Re: How much latency do you add to torrents?

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:03:28 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote 

> This is good. To each his own, and horses for courses. Everyone lives in 
> different countries with different pros and cons. If I would like in the 
> US, I would be more paranoid about torrenting than I am living in europe.

Well, the good news for USA torrenting & specifically for torrenting movies
& particularly for torrenting current movies (where the DMCA matters), it
turns out nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted who fought the case.

Everyone *thinks* torrenting cases have been lost in USA courts.
But none have (for those where the judge or jury decided the outcome).

There are reasons for that but you first will need to show us a case in the
USA where someone fought the charges and they lost when torrenting movies.

(Whenever I challenge people to come up with the facts, they bring up
different systems like Limewire - but torrenting is done differently.)

>> Privacy-based proxy web browsers are probably the easiest way to do that.
> 
> I think this is the most user friendly option for regular people who do 
> not have the state against them.

I would hate to have a TLA on my tail, so I will repeat the observation
that, in the USA, nobody has ever been convicted of torrenting movies.

If anyone thinks otherwise, then please cite a case where the defendant
argued his case and the judge/jury found him guilty (as I'm well aware
plenty settle out of court because they're worried of their reputation).

>> When chatting, latency can't easily be introduced, although the government
>> has programs where they don't "chat" in real time - which employs latency.
> 
> Different threat model than torrents. This was to illustrate that for some 
> uses I feel little need for privacy and for other uses I feel greater 
> needs of privacy. Different tools for different use cases.

I agree fully that torrents are completely different than chats, where, for
torrents, there is no risk at all in the USA of being convicted since it
has never happened.

But it's expensive to fight a court case, right?
And it could be embarrassing to even fight a court case, right?

So lots of people settle out of court.

But nobody in the USA has ever been convicted of torrenting (there was one
set of cases which were overturned 'cuz the lawyers lied during the trial).

Since there has never been a successful prosecution of torrenting of
mainstream movies in the United States, the actual risk is rather low.

But why bother being hauled off to court?