Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54565 readers

473 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Starting to use "soulseek" do I need VPN (lemmy.zip)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So I use a VPN when torrenting as per usual but with Soulseek I wish to share my music with others and that requires me to open a port. I have no problem doing so I just do not pay for a VPN that can do this at the current price I am paying. Is it possible/what are the chances of me getting in trouble ISP wise from using soulseek with no VPN. With where I live I would get in trouble with no VPN and torrents for clarity.
I see posts from years ago saying no just wondering if things have changed.

Thanks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Survivorship bias

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This would possibly be applicable if Soulseek users were having action taken against them, but has that ever happened? Action taken against individual pirates has pretty focused on bittorrent users. I know Soulseek itself has been sued, but have any users?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I wouldn't set the platform as scope but instead peer to peer technology. Looking at that scale there are quite some people being sued. Also being sued in that regard is a case of over protection because you really don't want to be sued, not even once.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would set the platform as scope but instead peer to peer technology.

The post has a pretty specific question, and including actions taken against users outside that scope is closer to fearmongering than answering the question at hand. Lumping all p2p usage together isn't useful as long as they're specifically targeting BT sharers; they're not going to accidentally gather IPs of Soulseek users with their torrent honeypots.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can't guarantee that there won't be a lawyer logging in, writing down your IP

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Survivorship bias is about surviving/passing a filter or selection process that's actually happened, not one that could theoretically happen one day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It happened, that P2P users have been sued because lawyers were getting into the share and wrote down the IPs of the other user.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The statement to which you replied wasn't about p2p users; it was about Soulseek. His perspective isn't a matter of his bias, but rather the complete lack of lawsuits against Soulseek users.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

You should change your scope then and stop looking only at the platform but at the technology, because it is the point of breach.