• InFerNo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 minutes ago

    “the internet” is a necessity and requirement to function in society. You can’t be denied access to it anymore, it would be disproportionate.

  • Kelp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    So this might be a good place to ask. How is a Trojan Proxy Server suited for anonymous piracy? Is it better or worse in case this passes?

  • catty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    lol, they’ll have no customers! ISPs used to send ‘warning’ letters to customers in England but that’s all.

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      50 minutes ago

      Same in the US.

      I got one once from something I know for sure I didn’t download. I always assumed it was a friend of mine staying with us that was torrenting “Boss’s Daughter Big Booty XXX” or whatever it was, but I never really wanted to ask.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    4G piracy hub go brrrrr? Go ahead, disconnect me. I will get another SIM and resume piracy.

  • DFX4509B@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      Oh, so like they do in the uncivilized middle-east?
      Naaaah

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    8 hours ago

    So if Meta is convicted of pirating books for AI training, they lose all internet connectivity? 🧐

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    In the beginning we used to exchange cassettes. You would have a boombox with two cassettes. You would play one while you recorded on the other. Then you gave the cassette back to your friend. Next was the VCR with the big ass cassettes.

    Then you would do the same with floppies, then zip disks. Then one day CD recording was a thing, then DVDs. Then thumb drives and now portable HDDs. Basically the cheapest form or recording is always the most popular way for people to share stuff.

    The only ones who don’t want us to share are those who want to make millions by never innovating.

  • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Like 20 years ago the RAVE Act said venues can be charged if anyone is in possession of illegal drugs inside of them during an event. Similar in some ways

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I think the point is that they can’t easilly track back to a specific client of a specific ISP instances of unlicensed downloading of copyrighted materials if they’re done behind a VPN.

        Mind you, they can still easilly track it back to the VPN, so make sure you’re using a provider that puts privacy above all an is not based in countries like the US or UK.

        That said, if they just throw an unsupported accusation at you and the ISP cuts you out, using a VPN or not makes no difference.

    • Tower@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Mullvad is the best $5 and change I spend each month.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I love Mullvad and used them for years, but without port forwarding, they’re not the service you want for torrenting. Some alternatives like AirVPN or ProtonVPN are better suited for that stuff.

        Before the haters jump in and tell me “it works fine fer me!” it’s only working because the user on the other end, like myself, have port forwarding set up. Since you don’t have it, you’ll never connect to anyone else like yourself nor will they be able to connect to you.

        Of course there are alternatives like streaming and Usenet but there are tradeoffs no matter what you pick.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I don’t think your explanation of why it seems to work is correct.

          I seems to work (works in a limited way, even), because any remote machines that your bittorrent client connected to during downloading are temporarilly recorded on the Mullvad router on the other side of your VPN doing NAT translation as associated with your machine, so when those remote machines connect to that router to reach your machine, it knows from that recorded association that those connections should be forwarded to your machine.

          This is quite independent of people on the other side using port-forwarding or not.

          Port-forwarding on the other hand is a static association between a port in that router and your machine, so that anything hitting that specific port of the router gets forwarded the port in your machine you specified (hence the name “port” “forwarding”). With port-forwarding there is no need for there having been an earlier connection from your machine to that remote machine to allow “call back”.

          This is why at the end of downloading a torrent behind a Mullvad VPN will keep on uploading but if one restarts a torrent which was stopped hours or days ago (i.e. purelly seeds), it never uploads anything to anybody - in the first case that NAT translation router associated all machines your client connected to during download to your machine, so when they connect back to download stuff from you it correctly forwards those connections to your machine, but in the second case it’s just getting connections from unknown remote machines hitting one of its ports and in the absence of a “port-forwarding” static rule or a record of your machine having connected to those remote machines, it doesn’t know which of the machines behind it is the one that should receive those connection so nothing gets forwarded.

          So it’s perfectly possible to share back when behind a Mullvad VPN but you have to leave the torrent client keep on seeding immediatly after downloading and it will only ever upload to machines which were in the swarm when the client was downloading (they need not have been clients it downloaded from, merelly clients it connected to, for example to check their availability of blocks to download, which give how bittorrent works normally means pretty much the whole swarm)

          It is however not at all possible to just start seeding a torrent previously downloaded unless the download wasn’t that long ago (how long is “too long” depends on how long the NAT Translation Router of Mullvad keeps those recorded associations I mentioned above, since those things are temporary and get automatically cleaned if not used),

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Ok so now I’m confused entirely. Does that mean leeching I don’t need to do a port forward, but seeding I do?

            Which means if I want to leech to get the file then seed when I’m not heavily using my network I’m sort of out of luck?

            • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              43 minutes ago

              If you’re purelly seeding (as in starting to seed a torrent from scratch never having downloaded it from the bittorrent client you’re using or having done it a long time ago - days, weeks or longer), without port-forwarding it will simply not work and nobody can connect to your machine and downloade anything for that torrent because all those remote machines that are trying to connect to your client have no association with your machine on the Mullvad Router doing NAT translation.

              If you’re downloading a torrent and then leave it seeding for a while after the download phase is over, then it will usually work fine because the Mullvad Router doing NAT Translation still remembers the various remote machines that your machine connected to in the swarm for that torrent during the download stage, hence when those remote machines connect back trying to themselves download stuff from yours, it will know that’s related your machine and thus accept those remote connection and forward them to your machine.

              In practice this means that it if you leave your torrents seeding AFTER DOWNLOADING is over, usually (but not always as for torrents with very few peers the swarm is either too small or changes too fast) you can upload more than you downloaded, hence you’re not leeching.

              So if you use Mullvad and don’t want to be a leecher, always leave your torrents active and uploading after you’ve downloaded them.

              Personally I have mine set to 1.5 upload to download ratio and only seldom does it fail to reach it.

    • hodgepodgin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I recommend AirVPN. Never had a problem w/ them & doesn’t require a special VPN client.

  • Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 hours ago

    (Donald trump voice) “We should hold all food companys liable for users violent crimes, this man stabbed another man to death with a spoon! 30 minutes before he ate kraft mac and cheese. It gave him the energy to violently stab this innocent man”

    Lets hope they got common sense

    • peteyestee@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Get to the point that you don’t want their products. Consuming their stuff at all is like sporting brand name cloths and covering the logo.

      Once you do this you will find you don’t need most of it and it’s just a waste of time anyway. The stuff that is authentic and that you genuinely need you can support.

      It’s honestly like quitting drugs.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    188
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

        • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          to be fair the treaty never specified anything about water, and the Navajo nations should have had better lawyers or better guerilla warfare tactics if they wanted more negotiating power.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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…

    • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Inb4 palantir cuts off your electric and water because you had 15% eye distraction during the mandatory 3hr nightly fox news viewing.

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’m some places in the States they will cut off your electricity or water for sharing with a neighbor that has had theirs shut off. I have seen both happen personally, and not in some back water state. They both happened in upstate NY.

    • JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I’m not a United Statesian so I have no clue anymore how it works there, but other places have been making the case that the Internet is an essential service and that access to it is a basic right. So to leapfrog off your question, is that like a poor person stealing a loaf of bread being cut off from food because they didn’t food responsibly enough?

      • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Unfortunately the country I was born in, the USA, is also one that voted against the international resolution to define food as a human right. 😕