused' of wrongspeak against the powers that be, which is basically everyone.
This also sounds like SOPA reborn.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Being accused of will lose you access to basic infrastructure? Why not cut electricity too?
give it a few months, they're working up to it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm not doing piracy, I am merely training my AI!
load more comments
(3 replies)
Accused???
Well alrighty then, I hereby accuse the operators of donaldjtrump.com of piracy! Anybody else notice any piratical activity? Foxnews.com seems pretty fishy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I nominate we test with out with the Zuck and his networks.
This still won’t make me pay for Netflix
load more comments
(1 replies)
So if Meta is convicted of pirating books for AI training, they lose all internet connectivity? 🧐
load more comments
(5 replies)
Here i am again doing my duty https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters
load more comments
(7 replies)
"the internet" is a necessity and requirement to function in society. You can't be denied access to it anymore, it would be disproportionate.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is how you get a new darknet.
In Germany and no doubt some other countries, private law firms can (on behalf of the copyright holders) request people's identity based on residential IP addresses and then send extortionist legal threats. Apparently an IP appearing on a public tracker can be enough to trigger it, without any confirmed data transfer.
VPNs are common and usually sufficient.
they try that in the US, using mass litigation, but it doesnt work, its usually designed to scare indivudal IP users to "turn them self in"
Don't public trackers add random IPs?
They could. The protocol also supports IP spoofing, so doxing could also be a thing.
For individuals, it is a time consuming and costly legal process, whether justified or not. For the law firm, it costs a few cents per letter, but they get a few hundred (or more) euros when some sucker pays.
A boy downloaded a movie via torrent without using a VPN.
He died.
Good night! 😴
load more comments
(1 replies)
And now I'm on a VPN because if they're just gonna cut people off for accusing of piracy they're gonna have to cut off everyone with a VPN.
TBH I should have been behind a VPN before
load more comments
(18 replies)
Pirate everything, death to the capitalists.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
697 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
72497 readers
4141 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS