Slashdot Mirror
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."
...would I want to download a Windows operating system upgrade from an unknown source? Why not just wait for Windows Update?
It definately helps to have object examples of good, legal use.
Though I'm not sure if the XP SP2 torrent is legal...What's in the EULA about redistribution?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Do you have Microsoft's permission to redistribute the service pack?
No?
Surprise! It's illegal.
... 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.)
"Derp de derp."
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.
Then this does not show how P2P can be used in a legal manner...INFINITELY USEFUL--yes!, but not legal.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Check out The Linux Mirror Project for example. Which has torrents for Slackware, Slax, Fedora, Mandrake, Knoppix, Debian, Gentoo & FreeBSD
----
I don't use my Windows machine for BitTorrent. I prefer the console client that comes with Linux.
btdownloadcurses --url "$URL" --max_upload_rate 5
That way I can start the download to my home machine at work and still have it done by the time I get there.
MPAA and RIAA ( through our beloved Sen Hatch ) will outlaw p2p networks.
We'll use them anyway.
A few people will get lawsuits ( notably, those who run insecure versions on their OS that are running, in effect, an open proxy ), a few people will pay thousands of dollars, and the rest of us won't even bat an eye.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You can now get it directly from Microsoft.
One thing that any law must possess in order to be a law is that it can be enforced. You can't rule that breathing air is illegal because the law enforcement couldn't follow the law and still make it take effect. How could Congress ever enforce a BitTorrent ban? Copying certain types of data (terrorism communications or child pornography) can be limited and the enforcement of these sorts of transgressionsn is relatively routine now, but in the absence of enforceability, don't look for anti-BitTorrent legislation in the near future. Larry Rosen is right, there is reason to be optimistic about the ability for law to protect our freedoms.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Yes, it is entirely possible to slashdot a torrent. Each client polls a central server (or in more modern clients one of a number of servers) for new hosts and to update the server on its progress. If this server can't service all the polls from all the clients then a torrent has been ./ed.
----
I haven't actually seen anything that suggests that P2P protocols themselves might be banned, rather that certain companies will get their asses handed to them. BitTorrent has been often use illegitimately, but it is not billed as a big time file sharing network a la Kazaa. The fact that it is often used by geeks for legitimate purposes means that any judge who ruled against it on a "reasonable person" basis would probably get slapped down on appeals.
;)
Which brings me to the next reason I'm not too concerned with this bill. A reasonable person standard on something like this is highly subjective. There is no general public opinion upon which a consistent, long term reasonable person standard could be based. The SCOTUS will probably realize that and slap it down as unconstitutionally vague.
Seriously people, if ya'll want to really make the copyright cartels eat crow, go out and buy music from non-RIAA labels like Century Media. If you've never heard of Lacuna Coil, they're an Italian metal band that is getting really big thanks to a stint on Headbangers' Ball and touring with Ozzfest. They're damn good AND not RIAA affiliated according to the RIAA Radar site. Century Media has a lot of affiliates, and chances are that if you buy European or underground metal, it's not RIAA affiliated.
Don't pirate software or movies, at least not openly. If you're going to do movies, go to blockbuster, rent a new release, rip it, use dvd2one or dvdshrink and burn it to a DVD-R instead of fueling the propaganda about file sharing networks. Afterall, if rental rates increase, they have no excuse that people aren't using legitimate means to watch movies
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Please note that:
1) I'm a Furthur.net user and understand that legal P2P exists.
2) I oppose restrictions on P2P and am perfectly happy to rely on the RIAA suing violators instead.
3) I understand that this is a patch, not Windows itself. (Although is this distribution within the rights of the EULA? I certainly hope they've made sure it is.)
But as PR, this seems like a really poor idea.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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"
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
..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.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
Well duh, they want to make sure it works with all their software. I'm sure they are mostly talking about their close customers who rely on IBM for their business, and IBM can't be sure everythig will be smooth. But seriously this is the same as me telling all my office not to download and install it personally to wait untill I have tested it and I will deploy it for them
Imagine if the vaudeville and stage actors had gotten together back in the early 20th century and gotten motion pictures outlawed. Or if actresses and actors who had horrible speaking voices had gotten talkies outlawed in the late 1920's, etc. The recent legal trend to try to hold back technological progress is disturbing to say the least. Its also stupid and futile in the long run.
How does this get modded as informative? I'll be the first to burn MS as the stake, but IBM isn't rolling out because they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS, not becaue there is something wrong with SP2.
Bittorret vs Alkwhateverthehellitscalled speed wise I think I can download it from Microsoft's site around 400 times before this bittorret gets to 50%. I have never been a big proponent of using P2P for something like this.
a) I want to totally trust the source, no matter how evil it may be
b) I want it to go faster....
c) see above...
I know bittorret could be a real tool if more people used it etc but it still doesn't always hit 500k when I click on a bittorret file... while whenever I download from Microsoft, it does... (except for a few DDOS days)
Has the copyright owner approved the redistribtion of this patch by third parties? Or can this be described as "Legal P2P" only using some brand new defintion of "Legal"?
I think inexpensive distributed file hosting is a great idea, and I think P2P networks are a great way to implement that. But, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, even if you're able to justify it to yourself.
Perhaps this should have been titled "XP SP2 Shows Legitimate use for P2P."
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Lets be a bit more clear here : If the US wants to ban it, fine! But lets get away from the US-centric mentallity! Just because the US says you cant do it, doesn't mean the rest of the world cant. How they could possibly attempt to legislate something like this is rediculous- the internet is no longer centered in one country - you cant define what people worldwide can and cant do. Asides from being impossible, its a major waste of time and US tax payers money.
Via Bittorrent, I'm getting about 0.1k/s, but if I go and directly download from Microsoft's website, I get 100k/s. Go BitTorrent, Go! :)
> they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS.
You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around.
You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room.
IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they.
In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.
This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
F/OSS OS (e.g. Linux, *BSD) ISOs makes two examples. We could probably stretch to include OO.org et al to make three.
Three examples of legitimate use. Three.
You PR guys will have to work overtime if you want to make P2P look like anything remotely resembling legitimate.
No, I am not saying P2P should be criminalized. I am saying that the overwhelming majority of P2P traffic appears to be illegitimate (so to speak), most often for reasons of copyright infringement.
Be honest: when people mention P2P networks, what do they describe as its best feature?
A) "Dude, you can get stuff for free!"
B) "Dude, you can download lots of stuff in a completely legal manner without infringing anyone's copyright!"
I believe we all know the answer to that one, even if certain groups conveniently ignore it.
And - as mentioned elsewhere in the thread - the SP2 EULA does prohibit redistribution e.g. via torrent.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Well, this is certainly a contender for the stupidest thing this week, but it's still early yet.
/.ers around here) wouldn't know what is and isn't legal if it bit them in the face.
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
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As others have said:
WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe, MD5: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7, size: 278,927,592 bytes
I downloaded the file from Microsoft, and the MD5 checks.
Not that this in any way puts BitTorrent in a bad light: First of all, Akamai is a commercial system, and Microsoft pays a lot of money to use it. Akamai is itself a system that scales statically, by providing fixed caches located around the globe; it must be manually maintained in order to scale.
BitTorrent, on the other hand, is free, and is built on a pool of dynamic caches (ie., seeders), allowing it to scale indefinitely. BitTorrent's seeding system has weaknesses, but it's one of the best solutions so far.