Killing off File Lockers - Page 47 - GoFuckYourself.com

BlackAndBlue · 08-21-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

This is a long term job. Stopping the money flow will severely restrict piracy. Simply because they will not be able to pay for servers and staff. In 60 days Adultking and his crew have done more to forge this route than any others have done. Legislation is slow and cumbersome, suing uploaders/downloaders hasn't been perfected. Stopping the money flow is the best way.

I suspect many here will lose some income or the ability to enjoy for free some of the items they can enjoy today. Hence their annoyance and attempts to side track this work. Of course this is all my thoughts and I make no claims to them being right.

Just in case one of them wants me banned for thinking this.

People don't tend to be against things that they personally benefit from. ;) In this case, a win for the producers of content is a lose for those that profit/benefit from piracy. It's rather simple to put the nay sayers into the camp of "profiting/benefiting" from piracy. Of course, there are always those few that just post crap for sig whoring and to be a pain in the ass. LOL

19teenporn · 08-21-2012, 04:58 PM

Bump for AK and Copy Control killing even more and more filelockers...

krylon · 08-21-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 19teenporn

Bump for AK and Copy Control killing even more and more filelockers...

on a serious note though. Sorry, all kidding aside.

How many filelockers have been killed exactly? I can't seem to find 1? Let me know pls.
kthxbye.

AdultKing · 08-21-2012, 11:06 PM

Sites like RapidShare herald the fact they provide content removal tools to rights holders, however this seems to shift the responsibility of policing content on a site.

If there were 10,000 file lockers with 10,000 content removal tools then the onerous task of policing content would be unmanageable.

File Lockers must be held accountable for the content they host, not shift the responsibility to rights holders who's content is being stolen.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/...-sharing-sites

Rapidshare could very quickly minimise harm to rights holders by simply deleting content which is shared on warez and piracy forums. Remove the incentive to share illegal content.

notjoe · 08-21-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Sites like RapidShare herald the fact they provide content removal tools to rights holders, however this seems to shift the responsibility of policing content on a site.

If there were 10,000 file lockers with 10,000 content removal tools then the onerous task of policing content would be unmanageable.

File Lockers must be held accountable for the content they host, not shift the responsibility to rights holders who's content is being stolen.

Are you suggesting that file lockers should manually inspect each and every single file uploaded? If I was using an online backup service such as a file locker the last thing I would want is people going through my personal files.

Maybe we should let the government inspect every single aspect of our lives on a day to day basis making sure we do not break the law. It's about time governments be held responsible for the actions of their population. If a person murders someone then their government is murdering someone to. This insanity needs to stop!

AdultKing · 08-21-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Are you suggesting that file lockers should manually inspect each and every single file uploaded? If I was using an online backup service such as a file locker the last thing I would want is people going through my personal files.

File Lockers don't need to manually inspect every file to find violations. You don't think a file name like "Young_Girl_Hight_School_16_Year_Old.part11.ra r" can be filtered against their appearance on illegal porn forums as this file was derived ?

It's actually not hard for File Lockers to automate the removal of a large amount of illegal and infringing files with a bit of creativity and terms and conditions which protect legitimate use of their service against illegitimate use.

However if they did that then they might not be so profitable. File Lockers aren't making their money from you uploading a midi file you share with a few friends, they're making money from thousands of people joining to download copyright or illegal content.

krylon · 08-21-2012, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Are you suggesting that file lockers should manually inspect each and every single file uploaded? If I was using an online backup service such as a file locker the last thing I would want is people going through my personal files.

Maybe we should let the government inspect every single aspect of our lives on a day to day basis making sure we do not break the law. It's about time governments be held responsible for the actions of their population. If a person murders someone then their government is murdering someone to. This insanity needs to stop!

LOL, he wants the filehost to inspect files, and then not have DMCA safe harbor by doing so.
wizard.

AdultKing · 08-21-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krylon

LOL, he wants the filehost to inspect files, and then not have DMCA safe harbor by doing so.
wizard.

Most file lockers, in fact pretty much all of them, don't have DMCA safe harbour because the DMCA is a US Law and these sites reside outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, if you read my post above, you would understand that filtering and automating the process need not be difficult.

File Lockers who accept Paypal and have gone through Paypal verification as a file locker already allow inspection of their files, so nothing would change if they did do it manually.

19teenporn · 08-22-2012, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krylon

on a serious note though. Sorry, all kidding aside.

How many filelockers have been killed exactly? I can't seem to find 1? Let me know pls.
kthxbye.

Blah blah blah...
Hate, hate, hate...

DWB · 08-22-2012, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krylon

on a serious note though. Sorry, all kidding aside.

How many filelockers have been killed exactly? I can't seem to find 1? Let me know pls.
kthxbye.

On a serious note, while it is nice if they do, a file locker doesn't have to go offline. You simply only need to disrupt their affiliate program. When the monkeys are not getting paid, they stop uploading illegal material to that locker and move on to the next one. Like true monkeys, they swing vine to vine. But if you cut the vines off, one at a time, you are making progress.

If you want to see the damage done, go read the upload monkey forums. They are freaking out and not getting paid. No need to take the site offline.

It is honestly mind boggling that you naysayers don't have the mental capacity to understand this. Makes me wonder how you make it through the day without causing serious bodily harm to yourself.

Nautilus · 08-22-2012, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Sites like RapidShare herald the fact they provide content removal tools to rights holders, however this seems to shift the responsibility of policing content on a site.

If there were 10,000 file lockers with 10,000 content removal tools then the onerous task of policing content would be unmanageable.

File Lockers must be held accountable for the content they host, not shift the responsibility to rights holders who's content is being stolen.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/...-sharing-sites

Rapidshare could very quickly minimise harm to rights holders by simply deleting content which is shared on warez and piracy forums. Remove the incentive to share illegal content.

As if they need US gov to block those linking sites through htaccess.

Previosly they boasted that they developed some very advanced bot which is so intelligent it's next to AI, and that this bot is constantly searching for pirates and finds and blocks them all. Well, now that this super smart AI bot ovbiously failed, they're looking for help of the US gov to crack down on linking sites.

Meanwhile any person who isn't US gov and doesn't have ultrasmart AI bots can simply Google "rapidshare warez" and find dozens of sites with the absurd amount of rapidshare links pointing to illegal content. Why can't Rapidshare do they same, and block at least some the most obvious offenders such as warez-bb through htaccess? They also have their referrer stats so they probably wouldn't even need Google to find those warez sites, at least several dozens of the biggest offenders, and block them. And also remove all files that were linked from those sites, ban posters and remove everything else that they uploaded. That move alone would cut piracy at Rapidshare by at least half, and will send a strong signal to all illegal uploaders not to use Rapidshare anymore. It can be done easily, in about a week or less. No US gov help or AI bots necessary. Any person from their in-house staff can handle that. Why do we keep hearing "innovation in the cloud" nonsense instead of real action? Well isn't that obvious

Pirates and their shit talks are beyond ridiculous.

DWB · 08-22-2012, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Pirates and their shit talks are beyond ridiculous.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Give him a bro-hug

Alex911 · 08-22-2012, 05:05 AM

Not totally sure this is relevant to this thread but firstload.com which is advertising on http://www.filestube.com (a filelocker search engine) - with keywords that refer to stolen copyrighted content - is still using CCBILL as a payment processor !!! Just take a look on filestube.com' first 3 sponsored links and you'll see that firstload is charging access to Usenet with CCBILL (with the same keywords used by pirates to promote their links on Filelockers).

https://www.firstload.com/signup/ccbill_cc/index.php

Here's an interesting exchange we had with them:

Quote:

FROM:18CloseUpCash.com

DMCA/EUCD NOTICE of COPYRIGHT/TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
[...]
I am forwarding the following/attached notice of copyright infringement.
The infringing materials must be removed from your servers of the site
mentioned above within 24 hours, or under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)/(EUCD), I will forward this
complaint with full legal action against the owners/managers of content
hosted as the domain holder is ignoring any requests and re uploads
copyright content which is expressly protected under the DMCA 1998.
In order to preclude any difficulties, I urge you to take positive action
and remove any material from your site and with immediate effect cease
selling/using any products produced by 18CloseUp Cash that you do not
hold the copyright or a valid license for.
-
18CloseUp Cash
http://www.18closeupcash.com

Quote:

FROM: Christoph Leitgeb via RT
Dear Bart ,

In regard to your request we would like to state our general position on the issue.

Firstload is solely an access provider for Usenet. Usenet is a world-wide electronic network
similar to the world wide web. This network contains various categories, so called 'newsgroups'.

The content of usenet is neither administered by firstload nor can firstload add or delete
data at will.

The software 'Lumac' was developed and made available by firstload exclusively for end-use
customers of firstload.
The sole purpose of the newsreader 'Lumac' is browsing usenet for files, comparable to the
operating mode of an internet search engine. Similar to the operating mode of a search engine
you are free to search for anything you like by inputting whatever you can think of. The search
engine itself does not have any influence whatsoever on the availability of files on the web.
It merely displays the detection and location of the respective search item.

In your particular case this means the following:

The only way for us to comply with your request is to browse usenet for the objectionable
content ourselves and block search results for said content in our client 'Lumac' if necessary.
This course of action ensures that the search for the files in question no longer yields any
results in 'Lumac'.

On principle the actual availability of content in usenet needs to be verified first.

Please keep in mind that a link reaching us from a third-party reseller may sometimes result in
a 'false positive' i.e. data which does not actually exist on usenet and thus cannot be found
on the Firstload usenet index appears to be available on usenet by virtue of aforementioned
link. These links are automatically generated by said third-party resellers.
In this case not even blocking the search results is possible as the content is actually NOT
available on usenet.

Compliance with existing law is the duty of end users as expressly stated in our terms of use
under article 4 'obligations of the customer', in particular 4.3. and 4.4..

In the present case we confirm in accordance with our explanation above that we have thoroughly
searched usenet for the content in question and could not find said content in Usenet.

We hereby declare explicitly that Firstload as access provider does not have any influence
whatsoever on form, content or size of Usenet and hence cannot be held accountable for the
alleged existence of data/files on usenet.

In conclusion, we may also point out that the content of usenet is subject to change every day
and objectionable content may no longer exist on Usenet by the time your complaint reaches us.
Firstload as access provider has no hand in the composition of the content of usenet and,
accordingly, does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for the use thereof.

We hope to have been of service to you.

Yours faithfully,
Firstload Support

Quote:

FROM: 18CloseUpCash.com
Dear [email protected],

As you did not take immediate actions to remove the links infringing our copyrights, let me be totally clear: I understand how Usenet works and that the files that are available on this network may have been uploaded by third party/newsgroups. And I agree with you on one thing: you are not accountable for the files that are available on Usenet. Nevertheless, let me remind you that it is in your interest to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law (including, in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and that if you receive such a notice for infringing links subject to DMCA takedown notices that are indexed by your search engine LUMAC, you should disable access to that content and remove those links immediately.

In addition, you are sponsoring http://www.filestube.com with keywords that are explicitly referring to our copyrighted work (18closeup com, 18 close up, 18closeup jenna, 18closeup anna, emoteenpussy, emoteenpussy com, etc.), and which makes you the direct beneficiary of the sales generated from the indexation of your search engine by advertising this stolen content/copyrighted content on filestube.com as if it was your own. In other words, you are charging access to Usenet with your CCBILL client account (through your website firstload.com) to profit from this misleading advertisement. Let me remind you that this practice could lead to charges that include racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, and money laundering.

As you are referring to your search engine LUMAC, please note that other search engines like Filestube.com or Google.com comply with the law and if you refuse to do so, we will take all appropriate actions, including sending an immediate DMCA report to your hosting company to enforce that rule or remove the offending website itself.

If you fail to comply, we will be sending a copy of this email to [email protected] to inform them that you are sponsoring their website with stolen content/copyrighted content. If you don't remove those sponsored ads to our copyrighted work immediately, they will, but they may have to renounce to your sponsoring as a whole for technical reasons.

We will also send a copy of this email to [email protected] to inform them that your account 943922 is being used to advertise stolen content/copyrighted content and that you are using their platform to charge access to Usenet for your members that allegedly infringe our copyrights. If you don't remove those sponsored ads to our copyrighted work immediately, they'll probably have to close your client account and report you to the concerned authorities.

It is in the interest of both our companies to find an amicable solution.

Please remove all links, files, folders, photos, videos & articles with the name http://www.18closeup.com, 18closeup.com, 18closeup, 18 closeup, 18closeup videos, 18closeup torrent, 18closeup torrents, 18closeup e-books, 18closeup Kindle eBook, 18closeup films, 18cl0seUp, 18-closeup, [18closeup], 18closeup [SiteRip], 18closeup screens, 18closeup DvdRip, 18closeup SiteRip, 18closeup complete site-rip, 18closeup passwords, 18closeup password, 18closeup.com [full site rip] etc.

Please remove all links, files, folders, photos, videos & articles with the name http://www.emoteenpussy.com, emoteenpussy.com, emoteenpussy, emo teen pussy, emoteenpussy videos, emoteenpussy torrent, emoteenpussy torrents, emoteenpussy e-books, emoteenpussy Kindle eBook, emoteenpussy films, em0teenpu$$y, emo_teen_pussy, [emoteenpussy], emoteenpussy [SiteRip], emoteenpussy screens, emoteenpussy DvdRip, emoteenpussy SiteRip, emoteenpussy complete site-rip, emoteenpussy passwords, emoteenpussy password, emoteenpussy.com [full site rip] etc.

Best regards,
18closeup.com

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 05:29 AM

@Alex911

There's no doubting that Usenet is a cess pool of piracy but given the nature of Usenet it's problematic from the point of view of preventing piracy. Certainly Usenet is way outside of the scope of the Stop File Lockers project.

Have you spoken with CCBill about their stance on the issue ?

Alex911 · 08-22-2012, 05:44 AM

Quote:

There's no doubting that Usenet is a cess pool of piracy but given the nature of Usenet it's problematic from the point of view of preventing piracy. Certainly Usenet is way outside of the scope of the Stop File Lockers project.

Yes but firstload.com is still advertising stolen content on a Filelocker search engine! And using ccbill for processing...

Quote:

Have you spoken with CCBill about their stance on the issue ?

Yes but with the general support, not with the fraud dpt (and it was before CCBILL decided to reject filelockers accounts).

DWB · 08-22-2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Give him a bro-hug

Why give a bro-hug when a bro-bump is better? It keeps the thread alive and in the faces of guys who can't stand it but don't have enough self control to not post repeatedly in the thread.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

@Alex911

There's no doubting that Usenet is a cess pool of piracy but given the nature of Usenet it's problematic from the point of view of preventing piracy. Certainly Usenet is way outside of the scope of the Stop File Lockers project.

Have you spoken with CCBill about their stance on the issue ?

Actually, no its not. Clearly you do not know how shit works because if you did you'd realize that usenet providers can drop news group.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Why give a bro-hug when a bro-bump is better? It keeps the thread alive and in the faces of guys who can't stand it but don't have enough self control to not post repeatedly in the thread.

Bro bump to give you a bro butt hurt? You know you like the butt hurt.

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Actually, no its not. Clearly you do not know how shit works because if you did you'd realize that usenet providers can drop news group.

You assume way too much, so eager are you to make snide comments that you jump to baseless conclusions.

Firstly, my first exposure to Usenet was in the 80's when I used to manage a UUCP connected news server. Secondly you can drop any number of groups and people will just shift to alternative ones. Thirdly just because one Usenet provider drops a group doesn't guarantee others will and due to the rapid propagation of Usenet posts it's almost impossible to shut down piracy network wide.

So it is you, Notjoe, who has no clue how things work.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

You assume way too much, so eager are you to make snide comments that you jump to baseless conclusions.

Firstly, my first exposure to Usenet was in the 80's when I used to manage a UUCP connected news server. Secondly you can drop any number of groups and people will just shift to alternative ones. Thirdly just because one Usenet provider drops a group doesn't guarantee others will and due to the rapid propagation of Usenet posts it's almost impossible to shut down piracy network wide.

So it is you, Notjoe, who has no clue how things work.

It's not a snide remark. The post I replied to said that it was problematic in preventing piracy on the news groups. The fact is, that it is not. If news servers drop the piracy groups then that is one less provider dishing out pirated content. If uplink servers drop the groups there then all the down linked news servers won't have them either. It's fairly easy to spot the piracy news groups as they, unlike the file hosts that you claim, do have petabytes worth of pirated content inside of them. New groups might appear (which takes a lot of posting to for it to happen) but then they can be dropped easily enough. Also, They're easily found using index websites that create nzbs. They'll always have the latest on which groups have the pirated content in them.

And yet its more thing you're avoiding...A service, and for all intents and purposes, the ultimate piracy file locker system conceived, is "outside the scope" of you.

Talk to me when you actually know what you're doing.

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

It's not a snide remark. The post I replied to said that it was problematic in preventing piracy on the news groups. The fact is, that it is not. If news servers drop the piracy groups then that is one less provider dishing out pirated content. If uplink servers drop the groups there then all the down linked news servers won't have them either. It's fairly easy to spot the piracy news groups as they, unlike the file hosts that you claim, do have petabytes worth of pirated content inside of them. New groups might appear (which takes a lot of posting to for it to happen) but then they can be dropped easily enough. Also, They're easily found using index websites that create nzbs. They'll always have the latest on which groups have the pirated content in them.

And yet its more thing you're avoiding...A service, and for all intents and purposes, the ultimate piracy file locker system conceived, is "outside the scope" of you.

Talk to me when you actually know what you're doing.

Disregarding the fact that this project is Stop File Lockers , not Stop Usenet, which has been explained to you many times yet in typical fashion you choose to ignore this: let me explain to you in simple language why Usenet is so difficult to control.

There are lots of News Servers around the world. Any one of them may create and drop groups. Other news servers may choose to carry or not carry groups from other news servers. The current state of Usenet is such that most news servers exchange with several other news servers so there is not the hierarchy that your post suggests.

Some large news servers may exchange posts with upwards of 6 or more other news servers, so while one group of servers dropping a group may result in that group not being carried on some of Usenet there will be others that continue to carry the groups.

Your understanding of the current state of play of Usenet appears to be limited because you assume that one upstream news server dropping a group will result in that group disappearing, this is not correct.

Usenet is notoriously difficult to control, in fact the whole design of Usenet ensures that it can usually withstand censorship, just as many Usenet servers stopped honoring cancel requests in the late 90s, most news servers now will not drop groups just because an another news server does, in fact they will usually just fill that group from one of the other several news servers they exchange news with.

I suggest you go thump yourself with a clue stick next time you want to debate the workings of Usenet with me, I have far more experience and knowledge of the subject than you obviously do

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Disregarding the fact that this project is Stop File Lockers , not Stop Usenet, which has been explained to you many times yet in typical fashion you choose to ignore this: let me explain to you in simple language why Usenet is so difficult to control.

There are lots of News Servers around the world. Any one of them may create and drop groups. Other news servers may choose to carry or not carry groups from other news servers. The current state of Usenet is such that most news servers exchange with several other news servers so there is not the hierarchy that your post suggests.

I didn't say that a group would disappear from all news group servers....I said that it would disappear from any of the news group servers which are downstream of the server which dropped the group.

If you're going to quote me at least do it right...it'd be the only think you've doing right out of this whole mess.

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

I didn't say that a group would disappear from all news group servers....I said that it would disappear from any of the news group servers which are downstream of the server which dropped the group.

If you're going to quote me at least do it right...it'd be the only think you've doing right out of this whole mess.

As I tried to explain in simplistic fashion there is not the hierarchy you think there is. Therefore one news server dropping a group won't do anything to the wider availability of that particular group.

Most large news servers exchange news more than one other news server therefore groups are populated from a number of other news servers.

Please do yourself a favor and go and educate yourself about this before weighing in on something you obviously don't understand completely.

Paul Markham · 08-22-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Let's start a poll with people we think because of their comments are broke failures living in Eastern Europe because they were forced out of the UK after 'the incident', after living as a criminal and spunking all the illegally gotten cash on drugs, sending their 'wives' out to work in a minimum wage job to cover the rent on their shack whilst driving a 20 year old car and begging on the internet for money. No accusations, thinking isn't a crime, or is it?

I nominate the following:

Paul Markham

Now Paul, if you want to fuck up a thread start your own. Don't troll in AK's excellent thread you cock.

Hit a raw nerve I did. Thanks for trolling.

dig420 has a very valid point about the impact all this will have on the vast majority of people the majority have stuff that they can find it or similar on legal porn tubes. Few have or promote a product worth buying, exclusive or unique. This industry. as we knew it. is over. And I'm not talking about offline of magazines.

Paul Markham · 08-22-2012, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappin Fish

This alone shows you have absolutely ZERO clue what you are talking about.

Take a specific niche like SE Asian porn, search the biggest tubes and you'll find sponsor uploaded videos, a few amateur clips and no more than a handful pirated videos. Now go on porn forums you'll find EVERY single video from EVERY site you can think of.

Tubes have a lot of generic traffic, the real collectors, the buyers, are downloading from File Lockers.

Tubes sell traffic. They will work on the most traffic generating content. Until all the mainstream niches are saturated with free Tubes porn. Then there might be a time for looking harder at the smaller niches to see what's left.

Asian porn for now is one of the niches that will benefit from pirates being taken down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlue

People don't tend to be against things that they personally benefit from. ;) In this case, a win for the producers of content is a lose for those that profit/benefit from piracy. It's rather simple to put the nay sayers into the camp of "profiting/benefiting" from piracy. Of course, there are always those few that just post crap for sig whoring and to be a pain in the ass. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

He gives a fuck because AK is hitting him in is wallet. That much is obvious. No one would post as much as him in such a negative manner unless he was at the receiving end of an ass kicking. An honest person would have no problem with what AK is doing.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.

Certain people have spent far too long wasting time, trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Telling people they are wasting their time trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Even destroying their business telling us. Unless they do have another reason.

Yes this is a tough fight, which for most forms of generic porn, my teens site included, will have little upside. However over industries who didn't self destruct by giving it away, will benefit from it.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

As I tried to explain in simplistic fashion there is not the hierarchy you think there is. Therefore one news server dropping a group won't do anything to the wider availability of that particular group.

Most large news servers exchange news more than one other news server therefore groups are populated from a number of other news servers.

Please do yourself a favor and go and educate yourself about this before weighing in on something you obviously don't understand completely.

Let me dumb it down for you in hopes you'll grasp the simple concept.

There are hub servers which are interconnected. These hub servers while interconnected will feed leaf servers. If you drop the groups at one of the hubs it will not propagate those groups to other hubs and/or leaf servers. That is not to say that other interconnected hub servers still wont carry them but any of the leaf servers which use the upstream hub will not have the groups.

What I also take away from what it is you're saying is that it won't be profitable for the news servers to drop those groups....so they wont and that is ok because of how news groups works...meanwhile, there is absolutely no other reason other than financial rewards to carry those groups.

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Let me dumb it down for you in hopes you'll grasp the simple concept.

There are hub servers which are interconnected. These hub servers while interconnected will feed leaf servers. If you drop the groups at one of the hubs it will not propagate those groups to other hubs and/or leaf servers. That is not to say that other interconnected hub servers still wont carry them but any of the leaf servers which use the upstream hub will not have the groups.

What I also take away from what it is you're saying is that it won't be profitable for the news servers to drop those groups....so they wont and that is ok because of how news groups works...meanwhile, there is absolutely no other reason other than financial rewards to carry those groups.

Discussing this with you is pointless. You're technically wrong. Look at the paths of messages on any large news server and you'll appreciate the number of servers with which they exchange news. The old, generally hierarchical nature of news servers doesn't exist anymore.

In any case almost no news server today honors cancel messages and in the case of any individual news server if one server they exchange news with drops a group it's likely that another news server they exchange news with will still carry that group.

On profitability and finances I haven't said anything, so don't put words in my mouth champ.

You really don't get it do you ? This project is Stop File Lockers not Stop Usenet, not Stop Tubes or anything else you care to throw out there.

The title of this thread is Killing off File Lockers. We have stated numerous times that the project is limited to file lockers yet you keep coming back day after day saying we should be targeting other types of piracy.

DWB · 08-22-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Disregarding the fact that this project is Stop File Lockers , not Stop Usenet, which has been explained to you many times yet in typical fashion you choose to ignore this

I think he is trolling you in an attempt to side track you from paying attention to the task at hand. No one could be that thick. He is baiting you and taking your time, which is important.

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Discussing this with you is pointless. You're technically wrong. Look at the paths of messages on any large news server and you'll appreciate the number of servers with which they exchange news. The old, generally hierarchical nature of news servers doesn't exist anymore.

In any case almost no news server today honors cancel messages and in the case of any individual news server if one server they exchange news with drops a group it's likely that another news server they exchange news with will still carry that group.

On profitability and finances I haven't said anything, so don't put words in my mouth champ.

You really don't get it do you ? This project is Stop File Lockers not Stop Usenet, not Stop Tubes or anything else you care to throw out there.

The title of this thread is Killing off File Lockers. We have stated numerous times that the project is limited to file lockers yet you keep coming back day after day saying we should be targeting other types of piracy.

I wont deny that there is a peer to peer aspect of how content gets sent from news server to news server but its not what one might see on torrent network. Teh internets don't go mad sending articles to everyone and where. There is still a topology to it somewhere. It really depends on the interconnects, the neighbors, whether ISPS have peering agreements with them and would permit article transmission through their private POPS (Point Of Presence). Why would an ISP pay to transfer HUGE amounts of data over their network to other networks when they can do with privately with those that they peer with. There is most certainly a topology to it.

Slappin Fish · 08-22-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

I think he is trolling you in an attempt to side track you from paying attention to the task at hand. No one could be that thick. He is baiting you and taking your time, which is important.

QFT 8chars.

krylon · 08-22-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Discussing this with you is pointless. You're technically wrong. Look at the paths of messages on any large news server and you'll appreciate the number of servers with which they exchange news. The old, generally hierarchical nature of news servers doesn't exist anymore.

In any case almost no news server today honors cancel messages and in the case of any individual news server if one server they exchange news with drops a group it's likely that another news server they exchange news with will still carry that group.

On profitability and finances I haven't said anything, so don't put words in my mouth champ.

You really don't get it do you ? This project is Stop File Lockers not Stop Usenet, not Stop Tubes or anything else you care to throw out there.

The title of this thread is Killing off File Lockers. We have stated numerous times that the project is limited to file lockers yet you keep coming back day after day saying we should be targeting other types of piracy.

Notjoe, didn't you read the interview on AVN? AK helped make the internets in austrailia. He should know how newsgroups work for sure!

19teenporn · 08-22-2012, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

I wont deny that there is a peer to peer aspect of how content gets sent from news server to news server but its not what one might see on torrent network. Teh internets don't go mad sending articles to everyone and where. There is still a topology to it somewhere. It really depends on the interconnects, the neighbors, whether ISPS have peering agreements with them and would permit article transmission through their private POPS (Point Of Presence). Why would an ISP pay to transfer HUGE amounts of data over their network to other networks when they can do with privately with those that they peer with. There is most certainly a topology to it.

Just leave already.

You are so fucking annoying!

notjoe · 08-22-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 19teenporn

Just leave already.

You are so fucking annoying!

And what if I don't? Will you sick AK on me? Maybe he can contact my ISP and tell them since he doesn't see me downloading legal files that I must be downloading illegal ones and thus terminate my account

krylon · 08-22-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

And what if I don't? Will you sick AK on me? Maybe he can contact my ISP and tell them since he doesn't see me downloading legal files that I must be downloading illegal ones and thus terminate my account

nah, he'll contact paypal first, and tell them you posted on a adult forum. get your paypal account limited. Then you can't pay your monthly internet bill. Then you can't buy food to eat.

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EriktheRabbit

Paxum Picking Up PayPal Slack?

http://filefap.com/gopro
https://paxum.com/payment/processPay...ymentLogin.xsl

We reported this site to Paxum on the 17th however no action has been taken by Paxum.

Paxum have replied but we think the response is unsatisfactory.

We have been told that no action can be taken against unverified accounts. The account is still able to receive funds.

With all other payment and ewallet systems we have dealt with, Paypal, 2CO, Moneybookers, Payza etc they are able to terminate the account then present the message upon payment flow that the recipient is unable to receive funds.

One must question where the inbound payments end up if Paxum were to cancel the account AFTER it's verified. We have asked that question and are awaiting a response.

We believe Paxum have been tricky with their words. Paxum are doing nothing to prevent their payment system from being used by people to access stolen content in the case of this site.

Axeman · 08-22-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

We reported this site to Paxum on the 17th however no action has been taken by Paxum.

Paxum have replied but we think the response is unsatisfactory.

We have been told that no action can be taken against unverified accounts. The account is still able to receive funds.

With all other payment and ewallet systems we have dealt with, Paypal, 2CO, Moneybookers, Payza etc they are able to terminate the account then present the message upon payment flow that the recipient is unable to receive funds.

One must question where the inbound payments end up if Paxum were to cancel the account AFTER it's verified. We have asked that question and are awaiting a response.

We believe Paxum have been tricky with their words. Paxum are doing nothing to prevent their payment system from being used by people to access stolen content in the case of this site.

Time to create a new thread to put Paxum back on the hot seat to adhere to their own stated policy?

19teenporn · 08-22-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

And what if I don't? Will you sick AK on me? Maybe he can contact my ISP and tell them since he doesn't see me downloading legal files that I must be downloading illegal ones and thus terminate my account

Leave already.

You're so fucking annoying...

AdultKing · 08-22-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

Time to create a new thread to put Paxum back on the hot seat to adhere to their own stated policy?

There was an existing thread from when we found Squillion were using Paxum.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072917

It's interesting to note that in that case also, Paxum said the account was an unverified account, Paxum say they do not act on unverified accounts.

When CCBill made the announcement that they would not deal with File Lockers, Paxum made a similar announcement riding on the coat tails of CCBill, however when push comes to shove all we find is that Paxum has been tricky with their words.

Paul Markham · 08-22-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

There was an existing thread from when we found Squillion were using Paxum.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072917

It's interesting to note that in that case also, Paxum said the account was an unverified account, Paxum say they do not act on unverified accounts.

When CCBill made the announcement that they would not deal with File Lockers, Paxum made a similar announcement riding on the coat tails of CCBill, however when push comes to shove all we find is that Paxum has been tricky with their words.

Maybe high up in the organisation of Paxum they see there's money to be made here. The news needs spreading around to legitimate users of Paxum so they can see who they deal with.

DTK · 08-22-2012, 11:11 PM

Did gideongallery buy notjoe's nick, or is notjoe just a trolling asshole?

EriktheRabbit · 08-22-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

There was an existing thread from when we found Squillion were using Paxum.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072917

It's interesting to note that in that case also, Paxum said the account was an unverified account, Paxum say they do not act on unverified accounts.

When CCBill made the announcement that they would not deal with File Lockers, Paxum made a similar announcement riding on the coat tails of CCBill, however when push comes to shove all we find is that Paxum has been tricky with their words.

I am sorry to hear that about Paxum.

notjoe · 08-23-2012, 01:13 AM

notjoe · 08-23-2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

There was an existing thread from when we found Squillion were using Paxum.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072917

It's interesting to note that in that case also, Paxum said the account was an unverified account, Paxum say they do not act on unverified accounts.

When CCBill made the announcement that they would not deal with File Lockers, Paxum made a similar announcement riding on the coat tails of CCBill, however when push comes to shove all we find is that Paxum has been tricky with their words.

So let me get this straight...Paxium will terminate a verified account which is processing for piracy websites but they wont terminate an unverified account? That is pretty fucked up. I'd think they'd be far more likely to terminate an unverified account since it isn't someone who has gone through the whole process to become verified.

notjoe · 08-23-2012, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlue

It's rather simple to put the nay sayers into the camp of "profiting/benefiting" from piracy.

Just because someone has an opinion which differs from those mostly expressed in this thread doesn't make them a pirate or someone who condones piracy.

AdultKing · 08-23-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

So let me get this straight...Paxium will terminate a verified account which is processing for piracy websites but they wont terminate an unverified account? That is pretty fucked up. I'd think they'd be far more likely to terminate an unverified account since it isn't someone who has gone through the whole process to become verified.

It's completely out of line especially considering this statement

http://m2.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/1071252-paxum-official-notice-illegal-file-sharing-piracy-sites-accepted.html

Paxum made a big deal of this during the CCBill/File Locker controversy and are now being tricky with words.

From Paxum

"Unverified accounts can receive funds, however in order for any Paxum account-holder to be able to access any funds in their account, they must first verify their Paxum account. The account in question is not verified."

"I wanted to clarify that while the account is inactive and unverified there is nothing that can be done to the account. If the account were to become verified and receive funds from sources that are in violation of our Terms of Service such as piracy sites, then we would be able to take appropriate action."

So while the account remains unverified the payment flow on a site like FileFap.com can remain in place.

Not good enough Paxum. If the payment flow remains in place then buyers will still be able to access infringing sites.

notjoe · 08-23-2012, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

It's completely out of line especially considering this statement

http://m2.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/1071252-paxum-official-notice-illegal-file-sharing-piracy-sites-accepted.html

Paxum made a big deal of this during the CCBill/File Locker controversy and are now being tricky with words.

From Paxum

"Unverified accounts can receive funds, however in order for any Paxum account-holder to be able to access any funds in their account, they must first verify their Paxum account. The account in question is not verified."

"I wanted to clarify that while the account is inactive and unverified there is nothing that can be done to the account. If the account were to become verified and receive funds from sources that are in violation of our Terms of Service such as piracy sites, then we would be able to take appropriate action."

So while the account remains unverified the payment flow on a site like FileFap.com can remain in place.

Not good enough Paxum. If the payment flow remains in place then buyers will still be able to access infringing sites.

Sounds like a cash grab. If they never verify it paxum "holds" the money. When they DO verify it, they'll terminate it. Whether they will payout the account holder upon termination or keep the funds remains to be seen.

Dirty F · 08-23-2012, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

It's completely out of line especially considering this statement

http://m2.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/1071252-paxum-official-notice-illegal-file-sharing-piracy-sites-accepted.html

Paxum made a big deal of this during the CCBill/File Locker controversy and are now being tricky with words.

From Paxum

"Unverified accounts can receive funds, however in order for any Paxum account-holder to be able to access any funds in their account, they must first verify their Paxum account. The account in question is not verified."

"I wanted to clarify that while the account is inactive and unverified there is nothing that can be done to the account. If the account were to become verified and receive funds from sources that are in violation of our Terms of Service such as piracy sites, then we would be able to take appropriate action."

So while the account remains unverified the payment flow on a site like FileFap.com can remain in place.

Not good enough Paxum. If the payment flow remains in place then buyers will still be able to access infringing sites.

What does Paxum do with the money if the account won't get verified because of violation of the TOS?

AdultKing · 08-23-2012, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notjoe

Sounds like a cash grab. If they never verify it paxum "holds" the money. When they DO verify it, they'll terminate it. Whether they will payout the account holder upon termination or keep the funds remains to be seen.

Very good question, this is one I imagine Paxum will be answering pretty quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

What does Paxum do with the money if the account won't get verified because of violation of the TOS?

Another very good question. Let's see what Paxum have to say about this.

notjoe · 08-23-2012, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Very good question, this is one I imagine Paxum will be answering pretty quickly.

See, I can be an asshole to everyone and not just you!

08-21-2012, 11:06 PM	#2304
AdultKing Raise Your Weapon Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Outback Australia Posts: 15,605	Sites like RapidShare herald the fact they provide content removal tools to rights holders, however this seems to shift the responsibility of policing content on a site. If there were 10,000 file lockers with 10,000 content removal tools then the onerous task of policing content would be unmanageable. File Lockers must be held accountable for the content they host, not shift the responsibility to rights holders who's content is being stolen. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/...-sharing-sites Rapidshare could very quickly minimise harm to rights holders by simply deleting content which is shared on warez and piracy forums. Remove the incentive to share illegal content. Last edited by AdultKing; 08-21-2012 at 11:07 PM..

08-22-2012, 05:29 AM	#2315
AdultKing Raise Your Weapon Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Outback Australia Posts: 15,605	@Alex911 There's no doubting that Usenet is a cess pool of piracy but given the nature of Usenet it's problematic from the point of view of preventing piracy. Certainly Usenet is way outside of the scope of the Stop File Lockers project. Have you spoken with CCBill about their stance on the issue ? Last edited by AdultKing; 08-22-2012 at 05:32 AM..

08-22-2012, 11:11 PM	#2341
DTK Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The 510 Posts: 4,545	Did gideongallery buy notjoe's nick, or is notjoe just a trolling asshole? __________________ Arguing whether the Democratic or Republican party is better is like debating which steaming pile of shit is slightly less stinky.

08-21-2012, 04:58 PM	#2302
19teenporn Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: En la reverendisima concha de tu madre! Posts: 3,034	Bump for AK and Copy Control killing even more and more filelockers...

08-23-2012, 01:13 AM	#2343
notjoe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 5,599