[WXC/VFX] The Torrent plan and what it's done...

Forums › One New Zealand (including Vodafone, WxC, Farmside) › [WXC/VFX] The Torrent plan and what it's done...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 23

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#167574 28-Sep-2008 14:48

Last night I was watching the Singapore F1 practise through a stream from Justin.tv and it was going really well... Then just as the prac was about to finish it started dropping out. I left that stream running after the F1 finished and watched the performance drop through the floor, then for a laugh changed my default gateway to a Go Large connection I have here... Well, the graph says it all. We all know this but this is a very clear graphical representation of what happens at midnight.

Go Large (which many consider to be the worst performing Broadband product) performed WAY better than Xnets best ADSL product in this case, for me.

All the torrenters turn on and Xnet becomes virtually unusable for anyone else. In my opinion of course.

Ouch.

Cheers - N

ps. The F1 practise isn't broadcast in NZ at all. I do pay for Sky and recorded the Qual to watch this morning.

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#167650 29-Sep-2008 00:02

Not suprised at all...

It's funny because the default recommended connection settings in utorrent (the most popular bit torrent client) is for 280 connections for a xxx/1mbit connection.

Your 1-2 connections for the F1 doesn't stand a chance against a huge number of xnet customers opening up 200+ connections at midnight.

I think I'll link it again because anyone commenting on this issue really needs to have read this to understand the problem: Fixing the unfairness of TCP congestion control

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167731 29-Sep-2008 12:33

freitasm:
JayADee: Hey, I hadn't heard the usenet server idea before. That's a good one. That would solve a few problems I think. Certainly it would free up the international bandwidth. Shouldn't cost too much either, I wouldn't think.

Bad idea. The new Copyright law requires ISPs to remove material from their servers when they know they are illegaly hosted. This includes newsservers. This wouldn't last a second in the network.

Is this a New Zealand or international law? Does this only refer to the ISP`s own servers or any news servers on the network? There are countless news servers on the internet, they charge for their service and they don`t seem to have any trouble.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#167733 29-Sep-2008 12:40

This is coming into force with the new New Zealand Copyright Act and has been discussed a lot in the last 18 months - including the TVNZ/InternetNZ ICT debate live last week.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167755 29-Sep-2008 14:40

Ok guys bear with me, I`m quoting the relevant section of the copyright law. As far as I can tell, this is the part that relates to news servers. But only the ISP`s own news servers. The ISP is only responsible for the material stored on its own servers. It doesn`t relate to third party news servers. An ISP has no right to remove material from a third party news server, it`s none of its business.

“92C Internet service provider liability for storing infringing material

*

“(1) This section applies if—
o

“(a) an Internet service provider stores material provided by a user of the service; and
o

“(b) the material infringes copyright in a work (other than as a result of any modification by the Internet service provider).

“(2) The Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in the work by storing the material unless—
o

“(a) the Internet service provider—
+

“(i) knows or has reason to believe that the material infringes copyright in the work; and
+

“(ii) does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
o

“(b) the user of the service who provided the material is acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Internet service provider.

“(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.

“(4) An Internet service provider who deletes a user’s material or prevents access to it because the Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that it infringes copyright in a work must, as soon as possible, give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.

“(5) Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167758 29-Sep-2008 14:49

Also I`ll add that with regards to third party news servers, all an ISP can and must do is remove ISP user accounts if they find out that someone has been downloading or uploading copyrighted material. The same as with torrents. But they cannot hold the news server liable.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#167789 29-Sep-2008 17:38

Non persistent aka temporary in memory cache (on say a server with 32gb of memory) just caching high demand torrent data would do the trick of vastly reducing international bandwidth and probably sneak in under the law as you're not storing anything.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

insane

3240 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#167871 30-Sep-2008 00:08

attilathegorilla: Ok guys bear with me, I`m quoting the relevant section of the copyright law. As far as I can tell, this is the part that relates to news servers. But only the ISP`s own news servers. The ISP is only responsible for the material stored on its own servers. It doesn`t relate to third party news servers. An ISP has no right to remove material from a third party news server, it`s none of its business.

Thats interesting..... then why was I was handed a real search warrant for info for a customer of a customer of a customer only last week....

I guess it depends on what the exact issue in question is, but you can just hide behind the ISP .... as they will happily tell the cops who they should be following up with..

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167877 30-Sep-2008 00:46

The police will be interested in people who distribute or profiteer from copyrighted materials. But they can have nothing against third party news servers, those are completely legal. Do u even know what a news server is? Try not to make irrelevant comments.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#167884 30-Sep-2008 03:42

attilathegorilla: The police will be interested in people who distribute or profiteer from copyrighted materials. But they can have nothing against third party news servers, those are completely legal. Do u even know what a news server is? Try not to make irrelevant comments.

It seemed to me there was a clear implication in the comments about the news server that it would be WorldxChange's own news server, hosted on their network. The saving international bandwidth comments don't make any sense if it was a third party news server (unless it was a New Zealand based third party server, which would be subject to the same copyright laws anyway!). Thus arguably, although it would have to be proven by case law, WxC would be liable for the content hosted on their news server if it featured copyrighted material.

All that said, news servers for pretty much every ISP are far more trouble than they're worth, and NNTP is a terrible way of moving large amounts of data.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167894 30-Sep-2008 08:10

PenultimateHop:
attilathegorilla: The police will be interested in people who distribute or profiteer from copyrighted materials. But they can have nothing against third party news servers, those are completely legal. Do u even know what a news server is? Try not to make irrelevant comments.

It seemed to me there was a clear implication in the comments about the news server that it would be WorldxChange's own news server, hosted on their network. The saving international bandwidth comments don't make any sense if it was a third party news server (unless it was a New Zealand based third party server, which would be subject to the same copyright laws anyway!). Thus arguably, although it would have to be proven by case law, WxC would be liable for the content hosted on their news server if it featured copyrighted material.

All that said, news servers for pretty much every ISP are far more trouble than they're worth, and NNTP is a terrible way of moving large amounts of data.

Of course we`re talking about a New Zealand based third party news server. Someone brought it up early in the thread as a way to save international bandwidth and it was dismissed. Third party news servers are NOT subject to the same copyright laws as an ISP`s own servers. Read the law.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#167904 30-Sep-2008 08:58

Actually the definition of "ISP" is quite broad under the new law - so broad that a lawyer could claim a blog is an "ISP". The new definition is almost like "anyone who provides access to content".

I've been to some ICT Forums and there is a lot of debate on this point.

Also ISP are exempt of these rules when it comes to cache, but any permanent storage is controlled.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167921 30-Sep-2008 09:55

freitasm: Actually the definition of "ISP" is quite broad under the new law - so broad that a lawyer could claim a blog is an "ISP". The new definition is almost like "anyone who provides access to content".

I've been to some ICT Forums and there is a lot of debate on this point.

Also ISP are exempt of these rules when it comes to cache, but any permanent storage is controlled.

Could u please show me exactly where and how Internet Service Provider is defined in the law? If what u say is true, then New Zealand copyright law is much more intrusive and limiting than the US for example, where news servers are thriving. A bit of an overkill, considering the small size of the country.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#167928 30-Sep-2008 10:06

This is all offtopic and a bit bizarre.

Do you really think ISPs are interested in deliberately (and officially) hosting pirated material for customers to download?

Even hiding behind the justification of doing something as a "cache", we all know what it's advocating, and anyone claiming that it's for non-infringing use needs a reality check.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#167934 30-Sep-2008 10:20

Not quite off topic, because a NZ based news server could greatly improve international speeds for non-leechers.

And u, like other posters before you, don`t seem to be able to grasp an important point: We`re not talking about ISP`s hosting copyrighted materials. We`re talking about third party news servers for sharing news and non-copyrighted binaries.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 23