CAUTION: if you follow links from that article, prepare yourself for some extremely fucked up shit. I was wondering how CashWhore doxxed so many people, so I followed the link to WJunction, then clicked on one of the threads. There was a link to a site with young girls without much clothing. I had to close my browser immediately. Just wanted to put that out there, if anyone is browsing from work or doesn't have a strong stomach.
>> This wasn't a "high-profile" website! Do some research! Alexa ranks these cowboys as being the 234,734th most popular website on the 'net.
This was a small time site, this is a small time outfit who are trying to get into the anti-piracy business by using a nothing site who nobody used to generate news (and business). Congratulations on being duped!
>> I have a blog (no I'm not telling you the address, I like to post anonymously!), it gets about 300-500 hits a day, I'm 299,749th on alexa btw. So this "high profile" website you just generated a nothing story about gets, at most, about 1000 hits per day. Real big time!
(I am also attaching the entire long-ishly written comment here for retaining a cogency to the discussion, that link hopping might disrupt)
Except... this will get people at the bottom of the food chain. The type of people who upload to web based download sites without proxying are likely to be school kids, people with limited technical knowledge (splitting a large file up in winrar really doesn't count as being technically proficient!), who want to share a movie with their family/friends, or people who use websites who index these sort of things (in the vague belief they are immune to the law, but facilitating piracy is now an offence), and offer people who upload additional privileges.
They distribute to very few people (compared to say bittorrent). No big fish are being fried in this action. No release groups will be caught. Few (if any) mass-uploaders will be caught.
This is a cheap sideshow in which a bunch of nobodies get a bunch of ACS Law type letters demanding somewhere approaching (or above) £1k to avoid criminal action, and those who fight it will likely find the case dropped (there are so many untested defences, and nobody wants to test them. If the defence of "wasn't me gov, my router got hacked" became a valid defence, everyone for eternity would welcome their day in court and use the same defence!).
People share on the internet, either ideas, opinions (even in comments like this), music, movies, etc. That's how people are. You have to remember that before big (or even small!) business arrived on the web and made trillions, people were already here, on the internet or (pre-web) on bulletin boards; sharing "stuff". Not just other people's ideas and inventions, but writing entire applications and even protocols. The web itself was based (and became successful) on this very idea of sharing, being unregulated and being free.
We are a social race and we like to share the things we like with others, and the internet is the perfect platform for us to do that.
Obviously that cannot be allowed to happen unfettered, or the major movie and games industries will be wiped out (there has to be seen to be some control, but they'd have to shut down most of he internet to wipe out piracy. It will always happen, no matter how many "honeypot" sites and bit-torrent tracking companies are running).
If internet bandwidth (to the home) continues to grow at the current pace then there will be real problems in 10/15 years. You could download every album that was EVER in the charts in less than an hour (you can already download group discographies in under an hour, even ones who kicked out A LOT of music). You could download a studio's entire back catalogue of movies in less than a day (100s of films, every day!). Rather than making the "piracy funds terrorism" crap and suing people for 10s and even 100s of thousand of dollars (these cases have mostly happened in the US), they could embrace technology.
Despite all the negative numbers and constant deluge of misinformation we are being sold (as a lie - enough is never enough in this world!), game sales, music sales and movie sales (or sales of movie services) have NEVER been higher than they are now, and we are still on an upward trajectory.
Many (most?) people who can afford movies/games/music (and maybe we should add books to that) will pay for digital copies, or access to digital rentals/services, as long as the price is right and the service is good.
Steam (a service for legally downloading PC games - which were on the edge of dying out because of mass-piracy) now has an estimated 70% of the market/$4 Billion market share. Founder Gabe Newell famously said:
In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the U.S. release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty
Looks like a failed publicity stunt to me, borderline link farm. There's hardly any posts on this forum -- a mere hundred threads spread over dozen sub-forums, plus a bot-populated "News" section. No telling how much of the threads are just seed posts by forum founders. Moreover, polls -- a popular fixture of forums -- seem deserted.
Any damage dealt to piracy scene will be minimal, and the `NukePiracy LLC' will soon be forgotten.
I'm confused by this. This guy has publicly admitted, in detail, that he started a site specifically in order to facilitate copyright infringement. Regardless of his view of his own "intention", this is a violation. He's enabled piracy and has stated his specific intent to do so, and he is not a government agent.
What if someone started a club where drugs were sold and then publicly announced a year later that is why they started the club? Except it was supposed to be a citizen's sting operation? And he was trying to get a payout from the feds by providing information? Does he think that provides immunity? My guess is they'd nail him to the wall while laughing at him.
Hasn't this guy opened himself up to legal action, both governmental and private, by his statements? He has stated publicly that he enabled "illegal" activities IN ORDER TO MAKE A PROFIT.
What about Nuke Piracy's complicence through acquisition?
On another note, that is in no way an analysis or conversation starter, or even constructive: what a prick.
I can't help but laugh. I always joke with my irc buds that we are chatting in a NSA honeypot. Maybe it's actually true? lol I think I'm actually disillusioned now. Just another example of why you should never put information you wouldn't want someone to know on the internet.
Such a class of information doesn't exist. I tell them, and then I expect that anyone else who might be interested will find out. The information is no longer secure.
The key to operational security isn't that no one ever finds out; it's that no one finds out until it's too late for them to stop you. Perimeter security is a war of attrition: you will take losses and you don't get to pick them.
I have confidences I've given to friends. I don't expect them to share those secrets with others, but I'm also aware that they very well might, even accidentally. (Or the sharing got MITM'd.) Thus, instead of using shared confidences as magical shibboleths to friendship, I use them as the first step on increasing my comfort level with sharing them publicly. For instance, I was extremely ashamed of the fact that I watched porn when I was a teenager; now I can say it freely on a public forum with my name attached. There are a dozen steps of infosec stepdown that occurred as I grew up between then and now.