Block the RIAA or Not?

[Miga Amigo]

Money doesen't make the world go round... PEOPLE do. Sick of seeing RICH people living the high life? Milling dollar toilets and billion dollar partys? USE WINMX! Don't pay one more cent to people that use you money to support their obscene lifestyles! FREE FOREVER! VIVAL LA WINMX! The true revolution!

[Anonymous]

weeeeeeeeee

[guessed]

Agreed I didn't expect to get as many Pie Patch users as I would have liked, because after all this site is not the place to download that patch.  However, your reasoning's for feeling the poll is slanted in view are far from realistic.  You say there is no solution and yet you have no idea how the block list is made or maintained do you? Therefore you are not yet in a position to judge whether the blocklist or the dll are effective.

If you are as well read as you would like to sound then you already know that this poll and this subject have been the topic of much debate of late between the two main help sites.  The Pie Team have offered a patch, but no information on flooding, or protecting users and the WPN.  So yes I would expect most hosts file users not to have a clue about this.

I followed this more back in Sept and OCT when the general recommendation, I think on both the Vladd and WW sites. was for primary users to run pg2 to help keep RIAA off WPN.  I had extensive communications with the pg2 team and at the time, they did not have any specific fake file flooder list.  I begged them to make such a list and not just lump them into the general corporate media owners list.

I didn't say there was no solution, just no effective solution.  I have seen no evidence that it yet exists.  Lots of talk, fingerpointing and claims, but no details.

I don't have a clue as to how many winmx users ever bother to read any of the many forums but based on the comprehension of many users I talk to would think it is a very small percentage.  That will be a continuing problem even when an effective blocking system becomes available.

The question assumes hosts file users are not effectively helping. and infers the others, the .dll users are. Both are false, misleading characterisations.
It is significant that the pollsters make no effort to inform the users that this blocking is only relevant to primaries, not secondaries.

This poll was not set up to educate anyone completely on details of the flooding, like who should be using the protection, what works..etc.. this was set up to see if the issue in the users minds warrants being discussed on sites where patches are available, esp patches that don't already have protection in them.  Full details are readily available in many threads, and on pages here:
https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/filtering_fakes.html

I was not referring to the poll, but to the tutorial/help/forum pages on the same site.  The gist seems to be "If you aren't running our DLL you are helping the RIAA".  Like the quote pointing to the poll:

pie patch users as they are the ones that are allowing the RIAA onto this network

First, I detest blaming the victims.  It is not any user's fault that the RIAA is attacking them.  It is always the RIAA's fault.

You don't bother to clarify that this dll block idea relates only to those who connect as primaries.  That's just an example of failure to inform and continue to guilt trip any not using it.  At least your earlier page regarding the use of pg2 as a blocking tool did make this critical distinction:

PeerGuardian is like a firewall for P2P networks,  It blocks the Riaa.  Right now the RIAA is attacking this networks primary connections.   YOU MUST USE THIS if you have connected primary.

https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/block_the_riaa.html

This question assumes users of the hosts file are ignorant and uninformed of their 'option' and implies there is only one option, singular.

Agreed, because up until a few days ago the pie sites had removed any and all information regarding protection or blocking.  I would expect the average user that just downloaded a patch and ran to be unaware.

Are you suggesting that all users of the DLL patch are aware of this function and how it works and what purpose it serves and how effective it is in achieving that purpose?

Total support for blocking, if there is such a thing, obviously does not mean total support for the DLL 'final solution'. Or else this 'poll' would be baseless.

This is not an ad for the DLL that is obvious, where you see that I don't know.

Oh contrare.. it was obvious that it in fact was an us vs them issue.  I will grant that the 'solution' allowed for using your block list with pg2 as an alternative to using the dll, but it still comes back to using your blocklist somehow.

I count 20 votes as of today. Who are these 'thousands' and where are they? Those who naively believe that the .DLL fix eliminates fake file flooding are the ones that are misguided and ill-informed.

The DLL cant eliminate flooding on its own .. Yet.. but the users that choose this option because of the flood protection are in the thousands I assure you, if you need download numbers just let me know.  Obviously we cant eliminate flooding on the network on our own which is why we hound the pie folks so bad, and also so they still know we love them and haven't forgotten they are here..

I certainly believe that thousands of persons are using the .dll patch..  I would question though just what percent of those dll users are aware of the blocklist functions or are concerned with it.  I dare suggest most are simply happy to be able to connect and that is about as far as their interest in the matter goes.  To suggest that such usage equates to 'total support' for blocking as claimed by another admin is not credible.

I am not trying to discourage, but isn't it an excercise in futility?  The fact that you are badgering the 'pie team' to 'inform' their users highlights the simple fact that near total blocklist usage by PRIMARY users would be needed for this plan to work effectively.  How effective it might be with 75% of Primaries blocking is still questionable, as is 90% or 98%, though i would imagine that the ill effects of fake file flooding would be greatly reduced with blocking at the latter levels.

But really, how many users ever read these forums?  Is it likely to ever get even 50% of primaries using the flooder blocklist, whether with pg2 or the .dll in the forseeable future?

Sorry but I haven't seen any effort to fully inform the users on this from the admins of this forum/web site. All I see is partisan, subjective sniping.
It doesn't attempt to target just primary users even though those are the only ones blocking is an issue for with current efforts.

You maybe should do some more reading.

I have read a little.  I begged the pg2 team to start compiling a specific list of fake file flooders.  But due to severe impairments with the current design of pg2 limiting its usefulness, I backed off the matter until they can update the basic functions of their program.

My interest in such a list and user detection tools is somewhat other than mere blocking the abusers.  My approach would be different, to take the war back to them.  Drawing on my too-long history of defending against IRC war clans who liked to play games taking over IRC chat channels, I found banning and k-lining to be less effective in the long run than going after the source.  IOW, my focus is being able to document and log the flooding, and then argue to ISPs and authorities that it is both a violation of TOS and laws.  It took years, but the war clan kiddies finally stopped their harsh attacks after they saw how effective we were at closing their shell accounts and/or hacked server access.  Most decided to go play elsewhere or give up the games.

All a tempest in a teapot. If EVERY user was using the .dll fix, would fake file flooding be eliminated?

If every user was on the DLL this would be a non issue, you are again unaware of how the block list is made or maintained or just how good we are at keeping the RIAA at bay.  That list is a dynamic list and changes every few days, some of the new entries have been being used by Macrovision for literally minutes before they are detected and added to this list.

It can't be all that automated if new IPs detected in minutes take days to be added to the list.

The existing mini-list of IPs may include some flooders for sure. But it is naive and/or dishonest to present the .dll as a proven solution. It is not.

You sir, are the one saying this is some dll campaign not us.  We were asking the pie folks to inform their users, which they are making great strives to do so.

To do what?  To use the same flooder block list the dll relies on?  I admit to failing to distinguish this, since they come from the same source and that the blocklist is integral to this dll function.

Afaik, there is no existing automated means to quickly detect new flooder IPs and add them to the block list. It is not that it is 'not perfect', it is that it isn't even a thorough package yet. All the pieces of the puzzle haven't yet been created. So presenting the .dll as if it was THE answer in its current stage of development is disingenuous.

Oh, really.  Can you tell me how you have come to this conclusion, knowing full well you have got no clue of the automated system in place to detect new numbers with in minutes?

The rest of your comments are completely off topic as I mentioned.  Your the one spouting on about the dll verses the hosts file fix.. we just want the pie patch users informed and given the information to make up their own minds just as you have.

Admitted that the block list can be used without the dll and my references to that were ill-made.  but no clarity was offered in the tutorials or poll either.  Never was it said that it doesn't matter for secondary users, that this block list is primarily for primary users.  To comprehend that, the users have to become more informed, to understand just what a primary connection is and how it differs from secondary connections.  No clear statement was made in the poll discussion just what the 'option' to block was, but implied there was only one option.  Nothing suggested that a user could use anything other than the dll for such blocking and considering that the source of the dll and the poll and the turotials was the same site, it seems logical, though incorrect, that the .dll was the only 'option' for such blocking.

I read every post made on this site, except the ones that are not in English, and have seen you show up in the last few days, in reading your posts I see someone that came here hell bent on not appreciating what is being done or the efforts to better the network by working with the Pie Team to achieve this goal.  Albeit not a perfect world here, I suggest that you do a bit more reading and less assuming of what is going on.. you may learn something by accident..

I appreciate what was and is being done.  If I didn't, I wouldn't waste my time offering my comments.  I could likely help more if some capable person would bother to offer some basic insight on the operations of winmx searching, browsing and downloading and how to determine IPs of those obviously flooding fake files.

The fact that I may come across as tactless and abrupt should not be taken personally.  It just the nature of us INTJ types.  Another nature of INTJ types is a knack for critical analysis.  Not my fault.  I was born this way afatk.

I pestered the winmx team too..  Sometimes they threw me a bone.   While i haven't seen a version or changes list, it appears that at least 3 of my suggestions/ideas were incorporated in v3.54.  one of which i was not even aware of until i posted here this week.  Of course it is impossible to know this, since they might have planned on these changes before I emailed them, or others may well have suggested the same before me..  Since winmx contact was mostly 1 way, it is hard to say.  All I know is that after I made the suggestions, at least 3 related changes were made.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

I am not trying to discourage, but isn't it an excercise in futility?  The fact that you are badgering the 'pie team' to 'inform' their users highlights the simple fact that near total blocklist usage by PRIMARY users would be needed for this plan to work effectively.  How effective it might be with 75% of Primaries blocking is still questionable, as is 90% or 98%, though i would imagine that the ill effects of fake file flooding would be greatly reduced with blocking at the latter levels.

But really, how many users ever read these forums?  Is it likely to ever get even 50% of primaries using the flooder blocklist, whether with pg2 or the .dll in the forseeable future?

A valid point i have made over and over and over again, but its just ignored and the general response im given?

"Blocking works - end of"

While i have no doubt the physical act of a pc rejecting a connection works, i still have serious doubts we will ever reach anywhere near enough users to make a "Riaa block" effective on winmx. I have many times highlighted the issue if reaching thousands upon thousands of users that dont visit forums, i have highlighted many times just what a huge campaign this will take and i have also given an estimate of effectiveness. All that said, and putting my reservations to one side, i am in support of doing something rather than nothing.

I would also like to ask a Q of mehere or Ghost, if the software is available to pick up new flooders IP's within minutes, the software must pick up on certain caricturists, can these not be used as an addon to winmx to do this for individual users? Thus keeping all users up to date within minutes of opening Winmx?

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Sorry for the double post:

First, I detest blaming the victims.  It is not any user's fault that the RIAA is attacking them.  It is always the RIAA's fault.

Agreed.

[GhostShip]

Guessed, much as I would like to hand over all the fine details of how the flooder detection works I cannot in all sincerity do so as the same tools that would provide your evidence would also be able to be used to obtain information on users, something we will not compromise over.

We spend hours working on things for the good of the users and if they are as cynical as yourself then we are lost, admittedly much of the system we do have works on 100% trust between the users and the list operators.

You have not to my knowledge answered the main thrust of Me_Heres reply, that considering that you have no knowledge of how our list is made you seem to haphazzardly dismiss it.

Could I be so bold here as to suggest that whilst decrying the lack of timestamped evidence you simply use the list and consult your peer guardian history ?
It will clearly show what you claim is required for evidence and I look forward to your suit upon the perpetrators of the criminal activity.

Nobby, as Im sure you are aware once a detailed characteristic or signature is identified and made public it would become useless as Macrovision would within a short time make changes to avoid detection.

[dabud]

must be a bummer to have 20 copies of everything and not be able to decide which one is best!

[Me Here]

Dabud,

Sorry i just moved that post and you posted at the same time.. lol

Its here
https://forum.winmxworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=1502

[digerati]

Have gun, need target.  :twisted:

[Charlie101]

What do I have to do to block them

[Bearded Blunder]

What do I have to do to block them

Either run the patch from the winmxgroup site OR Peer Guardian 2 with the blocklist from this site ( details here https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/block_the_riaa.html )

there's no harm in doing both but either is effective.

[laz]

i would juat like to ask after being away from winmx for a while what flooding and RIAA stand for ?

srry for being ingorant!

[GhostShip]

No problems there Laz, we have written up a few help sheets to let folks know what we are facing.

https://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/filtering_fakes.html


The RIAA is of course the Recording Industry Associationof America an organisation set up to fleece artists and agressively corner the music market for big business interests.

[laz]

thx for the heads up i downloaded b4 asking the question the latest beta does this have a patch to stop this?

also my anti virus (norton) askes me what i want in or out is there nething i should be looking for?

also if i do a search with -c: -user does increase resalts!

one other thing b4 i shoot my self in the foot (if i have at all)
could this be why b4 winmx 353? went offline i could not get down the kaiser chiefs - Everyday I Love You Less And Less mp3?

it would find 200+ results for it but wouldn't download of probally 50+ people?!

[Me Here]

Laz,

Our patch for either 3.53 or 3.54 will block the RIAA, so as long as your using our patch you dont have to worry, and its worth a mention that its really only primary users that need concern themselves with this issue anyway.

As far as your anitvirus that is not a good tool to block them, so no dont do anything with it except to allow WinMx through it.

The answer to your last question is yes, it was often found that many artists or files with names similar to these would have been flooded with fakes that looked good in the search results but never downloaded.  A search for the word 'Free' will still produce such results..  :roll:

Hope this answers ya questions, and if not feel free to ask away!! we love questions .. lol

[NaNashi]

I've got an old computer and peer guardian is enough stress to cause intermittent connection lost.

I'm also not interested in any of the files targetted by the flooding.

The hosts file patch adds no detectable stress to the system - has anybody done comparative load tests between the fixes?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????

NaNashi

[Bearded Blunder]

Why don't you test on your own hardware for yourself? Try out the winsock patch from www.winmxgroup.com & see how it goes? With this you don't have to use Peer Guardian to block the flooders & if anything the feedback I've heard is that it has less impact on PC performance than running with a large hosts file.  If it causes problems, you can always revert to using a hosts file.

[user]

RIAA supports terrorists. It's true. My cousion told me once. How about an optional, seperate, file/patch that blocks them, but allows each user to decide for themselves? Or a built in switch? ah Screw it just block them all the way. RIAA sucks ass.

[Anonymous]

RIAA supports terrorists. It's true. My cousion told me once.

You really made me laugh. That´s how hoax start spreading, through dumb believers... and I don´t care who your cousin is.


Personally I don´t use PG2 because of problems with my computer... memory leaks and blocked things it shouldn´t block
Anyway I will give a try later but as I said, me and some friends (only a few) had problems with it.

[prim]

Very true, user.  It's well known the RIAA blatently produce content that terrorists copy and sell on the black market to buy WMD to attack infidels worldwide.  The RIAA are at the core of this evil activity and need to be stopped.