A good judge of character? :)

On 01/05/2019 11:26, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , "David B."
writes:

Has it ever crossed your mind that this blog site may well have been put
up by Law Enforcement so that everybody who goes to that link has their
'vital statistics' recorded?

Not really as that in itself would be illegal and entrapment and
they could gain nothing from doing such a thing other than useless data.

No. Entrapment means when a law-enforcement officer cajoles someone
into committing a crime he otherwise would not commit. It does not mean
using undercover methods to detect crimes.

IAWTP

--
D.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:26:12 +0000 (UTC),
(Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:

No. Entrapment means when a law-enforcement officer cajoles someone
into committing a crime he otherwise would not commit. It does not mean
using undercover methods to detect crimes.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:38:16 +0100, "David B." wrote:

I think entrapment is a GOOD thing! ;-)

BD knows what entrapment is. Or should, it's been explained
before. He'll say the smiley means "he was only joking", even if the
rest of the text shows clearly there is no joke.

He is also well versed in the art of blackmail (from the same
message):

http://138.37.90.65.ipaddress.com

One question though, TARGET's name removed

Does your employer know that you are using your working hours to play
here in newsgroups whilst you should, in all honesty, be doing the work
for which you are being paid?

People really should read the public service information on
this webpage before giving ANY information to, or clicking on ANY of
the links furnished by the sociopath:

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 01 May 2019, Shadow wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:26:12 +0000 (UTC),
(Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:

No. Entrapment means when a law-enforcement officer cajoles someone
into committing a crime he otherwise would not commit. It does not mean
using undercover methods to detect crimes.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:38:16 +0100, "David B."
wrote:

I think entrapment is a GOOD thing! ;-)

BD knows what entrapment is. Or should, it's been explained
before. He'll say the smiley means "he was only joking", even if the
rest of the text shows clearly there is no joke.

He is also well versed in the art of blackmail (from the same
message):

http://138.37.90.65.ipaddress.com

One question though, TARGET's name removed

Does your employer know that you are using your working hours to play
here in newsgroups whilst you should, in all honesty, be doing the work
for which you are being paid?

People really should read the public service information on
this webpage before giving ANY information to, or clicking on ANY of
the links furnished by the sociopath:

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
[]'s

He tried that kind of crap on me. Didn’t work, except to ensure that now I
really like to poke the evil little scumbag.

On Wed, 01 May 2019 09:30:31 -0400, Wolffan
wrote:

On 01 May 2019, Shadow wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:26:12 +0000 (UTC),
(Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:

No. Entrapment means when a law-enforcement officer cajoles someone
into committing a crime he otherwise would not commit. It does not mean
using undercover methods to detect crimes.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 10:38:16 +0100, "David B."
wrote:

I think entrapment is a GOOD thing! ;-)

BD knows what entrapment is. Or should, it's been explained
before. He'll say the smiley means "he was only joking", even if the
rest of the text shows clearly there is no joke.

He is also well versed in the art of blackmail (from the same
message):

http://138.37.90.65.ipaddress.com

One question though, TARGET's name removed

Does your employer know that you are using your working hours to play
here in newsgroups whilst you should, in all honesty, be doing the work
for which you are being paid?

People really should read the public service information on
this webpage before giving ANY information to, or clicking on ANY of
the links furnished by the sociopath:

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
[]'s

He tried that kind of crap on me. Didn’t work, except to ensure that now I
really like to poke the evil little scumbag.

He tries it on everyone. Unfortunately, some people give him
personal details, and exchange emails with him. When he has enough to
blackmail his new victim (I'll tell your wife, I'll tell your
children, I'll tell you employer , I'll tell the police etc), they
become his "RL Friends" on whatever social media or forums he tells
them to "vouch for him" and support his STALKING.

Which is why I post this warning URL:

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

You should too. It's more effective than 200 line word walls
or insults. Though I agree, poking a criminal sociopath is not
unpleasant.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 01/05/2019 13:22, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 10:38:22 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 01/05/2019 09:51, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:05:43 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 30/04/2019 16:51, Whisky-dave wrote:
Are the copyright morons really too stupid to find those people?
They have to track them downloading the file or uploading aka sharing the file.
Then they have to be able to work out what it is.
Why do you think pirate bay and similar aren't located in the USA or UK.

https://www.vpnmentor.com/blog/how-t...n-any-country/

Has it ever crossed your mind that this blog site may well have been put
up by Law Enforcement so that everybody who goes to that link has their
'vital statistics' recorded?

Not really as that in itself would be illegal and entrapment and they could gain nothing from doing such a thing other than useless data.
What I considered more is it is just an advertising site for VPN products.

I think entrapment is a GOOD thing! ;-)

For me it would depend on the particulars of what's being done, how and by who.

That's understandable. I'm fairly sure, though, that you don't like 'bad
guys' any more than I do.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that law enforcement, in all its
various guises, closely monitors EVERYTHING which involves the Internet.

maybe they do, but do they know what they are doing. I'm not sure they can be monitoring everything, it's just not possible.
Plenty of stuff going on i the dark web, they don't seem to be able to do anything about.

One simply has to trust that they *DO* know what they are doing!

Do you have much to do with The Dark Web yourself?

The type of things which may be collected may be safely seen by looking
he-

https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/

So.

A lot of people have absolutely no idea what information they 'give
away' when they visit a URL.

A meaningless statement.

I'm sure that YOU weren't surprised by what you saw when you visited the
site, but ask your friends and family if THEY realise what information
they are providing to others.

It's 'clean' btw:-

https://www.virustotal.com/#/url/26f...1296/detection

It would most certainly help weed the wheat from the chaff!

Food for thought?

Not really.
Far less suspicious than someone going on about malware and viruses on almost every post.

Why do I trust YOU?

Why should you, and why would I care.

Most folk are essentially 'good' and I don't believe that you have ever
lied to me. You care because you'd feel really bad about yourself if you
didn't do your best to help others.

Because I can verify what you say from your header information! ;-)

No you can't.

Well .....

http://138.37.90.65.ipaddress.com

So what does that tell you about me.

It tells me that the public IP address 138.37.90.65 is located in
London, England, United Kingdom. It is assigned to the ISP Queen Mary
and Westfield College, University of London. That's exactly where you
have claimed that you work.

Simply proof positive that you speak the truth! :-D

Can it tell you what I was doing last night and with who ?

Absolutely not! I neither need nor want to know, but if I asked you in
general conversation you'd more than likely tell me!

One question though, Dave .....

Does your employer know that you are using your working hours to play
here in newsgroups whilst you should, in all honesty, be doing the work
for which you are being paid?

I hope so.
Then they'd realise that the vast majotity is during lunchtimes and te-breaks which I'm not really allowed as I've been told I should work those times too previously.

As I've already said, it matters not to me.

It matters not to me - perhaps you are doing so only in your break
times! ;-)

but during break times if asked I do work.
But unlike some here, I don;t take a day off at home because I come in at 8:30am 4 days a week = 2 hours and award myself a day off at home.
But then again that person is a women and I have asked for equality, but she has told me that as a manager she has no health and safety responsibilities.
But if you look at everyone's job profile, everyone has H&S responsibilities to themselves and others while employed.

You've obviously been rather hurt by this inequality. It won't matter in
the whole scheme of things once you're retired, Dave - and I'm going to
guess that you are going to be there before SHE is! ;-)

Of course if they complain then I'll asked for our 1/2 technician back that the HoD took in order to employ his daughter and made the tech job and admin job years after he got the secretary pregnant.

Or I'll tell them about the coursework and mark fiddling and all the other none PC activities I know of.

Blackmail is also as GOOD as entrapment, it just depends on who it suites.

I also enjoy your sense of humour and your willingness to enjoy some
friendly banter!

--
David B.
Devon, UK

On 02/05/2019 16:12, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 13:29:25 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On Thursday, 2 May 2019 11:54:54 UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:51:57 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 01/05/2019 13:22, Whisky-dave wrote:

I think entrapment is a GOOD thing! ;-)

For me it would depend on the particulars of what's being done, how and by who.

That's understandable. I'm fairly sure, though, that you don't like 'bad
guys' any more than I do.

That would depend on what you mean by bad.
As an example I don;t uderstand why the MP that has revealed that T.May or the UK govenment are going to install huawei 5G .
Is he really the bad guy here of those in govenment that are clueless ?

Most of those in our government ARE pretty clueless! Sorry .... IMO!

In most people opinion I'd say.


I think there's more to this matter than 'meets the eye'!

Well someones getting a nice little earner.

Probably! :-)

I have absolutely no doubt at all that law enforcement, in all its
various guises, closely monitors EVERYTHING which involves the Internet.

maybe they do, but do they know what they are doing. I'm not sure they can be monitoring everything, it's just not possible.
Plenty of stuff going on i the dark web, they don't seem to be able to do anything about.

One simply has to trust that they *DO* know what they are doing!

And most in the know, know they haven't really a clue hense the huawei 5G .

I think it's 'crazy' for us to even consider the use of Chinese products in connection with security and the Internet.

It wouldn't be too bad if their intergerted software security in their 5G products wasn't from the year 2000, but a little more upto date.
Then of course there's the concern tnat they might fiddle with things back in china that'll affect the UK 5G.

It's a *NO* from me!

Do you have much to do with The Dark Web yourself?

No never tried it, was tempted a while back but couldn't be bothered.
I'd like to understand more of how it works though.

I'm sure some folk reading here could tell you!

Some folk would claim to know, whether I'd believe them is another mater.

You've obviously noticed that not everyone is as honest as you and me! ;-)

Although there was one film I'd like to see, it was on cable TV last week I only caught a bit of it and I wasn't sure what I was watching.
Kung Pow! Enter the Fist.

There's some of it available he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWxJiMM3Jg

I have about 45mins of it, not the start or the end though.

Not expensive if you want it all!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kung-Pow-En...gateway&sr=8-1

A meaningless statement.

I'm sure that YOU weren't surprised by what you saw when you visited the
site, but ask your friends and family if THEY realise what information
they are providing to others.

What information, there was little there of any real importance.

No bank account details, no video of sex with the neighbours wife.
No indication of legal or illegal software installed , no records of what I'd watched on youtube or anything else.
Any indication of whether I want to leave or remain in the EU, my sexual orientation preferences. ?

You are right - NONE of that! But Google does expose your IP address - other newsreaders do so too.

I have no reason I can think of to hide my IP address.
if I wanted to hid it I assume VPN would do that.

Yes, it would.

Can;t yuo tel, if my copy of photoshop is legal or not.
Can you tell me what elese I have installed on this Mac.
Can you tell me which mac it is ?

I cannot even tell if you are using a Mac from your Google Group header!

http://138.37.90.65.ipaddress.com

So what does that tell you about me.

It tells me that the public IP address 138.37.90.65 is located in
London, England, United Kingdom. It is assigned to the ISP Queen Mary
and Westfield College, University of London. That's exactly where you
have claimed that you work.

Yep, but if I were using VPN like some of the academics do....

Then you'd see a header like this post of mine!

Simply proof positive that you speak the truth! :-D

Of course regarding that, but why not ask me why I'm using a computer bought for research or why I'm using geomjeong iMac and not one registared to me, the info as yuo say is there.
And can you tell I've moved office in the last 3 weeks and that I am at a higher altitude than I was 3 weeks ago ?

Nope! NONE of such personal information.

which is why I don't really worry about this information being available to others.
So I'm not sure what use it'd be to anyone else.

IP addresses are not very dangerous when a malicious user knows them.
This is somewhat of a myth caused by script kiddies (especially of the
video gaming variety) who ominously proclaim that they have your IP and
you better watch out, often with the implication that knowledge of an IP
address amounts to full access to a network. The worst common scenario
is that a malicious user mounts a denial of service attack on your
router, causing your network connection to slow down or break. This can
be irritating, but is not particularly dangerous.

There are two real situations where your IP address is sensitive
information:

If you are dealing with a bitter player for an online video game who you
just beat (because that headshot totally didn't hit him) or a spiteful
troll on IRC, they may mount a DoS attack against your network in
vengeance. In this case, you may want to call your ISP. They may be able
to change your IP or protect you from the attack in order to restore
your connection to the network. Even if that does not work, these types
of attacks quickly subside. You should probably just avoid associating
with the type of person who falls into this category.

If your adversary is a law enforcement agency or any other
legally-privileged entity who's goal it is to tie your IP address to
your real-life identity, you should be using an anonymity network such
as Tor (for web browsing) or a VPN (for P2P). This is the case when your
adversary is able to subpoena your ISP to obtain your subscription
details. In the past, it was easy to social engineer ISPs to get this
information (folks on IRC used to do this to get someone's real
address), but nowadays it tends to take a legally-binding court order,
in which case your ISP will barf up all the personal information it has
on you without giving it a second thought.

If neither of those cases applies to you, you have nothing to worry about.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...eir-IP-address


can you tell me why the heationg system isnlt working in this new lab of which I'm told cost £2.4m to refurbish, although that might be the whole bulding not just this lab.

Nope!

Can it tell you what I was doing last night and with who ?

No - but I can guess you were stroking a cat! ;-)

Yes just the one though.
She's got her annual injections and blood test tomorrow, so I have the day off !


But in the past my managers has illegal been given access to my PC and the password for it, so he could track what I was saying and doing.

Seems like you could do with better managers.

Well I've helped get rid of a few, and without resorting to violence :-)

Ha! :-D

You've obviously been rather hurt by this inequality.

Not hurt just disgusted by how it is employed and to who.

Have you nobody with whom you can discuss your dissatisfaction at work?

A few too many covering their own arse.
I have heard on the grape vine of someone I wasnl;t too happy with of gettign the sack, which is really rare, I;m guessing they ran out of places to promote him, which is what they normally do to troublesome individuals.

I've little doubt that you can hold your own.

A union rep maybe?

Tried that years ago he was a bit of a help, but there's little union stuff here nowerdays.

Understood.

It won't matter in
the whole scheme of things once you're retired, Dave - and I'm going to
guess that you are going to be there before SHE is! ;-)

Hopefully but it's questionable as to whether they'll try to get me to sign a NDA.

I signed the Official Secrets Act so an NDA shouldn't pose you a problem! ;-)

They are differnt but they want us to think they are the same, they havenlt tried it yet.

Nobody can force you to sign if you don't wish to be committed to a
promise. You might end up strangled or poisoned though! ;-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47936662
I've know of academics that have left because of this sort of thing especailly bulling.

I think I've got the gist of that. :-(

I've never liked bullies or bullying.

--
David B.
Devon, UK

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


That's the illegal part, you're sharing the file.

Well done you've finally got it, I'm sharing NOT uploading or downloading
in this case is NOT the offence SHARING is the offence.

The whole point of sharing is you upload it when Mr Smith requests it.

it's a peer to peer transfer.

Because you're allowing anyone to download it. And once they do, you've
illegally copied Office.

that's why it's called sharing and not uploading or downloading.

It's uploading.

nope. it's a peer to peer transfer, aka sharing.

why would a VPN company be prosecuted. ?

Ford or other car manufacturer have never been prosecuted because a car
of thiers was used in a bank robbery.

But they probably have to release data to the police, like what location
it was at if it has an anti theft tracker.

Theyb might not know and even then it's up to the owner.

Bull****. Just look at the **** Apple got into over Iphone codes.

apple didn't get into any ****. quite the opposite. the fbi got
themselves into such deep **** that they had to bail, after having lied
under oath no less.

On Thu, 09 May 2019 13:06:33 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 19:40:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 10:24:12 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 20:37:57 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:00:52 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 2 May 2019 19:41:47 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 11:07:15 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

**** how the FILE is divided up and where it is on your HD****

That's the illegal part, you're sharing the file.

Well done you've finally got it, I'm sharing NOT uploading or downloading in this case is NOT the offence SHARING is the offence.

The whole point of sharing is you upload it when Mr Smith requests it.

Which means he is in control of downloading it too.

But you're offering the illegal file.

A file is not illegal.

It is if it's someone else's creation, according to copyright law (which I disagree with).

Because you're allowing anyone to download it. And once they do, you've illegally copied Office.

that's why it's called sharing and not uploading or downloading.

It's uploading.

it's also being downloaded. And you're still not addressing what up or down loading is. It's not like stealing an apple from the greengrocers stall, which is what theft was all about. That's why IP law was invented.

Mr Smith provides the file. Mr Jones, Mr Higgins, and Mr Peterson all download it from him.

How do you know they are DLing it from Mr smith on a torrent site ?
Once Mr Jones, Mr Higgins, and Mr Peterson all start downloading the file then they also cam start uploading it to the others, so Mr Jones might be providing the film for Mr higgins.

But Mr Smith made it available to them all. He started it.

The law should go after Mr Smith. If you believe in copyright.

Why not Mr Jones, Mr Higgins, and Mr Peterson too ?

You could, but Mr Smith has done more wrong.

and they didn't submit because they couldn't give the information.

I'm surprised they got away with that. I would have thought the courts would have done them for deliberately obscuring data from the FEDs. The government must know everything!

Only idiots think that.

I'm on Apple's side (for once), but the government (especially the American one) thinks it has the right to see all data.

The internet might be fast, but consider a FREE VPN running 1000s of people using it at my bandwidth simultaneously.

So the must have access to a fast connection which they pay for.

PAY FOR. That's the key thing, how can they ruin a free system which requires payment for a fast connection?

because it's not a free system.

So where is their cash coming from? I never gave them any.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...harer_charged/

It should be pretty easy to attempt to download illegal files, then charge the people you get it from.

How do you charge a school kid, take their knife away ?

Juvenile detention centre.

Who is that then as they;d have to pay someone to find the sharer and who pays for the laywers etc...

Probably the main company, eg MGM.

So MGM or whoever pays someone to track down the sharer, this someone won;t work for nothing they'll be on at least £20 and hour, then yuo;ll need solicitors/laywers who are on £200 and hour, and you find the kid sharing the file who gets £5 a week pocket money.

If they had the sense to go after the people who started the share in the first place, they'd have only a few to track down and it'd be worth it to stop millions getting those free files.

So instead they prosecute people who haven't actually harmed anyone.

How do you know they haven't harmed anyone.

How do you know they have? For example, if I break the speed limit, I don't get done for manslaughter, even though the law thinks I'm more likely to kill someone. Until I've actually killed someone, I'm not done for it.

You can be done for breaking the speed limit, if you do exceed the speed limit.
Ypu could also be done for dangerous driving or driving on the wrong side of the road or not having a MOT or license or for having a faulty vehical.

But it's not a serious offence.

If you buy stolen goods have you harmed anyone ?

The seller should be the one the law goes after.

They do.

Then the same should happen with copyright infringements.

If you've watched an illegally downloaded movie have you harmed anyone ?

No, which is why I think copyright is a scam. And why it's only a civil offence.

What you think is irrelivant.

It IS a civil offence, that's not my opinion.

But they wouldn't do it unless someone asked them to, otherwise why film it.

Ah but what if you download the film on P2P and don't pay for it? Then you're not contributing to the killing.

Not financially, but you are creating a demand.

Bull****. Why would anyone be tempted to create something which they don't earn money for?

would you ignore winning the lottery ?

I ignore the possibility of winning it, which is why I'd never buy a ticket.

So yuo havwe no chance of winning it then do you.

Pretty much the same chance as if I enter, as the odds are ridiculous.

Same as yuo have no chance of seeing a film unless it's been made.

What's that supposed to mean?

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


A file is not illegal.

It is if it's someone else's creation, according to copyright law (which I
disagree with).

looks like you agree with it...

Ah but what if you download the film on P2P and don't pay for it? Then
you're not contributing to the killing.

Not financially, but you are creating a demand.

Bull****. Why would anyone be tempted to create something which they don't
earn money for?

....exactly why copyright is important.

On Mon, 13 May 2019 11:24:27 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 11 May 2019 18:56:40 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2019 13:06:33 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 19:40:38 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 10:24:12 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 20:37:57 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:00:52 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 2 May 2019 19:41:47 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2019 11:07:15 +0100, Whisky-dave wrote:

**** how the FILE is divided up and where it is on your HD****

That's the illegal part, you're sharing the file.

Well done you've finally got it, I'm sharing NOT uploading or downloading in this case is NOT the offence SHARING is the offence.

The whole point of sharing is you upload it when Mr Smith requests it.

Which means he is in control of downloading it too.

But you're offering the illegal file.

A file is not illegal.

It is if it's someone else's creation, according to copyright law (which I disagree with).

The file is NOT illegal in itself.
Because if that someone else who owns the file then watching it is legal for them.

If I buy a Metallica CD, then place the mp3s on a p2p system, I'm sharing them illegally. Those files are illegally shared. Surely you can see I've done more harm than you if you just downloaded them and allowed them to be uploaded to others at the same time? It's me that's made the whole thing possible.

Because you're allowing anyone to download it. And once they do, you've illegally copied Office.

that's why it's called sharing and not uploading or downloading.

It's uploading.

it's also being downloaded. And you're still not addressing what up or down loading is. It's not like stealing an apple from the greengrocers stall, which is what theft was all about. That's why IP law was invented.

Mr Smith provides the file. Mr Jones, Mr Higgins, and Mr Peterson all download it from him.

How do you know they are DLing it from Mr smith on a torrent site ?
Once Mr Jones, Mr Higgins, and Mr Peterson all start downloading the file then they also cam start uploading it to the others, so Mr Jones might be providing the film for Mr higgins.

But Mr Smith made it available to them all. He started it.

Mr smitgh could have died years ago and his torrent is still in use good luck prosecting him.

Then he should have been done at the time.

On that note, I think anyone not charged with a crime after one year should be let off. No excuse for taking more than a year to prosecute.

The internet might be fast, but consider a FREE VPN running 1000s of people using it at my bandwidth simultaneously.

So the must have access to a fast connection which they pay for.

PAY FOR. That's the key thing, how can they ruin a free system which requires payment for a fast connection?

because it's not a free system.

So where is their cash coming from? I never gave them any.

Most people pay a ISP for their cable service, unless you're stealing
how can you not be paying for the service.

I pay a UK ISP for my service. None of that money goes to the free VPN I use in another country, who is having to pay for enormous amounts of bandwidth for 1000s of people using it at once. And no, they don't have advertising.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...harer_charged/

It should be pretty easy to attempt to download illegal files, then charge the people you get it from.

How do you charge a school kid, take their knife away ?

Juvenile detention centre.

Didn't help you did it.

I was never charged by the police as a child. I always got away with everything, including when I hospitalised someone with 13 stitches in his skull.

So MGM or whoever pays someone to track down the sharer, this someone won;t work for nothing they'll be on at least £20 and hour, then yuo;ll need solicitors/laywers who are on £200 and hour, and you find the kid sharing the file who gets £5 a week pocket money.

If they had the sense to go after the people who started the share in the first place,

which in most cases are children sharing their music, videos and games..

So as a child you're saying I could have murdered a few people and got away with it? Age does not prevent you from having to obey the law.

they'd have only a few to track down and it'd be worth it to stop millions getting those free files.

Once a few have the film or whatever the the origianl uploader can disapear and thos ethat have downloded it can then upload it far more times than the origibnal uploader did.
If fact on such file sharing sites anyone downloading content is encouraged and asked to let others upload from them, this is where the Torrent name comes from.
1 person shares it with 2 pople those two peolpe share it to 2 other people each, then those 4 people shre it 4 times each....

You'd think so, but when I download files with utorrent, I seem to connect to seeds almost all the time, even though there might be 7 seeds and 400 peers. I'd have programmed utorrent to take bits off the peers first.