Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Inherently Illegal?
Nohbdy001 asks: "Today I received a letter from my university's network administration advising me that my network access would be terminated due to 'illegal P2P activity.' The P2P activity that the e-mail cited was BitTorrent and the file being transferred was an update to the Azureus BitTorrent client. The letter stated, 'Until the courts decide that student P2P activity is permitted we will continue to block this activity on our network,' implying that BitTorrent is inherently illegal. It seems such misunderstandings are common, but it is particularly frustrating when coming from people in the IT field. How can a student respond to such an accusation in order to defend the validity of BitTorrent and continue to benefit from its legitimate uses?"
I don't have any advice in particular. It's unfortunate because this really amounts to censorship and stifling academic freedom. Who's to say that the content you're accessing with a network tool - say, even a web browser - is appropriate? Sure, you can say that downloading pirated software or movies is inappropriate, but, in my opinion, academic institutions should have as hands-off an approach as possible. Illegal content can be accessed via the web, or email. Most would say it's absurd to suggest blocking port 80, or port 25. Why? Why is that any more absurd than blocking something such as BitTorrent, especially as BitTorrent's legitimate applications are increasing?
During the heyday of Napster, the University of Wisconsin - Madison had a difficult decision. As it watched the traffic for Napster consume over 70% of total inbound bandwidth at its peak, we asked ourselves: do we start blocking Napster? After all, it's mostly used for stealing music. Right?
Fortunately, the answer was a resounding "No," but not because we condoned illegally downloading copyrighted material. It was because the university didn't want to become de facto censors of information, in any form it may come. We decided that things like Napster were part of the cost of doing business as a major public research university. The solution was to add bandwidth, and deal with the technical aspects of the problem separate from any social aspects that may exist.
Granted, some smaller institutions might not have been able to afford - economically or legally - to take this stance. But the University of Wisconsin felt it important enough to allow academic freedom and freedom of exchange of information to trump any other potential concerns, real or imagined.
The university does respond on an individual basis to people clearly running warez servers, owned machines used for warez, specific C&D orders or other notices from copyright holders, etc., but we don't take a proactive approach. In fact, ironically, a proactive approach could be more dangerous, because it may mean that safe harbor provisions of some elements of copyright law (e.g. DMCA) won't apply: an ISP can't be held responsible for things it doesn't know about.
Did you send a reply back stating, or better yet actually showing, legitimate uses? Game patches, legal multimedia distribution (Red vs. Blue for example), and so forth...
Ask them what you were doing that was possibly illegal. If they can not name any possible source of infringment, you might be able to do something. As for all file sharing being illegal, point out to them that a webserver (such as the universities webserver) along with google does essentially the same thing.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Although a P2P application may not be illegal, the department providing your computing services has decided they don't want to allow you to use a P2P application on their network.
Although their reasoning may be questioned - it is their network, and you are probably going to just have to put up with it.
Dave Bell
Sorry, it's their network, and you signed up to use it. You have to play by their rules. In a university setting, the goal should be to promote academic research, and unless administrators see BitTorrent as helping (I don't know whether it does or not), they will probably regulate it. If you have a legitimate academic need for the client, it might be allowed. You'd also probably be surprised about how much p2p traffic there is (music/movies) on campuses, and what kind of cost this incurs on the university.
and I can tell you that the larger issue is the amount of bandwidth used by students. Universities pay by the bit and budgets are tight. The network has two purposes: first, it is there to help with your education. second, it is a recruiting tool - nobody would want to attend a school without network access.
But beyond that, it's an expensive utility and the school really can't afford to open it up 100%. So, they are always looking for some way to justify restricting its use. It's sad that they have basically called you a theif, but don't take it personally. They're just trying to save money. It's wrong and it sucks for you, but that's the bottom line.
Don't worry. college is only four years, and then you can get a good job and a real internet connection. For now, just concentrate on beer and girls
and grades of course.
How about this?
I am an IT student. I need to use BitTorrent to download the latest Linux distribution so as to keep my linux distro up-to-date as required by my "computer programming in linux" class at this very university. (Alternatively, "to research the differences among kernel distributions" so as to document changes, observe patches, and understand why they were necessary and how they were implemented).
It's getting to the point where it's hard to run open source software without using bittorrent.
I'm not saying it's impossible (that would clearly be overstating things) but more and more things are being distributed via torrents.
I think the reaction should be that you know they have a problem (traffic and piracy on their network), but that you have a problem (there is stuff that's legal that you need torrents to get), and see if you can come to a reasonable solution.
I would try to emphasize the direction of the trend, too. A couple of years ago, bittorrent didn't factor into downloading linux iso's very much at all. Now I think it's clearly the best way to get most things, although more traditional downloads are still available. But eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if people without torrent access have real trouble getting large legal files.
If your school doesn't want to hamstring its students' ability to participate in open source, they'll have to open up to torrents.
It's the reason (i.e. need a court decision that P2P is legal) for not permitting P2P that is very odd, even by US standards. A policy based upon that P2P is not permitted due to excessive bandwidth usage is at least understandable.
Because if you're innocent, you don't need to be afraid?
I thought the whole problem was of being thought guilty until proven innocent, now are you going to sell your right for privacy too?
The letter stated, 'Until the courts decide that student P2P activity is permitted we will continue to block this activity on our network,' implying that BitTorrent is inherently illegal.
No, they are not implying that BitTorrent is inherently illegal. They are stating that they think BitTorrent *may* be used for illegal activities and they don't want to regulate BitTorrent traffic on their network, and are erroring on the side of caution.
Like it or not, it is the University's network, and they administer it as they see fit. Don't like it? Tough. Use another network.
If the MPAA finds a bunch of students pirating movies on the University network, the University will be held responsible at some level. It could become a massive headache for the Network admins, which is why they are taking this move.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
The Supreme Court will soon be deciding in the Grokster case (they heard the case on March 22 or so, if I remember correctly) whether the people who make the technology can be sued for contributory copyright infringement. Even if they reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue and decide that Grokster can be held liable for contributory infringement, that doesn't make the technology itself illegal - it just means that, if the technology is used to infringe copyrights, the copyright holders can sue the company that made the technology instead of or as well as (not sure the deal on this minor point) the users who actually download copyrighted material.
I don't know if there is precedent regarding holding a network provider, such as your university, liable for contributory copyright infringement when you use their network services to download copyrighted material without license to do so. My thought is that you bring up that it isn't illegal for the university to allow the traffic, and if they are not going to actively seek a declaratory judgment on the matter in court, they should not block the traffic on legal grounds. Moreover, their terms of service most likely proscribe copyright infringement over their network, so there is no apparent need to block the traffic, too.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Any reliance you take on what I've said is just silly, and you assume the risk of taking any such reliance. I have also not played a lawyer on television or in radio plays. Any resemblance between me and a real lawyer or an actor who plays a lawyer is a mere coincidence, and even though it would be really cool to have you ask for my autograph or offer to pay me for my advice, I am not a lawyer and you are an idiot for thinking I am.
When I was doing my undergrad, I was on a judical board. Any student who felt they were unduly punished could appeal their punishment to a judicial board for decision. This kept administrators from running amok handing out nonsense punishments out of ignorance/laziness/malice.
Our school even had a group of prelaw/political science majors that were certified by the school as "advocates" and could present your case for you. Check with your student government association and find out if such an option would be available to you. This may not solve the problem outright, but it would give you an opportunity to state the facts.
You can't argue with ignorance, but you can go on the record with the facts.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
Even if they reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue and decide that Grokster can be held liable for contributory infringement, that doesn't make the technology itself illegal - it just means that, if the technology is used to infringe copyrights, the copyright holders can sue the company that made the technology instead of or as well as (not sure the deal on this minor point) the users who actually download copyrighted material.
But the effect of such a decision would be catastrophic on all software used to exchange information. I imagine it would be trivial to show that a given P2P software was used to exchange a copyrighted work. And if so, the companies and/or individuals creating such software would be sued out of existance. Who would step in to write any new software knowing that an unrelated 3rd party could do something to cause them to get sued out of business?
Frankly, I find the whole notion of specifically targeting P2P applications to be stupid - anyone could use email, ftp, or usenet to distribute copyrighted works - what are you going to do, ban ftp? sue the makers of email software? why not just shut down the internet? its ridiculous and I hope the courts think so also, so they can force the media companies to stop living in 1980...
A separate issue that you haven't addressed is what other material you've downloaded using BitTorrent. Some people only use it for legally downloadable material like open software ISOs and trade-friendly music like the etree.org stuff (I certainly do; there's way too much stuff I like there to have time for piracy), while other people trade warez and pirated music. If you're one of the latter, please slap yourself on the wrist, clean the stuff off your PC, and be *very* careful when you talk to the university admins. If you're one of the former, you're in a much stronger legal position. There can be a big difference between what legitimate uses you *could* use BT for and what you're actually doing with it.
Illegal downloading is potentially legally dangerous to the university, whether it's done with BT or FTP-over-carrier-pigeon. If they're saying that the *issue* is dangerous to *you*, that sounds to me like a threat, and you really need to talk to your ombudsperson.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
They did not say that this student was a criminal or what they were doing was criminal. What they said was that, until P2P networks are ruled to be legal by the courts, they would not allow them on campus. That isn't saying that a P2P network is illegal, or that the student's use of it is illegal. It is simply saying that, barring a court ruling that affirms their legality, they aren't going to permit them at all.
Furthermore, there can be no libel or slander here because this is a private communication between the school and the student. Slander or libel is saying or printing something that is knowingly false about the student for others to see. It's a matter of damaging somebody's reputation. If the school and the student are the only ones privee to the communication, how can their reputation be damaged.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I assume you live on campus. I recommend you take your case to Housing, the Dean of Students, or someone else in Student Affairs. We're generally much more sympathetic and student friendly (it's our job). We're professional student advocates who should be able to help you navigate the processes and translate the language of the higher education bureaucracy.
In particular, if you can make your case to Housing you may be in a stronger position as we are typically a self-sufficient or lightly subsidized auxiliary service and dependent on your rent for our budget. Unhappy residents makes our lives more difficult and if it impacts the bottom line strongly enough it may make our jobs nonexistent. But more than that: most of us are in this profession to understand your concerns and help you convey them to the right people. It's part of the educational process. We honestly believe (and have the research to support) a huge amount of important educational and learning experiences occur outside of the classroom and labratory. This is one of those experiences.
IMHO, there should be a healthy tension between the Housing dept and the IT dept regarding the policies and use of the residential computer network. There is an inherent tension between needing to protect the network and keeping it open for legitimate academic and recreational uses. Unfortunately, it's usually the residents who get caught in the middle between these opposing viewpoints.
I've been involved in similar "fights" and discussions. There's no easy answer particularly in areas where bandwidth is expensive and public support for higher education is declining (i.e. nearly everywhere). And ultimately my responsibility is to all of the residents not just one or two of them. If that means I have to deny access to an application, port, etc. to a few residents to ensure the rest of them can use the network then I'll do that or recommend our network engineers do that. It's a poor solution and I wish we didn't have to do it but sometimes we have to make compromises. We can't afford (more realistically: YOU can't afford) to buy the bandwidth necessary to satisfy all of the academic and entertainment needs of all of the residents.
Best of luck! I hope your campus administration makes the right decision (whatever that is) and you learn something (hopefully positive) from this process. If it helps, I am dismayed by the situation as you have described it and would do my best not to allow a similar situation on my campus.
It amazes me how many people start their reply with words to the effect of "they have accused you of doing something illegal, this is slander, sue them!" when in fact the parts of the letter that have been posted do no such thing.
Its also funny how many people say "they can't do that!" when the university owns the network in question, which means yes they can. There is no gray area, and there is ample court ruling to back that up.
Considering the legal consequences the school can face from the **AA crushing machine, I can't fault them for taking this stance. I think its unfortunate, and to an extent unfair, but they really don't have a lot of choices.
But then this is Slashdot. We never let a little thing like facts get in the way. Just like this post will probably get modded to "troll" because we also don't like it when simple truths are pointed out.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It's a bad name because you have a small vocabulary? Should we take this a step further and just remove words from the dictionary because you've never encountered them before?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.