Re: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

From: Ty Heath <heath_at_mediadefender.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:25:12 -0700

I'm more concerned about it killing Ares and utorrent protection.
Being firewalled doesn't really slow your own downloads on emule that
much.

Ty

On Aug 31, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Randy Saaf wrote:

> Ty:
>
> Is it fair to say that their firewalled status might be helping our
> emule protection by slowing the downloads. Kad protection isn’t
> really working for music. I don’t want to ask them to change
> something unless we are sure it is better for us.
>
> R
>
> From: Daniel Lee
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: Neil Saxby; qa
> Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
>
> They ran all of their tests off of three real DonkeyServers. This
> makes it apparent that they are either not following the proposed
> methodology or they haven’t updated their server.met files from the
> site we provided. We should be able to pinpoint the problem if
> they provide us with their server.met files again.
>
> Also, their Kad Network status says “Firewalled.” According to Ty,
> this doesn’t affect our eMule protection currently, but may in the
> future. Also, our protection on other networks will definitely be
> affected if their firewall isn’t configured properly for the Kad
> network.
>
>
> Number of Tests per Server
>
> DonkeyServer No2: 2 tests
> DonkeyServer No3: 7 tests
> DonkeyServer No5: 1 test
>
>
> Daniel Lee
>
> From: Neil Saxby
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:22 AM
> To: Daniel Lee; qa
> Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
>
> Here are the server details for the eMule tests EMI ran today.
>
> Daniel also mentioned that there have been some issues with
> Soulseek today. They may have tested it already but if they
> haven’t I’m guessing the earliest they will is at 1am Monday
> morning PST. That said, they may not test it at all for next
> week’s result and focus on some of the other networks – it’s hard
> to see specific patterns in their testing at the moment, but they
> seem to be consistently testing eMule and supplementing the other
> networks. Seeing as the recently focused on Soulseek and MP2P –
> I’m guessing that they’ll now move back to Ares and WinMx (maybe
> Gnutella too).
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> From: Neil Saxby
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 4:48 PM
> To: Daniel Lee; qa
> Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
>
> Hi all,
>
> Spoke to Steff today and he’s agreed to send us server names and IP
> addresses for all of their eMule tests moving fwd.
>
> I also pointed out that Soulseek protection been ramped up.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> From: Neil Saxby
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:16 PM
> To: Daniel Lee; qa
> Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> It was only 5 out 5 tests on Soulseek.
>
> According to the testing methodology we agreed to I can see at
> least 4 questionable fails on eMule. I’ll also talk to Steff about
> getting server details and get back to you asap.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> From: Daniel Lee
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:56 PM
> To: Neil Saxby; qa
> Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> We’ve been doing internal tests on the EMI projects you requested.
> We’ll begin sending you weekly reports on our results. I’ll send a
> separate email detailing them.
>
> For this week’s results, I’ll go through each network they tested
> below:
>
> eMule: 13 fails out of 30 attempts
>
> The fails are surprising if they are indeed following the
> methodology we proposed. We’ll need to know their exact testing
> methodology to determine why they are getting so many fails on
> eMule. If they are indeed using the server.met we provided them,
> then our servers should be at the top of the list (sorted by max
> users). It would help if they could include which eMule server
> (name + IP) they tested on for each test so that we could see if
> they are indeed following the proposed methodology.
>
> MP2P (Piolet): 5 fails out of 5 attempts
>
> The Piolet fails are the result of this track not being marked as a
> single in our system. This has been fixed.
>
> Soulseek: 23 fails out of 50 attempts
>
> We’ve been working with our development team to bring our Soulseek
> protection up to an SLA level. Based on EMI’s results, it looks
> like we are close as the max # of pirated files they found for a
> test was 8. They ran the Soulseek tests last Friday—we have since
> doubled our Soulseek protection and our results should look much
> better.
>
>
> Daniel Lee
>
> From: Neil Saxby
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:43 AM
> To: qa
> Subject: FW: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
> Importance: High
>
> FYI all – latest results from EMI. They tested on Soulseek, MP2P
> and eDonkey this time around. Across all tests we’re hitting
> around 50%. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Also, have we started any internal testing on EMI tracks yet –
> would be good to see some results if there are any.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> From: Hughes, Steffan [mailto:steffan.hughes_at_emimusic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:36 PM
> To: Octavio Herrera; Rick Moreno; Neil Saxby
> Cc: Katz, Ruth
> Subject: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
> Importance: High
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached the latest monitoring results – apologies for
> the delay in getting these to you.
>
> In general they were still very poor guys. Hanging around 50%
> passes just isn’t going to cut it. Updating the eDonkey2000
> server.met files has also seemingly made little difference to the
> eDonkey results experienced. Please step up the protection level asap.
>
> Any questions, please let me know as usual.
>
> Many thanks & best regards,
>
>
> Steff
> Steffan Hughes EMI Music Anti Piracy
> 27 Wrights Lane London W8 5SW UK
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7795 7397 Fax:+44 (0)20 7795 7398
>
>
> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Music from EMI
>
> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise
> the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your
> system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration
> of this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please
> contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
>
> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
>
> Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
>
> Registered in England No 229231.
>
>
> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:56:05 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:48 BST