mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Its Not Up To mIRC #30953 22/06/03 01:06 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
T
Thray Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
T
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
Someone mentioned renaming as a way to help this... but renaming would stop many people too. Fileservers function by showing people the filename, then people request that file. If the fileservers changed, for example, Some Band - Some Song.mp3 to blahards.exe then people using the fileserver would have no friggin idea what they were downloading.
Plus, it would inconvenience the fileservers. If you were giving people illegal files for free to begin with, would you really sit down for five hours and change all your files for their convenience?
And heres another idea, cuz I'm chock full of em today ^-^ What about a kind of quota? When have you ever sent like, more than 10 files in an hour? Fileservers do that easily, especially broadband ones serving mp3s. If they couldn't send more than 10 an hour..well, you face the same workarounds but the filesharers that compulsively upgrade their software would be slowed down for a while.


-------------
I am the self-appointed God of needlessly complex mIRCscript.
Re: Limitations for DCC #30954 22/06/03 08:55 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
P
ParaBrat Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,127
eep..sorry, i wasnt very clear in that reply. Even tho i called it a general reply, i should have been specific. I wasnt referring to restrictions based on registered vs nonregistered copies, but rather on those in all copies of mIRC, for example file size or type limitations or eliminating dcc entirely in mIRC. I wouldnt like to see all users have to do without dcc or be limited in some way because of the users who, as Khaled says, "use mIRC in a negative way". I guess i relate it to that saying "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them". If restrictions were put in mIRC overall, the (for lack of a better term) illegit users would a: find ways around them or b: find something else to use and just continue on. The legit users would be the ones doing without.

Perhaps if dcc werent enabled until a copy was registered, it might send some ppl off to find something else to use, but more than likely we would soon see a proliferation of cracks and keygens. i'm sure we've all seen the websites that say go get mIRC so you can grab all the movies you want. They would no doubt add "and here's a keygen for it" in short order.

I certainly dont mean to sound discouraging of all the ideas presented, and its nice to see that ppl want to stop this kind of stuff and can toss ideas around for discussion about it smile
Over and above ppl using mIRC for this, it concerns me that because of all the "negative users" more isps will restrict bandwidth or use interference techniques, the music industry will come up with ways to stop legit users from copying their cds onto their puters (i guarantee the cd i simply have to listen to while working here will be the one thats in the car during a torrential downpour), networks wont allow any dcc, etc etc.... and once again, the legit pay the price for the not so legit. Yes, i hate seeing ppl use mIRC in "negative ways", but even more do i hate ppl mucking things up for everyone else just cause they are greedy lil thieves.

As a side note to Thray: DAlnet made a change in their AUP, DALnet news forbidding channels that exist for the primary purpose of filesharing and has been closing down any of those channels that didnt leave quietly. Perfect success? perhaps not yet, but do give them credit for making the effort with some success.

"The file sharers already know the network address"
i imagine some do, but we see a lot of users both here and in #mIRC who come in asking "where can i find music/movies here". So not putting networks that encourage filesharing in the server list could help some. Then the question arises, how do we realistically determine and monitor that?


ParaBrat @#mIRCAide DALnet
Re: Limitations for DCC #30955 22/06/03 02:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
T
Thray Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
T
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 114
I haven't been on DAL for a while, so I had no idea. If thats the case, then I'm glad they're doing something. The filesharers made it kind of pointless to get on there.. I'd try to start just a normal channel or something and someone would wander in and type '!list' or something.
Worse than that, the same is starting to happen on smaller networks like EsperNet. People will wander into my channel there, or the network channel #Esper, and request a list or ask where they can get music or something, like you said. Its annoying.
Also, you're right about removing filesharing networks. That kind of didn't occur to me when I said it before.


-------------
I am the self-appointed God of needlessly complex mIRCscript.
Re: Limitations for DCC #30956 22/06/03 04:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
i imagine some do, but we see a lot of users both here and in #mIRC who come in asking "where can i find music/movies here". So not putting networks that encourage filesharing in the server list could help some. Then the question arises, how do we realistically determine and monitor that?


I guess it could be handled similar to reporting dead networks. UserA sends an email to warez-networks@mirc.com saying "irc.someserver.net has a ton of warez channels." Whoever is in charge of monitoring this, presumably Tjerk, would then connect to that server and see. And I guess some sort of numbers need to be setup, i.e. I don't think a network should be removed because 1 warez channel exists, I mean that could simply be one the admins haven't caught yet. However if there are 10+ warez channels with a combined user count of >100, you can be reasonably sure that the admins know about it and they don't care. So at that point the server could be removed. Or if Tjerk thinks this would be too much work, well at least something could be done about new additions. i.e. when you submit a server to the servers.ini, I'm sure Tjerk tries to connect to see if the server really exists/works. So why couldn't he also do a /list to see if there are a bunch of warez channels? Meaning in that idea no current networks are removed, just warez networks will no longer be added.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3