You can also use a socks5 server with container:gluetun and run qbt with 127.0.0.1 socks5. (not allowing it to connect to anything but that address in your firewall settings).
By the way you can do this with absolutely any socks5 supporting software (even browsers, ftp clients, etc).
Just set the firewall to allow the software executable to connect only to localhost/127.0.0.1 and you are done.
It’s split tunnel under your control.
myip.wtf/json (gives nice info too)
Denuvo is the apex of a long history of bad choices.
Maybe actually sell us the games in a way we really own it, without any sort of online activation/account/telemetry/data-gathering like when we could buy a disc and just use it, and it should all be ok.
I feel like a dinosaur every-time I think this nowadays, but what is so problematic with the “own as in physically own” that is so hard to implement? If they want to provide a service, sell a service.
In the past I used pirate versions of games I bought just to be able to play them offline, or because I did not agree with the terms of service. It is so much for our info, it goes beyond just knowing you are the real owner of the software copy: it comes to the point where it looks like it’s to guarantee we are not its’ owner.
Now some DRMs even destroy gaming performance and its just faster to use 'ked versions. I hope it changes somehow.
Thanks for answering and for the proposed solutions.
About the DHCP backtrace, that is the (standard) procedure being avoided. I don’t think it’s paranoid, it’s just how it already works.
Thanks for answering, I’m not trying to circumvent these sites rules, but to actually better understand em.
I get it that they are probably defending themselves from attackers, abusers, or who knows what else. I just fear that needing people’s real IP at time of registration (and even accumulating data that links this ip to the future use of the site) can become a big problem in the future, if something bad happens to them. I mean, they can even be forced to handle their users data, some sites have done that already, using it as “bail”/negotiation when pressured (Torrent Freak has some examples).
So I thought that since the problem could be some user causing harm to their sites, maybe having some other static ip address route (not a shared vpn address) could suffice. But I don’t know if that’s the case.
Thanks for your suggestion, are they ok with that or would it be considered cheating?
Please, with sugar on top: make this a plugin that can be integrated to qbittorrent or rtorrent.
Try to make your idea reach the seedboxes. This would be great for open-tracker seedboxes!