Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK ISP Disconnecting Filesharers 106

Posted by samzenpus
from the no-torrent-for-you dept.
bs0d3 writes "A small VPN service, Koppla, has had its service terminated by its host, Santrex Hosting Solutions. Despite actively advertising their services to be oriented toward file-sharing including torrents and XDCC, even going so far as to put 'Seedbox Hosting | An Effective Solution' in the title of their contact page, the UK based Santrex will independently act to terminate users who are thought to be distributing content that they don't own the copyright to. This is regardless of whether the infringement is done by a third party, as is the case with a VPN service such as Koppla."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK ISP Disconnecting Filesharers

Comments Filter:
  • WRONG! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:06AM (#38186620)
    This is so wrong and such an invasion of privacy. The Internet is meant to be a bunch of dumb-swtiches, sending out packets to all of us, and none of it monitored or regulated. It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.
    • Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by another_twilight (585366) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:11AM (#38186644)

      It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.

      They have. They did. It's not you. It's not me.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:11AM (#38186646)

      It's time that someone take a stand and show these mother fuckers who is really in charge here.

      Aliens [troll.me]?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:55AM (#38186860)
      It's the goddamned motherfucking corporations and the big banks who are in charge, idiot child, and we all voted for the goddamned motherfucking politicians who were bought and paid for by them for the express purpose of bringing all this about, and all this shit started almost 80 years ago.
      • by fnj (64210) on Monday November 28, 2011 @03:09AM (#38187304)

        Winning an election does not protect filthy politicians who ignore the constitution. They are stil enemies of the Nation.

      • by jonwil (467024) on Monday November 28, 2011 @06:12AM (#38188334)

        Whats worse is that the "sheeple" keep electing the same people time and time again.

        Look at the recent result in the New Zealand poll, they elected exactly the same people who ran the place before, the same people who are in the back pockets of the big media companies (especially the big film and TV production companies), big financial companies and the US government (Google "Bruce Simpson" if you want to find out how much in the pocket of the US government they are)

    • by poetmatt (793785) on Monday November 28, 2011 @09:34AM (#38189576) Journal

      actually, this is against EU law, if I recall correctly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:09AM (#38186638)

    Same thing as a store booting a shoplifter and banning their sorry ass. I'm amazed more ISPs don't do this to scofflaws.

    • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:06AM (#38186908) Homepage

      Not exactly. It's a store refusing service to someone who just happens to hang out with people they don't particularly like in their spare time.

      • by 0xygen (595606) on Monday November 28, 2011 @04:30AM (#38187762)

        That analogy seems rather stretched... It seems more like Mr A ISP going into the store with a big bag, grabbing a pile of stuff, walking out without paying, ducking into an alley, giving it to an anonymous individual, then when the store refuses to allow Mr A ISP on their property, he says "But I did not steal the goods, I'm just a carrier, you cannot punish me, I was an innocent party getting paid to do it!".

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @10:26AM (#38190164)

          This analogy is wrong. In that case the person is stealing something physical and they're directly committing a criminal offence. Whether or not you think filesharing is theft, it's not a criminal offense and the VPN company was just transporting bits anonymously, not sharing or downloading the files.

          If you really need to push the filesharing is theft line, It's more like a gas station refusing to fill up a taxi cab of a company that's advertising shoplifting trips to cities. Then of course you're still equating it actual theft. So it's actually a taxi company that's offering trips aimed at people who want to go to shops to copy the things that are in them and a gas station taking a moral stance on that, when really it should be none of their business what that gas is used for.

          Most ISPs have any filesharing provisions in their TOS - the reason probably shouldn't be shocking to many of us, and it's not a moral one. Filesharing pushes a lot of a data through their network and that means the margins on these customers isn't high enough to care about keeping them as customers. Most business customers, the ones they actually care about (see margins above) won't give a damn that the filesharers have been kicked out of the ISP, in fact they'll gobble up the line that kicking high bandwidth low value users out will improve their quality of service.

          So back to the analogy it's a gas station offering fixed price fill ups to get you to town and you showing up with a big 18 wheeler with "FREE SWAG!" painted all over the side and them saying, no fucking way are we filling that!

          • by tehcyder (746570) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @07:32AM (#38200548) Journal

            Whether or not you think filesharing is theft, it's not a criminal offense

            No, as always gets pointed out on slashdot, filesharing is not theft, nor any other criminal offence in most countries. It is, however.a civil offence. And in the same way that a company wouldn't repeat a libel (for fear of getting sued themselves) so you can't expect them to condone copyright infringement.

            Whether or not you think that libel and copyright infringement should be civil offences capable of being pursued in the courts for damages is another matter, of course.

        • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Monday November 28, 2011 @10:49AM (#38190416)

          grabbing a pile of stuff

          Copying a pile of stuff.

  • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:12AM (#38186648)

    I am not quite sure what the story is here. Okay, so it is a bit rought that a business was put out of operation because it was being used to VPN up some torrent files - but it certainly didn't look like they were trying to hide it.

    I mean "Hey, we offer great ways to avoid being caught when uploading torrents..." then "Awww.... we got shut down for uploading torrents..." really aren't to far apart in any business plan that starts with the first.

    On the upside, the article points out that new EU rules take any sniffing out of the requirements for an ISP. So maybe this won't happen again.

    I am really unsure which side to take here. I don't support the ludicrous fines and penalties that all of the **AA goons are trying to enforce, but I also don't support a business model that seems to be basically aimed at people breaking copyright of others.

    • by geminidomino (614729) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:22AM (#38186678) Journal

      Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.

      I'm thinking Honeypot, but I'm the paranoid sort.

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:31AM (#38186724)

        Damn summaries and articles - or perhaps damn my comprehension ability today. I read that about five times as well as reading the article to try to work out why it was an issue.

        If it is the parent company that is advertising itself as a pirate friendly ISP, then it's a bit of kettle and black pot, but at the same time, if Koppla is nice and clean, they will no doubt have zero problems switching over to another ISP with next to no problems or downtime for their customers.

        • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:39AM (#38186760)
          They advertised being seedbox friendly, not pirate friendly. Or are you saying that torrents can only be used for copyright infringement? Because that's what slashdotters have been claiming for years. Now that the claim is used against pirates, it's suddenly not true anymore.
          • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:14AM (#38186934)

            No, not at all. There are linux torrents, world of warcraft patches and wikileaks insurance policies that are perfectly legal uses for torrents.

            Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.

            While there are many legal uses for torrent files and peer to peer, I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.

            To pop my thoughts into a car analogy - You can put a massive super powerful engine into a normal car because you like the sound, but much more likely you want to go faster.

            Again, as I said in the original post here - I don't support piracy, but I am dead against the stupidly over the top litigation that record companies are bringing against people for downloading a few songs. Two polar wrongs don't blend to make a right somewhere in the middle here.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:34AM (#38186994)

              Torrents are used all over the place. I think you would be surprised at the break down of infringing vs non-infringing. I can tell you with certainly the last torrent I downloaded was not infringing. I am actually a little lost as to why I might use a torrent these days for infringing content when there are legal methods which hide the fact you are infringing much better. I'm referring to legitimate file sharing hosting operations.

            • Having said that, if I asked just about anyone I know what torrents they last downloaded - it would be rather unlikely to be one of the three examples above and it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material.

              Try asking your friends. Maybe you'll get a surprise, especially if you remind them about the WoW updates.

              The last torrents I participated in were Linux distributions (Ubuntu & PCLinuxOS). In each case, I kept seeding until the traffic had essentially died away - that was after about 50GiB uploaded. In the most recent release, I restricted myself to Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu torrents, and left out the poxed Unity/GnomeShell Ubuntu. Mind you, I still run 10.04 on our home systems.

            • by Mathinker (909784) on Monday November 28, 2011 @03:27AM (#38187382) Journal

              > it would also be unlikely that they were not downloading torrents containing copyrighted material

              After world harmonization with Berne, that would be practically all material, so... I think you rather meant "unlicensed, copyrighted material".

            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @06:44AM (#38188514)

              I would really love to see a true (read: not produced by **AA or torrent*****.com - both of which I assume would be biased) percentage breakdown of illegal vs legal torrent use. If the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of pirated material (which I think they likely are) then advertising a business as "seedbox friendly" is by definition somewhat clouded (at least in my mind) by their perceived potential market - no matter what their intentions are.

              What is pirated material? There is a huge grey area.

              E.g. Is software that break US software patents, pirated software? Software patents are only enforceable in USA and a few other, more insignificant, bribemocracies.

              E.g. If an artist use torrents to spread his creations to countries where (s)he doesn't have a distributor; is that piracy because people in countries where he have a distributor may download? Some countries even give the artists an irrevocable right to spread their own creations parallel to any distributor they have a deal with.

              E.g. Is a torrent that contains technology that USA have declared should not be exported to some countries, illegal? (Not just cryptography software like OpenSSH, but also e.g. software used in healthcare or basic education, is illegal to export to some countries from USA. In these cases, USA is not supported by any other government I know of, but have forced some of them to withhold US export restrictions anyway).

              Internet is international. What constitute IP Piracy is not international.

              What I would like to see is a bittorrent tracker that enforce content declaration of who have an IP interests in each torrent. Then let me figure out if that ownership is applicable in my country. As it is now, it is almost always impossible to figure out the content of torrents and often it is impossible to figure out IP ownership of their content even after I have downloaded them (aside from open source software, I mostly use torrents to download academic papers, and obscure, mostly self published, movies, ebooks and music, where IP interests is hard to figure out if it isn't declared in the torrent description or content).

      • by stephanruby (542433) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:33AM (#38186730)

        Except that the one advertising "Seedbox hosting" wasn't Koppla, it was Santrex, the ones who DID the disconnecting.

        You're right.

        This is the worst written blog article I have ever read (hopefully, someone will read this entry and fix it). They need to qualify who's doing what instead of using ambiguous pronouns for everything. It's only once you read the rest of the blog article that you understand what happened.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:46AM (#38186812)

      Koppla was an ISP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-level_ISP
      Anyone offering hosting etc. services of somekind is one kind of an ISP. ISP stands for: Internet Service Provider, whether that is access to internet, or service within internet meant for somekind of communication (ie. webhosting, vpn, shell accounts, remote desktop, dedicated) is an ISP.

    • by pla (258480) on Monday November 28, 2011 @07:41AM (#38188794) Journal
      Okay, so it is a bit rought that a business was put out of operation because it was being used to VPN up some torrent files - but it certainly didn't look like they were trying to hide it.

      Although they advertised their intent, the very nature of their service makes me wonder how they got busted... I've long suspected that filesharing would move to entirely various VPN-like networks precisely to hide their traffic.

      So I have to wonder, did Koppla get the boot solely for its PR, or for actual specific allegations of copyright infringement?
  • by perpenso (1613749) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:17AM (#38186664)
    Filesharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement. For example a host could put up torrents of Linux ISOs. So advertising support for file sharing and kicking off folks engaged in copyright violations are not mutually exclusive. I am not saying this ISP is doing so in the best possible manner, just that advertising filesharing does not imply they are going to look the other way regarding copyright violations.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:28AM (#38186710)

      Also, this HTML document is a file and Slashdot is sharing it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:44AM (#38186788)

      It's false advertising anyway. Because every other ISP supports filesharing. It's pretty much the same thing that happened with the mineral water that prevents dehydration a few weeks ago.

      Also, I could easy call it entrapment.

      It will take some time but the EU will pass a few laws that will really cut them at the knees. We'll see who's laughing then.

      • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:53AM (#38186850)
        No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens. Not with a single customers, but if you get bunch of them. This is even more true for sharing hosting, because it drains the server resources immersible fast.

        It's not entrapment either (and this is private company to begin with). Offering hosting is not a request to violate laws.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:06AM (#38186904)

          No, every other hosting provider most definitely don't support BitTorrent because it drains the network because of the amount of connections it opens.

          You need to go back to network school if you think open connections themselves inherently create drain on a "network".

          If you're doing SPI or DPI, why should I care what that costs you if I didn't ask for that service in the first place. Even if I am sharing the server with others, then you I suppose we can agree on some kind of limitation on sockets, but that's another thing entirely.

    • by Co0Ps (1539395) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:48AM (#38186824)

      Once again, this issue is not about legal technicalities or technical workarounds... If you put up a service like the pirate bay it's laughable to claim that more than 1% of the usage is for non copyright infringement purposes. The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court (or with business relations like this case). Neither does the "Google can also be used to index torrents" argument. While technically correct the society is rigged to avoid technicalities in rules and take decisions based on intent. The intent of this service was clearly to profit from copyright violating distribution.

      The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is not regulated. This is counter intuitive to the Internet as an invention and needs to be changed. The Internet has made such regulation incompatible with fundamental human rights. File sharing is not theft - it's how people will discover new information and consume culture from now and in the future. Business models will have to evolve from utilizing physical scarcity to utilizing distribution-as-a-service. When people finally start to see beyond the "file sharing is theft" and "allowing file sharing means artist shouldn't get paid" arguments/distractions we can have sensible debate and lawmaking. What would change if non-commercial file distribution would be legal/unregulated tomorrow? Think about that. The file sharers are already file sharing. Pandora's box has already been opened.

      • by perpenso (1613749) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:02AM (#38186884)

        The "but you can use torrent to share Linux ISOs too" argument won't go very far in court.

        However when combined with "we disconnected clients identified as copyright violators" it will likely go much farther.

      • by Co0Ps (1539395) on Monday November 28, 2011 @04:47AM (#38187880)
        The actual problem is that non-commercial file distribution is regulated*
      • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Monday November 28, 2011 @09:17AM (#38189366) Homepage

        Okay, I'll be honest, I like getting free stuff via The Pirate Bay. I have been that way all my life, even before P2P came along. I listen to music on the radio and watch movies/programmes on TV for free, then switch channel when the ads come on. Yeah, I rob the stations blind when it comes to not paying attention to ads. Now I make use of free internet services with disposable email addresses, and always have AdBlock turned on. I "try before you buy" via torrents a lot, which I guess makes me a pirate.

        Thing is I feel pretty good about it. I still spend money on media and services, more than I used to in fact. Part of that is simply down to having more disposable income as I get older, part of it is down to finding new stuff that I like enough to spend said income on. Now I can listen to or watch what I want rather than what someone else decides to broadcast I find more stuff that interests me. Sometimes friends lend me CDs or I go round to watch their DVDs (public performance), which sometimes leads to me spending money on merchandise and the like.

        So yeah, I'm a freeloader, I "steal" in the non-theft-making-a-copy sense. But artists and media companies also need people like me to survive, and if you annoy me with DRM or legal shinnanigans you can be sure I won't give you a penny. And I do in fact practice what I preach: My hardware designs and software are open source, yet I also sell them and do okay out of it. People will pay for quality and convenience even when they can get your warez for free. The publicity and community support I get from being open/free is invaluable, and you only have to look at the fashion industry or Japanese manga/anime/game producers to see how well it works on a massive scale.

    • by DMUTPeregrine (612791) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:19AM (#38186944) Journal
      World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute updates.
      Pando Media Booster uses bittorrent to distribute updates, and is used by quite a few other games (League of Legends, Lord of the Rings Online, etc, etc).
      Linux ISOs are hardly the biggest legitimate use of bittorrent.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @02:36AM (#38187196)

      No. But 99% of filesharing is infringing. Or crap put out by porno studios to get you to buy full-length films.

      And Linux ISOs? What is this, 2002? It hasn't been even moderately hard to get Linux ISOs through http/ftp for *years*.

  • by Yossarian45793 (617611) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:28AM (#38186706)
    This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material? I know, there are many legitimate uses for bittorrent, but I have a feeling that the kind of people in the market for anonymous bittorrent seedboxes are not the kind of people who are seeding legitimate torrents.
    • by Fnord666 (889225) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:49AM (#38186830) Journal

      What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

      They allow you to be a respectable participant in the torrent networks, even if your personal machine is on dialup, a slow dsl connection, or is just turned off. Even more so if you have a really unbalanced up/down ratio, or if you have a draconian ISP that blocks torrents of any sort. Not everyone uses bittorrent for copyright infringement. They also improve the bittorrent network overall since seedboxes are usually closer to the backbone than your home machine.

      Personally I get and distribute nightly builds of several projects using bittorrent. With a seedbox I don't have to worry about my personal machine being off the network at any particular time.

    • by stephanruby (542433) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:51AM (#38186838)

      It could be that they were threatened themselves.

      After all, if there is enough evidence to show that they could be accused of doing the same thing, because they're far more public about their intent, they're in a far more vulnerable position themselves and they're far more likely to step all over the rights of their own customers to try to save themselves instead.

    • by c0lo (1497653) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:53AM (#38186854)

      This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

      Making some money from naive people thinking this kind of service won't be subject to regulations?

      BTW, sharing copyrighted content is not illegal - sharing it without permission is. E.g. linux is still copyrighted, but sharing an ISO of the most linux distros is not illegal (not from the point of view of copyright, anyway, GPL grants you the permission).

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @02:45AM (#38199554)

      This is funny because Santrex itself sells bittorent hosting services called "seedboxes". What purpose do they think seedboxes serve other than sharing copyrighted material?

      Yes, of course, because if I was performing an illegal activity that might cost me a small fortune in copyright infringement liability orders, the first thing I'd do is go out and give my credit card and contact details to somebody who would then perform said illegal activity in a completely traceable way for me, and would be compelled to hand out my identity to anyone claiming to represent the copyright holders at a moments' notice.

      Something tells me most users of legitimate professional seedbox services based in copyright-friendly countries like the UK are not doing so for the purposes of copyright infringement. While BT as a whole might be mostly illegal, these services probably handle the legal side almost exclusively.

      Now, set up such a service in one of those eastern European countries that's less than responsive to requests about copyright infringement, and maybe you're on the right track...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:30AM (#38186716)

    Those scumbags? I'm amazed the money grubbers didn't purposely disconnect them so they keep the money and run like they do to so many other customers. Or at least provide them with shit slow service. At least now all their low end seedbox customers will cut and run. Please, if there's any company deserving of crashing and burning these rats are it. Nastiest and slimiest staff and management in the universe!

    That crazy company actually threatened to sue me over my paypal dispute over $25! Really! They have the time to waste on that bullshit! Worse, they somehow have in their TOS that if you pay by paypal you get sued by them if you open a dispute!

    I decided I'd keep their scumbag crap in my backpocket to release once it could do the most damage. This looks like a good time!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:38AM (#38186758)

    How about the ISP hosting Koppla as their service was also being used to do file sharing. It should not just ripple up and stop at Koppla, but all the way up to the very backbone that the data traveled on or it does not make any since. It would be a way to take out those that wish to control the net.

  • by ibsteve2u (1184603) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:40AM (#38186766)
    They'll have to open all the mail in Britain to ensure that they aren't "distributing content that they don't own the copyright to". Convenient excuse, anyway; seems almost inevitable.
    • Well, that depends. The EU's court recently ruled that ISPs are forbidden from inspecting for torrents. If packet inspection was used, it's in violation of EU rules which the UK is subordinate to. If the filesharers (or those doing legal fileshares, ideally) take the ISP to court for violating an EU directive and win - which they might well - then ISP disconnections will cease. At least until the corporations persuade there to be a new ruling - something Microsoft found the EU is not always amenable to.

      • by CmdrPony (2505686) on Monday November 28, 2011 @06:11AM (#38188332)
        Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?
        • by jd (1658) <imipak@yaCOLAhoo.com minus caffeine> on Monday November 28, 2011 @07:40AM (#38188788) Homepage Journal

          Well, here's the press reports [nytimes.com] on the ruling [techspot.com].

          More importantly, here is the summary from the EU Court of Justice [europa.eu], the judgement of the court [europa.eu], the directives involved [europa.eu] and the opinion of the court, but in French [europa.eu] ad the English translation isn't up yet.

          This is the information any of us have to work with, when it comes to understanding the ruling. Bearing in mind that none of us (except for three sheep and a hedgehog) are lawyers, a definite answer is impossible. I read it that ISPs are absolutely required to be common carriers, at least within the EU, and that common carrier status may not be infringed even at the request of a major corporation or pressure group.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @08:00AM (#38188904)

          The only thing which needs to be shut down in the UK, is your fucked up corrupt government.
          The particular tool being used to brainwash you is: Problem, reaction, solution

          Your comment, the "REACTION" stage, falls into the globalist fascist agenda.
          "Well, these are hosting providers. The data isn't just merely passing their networks, they're hosting it too and it comes with extra liability. And how far should we take it that ISP cannot inspect, act upon complaints or anything else? Should they do it when it's spam? Why ISPs should inspect for spam but not for copyright infringement?"

          When the "SOLUTION" stage comes look out!
          You are going to get a one world bank
          and a one world government

          oh and that ISP, will either have a TOS/AUP that make it value-less or it will cease to exist.

          I get it this is a story about an ISP not the UK government, but I really don't understand why you brits haven't picked up hammers and bats and gone smash their fucking spy cams, and skulls in already, guerrilla WF style.

          Laws in the UK aren't laws at all, they're fascism. The only thing you have in the UK is a government of lawlessness, deception and slick talking aristocrats. Your government is an utter completely corrupt turd, Your chancellors and ministers are in effect your terrorists protecting the banksters. God bless the brits, but shame on the UK government, No make that "Fuck the UK Government "

    • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:03AM (#38190568)

      Apparently if they feel that a service is, more often than not (never mind the fact that with something as broad as someone merely using bittorrent it would likely be nearly impossible for them to determine this), used to infringe upon copyrights, it should be shut down. Even if, at most, copyright infringement only causes a potential loss of potential profit. Just shut those services down. Who cares if someone was using it legitimately?

  • by alienzed (732782) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:47AM (#38187052) Homepage
    If ever you want to see if an idea or concept is ludicrous or not, imagine yourself trying to explain it to an Alien race. You'd seem so petty and selfish for insinuating that you charge for information and claim complete dominion over things such as melodies, rhymes, sequences of tones and harmonies. Our race would not have achieved what it has if it weren't for every single contributing factor in the grander scheme of things. No one 'invents' anything alone, it's about time we start freely sharing what we have with anyone it can benefit.
  • Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LocalH (28506) on Monday November 28, 2011 @03:07AM (#38187294) Homepage

    ISPs should not be making the decision to cut a customer off based on the content they are retrieving and distributing, but only if they are attacking the network or otherwise trying to harm the network itself (or if there is a court order to disconnect a specific customer). What next, some ISP gets all "morality police" and starts banning customers for accessing porn, illegal drug information, or even political/social material that someone with authority at the ISP decided they didn't want to pass across their wires?

    It'd be like the phone company disconnecting your service because you like to call phone sex lines, or the postal service refusing to deliver your mail because you subscribe to skin mags.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @05:57AM (#38188286)

    I suspect the root cause of this will turn out to be OVH. They've become VERY anti-proxy in the last few months, and will frequently null route a machine for 'security' concerns such as port scans originating from a device... you'll get alot of these running a publicly accessible VPN endpoint.

    Perhaps this VPN 'company' should invest in their own infrastructure and handle their own abuse issues.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @06:54AM (#38188556)
    Santrex is not an ISP. It is a hosting company, and a black hat hosting company at that. Almost everything they host is do to with torrents, counterfeit goods, malware and fraud. They host several carding and hacking forums, several of their hosted sites were recently seized by US authorities. A tiny, tiny proportion of sites are legitimate.. but you should read some of the customer reviews of this company for the full story!
    • by tehcyder (746570) on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @10:52AM (#38202064) Journal

      Santrex is not an ISP. It is a hosting company, and a black hat hosting company at that. Almost everything they host is do to with torrents, counterfeit goods, malware and fraud. They host several carding and hacking forums, several of their hosted sites were recently seized by US authorities. A tiny, tiny proportion of sites are legitimate.. but you should read some of the customer reviews of this company for the full story!

      So in other words Santrex is everything that slashdot loves about the internet. I bet the company directors are all card-carrying libertarians and everything.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @07:09AM (#38188612)

    Santrex has had a terrible reputation the past few years in the seedbox community. No serious uploader I know uses them. There are lots of scams/kids running so called seedbox companies, and Santrex is one of those people generally avoid if they know better.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @08:13AM (#38188968)

    I'm just wondering if Santrex has some kind of forum or any other service where one can post a comment. I am sure that if few people post a comments pointing to "copyrighted material" then it should fall under Santrex' own "Santrex will independently act to terminate users who are thought to be distributing content that they don't own the copyright to. This is regardless of whether the infringement is done by a third party...".

    I would be really interested to see how will Santrex deal with "third-parties" trying to bring him down using his own weapons. ;-)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @08:26AM (#38189036)

      And I am wondering how would this type of social attack be usable against other companies like The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Microsoft and such.

      I am sure that other companies facing lawsuits from these trolls would appreciate to have this kind of look-they-do-it-too argument for the court. ;-)

      Just to find some catchy name for it...

  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Monday November 28, 2011 @10:03AM (#38189892) Journal

    I have been repeated told by other slashdotters that file sharing and P2P is not just for violating copyright and that by far the majority of P2P and file sharing traffic is for legitimate purposes such as distributing Linux. So, if the ISP is only cutting off those who are violating copyright law, where is the problem?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:31AM (#38190826)

    using santrex..
    I used them once for about a month and I will never look back except for lesson learned.
    I wasn't doing anything shady, they just are very shady. With how they run their business.
    ie: here is a vps but we don't tell you we limit the file descriptors so you can't really do a dam thing with this unless you upgrade..

  • by rally2xs (1093023) on Monday November 28, 2011 @08:53PM (#38197066)

    I hate thieves of any sort.

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

Working...