[HN Gopher] Reddit beats film industry again, won't have to reve...
___________________________________________________________________
Reddit beats film industry again, won't have to reveal pirates' IP
addresses
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 181 points
Date : 2024-02-09 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| pleasantpeasant wrote:
| I wonder if they'll still do this once Reddit IPOs
| sircastor wrote:
| Only if the film industry can figure out how to tank Reddit's
| stock price when it doesn't. It's a misalignment of incentives.
| Unless Reddit is exclusively associated with piracy and bad
| actors, most advertisers will probably ignore the bad press*
| and keep giving them money.
|
| * I'm not even sure it'd be bad press. Internet users aren't
| overly fond of film companies and we're talking about a meme
| factory against the people who said "You wouldn't download a
| car."
| EasyMark wrote:
| What are they gonna do, put out ads "Reddit has pirates on
| it!", that will only make it more popular.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Once they're public, everything is going to change.
|
| At that point it becomes "building value for the shareholder"
| and "minimizing risk for the shareholder".
|
| Except in this case, users are the product, and if you ruin the
| experience for the user then you've ruined your own product,
| thus defeating the shareholder.
|
| The only thing Reddit offers is a user community on a mega-
| forum.
| declaredapple wrote:
| > At that point it becomes "building value for the
| shareholder" and "minimizing risk for the shareholder".
|
| Generally people refer to this as Enshittification
|
| > if you ruin the experience for the user then you've ruined
| your own product, thus defeating the shareholder.
|
| Enshittification is literally the opposite of this.
| hightrix wrote:
| > At that point it becomes "building value for the
| shareholder" and "minimizing risk for the shareholder".
|
| Reddit has been on this path for years. Almost every recent
| change, when viewed through this lens, makes much more sense.
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| Is this the first major public forum to go public?
| duskwuff wrote:
| Maybe if you define "forum" in a way which excludes social
| media sites like Facebook, but that feels like an artificial
| distinction.
| EasyMark wrote:
| It really does, there are facebook groups that have 80% of
| the functionality of reddit on specific topics, much like
| reddit, with discussions like reddit, and sharing media,
| just like reddit.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Once again, IP addr is not a person. If you want to reveal who's
| who, you need to have a search warrant.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| This isn't about identifying a particular user, it's about
| showing that Frontier does nothing to quell piracy by its users
| and thus provides an incentive to pirates to use their network.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Wow i didnt realize frontier is so based
| favourable wrote:
| > IP addr is not a person
|
| And most IPV4 addresses are vague and only give a coarse
| location of where you are, and they're typically shared among
| many others so an IP is not a guaranteed signal that it was
| 'you' who pirated stuff.
| declaredapple wrote:
| > And most IPV4 addresses are vague and only give a coarse
| location of where you are
|
| That's not true, you can request/compel Frontier to tell you
| what specific customer that IP was assigned to at a given
| time.
|
| > and they're typically shared among many others so an IP is
| not a guaranteed signal that it was 'you' who pirated stuff.
|
| Most residential ISPs in the states have 1 ipv4 (and possibly
| ipv6) assigned per customer and don't CGNAT, from my brief
| research Frontier doesn't seem to use CGNAT at least for
| residential internet.
| rpmisms wrote:
| The FBI contacted me over a shitpost on Reddit using this
| exact process. Hilarious, but also very concerning.
| delichon wrote:
| Was there plausibly a threat in it?
|
| If it took the visit to realize that you're not very
| anonymous on the internet, you owe them for the lesson.
| notpushkin wrote:
| > to tell you what specific customer that IP was assigned
| to at a given time
|
| Provided they keep such logs (which they probably
| shouldn't, unless required by law).
| declaredapple wrote:
| For security purposes you should of course assume they do
| indefinitely. In practice I'm pretty sure every US ISP
| does, at least on the timescale of 30d+. I don't think
| the US officially has a retention requirement but I think
| Canada does.
|
| Comcast is 180 days - https://www.xfinity.com/-/media/423
| 1839e374c4f618b2d34004d50...
|
| I could not find a specific number for Frontier - https:/
| /content.frontier.com/-/jssmedia/documents/corporate/...
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Voltage Holdings and Screen Media Ventures cited Reddit posts
| in which users say that Frontier didn't terminate their Internet
| service despite sending many copyright infringement notices about
| torrent downloads. One of the users wrote, "I got a total of 44
| emails from frontier about downloading torrents and that it could
| terminate service. They haven't yet. And I kinda feel like if
| they didn't do it after 44 emails. That they won't... ."
|
| Don't they just want to file a lawsuit against Frontier? What is
| Reddit's involvement other than their website being used for this
| communication?
| VoidWhisperer wrote:
| My understanding is that the users in question were talking
| about piracy or committing piracy on reddit and the movie
| companies want to get the IPs of those users from reddit in
| order to prove that Frontier isnt terminating people committing
| piracy.
|
| Alternatively, depending on how large the list of users they
| requested IPs for from reddit is, it could be a fishing
| expedition to see if any of them happen to belong to frontier
| imoverclocked wrote:
| It would be interesting to know if an admission to pirating
| content on Reddit is actually admissible. I would think it
| falls under free speech.
|
| Eg: someone makes a parody of an old Monty Python song and
| states, "I'm a pirate and that's ok."
|
| Should this count in an age where the vast majority of legal
| notices in this genre are robo-lawyers? Should my internet
| connection be severed because a guest was bored and posted to
| Reddit while at my house?
| Drakim wrote:
| At some point in my life I committed a crime.
|
| Here's to hoping that's not enough to have me subpoenaed.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| I think I get your point but being free speech and being an
| admission of a crime are not mutually exclusive.
| al_borland wrote:
| IANAL, but I think free speech is about being jailed for
| what you say. This is more about admitting to an action
| that allegedly performed. The speech isn't the problem,
| it's the action the speech is talking about.
|
| I think they'd have a hard time moving forward on that
| alone. They need some kind of proof, which is what I think
| they were trying to get. All they can prove is that the
| person said they got 44 emails, the person could be lying.
| There is no law against lying on an internet message board.
| thfuran wrote:
| >I would think it falls under free speech.
|
| Yes, admitting to committing a crime is not in and of
| itself illegal. It does, however, make it a lot more likely
| you'll be tried and convicted for the crime you admitted to
| committing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just because the words came out of my mouth or from my
| finger tips typed into this little text area does not
| actually mean I did the thing I'm "admitting". I could be
| saying it for the clout. I could have said it but forgot
| the /s. I could be an actor performing the dialog.
| Where's the witness I actually typed it? Even if there is
| video, it's all fake news from an AI deep fake. Believe
| none of what your read or hear, and only half of what you
| see. Or some such.
| thfuran wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody (in the us) is
| shipping people straight to prison on the basis of public
| admissions of guilt. You still shouldn't publicly admit
| to a crime.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just pointing out how ridiculous some post on a forum
| being used as evidence sounds.
| thfuran wrote:
| The most ridiculous part was where you suggested that
| witness testimony was authoritative.
| gryn wrote:
| yes, but now it makes it easier to go look for the
| evidence on you specifically for the crime you claimed to
| commit.
|
| you know, instead of fishing in the large.
| naasking wrote:
| > It would be interesting to know if an admission to
| pirating content on Reddit is actually admissible.
|
| The problem here is tying the account to a real person.
| Technically anyone could be using that account, his
| daughter, brother, wife, etc., just like anyone could be
| behind the wheel of your car if it's used to commit a
| crime.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Technically anyone could be using that account
|
| Not just the account but the internet service as well.
| Even if they get the IP addresses for the reddit posts,
| and they're Frontier IPs, it's still possible that the
| person who wrote the post submitted it/logged in/created
| their account over a loved one's home network.
| k12sosse wrote:
| Just create an open wifi network and throttle it down to
| 1kbpm, plausible deniability!
| mox1 wrote:
| This is correct, the Reddit poster(s) in question were
| discussing how lax Frontier was about Copyright strikes. The
| movie company presumably wanted to have that person testify
| about said lax policy in court.
| saghm wrote:
| I suspect the conversations went something like this:
|
| Film industry lawyer: Tell us everyone who pirated our movies.
|
| Frontier lawyer: We've told you everyone we know of.
|
| Film industry lawyer: What about those people on reddit
| bragging about getting away with it?
|
| Frontier lawyer: We don't have any way of knowing if those are
| actual customers, let alone if they're telling the truth. If
| you have a specific IP you want us to look into, we'd be happy
| to help.
|
| (later)
|
| Film industry lawyer: Give us the IPs of these users who made
| comments bragging about getting away with pirating.
|
| Reddit lawyer: No.
|
| Film industry lawyer: Okay, see you in court.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I'm kind of surprised Reddit didn't just cooperate? As a for-
| profit company (which frankly has been acting with particular
| contempt for users as of late), what is in it for Reddit?
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| People like their anonymity on Reddit. Every action reddit
| takes to make it less anonymous looks really bad. That kind
| of thing scares people and reddit already has some PR
| problems.
| kossTKR wrote:
| If word spread that Reddit would name people writing
| specific comments about various "controversial" topics i
| think millions would flee?
|
| The entire spirit of Reddit is because of anonymity, from
| askreddit, to intimate questions, to political talk. Also
| there's lots of lying, fantasy, larping and fiction.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| On the flip side, what's in it for them if they cooperate?
| There's no profit involved with procuring information for
| another for-profit entity that they have no business
| relationship with, and then likely having to show up for
| some other court battle to testify about the accuracy of
| the data.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > On the flip side, what's in it for them if they
| cooperate?
|
| My thinking was, cooperating would mean they don't have
| to go to court, which costs money...
|
| > and then likely having to show up for some other court
| battle to testify about the accuracy of the data.
|
| ...but I suppose that could potentially cancel out the
| savings. However, presumably testifying costs less money
| than being sued?
| bithaze wrote:
| > What is Reddit's involvement other than their website being
| used for this communication?
|
| I think that's it, which is why reddit is referred to as non-
| party in the motion.
| bawolff wrote:
| > Firms wanted seven years' worth of IP address logs on users who
| discussed piracy.
|
| Does that mean reddit stores ip addresses for 7 years? That seems
| excessive.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I think it's basically for the entire account history.
|
| You can verify this using the data request feature.
| Arrath wrote:
| What the lawyers wanted may be very different from what reddit
| actually keeps.
| vdfs wrote:
| Right,I bet reddit hold data for more than 7 years
| mysteria wrote:
| I suppose it's possible the poster's IP is stored in the post
| metadata itself, along with the date, username, and so forth.
| Don't know if that's how Reddit works but in that case it'll be
| retained forever.
|
| As for the reason for 7 years worth of data, I think that's
| because the firm wants to go back and search for infringing
| acitivity on all those IP addresses due to dynamic IP updates
| and so forth. If the user is still active on Reddit the more
| recent IP addresses probably are enough to identify him if a
| warrant is served to the ISP. The ISPs I know only retain a
| link from a dynamic IP to a subscriber for one to two years
| max.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Yeah that's why it's good to start a new reddit account every
| year and delete the old one. As well as VPN, regularly
| changing mac address on your router etc.
| whycome wrote:
| I wonder how many years HN stores IP information?
| guerrilla wrote:
| e-mail dang and let us know how it goes.
| ipaddr wrote:
| This lawsuit is a big ad for Frontier. I'm going to see what
| services they offer.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| It makes me miss the pre-acquisition-by-akamai days at Linode,
| particularly in the 2010s it was quite easy to simply respond
| with "thanks for letting me know, the user in question has been
| banned" and go right back to torrenting
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| lol, that's the kind of behavior that _does_ deserve legal
| consequences IMO, and I 'm very pro piracy.
| pyaamb wrote:
| username checks ou-oops. sorry, forgot this isn't reddit xD
| hypeatei wrote:
| Good. Piracy is the result of poor delivery or poor pricing
| models.
|
| It's very aggravating when lawyers are just thrown at a problem
| because corporations are too lazy to do the work.
| myself248 wrote:
| *alleged pirates
|
| right?
| pharmakom wrote:
| I assume the pirates are using Tor or a proxy anyway though?
| zahma wrote:
| It doesn't seem like the pirates who were described in the
| article were behind any kind of proxy, which is why the ISP
| Frontier repeatedly wrote them to desist. They were pirating on
| the clearnet without any obfuscation. Pretty dumb and easily
| the lowest hanging fruit for copyright enforcement.
|
| Using Tor for streaming or large downloads probably won't
| result in great quality or quick speeds. Using Tor for browsing
| and seeding on private torrent trackers is also typically
| banned for security reasons.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Well they don't need Reddit to see who is seeding. But
| posting to Reddit can easily be done through Tor or proxies.
| mondrian wrote:
| Btw doesn't increasing adoption of CGNAT [1] render useless these
| types of attempts to identify people based on IP address? A CGNAT
| IP address identifies multiple households.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Wouldn't ISPs keep logs of which IP:Port maps to which internal
| IP:Port at any given time?
|
| If not for law enforcement, at least so they can track you
| better and sell the data.
| mondrian wrote:
| Yeah that's true. You need the data from both the ISP and
| reddit, and correlate using timestamps from both sides.
| That's true of VPNs, too. If multiple people with the same
| external IP were browsing reddit around the same time, the
| argument in court would likely become about the accuracy of
| timestamps.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| This past week I've gotten two people banned from reddit (full
| site ban). I was curious if it was possible so I picked some
| comments that I didn't think deserved a ban. The comments were
| more jokes than anything. Nothing serious.
|
| Maybe Frontier should hire me.
| neilv wrote:
| A recurring revenue opportunity for Reddit would be to forget
| about the old defender of online freedom image, and sell data. :)
|
| "How much is it worth to your case, to know who the commenters on
| this thread are?"
|
| "What would you pay to filter hiring candidates for ideology,
| troublemaker tendencies, or bedroom kinks that bother your
| conservative Chairman?"
|
| "Your own actuaries can tell you how much money this individual
| vice data will save your insurance company, so let's split it."
|
| "Making your astroturfing more effective, and getting full credit
| in your org for shifting perceptions, would be easier if you
| could crunch individual voting behavior."
|
| "There's only so much censoring that bribed mods can do on the
| sub that keeps dumping on your brand. Seems like the private
| messages of your most influential critics would be useful to you.
| Oh, ha, I just pulled up the alts for one of them on my screen,
| and looks like they're secretly also an OnlyFans model."
|
| "Would your government or department like to subscribe to the
| Access Plan or the Fusion Plan?"
|
| Obvious idea: https://thenextweb.com/news/reddit-knows-your-dark-
| secrets
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'd _love_ to see them try this, and then to watch the
| international backlash, not to mention holy GDPR fire raining
| down on their heads.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-09 23:01 UTC)