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.
There is already legal precedent that P2P file sharing technology in itself is indeed legal. The Federal Appeals court that ruled was talking about networks like Morpheus and Grokster, but I would think the precedent set also applies to Bittorrent.
Here's a quote from a news story back in August:
"History has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player," Thomas wrote. "Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude."
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
Still, it's probably worth a polite note to the network administrator to request "clarification". State your case concisely (they're usually busy) and politely, and you may get lucky.
Check out my eclectic infosec blog at InfoSecPotpou
Keep in mind that your definition of "legitimate use" may be quite different from theirs. University IT departments tend not to consider anything to be "legitimate" unless it has a valid academic application. Do you know of any academic uses for BitTorrent? Not trying to rain on your parade, but "I need it to download X" probably won't cut much ice.
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.
I did indeed send a reply back citing several legitimate uses (linux ISOs, legal large multimedia etc...). After which, I agreed to suspend my BitTorrent usage temporarily until the issue was resolved. However, the reply I received seemed less than understanding. Aside from being thanked for discontinuing my use of BT, I was told that what I was doing was potentially dagerous. To quote part of the e-mail: "I think the issue is potentially dangerous for you and the university. Thanks for suspending BitTorrent."
Which is why I bring the question to the community. Obviously using BT for legit purposes is not anymore dangerous than, say, browsing the web.
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?
Many univeristies have an Ombudsman, whose job it is to talk advocate for those trapped in meaningless rules which do not or should not apply.
A better letter to IT:
Dear IT Department,
I will discontinue using unauthorized P2P protocols on your network. I appologize if my usage of such protocols has caused any problem for your department of for the University.
From now on, I will only use allowed protocols, such as FTP and HTTP, to illegally download copyrighted material across your network.
When someone tells you something they believe is true (BT is illegal) which you know is false, you cannot use logic. Simply don't argue with them or demand proof, since they can't produce any evidence that it's illegal. Besides that, the person that sent you the mail was probably not the person that made the policy, but is responsible for enforcing it.
The only real recourse you have is to go to the dean which controls the networking group, and get a Decree From Above.
It might've been he who implemented the policy at the behest of the networking dept, but since you're the victim, it's up to you to set him straight. Go prepared with many examples of legitimate uses of not only BT, but of other p2p applications, and even similar ones such as FTP. Show the obvious falsehoods of calling it illegal, and demonstrate the slippery slope.
If this is a state school, the decree from above can actually come from a legislator. Write a (paper) letter and you'll probably get a response.