http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9025/ballsu.jpg

Yeah I read about tribler a week ago on news.com.au

although for some reason I remembered it and have been telling people it's called "gerbil" f***en woops

It removes the public tracker altogether so that's one avenue that they cannot use to find out who is requesting what files.

Someone will come up with a way to prevent IP addresses being seen and that will be the end of the road for these Media Empires. Its so stupid, instead of lowering prices and selling more they want to try to destroy the Internet which just makes potential consumers angry and drives more ppl to find better ways to pirate.

Was reading about why movies take so long to get here, Its to do with American Cinemas and 35mm film transfers. Apprantally America is the only Country that uses 35mm or something and it takes time/money to transfer originals to tape thats compatible overseas.

But releasing a film simultaneously poses its own challenges.

We may be in a digital age but the vast majority of US and international cinemas still use 35mm film reels - a technology more than a century old that is costing studios a small fortune.

On average, distribution takes up 3.5 per cent of movie budgets, costing studios between US$750-$1200 ($701- $1121) per film print.

Fewer than 1000 US and 100 international cinemas use digital screening technology.

To save on cost, distributors frequently reuse film reels from theatre to theatre - causing lags between releases.

A shortage of international theatres and the inability of actors to be everywhere at once to promote films also contribute to problems film studios experience staging a global film debut.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/study-states-obvious-people-pirate-films-because-they-have-no-other-legal-options/story-e6frfro0-1226269979142

stuff like this doesnt help...
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/whitney-houston-fans-express-anger-over-album-price-hike/story-e6frfmqi-1226270701223

The singer's Ultimate Collection went from £4.99 ($7.32) to £7.99 ($11.73) soon after the news of her death broke, however it has now returned to its original price, according to British newspaper The Telegraph.

Angry fans took to Twitter to express their outrage, describing the price hike as "greedy" and a "disgrace".

Sony and Apple declined to comment to the newspaper.

hard to say they are helping the artist there.

No that's not it at all. The point is that nobody (less than 1000 cinemas in the world) uses digital media / tapes in cinemas. So their system is to make expensive 35mm prints, and then once they're played out in America, they send them to the UK and Australia, by which time they're already covered in the dust and scratches everyone is familiar with, then once we're done with them they go to asia or africa, etc...

WOW That just does my f*****g head in....

But thinking about it and how there are different 'PAL' regions it makes complete sence now. F*** that pisses me off.

I remember seeing movies in the late 90s ... opening day (so it hadn't been shown before) and every now and then a frame would have a bit of dust or a line (human hair etc) on it... what you've said here explains that!

Grrr!!! Stupid moron film companies, what do they expect when they arn't digital yet...

what's their excuse for delayed tv shows?

Someone will come up with a way to prevent IP addresses being seen and that will be the end of the road for these Media Empires.

Well, no - you can't connect to a remote host and hide your IP address or anything. This means that all p2p networks are subsequently flawed, in the sense that you can just connect to a network, sit on it for a bit, and collect IP addresses of peers that are swapping copyrighted materials.

What people have done to work around this is to make it so that the peers you're downloading from are not, technically the person that is sending you the file. For example, you have three peers - A, B, and Z. Z wants to download a file from A, but wants to be hidden from A, so the requests go to B. B takes the information from A and forwards it on to Z.

A and Z are completely oblivious to each other, from a network point of view. For anyone to know who is involved in the transfer, they need to be in control of B. This model is extrapolated out over a number of different peers, so you end up having a bunch of things between A and Z - A, B, C, D, E, etc - and the traffic is just handed from one to another until it gets to its destination.

The obvious disadvantage is that you lose a lot of speed with each extra node. This is one of the tradeoffs though of privacy.

This has been implemented a few ways in software; the one I've looked at the most is called MUTE. Here's a great readable explanation of how it works: http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/howPrivacy.shtml (not too technical)

FreeNet is a similar network: https://freenetproject.org/ though it is more about publishing anonymously for people in precarious political positions (alliteration bonus).

I've used both of these very briefly and found them almost unusably slow for anything but if you have unlimited spare time then it might be worth a look. I haven't looked too closely at their network stuff so I am not making any personal guarantees that you'll be completely anonymous when using them, but to the best of my knowledge this is the only way you're going to get any sort of reliable anonymity when doing stuff online involving p2p connections.

I stopped using Daemon Tools yonks ago when it stopped reading isos for some reason. Magic Disk all the way!

cheggit shut down the other day. i was devastated.

Its impossible ?

Yes (...to the best of my knowledge). When you connect to some network service to transfer data via most protocols, the other end knows who you are. There are some little exceptions to this (spoofing) but for the purposes of p2p file transfer - or any other service where you are trying to send or receive specific information that you want, then whoever you are connected to will know about it.

Im sure there are some working on a way around it.

There are, but it is all the sorts of things I mentioned above - misdirection via third parties. VPNs, proxies, and intermediary peers.

If you want to torrent anonymously torrent over TOR... Apparently.

TOR is supposed to be used for other seedy stuff, and also for the less fortunate areas that are governed by d****.

In short - trog says don't use TOR for BitTorrent, because it is no guarantee that you're safe and it wastes the bandwidth of the TOR network which is otherwise being put to good purpose by people who really need it to literally not get killed by their crappy government or their retarded religious countrymen.

That's a great point.

You know what?

Back in the early 90s some people made the great point that images on the internet were overloading shared bandwidth when text was sufficient. And they were right. Images took too long to download, and lynx was super fast and all you needed. The people that were wrong went on and formed Netscape.

A few years later some people made the great point that since IRC servers were a free public service sending text messages between people it shouldn't be abused by others to avoid paying for international phone calls by sending voice over those services and overloading them. And they were right. The people that were wrong went on and formed Skype.

And some people had the great point that a client sharing tool that lets gumbie users easily index and share their pc's music with other users is a mistake because it will be considered a violation of copyright law and would be targetted by the Music industry. And they were right. The people that were wrong went on and formed Napster.

And some people had the great point that our personal information should be kept private, and that exposing it to one company is a risk and no one in their right mind would upload their real identity to some website because that's too easily open to abuse. And they were right. The people that were wrong went on and formed Facebook.

And just last year some people made the great point that you couldn't host other people's purchased music and stream it back to them on any device because that's a copyright violation. And they were right. The people that were wrong are Google, Amazon and Apple.

There's been many more examples in just the 20 years I've been on the internet of what's clearly the right thing and so no one should do it, being smashed by someone coming along and doing the exact wrong thing, making millions of dollars and in many cases, in a short amount of time, it being considered the norm - and looking back on it and saying 'why didn't I do that?'

Oh I know, because I knew it was wrong. I get to be morally superior and not a millionaire.

Maybe in ten years time pumping huge amounts of torrent traffic through TOR will be seen to have made it safer to use as organisations setting up TOR nodes specifically to monitor and capture information that other people want to keep secret/anonymous wouldn't find it worth while.

Retarded nonsensical rant of the week goes to nats.

But he'll have the last laugh when he's made millions of dollars from the enterprising business of routing torrent traffic through Tor... ?

its unrealistic to expect people with no accountability to not abuse the Tor system for personal gain.

There is no personal gain. As per my link above, it is not anonymous, and it is slower. Why would you bother?

If Tor can't handle torrents then its not built well enough

I can't fill an Olympic size swimming pool in ten minutes from a garden hose. It's not built well enough!

That is not what Tor is for. If you want to do anonymous file sharing, use one of the two services I linked above that are specifically designed for it!

edit; I am not trying to be a d*** by telling you what to do - I'm just trying to make sure people know the difference between really anonymous p2p file transfer, and stuff that isn't

What's to stop someone from developing a client that integrates the process of sharing encrypted archives with obfuscated file names and via the regular bittorrent protocol and then distribute the encryption keys and file name search functionality via Tor?

What's to stop someone from developing a client that integrates the process of sharing encrypted archives with obfuscated file names and via the regular bittorrent protocol and then distribute the encryption keys and file name search functionality via Tor?

At the end of the day, the "security" in that model still relies too much on obscurity - a malicious user (i.e., a media company representative) can get a hold of all that stuff and then just collect all the IP addresses that it downloads chunks from.

For true anonymity you really need that "untraceable" intermediary step offered by MUTE etc. Unfortunately that relies on the assumption that people running MUTE (and Tor exit nodes, for that matter) are not liable for content that passes through it. I suspect if MUTE became widespread, you would quickly see laws passed that made people liable for the content that passes through their nodes, which would shut it down quite effectively.

Hopefully free speech is a little more important though - I suspect it would be hard to get those laws passed in the US, for example, where free speech and anonymous speech are protected by the constitution. So that's some good news.