XP SP2 Torrent Shows Legal P2P's Promise

Downhill Battle writes "With Congress debating new legislation that would ban p2p networks (along with other innovations and beloved products), we thought it was important to demonstrate the huge potential of p2p software to benefit the public. So now at SP2torrent.com you can get Windows XP SP2 via BitTorrent." Update: 08/09 21:10 GMT by S : As commenters note, you can also get XP SP2 from Microsoft's site, but it's explained: "DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update."

Comments

This would be exciting..

[NanoGator]

... if it wasn't for the fact that MS's hosting services have totally blown away every connection I've thrown at it. I've seriously gotten 500KB/s from them before. (Bytes, not bits.)

Re:This would be exciting..

[lelio98]

I agree, it would be exciting if it wasn't coming through MS' ginormous pipes. But that fact isn't neccesarily an affront to BT. If every file I downloaded came from MS then I would say that BT or any other P2P program would be utterly useless. Unfortunately, not every P2P user has vast sums of money (perhaps the reason they are P2P users to begin with). It can therefore be reasoned that not every P2P user has an insane amount of bandwidth allocated to serving files to everyone else. Basically, I am saying that BT has its' place as do most good (someday even great) ideas.

A Good First Step

[wackysootroom]

That's great and all, but lawmakers won't listen until MS or is using Bittorrent themselves to distribute updates.

My prediction is that MS will do the "embrace and extend" thing with bittorrent once they catch on to it.

A nice idea...

[Compholio]

but one thing to point out:

Download Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
Downloads require BitTorrent: Windows, Mac, Linux.

Why would I want to download SP2 for Mac or Linux? Normally I could so downloading it on another machine if you don't have access to the internet where you want to install it. Honestly, if the machine you want to install it on doesn't have access to the internet then why do you need the security changes of SP2?

Re:A nice idea...

[NanoGator]

"Why would I want to download SP2 for Mac or Linux?"

So you can be another host and help with the cause?

"Honestly, if the machine you want to install it on doesn't have access to the internet then why do you need the security changes of SP2?"

Sadly, if you install XP and get it on the net, the odds are good you'll pick up a worm. So.. disconnect from the net, download the updates elsewhere.

hyperbole

[stratjakt]

While I don't agree with the INDUCE act, it doesn't ban all "P2P", it bans the setup of networks explicitly for exchanging pirated materials.. Ie; Kazaa, eDonkey.. Don't make yourself look like fools defending them, yeah there's some token 0.0001% of content that's legal on them.. Everyone knows that they're for downloading MP3s and DivX's and warez.

I don't see any law that threatens to make it illegal to send content from one node on the network (or peer) to another node - hence, peer to peer. I've never seen bittorrent threatened when used to distribute legal content, though sites like suprnova are walking a fine line by encouraging it as a means for piracy.

Complain, get active.. That's great. But dont exagerate or you wind up making a fool of yourself. If you want to write your congressperson or senator, do so with lucid well-thought arguments, not a bunch of "slippery slope" and hysterical dystopian visions of the future.. That, at most, gets chuckled at before crumpled and pitched into the can.

It's downhillbattle

[doofusclam]

They're just showing legal uses of p2p with something that could do with the help - 250mb per Windows installation is a lot of bandwidth. BitTorrent is an ideal halfway house for getting stuff out fast and helping each other out.

Hell, it's even worth you Linux users seeding the torrent. It'll mean your dsl connection gets less hammered with 0wn3d Windows boxes doing port scans.

Good on them - a lot of publicity for not much cash. Nice.

Re:Go Team Go!

[NanoGator]

"It definately helps to have object examples of good, legal use."

It could totally backfire if MS says "we dint give you permission to do that." MS has made murmurs before about limiting SP's to only verified serial #s. (I don't remember what the outcome of that was. A refresher would be appreciated.) If the SP's given out when MS is trying to control it, then you'll have made MS an enemy of it. Bad news.

Bit risky if you ask me.

Exception rather than the rule

[Shriek]

This is of course a perfect example of legal use for P2P, but it could be argued that it is only one such example and shouldn't count for much. I say let P2P remain in its current form and keep legislators from hindering it. In the end it might take a company like Microsoft to put pressure on law makers not to outlaw P2P.

What's missing is authentication

[TommydCat]

P2P networks really need to figure a way for an author to cyptographically sign a file as "authentic", like you can sign email with a PGP signature. This would be another step in giving P2P nets "legitimacy".

Currently there are all sorts of miscreants out there doing unspeakable acts to poor defenseless setup.exe files which will burn the end-user and turn them off to P2P.

If there existed a secure, integrated/easy way to verify that this XPSP2 fileset came from Microsoft without tampering (publishing MD5 sums is the antithesis to easy to normal users), I would click on the .torrent or whatever without hesitation.

The authentication would rely on the Public Key Infrastructure and have chains of trust that would go back to the CA's, just like we do with SSL certs.

I like "quotes"

Re:What's missing is authentication

[TommydCat]

I don't believe I missed anything -- a signed .torrent ensures the owner controls distribution per their copyrights. Someone posting this on another tracker would break the .torrent signature and not pass the authentication check.

I am assuming the "authentic" distributor has their own tracker(s), but this is trivial. If they no longer want it to be distributed, they take it off their tracker!

The 95% of the folks who put out torrents that aren't doing so by the will of the original distributor are the same 95% you can't trust to give you an unadulterated file ;)

(Obviously this is a simplification - the information contained would be updated for signing purposes, possibly signing sections as well if the original distributor/owner/company wanted to allow anyone to share it as long as the main package is authentic)

What do you mean by the second remark? If XPSP2 is signed by Joe Blow and authenticates, that merely means that Joe Blow put something out he calls XPSP2, but I know it's not from Microsoft. In all cases, the company putting out a .torrent would be the one signing it (in which case we'd never see anything from MS as a .torrent ;)

Otherwise, I see this much more useful in the manner of distributing game demos and patches, which most companies are using FilePlanet and other ilk that make me register with them separately, outside the interest of me just wanting to patch my @#$ing game, instead of clicking or FTPing the file directly like we did back in the Good Ol' Days. Instead of feeding the advertising revenue scheme of download services, they could keep a slower seed and let the users help with the bandwidth. Much lower cost than maintaining a speedy download server and friendlier to the customer than outsourcing it. After all that is a main point with the whole torrent thing and P2P in general.

I just downloaded SP2 from MS...

[DerProfi]

..and got sustained rates of over 250KB/sec. My P2P Bitborrent download (started at the same time) is still going and chugging along at a whopping 20KB/sec. I think I'll stick with Microsoft's servers.

Not entirely legal p2p

[MasterOfDisaster]

This isn't entirely legal p2p. The torrent is not seeded by microsoft, it's being hosted by a 3rd party. I don't have time to go through microsoft's EULA for SP2, but chances are - you're not allowed to distribute it. It may be "free beer", but MS can still raise a fuss about who sends it out.

Re:I'll Do it anyway

[ndykman]

The only reason I saw mentioned in the article is that IBM is worried about some of it's applications not being compatible, etc.

Which is more IBM's fault than MS, I think. Betas and RC of SP2 have been out for quite some time, enough to evaluate and provide workarounds, if not total fixes.

Finally, if it does break stuff, why not bite the bullet ASAP, because you will have to someday.

Re:Unless MS Officially Seeded the Torrent...

[stratjakt]

MSFT can and does mind, and the reason is simple: Besides this torrent, there are a million hoaxes, hacks and fakes on eDonkey and Kazaa. MS has to deal with all that shit, and the millions of calls from customers claiming that SP2 deleted their hard drive and changed their homepage to goatse.cx.

SP2 isn't going to highlight the wonderful life-affirming applications of P2P, it'll highlight why getting your OS patches off of some anonymous assclown on the internet isn't a good idea.

What could be covered under P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't any instant messenger client a P2P application?

If I run a web server off of my home computer, and I'm not violating my ISP's usage agreement, and I give my neighbour my IP address and he grabs a text document off my computer, that I wrote, am I not running a valid P2P network?

How about email? Is that not the ultimate P2P application? Is that going to be challenged now?

I really want to know when a network becomes something that the government can start legislating against. If I run a CAT5 from my desktop to my laptop, does that count? What if I sit on my porch with the laptop and a wireless connection? What if I sit on my neighbour's porch? What if he connects to my mini wireless LAN with his laptop? What if a bunch of neighbours do?

What defines the real internet? When did the internet go from a bunch of university computers hooked together to an entitity regulated by the government?

Why can't we create a new one specifically anonymous, secure, and NOT FOR PARENTS TO LET THEIR KIDS PLAY ON, and them complain that THERE'S STUFF THEY DON'T WANT THEIR KIDS TO SEE! I realize that's a bit off topic, since this is about copyright.

So is every technology that has both legitimate and illegitimate uses to be banned? Except hand guns, because THAT'S an item we all have a legitimate use for every freakin' day. I always go hunting with my little .22 pistol. Burglars are scared shitless of entering my home because I might have a pistol. Bullshit! And yet, that's the only one anyone stands up and protects. Sheesh! If the NRA put its might behind arguing for the freedom of the internet, we might be able to keep something just as dangerous to an oppressive government as an armed populace: the freedom to exchange ideas.

I'm sick of this, I really am.

Re:Unless MS Officially Seeded the Torrent...

[stratjakt]

Infinitely useful? Marginally practical is a better term, I think.

MS has more bandwidth than jesus, and you'll download the patch much faster from them than from some torrent.

I've yet to see any torrent download max out my downstream on this T1 at work. They have no problem maxing out my upstream of course - I wind up sending at 150 and recieving at 20 or so. I've tried big torrents too, new linux releases, spiderman and matrix trailers, etc..

Which makes me wonder how well the bittorrent thing would/will be recieved by the general public. Why should our upstream bandwidth - which we pay for - be used to redistribute MSFT's shit? I don't see them mirroring our ftp distro site. I don't see them telling the Comcast rep to reactivate my account after it was suspended for bandwidth abuse. Fuck that, they already gouged me for 200 bucks for XP Pro, they can damn well foot the bandwidth bill for any patch I need to keep it working.

I mean, would you let (random big corporation) Johnson and Johnson store products in your living room, and deliver them using your car and your gas? Even if you got a 15% discount on shampoo?

Help by not helping

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, this is certainly a contender for the stupidest thing this week, but it's still early yet.

17 USC 106 tells us that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their works.

Downloading is reproduction. See MAI Systems v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993), Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999), and A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

Uploading is distribution. See A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

Does it matter that MS is letting people download this from MS for free? No. They, and they alone have the right to decide whether, by whom, when, where, and how, their works will be distributed or reproduced.

Does fair use apply? Almost certainly not. Three of the four factors are against it, and the fourth is basically a wash.

Does any other exemption in copyright law apply? No.

So basically this is a perfect example of P2P nets being used to break the law. And it also shows that many users (and many /.ers around here) wouldn't know what is and isn't legal if it bit them in the face.

Here's why it would be so subjective

[ShatteredDream]

There is nothing resembling a majority opinion on the copyright issue here. No one has demonstrated reasonably, what a reasonable person is on this issue. A reasonable person might conclude that a small amount of restriction on the right to own a gun is acceptable to keep insane people from owning one. A reasonable person might think that 20 years is acceptable for certain white collar crime.

But what does a reasonable person now think about something as subjective as "inducing copyright violations?" To my neighbor that might be Kazaa. To me that might be a company pushing a MP3 player specifically designed to break any commercial DRM system. To my parents that might be all MP3 players.

I say that a reasonable person is subjective here because the topic itself is so ill-defined.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[danila]

Check out the Copyright Act. These factors determine whether the torrent is fair use.

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

The torrent is non-commercial. Check.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

It's a service pack, which is being distributed for free at MS. Probably check.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

It's complete work, though the torrent itself is not. Not check.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Positive effect. Check.

So overall one can be pretty safe that distributing Microsoft service pack is probably fair use. Of course, only the courts can tell for sure.