Source : http://torrentfreak.com/this-is-how-we-catch-you-downloading/

Interesting read!

Written by enigmax on April 14, 2007

All over Europe thousands of people are being threatened with court action for allegedly sharing games like Dream Pinball 3D on P2P networks. Now, documents obtained by TorrentFreak show details of the anti-piracy company’s techniques for identifying alleged file-sharers on the internet and the gathering of claimed ‘forensic quality’ evidence for use in court cases.

Evidence

In March we reported in some detail about the case of 500 UK file-sharers being legally pursued following claims that they uploaded games from the German publisher ‘Zuxxez’ onto file-sharing networks.

Since then, many people have been in touch with the law firm who sent the threatening letters, demanding evidence that they actually did something. TorrentFreak has obtained copies of the latest letters and within the claimed evidence is a description of how the anti-piracy system used by Logistep AG (the company hired to track the alleged pirates) is supposed to work.

The cleverly named “File Sharing Monitor” is the system being used by Logistep to gather evidence against file-sharers. It is actually just a modified version of the Shareaza P2P application that is configured to search for infringing files, and collect the information from the hosts that share these files.

The “File Sharing Monitor” only targets Gnutella and eDonkey users, so it is still unclear how they track down BitTorrent users. Here is how it works:

1. The client connects to the P2P network, searches for sources of the infringing file, and collects the IP addresses that were gathered through the search.
2. The client requests to download (a piece of) the file from the host that was found through the search.
3. The filename, file size, IP-address, P2P protocol, P2P application, time, and the username are automatically inserted into a database, if the host permits the download.
4. This is the “best” part. The application does a WHOIS search for the ISP information and automatically sends an infringement letter to the ISP if needed.

The claim is that the “File Sharing Monitor” is totally foolproof and that it can provide forensic-quality information to a court in order that file-sharers be punished. The question remains whether an IP-address is sufficient evidence to sue a person for downloading copyrighted material. Recent cases suggest that the RIAA and the MPAA will need more evidence than that.

Here is the ‘evidence’ for the functioning of the Logistep system. You decide.

Be scared. Be very scared.!!! lol.... I dont care ....

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Do_P2P_Blocklists_Keep_you_Safe

^^^^^Also check this out

http://torrentfreak.com/do-p2p-blocklists-keep-you-safe/




Do P2P Blocklists Keep you Safe?
Written by Ernesto on April 15, 2007

Recent findings by researchers from the University of California, Riverside, show that 15% of the IPs people connect to on the Gnutella P2P network are blocked by blocklist applications such as PeerGuardian. Statistics like this do not prove anything about the effectiveness of these lists, however, according to an insider who worked for several anti-piracy organizations, blocklists significantly decrease the risk of getting caught by the MPAA or RIAA.

In a recently published paper, the researchers analyzed the results of a large scale experiment where they examined the number of hits they received from blocklisted IPs in a real P2P network. For a period of 90 days the researchers collected data using three differnet blocklists (PeerGuardian, Bluetack, and Trusty Files) on the Gnutella Network.

Their main conclusion: a user who is not using blocklist software is practically guaranteed to be monitored.

Other conclusions from their research are:

1. 5 blocklist ranges encountered during the experiments contribute to nearly 94% of all the blocklist hits.
2. Most blocklisted IPs belong to government or corporate organizations.
3. Very few blocklisted IPs belong directly to content providers such as record labels.

The researchers also note that the top 15 most encountered IPs operate from so called BOGON IP ranges, which can’t be traced back to a specific owner. This suggests that these sources deliberately want to stay anonymous, which could indicate that they are up to something.

The paper has some interesting findings, and does provide some insight into the workings of blocklists. However, it doesn’t say much about the accuracy and effectiveness of these blocklists.

In an attempt to find an answer, TorrentFreak asked an expert in the field, who worked with several anti-piracy organizations, how effective these lists are. His guess was that approximately 75 - 80% of IPs used by the anti-piracy companies he worked with are on these blocklists. This means that they offer some protection, but that they’re not foolproof.

The cat-and-mouse game between anti-piracy organizations and blocklist managers such as Bluetack will probably continue for a while.