BitTorrent Implies Guilt?

[Steve]

Is it possible to get a shutdown notice from your ISP just for having / using BitTorrent? Not only is it possible, it happens (http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjQwMjMsLCxobmV3cywsLDE=). Interesting stuff.

For my investigation, I wrote a very simple BitTorrent client. My client sent a request to the tracker, and generally acted like a normal Bittorrent client up to sharing files. The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content. It obeyed the law... With just this, completely legal, BitTorrent client, I was able to get notices from BayTSP.

[GJSNeptune]

How can be say with absolution that his program blocked copyrighted material requests? I doubt it could distinguish with 100% accuracy.

ISPs worry me. Several years ago, when music downloads became crazy popular, they wanted to charge more for facilitating all of the downloading. ISPs have so much power. :(

[Martyr]

isp's only exist right now because of the way in which the internet grew. i do not expect them to last as they are for more than 20 years max

[GJSNeptune]

isp's only exist right now because of the way in which the internet grew. i do not expect them to last as they are for more than 20 years max

And which direction are you implying that they'll take?

[clement]

How can be say with absolution that his program blocked copyrighted material requests? I doubt it could distinguish with 100% accuracy.

ISPs worry me. Several years ago, when music downloads became crazy popular, they wanted to charge more for facilitating all of the downloading. ISPs have so much power. :(

His program is able to not upload any copyrighted files because it doesn't upload any files period. If it doesn't upload anything how can it upload copyrighted files?

[GJSNeptune]

His program is able to not upload any copyrighted files because it doesn't upload any files period. If it doesn't upload anything how can it upload copyrighted files?

Please read things more carefully. I didn't even use the word 'upload' in my post but it's what you focused on.

The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content.

[ryan_975]

What about those who play WoW? Blizzard uses a bittorrent client to speed up downloading its updates for WoW.

[G'ßöö]

ISPs worry me. Several years ago, when music downloads became crazy popular, they wanted to charge more for facilitating all of the downloading. ISPs have so much power. :(
sure but ISP's pay huge to CRTC regulations for all that over use as well. bandwith aint free

[ShnikeJSB]

My friend has gotten 3 warning letters from Comcast saying he had better stop using Bittorrent or they will cancel his service. Do other countries with their massive bandwidth and cheap prices do this to THEIR customers? Or is it only here in the good ol' USA, where they charge 3 times as much for 1/20th of the speed? :mad:

[Burning_Monk]

If only there was a way to use Bit Torrent's awesome power for good... oh wait. :rolleyes:

[Eickst]

If only people would use different ports other than the default ones, maybe your ISP wouldn't care?

[Martyr]

what about the encrypted version of bt or other p2p clients. they plan to decrypt all that?

[legendz411]

Not unless they plan to build a super computer rivaling that of the 'secret' NSA one.


:D

[drizzt81]

And which direction are you implying that they'll take?
They will be absorbed by the content creation companies, like Comcast already is. Owning the source (creation) and the channel, they will make sure that you don't copy any material anymore but rather pay 5x for the same content that will get lots of ads.

Or ISPs will eventually become aware of their might and start telling Sony etc. to take a long walk off a short plank.

My friend has gotten 3 warning letters from Comcast saying he had better stop using Bittorrent or they will cancel his service. Do other countries with their massive bandwidth and cheap prices do this to THEIR customers? Or is it only here in the good ol' USA, where they charge 3 times as much for 1/20th of the speed? :mad:

If your friend utilizes so much bandwidth, I can understand that Comcast will not appreciate that. On the other hand, I wish that ISPs were clear w.r.t. their "unlimited bandwidth" offering.

[G'ßöö]

...Or ISPs will eventually become aware of their might and start telling Sony etc. to take a long walk off a short plank.
the plank has been out....I member back 5ish years and all the movie companies sent us a joint email asking us to remove movies from our news servers. no one even blinked. but now, this ISP regulates bandwidth. there's always "small printing" or something stating the rules. I gotta agree

[bob]

Hmm, almost makes me wonder if something about this should be thrown in with this net-neutrality issue...

I feel that ISPs should just be a service-provider like a phone company, and keep their paws out of it. I would be pissed if my phone company told me I couldnt call more than 3 people in a different town a day (this is what long distance rates are for), and I certianly wouldnt be happy if my ISP sent me a letter/shut my service down any time WoW tried to update itself.

[nobody_here]

on the topic of phone companies and usage restrictions on supposed "unlimited" plans

cell phone companies are already disconnecting people's service because of "excessive useage", while most people won't exceed what they consider excessive, some do, and get told that unlimited is actually "limited"

as far as BT in specific, it is mostly used to infringe on copyrighted material, so i do see them being able to shut down users, either for using the client, or they may use the "excessive useage" reason, either way, they have that power

[thefluffy]

I"m not 100% sure on this but if I remember correctly, the Comast terms of use mention something about peer to peer networks not being allowed. However, I have not reviewed the terms. I plan to do so sometime soon. I do remember fairly distinctly that the terms do restrict you from running an http or ftp server from your internet connection. I'll see what I can dig up in the terms of service to validate this stuff--hopefully i'm not just posting FUD.

[thefluffy]

All right, I did some digging around in the documents listed here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/

Obtained from the comcast Terms of Use located at http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp

"5 B.
you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "web hosting" or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network"

This excerpt does reinforce my comment about ftp and http servers as well as other commercial uses being prohibited but says nothing about peer to peer networks being prohibited.

Obtained from the Comcast Abuse Policy located at http://www.comcast.net/terms/abuse.jsp

"Listed below are typical types and examples of activities which are in violation of the Comcast AUP and the Customer Agreement. If you are unsure whether you have been the victim of Internet abuse, the following examples may help in your determination. You may also refer directly to the Comcast AUP and Subscriber Agreement.... Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other limitations Use of the Comcast network infrastructure in a manner that (i) exceeds the then current bandwidth, data storage or other limitations on the Comcast High-Speed Internet service or (ii) puts an excessive burden on the limitations of the network. Examples include: Using the Comcast network to run a Web-hosting server or any other commercial enterprise."

This excerpt does show that comcast has grounds to take action against you for using a peer to peer network. Though, this does not pertain solely to peer to peer networks but actually anything that "exceeds the then current bandwidth, data, burden storage or other limitations on the Comcast High-Speed Internet service or puts an excessive burden on the limitations of the network." Sadly, this is very vague. There is no definition as to what these potential limitations are. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but I would assume that this gives Comcast grounds to define what these limitations are when they chose to do so.

Hopefully this will be somewhat insightful. I'm curious as to whether or not other ISPs have similar restrictions on their residential lines. Though, I'm fairly certain that they do!

[takethesewords]

this actually just happened to me 2 days ago. i have to write a response letter to my ISP because a certain network didn't like the fact that a TV show of theirs was being downloaded on my connection !

because it was my "first offense", all i had to do was call, and my internet was back up.

[Ockie]

I wonder if they actually just cover music, shows, and movies. What if say you downloaded other things... such as programs or say games. Seems like the MPAA and the RIAA are the only ones who runs the show.

[Ockie]

Please read things more carefully. I didn't even use the word 'upload' in my post but it's what you focused on.

Just FYI.

"The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content. It obeyed the law."

Also:

What the media companies object to is that in the process of downloading the file, your client will offer parts of their copyrighted content to other users


The uploading part is the illegal part, which is why that poster focused on uploading.

[GJSNeptune]

Good job, Ockie. But pay attention. Both of you.


I questioned his program blocking all copyrighted material requests. This isn't a matter of upload/download or which part is illegal.

The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content.

This means his program made no interactions of any kind with copyrighted material because it was smart enough to distinguish copyrighted material from all content it encountered. 100% accurate. Either he's an amazing programmer, or he's stretching the truth.

Hard to believe, unless he manually accepted/declined requests. I'm no programmer though.

[Ockie]

. I'm no programmer though.

I think I don't need to say anymore.

[KalaNag]

This means his program made no interactions of any kind with copyrighted material because it was smart enough to distinguish copyrighted material from all content it encountered. 100% accurate. Either he's an amazing programmer, or he's stretching the truth.

Hard to believe, unless he manually accepted/declined requests. I'm no programmer though.

That's what it seems at first glance, but later on the article he says:


I placed this client on a number of torrent files that I suspected were monitored by BayTSP (For my own protection I don't want to identify the torrents used for this research. I used the fact that NBC is a client of BayTSP to find trackers.(...)

so it's clear that he was using copyrighted content for this test, and that his client simply refused to upload/download that content.

[Ockie]

That's what it seems at first glance, but later on the article he says:



so it's clear that he was using copyrighted content for this test, and that his client simply refused to upload/download that content.


I think he was just using the torrent files and not actually recieving the content of the torrent file nor uploading anything.

[hordaktheman]

Well, yeah... that was the whole point of the experiment. The only thing that the client did was to connect to the tracker without uploading or downloading anything. He specifically wrote it for that exact purpose.

[G'ßöö]

but does it admit guilt? I think so. I know many and its use is always the same

[Eickst]

but does it admit guilt? I think so. I know many and its use is always the same

I know a lot of people who own cars who always speed on the freeway. Is owning a car an admission of speeding? Should we just send everyone who owns a car a speeding ticket every day, since every day they own the car they are admitting to speeding?

[G'ßöö]

I know a lot of people who own cars who always speed on the freeway. Is owning a car an admission of speeding? Should we just send everyone who owns a car a speeding ticket every day, since every day they own the car they are admitting to speeding?
that analogy doesn't work for me. with torrents, I see one use

[Ockie]

that analogy doesn't work for me. with torrents, I see one use

I don't. I think that analogy is perfect. Torrents are used quite a bit for legitimate file distribution, however, you always have a few who ruins it for the rest.

[Eickst]

that analogy doesn't work for me. with torrents, I see one use


So people don't use bit torrent for WoW updates, Linux Distro's that are freely distributed and ENCOURAGE downloading them over bittorrent (so they save money on bandwidth), and home made videos/movies/sketches that are not copyrighted?

Using your level of understanding, a DVD burner or CD burner is an admission of guilt, because I just assume that anyone who has one must be burning illegally obtained music, copying cds, or copying DVDs. Why else would you need one? Backup? HAH! Yeah, right....:rolleyes:

[Martyr]

that analogy doesn't work for me. with torrents, I see one use

me too. distributing large files using the community interested in the files.

[GJSNeptune]

I don't. I think that analogy is perfect. Torrents are used quite a bit for legitimate file distribution, however, you always have a few who ruins it for the rest.

Let's substitute.

[Cars] are used quite a bit for legitimate [driving], however, you always have a few [people] who ruins [sic] it for the rest.

What do people who speed ruin for other people?

The analogy is unfair. The best analogies have some relevance to the topic, as in, they demonstrate the same concept through a different perspective or angle. Torrents have nothing to do with people owning cars, driving, and speeding.

Fortunately the police aren't as uptight (questionble) and greedy as the RIAA, MPAA, etc.

[Ockie]

What do people who speed ruin for other people?


Hmm geeze I don't know.... *sarcasm* Do you even drive? Or perhaps pay for your own insurance?


Lets start at Insurance: speeders increases it for the rest of us.
Police: we pay more taxes so police can be more on the road to prevent speeders because of all the fatalities involving speeders.
Court: Speeders fills the small court system, thus increasing tax payer costs and increasing expenses
Safety: Speeders decrease our own personal safety on the road


So I don't know where you come from, but speeding affects a lot of people. But not everyone speeds.

[Ockie]

So people don't use bit torrent for WoW updates, Linux Distro's that are freely distributed and ENCOURAGE downloading them over bittorrent (so they save money on bandwidth), and home made videos/movies/sketches that are not copyrighted?

Using your level of understanding, a DVD burner or CD burner is an admission of guilt, because I just assume that anyone who has one must be burning illegally obtained music, copying cds, or copying DVDs. Why else would you need one? Backup? HAH! Yeah, right....:rolleyes:

Yes, I completely agree.


Most DVD burners out there are used for pirating, so therefore everyone with one should be accused of one under the same circumstance as the torrent community faces.

[KalaNag]

It's clear that he didn't actually downloaded/uploaded anything. So:

but does it admit guilt? I think so. I know many and its use is always the same

Common sense says NO, but of course, the RIAA wants you to think otherwise. If I walk into a room (connect to tracker), then I'm introduced to the people there (handshake with other peers), and just sit there doing nothing else while the others exchange pirated CD's and DVD's (they are offered to me, but I refuse), then I'm guilty of something? what do you think?

Also, AFAIK, in the US law copyright infringement is just a civil offense, not a crime (unlike speeding), so maybe that's why the highway analogy doesn't work for Neptune.

[Manny Calavera]

My friend has gotten 3 warning letters from Comcast saying he had better stop using Bittorrent or they will cancel his service. Do other countries with their massive bandwidth and cheap prices do this to THEIR customers? Or is it only here in the good ol' USA, where they charge 3 times as much for 1/20th of the speed? :mad:


A friend of mine got a letter from the DMCA toe years ago,he is still happily downloading,as am I. :) I got a DMCA notice last summer for a movie I never
dl'd !! didnt even grab the seed file ! :mad: I think this guy is really onto a
big thing here.And of course the ISP's just roll over when they get these 'Cease
and desist' letters.... cowards.And yes it is primarily in the USA,that peeps
get effed over on bandwith pricing from there beloved ISP's,and DMCA letters.

:D

edit: 37.17 Cdn @ month for NO data caps going on 4 years now from Ma Bell
@ 7megs down / 1.2 up.I average about 130gb down a month and 50 to 80 up.

[GJSNeptune]

Also, AFAIK, in the US law copyright infringement is just a civil offense, not a crime (unlike speeding), so maybe that's why the highway analogy doesn't work for Neptune.

I'm not the only one who thought it was bad. Downloading torrents to obtain copyrighted material doesn't jeopardize lives. Let's see if a cliché will help you guys out. Apples and oranges. Good?

Bad? You're right. Clearly, purchasing and driving a car is exactly like installing uTorrent and downloading files. Speeding is precisely like illegally obtaining a copyrighted movie.

Oh, let me guess, the analogy fits because we call it the Information Super Highway? That's a good one.

[ryan_975]

A better analogy....

People who own cars are assumed guilty, because they are used tools in obtaining stolen items from homes and stores.

[Ockie]

I'm not the only one who thought it was bad. Downloading torrents to obtain copyrighted material doesn't jeopardize lives. Let's see if a cliché will help you guys out. Apples and oranges. Good?

Bad? You're right. Clearly, purchasing and driving a car is exactly like installing uTorrent and downloading files. Speeding is precisely like illegally obtaining a copyrighted movie.

Oh, let me guess, the analogy fits because we call it the Information Super Highway? That's a good one.

You lost the argument and you are so desperate to grab onto something. You are now nitpicking the analogy and the actual scientific possibilities to save face.

[GJSNeptune]

You lost the argument and you are so desperate to grab onto something. You are now nitpicking the analogy and the actual scientific possibilities to save face.

I didn't lose. I'm not partaking in it anymore. Butting heads is all we're gonna do, as well as generate useless responses to otherwise interesting threads. I love how you accuse others of nitpicking when you're just as guilty of it. And it's good to see you still feel a need to prove yourself though. ;)


Anyway.

People should know what they're potentially getting into when they download a torrent program. ISPs have every right for torrents to set off flags and determine if they need to warn a customer. Let the real offenders test an ISP's monitoring system.

[KalaNag]

People should know what they're potentially getting into when they download a torrent program. ISPs have every right for torrents to set off flags and determine if they need to warn a customer. Let the real offenders test an ISP's monitoring system.

People should what? You are advancing the RIAA/MPAA argument another step... now they should start sending DMCA notices to those that simply DOWNLOAD the BitTorrent application?

ISPs don't have "every right" to set flags on nothing. They're supposed to be "neutral carriers", and in fact the only real reason for them to set flags on torrents is rather simple: Money. Bandwidth costs money, so some ISPs do shape their networks. Most of them see the whole DMCA thing as a PITA (it also costs them money, administrative resources, etc) but they have to comply to stay clear.

[hordaktheman]

Bingo. ISPs don't have 'every right' to do jackshit that invades my privacy. Their only job is to provide me with the bandwidth that I'm paying them for, and NOTHING else. My transaction with them goes exactly that far... I pay them money; they give me bandwidth. No more, no less

And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.

[GJSNeptune]

People should what? You are advancing the RIAA/MPAA argument another step... now they should start sending DMCA notices to those that simply DOWNLOAD the BitTorrent application?

Slow down. You're advancing it, not me. People should know what they're doing when downloading a torrent program, not agree/disagree to use it for legal purposes beforehand. A little behind-the-scenes knowledge, if you will. Limewire asks about your intentions though.

From the opposite direction, if someone torrenting gets a notice from their ISP, they at least shouldn't be surprised. They also shouldn't lash out on the internet.

Come on, news channels have reported on l33t speak, claiming parents consider it a secret hacker code. Are we surprised torrents concern people? We always assume the worst of people. It's natural.

ISPs don't have "every right" to set flags on nothing. They're supposed to be "neutral carriers", and in fact the only real reason for them to set flags on torrents is rather simple: Money.

They're supposed to, yes, but I'm sure they'd rather avoid companies warning them about customers participating in illegal internet activities. What if it becomes frequent? Then they're focused on and considered a bad ISP, even though it's no fault of theirs that many of its users happen to possibly do illegal things via their service.

[GJSNeptune]

And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.

Have you read your TOS in full? Just about every TOS I've read says something about having the right to terminate service at any time for any reason.

But I didn't say anything about preventing you from using the bandwidth. Just warning you about what you're doing. What if you were falsely accused of downloading illegally but had no proof? If someone complains to your ISP that you were doing something questionable, they have every right to relay that complaint to you in the form of a warning, if they are to be neutral.

If an ISP can detect your questionable activities, just know that people who care to do something about them can too.

[hordaktheman]

Have you read your TOS in full? Just about every TOS I've read says something about having the right to terminate service at any time for any reason.

But I didn't say anything about preventing you from using the bandwidth. Just warning you about what you're doing. What if you were falsely accused of downloading illegally but had no proof? If someone complains to your ISP that you were doing something questionable, they have every right to relay that complaint to you in the form of a warning, if they are to be neutral.

If an ISP can detect your questionable activities, just know that people who care to do something about them can too.
That is a completely different discussion. This isn't about the RIAA/MPAA complaining to an ISP because they traced some IP number on a tracker. This is about the ISP pre-emptively preventing me from connecting to a tracker because I might be doing so for illicit purposes. The issue is that the ISP can't judge whether the torrent is illicit or not.

[GJSNeptune]

That is a completely different discussion. This isn't about the RIAA/MPAA complaining to an ISP because they traced some IP number on a tracker. This is about the ISP pre-emptively preventing me from connecting to a tracker because I might be doing so for illicit purposes. The issue is that the ISP can't judge whether the torrent is illicit or not.

Sure, but don't you think other ISPs monitor activity, even if they don't dish out warnings? What if they're selling collected information? Like said previously, money greatly influences network structure. You have no idea what the ISP is doing, and yet BayTSP issued a warning and now we know.

And some think ISPs are changing. Everyone's getting stricter. Why not ISPs? They're still providing a service that they don't have to provide. I highly doubt their TOS is completely void of anything pertaining to this.

[hordaktheman]

Sure, but don't you think other ISPs monitor activity, even if they don't dish out warnings? What if they're selling collected information? Like said previously, money greatly influences network structure. You have no idea what the ISP is doing, and yet BayTSP issued a warning and now we know.That's just speculation. If true, it would be just as immoral (or in the case of selling the information, illegal in many countries). Doesn't affect the argument though.

And some think ISPs are changing. Everyone's getting stricter. Why not ISPs? They're still providing a service that they don't have to provide. I highly doubt their TOS is completely void of anything pertaining to this.Eh? Who is getting stricter? Corporations? A corporation is more than free to block whatever traffic it feels like for as long as it's paying for it. I have no idea what you mean.

[Eickst]

Ok, here's a better analogy.

Internet connections are being used to download copyrighted materials. You have an internet connection, therefor you are guilty of downloading illegal material.

Do you use instant messenger? Pervs and pedo's use instant messengers to try to lure young victims away from their homes. You must be a pedo if you use IMs.

Do you use myspace? Child molesters use myspace to try to lure young victims out of their homes. You must be a child molester if you use myspace.

[thefluffy]

Bingo.

And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.

Have you read yout TOS in full from your ISP? I have read my ISP TOS front to back. There is definitely some stuff in there that gives the ISP more power than you would think they should have. The parts I quoted earlier in this thread show part of it. Some ISPs reserve the right to deny you service because you were exceeding the current available bandwidth on the network. That means that you could be well within the limitations of the connection that you pay for and be denied service. The ISP really does reserve the right to do some interesting things when it comes to your service. I strongly recommend you read your TOS front to back. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything overly alarming in there. But the ISP definitely has more than "ZERO right" to prevent a person from using that bandwidth however he or she sees fit.

[KalaNag]

Internet connections are being used to download copyrighted materials. You have an internet connection, therefor you are guilty of downloading illegal material.

Do you use instant messenger? Pervs and pedo's use instant messengers to try to lure young victims away from their homes. You must be a pedo if you use IMs.

Do you use myspace? Child molesters use myspace to try to lure young victims out of their homes. You must be a child molester if you use myspace.

That's correct. The whole point about this isn't even about Net Neutrality or the validity of the DMCA or copyright rules... it's about the bullying of some company that doesn't even bother to check who is really downloading something illegal and just fire threats without second thoughts. It's just the same model of "sue first, ask later" that their bosses uses...

[hordaktheman]

Have you read yout TOS in full from your ISP? I have read my ISP TOS front to back. There is definitely some stuff in there that gives the ISP more power than you would think they should have. The parts I quoted earlier in this thread show part of it. Some ISPs reserve the right to deny you service because you were exceeding the current available bandwidth on the network. That means that you could be well within the limitations of the connection that you pay for and be denied service. The ISP really does reserve the right to do some interesting things when it comes to your service. I strongly recommend you read your TOS front to back. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything overly alarming in there. But the ISP definitely has more than "ZERO right" to prevent a person from using that bandwidth however he or she sees fit.

Sorry, bad phrasing. Properly it should have been: They have zero right to do that behind my back. If it's explicitly stated in the ToS then they can do whatever is stated in it. I'm only referring to the things that aren't. If it's explicitly stated that I can't use torrent (or some other protocol) then I am, of course, free to take my business elsewhere.

The issue at hand, however, is the term 'what the ISP deems acceptable'. If I sign a one year contract with an ISP, only to find out that torrents aren't 'deemed acceptable' due to some stigma of it being associated with piracy, then it's become the subject of this topic. That is why I mentioned 'Terms of Service' to begin with... Unless it's explictly stated, I'm simply being subjected to a whim.

[hordaktheman]

And to clarify, it's more of an ethical issue than a legal one.

(OT: is there no edit function?)

[thefluffy]

Sorry, bad phrasing. Properly it should have been: They have zero right to do that behind my back. If it's explicitly stated in the ToS then they can do whatever is stated in it. I'm only referring to the things that aren't. If it's explicitly stated that I can't use torrent (or some other protocol) then I am, of course, free to take my business elsewhere.

The issue at hand, however, is the term 'what the ISP deems acceptable'. If I sign a one year contract with an ISP, only to find out that torrents aren't 'deemed acceptable' due to some stigma of it being associated with piracy, then it's become the subject of this topic. That is why I mentioned 'Terms of Service' to begin with... Unless it's explictly stated, I'm simply being subjected to a whim.

Indeed, I agree with you there. I personally think that some of the stuff listed in the isps TOS can be questionable. Basically it is inspecific, causing some grey area. :(

[G'ßöö]

So people don't use bit torrent for WoW updates, Linux Distro's that are freely distributed and ENCOURAGE downloading them over bittorrent (so they save money on bandwidth), and home made videos/movies/sketches that are not copyrighted?

Using your level of understanding, a DVD burner or CD burner is an admission of guilt, because I just assume that anyone who has one must be burning illegally obtained music, copying cds, or copying DVDs. Why else would you need one? Backup? HAH! Yeah, right....:rolleyes:
no, I never said its not used for multiple uses so save the naive rant. I clearly state I know many who use torrents and they all use it for one use! it is an admission.

owning a dvd burner or any type of decrypter is an admission as well since it typically has one purpose.

BTW: the change to the lame analogy works now :D

[G'ßöö]

Bingo. ISPs don't have 'every right' to do jackshit that invades my privacy. Their only job is to provide me with the bandwidth that I'm paying them for, and NOTHING else. My transaction with them goes exactly that far... I pay them money; they give me bandwidth. No more, no less

And unless it falls directly under Terms of Service that I explicitly sign, they have ZERO right to prevent me from using that bandwidth however I see fit, let alone watch.
working for ISP's for 10+ years, you're right. but wait...one day soon some lovely person will change it all for us. I for one cannot wait! be the martyr who finally abolishes anonymity and makes us responsible for all our actions via IP. something that should have been implemented since day #1

[Eickst]

no, I never said its not used for multiple uses so save the naive rant. I clearly state I know many who use torrents and they all use it for one use! it is an admission.

owning a dvd burner or any type of decrypter is an admission as well since it typically has one purpose.

BTW: the change to the lame analogy works now :D

I'm glad you liked it ;)

I think most would disagree with you here. Just because you hang out with people that like to use bit torrent for evil, doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who use it for good.

I use it to distribute pamphlets on how to prevent STDs and helping feed the homeless.

[KalaNag]

What I find disturbing of all this is the concept of "Do you have Bittorrent? then you are admitting your guilt!!!". I for one firmly believe that you can't judge anyone just based on that, it's just a step far from minority report and a pre-crime department...

Do you have Bittorrent installed? you are a pirate, because only pirates would need such program! The **AA will sue you into oblivion!

Do you have a CD/DVD burner? you are a pirate, because only pirates burns disc! The BSA will confiscate the offending machine, your car and your house as well!

Do you have TrueCrypt installed on your machine? you are into child porn, because only paedophiles need to encrypt files! The police will take you in custody (and who knows what will happen to you!!!)

Do you use Linux? you are an evil hacker, because only hackers use Linux! The FBI will prosecute you (and maybe later you'll get a nice job with them)

Disturbing, like I said... ;)

[prof_HATE]

Do you have Bittorrent installed? you are a pirate, because only pirates would need such program! The **AA will sue you into oblivion!

Do you have a CD/DVD burner? you are a pirate, because only pirates burns disc! The BSA will confiscate the offending machine, your car and your house as well!

Do you have TrueCrypt installed on your machine? you are into child porn, because only paedophiles need to encrypt files! The police will take you in custody (and who knows what will happen to you!!!)

Do you use Linux? you are an evil hacker, because only hackers use Linux! The FBI will prosecute you (and maybe later you'll get a nice job with them)

Well, let's see...

I have 2 DVD burners, which I use to commit piracy on a fairly massive scale.
I run Linux, and I am a hacker (in the proper sense of the word).
I don't have TrueCrypt installed, but then again I'm not a perv. who's into child porn...


I'm just playing devil's advocate of course - I agree this kind of "jumping to conlusions" is foolish, especially in any situation where fines/penalties are going to be assessed. Anyway it's sad that these unjustified conclusions are often true .. :-) Personally, I'm not doing much to prove them wrong... :p

PS

Didn't some guy invent a "jump to conclusions mat"? IIRC, it's this mat.. with conclusions written on it.... that you can "jump to"... Actually it's the dumbest thing I every heard of, never mind... (Sorry, I just watched Office Space again recently...)

-prof

[hity645]

My friend has gotten 3 warning letters from Comcast saying he had better stop using Bittorrent or they will cancel his service. Do other countries with their massive bandwidth and cheap prices do this to THEIR customers? Or is it only here in the good ol' USA, where they charge 3 times as much for 1/20th of the speed? :mad:

Im downloading from bittorrent almost 24/7. No notice from comcast yet..but I suspect that if they did we'd cancel our tv service and they'd loose their $120-$150 a month from us.

[shadowwyvern]

It is funny in a service-centered business (isps), how alienating your customers and not protecting their right to privacy makes you a "good" isp and doing what you are supposed to and taking advantage of the safe harbor clause of the dmca makes you a "bad" isp.

And bittorrent has so many legitimate uses. I want to strangle someone every time I hear some company apologize for slowness as a result of a lot of people downloading a few files (like MS with the vista open beta). It is the same stigma of p2p that causes the obvious solution to be ignored that has caused idiots to buy into this latest crap.

And as someone mentioned, if BT gets blocked or starts to generate trouble, there is always encryption, TOR, etc to fall back on.

[Oooska]

The guy was actively opening connections to trackers that he believed that his ISP was monitoring for illegal file sharing (and he was correct in his guess). His ISP isn't monitoring trackers hosting Linux distros or WoW patches, and thus he didn't nor wouldn't recieve a letter regarding those sorts of torrents. With this in mind, the highway analogy simply doesn't work. A better analogy would be a wife finding her husband calling 1-900 sex chats. When confronted, he could say that he was simply talking to the women on the other end about what to get his wife for Valentines Day, but lets be realistic here--we know 99.9999% of the men in this predicament would be having phone sex. The exception proves the rule in this case.

[Eickst]

The guy was actively opening connections to trackers that he believed that his ISP was monitoring for illegal file sharing (and he was correct in his guess). His ISP isn't monitoring trackers hosting Linux distros or WoW patches, and thus he didn't nor wouldn't recieve a letter regarding those sorts of torrents. With this in mind, the highway analogy simply doesn't work. A better analogy would be a wife finding her husband calling 1-900 sex chats. When confronted, he could say that he was simply talking to the women on the other end about what to get his wife for Valentines Day, but lets be realistic here--we know 99.9999% of the men in this predicament would be having phone sex. The exception proves the rule in this case.

I'm glad you're not a lawyer. (Or a judge.)

[matrix563]

i got a letter from my school once alleging i was downloading chornicles of riddick. i wasn't but my roomate was (cause his antec psu melted). so i get in trouble for it. oh well. i just wrote a letter saying i didn't download it and i even watched it in theaters, which was true. and the internet was backup! ah the joy of backup when it came out a month later ;). :D

i remember my roomates friend letting me buy a whole bunch of blank dvd's from him because his laptop burning didn't recognize them. ah good times :)

[Ockie]

The guy was actively opening connections to trackers that he believed that his ISP was monitoring for illegal file sharing (and he was correct in his guess). His ISP isn't monitoring trackers hosting Linux distros or WoW patches, and thus he didn't nor wouldn't recieve a letter regarding those sorts of torrents. With this in mind, the highway analogy simply doesn't work. A better analogy would be a wife finding her husband calling 1-900 sex chats. When confronted, he could say that he was simply talking to the women on the other end about what to get his wife for Valentines Day, but lets be realistic here--we know 99.9999% of the men in this predicament would be having phone sex. The exception proves the rule in this case.

Actually, that analogy wouldn't work either.

A husband calling into a 900 chat would be actively engaging regardless if he was asking for advice or if he was seeking friendship. By communicating, you have bi directional flow of traffic, therefore, you have an active communication method.

Now this analogy would work if the husband called 900 sex chat and before they can pickup the phone, he puts down the phone... so it's registered in his calling history but no data flow was established. This would be more in the lines of the actual case... now lets break it down:

Husband: Caller/Downloader
Communication Method: Phone/Internet
Wife: Wife/ISP-RIAA-MPAA
900 number: 900/Torrent
CallerID: CalllerID/Tracker

Husband (downloader) makes the 900 (launches bittorrent) call over the phone (internet) but hangs up before he can establish a connection which shows on his callerid (tracker). Later on in the day, he is questioned by his wife (MPAA-RIAA-ISP) for calling the 900 number (using bit torrent) for a dirty deed (pirating).

Communication established on both analogy and actual event occurrence? No.


Therefore, we can conclude that the latter analogy actually would be the most correct analogy for the original article.

[KalaNag]

Husband (downloader) makes the 900 (launches bittorrent) call over the phone (internet) but hangs up before he can establish a connection which shows on his callerid (tracker). Later on in the day, he is questioned by his wife (MPAA-RIAA-ISP) for calling the 900 number (using bit torrent) for a dirty deed (pirating).

I think your analogy is _almost_ perfect, except that the husband didn't hang up... he just put the phone down and closed his ears/mouth while the girls on the line where asking if he wanted to have some fun ;)

[Oooska]

. . .
Husband (downloader) makes the 900 (launches bittorrent) call over the phone (internet) but hangs up before he can establish a connection which shows on his callerid (tracker). Later on in the day, he is questioned by his wife (MPAA-RIAA-ISP) for calling the 900 number (using bit torrent) for a dirty deed (pirating).

Communication established on both analogy and actual event occurrence? No.


Therefore, we can conclude that the latter analogy actually would be the most correct analogy for the original article.

You're right in some respects, but not in all (I should've been more detailed in my explanation). He doesn't simply hang up after calling the 1-900 line (the tracker).

For my investigation, I wrote a very simple BitTorrent client. My client sent a request to the tracker, and generally acted like a normal Bittorrent client up to sharing files. The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content. It obeyed the law... With just this, completely legal, BitTorrent client, I was able to get notices from BayTSP.

It gets a bit fuzzy here because the analogy doesn't entirely work (in part because there's no real real world scenario I can come up with truly represents the BT protocol). The guy is using a torrent file for a copyrighted show. He connects to the tracker, gets a list of IPs, and gives his IP as being interested in the content. Then he sits back and refuses any connections that come his way. His client is acting like a standard BT client in every way except downloading/uploading. He still communicates with the original tracker once in a while to get an updated list of others sharing files, and his IP continues to show up in the tracker with a note saying "Connect to me, I'm dealing with this content too!" He's at a crackhouse, asking for drugs, but anytime anyone offers it to him, he says "No thanks" and anytime someone asks him if he has any, he says "Not yet" and continues to hang around. He's still at the crack house when the DEA/NBC scopes the place out and sees him there. They assume, whether right or wrong, he's dealing in drugs/Scrubs.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't normally connect to servers claiming to be sharing illegal content when I'm really just running a social experiment. Had this guy done this on a tracker that hosts nothing but legitimate content like Linux distros or WoW pathes, there wouldn't be an issue. However, he wasn't at the farmer's market, he was at a crack house.

I'm glad you're not a lawyer. (Or a judge.)
. . . after that, me too. :D

[KalaNag]

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't normally connect to servers claiming to be sharing illegal content when I'm really just running a social experiment. Had this guy done this on a tracker that hosts nothing but legitimate content like Linux distros or WoW pathes, there wouldn't be an issue. However, he wasn't at the farmer's market, he was at a crack house.

You are right but... It doesn't matters. The fact is that he didn't uploaded/downloaded anything. And drugs are a penal crime, copyright infingement isn't.

[Ockie]

It gets a bit fuzzy here because the analogy doesn't entirely work (in part because there's no real real world scenario I can come up with truly represents the BT protocol).


I don't think it's going to be possible for you nor I to come up with a correct analogy as it's really impossible to represent it as you mentioned.


Now, I don't know about you, but I don't normally connect to servers claiming to be sharing illegal content when I'm really just running a social experiment. Had this guy done this on a tracker that hosts nothing but legitimate content like Linux distros or WoW pathes, there wouldn't be an issue.


True, poking at the beast will provoke it. I think he wasn't really interested in if they find out about him or not, I think he was more interested in of what they accuse him of. They accused him of downloading files and sharing those whiles in which he didn't do... I think that was the result that he was aiming for. Now it is quite hard to find out if someone downloaded an entire show or if they downloaded half and disconnected... I think it would be unrealistic for them to track who downloaded how much of what content... I think it might even be impossible as the torrent doesn't have to download from the same seeder next time it connects.

But I agree, had he downloaded legitimate safe content, no one would have contacted him... the fact that he went to connect to those torrent trackers indicates interest in that file.

Torrent downloading is a hard case to press, because the user might not have finished the download, might not be the actual user (war driver), or might never connect to the same seeders and completely download the file.... so in that sense it would be very hard to say that they did download it or didn't.


Also, on the same note, I don't agree with the RIAA/MPAA's ethics and methods of pursuing these people. They are making these files widely available and are allowing people to download it and catch/trap them like that... to me this is luring people in. If they went after the seeders, none of this would have been an issue as people would be too terrified to seed... however, it seems as if they are the ones seeding and catching the downloaders.... which is no suprise... there are more downloaders than seeders and the MPAA/RIAA is always after money... I am surprised that the media industries haven't been posting up websites and videos on youtube and logging the information of anyone who watches it.