Three strikes and static internet addresses

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-easy-shots

    "TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering did not believe its customers
    were at more risk of receiving notices, as copyright owners had no way
    of knowing whether a particular IP address was static or dynamically
    generated. "

    I am sorry Gary, but while TelstraClear may not confirm which blocks
    of IP addresses are 'static' or 'dynamic', those involved with 3
    strikes monitoring will soon get a shrewd idea which blocks of IP
    addresses are likely to be 'static'. For example their employees can
    'harvest' inhome static addresses from friends, etc and a dozen or so
    addresses from each of Wellington and Christchurch will enable the
    address blocks to be determined with adequate accuracy (one static
    address indicates 252 other static addresses and two addresses 3-4
    blocks apart would indicate the intervening blocks are likely to be
    static).

    In addition if the same IP address 'strikes' twice there is a
    reasonable probability that it is 'static'.

    Once the copyright enforcement agencies are aware of the static IP
    ranges, it makes sense to target abusers with these addresses as they
    potentially get a much higher 'return' for their $25 they pay to the
    IP provider.

    So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    barrel with the new rules.
     
    peterwn, Nov 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 3/11/2011 9:54 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    > See:
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-easy-shots
    >
    > "TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering did not believe its customers
    > were at more risk of receiving notices, as copyright owners had no way
    > of knowing whether a particular IP address was static or dynamically
    > generated. "
    >
    > I am sorry Gary, but while TelstraClear may not confirm which blocks
    > of IP addresses are 'static' or 'dynamic', those involved with 3
    > strikes monitoring will soon get a shrewd idea which blocks of IP
    > addresses are likely to be 'static'. For example their employees can
    > 'harvest' inhome static addresses from friends, etc and a dozen or so
    > addresses from each of Wellington and Christchurch will enable the
    > address blocks to be determined with adequate accuracy (one static
    > address indicates 252 other static addresses and two addresses 3-4
    > blocks apart would indicate the intervening blocks are likely to be
    > static).
    >
    > In addition if the same IP address 'strikes' twice there is a
    > reasonable probability that it is 'static'.
    >
    > Once the copyright enforcement agencies are aware of the static IP
    > ranges, it makes sense to target abusers with these addresses as they
    > potentially get a much higher 'return' for their $25 they pay to the
    > IP provider.
    >
    > So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    > barrel with the new rules.



    I don't see what the benefit to the record company is of getting their
    Rihanna fans cut off from the internet, they are the most likely to buy
    their legit product when they do have money. It isn't anything but
    window dressing.
    Regular heavy torrent users are more likely downloading tv series
    unavailable or not yet available in NZ.
    I suspect that those users will shift from peer to peer to client server
    download methods like premium nntp providers with SSL encryption or file
    hosting services like Rapidshare via VPN services.
    I don't think that the content providers who issue notices will
    discriminate by ISP, the identification of the customer has to be done
    by the ISP for no matter what their method of IP number allocation is.
    And if there does prove to be some bias, any static addressed TC cable
    customers who do get served with a final notice will churn to ADSL
    providers.
     
    victor, Nov 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, peterwn <> wrote:
    >See:
    >http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-eas
    >y-shots
    >
    >"TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering did not believe its customers
    >were at more risk of receiving notices, as copyright owners had no way
    >of knowing whether a particular IP address was static or dynamically
    >generated. "
    >
    >I am sorry Gary, but while TelstraClear may not confirm which blocks
    >of IP addresses are 'static' or 'dynamic', those involved with 3
    >strikes monitoring will soon get a shrewd idea which blocks of IP
    >addresses are likely to be 'static'. For example their employees can
    >'harvest' inhome static addresses from friends, etc and a dozen or so
    >addresses from each of Wellington and Christchurch will enable the
    >address blocks to be determined with adequate accuracy (one static
    >address indicates 252 other static addresses and two addresses 3-4
    >blocks apart would indicate the intervening blocks are likely to be
    >static).
    >
    >In addition if the same IP address 'strikes' twice there is a
    >reasonable probability that it is 'static'.
    >
    >Once the copyright enforcement agencies are aware of the static IP
    >ranges, it makes sense to target abusers with these addresses as they
    >potentially get a much higher 'return' for their $25 they pay to the
    >IP provider.
    >
    >So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    >barrel with the new rules.


    ... or have you missed the point here ? ... perhaps they are saying that
    they can't so they don't have to, thus avoiding the law in all its
    stupidity. ? :) :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 3, 2011
    #3
  4. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 3, 11:08 am, victor <> wrote:

    > I don't see what the benefit to the record company is of getting their
    > Rihanna fans cut off from the internet, they are the most likely to buy
    > their legit product when they do have money. It isn't anything but
    > window dressing.
    > Regular heavy torrent users are more likely downloading tv series
    > unavailable or not yet available in NZ.
    > I suspect that those users will shift from peer to peer to client server
    > download methods like premium nntp providers with SSL encryption or file
    > hosting services like Rapidshare via VPN services.

    Irrevelant to the topic at hand.
    > I don't think that the content providers who issue notices will
    > discriminate by ISP, the identification of the customer has to be done
    > by the ISP for no matter what their method of IP number allocation is.

    If I was in their shoes, I damn well would. I would want the biggest
    bang for each 25 buck notice sent out and I would achieve this by
    ideftifying and targeting static IP addresses.

    > And if there does prove to be some bias, any static addressed TC cable
    > customers who do get served with a final notice will churn to ADSL
    > providers.

    You must be kidding, mate. TelstraClear inhome (where available)
    currently offers the fastest internet available to average households.
    Its users would be addicted to it in the same way as a 'mainline'
    heroin addict.
     
    peterwn, Nov 3, 2011
    #4
  5. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 3, 1:25 pm,
    (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    > In article <..com>, peterwn <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >See:
    > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-m...
    > >y-shots

    >
    > >"TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering did not believe its customers
    > >were at more risk of receiving notices, as copyright owners had no way
    > >of knowing whether a particular IP address was static or dynamically
    > >generated. "

    >
    > >I am sorry Gary, but while TelstraClear may not confirm which blocks
    > >of IP addresses are 'static' or 'dynamic', those involved with 3
    > >strikes monitoring will soon get a shrewd idea which blocks of IP
    > >addresses are likely to be 'static'. For example their employees can
    > >'harvest' inhome static addresses from friends, etc and a dozen or so
    > >addresses from each of Wellington and Christchurch will enable the
    > >address blocks to be determined with adequate accuracy (one static
    > >address indicates 252 other static addresses and two addresses 3-4
    > >blocks apart would indicate the intervening blocks are likely to be
    > >static).

    >
    > >In addition if the same IP address 'strikes' twice there is a
    > >reasonable probability that it is 'static'.

    >
    > >Once the copyright enforcement agencies are aware of the static IP
    > >ranges, it makes sense to target abusers with these addresses as  they
    > >potentially get a much higher 'return' for their $25 they pay to the
    > >IP provider.

    >
    > >So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    > >barrel with the new rules.

    >
    > .. or have you missed the point here ? ... perhaps they are saying that
    > they can't so they don't have to, thus avoiding the law in all its
    > stupidity. ? :) :)

    I do not think I have missed any point. As I said even if TelstraClear
    refuses to disclose its static IP address blocks, those who are doing
    the copyright enforcing will soon get wind of them anyway.

    Possibly if TelstraClear runs out of its blocks of IP addresses they
    may convert 'static' to 'dynamic' addresses. If they merely changed to
    'dynamic' to help shield customers, the copyright lawyers could well
    have them on toast for aiding copyright breach and proof would be on
    balance of probabilities.
     
    peterwn, Nov 3, 2011
    #5
  6. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 3/11/2011 3:21 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 11:08 am, victor<> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't see what the benefit to the record company is of getting their
    >> Rihanna fans cut off from the internet, they are the most likely to buy
    >> their legit product when they do have money. It isn't anything but
    >> window dressing.
    >> Regular heavy torrent users are more likely downloading tv series
    >> unavailable or not yet available in NZ.
    >> I suspect that those users will shift from peer to peer to client server
    >> download methods like premium nntp providers with SSL encryption or file
    >> hosting services like Rapidshare via VPN services.

    > Irrevelant to the topic at hand.
    >> I don't think that the content providers who issue notices will
    >> discriminate by ISP, the identification of the customer has to be done
    >> by the ISP for no matter what their method of IP number allocation is.

    > If I was in their shoes, I damn well would. I would want the biggest
    > bang for each 25 buck notice sent out and I would achieve this by
    > ideftifying and targeting static IP addresses.


    That wouldn't achieve their objective, which is to reduce p2p file
    sharing by the most publicity with the least expenditure.
    That means making as large a public display to all the major ISPs as
    possible.

    >
    >> And if there does prove to be some bias, any static addressed TC cable
    >> customers who do get served with a final notice will churn to ADSL
    >> providers.

    > You must be kidding, mate. TelstraClear inhome (where available)
    > currently offers the fastest internet available to average households.
    > Its users would be addicted to it in the same way as a 'mainline'
    > heroin addict.
    >

    Those users, if they intend to carry on downloading, which was already
    copyright infringement before the Skynet, will have already consulted
    the various forums about alternatives to bit torrent, and possibly
    decided they can get better bang for their buck from other services.

    There are a bunch of lawyers and consultants who make a fortune from
    encouraging this pointless whack a mole charade though.

    You would think from all the grandstanding speeches about supporting our
    artists and the losses to our creative industries that they would be
    issuing notices for pirating of Kiwi artists, not persecuting the
    parents of 13 year olds that like Rihanna or Lady Gaga on their phones.
    It hardly matters what sort of connection you have for this level of
    infringement.
     
    victor, Nov 3, 2011
    #6
  7. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 3/11/2011 3:30 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 1:25 pm,
    > (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    >> In article<>, peterwn<> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See:
    >>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-m...
    >>> y-shots

    >>
    >>> "TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering did not believe its customers
    >>> were at more risk of receiving notices, as copyright owners had no way
    >>> of knowing whether a particular IP address was static or dynamically
    >>> generated. "

    >>
    >>> I am sorry Gary, but while TelstraClear may not confirm which blocks
    >>> of IP addresses are 'static' or 'dynamic', those involved with 3
    >>> strikes monitoring will soon get a shrewd idea which blocks of IP
    >>> addresses are likely to be 'static'. For example their employees can
    >>> 'harvest' inhome static addresses from friends, etc and a dozen or so
    >>> addresses from each of Wellington and Christchurch will enable the
    >>> address blocks to be determined with adequate accuracy (one static
    >>> address indicates 252 other static addresses and two addresses 3-4
    >>> blocks apart would indicate the intervening blocks are likely to be
    >>> static).

    >>
    >>> In addition if the same IP address 'strikes' twice there is a
    >>> reasonable probability that it is 'static'.

    >>
    >>> Once the copyright enforcement agencies are aware of the static IP
    >>> ranges, it makes sense to target abusers with these addresses as they
    >>> potentially get a much higher 'return' for their $25 they pay to the
    >>> IP provider.

    >>
    >>> So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    >>> barrel with the new rules.

    >>
    >> .. or have you missed the point here ? ... perhaps they are saying that
    >> they can't so they don't have to, thus avoiding the law in all its
    >> stupidity. ? :) :)

    > I do not think I have missed any point. As I said even if TelstraClear
    > refuses to disclose its static IP address blocks, those who are doing
    > the copyright enforcing will soon get wind of them anyway.
    >
    > Possibly if TelstraClear runs out of its blocks of IP addresses they
    > may convert 'static' to 'dynamic' addresses. If they merely changed to
    > 'dynamic' to help shield customers, the copyright lawyers could well
    > have them on toast for aiding copyright breach and proof would be on
    > balance of probabilities.


    http://3strikes.net.nz/information/faqs


    Do copyright owners get my name and address from my Internet Service
    Provider?
    No. Even if you challenge a notice from your Internet Service Provider,
    they will remove your personal information before passing it on the
    copyright owner. Your Internet Service Provider has to provide your
    (i.e. the account holder’s) name and contact details to the Copyright
    Tribunal when directed by the Tribunal.
     
    victor, Nov 3, 2011
    #7
  8. In article <>, peterwn <> wrote:
    >On Nov 3, 1:25=A0pm,
    >(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

    (snip)
    >> >So Telstraclear inhome cable customers will soon be like fish in a
    >> >barrel with the new rules.

    >> .. or have you missed the point here ? ... perhaps they are saying that
    >> they can't so they don't have to, thus avoiding the law in all its
    >> stupidity. ? :) :)

    >I do not think I have missed any point. As I said even if TelstraClear
    >refuses to disclose its static IP address blocks, those who are doing
    >the copyright enforcing will soon get wind of them anyway.
    >
    >Possibly if TelstraClear runs out of its blocks of IP addresses they
    >may convert 'static' to 'dynamic' addresses. If they merely changed to
    >'dynamic' to help shield customers, the copyright lawyers could well
    >have them on toast for aiding copyright breach and proof would be on
    >balance of probabilities.


    The law allows anything not explicitly prohibited. I don't remember seeing
    anything in that law about static vs dynamic ... either one being allowed
    and one not or changing between one or the other being prohibited. If that
    is so, a company swapping it's customers to dynamic is allowed, as would be
    a customer choosing that option.

    IANAL of course, but that seems simple to me. :)

    It's bad law through and through of course, so the chances of it being
    extended could well be high ?

    <sigh>
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 3, 2011
    #8
  9. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 3, 4:41 pm, victor <> wrote:
    >
    > http://3strikes.net.nz/information/faqs
    >
    > Do copyright owners get my name and address from my Internet Service
    > Provider?
    > No. Even if you challenge a notice from your Internet Service Provider,
    > they will remove your personal information before passing it on the
    > copyright owner. Your Internet Service Provider has to provide your
    > (i.e. the account holder’s) name and contact details to the Copyright
    > Tribunal when directed by the Tribunal.

    Does not matter. If a static IP address infringes thrice (assuming
    distinct occasions), the enforcer can hit a guaranteed home run for 3x
    $25.
     
    peterwn, Nov 3, 2011
    #9
  10. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 3, 4:54 pm,
    (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    >
    > >Possibly if TelstraClear runs out of its blocks of IP addresses they
    > >may convert 'static' to 'dynamic' addresses. If they merely changed to
    > >'dynamic' to help shield customers, the copyright lawyers could well
    > >have them on toast for aiding copyright breach and proof would be on
    > >balance of probabilities.

    >
    > The law allows anything not explicitly prohibited.

    Criminal law, yes. With respect to non-criminal matters and sanctions,
    the law is not as simple as that. With copyright, criminal sanctions
    are only enlivened for 'commercial' type breaches - eg pirating and
    selling CD's at a flea market. Non-criminal sanctions (which can still
    hit the wallet in a big way) are available for other breaches.
     
    peterwn, Nov 3, 2011
    #10
  11. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 3/11/2011 5:48 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 4:41 pm, victor<> wrote:
    >>
    >> http://3strikes.net.nz/information/faqs
    >>
    >> Do copyright owners get my name and address from my Internet Service
    >> Provider?
    >> No. Even if you challenge a notice from your Internet Service Provider,
    >> they will remove your personal information before passing it on the
    >> copyright owner. Your Internet Service Provider has to provide your
    >> (i.e. the account holder’s) name and contact details to the Copyright
    >> Tribunal when directed by the Tribunal.

    > Does not matter. If a static IP address infringes thrice (assuming
    > distinct occasions), the enforcer can hit a guaranteed home run for 3x
    > $25.




    Read the info site and you will see that there is plenty of scope for
    the warnings to be heeded and grace periods before a second infringement
    is submitted.

    The copyright detection contractors often target particular IP ranges
    such as universities, that isn't unusual.

    Despite that, just as many infringement notices were sent to all the
    other NZ ISPs, and I expect that to continue, otherwise file-sharers
    will think they are shielded from detection by dhcp as you imply, and
    that is obviously a bit silly.
     
    victor, Nov 3, 2011
    #11
  12. peterwn

    Me Guest

    On 3/11/2011 3:21 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 11:08 am, victor<> wrote:


    > If I was in their shoes, I damn well would. I would want the biggest
    > bang for each 25 buck notice sent out and I would achieve this by
    > ideftifying and targeting static IP addresses.
    >

    Golly, their criminal profilers must be starting to get a picture of the
    evil NZ pirates by now.
    75 notices sent out to downloaders of music of Rihanna and Lady Gaga.
    That more or less narrows them down to pre-pubescent girls with poor
    taste. The sooner we lock these children up - the better.
    So much for the argument about protecting our local industry which was
    foisted on us as reason for this dumb law.
    And so much for the bullshit moral high ground taken by some of the
    arseholes protected by these laws:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/oct/20/rihanna-david-lachapelle-lawsuit
     
    Me, Nov 3, 2011
    #12
  13. peterwn

    Gordon Guest

    On 2011-11-03, Me <> wrote:
    > On 3/11/2011 3:21 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >> On Nov 3, 11:08 am, victor<> wrote:

    >
    >> If I was in their shoes, I damn well would. I would want the biggest
    >> bang for each 25 buck notice sent out and I would achieve this by
    >> ideftifying and targeting static IP addresses.
    >>

    > Golly, their criminal profilers must be starting to get a picture of the
    > evil NZ pirates by now.
    > 75 notices sent out to downloaders of music of Rihanna and Lady Gaga.
    > That more or less narrows them down to pre-pubescent girls with poor
    > taste. The sooner we lock these children up - the better.
    > So much for the argument about protecting our local industry which was
    > foisted on us as reason for this dumb law.
    > And so much for the bullshit moral high ground taken by some of the
    > arseholes protected by these laws:
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/oct/20/rihanna-david-lachapelle-lawsuit
    >

    You forgot the part about how the lawyers have found another source of
    income
     
    Gordon, Nov 4, 2011
    #13
  14. In article <j8u0dd$99a$>, Me <> wrote:
    >On 3/11/2011 3:21 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >> On Nov 3, 11:08 am, victor<> wrote:

    >
    >> If I was in their shoes, I damn well would. I would want the biggest
    >> bang for each 25 buck notice sent out and I would achieve this by
    >> ideftifying and targeting static IP addresses.
    >>

    >Golly, their criminal profilers must be starting to get a picture of the
    >evil NZ pirates by now.
    >75 notices sent out to downloaders of music of Rihanna and Lady Gaga.
    >That more or less narrows them down to pre-pubescent girls with poor
    >taste. The sooner we lock these children up - the better.
    >So much for the argument about protecting our local industry which was
    >foisted on us as reason for this dumb law.
    >And so much for the bullshit moral high ground taken by some of the
    >arseholes protected by these laws:
    >http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/oct/20/rihanna-david-lachapelle-lawsuit


    Morals ? ... this is nothing about principles and/or morals, and everything
    about money and control ... as I'm sure you are aware. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 7, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daryle A. Tilroe

    Secondary addresses and static DHCP

    Daryle A. Tilroe, Apr 28, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,153
  2. Nik Coughlin

    Three strikes, you're out

    Nik Coughlin, Oct 14, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    578
    Richard
    Oct 14, 2008
  3. Gordon
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    587
    ~misfit~
    Jul 9, 2009
  4. Harry Stottle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,103
    Harry Stottle
    Jan 5, 2010
  5. Frank Williams

    Three Strikes Law

    Frank Williams, Mar 11, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    840
    Richard
    Mar 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page