Essentially a VPN provider is just someone who owns a bunch of servers somewhere. They have an ISP the same as you and me. So how do they themselves avoid DMCA notices and other nonsense? Why wouldn’t their ISP shut them down for hosting thousands of “illegal” transfers. I haven’t been able to find an answer anywhere, am I missing something?
You don’t understand how the DMCA works. If a copyright holder notices someone downloading content, they reverse lookup the IP and send a notice to whoever hosts that public IP. The hosting company (which could be an ISP or a VPN service) is required to forward that notice to the customer who was using that IP address at the time of the violation.
If the VPN company doesn’t keep logs then they have no idea which of their customers used which IP address, so they can’t forward the notice, and that’s the end of it
They’re all just compiling data and waiting to hit us all with the biggest class action lawsuit against common people in history. We’re fucked.
AS9009 doesn’t care, no jurisdiction. However I can imagine they get to end up in court, simply because they don’t work together or try to avoid copyright notices. BREIN or ACE might sue them lol. Either way , they’ll forward it to the offshore vpn (server owner/renter) and throw it in the bin. I guess that’s what happens or will happen. Generally LE will give up because going after these companies costs more money , not worth it for putting a small fish in prison. Bigger fish in the sea.
-
They do receive all the same. However if they’re outside of US jurisdiction, they may ignore them until one comes from the local jurisdiction.
-
They are not targeted. These notices are in most cases a profitable enterprise, it is far easier and profitable to go after home users, therefore data center clients can be excluded completely from email notifications.
The VPNs will be tackled within this decade. Prepare ahead of time.
I guess I don’t understand why they wouldn’t go after the VPN companies and throttle transfers that way. Why bother going after millions of us when they could reduce transfers drastically by taking down maybe a dozen VPN providers.
Also, assuming the trail runs cold at the VPN provider since they don’t keep logs, why wouldn’t the lawyers just blame.thr VPN provider and take them down instead?
Honestly after the last year and a half of stupidity I fear you may be right
There’s no law (yet) that requires any VPN provider to keep logs
Edit: here’s a case where the FBI tested the no log policy
They don’t have any legal basis to do that.
Because they probably also own the VPN providers, ROFLMAO.
They gotta make sure they plug all the holes in their revenue streams right?
What stupidity?
My ISP generously upgraded everyone in my area to a 1Gbps connections for nearly 6 months for free.
Torrents were coming through at almost 100 Megabytes per second for me!
This is brilliant. Now, the MPA will certainly catch me and fry my balls to get their money back.
The internet is new grounds, it’s a global community YET there are no global standards for a lot of area(s)/domains involving regulation and country legalities. Weirdly enough, in the US, laws can vary state-to-state with this.
Hence why there’s a lot of VPNs in specific EU countries and the British Islands. Also, law enforcement for X country (let’s go with FBI) doesn’t have authority over VPNs hosted by other countries.
I do recall there being some PACT involving 11 countries for internet regulation though. I know the US and Australia fall into this.
The internet is so volatile, vast, a global-collective, as well as young that a lot of things have been left unchecked. It’s FAR more powerful and influential than we give credit (and we already do give it a lot of credit).
e-commerce, servers + data, communications, digital infastructure // infastructure for so many businesses, social interaction, education, communities, research, development, and much more are heavily tied to the network. Were it to collapse so much would go wrong.
Mr Robot paints one future outcome of collapse if it did occur.
They can sue grandmother’s and children for downloading songs for upwards of $250k but not the services that allow them to do so “anonymously”?
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but I actually think your first comment was onto something.
Well, if a VPN can’t produce a log and if a VPN is also partaking in legal activity, then, I don’t think a warrant would help these guys out.
Bundled streaming services have also reduced piracy rates in the first world.
The bigger question is why websites, which hitherto will go unnamed, that directly host links to pirated content in the US haven’t been taken down.
Section 230 is a section of the United States Communications Decency Act that generally provides immunity for website platforms from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Conservatives crying about Section 230 when it’s the one thing keeping them online and able to post all the stuff they’re posting.
Damn. Am I supposed to start appreciating the courts now?