Does your ISP like P2P users?

[random nut]

Originally posted by g l i t c h
don't think adelphia gives a F%$^, but they cap the upload to 128 k but I get 3.5 Mb down ;)

I don't envy you. I get 10Mbps up and down. Downloads a 200MB file in 2-3 minutes, the time it takes to cook some food.

[NDGAARONDI]

The ISP's got a great deal going in Europe cause the Gov picks up the tab in exchange for being able to have hands on direct access, without a warrant, to their traffic. In fact, BT accomadates Echelon (the worlds listening headquaters) offices at one of their facilities.

Ummm what does this mean exactly?

So much reading in this post - never came across anything like this in ZP!

Basically, its fair to say that Kazaa has already lost

Okay I have no idea on the current issues on Kazaa. But if Kazaa don't abide by the court's ruling, and since they're overseas, what can the courts do? Not a lot

Oh someone said about judge's ruling and being abiding by what Parliament wants. Well I've seen cases in England where the courts have gone right against what Parliament has said because of the interests of justice - not on p2p (no cases I've seen yet), but on cross examination by a defendant to the victim of a rape case, where both are juveniles. You shouldn't do this under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. But the House of Lords allowed this for evidence so the case can be tried justly.

Now rape is a bigger issue than p2p and court went against this so work that one out...........

Oh and if RIAA go mad and try to attack overseas users like using worms etc. then I'd laugh if a techo dude filed a lawsuit against them in this International Criminal Court LOL; some new stuff I heard about.

[Theinfamousone]

Rape is worse than P2P? Bwa ha ha, don't make me laugh, anyone who downloads eminem is scum of the earth and always will be, and deserves to be locked up with the key thrown away, if not the chair!

Why do you think they are blowing billions of taxpayer's dollars and RIAA's such tight budget (LOL) over P2P evey year?

The only thing bigger than P2P is child pornography.

[Monyak]

@ NDGAARONDI

Last September in a trial of two Menwith Hill trespassers, British Telecomm inadvertently released top secret documents to defense attorneys which confirmed that the three main digital optical fiber cables for the British Isles – each carrying 100,000 calls each at any time – run through the Menwith Hill facility to ease spying against Anglo citizens. Judge Jonathan Crabtree immediately lambasted the phone company, stating “BT had no business whatsoever to disclose anything of the kind…The national interest of the United Kingdom, even if it is conducted dishonestly, requires this to be kept a secret.”

Click Here to Read Full Article

Okay I have no idea on the current issues on Kazaa. But if Kazaa don't abide by the court's ruling, and since they're overseas, what can the courts do? Not a lot

Australia is a signee of many treaties with the United States. Kazaa's assets can in fact be seized overseas, providing that the United State has cooperation with Austrailia (or Vanuata), which they do.

In effort to promote trade agreements around the world, many countries including the United States, are in fact signees of these types of treaties to prevent crooks or even international companies from playing games.

If the money can't be collected in the United States, then there is a way that a person can execute his right to collect in a foreign country. Otherwise, international companies would be considered a very dangerous business. Believe me that there are laws that protect the big guys interests.

Today, even American prisoners who committed crimes overseas in countries who have an agreement with the United States, can do their incarceration time in the United States.

I'll give you something to think about. Let's say that you gave me a check in Greece for the sum of 500 Drachma in the Greek Currency. Now lets say that the check bounced due to lack of funds.

Now lets now say that I see you in New York one day 6 months later. I go to the local courts, present your check and sue you. Do you think that the court gives a shit if the currency was "Drachma"? The question is DO YOU OWE ME MONEY. The rest is geography and philosophy, and whatever damages. If I prove that you owe me for whatever and from whenever, the court will execute its judicial power. Even if you made a verbal agreement with me in Greece, it is still bounding elsewhere.

Most countries have similar laws. I dont know what the law is in Australia, but it probably is very similar. If you owe money, it doesnt matter why, or how. Does the Australian Magestrates respect the American Judical System? The answer is YES.

In criminal law, there is a statute of limitations. In Civil law, there is no time limitations. You can owe a bank for 30 years for a house, or refinance it for another 30 years. But you still owe. If you owe me money, you owe me until you pay or die! And if you die, I run after the next of kin!

[NDGAARONDI]

Australia is a signee of many treaties with the United States. Kazaa's assets can in fact be seized overseas, providing that the United State has cooperation with Austrailia (or Vanuata), which they do.

Is it Vanuatu you have the signee with or Australia? Although Kazaa has stuff in Australia, if it actually is based in Vanuatu, you should go there.

...and speaking of treaties U.S.A. doesn't abide by their own ones that they have signed to, hardly any country does, so why should Australia care?

@ Monyak

Today, even American prisoners who committed crimes overseas in countries who have an agreement with the United States, can do their incarceration time in the United States

Well that's wrong but it happens. Like over here I think it happened with war crimes where it occured in Poland etc. A much debated area in law over 'ere. I've even read an non-American person attacked the American embassy abroad in Africa in somewhere and he got extradited to USA, but he had no connections whatsoever, just damaging the American embassy that isn't in America, which didn't qualify.....just something I read.



@ Monyak

In criminal law, there is a statute of limitations. In Civil law, there is no time limitations. You can owe a bank for 30 years for a house, or refinance it for another 30 years. But you still owe. If you owe me money, you owe me until you pay or die! And if you die, I run after the next of kin!

Well you don't use a legal maxim known as, "Justice delayed is justice denied"? It's something known as equity. It happens both civil and criminal law in England and Wales I know. Does it exist in USA? j/w

...and with England if person dies and that person owes the claimant (plaintiff) is unlikely to sought the claims. Sometimes this is unfortunate but it happens.

So that article with BT is that suggesting that Europe and the UK are doing what to the USA exactly?

Does the Australian Magestrates respect the American Judical System? The answer is YES

I wouldn't count on it like that. Might not have anything against you but some might not do what you want. Happens all the time - you get countries not complying with their treaties between France and Germany - that was on beer, England and France on beef - list goes on....and wouldn't speak for all of them....

[Monyak]

I wouldn't count on it like that. Might not have anything against you but some might not do what you want. Happens all the time - you get countries not complying with their treaties between France and Germany - that was on beer, England and France on beef - list goes on....and wouldn't speak for all of them....

Those are private industries (beer & beef). I'm talking about judicial issues, common law, etc., on the civil level. Obviously, if one country doesnt comply with anothers treaty, and if they are obligated by signature, then the courts are non-political and will award the plaintiff for damages. This happens all the time.

Libya has just recently agreed to pay over 2 billion over the Scotland Lockerbie issue, and even Saddam Hussein have been sued time after time in New York courts. So not even a country is immune. To belong to the 'international community' all countries are required to adhere on both criminal and civil levels. The overall question is does party A owe party B damages.

The beef issue is a classic situation where diseased cattle started killing people. Nobody's gonna buy or legally supply disease. Contracts and treatys were broken regarding the beef, however that doesnt stop anybody from suing or collecting. The English Government, back in May 1996, banned the import/export of any/all cattle into England causing many law suits who have sued and collected.

Kazaa can get away with playing games in California courts by not showing up to court, or claim that they dont have the money to pay for their lawyers. If Kazaa owes their lawyers money, the lawyers will collect. If Kazaa doesnt have money, then Kazaa assets will be seized. That includes their main servers that are used to refresh advertisement material.

Is it Vanuatu you have the signee with or Australia? Although Kazaa has stuff in Australia, if it actually is based in Vanuatu, you should go there.

If Kazaa is forced to pay money by the LA courts, then the RIAA will go to Australia and ask the Australian local courts, based on the findings of the California courts, to accept the California court judgement and help execute the judgement. The local courts will only ask one question, does Kazaa owe money. The courts are not there to ask why or under what circumstances is the money owed.

I gave an example in my previous post about how an American can committ a crime in England, and after being tried in England, can do his incarceration sentance in America. This is very common today. Most countries now have similar treatys.

If a court awards whoever against Kazaa, they can collect anywhere and everywhere, providing that the hosting country that they want to collect in is a signee of a cooperating treaty. This kind of stuff is ALWAYS COVERED IN TRADE AGREEMENTS. America has Trade Agreements with most of the world, and creates embargos against any country who refuses to sign a trade agreement.

My friend took a Cadillac that he bought in Miami to Italy. He was paying the Cadillac in payments. When he took it out to Italy and stopped paying the payments, the company from America where he purchased it from actually went to Italy and re-posessed the car.

Dont get me wrong. I dont like Kazaa, but then I hate the RIAA and wouldnt hope the RIAA gets stronger on the back of Kazaa. I root for Kazaa to win similar to the way that Morpheus won. I just have a feeling that the lawmakers will pass legislation in favor of the RIAA in which case Kazaa and others will lose.

Morpheus won because of the lack of clear legislation as to who is responsible when it comes to program mediums.

[NDGAARONDI]

So then really the makers of the VHS, JVC, could take action against people who supply masses of VHS casettes? I have no idea where they are based but just say England for example. And then b/c American shops haven't put notices up saying that JVC's license agreement is that the tapes are used in according to copyright etc. Then JVC could then sue those American shops. I know it's a strange situation - I'm just comparing it to the P2P situation...hope you can see what I'm getting at.............

I only say this b/c I know in England you can only keep a recorded program for so long after you've seen it once, and only once.

So the question is why would someone buy tons of VHS tapes like 10 x 5 hr tapes and then double length of that on long play? Surely it's similar in USA no? j/w

Would anyone miss THAT many programs off TV as he or she is at work etc? More likely to make a library of TV episodes to save having to buy the real copy!

I know some poepl hmake home movies but does everyone do that who buys tons of tapes? I've seen people buy tons of VHS tapes - more than I think they really need. But no one seems to care about this....

Of course not everyone does this but it is the same argument as RIAA's stealing music odyssey.

Say about the courts, they do award damages etc., but is there 100% guarantee everywhere in the world where this happens?

I mean with Kazaa the RIAA and that to be safer should have gone to Australian courts or Vanuatu. But they know if they win they will have more damages awarded to them like ridiculous amounts as seen against uni students.....

I mean simple easy answer to get around it is the Government to set up an Internet Bureau and ban all p2p websites and oth internet ways of using p2p from every IP that is under USA jurisdiction. China do it, why can't America (though not p2p specifically)?

Say with those discussions on the ICC you'd think USA would sign up so they have more co-operation from other countries? Especially if the courts do want to take down p2p then surely signing up to ICC bea great idea.........

Any thoughts?

[manolofx]

Well, I'm just giving my 2 cents with my humble opinion of all this.
I agree that ISP's must dislike or even hate P2P users because most of them, and I include myself :), share 24/7 and download / upload at most speed possible. I guess that perfect and ideal user for them must be that one who just log in once or twice a day for a couple of hours and load some web pages to check some news, email family and friends and once a while download some mp3, things not required of a broadband. But that has nothing to do with a P2P user. I guess we are very annoying for ISP's. But I consider a Broadband as a "Internet Buffet", where just lets say they offer a kind of slogan like "download as much as you want to at highest speed". Legitimately that's not wrong, so if you are going to a real buffet with your family to have a nice meal and you eat more thnt it is expected for the Buffet Restaurant, there's nothing ilicit, but you can imagine the reaction of the workers as cooks who have to overwork to make more food, and furthermore, the reaction of the owners who see how their business are going down or losing profits because a new wave of "hoggers" are "abusing" of the slogan "Eat all you can". So I just compare a Buffet with any ISP's. Both are not interested in offering more that needed because their profits could diminish subtstantially in that case. So to me I think the best option at short term is switching to a BIG ISP's who are nog gonna be very pissed off if you "hog" a lil bit their broadband.
By the way, I got Optimum Online, and I wonder is anybody else with same ISP got problems using eMule or BitTorrent. I can't upload at all just when Im downloading, and when file is 100% stop uploading at all. Required ports are all open. Anyway to fix this or I should switch to a better provider?

[notbob]

wow

i forgot how annoying monyak/sharepro was

[Ogi]

I couldn't give a F*ck whether or not my ISP likes me, As long as I pay them they will provide the service. if they try to block ports, place caps or restrict bandwidth, they know that a good chunk of people will switch to another ISP.

Now if all ISP's decided to do this, then there would be an issue, but that is unlikely because they would be ailianating a market segment, one where their competition may enter instead.

[ITGuy]

Its kind of funny that people will say things like "if my ISP blocks P2P, I will quit them so fast their head will spin".

Actually, their heads will stop spinning if you quit them. If you are a problem customer, then they will be glad to see you leave to become their competitors problem.

P2P users think they can have it all their way. They think that if they cause an ISP to purchase more bandwidth that their price should stay the same. Sorry...simple economics do not work like that.

However in my case, we dont block P2P, but we do have a signed agreement that states you will not "host" or operate a "server". Basically, if you want to steal music, its at your own risk, but you are not allowed to share. So the downloading is not prohibited. This is in an effort to keep the juice flowing while not having to raise rates. Sure we can upgrade the system to accomodate the bandwidth hogs, but it will come at an increased price to everyone. And why should everyone pay higher rates because you leave a P2P program on 24 hours a day to infringe on copyrights?

[.:sp00ky:.]

Hey ITGuy if someone wants to leave their bb on 24/7 they have everyright to iv changed isp twise because they put limits funny how they beged me to come back with offers like free bb for a year free phone calls ect seems to me they DO need us we pay their wagers, so why should i pay for bb to be told oh no you can't use it thats just wrong.

oh and get your head out of your arse p2p is used for alot of legal stuff see how many opensource projects are around these days linux?? oh and their are artists who love p2p to spread their music.

we pay for bb so we can use it 24/7 thats the WHOLE point of bb.

[Auggie2k]

oh and get your head out of your arse p2p is used for alot of legal stuff see how many opensource projects are around these days linux?? oh and their are artists who love p2p to spread their music.

Yup, and you forgot to mention the millions of users who legally download music from the likes of iTunes or Musicmatch. And of course there are newsgroups. List is endless really.

[Malakai1911]

The "no server" clauses bother me, thats why I like the concept of DSL over cable. On DSL through, say, verizon, you at least get a dedicated up and down that you can max out.

OptOnline, on the other hand, will cap you artifically lower if you max out your connection for an unknown period of time.

[trekkeriii]

My ISP doesn't mind P2P else, they wouldn't be putting up billboards talking about being able to "download music, movies, and images fast". Granted they may be talking about legal media, but it doesn't distinguish that in the billboard.