Block the RIAA or Not?

[Me Here]

This is a hot topic.  I think most users that have been around the forums lately knows that there is an ongoing debate, if you can call it that, about whether the Pie team should, would, or could recommend to their hosts file users to block the RIAA, aka Macrovison from the WinMx network.

So this thread is for you to let us all know if this is important to the average user.  Now is your chance to let everyone know what You think.  I really am more interested in the actual Pie Patch and hosts file users opinions so if you post please tell us what patch you use also, however anyone is free to cast your opinions on this poll or thread.

Pie Team seem to think that Pie patch users dont care enough about WinMx to install PG2 with our block list to help protect themselves and other primaries on this Network.

Pie Team seem to think that Pie Patch users are not capable of installing PG2 correctly, even tho they can follow a 12 step magic formula just to connect, not to mention most of the primaries on this network had to map ports in routers, dsl modems, firewalls, and anti virus to achieve that primary and primary users are the ones that need to use the pg2 if they are on the hosts file patches.

Pie may think the big bad RIAA will get pissy if we block their IPs from our individual machines using the WMW Block list, and sue us.

That the RIAA will spend more money to develop new blocking systems, (keep in mind the length of time it took them to get this one, and the patent application from last Spring not to mention the complex protocol that WinMx uses) just because one p2p network is using   PeerGuardian effectively to block them.

Front Code Technologies didnt block Macrovision, so why should they.

Here is Pie's view on blocking:

Nobby wrote:
Pie team have for sometime been looking at this issue, and indeed searching for a suitable resolution, there are a number of factors that have prevented us from putting a quick fix to this i will attempt to list them but its early in the morning and my brain isnt working too well yet:

1. Pie team is concerned over certain legal liabilities involved with inserting blocking software into the patch.

2. We are also concerned over legal liability for promoting certain software and its use.

3. We are concerned that the recommendation of PG2 would result in a negative affect as unless users use it totally correctly the updating blocklist WILL block at least 1 peer cache if not more. This is not in our interest or that of any winmx users.

4. Best estimates are currently that even with a good simple blocktool, only around 10% of users would actually use it, this is insufficiant to actually prevent the Riaa from connecting and flooding, even if we were able to mount a campaign big enough to double our estimate, it would still fall well short of the require numbers to effectively block.

5. Then of course there is the issue of "will blocking actually achieve its goal?" Well if the goal is to prevent flooding, then i guess it possible, but see point 4, if the goal is to stick one over on the Riaa and get them to leave us alone, then forget it, blocking will only push them into using alternative tactics.

Now I could sit here and offer you our opinion of each of these points easily, as has been done already by myself and many other users on Vladds site already in countless threads that have been on this subject.  Today tho, I am more interested to know whether you the user feels this is important to you or if you even had any idea this was possible.
We will however answer any questions regarding this subject posted here also.

[c2R]

Morning!

I use the patch from here with blocklist,  and vote that I understand what the patch is doing and think that it is a good idea...

Do we have any idea of the sort of numbers using our patch and those using hosts file or piepatch?

Regards
Chris

[..Ñøßߥ..]

A very simplistic view MeHere, if only it was all as simple as you make out. The vast percentage of users although well meaning and well intentioned will NOT use PG2, we COULD run a huge campaign only to have Coal report back he still sees a huge % unprotected and its been a huge waste of time as the flooding continues, OR we could spend a little time on a method that will the do the job in a much simpler way, staying well within the law, and giving us the maximum chance of persuading users to block.

I have no desire to waste months and commit resources to method 1, i would rather take some time to ensure method 2's effectiveness.

As for your simplistic view "once we block them they will go away and leave winmx alone" thats nothing but a short sighted joke, do you really believe they will leave winmx alone? I seriously doubt it, but i will agree its better to try then to do nothing.

Let just say a blocking campaign is succesfull and when blocked the Riaa turn to a new tactic and tougher tactic, please dont say you werent warned.

ALSO please note you have posted MY comments and labelled them "Pies View" these comments were my personal opinions NOT an offical postion from a team of over 100 people with varying view, please dont treat them as such, as you well know i have been campaigning within the team for action on this issue one way or another, and i continue to submit ideas and apply pressure to get things moving in a direction to satisfy all.

I would also take a moment to wish KM luck with his very gutsy plan to directly link blocking to a peer cache, a bold move i hope he and winmx users dont regret.

[Me Here]

Chris,
that is a good question, and KM would be best to answer it, so I will leave that to him.

Nobby,
Its a simplistic view because its a simple procedure to inform users and allow them to make that decision.  You are aware of the issue, and you have been allowed to make your own decision on whether you use something to block them or not.  But with everything suggested, and everything said you still say that pie will not do anything until they find the perfect solution.  Well Nobby that is just as simplistic of a view as mine and we are each entitled to them.

I feel that the majority of users who are allowed an informed decision will use pg2, or other means to help protect themselves and their machines, and I also think you are short changing users and underestimating them by thinking they would not.  You your self saw thousands of users willing to do anything it took when WinMx went down in order to save it, so I think those same users are not only willing but also capable when given the knowledge to do so.  

My goal is not to make the Riaa go away, but to make it a non issue in using WinMx and enhance the program to work as it should.  To help control the population and amount of fakes, and to hopefully give folks a reason to come back or try WinMx.  

I am completely confused by your last statement.  Nobby I took this statement to mean what it says 'The Pie Team have for sometime...'  this doesnt say Nobby has for sometime...So are those not the Pie Teams concerns?  Those are your concerns only? Not sure what you mean by that last statement.  But if you have a problem with me quoting you here just tell me and I will be happy to remove that quote.

My question is not whether we can remove the RIAA from the WPN, it says "Do you feel its important for Hosts File users (Pie Users) to help Block the RIAA?"  I dont need complicated options, either its important to users to know.. or its not.

[KM]

the numbers of users on each fix are quite easy to calculate if they would cooperate, i can give an exact figure for the number of users on each fix at any point in time if they would allow me to collect statistics from "pie" hosts file users, indeed a couple of weeks ago i did do a quick count of winmxgroup patch users just to test out how well it could be counted, worked very well and gave very precise figures with very little effort... but i don't expect any cooperation from them to count their users...

and as for the pie team constantly saying it's not possible to block the RIAA so don't even bother... it has already been proved that it is not only possible but easy

Hosts file users: they are being gently pushed towards not blocking so as a result 95% of them are doing what they are told to, and not blocking
Patch users: they are being very strongly pushed towards blocking (forced to if you will) as a result blocking among these users is 100% effective

the only reason the flooders are still there are the huge number of users being constantly told by pie members that they should allow the flooders

[Me Here]

I think its fair to mention that 98/me users of the winmxgroup patch have to also use pg2 or other means to block the Riaa and have done so with great results, ease and no problems or complaints about it at all.

I would venture to say that 95% or better of 98/ME patch users are protecting themselves and this network by using PG2.  

Why? because we informted them and allowed them to make a choice!

[TheMacDaddy]

the simple facts are if a person uses the hosts patch to fix there winmx (which works well) then they are also allowing the riaa to flood though there fix as it includes nothing to block the riaa

this is not only hurting the network which is under strength right now as everyone knows but is also a means to a end of winmx as we know it.

now i have no doubt you will have so answer to this to make the pie fix smell like roses,but to me its as simple as 1 2 3...

connect with the pie fix and "DONT" run something like PG2 the riaa will win and winmx will be dead

connect with the pie fix and "DO" block the riaa with something like PG2 and winmx has a fighting chance

now this can all be dressed up with rules and crap but the facts are very simple

WINMX WILL NEVER BE LEGAL SO WHO CARES ABOUT RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH BLOCKING SOFTWEAR???

Tell everyone you know who uses winmx and everyone you dont to block and do there bit.

Lets see if putting it this way helps.....

WAR = WINMX VS RIAA

We as users have a way that will help cripple the riaa and make there winning of this war a little harder.

If you dont want to stop the riaa killing winmx then why release a patch in the first place?

[daffy123]

1. I love WinMx    2. Hate the constant bickering    3. am using a  patch    4. am using PG2 (correctly ?  anybody's guess)   5.  really appreciate any support groups that explain protection & how to acheive it.  

The cry babies that think this creates starving artists are very misinformed.  To me the the overall question is CONTROL & SNOOPING !!!!   Keep up the good work and thank you to one and all who are keeping MX alive.    daffy

[nylly444]

Do I feel they should be informed?   - hell, yes.

I'm always one for letting people make their own choices.

Of course Peerguardian is not a perfect solution, but I feel it's important for people to know there is an issue and how it can be dealt with for now. I can't see why pie patch users should not be able to use it as well as KM's patch users.
Nobby is making valid points that need to be dealt with - but I don't think that any other person or group should deceide for others and withhold information from them. Of course users want the simplest solution and not be bothered with additional stuff, but should we let them be in ignorance? I can't understand the policy of the pie team not to at least inform their users that there actually IS a problem, listening to them it's just not worth to be taken seriously...

Personally I think we should all agree to disagree about the way we handle things and concentrate on doing the best we can with what we have fro now - till something better comes along. If we had waited after the crash till we had the current self-installing soltuions the network would be history by now - which shows how people are able to do what's necessary if guided well.

Why can't we all agree to GUIDE poeple along, not expect them to simply follow the leaders whoever they think these are.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Nobby is making valid points that need to be dealt with - but I don't think that any other person or group should deceide for others and withhold information from them.

My points may be valid or not, they are too me cause they are my opinions, other can choose to agree or disagree, we all get a shout!
But i DONT beleive in going with a plan until i have some indication of its likely outcome, to me its common sense, to others, well they just get it done and hope for a favourable outcome, good luck to them, but i like to go into things with my eyes open.

I can state at this point i have had a good assurance from Pie that a solution to this current issue will be with us in the near future, i dont have a timescale at this point and its not my place to reveal further details or speculate on any part of the project at this time, as its not 100% in stone yet.

There are a significant number of senior Pie members commited to at least giving blocking a try, however as i have stated many times we will not take such an aggressive and IMHO risky stance as KM has, certain criteria will have to be met prior to any action.

As for Pie users not being informed, your kidding right? You guys been pumping that info all over the forums for the last 4 weeks.

With regards to the amount of users connected with each type of patch,the figures are in the region of 65% Pie, 35% .dll

 

[KM]

I can state at this point i have had a good assurance from Pie that a solution to this current issue will be with us in the near future, i dont have a timescale at this point and its not my place to reveal further details or speculate on any part of the project at this time, as its not 100% in stone yet.

There are a significant number of senior Pie members commited to at least giving blocking a try, however as i have stated many times we will not take such an aggressive and IMHO risky stance as KM has, certain criteria will have to be met prior to any action.

a bit like how most western governments would respond if another country suddenly started firing nukes at them? "wow, time for a meeting, set up a committee to analyse the possible effects of shooting the enemy weapons out of the sky before they reach us, then once they have come up with a proposal in a few months time we can put this proposal forward to a review committee who will then suggest possible revisions before passing it back to the original committee"

sitting there saying "we don't want to do anything" doesn't achieve anything, doing something surprisingly enough gives a much greater chance of achieving anything...

With regards to the amount of users connected with each type of patch,the figures are in the region of 65% Pie, 35% .dll

depends where you try to get the figures from, lol - as i said the only way to get even a close figure is if you were to count them, something that i don't think any of you would be willing to do for some reason...

[..Ñøßߥ..]

I guess thats our differences KM, you charge in like a bull in a china shop, i prefer to think about things sensibly first, no doubt your way is much faster, but always right? No chance  and often risky? Yep

[mao]

block them 100%

[7]

Greetz,

Nobby, I personally think you make some good points with regards the situation that are worth consideration.  I agree with you that attempting to persuade end-users to run PG2 is unlikely to have anything above a negliable effect on the situation.  I also agree that, in all-likelyhood, a majority of users would not want to run such an application in the first place.

With regards 'law', I don't know much about that as I'm not a lawyer.  My belief here is that, basically, if 'they' consider some act to be 'not in their best interests', then in all likelyhood they will throw their weight against that by whatever means possible.  As to whether the current definition of 'law' is in fact a viable tool that they could use in this regard, I really don't know, though I suspect that it is, as it seems laws can be bent in any manner these days to suit one's interests, particularly if you happen to represent such massive money-making machines as media corporations.

I agree that a viable solution would be the better thing to persue than some half-baked hopes not in step with the reality of the situation.

...

IMO people with the power to influence need to stop all this shit and take a level-headed look at the situation and try to come up with something that seems workable.  Unfortunately, though, given the issues at hand, super-solutions are probably not going to come easily.  I see about 2 potentially workable solutions to the problem so far, 1, a system of filtering that a user could run locally, and 2, basically a redefinition the WPNP to break compatability completely.  Neither of these are going to be possible for the PIE team to implement via a hostfile, so, if they really are prepared to face the issue and do something about it, then they better come up with something new.

I tend to agree with TheMacDaddy's comment, "connect with the pie fix and "DONT" run something like PG2 the riaa will win and winmx will be dead"... well, at least in some respects.  In my opinion specific segments of the population have already been decimated in a big way and will continue to be for so long as this situation exists.

From my (not-exactly-scientific) calculations at this moment in time, Japan, Italy and Hong Kong are basically 80% of the WPN, the U.S. and U.K. combined are around 13%, with the remaining 7% a mash of all the other regions.  I think it's safe to say some aspects of the population have seriously declined compared to how they used to be.  One can only speculate as to why that might be though, though I have my thoughts...

[whensitmyturn]

Dear oh dear,  when will all of you who are involved in keeping Winmx up and running, get over your petty bickering and start to co-operate with one another.  Surely, what is needed first, is consensus from amongst yourselves.  Without concensus, and with two sets of differing opinions floating over the Winmx network, confusion reigns.  United we stand and divided we fall.  The RIAA, who must be monitoring what is taking place, must be rubbing their hands with glee. As a person that believes strongly in the right to file share, and who stands 100% against the tactics of the RIAA, I believe that it is important that this issue should be resolved once and for all.  Anything that prevents the RIAA from gaining the upper hand, is in my opinion, worthwhile.  Unless our network is strengthened, and unless we do more to register our discontent at current RIAA tactics, they will continue to attempt to bring this network down.  Surely, the time for bickering is over.  To both parties involved in this dispute, I urge you to consider what is at stake, and then to unite to provide a consensus.  Until you do, the only winners are the RIAA.  As for the different patches, I have tried out every patch that has been issued from both sources.  Each has it merits, and its own problems, so perhaps it might be better to pool your existing resources, to enable us to be supplied with the very best of Winmx patches, especially for all of us who use and believe in the Winmx network.  In the end, as it appears that there are two sets of people who wish to control the Winmx network, it is highly likely that you will continue to bicker amongst yourselves.  Gentlemen, stop the bickering and start working towards a united position.  Until you do, every Winmx user loses.

[Me Here]

I couldnt agree more!! ...

[..Ñøßߥ..]

7 - its a pleasure to read such a sensible post, i dont seek to allow the Riaa access, i am pushing to get them blocked, but i do call into question the likely hood of actual success, i at no point wish to see the network flooded to the point its unusable, but i doubt a link, tutorial and some encouragement to use PG2 or simialar will ever be enough.

Greetz,
With regards 'law', I don't know much about that as I'm not a lawyer.  My belief here is that, basically, if 'they' consider some act to be 'not in their best interests', then in all likelyhood they will throw their weight against that by whatever means possible.  As to whether the current definition of 'law' is in fact a viable tool that they could use in this regard, I really don't know, though I suspect that it is, as it seems laws can be bent in any manner these days to suit one's interests, particularly if you happen to represent such massive money-making machines as media corporations.

I couldnt of put it much better myself, this is the whole issue, the law on this is NOT black and white, and no matter who i have seen argue the toss on this, none of them are qualified to 100% garantee the position here, the differece between Pie and Km, is simple, Km has his singular belief and he goes with it, and thats fine,IF he is correct, if he is not, he will end up in hot water and may take others with him, Pie being a large team with multiple opinions, will be slower, but have more chance of getting it right, IMHO

But i state again, i Block, i support blocking in principal, im just not convinced it will ever actually work.

[GhostShip]

As I have stated before if you cannot take action with network flooding and to assist users to get protected, stop handing out a patch that allows it.

Alluding to some world law that does not exist is not helpful and will as KM stated allow those who want to do nothing to do exactly that.

I want to make one thing clear to you Nobby this issue is not something one team can take action on by itself as we cannot clear the network while new folks are being advised to join it without protection by the other.

One aspect you have brushed over is the simplest one, a network reboot.
if an annoucement was made by both sides using the explorer window in mx that the network was going to close for a hour to allow protection to be installed on users machines it might well reach the folks you claim are unreachable via normal means,

Even if it was not carried out the mere suggestion of it would have users taking action and getting protected in a mass of numbers.

And forgive me for laughing at your ignorance but the blocking does work, that at least is not open to debate.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

And forgive me for laughing at your ignorance but the blocking does work, that at least is not open to debate.

Please post your crystal ball source showing a blocking campaign will work on Winmx

I just dont get you Ghost, i support blocking although i have reservations about its likely effectiveness. I dont have the power to simply change the Pie site or Vladds site, i promised i would lobby for action and thats what im doing, and just dont see what you want from me, if i go against you, you bitch, if i support you, you still bitch, i cant win.

You beginning to sound just like my wife   :roll:

[KM]

blocking will not work as long as there are huge numbers of users not blocking, of course at the current time the huge number of users blocking is the only thing keeping the network usable for the rest, however those not blocking are causing the flooding.

if all primary users (or even just 95% of them) were blocking the flooders then the flooding would stop being an issue, and connecting to the network would also be much easier for secondary users - although that is a secondary issue atm because many users are blocking

the vast majority of users will use whatever they are given without changing anything - take the huge number of users using default ports on winmx as a good example, even with the large numbers of users being forced by their ISPs to use alternate ports it is still way over 90% of users using default ports (myself included btw), people use what they are given, give them something with blocking in by default and very very few users would disable it given the option (hence why i didn't even bother with an option in the patch, nobody would use it...), in which case it would be effective on almost all of the network if not all of it, which would work.

a side note: the current poll results are 13 votes yes you should block, out of 13 total, and i don't think anyone is even slightly surprised by that result