Why Are There Regular ISPs On The Blocklist?

[Me Here]

A few inquisitive and observant folks have asked me 'Why are there regular ISPs like Verizon, BTCentral, and Sympatico on the Block List?

Flooding has been going on for a long time, its not new to WinMx and its not new to p2p systems in general.  There are several companies that make this job of disrupting p2p systems for the RIAA/MPAA their daily work.  Macrovision is our worry here on WinMx.  They are the ones that developed and fairly recently patented a system by which to do this job on a 'decentralized' network. 

'System', what does that mean exactly?  Well, I will try to explain without going into too much technical jargon.  The system they have developed basically is similar to the 'quickmx' in that it allows them to have multiple fake clients running from one IP address, optimizing the spread of fakes.  This means that thousands of fakes can be uploaded from this one IP address.  They have their own network or ISP if you will called SmokeBlower Networks to run these systems from, most of which is run through the backbone company Globix and Performance Systems Inc.


The problem they must have found was that just like we do here finding them, they where being noticed by other users of other p2p systems on these IP addresses.  Using the same ranges of numbers was becoming obvious to enough that they must at some point have decided to expand the possibilities of IPs they have available to use.  Business accounts as you may be aware are very 'static' IPs or IP ranges, this doesnt do them any favors once the folks at these other p2p systems started reporting the ranges to folks like BlueTack.org (the makers of the PeerGuardian, Protowall and the like block lists). 

So just like most of us have a 'Dynamic' residential account and changing IP, they must have seen that this could benefit them to use also.  When exactly they did this I dont know, maybe from the begining, maybe not, however they somehow now intercede themselves to these regular ISPs.  I am in the process of investigating this activity further as well, after all they are breaking all of  the 'Terms of Use Policies' of nearly all of these ISPs from what I have found so far.

The point is this, its much easier to hide amongst a regular swiftly changing IP to do the damage and try to stay under the radar.  They didnt count on folks as diligent as we have working on our list..

Bare in mind that they have to use an IP address just like you or I do to connect to WinMx, without it the 'WinMX Primary Clients' will just tell them to piss off, so they grab an IP address and use while that particular 'system of theirs' is in use.  More then likely as they reboot these systems the IP address of the dynamic numbers then also changes just like you or I.  As mentioned above I am in the process of contacting these ISPs to find out how this happens, do they actually hold accounts, do they have a system that is 'proxy like'.. and so on.

Whats important to note here is that I have no proof that these ISPs are aware of what their allocated IP numbers are being used for, so we cant exactly hang the ISP, or say that they are helping Macrovision knowingly either.  Its also important to know that just like anywhere the same IP numbers cant be used by a regular user at the same time as its being used by Macrovision.  Hence the reason we have such a fast rate of maneuver of the numbers also.  We dont keep a number on the list if there is ANY chance they are no longer in Macrovision custody and could be a regular Joe trying to connect.  This is another good reason for Macrovision to use them, we all know that getting a number added to the lists that BlueTack uses is easy enough, they have added several of  the numbers we recommended however, getting one taken off is like an act of congress, that has to be approved by god.. lol

So if your wondering why your ISP is on the block list keep this in mind.

They may have no idea of the activity.
The numbers are removed within days at the most of them being Not in use by Macrovision.
This in no way reflects that the ISP is in cahoots with the RIAA. (yet, still investigating how this process goes)
There is NO way with our methods that if your on this ISP your IP address will be added to the list as a flooder. (in fact if there is ever any doubt about whether a number is flooding or not, its not added until there is none!!).

So rest assured for now that we are watching these numbers like hawks, and that your safe to use these ISPs without there being in any danger or worrying about being blocked by the list.  We may at some time ask for help in writing emails to report Macrovisions activities to these ISPs in order to stop allowing them to commit DOS attacks, misuse of the ISPs allocated IPs, and breaking of the same 'Terms of Use' or 'Acceptable Use Policies' that you have to abide by through these ISPs.  I will let you know what information you need when this happens and my investigations are over.

Now if there are any questions regarding the IPs on the list I would be more then happy to answer those here in this thread.

Hope this eases your minds and helps you to understand what kind of folks we are dealing with at Macrovision.

[..Ñøßߥ..]

Thanks Mehere, i am looking forward to hearing what the ISP's have to say about the action being carried out on their IP's, although i have to say the sceptic in me tells me, the ISP's will do nothing about it anyway, lets hope thats not the case.

[Me Here]

So far not a word from the two I have contacted.  It took a bit of explaining for them to even understand what I was trying to get information about.  No word yet.

I suspect as you do Nobby that not much will be done.. but it never hurts to make formal complaints ..

[Plum]

I say flood the ISPs with complaints.  Each time you get packets of spam, note the IP addresses and the time and do a reverse lookup to get the ISPs.  Then complain to each one.  Just mention spam being sent from the numbers.  Don't mention file-sharing, unless you were using it for a legal usage.  I'd even contact the FCC on them for interfering with communications. Even if it doesn't do much, it may make the powers be aware that there are legal usages for such software like sharing freeware, self-publishing, chat, and more.  I wouldn't stop there.  I would go to their corporate sponsors and let them know we don't want their products and services if they are going to trample our free speech rights and forbid us from using peer to peer communication and stop us from sharing user generated content.

Hollywood is out to push a social agenda.  Those who don't want this agenda and produce content that goes against the agenda and is popular to the point of weakening their bottom line are seen as a threat.  If you try to tell me how to live my life or go out of the way to make my life or culture uncomfortable for you, you should go out of business.  Yet the big producers are too arrogant to care about anyone else.  They think they know it all and know what is best.  Have you really seen what the media giants are producing?  I like CBS shows, but guess what?  Have you noticed underlying patterns in nearly all their shows and the ads too?  As of late, here is what you will notice in the ads:

1.  Many of the ads of late attack Republicans.  You might dislike Republicans, and that is fine, there are plenty of reasons, but should advertisements be allowed to attack or marginalize anyone?  Are networks allowed, by election laws, to run ads for only one side?  I don't think so.  If you lead a church, the only way you are allowed to let a politician speak without losing your tax-exempt status is to invite one of their opponents to speak as well.  Likewise, if you run for office and run a station, you cannot use your own station to promote yourself.

2.  Many of the ads have a well-known lesbian in them.  Nothing is wrong with that in and of itself, but don't they stop to think of the many viewers who might be offended?  Is this really about setting an example of corporate responsibility, or just a way to rub things in and make certain people feel uncomfortable?

3.  Many of the ads contain race-mixing.  Sure, people should be able to love whom they want, right?  But is that everyone's value?  Should it be shoved down everyone's throat?  Why should some be forced to watch in angry silence?  Oh, they can air their disagreement on the site, right?  And have their comments deleted.  They can air their disagreements on YouTube, yes, until their videos are pulled or their accounts deleted for seemingly no reason compared to others who say much worse.  There are some racist songs in the WNP network,  and while I'd rather them not be there, I support their right to put them there.  Like search for Johnny Rebel or certain rappers.  If one should be allowed, so should the other.

4.  Quite a few of the ads make men, and particularly white men the object of ridicule or seem stupid.  Like the commercial where the husband tried to make paint on socks.  The wife called him stupid and ridiculed him in front of his child for what I found to be a clever idea.

5.  Now lets get into the shows themselves.  One CSI show punished rape victims for killing their attackers.  The show basically blamed and degraded the women while elevating the rapists as better and more important than them.  Even the female cops lacked the natural empathy that women generally have for other women in times of need like these.  By their reactions, they were saying men are supposed to rape women, the women are supposed to enjoy it and do nothing, and that it is acceptable for the cops to do nothing.  It is funny they spent more resources to figure out who killed the rapists (investigations they should have stopped as soon as they discovered the "victims" were rapists).

6.  On a similar show, CBS, via, CSI took up for bullies.  According to CSI: NY, you should have the right to severely bully, set up other for rape, and frame them for sex crimes, all without getting killed, and that if you are such bullying scum, you deserve more rights than your enemies.

7.  Other shows set up the notion that some people are supposed to be victims and never defend themselves, while the attackers/rapists/bullies are supposed to get by with it.

My point is, it is any surprise that big media is losing business?  They really are not in the business of making music, shows, or movies, but about trying to control thought and brainwash people.  The agenda is to disempower individuals and empower systems.  They keep pushing more and more hate and intolerance against people with traditional ideas and culture and promoting things that attack people's morals and sensibilities.  It seems to be an organized front, regardless or media company or network.  So what other choice do you have but make and publish your own content, disseminate it in private since the big media won't publish it, and entertain yourself in ways that don't put more money into the anti-American, anti-individualism machine?  The big media wants to keep getting paid to damage our country and our values and they find anyone opposing that to be threatening.  I really don't want to discuss my examples nor my POV.  I just think it is a much larger battle than just over copyright materials or even over "content which harms children."  It is cultural warfare and a war for dominance and the annihilation of any view that certain people with a victim mindset don't want us to have.  I tried to keep my comments as non-partisan as I knew how, since a lot of the bad laws are coming from the Right as well as the Left.  All I want is the freedom to be myself and fully express who I am, all without danger of violence or legal action.

I like how Anonymous ran one copyright lawyer out of business.  That was a funny story, and the things they uncovered about him were funny, and they seemed to have pushed him to a breaking point.

[GhostShip]

I think this is the oldest topic "bump" ever Plum 

At this current time theres little point in complaining to anyone regarding attacks on this network as regards the current junk traffic,  only those parts of the network protocol that do not feature a handshake are affected but those also happen to be the ones used for search results and roomlistings, its a shame one guy and few halfwits sell out a whole online community to get their names mentioned.

[Plum]

I think this is the oldest topic "bump" ever Plum 

At this current time theres little point in complaining to anyone regarding attacks on this network as regards the current junk traffic,  only those parts of the network protocol that do not feature a handshake are affected but those also happen to be the ones used for search results and roomlistings, its a shame one guy and few halfwits sell out a whole online community to get their names mentioned.

Oops!  Sorry!  I wasn't paying attention.  I participate in an open source OS project which has an "anti-thread-necromancy" rule.  In other words, don't dig up the dead.

I also apologize for bringing personal political views into the mix.  I shouldn't have, though I tried to tone down personal biases and at least attempted to be somewhat balanced.  I just feel that the powers that be have other reasons than copyright and "harmful material" as their motivations, and probably should have left it at that.  It seems there is a frontal assault on personal expression, individuality, traditions, and morals, and file-sharing is one of the last bastions and places of refuge.   This pertains more to SOPA, PIPA, and the current rumblings in Congress than network connection issues (which have their inspiration from the DMCA, not the newly proposed stuff, and are more of a G1 problem).  The SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing has not gone away, but merely took a backseat to working to get a certain leader back in office and ramming various bad laws through, like ones that undermine the freedoms of religious organizations and schools, ones that try to legitimize or force things that so many people oppose, and ones which threaten the healthcare system.  AFAIC, they are all part of the same agendas, just different angles.  The current government and media are all after the same things, and that is absolute control of our minds and lives.  Any sort of underground peer to peer system is a threat to the system, regardless of creed if it challenges status quo.  Of course, Freenet might be more of a threat there.  There, you can find contraband instructions and terror how-to manuals (particularly the environmentalist, animal rights, anti-capitalist, and Jihadist sort), but that is beside the point.  Oops, I did it again!  (No, I'm not Britney.)  I just can't keep my virtual "mouth" shut and will probably insert a foot soon if I haven't already inserted both.

I don't really blame the current issue on the above because like you said, it is probably a few possessive types with ego problems, like the men who take the attitude, "If I can't have you, nobody can."  In this case, it is a matter of, "If I cannot be accepted as a leader, then you can learn to loath me as an opponent."  Or it is the "class clown" mentality, where any attention is good attention.  Really, a public "death" of the network may be what is needed, and then we can make like a phoenix and rise from the ashes.  If they want to "kill" us, maybe we could make them think they succeeded.  Like what was said before, we are more than a network, we are a community.