Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. I’d look at building a more respectable file server, with 4 or more SATA ports. I’d have a relatively tiny SSD to host the OS, and any number of HDDs in some variety of RAID array

SSDs are fast; HDDs are slow. I would not want my operating system hosted on an HDD if there is any way to avoid it. An external USB drive would have slow file operations to and from that drive; an internal HDD would slow the entire system.

Can’t tell if you’re drinking the Kool aid… Or serving.

I can think of a couple ways this post makes sense. For example, if Denuvo paid this commenter to make this post.

A proxy operates on the application level; a VPN on the OS level. Both the VPN and the proxy are susceptible to OS-level threats. The proxy is also susceptible to application-level threats that the VPN is not. A misconfigured or exploited torrent client, for example, could ignore the proxy and expose your public IP. With a properly functioning VPN, that faulty application can only expose the public-facing end of the VPN tunnel.

Self hosted VPNs are not suitable for sailing the seas. Self-hosting a VPN server only provides remote access to your local network. It does not provide any sort of privacy benefits, because the tunnel exit is an IP address traceable to you.

If they are paying for it, it’s either not self-hosted, or they are paving a licensing fee for the VPN software they are running locally.

Is the legal environment tomorrow going to be the same for you as it is today? Are they going to change the law, (or the interpretation of it) tomorrow? Have they already done so, but that news hasn’t reached you yet? If they have changed it, does a hostile entity have your information already logged?

To answer your question, yes, you should be concerned about exposing your public IP address.

Not really, no.

When you understand how to ask the question, you will already have your answer.

Basically, your ISP, VPN, or your own networking equipment is going to be your chokepoint. The only person who can actually determine which one of those three is the slowest is… You. Nobody else has that information.

Until you can understand the distinction between “upload” and “download”, you cannot understand the information your ISP, VPN, and the manufacturers of your networking equipment are providing to you.

(On a tangentially related note: If you don’t have a VPN, go ahead and uninstall your torrent client until you’ve spent a lot more time studying networking concepts.)

Aka, your “upload” speed.

According to the article, it requires them to get accreditation to operate in in Italy, unless I’m reading that wrong.

Uh huh. So, I put a DNS server and VPN server online, and an Italian happens to find it. Is Italy going to try to extradite me or something?

I understand the concern and I’m sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?

Pretty much every digital platform at some point or another.

Relevant xkcd

A VPN is just a relay. Copyright trolls know you are uploading because you are connected to the swarm. Whatever IP address the swarm sees, the trolls will also see.

You can make it harder on them by selecting a VPN provider that doesn’t log. You can make it harder for them to put pressure on your VPN by selecting an endpoint in a location unfriendly to trolls. Make them cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries if they want to get to you.

Trolls will look for the best return on their trolling. If they ever decide to come after VPN providers, they will probably target the one with the largest number of pirates in their jurisdiction. Consider a VPN provider outside Germany and the EU. South American or Asian VPN providers might be good choices for you.

“I saw a guy get shot last night. He was close enough I was able to record the whole thing in my phone. The police say that the victim was wearing a blue shirt, but didn’t mention they were also wearing a yellow hat. I’ve saved the footage, but I won’t be posting it anywhere, so don’t even ask.”

I make that statement on Reddit. Investigators see that my statement matches their crime scene.

They can subpoena Reddit for my reddit account information, including the IP address from which I posted that comment. They can subpoena the ISP who controlled that IP address and get subscriber information. They can then go to that subscriber and request and require their assistance in identifying the specific person who made that comment. They can then question that commenter as a witness, and subpoena their video.

That’s basically what the rightsholders are trying to do here: subpoena “witnesses” to Frontier violating its duties under Safe Harbor provisions.

I agree that they should be told to go fuck themselves with rusty Buicks, but they do have a (tenuous) legal claim for the information they seek.

Nobody is claiming that Frontier should be monitoring traffic.

Safe harbor provisions require them to forward DMCA letters to subscribers when rightsholders send them, and suspend service to repeat violators.

A subscriber who has received 44 DMCA letters without Frontier suspending their service is evidence that Frontier is not abiding by their safe harbor obligations.

The rightsholders want the identity of a person willing to make such a claim, so that person can be compelled to testify that they weren’t lying their ass off when they made that claim.

I’ve never even watched UFC and now I want to stream it.

I reject your idea that it could allow copyright laundering. A copy of Mario from my video is still a copy of Mario. My license to play the game allows me to incorporate my gameplay into a new work, but extracting that character from my work arrives at a character indistinguishable from Nintendo’s.

I would not be violating Nintendo’s copyright to license my video to Montendi, but Montendi would be violating Nintendo’s copyright when they extract that character and use him in their own game.

If I play Destiny 2 on my twitch stream, at the end of my stream, my audience has watched a video. Someone recording my stream has a copy of a video that I have produced. Bungie’s copyright is for a game, not a video. My audience does not have a game. My audience cannot play their “copy” of Destiny 2, because what they have is not a copy of what Bungie holds the copyright to.

I hold the copyright to my performance, not Bungie. The movement of my character and the sound of my voice are under my control, not Bungie’s.

You are correct about a public performance of a song or video, but not a playthrough of a game.

Would not the act of memorization an infringing copy?

No. The variant of the work recorded within your nervous system does not meet the legal definition of a “copy”.

Even if it did, prosecuting such a violation would violate a whole mess of human and civil rights which supersede copyright provisions.

Lol, I was trying to imply “braille”, or some other tactile expression…

You could play your Switch on a train, while streaming on Twitch, and it still wouldn’t be infringement.

You could tell people where they could download a Switch emulator and the roms for the game you were playing (provided you weren’t hosting them yourself), and you still wouldn’t be infringing copyright. (The host of that emulator and the roms would be, and you would violate Twitch’s TOS, but not copyright law)

I would argue that your followers would not be violating copyright in downloading that emulator and rom; the violator is the uploader, not the downloader.

I would argue that you could then invite your followers to play with you, and you could play on the train, and stream your gameplay on twitch, and still not be violating copyright.