BitTorrent Implies Guilt?

[HardOCP News]

Is it possible to get a shutdown notice from your ISP just for having / using BitTorrent? Not only is it possible, it happens. 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.

 

[BinarySynapse]

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?

 

[Burning_Monk]

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

 

[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.

 

[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?

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....

 

[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....

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?

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 ! 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.



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.

 

[BinarySynapse]

A better analogy....

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