mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Limitations for DCC #30933 19/06/03 07:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
/me hears starbuck's wheels grunding for a rebutly--either that or he is still typing in which case this could be a doozy >:\


-KingTomato
Re: Limitations for DCC #30934 19/06/03 08:00 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
T
The_Game Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
No biggie upon starting this thread I was prepared for major criticism on both positive and negative aspects...Although I would like to know where Khaled stands on the issue as well....

Re: Limitations for DCC #30935 19/06/03 08:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 169
J
Jerk Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
J
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 169
Quote:
Like I had said, even if it puts a damper on some of the file sharing, that is better than nothing. Say currently there are 1 milion ppl sharing illigal files (i knows it more, but nice round figure).


Stats from netsplit.de active: 457 networks, 1269933 users, and 613729 channels on 4460 servers. I sure hope 1 million of them aren't currently filesharing. Thats ~ 78% of irc users unless you mean 1 million people sharing by any means (irc, p2p, etc)

Codemastr: Instead of limiting /fsend and /dcc packetsize why not disable DCC for unregistered copies all together. Or make it impossible to change the dcc ignore options on unregistered copies of mIRC. Then ignore all executables and compressed file formats by default.

To truly make a dent you have to have networks (large and small) make the effort to eliminate it. Unfortunately there are too many admins that get off on their user stats. They don't want to deal with it because doing so will squash their numbers.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30936 19/06/03 08:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
Yes that was an all around figure. Anyways, netsplit im sure does not cover private networks, ip netowrks, and for that matter every irc online--that is simply a ballpark number.


-KingTomato
Re: Limitations for DCC #30937 20/06/03 12:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Avert your eyes, long depressing post incoming.

- Anything involving mIRC being required to be registered is moot as I see it - I'm sure nobody here needs telling that cracks and keygens for mIRC and damn near every program which requires registering are freely available online. Anyone involved in filesharing would very easily be able to find these things. Conversely, people who would have used their unregistered mIRC to transfer legal files would likely find it harder to get one of these things since there's a lower chance that they would know where to get them - or of course they might choose not to use a crack or keygen even if it were available to them.
Main people hurt here: Legal users.

- Filesize limitations can very easily be gotten round as I explained earlier. It would probably take 5-15mins to rar and volume a 1gb file at regular compression on the average modern PC. It only has to be done once, then it just gets passed around and stored in that form, each receiver only decompressing it once, no big deal for them. On the other hand a regular user wanting to compress a legal 1gb will probably rar and volume it in the same time, then delete the volumes once it's finished sending to save space and because they don't expect to send it again soon. Then maybe a week later they find they want to send it again, another 15mins spent compressing. So the legal user ends up wasting the 15mins evading the limitation every time he sends the file, whereas the illegal file was only compressed once, and then extracted once for each user who downloaded it.
Main people hurt here: Legal users.

- Filetype limitations: /rename, need I say more?

Then of course there's the question of whether mIRC preventing or hindering filesharing is actually helpful to anyone. If mIRC removed DCC send will warez on IRC stop? No. Will it be slowed down? For maybe 5 mins while they're downloading new clients and scripts.
So now lets say everyone is using different clients, webscripts, old versions, and mIRC scripts to use DCC:
- The same amount of files are being sent so the copyright holders aren't better off and the IRC servers and ISPs aren't better off from a bandwidth standpoint.
- mIRC in and of itself wasn't being harmed by the fact that it was being used instead of some other client - Khaled isn't better off, possibly worse off in the rare case where a warezmonkey would have actually registered.
- The questions on this forum, on IRC, and in emails to Khaled won't go down. If anything they'll go up from people asking where DCC has gone, or asking/demanding that it be put back in - nobody is better off here either.

Compare this to what happens if an IRC server with competent staff choose to stop filesharing channels. Any significant gathering of filesharers in a channel can be dispersed/removed within an hour or two. The filesharers might have made arrangements on where to go next, but once they've been 'chased out of town' half a dozen times then I'm sure the majority will get tired of it. They'll either go to servers which don't care about filesharing or they'll use a different protocol. Not exactly a solution to the problem of filesharing in general but at least they're off decent IRC servers which have chosen to be about chatting - WITHOUT stopping legitimate users from sending the occasional file. OK so the server then becomes at risk from revenge attacks, but quite frankly attacks are a part of IRC and usually the strength of the attack will be proportionate to the size of the server and it's userbase, so it has a good chance of surviving the attacks. It also requires that the server has good staff, but then again a server without good staff has little chance of surviving for long anyway. Well it's hardly ideal but it seems to me to be a damn sight more disruptive to filesharing than anything that any IRC client could come up with.

Sorry to be the doomsayer but this is just the way I see the situation. As for anything that doesn't make sense I put forth the excuse that it's now 1am here.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: Limitations for DCC #30938 20/06/03 02:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Stats from netsplit.de active: 457 networks, 1269933 users, and 613729 channels on 4460 servers. I sure hope 1 million of them aren't currently filesharing. Thats ~ 78% of irc users unless you mean 1 million people sharing by any means (irc, p2p, etc)

Thats really a meaningless figure. EFnet claims to have over a million users alone. Netsplit.de is saying there are 1.2million on at the same time that doesn't really prove anything seeing as how there could be 30 million IRC users that aren't online at the time that statistic was taken. And as for my own personal opinion, I'd venture to say 78% of IRC users engage in filesharing is an underestimate.

Quote:
Codemastr: Instead of limiting /fsend and /dcc packetsize why not disable DCC for unregistered copies all together. Or make it impossible to change the dcc ignore options on unregistered copies of mIRC. Then ignore all executables and compressed file formats by default.
Well what I'm suggesting is that mIRC prevent the "bad guys" from doing stuff, but not the good guys. DCC has several valid purposes. Not everyone who uses DCC uses it to share illegal files. If it were disabled in the unregistered version I'd change what you said slightly, "DCC stops functioning in the unregistered version after the 30 day trial period has expired." Meaning people who are using the unregistered version legally should not be punished because of some idiots who want to trade illegal files.

Quote:
To truly make a dent you have to have networks (large and small) make the effort to eliminate it. Unfortunately there are too many admins that get off on their user stats. They don't want to deal with it because doing so will squash their numbers

Well, there are several things we (as users) can do to try and get that goal. First off, don't use networks that allow/support warez. If you use such a network, you really can't complain because you are supporting their actions. Instead email the admins and tell them you will not use their network due to their supporting of warez. mIRC could also play a role in hurting such things "networks that allow warez will NOT be listed in the mIRC server list". You have any idea how much that could hurt networks? I'm sure they'd consider changing their policies (at least maybe limit warez) if such a result might occur. We can also make a "black list" a list of networks that support illegal activities and we can encourage people not to use such networks. Tools are available to networks to help them limit/stop warez trading, it's just a matter of whether they want to do it.

We might not be able to stop warez, but maybe we can slow it down.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30939 20/06/03 06:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 169
J
Jerk Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
J
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 169
Quote:
Thats really a meaningless figure. EFnet claims to have over a million users alone. Netsplit.de is saying there are 1.2million on at the same time that doesn't really prove anything seeing as how there could be 30 million IRC users that aren't online at the time that statistic was taken

Good point. I take it back blush

Quote:
If it were disabled in the unregistered version I'd change what you said slightly, "DCC stops functioning in the unregistered version after the 30 day trial period has expired."

That sounds good.

Quote:
Well, there are several things we (as users) can do to try and get that goal. First off, don't use networks that allow/support warez. If you use such a network, you really can't complain because you are supporting their actions. Instead email the admins and tell them you will not use their network due to their supporting of warez.


I'm not sure that users quitting or emailing admins is going to work. Not enough people care. You said you believe that over 78% are filesharing. Will a network sacrifice 78% of it's users to keep 22% from leaving?

Quote:
mIRC could also play a role in hurting such things "networks that allow warez will NOT be listed in the mIRC server list"


I am definately for blacklisting warez allowing networks and excluding them from the server list.

Quote:
Tools are available to networks to help them limit/stop warez trading, it's just a matter of whether they want to do it.

I totally agree. It's not like it's hard to find warez channels and shut them down. Some networks are unwilling because they don't want to hurt their user stats or they fear some sort of retaliation.

I don't think it will be too long before some copyright group sues a server/admin over warez. It shouldn't be to hard to prove that the network had full knowledge of the warez channels and did nothing to stop it. And the network can't claim they thought #big1000userwarezmoviechannel was for swapping legit cookie recipes. I can name a few networks that would have a real hard time making that defense considering that they'll completely shut down a channel if they mention they are moving to another network in their topic or in some autogreet.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30940 20/06/03 07:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
I'm not sure that users quitting or emailing admins is going to work. Not enough people care. You said you believe that over 78% are filesharing. Will a network sacrifice 78% of it's users to keep 22% from leaving?

You're probably right. But I'm not necessarily talking about EFnet changing their policy because 20 people say they don't like warez. That probably won't happen. However if 20 people tell the admins they'll leave if warez is allowed on a 100 user network, well then it might work. Granted thats not nearly as big an impact as stopping it on EFnet, but it certainly helps. If 50 of those 100 user networks stop warez, then it helps even more. We (as people who want IRC to be warez free) could even do things to make it worth their while to stop warez. For example I know a bunch of people who go here have websites, if we could get people to agree to do things like have a list of warez-free networks, it would give admins an incentive to stop warez. Meaning if you could have your network displayed on 50+ IRC related websites, in exchange for just stopping warez, you might consider it. Because while the network will lose some warez users, it stands to gain other "real" users. And I know admins like the high user counts, but I'm sure there are at least some out there who would rather give up 100-200 warez bots/users in exchange for getting 50-100 real users who actually join channels and chat.

Quote:

It's not like it's hard to find warez channels and shut them down. Some networks are unwilling because they don't want to hurt their user stats or they fear some sort of retaliation.

Not even just that, there are other things. For example XDCC clients; programs designed without chatting abilities that just connect to IRC servers to get files. One program is Bottler. All an admin has to do is add a special line to the MOTD file and all Bottler clients will auto disconnect. People can also contact the bottler people and ask to have their server removed from the list.


Re: Limitations for DCC #30941 20/06/03 07:32 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
P
ParaBrat Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
from
Khaled's FAQ
Question: How do you feel about the fact that some people use mIRC to distribute copyright/illegal material? or to harm others?
Answer: There is a common misconception that I'm able to prevent people from doing these things. That's not the case. I don't have or host any IRC networks, servers, or channels.
mIRC is only a client-side software that allows you to connect to public IRC networks around the world, in the same way that Internet Explorer allows you to connect to public websites around the world.
I'm not happy about the fact that some people use mIRC in a negative way, however mIRC is used by many people, there will always be a some people who use it in ways with which I don't agree.

``````````````````````
Brat general reply: while many valid points have been made, legit users would also be "punished" by any limitations made in mIRC. Not so legit users would find a way around them *grumble* I tend to agree with those who suggest networks need to take a bigger stand on file sharing channels/bots that exist just to fileshare. Many providers are taking steps to limit filesharing, that also helps.

Altho i have often been criticized for "lecturing" i think one thing we can do is educate the new users about the dangers of filesharing in the hopes they will use common sense. Will it stop them all? nope. Will anything? nope.




ParaBrat @#mIRCAide DALnet
Re: Limitations for DCC #30942 20/06/03 08:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
Quote:

Will anything? Nope.


No internet >:D


-KingTomato
Re: Limitations for DCC #30943 21/06/03 02:06 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
T
The_Game Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
Quote:

from
Khaled's FAQ
Question: How do you feel about the fact that some people use mIRC to distribute copyright/illegal material? or to harm others?
Answer: There is a common misconception that I'm able to prevent people from doing these things. That's not the case. I don't have or host any IRC networks, servers, or channels.
mIRC is only a client-side software that allows you to connect to public IRC networks around the world, in the same way that Internet Explorer allows you to connect to public websites around the world.
I'm not happy about the fact that some people use mIRC in a negative way, however mIRC is used by many people, there will always be a some people who use it in ways with which I don't agree.


I totally forgot about that. A small detail that I had obviously overlooked...my apologies!

Note*: I kinda like the Idea someone pointed out earlier, is to not let any network that has any filesharing channels not to be allowed on the server directory. Maybe if mIRC in general stands up to this idea rather than just talk about it, It might be taken as a wakeup call to other networks that condoning this sort of activity will not be tolerated. And only allow them if they get rid of those channels.

mIRC in my opinion has lead the way in providing a means to connect users to IRC for a number of years. You would think that by now there would be at least a little influence on users to rally against filesharing on IRC. The only people affected by this would be the porn peddlers and the media whores for not having anywhere on IRC to distribute their files. As I said before, this won't stop filesharing on the web as a whole, but it will slow them down on some parts of the web. IRC is supposed to stand for Internet Relay Chat not Illegal Re-distribution of Copyrighted material.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30944 21/06/03 06:55 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
P
ParaBrat Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
np, no need to apologize smile


ParaBrat @#mIRCAide DALnet
Re: Limitations for DCC #30945 21/06/03 05:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Brat general reply: while many valid points have been made, legit users would also be "punished" by any limitations made in mIRC. Not so legit users would find a way around them *grumble* I tend to agree with those who suggest networks need to take a bigger stand on file sharing channels/bots that exist just to fileshare. Many providers are taking steps to limit filesharing, that also helps.

How exactly would legitimate users be punished if some DCC features were disabled in illegal copies of mIRC? If you have such a copy, then you are not a legitimate user therefore it is someone who is breaking mIRC's license that is being punished, not "law abiding citizens".

Re: Limitations for DCC #30946 21/06/03 06:26 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 210
S
saxon Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 210
mIRC being such a popular program would be cracked in no time. The precaution would be very ineffective in curbing the use of mIRC as a filesharing platform. It may even have the reverse effect and encourage people to go download a cracked copy from a fileserver.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30947 21/06/03 06:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
If it stops 1 person I'd call it a success.

Re: Limitations for DCC #30948 21/06/03 07:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
Thats exactly the point i've been stressing all along. If one more person is prevented, it was worth it. Anyways it's not (or anything for that matter) going to stop every person.


-KingTomato
Re: Limitations for DCC #30949 21/06/03 07:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 204
K
keeker Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 204
If Yall REALLY REALLY REALLY want to stop filesharing, why not just put something into mirc that sends off an email to RIAA (for mp3's) or the FBI (for software) whenever someone dcc sends mp3's or exe's through mirc? problem solved. worst case scenario, RIAA gets flooded by all the email would come in and crashes....problem solved smile


<---NOTE: You can take this or what its worth. if it help's good, if it doesnt, sorry, it was just a joke, lighten your ass up man --->

oh btw, this wasnt meant for any one person, i just hit the last reply button i saw. smile


keek: Scots - intr.v. keeked, keekˇing, keeks
To peek; peep.
Its Not Up To mIRC #30950 22/06/03 12:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
T
Thray Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
T
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
Its not up to mIRC to prevent the spread of illegal or pirated material on the internet. First off, limiting the file sizes, as many people have already said, will not stop it. It will spread to more services like Napster or kazaa or they will find ways around it (like not upgrading, or splitting files, etc)
Its really up to servers, for one. A server or network that has more illegal trade than most, like Dalnet, should probably find a way to prevent it themselves. They could easily do this since the DCC info goes through the server as a private message.
A DCC goes through the server like:
:Nick!User@Host PRIVMSG Target :DCC SEND file longip numbers that I have no clue as to what they actually mean
The file size might be one of those two numbers at the end.. I think one might be the port. But better yet, the server could be modified to record the kind of files that are sent. Then they could begin blocking files that are blatantly illegal.. they could prevent a DCC SEND with *.mp3 as the file name from reaching its destination for example. Or they could prevent fileservs from connecting.
In the end, mIRC isn't a file sharing utility. It was not made to be one like napster or Kazaa.. it is simply proof that someone who wants to do something illegal will use whatever means he or she can. I doubt seriously that a government agency or a company could find a good reason to shut down the mIRC project or sue its creators (and win).
The servers that allow the spread of these materials without doing anything to stop it (I name Dalnet again, because its pretty infamous for this stuff) are more to blame.
Before I get shot by server admins (I own my own network, please don't hurt me) its not your fault either. Some, for example, just have no friggin clue how to edit their servers in the way I just described, or feel it isn't up to them to go to extreme lengths to prevent people from being l`il internet criminals. So... failing the previous solution... I guess we should live with it for now. It hurts the economy, it sucks, etc etc, I know. But if the only way to deal with a problem causes the removal of privacy or causes people to lose functionality and ability online.. is that better?
My wrists hurt now, I think thats my cue to push the post button.


-------------
I am the self-appointed God of needlessly complex mIRCscript.
Re: Its Not Up To mIRC #30951 22/06/03 12:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
You're still refusing to listen to everything we are saying. if it stops one person, from distributing just one illegal file, then it is worth it. No it might not be "up to mIRC" to stop file sharing, but if no one else is going to do anything about illegal file sharing, why should mIRC just do nothing as well? Change comes when someone takes initiative. It doesn't come because everyone sits off by themselves and says "I'll want for someone else do to it first." Something has to do something to get things rolling. And why shouldn't it be mIRC?

Re: Its Not Up To mIRC #30952 22/06/03 12:59 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
T
Thray Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
T
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
Yeah, okay, I got that message.
But what CAN mIRC do? We've discussed the possibilities already, right? So far the only viable one I've read is to remove networks or servers that promote (or are just overly used for) file sharing from mIRC's list.
But what would this get anyone? The file sharers already know the network address, and the admins obviously don't care if their networks are used for file sharing.
I agree that something should be done, but disabling mIRC's features in any way won't really do anything. That was my main message, even if I veiled it in a disguise of idiocy and long-windedness.
Maybe combining two other ideas.. if a file size is a certain length or higher, and the extension is .mp3, then send a message to RIAA giving the user's IP, time that the file was sent (so that, if the user has a dynamic ip, they can still be tracked down), and the file name) And just make it a silent update. Tell no one that the 'feature' was put in, so no one has a reason not to update.
It wouldn't STOP it, but you can be sure it'd put a wrench in there somewhere if the RIAA actually started to take action against the people that mIRC caught.


-------------
I am the self-appointed God of needlessly complex mIRCscript.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3