mIRC Homepage

Limitations for DCC

Posted By: The_Game

Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 05:56 PM

After reading countless posts about how people use the mIRC client for filesharing purposes..something came to mind. Why not set a limitation on how big a file can be sent or received and not be able to change it? I figured that this would limit someones options on the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials through mIRC which in turns force them to use something else other than mIRC. Such as allowing the limit to equal the size to a descent sized image file or something.

This wouldn't solve the problem with fileswapping on the internet but it would prevent users from disgracing a great program like mIRC and abusing its ability for illegal purposes...What does everyone think of this idea? Course now by posting this I am sure I have sparked a major argument LOL...

I for one would like the idea since I've only used mIRC to send documents to friends...
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:08 PM

Well I guess the problem would be, what filesize should be set? I know I've transfered ~250MB files that were 100% legitimate.
Posted By: Jerk

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:09 PM

Fileswappers will simply not upgrade their mIRC or find a way around the limit.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:12 PM

Well it would stop some of them.
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:19 PM

Well the limitations to set would be up to Khaled to decide as to what's acceptable. I agree that people will find a way around it (loopholes are a given) but that would require hacking the program which is illegal...I am only suggesting this as something for most law-abiding users. Kinda like how Khaled releases mIRC under the trust system, this is the same thing...instillilng trust in users judgement. (oh who am i kidding this idea will get shot down anyways LOL)
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:21 PM

Well I guess my question would be, if this is to prevent law abiding citizens from doing it, then they wouldn't be downloading illegal files in the first place, would they?
Posted By: Jerk

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:27 PM

Quote:
I agree that people will find a way around it (loopholes are a given) but that would require hacking the program which is illegal

I don't think people who download illegal items off the internet will feel guilty about illegally hacking the program. I think most will just stop upgrading.

I don't mean to shoot down the idea. I'd like to see a reduction in posts about downloading stuff too but I don't think this is the answer. I ignore the threads because I am too tempted to post the following:

* Jerk points and laughs at <user>.

hmm, maybe I should start posting that to those threads. They usually come here in a really pissy mood and it's fun to make them madder.
Posted By: pheonix

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:32 PM

in the 3 years ive had mirc i have never used a dcc =o\
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:41 PM

Note i said "Most" not all decent folk listen to or does what the "man" says... I've done my fair share of law breaking before. All i'm saying is whats the harm in adding something to slow a certain group of people down from using mIRC as a means of filesharing.

Jerk: I understand what you are saying but I know this won't solve the problem...this idea is intended so that this limits someones options. Basically you throw this idea with the possibility of every network following DALnets lead by not allowing the filesharing to continue on their servers and you have a hell of a combination to force users from using mIRC (unless they all band together to form a network = or bait for government agencies cracking down on fileswapping)

But the idea of every network following that lead is pretty much a dream to some...Getting back to the topic at hand. I think its been established that this won't stop people from using mIRC for filesharing. I just thought that it would be a great idea to slow people down....I dunno probably cause I get tired of seeing at least 5 posts on a daily basis by a bunch of "Gomer Pyles" wondering why they cant download anything properly and this idea popped into my skull...

Anyways..It was a nice thought
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:47 PM

Thats my point, if the people are fine with breaking the law to download the files, why won't they be fine with breaking it to modify mIRC?

I agree that something should be done to try and slow filesharing, just not sure what exactly...
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 06:51 PM

Picture this scenario:
A file limit is added. Now Joe Warezdaddy splits the big file into RAR volumes, each the maximum allowable size. Now not only does that not slow down the use of large file trading (and remember that large does not necessarily mean illegal) it does in fact mean that when DCC resumes fail (which is quite often in my experience) these people sharing the large files now only have to download that particular volume again. The sharing of large files has now been inadvertantly forced into being more reliable. Whoops.
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:03 PM

Then I would say that ole' Joe Blow has too much friggin time on his hands especially for those huge movie files...and that he needs a life.

The only other way i can think of that would even remotely come close to slowing filesharing is eliminating DCC all over IRC in general. Who's gonna go for that option? Nobody...
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:12 PM

Other things could be done. /fsend and /dcc packetsize only function in a registered version of mIRC for example. That shouldn't have the ability to harm anyone who uses mIRC legally but it could bother people who don't, so it would be doing its job.
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:13 PM

The "max allowable size" could also be extention-dependant. Of course you have those that rename extentions, but just the same. I mean if any kind of limit stops just 100 users (out of the thousands that do it), the purpose of it was successful. Any kind of limitation on some users and a greater accomplishment in its entirety.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:25 PM

And what happens 5 minutes later after all those unregistered users looking to optimize their transfers have finished downloading one of the cracks or key generators for mIRC? I realise I'm being the 'put-down guy' for filesharing prevention (on 2 threads now), but lets be realistic. It's really not practical or possible for mIRC to 'decide' what can and cannot be sent - short of removing the DCC send ability totally. Even then it would be scripted back in within a day or two and nothing has changed. I simply don't think that it's the IRC client's place to police the files sent via DCC. If anyone has the ability and, to some extent, the responsibility to limit or prevent filesharing it's the IRC servers and their staff.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:27 PM

No one is really saying it will stop filesharing, we're saying it might slow it a bit.
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:32 PM

*makes sure to click on correct nick to respond to*

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). Anyways, even if you stop just 10% of that (100,000) or even 5% (50,000) then isn't that enough to say "it was worth it"? Stopping all illegal file sharing will never happen, just as prohibition didn't stop alcohal, but creating an obstacle in the way wouldn't hurt.

Also with the "only registered versions have packetsize" You can just as well throw that out the window, ad not every version has that. Ppl will just resort to using 6.03 (and below) . I mean you don't need all the "neat features" to run a dccc bot i would think.
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:35 PM

Yep thats all im saying...I know that its nearly impossible to stop it completely just to slow it down a bit with the slightest notion people will get the hint and not use mIRC for that purpose....if they want to use the proper program to do so more power to them that has nothing to do with mIRC....
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:42 PM

even to go further with my idea, just the idea of stopping new users. I mean if a user hears that mirc can file share, then finds it rather difficult and is discouraged or irritated and says "forget it" now thats 1 more user not filesharing on irc, 1 morc (if not several) files on their computer not being shared to others, and on more reason to intergrate the feature >:D
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:47 PM

I agree even if it prevents a few people thats an accomplishment....every little bit helps one way or another....so what if it doesn't eliminate filesharing as a whole...at least that 1 person or a few people aren't contributing to breaking the copyright laws...that is a success the way I look at it....
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 07:57 PM

/me hears starbuck's wheels grunding for a rebutly--either that or he is still typing in which case this could be a doozy >:\
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 08:00 PM

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....
Posted By: Jerk

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 08:30 PM

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.
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 19/06/03 08:35 PM

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.
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 12:04 AM

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.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 02:49 PM

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.
Posted By: Jerk

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 06:31 PM

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.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 07:31 PM

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.

Posted By: ParaBrat

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 07:32 PM

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.


Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 20/06/03 08:06 PM

Quote:

Will anything? Nope.


No internet >:D
Posted By: The_Game

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 02:06 AM

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.
Posted By: ParaBrat

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 06:55 AM

np, no need to apologize smile
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 05:10 PM

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".
Posted By: saxon

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 06:26 PM

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.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 06:50 PM

If it stops 1 person I'd call it a success.
Posted By: KingTomato

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 07:07 PM

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.
Posted By: keeker

Re: Limitations for DCC - 21/06/03 07:44 PM

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
Posted By: Thray

Its Not Up To mIRC - 22/06/03 12:48 AM

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.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Its Not Up To mIRC - 22/06/03 12:53 AM

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?
Posted By: Thray

Re: Its Not Up To mIRC - 22/06/03 12:59 AM

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.
Posted By: Thray

Re: Its Not Up To mIRC - 22/06/03 01:06 AM

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.
Posted By: ParaBrat

Re: Limitations for DCC - 22/06/03 08:55 AM

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?
Posted By: Thray

Re: Limitations for DCC - 22/06/03 02:27 PM

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.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Limitations for DCC - 22/06/03 04:27 PM

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.
© 2019 mIRC Discussion Forums