Slashdot Mirror
Poisoned Torrents Plague Mybittorrent
jambarama writes "One of the biggest problems with the Fasttrack network has been poisoning. This is the practice of sharing a file on a P2P network that looks like the real thing, but isn't. Bittorrent until recently has been largely immune to this. Now a new type of torrent is tricking bittorrent sites to rising to the top of the download lists." From the article: "According to Rex, about 50 new torrents have been released from what he calls "fake" trackers (~31 in total.) These trackers are seemingly part of an elaborate plot to infiltrate the BitTorrent community with intentionally corrupt files. These movie and film titles are specifically designed to report false information to trackers, thereby gaining artificially inflated popularity."
They tried the same tactic with kazaa as i recal. Aldo they might have a harder time. there is a lot of independnat tracker on the web.
In addition to fooling unsuspecting users into downloading these broken torrents, it is likely that IP addresses were also harvested - potentially for future lawsuits. So BitTorrent clients will have to add/invent a trust systems for trackers now - not just for files.
--- Eat my sig.
Simple. Bittorrent needs an EULA so that people are forced to post legitimate pirated files. Damned liars - spoiling it for all us honest freeloaders.
When you're a big boy you can afford the $5 movie rental at blockbuster.
Then you know what you do with the rental? Rip it.
Takes far less effort, gets higher quality, supports the economy how you choose to do it and doesn't zap so much bandwidth for your own ego-stroking purposes.
Honestly folk, get a life. Copying music and videos is cool when you're 9 because you can't afford shit but even a teenager working a burger joint can afford a rental once in a while. And frankly how much media is there out there that is WORTH wasting the three hours downloading every night anyways?
I say all the power to them.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Why won't people leave me to break the law in peace, dammit!?
I mean, what did I ever do to them? Oh, wait...
Martin
Files that impersonate other files (e.g. get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static) tend to only impersonate files that people don't have permission to distribute (and are therefore breaking the law). Most files that are legally distributable tend to not suffer from having poisonous files out there, so therefore people that follow the law don't actually have a problem with them.
If the past is any indicator (and it normally is), the bittorrent poisonous files will mostly (if not only) be impersonating files that people aren't allowed to distribute. Your garage bands or Linux distributors that use bit-torrent, are most likely not going to have people impersonating their files out there (there may be a little bit of it, but chances are it'll be a very small amount).
So really, for people that follow the law, this isn't going to be a problem. For people breaking the law, you really have no reason to complain. However what can be a problem is when legit files falsely report information to increase their perceived popularity.
It's it an unsuccesful attempt to violate IP rights? Afterall, you will never be able to get the complete package.
What are they going to take you to court over? Downloading their junk data?
First of all, I cannot read the article because of the corporate proxy filter, so I'm talking "blind" here.
Ok, so what is the real problem with this???
If this is being done to prevent "ilicit" files from being spread, then I do not see what could be wrong with it. Some people are getting free stuff and then complaining the file is corrupted or it isn't what they expected to download???
Another matter would be for example contaminating "licit" files, but I'm sure that this is not the case (again, I couldn't read the article), which could be used from preventing downloading of some linux distros for example. That'd be something to worry about though.
no, what bittorrent needs to implement is some kind of encrypted protection or key for trackers so that any attempt to subvert them is a DMCA violation. turn their own weapon against them.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
when the "poisoners" just tricked you by putting porn in place of the movie? that was always my favorite poison. that's why i drank a small dose of it everyday until i became immune.
If it's content that is normally paid for...I don't see any problem.
Maybe someone can make an argument I understand...
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Esepcially as from TFA:
Those who download these torrents are unable to complete a full download, as the file transfer stops at approximately 97%-98%.
Guess that would give plenty of time to harvest the IP, whilst the pirates end up with gigabytes of useless 1s & 0s....
I mean given the reported posioned torrents so far are:
"The Wedding Crashers"
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
The first three episodes of "The O.C."
It seems unlikely that there is any legitimate use of these.
This is not about legal or illegal files. If its possible to put fake files like that on a network and inflate their download ratings then theres a serious flaw in the network and it must be fixed
> Otherwise you'll turn it into "all your base" and we saw where that went.
To Us?
But you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.
--- Eat my sig.
I hate poisoned files!
I try to download a game... and what do I get? A french version!
DELETED!
I try to download another game... and what do I get? A polish version!
DELETED!
A friend of mine tried to download some real good lesbian porn and what did he get? No... worse than what you think....... a britney spears clip!
UGH. DELETED!
Eh? But you didn't download anything illegal if the torrent is broken, so you haven't broken the law?
A good incentive to add a quality preview feature to bittorrent clients.
Since bittorrent does not download files from beginning to end, it should be possible to preview different parts of the file that have been downloaded (at least with some formats), and make a crude verification that it is not being distributed by some type of subhuman trash.
I mean really kiddies why not look up the origins of the joke and then use it responsibly?
"Woah! Watch out! I think he's got a soviet russia joke! Quick, everyone! Evacuate the city before he uses it. He doesn't look like he's going to use it very responsibly so we're all in danger!"
Seriously. Use a joke responsibly? WTF? Maybe where your from using jokes is a serious business, but out here in Australia making a joke is anything BUT serious. People don't think about "using a joke responsibly", it's a joke, it's meant to make people laugh, if it does great, if it doesn't oh well. But you don't have to consider using it responsibly, the most thought you should put into it is "is this going to hurt anyone's feelings."
This is why you should access torrents through community forums. From the comments sections here you'll quickly learn which torrents are bad. Helps the network in general because you'll also have to look after you UL/DL ratio not going too low.
Theres already a plugin for Azureus that prevents it connecting to the IP addresses of known bad torrent seeders and goverment agencies using a regularly auto-updated list. I think its called 'Safepeer'.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
If you feel that someone has caused you enough grief with bogus torrents in your seek for copyrighted movies and music, why don't you go and sue someone about it?
Even if you did download it I don't think that's illegal. If you then went on and distributed it that would be illegal.
The solution to this is simple: Moderation on the tracker sites. Let users report what torrents succed and what not. And release lists of poisoned torrents to be used on all sites.
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
wwaaaaaaah i cant steal without work! waaaaaaaah
Aaah, but if the RIAA is distributing the file (or giving it to people to distribute), that's implied consent, so therefore you can't be sued (well okay. You can be, but the RIAA should lose).
"Locks Plague Burglars"
"Mace Plagues Rapists"
"Speed Cameras Plague Speeding Motorists"
"Forensic Science Plagues Careless Criminals"
"Crazy Frog Ringtone Plagues Absolutely Everyone..."
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
OK, not trying to justify anything here, but where does all the law stand on an issue like this?
What if I were to download "The Simpsons" from last nights free broadcast? I'm not uploading anything, just downloading and watching it, then deleting it after I watch it. Can I be arrested for this or is it copyright violations? I'm not selling anything. I'm not causing the lost revinue from watching this. No, even though the commercials are not on the download, it still doesn't matter as I never watch commercials anyway. If I were to watch it on TV and don't watch the commercials, can I be arrested for that then? Is that copyright violation also? What if I were to tape the show with a VCR, but not the commercials...wouldn't this also be exactly like just downloading the show? I still have the end product. The Simpsons from last night. What if I were to record the show from last night and put it on my HD. Again, the exact same result. I would have the exact same show on my HD without commercials wither I downloaded it or taped it. And how could they prove it otherwise? Unless of course I were to take the show I recorded and then distributed it.
This is all a grey area here. Is this illegal like stealing a car and downloaders should go to jail, or is it copyright violation and downloaders should just be made to feel guilty (or go to jail) or is it really nothing? Again, I'm not trying to justify anything here...just want to know where the law stands on people that record a free show vs downloading the exact same free show...both WITHOUT commercials. If some say that the it's the commercials that make it a free show then I suppose I should be hauled off for jail for YEARS of not watching the commericals.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
It seems kind of stupid to try to get Them(tm) to break the law while trying to catch you (in general, not timmarhy personally) break the law, doesn't it? If you have a problem with the business and legal practices of the **AAs (or similar associations depending on your country) then the easiest way to deal with them is to not deal with them at all and not use their products.
Rather than turning their weapons against them, don't give them a reason to use their weapons. Go for the legal stuff. IMHO it tends to be very good anyway. Here is a good place to start:
LegalTorrents.com
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
To quote Nelson, "HA HA!"
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
rar's are the worst. cause they're usually solid archives so that you need the first in the series to be able to read any of them. zips are not so bad in this respect, usually they each contain the directory, although i belive you can make "solid" zip's, spanning?
So when you are almost finished the poisoned torrent doesnt let you complete the first in the series and your stuck with the wasted gig/megs. Whereas if you get avi's and other formats directly encapsulating video, you can always watch it with mplayer and force it to rebuild the index and still manage to watch it even if your missing ~10%
By the act of actually seeding the file for people to download in the first place arn't the comitting entrapment?
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
Basically what we have going on here is a game of cat and mouse. Creative programmers are trying to share material; an industry that makes its money selling overpriced and overrated shite is trying to stop people sharing it. Each side is just responding to what the other side is doing.
Think of the evolution of weapons and armour: at any point in the development cycle, there must have been either a piece of armour that no weapon can penetrate, or a weapon that no piece of armour can stop. You cannot have both. The existence of impenetrable armour inspires the creation of better weapons just as surely as the existence of unstoppable weapons inspires the creation of better armour.
And my money is on the file sharers to win in the long term. We're human; and ever since we invented language, we have had the urge to tell one another stories. File sharing is just the modern manifestation of the same instinct.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Luring someone into engaging in some illegal activity and then suing or reporting it to law enforcement is considered a crime over here in Italy. Is it the same in the US? One thing is a police officer infiltrating a mob, another one is wiretapping a communication device without a judge's supervision by a private individual. On top of that, if the network sniffing is done by joining it and participating in the transmission of data, they are actively participating to the eventual crime.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
No. Only the police can commit entrapment. Source
If these torrents point to bogus trackers, why do they allow them? The tracker info is easily findable in the torrents, surely they'd be able to blacklist trackers? And if they can't, they could just use whitelists, or have a private tracker and just allow new torrents that use that one... There are some huge trackers out there, and I've seen at least one of those simply denying a user from uploading a torrent to them if the tracker field wasn't set to point to theirs.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"These movie and film titles are specifically designed to report false information to trackers, thereby gaining artificially inflated popularity."
Can someone tell me what the difference is between a movie, and a film?
So sayeth the man who in the other story got all non-jokey about humor on wikipedia.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Actually, as a Canadian, I'm allowed to download copyrighted material because I've paid money to the copying levy--for the same reason I'm allowed to copy my friends' CDs.
So these torrents are actually preventing my *legal* download of copyrighted materials.
Music wants to be free.
I wonder if they can corrupt "battlefield earth" in such a way that it would be actually watchable....
At most bittorrent sites you can leave comments at the bottom. I always check those to make sure that the torrent is as the title suggests. You can be sure somebody bitches in the comments if it's not.
Meh.
Not withstanding the fact that bandwidth is cheap. If someone finds their latest Torrent download has frozen at 98%, they are probably just going to shrug it off and find another Torrent, only by this point there will have been enough time for forums to get some feedback about which Torrents are actually good. All this is going to buy the Studios is a short delay in the time it takes someone to get their files, probably less than a day for even the highest quality feature film. Plus, they'll almost certainly be cursing the studios even more for the delay instead of thinking "Gee, maybe I should go and spend some money".
Somehow, I suspect that this is yet another instance of a media company being taken to the cleaners with a "magic bullet" solution by a group of snake oil salesmen. Heck, it might even be some of the same bunch that told them DRM would prevent people taking unauthorised copies of audios CDs, and we all know how well that's working out for them. I can't help but wonder what the situation would be like if instead of assuming all of their customers were crooks they had spent that money on providing tangible extras people might actually want and/or reducing prices...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I bought Photoshop CS. Photography is a hobby, but one I take seriously enough to be semi-pro at it with the occasional paid job. The product activation in PS CS turned out to be a real problem. Nearly every time I did a system restore, PS CS would deactivate, requiring I call Adobe to reactivate it. Windows being the way it is and me liking to tweak with my laptop, I had to restore a lot. It was getting beyond annoying and I was starting to worry about Adobe blacklisting my copy of PS CS. So I downloaded a pirated copy of it along with a key generator. I kept that on my hard drive and started reinstalling instead of having Adobe reactivate.
At the end of a trip to Europe, I was working at editing and printing a bunch of pictures I'd taken of an event. I needed to use a photo printer someone else provided. The printer driver install went awry and I had to do a system restore to fix it. Sure enough Photoshop deactivated itself. I was at a hostel in the mountains, about 12 hours before my departing flight, without any Internet access, at 4 am, with no idea what phone number I was supposed to call to reach Adobe tech support if they were even open at that time on a Sunday. So I uninstalled Photoshop, dug up the pirated copy, and installed that. Worked like a charm. I got the pictures edited and printed, the people at the event were happy, and I made my flight home.
When Photoshop CS2 came out, I bought that as well. And I downloaded a pirated copy of it off bittorrent. Of course the real irony is that if Adobe handn't put in product activation as an anti-piracy measure, I never would've needed to get the pirated version.
Gee maybe I shouldnt download the next episodes of CSI Milwaukee or Gregs Anatomy....
"Woah! Watch out! I think he's got a soviet russia joke! Quick, everyone! Evacuate the city before he uses it. He doesn't look like he's going to use it very responsibly so we're all in danger!"
Seriously. Use a joke responsibly? WTF? Maybe where your from using jokes is a serious business, but out here in Australia making a joke is anything BUT serious. People don't think about "using a joke responsibly", it's a joke, it's meant to make people laugh, if it does great, if it doesn't oh well. But you don't have to consider using it responsibly, the most thought you should put into it is "is this going to hurt anyone's feelings."
Looks like someone has a case of the Mondays.
my sweet pron torrents arent poisoned
the identified trackers ... all originate from the same IP address.
The solution suggests itself. Is PeerGuardian onto that IP address yet?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
While this may affect public trackers theirs 100's of private torrent sites out their that will remain unaffected. Worth a try by the RIAA/MPAA I suppose and it might stop Mr John Smith and/or his son but plenty of people will continue to use torrent sites.
Unlike kazaaaaaaaaaaaa *ahem* torrent sites are well enough maintained and policed and false files can be easilyed removed.
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
Yakov, is that you?
The essance of the joke was (as you put it) contrasting two very different and very much opposing societies.
In the 'modern' incarnation, the essance is still there. Instead of directly comparing America with the USSR, it is now implied that the contrast is "Soviet Russia" and the rest of the world.
Of course, it's still not really funny unless ot makes sense in terms of how things were in Soviet Russia, but your rant was completely off base anyway.
=Smidge=
Your privilege to download an unauthorized copy of the X-Men TV series isn't being hurt.
"These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases."
Hmm... The Wedding Crashers, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the OC. Yep, sounds like old and obscure stuff to me that you can't find at the theater/DVD aisle at Wal-Mart.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
If these retards keep dressing themselves up with the BitTorrent name, then we're all going to find ourselves explaining why downloading legitimate stuff isn't illegal.
I agree, it won't be very effective. I've already seen it going on for a couple weeks now. I use Azureus with safepeer, and I know that if I start a torrent download and suddenly get 15 blocked IP's by safepeer, something is not right. Usually SP will block the IP's of every seeder of that torrent, thus preventing me from downloading any of it. A sure sign to drop the download, inform the site listing the torrent/tracker, and find a different copy of that torrent. Generally the site will drop the torrent and ban the tracker that listed it within hours.
Unfortunately for the **AA's, user feedback will probably quash this method pretty quickly, unlike on the Kazaa network where it worked quite well.
In Soviet Russia, jokes responsibly use you!
Hang on. - Distributing a broken file is illegal? - It shouldn't be, if it is, as it is broken, it cannot be said to be the copyrighted item.
We have the same thing in the US but it only applies to criminal cases. Copyright, etc are CIVIL CASES. That is, they are not government prosecuted, rather, they are prosecuted by the perceived vicitim (RIAA, MPAA, Big Company, etc) -- at the victim's expense. No jail time can be rendered. Only fines and penalties.
We do have entrapment laws when it comes to criminal cases, however. IANAL but there is lots of controversy around how entrapment is applied. The basics are just like you outlined above. Essentially, a law enforcement agent can not break the law in order to get YOU to break the law. That's a simplistic version but hopefully someone else smarter than me can chime in and explain it better.
Exactly. If they can't be held liable for "entrapment" by pretending to offer their own copyrighted works and tempting people to download them by placing them onto a filesharing network, then anyone who downloads this "fake" file can't be held on copyright infringement, because no copyright was ever actually infringed.
And I don't think "attempted copyright infringement" is a law on the books yet.
If advertisements have been edited out of the downloaded torrent edition, its not a grey area, its still illegal... Remember IcraveTV?
its bizarre - I see this huge trend towards p2p for d/ling various content, but BT has never lived up to its promise to me as a cable modem user.
correct me if i'm wrong, but d/l speed is based on a ratio to u/l speed. being that i'm on cable, my max u/l is crap - which means my d/l is capped off at a snails' pace.
with usenet, I can d/l as fast as my provider allows me to so my sustained speed is much faster.
i guess if i'm on a T1 or greater, BT makes more sense. but for the average home based user, usenet seems like a much more appropriate method.
Don't steal shit.
If you want to watch the movie, pay the $5 and rent it or wait til it comes out free on Broadcast TV.
Violating copyright is illegal. If you don't like it, change the laws.
It's illegal to copy a movie, steal Windows XP, or distribute GPL work without complying with the license.
Maybe if good movies/shows/music were rewarded with profit we'd get more of them. Rather than the crap targetted to people who actually pay for it.
Right. When non-police do it, it's called something else. If I trick you into doing something that hurts me, and then sue you for doing so, that's fraud instead of entrapment.
The RIAA will try to sue people based on just this. They will get lots of settlments. A few people will fight it. Those who fight it will have this attempted download (though not actually illegal) be used as probably cause for a discovery search of the user's computers, where they will find ACTUAL infringment, and log files documenting when, the source, and how the files got to be there. In the end the user is still busted, even though this is not illegal.
By the way, entrapment doesnt mean you can't be tricked. Police use undercover hookers, drug dealers, online "13 year old girls" all the time to catch johns, druggies, and pedophiles. Its only entrapment if they initiate the offer or conversation. Making something available and letting you make the first move is perfectly legal.
Define 'broken'. If a file is stored in a multi-part RAR Archive with passworded encryption, is it not broken? It is an absolutly useless packet of data to anyone without the password to extract it. And when its downloaded as a broken file collection, and then extracted and watched, where is the point at which it becomes illegal? Is it illegal to download the 'broken' file, or is it illegal to extract and watch it? And if it's only illegal to extract/watch the file, then is it not illegal to upload the 'broken' file?
Don't count on it. People have been successfully prosecuted hundreds of times for selling "drugs" that turned out to be flour, oregano, pudding, etc. If you're representing your product as something illegal then you can't defend yourself by saying "but that coke was actually baby laxative, that's not illegal to sell!" The converse is just as true. If an undercover officer sells you something that you believe to be illegal, then you can't claim innocence when it turns out to be fake. I'm not saying that copyright law is 100% analogous to drug laws, but there's an *extremely* strong legal precedent there.
I compiled a list of the IP addresses of the banned trackers listed here: http://www.mybittorrent.com/bantrackers.txt/
Here are the IP's:
85.64.70.229
71.130.204.152
71.132.6.18
206.81.133.67
69.236.99.244
have any effect on private torrent websites, such as http://oink.me.uk/?
No obviously if you aren't distributing copyrighted items then you aren't infringing any copyrights. My point was that it's not illegal to download copyrighted stuff, just to distribute it.
-massive change of p2p software (bt wasn't the first and won't be the last
-finding and punishing the culprits (hehe, impossible!)
The thing is we can't go against people for poisoning not entirely legal stuff. Sure, we can judge them morally, but in a trial this has almost no value!
So I don't see a lot of alternatives. Who is up for coding another P2P client in 15 lines of code?
The threat of bittorent that is......the RIAA and MPAA focus so much time and energy on this crap, i wonder what the return is?? remember when they had parents scared and provided a tool to help parents identify media that may have been pirtaed on a hard-drive?? The tool detected EVERYTHING that was media as potentially pirated. For those of you that use BT the list of about 30 fake trackers is already posted on your favorite forums and has been for a few days, sites are already filtering them out and if the admins at mininova arent capable of making a filter to keep these trackers off their site, there will be those that do. The BT community isnt tech ignorant as was the case of kazaa, and all this will continue to be free publicity for BT :)
For those who're interested: reaction from the mininova admins here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=207569 #207569
Donate free food here
Not only that... they will find "actual infringement" regardless of whether there really was infringement or not. Why's that? It's easy for one RIAA agent to secretly slip a bucketload of MP3 files onto the disk after temporarily setting back the system clock, before another group "analyses" the disk for stolen music.
General discussion of rogue P2P servers from a couple years ago at a Defcon party
Although I for one fail to see what law you violate when you download poisoned torrents made freely available by the copyright holder.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Is it infringement though....?
Surely it would only be infringement if the file you downloaded actually was the real film. If you've been downloading a fake file then you havent actually breached their copyright. If they are sending you bits of the real file but preventing it from completing then aren't they themselves the original uploader?
Is there such a crime as 'Intent to commit copyright infringement'....?
I have no sig yet I must scream.
and if you reverse those IP's they seem to be mainly ADSL connections from USA and Israel
you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.
No, it's not actually copyright infringement.
When you download something from itunes, is it copyright infringement?
Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?
Now, here's where this example ties into this discussion:
If the copyright holder puts their work up on a P2P service, with full knowledge that the file will be downloaded and uploaded, how can they claim infringement? They know how the protocol works, they know that copying will occur. By putting the file up, with knowledge of how the protocol works, they are implicitly giving permission for the copying to take place.
It's not copyright infringement if you have permission.
the company who is doing this:
http://www.mediasentry.com/
They have thousands of linux boxes scattered around out there, some of which they make high profile so people think they "know" where their boxes are, but there are others that are a lot more discreet, some which don't even corrupt just take notes on whats being stolen, then they sell that data to the copyright holders.
I think what they do is on the fuzzy side of legal, however, it is helping copyright holders protect what is theirs.
What if I were to download "The Simpsons" from last nights free broadcast? I'm not uploading anything, just downloading and watching it, then deleting it after I watch it. Can I be arrested for this or is it copyright violations?
Did the copy you download contain the commercials, or were they excised?
And if it contained the commercials, did you take the time to watch them?
The commercials are all the RIAA cares about. As long as you took the time to watch the commercials, then everyone will be happy in Tinseltown.
The fact that you don't actually need time to harvest an IP aside, is what you're doing technically illegal? I thought the ruling was that the uploader is making the illegal copy, not the downloader. It is true that you download as you upload over bittorrent. But as you don't have a real file, you're not really uploading anything copyrighted.
Is there such a thing as "intent to commit copyright infringement?"
As a side note, is anything about this scheme illegal on the studio's side? It is illegal to misrepresent files / etc for malicious activities, but is it illegal to misrepresent files simply to annoy people?
The ______ Agenda
I'm pretty sure that downloaders aren't liable in the same fashion that uploaders are. P2P has blurred the line, but... "Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it." Which right guaranteed by copyright is the downloader infringing? (Here' a short list.) (By contrast, the uploader is obviously usurping the owner's right to reproduction (and, presumably, distribution).)
The downloader is not copying or selling the work; not importing or exporting it; not creating a derivative work; not performing it or displaying it publically; not selling or assigning those above rights. So, if downloading is infringement, and infringement is horning in on the copyright holder's exclusive rights---which rights is the downloader infringing on?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yes, but if the torrent is corrupted, said IP's aren't distributing copyrighted works? They might be able to prove the intent to pirate, but not the actual act - the penalties for intention tend significantly less.
Of course, it would be easy enough to prove in court that distributing a corrupted file violates MS Windows copyrights. Then you'd be in trouble.
Whichever law they need to buy to make it so.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you don't like it, change the laws.
I don't have nearly enough millions to get anything like this done. Actually, even if I did have those millions U.S. big bully tactics would still mean that media corporations get their way in other countries. If you want to change keep doing it until it becomes absorbed into the culture and de feacto legal. It seems to have worked for marajuana in Canada.
Oh, and as for illegal I don't own a TiVo but I am d/l-ing an episode of Rome I missed last night on the HBO channel I pay for. Hows that for illegal for ya?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
If you are copying pirated stuff - i.e. stuff which you have no rights to distribute and the entertainment industry are behind this well then tough.
If these torrents are poisoning legal files it is another matter then we're talking sabotage.
I do however not understand why on earth the entertainment industry hasn't put a 99 Cent mark on all content and allow people to share to their hearts content, they could fund cohens work on bittorrent and totally free themselves from running the distribution network.
If they wanted a piece of the action distribution wise then they would be free to become ISP's - Lay down fiber lines renting it to ISP's etc...
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot on this one instead of working with the society they're swimming upstream, they'll never beat pirated material, they can however by being clever ensure that 99% of all people will buy their content and not copy it if prices drop to an acceptible level.
The way BT is supposed to work:
People publish their own content via BitTorrent on their own web pages. You find a website with stuff to download, through a search engine or a link from a blog or whatever, and grab a torrent file from their site. Because of BT's built-in verification, if you can trust the website, you can then trust the download.
The way pirate BT torrent aggregators work:
People submit torrents to the aggregator, which has no good way of telling a fake torrent from a good one. Everyone starts downloading. It's only after they finish downloading a load of trash or get thoroughly frustrated trying to complete a download when there's deliberately no complete seeding that people realize they've been had.
This is a potentially very effective attack, and while there are a few strategies for dealing with it, I predict unmoderated pirate aggregators are going to get hit hard.
True, but still... there's two possibilities.
*If* the downloaded material is, in reality, not the movie it was claimed to be, but rather just a random collection of ones and zeros, then obviously, anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement.
On the other hand, *if* the downloaded material really *is* what it was claimed to be, then, well... anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement, as it was the rights holders themselves that voluntarily and knowingly uploaded the material. You don't even have to argue about entrapment, because copying movies is not something that is *inherently* illegal - it's just illegal if you haven't gotten permission, and if you're downloading from the rights holders themselves, then you can argue that you had permission - it's called concludent behaviour.
The only thing that you *might* get sued for is attempted (i.e., not actual) copyright infringement - but then, it's not clear whether an unsuccessful attempt to infringe on someone else's copyright is something you can be sued for at all, and the matter is furthermore complicated by the fact that you could, in this case, still argue that it was entrapment (probably not legal, either, if it's not the police doing it - and even then, it's not at all clear), etc.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Seriously though, most torrent sites have comment and rating abilities.
Once someone flags the torrent as FAKE it quickly dies.
Nothing to see here, move along!
The difference is, there are actually laws against "pretending" to sell drugs.
Why? Because even though you aren't selling drugs, you are scamming people, which is then theft.
Since downloading a movie is not (yet) a criminal offense, the worst they could do is try to sue you. I'm just not sure the court would award them damages in a case where they actually incurred no damages. Attempting to infringe a copyright and failing is not the same liability as actually infringing that copyright. Unless the court just wanted to "teach them a lesson".
It becomes criminal infringement if you make money off of doing it, or are part of an organized ring that deals in piracy. Although, IANAL.
I got pimp-slapped for repeating this some time ago right here on Slashdot, so allow me to pass on some enlightenment about US copyright law.
The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act "amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines".
Nothing there about any "organized ring". If you're running a P2P client and you upload six hojillion copies of the latest plebeian pablum, guess what---you're liable for jail time and a hefty fine. Enjoy!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
i was having this exact same problem with entourage episodes this summer. i was using the official BT client. then i read some forums. if you use peer guardian you can block it. or, an easier method that i found is to use bitcomet (a very nice client indeed) with the latest ipfilter.dat file. after about 10 failed attempts to get the episodes i havent had a single problem since--and i download A LOT of tv.
Also poisoned was the first episode of Nip/Tuck. Just FYI.
The Pirate Act is not yet law, but since the enactment of the No Electronic Theft Act, uploading is indeed a criminal offense, and I doubt you get up to five years and a quarter million in fines for a misdemeanor.
Now, skipping commercials on DVDs, if it requires that you go around the CSS, does violate the DMCA---though I'm not sure if only the coder who cracked CSS (thus creating a device to circumvent copyright protection) is liable under that law, or you are for using it. IANAL, after all. But what you describe is mostly already illegal.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
[i]On the other hand, *if* the downloaded material really *is* what it was claimed to be, then, well... anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement, as it was the rights holders themselves that voluntarily and knowingly uploaded the material. You don't even have to argue about entrapment, because copying movies is not something that is *inherently* illegal - it's just illegal if you haven't gotten permission, and if you're downloading from the rights holders themselves, then you can argue that you had permission - it's called concludent behaviour.[/i]
Ahh.. but even if the downloaded file really was what it was claimed to be, and it really did come from the rights holders, and thus you really did have the right to download it.. that does not mean you have the right to distribute it. So you're still breaking the law by uploading to other peers (which is very hard to prevent when using BitTorrent).
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Yeah, and I'm always seeing a guy at 127.0.0.1 - He must be monitoring me.
Well, laws differ around the world, but i'm pretty sure that over here (Austria) you can only be prosecuted for fraud in such a case. Not that i'd be eager to try to sell flour to a desparate junkie (both because i'd be an asshole and i might get killed).
Free as in mason.
Or, switch to Linux, FreeBSD, etc. and not have to worry about illegally downloading a .torrent of the install CD to re-install your system.
I am a Mac User, and I do not expect to be able to download disk images of the OS install disks in order to reinstall from a system failure. Instead, I back up my system, I make back-up copies of my install discs, and if it were to ever come to such a situation, I would go to the nearest Apple Store and ask for help. Nowhere in my recovery situations will I have to break the law.
So, again, only people downloading illegal files have to worry about poisoning on the BitTorrent networks.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
What a cheap trick RIAA/MPAA are playing?
Do you mean they really didn't wanted us to DL all that content for free?
What about the conspiracy theory that the Bill Gates wanted his Operating System to be copyied?
I am portuguese. If you think my written english is bad, try posting in portuguese!
These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases.
All of which would, of course, be illegal to download or upload, anyway. I don't see the problem.. as a matter of fact, I see it as a victory for those of use who respect intellectual property.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Hmm, but the question is, are those useless 1s & 0s actually copyrighted material? If the download is not complete and/or the movie is not viewable does it count as infringement? And if it's movie studio or an agent of the studio doing the poisioning, are they not the original seeder? Therefor they are freely distributing the file and giving up their copyright? If you're walking down the street and someone working for a MGM says "Hey, would you like this DVD?" and you took it, could you be charged with theft? If the file is legit then they advertised it via the tracker and freely and knowingly allowed it's download, if it's not actually "The Wedding Crashers" and just 700mb of digital garbage then you haven't actually downloaded "The Wedding Crashers" and they have no case.
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Heck, if you're a movie buff, you can just use their monthly fee (what is it, $20 a month?) to rent movies as you want them; in that case, your rate of DVD rippage is only slowed by your desire to stop by the Blockbuster on the way back from work, and your desire to bother ripping all of those DVDs.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm writing my Congressman today. We need a law to make it illegal for copyright holders to offer fake movies when I wanna download the real one without paying! God almighty, can't Congress work for the people?!?!?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I am completely against sharing things illegally.
But that aside, technical solutions present themselves to me. Maybe they have not be investigated by others, so I give them here in the hope its helpful to those fighting the corruption of _legal_ shares.
As a file downloads, it typically contains sufficient information in parts to be understood without the entirity of the file.
For example, as a movie is downloaded in segments, segments themselves contain keyframes. By fast-forward playing the the movie as it arrives, skipping incomplete segments, in a small thumbnail, bad quality or fake torrents would be easily identifable.
Further statistical tools could measure such things as the rate the scene moves, so fake movies that contain promising keyframes but then garbage to obliterate the content might be tagged as suspicious long before the complete movie is downloaded and ready for viewing fullscreen etc.
If you have downloaded 99% of a movie, you ought to be able to play that 99%.
Nope, a derivate work still infringes on the copyright of the original. It doesn't have to be a perfect copy. If I take a book, replace all the 'e's with '3's and print and sell those, I'm still infringing on their copyright, even though almost every word is different. Similarly mp3's infringe on real CD's, xvid avi's infringe the copyright of the source DVD material, etc.
By the way, the court dismissed the argument that it's just a bunch of meaningless 0's and 1's somewhere in the 60s I believe.
Presumably one would download Debian ISOs from something like cdimage.debian.org. To poison that, one would have to hack Debian's servers, and at that point, your vulnerability isn't really in bittorrent, now is it?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
What your licence provides
The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence. This allows it to run a wide range of popular public services for everyone, free of adverts and independent of advertisers, shareholders or political interests. 95.6% of the UK population used the BBC every month in 2004/5.
The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, over 50 local TV and radio services and bbc.co.uk. These provide local and national news, documentaries, arts, drama, entertainment, live music and children's programmes. The BBC also runs social action, education and minority language programmes. Its considerable investment in British programmes supports production and craft skills throughout the UK.
BBC World Service is funded by Government grant and not your TV licence. Profits from separate BBC commercial services help to keep the licence fee low.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/
The BBC is run in the interests of its viewers and listeners. Twelve Governors act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC. They are appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers.
Day-to-day BBC operations are run by 16 divisions. The main BBC Executive Board is made up of 9 directors and is chaired by the Director-General. A Creative Board, Journalism Board and Commercial Board report to the Executive Board. The Executive Board answers to the Board of Governors.
BBC Governors differ from directors of public companies, whose primary responsibilities are to shareholders and not consumers. BBC Governors represent the public interest, notably the interests of viewers and listeners.
The Governors safeguard the BBC's independence, set its objectives and monitor its performance. They are accountable to BBC licence payers and Parliament, and publish an Annual Report assessing its performance against objectives.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless."
Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?
I know that here you can be charged with smuggling flour if they can prove that you thought you were smuggling drugs. If you thought you were illegally downloading a copy of "The O.C.", then you were breaking the law regardless of what the bits actually are. In a criminal case this works, since there's no government entrapment. In a civil case it doesn't work, because the MPAA would have "unclean hands", where they actively work to increase the liability. So no, you won't see the MPAA sue people over this. This is a means to waste people's time and bandwidth and raise the S/N ratio.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OK then, let's say for the sake of argument that you want to download some copyrighted Metallica via bit torrent, that the RIAA have already got the police to put the file you want on the Net, and that downloading is a crime.
The definition states:
Government agents have performed entrapment if three things occur:
1) the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2) the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
3) the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
1) It was your idea to download it, not the goverment agent's
2) Nobody said "pssst, you really should download some Metallica, come on, forget the law!"
3) You were definitely ready and willing to go ahead with the download
I don't see how you cold argue against any of those points.
So it's not entrapment or whatever passes for entrapment.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
If the source published the torrent then it could be argued that it was assumed you would have to upload to help ease the strain on the source. You could say that it was intended for you to upload because thats how bittorrent works.
What I think is hilarious is the fact that by seeding "poisoned" trackers they're essentially saying it is legal to have .torrent files on your server which reference names of copyright material (eg pirate bay)
I mean a "poisoned" torrent file of "lost ep.126" and a legit file are identical in that neither contain any copyright material and infact to prove any illegal activity within a tracker one must actually break the law and download the movie.
Assuming this isn't enough, seeders should start every torrent with a short section of footage which is copyright to someone *other* than MPAA, so that in order for the MPAA to prove any illegal activity, they must themselves engage in illegal activity and be subject to the same laws.
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
You're missing the GP's point. If the file is truly random bits, then it isn't a derivative work of anything.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Why should the RIAA care about movies or TV shows? Do you mean the MPAA?
Originally, I was going to add the MPAA, but they might actually care, since they're thinking of things like re-run rights and DVD rights and the like.
But the RIAA is 100% advertising-driven, so as long as you take the time to view the ads [or, in the case of radio, to listen to the ads between the songs], then they don't give a damn how you came to be in a position view [or listen to] them [the advertisements].
What the RIAA fears above all else is that people will use software to fast-forward through the advertisements, or the excise the advertisements altogether.
Lawsuits for what? Downloading useless garbage with the same name as your product? I've never understood this strategy. If they've intentionally destroyed the payload so it's gigs of unusable garbage, you haven't stolen a thing. The Treasury Department regularly shreds billions of dollars worth of currency and tosses it in the garbage. If I take those shreds are they going to accuse me of robbery? Trespassing maybe, but the scrambled bits bear no meaningful resemblance to the original product. If you transmogrify what you're trying to protect to the point that it no longer IS what you're trying to protect, you can't accuse someone of stealing what it isn't any more.
In which case, can the RIAA/MPAA be sued for infringing their own copyrights?
One place where the analogy breaks down is that the distributors are entitled to distribute the files, as they are the copyright holders (or agents of the copyright holders). Downloading a file from a copyright holder that has been knowingly made available for download can hardly be seen as copyright infringement.
To successfully sue, it would be necessary to show that the downloader believed the file was not legitimate, i.e. the people offering it were not the copyright holders.
Furthermore, as far as I know, copyright infringement is still a civil offence (is DMCA criminal? Can't remember), and it treated differently to drug laws. Things get even better in Scotland, where the civil courts do not allow punitive damages.
bittorrents corrupt you.
No, wait a minute.
If you are downloading legal files via torrent, such as the latest and greatest linux distro, then good on you, these are not poisoned. If you are downloading illegal files, such as the latest and *ahem* "greatest" hollywood release and its poisoned, then fine, you paid the price. I mean come one folks, you are always saying that you only use BT to download legal files, demo software, pathces and linux ISOs, so this is not affecting you. Complaining about this means that you are breaking the law. Let not be hypocritical shall we
Is it a crime?
You're getting to the base of the problem. They will buy the law to make it a crime. The real problem is that wealthy interests can phone in any law they want to a legislator, who needs the campaign money to stay in power.
Want this not to happen? Make laws effectively repealling the Supreme Court ruling that "Money = Free Speech". If money is speech, then the loudest wallet wins. And remove all private donations from campaigns, while giving manadatory free air time to candidates. Eliminate the need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to become a President.
Barring that, game's over.
"Random" sounds like the work of the Devil.
In Soviet Russia, man-ham cans you!
Why would the RIAA care at all about pirated movies? Sounds like you're just parroting more of the bullshit slashdot armchair legal brigade's mindless anti-RIAA sentiment.
The RIAA is music. The MPAA is movies. At least get your boogeymen straight.
I'm 95% sure that this is the work of Macrovision. If you haven't heard much from them lately, their new business model is to make software that floods p2p networks with shit and then charge movie studios for the service. A friend told me about a meeting where the technology was demoed.
"Don't steal shit."
Downloading media files which are created from master discs I don't own is called copyright infringement.
Taking out my gun and robbing the manure salesman is stealing shit.
Now, do you want me to ARR a bit so you can talk about piracy?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
So you're still breaking the law by uploading to other peers (which is very hard to prevent when using BitTorrent).
Not really. A 3 line modification in Uploader.py is all it takes to effectively disable uploading with BitTorrent. Sure, peers won't prefer you so you'll download slightly slower, but even when leeching I usually manage to max out my DSL.
It sucks, but it's worth it to present a smaller profile to the **AA fiends. You don't have to outrun the tiger, just the other guy. Hopefully those in less oppressive regimes can seed for now, when those orginizations finally die I'll revert my change.
That means that if I want to run for president or senator you - being a taxpayer - need to finance me to whatever level is deemed necessary.
Tell me how this doesn't end up leading to 10-year campaigns for president? How does this not result in massive scams where it looks like I'm spending money on a campaign and just siphoning the money off? It leads to a permanent class of campaigners that live very well off on the proceeds of something purporting to be an election campaign. And, you can't make the rules more restrictive to prevent this because that eliminates minor third-party candidates from ever getting a chance.
Any campaign finance reform that ends up just being a public welfare system for campaigners is going to fall victim to this sort of thing. Why doesn't it happen that way in other countries? Because they aren't Americans.
Just sign your torrent files, then everyone can see who is publishing them and verify they are getting the right ones.
Since you're only distributing files you have the legal right to distribute, you should have no problem putting your name and address on it.
Oh wait, were we talking about bittorrent?
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
You know that was funny.... Back in '85.
You are quite right, it would be the MPAA for movies, the RIAA for music, and I don't know who for TV, Maybe the MPAA pulls double duty. However the substantive portion of my argument was 100% correct.
Lastly, well, all they have to do is contact the ISPs involved with those IP addresses and show the filename. The average ISP folds like a cheap rug and will terminate the account with that lack of proof. Sure, you may have downloaded a file which has nothing to do with the movie, but do you think the ISP is going to bother to check that?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Maybe they can sue based on "intent to violate copyright" or so, but you did not violate any copyright downloading that stuff...
Um, you DO know that BitTorrent works such that each downloader also serves as an uploader for other users, right?
If the actual content specified by the torrents is junk data and not the actual content, I'm not sure how copyright applies. Surely copyright applies to the actual content of a work, and not a mere label attached to non-content?
So BitTorrent clients will have to add/invent a trust systems for trackers now - not just for files.
Most clients already have one: It's called "The User". It's unlikely you'll get bit for infringement if you're not downloading copyrighted works. I think that's a pretty easy thing to avoid.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
It shouldn't be a problem for legit downloads, should it?
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
GP is not completely off base. My ISP got a letter from the RIAA regarding a pirated movie I'd downloaded. I assume they can do it for the copyrighted music in the movie.
Somebody wants to try to mess with the file-sharers? I welcome the challenge. There is an entire world filled with clever programmers (myself included) who love solving problems like this. It's all a game, they do something, we hit right back and keep the community alive.
Blacklists are a stupid idea, they can be used for denial of service as well.
.." lists ready ..
[x] I wish I had one of these "Your idea does not work because
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
My low-rent cable package costs me about 40 bucks a month in Canada, which includes the usual regional spawns, a handful of speciality channels, and a bunch of Fox/NBC/ABC/CBS spawns. I'm paying for last night's Simpsons, which is one of three television shows I watch regularly -- thats a grand total of 10 hours of television a month buried in steaming pile of "content" I'll never watch. I'll download last night's Simpsons, thank you very much.
body massage!
If someone harm you, and you fail to do anything about it for long enough, despite you being in communications with them, you can't sue them for damages. You must make some effort to migrate the damages beforehand.
Civil law is based on the idea of 'tort', that other people caused harm to you, and you can't let other people keep 'hurting' you and then sue them when you think they've racked up enough damages. You have to try to stop them at some point. Otherwise the court rightly supposes that you weren't really being harmed, or didn't mind the harm.
I.e., I can't let my next-door neighbor can't drive over a corner of my grass for ten years as he pulls into his driveway, keep track of how much grass he's killed, and then sue him for that amount. I have to actually have tried for stop him for the last ten years, via talking to him and even putting up a pole so he can't do that anymore. (And then I can sue him for the cost of the pole. ;) )
And you can't cause people to keep 'hurting' you and then sue them for it. That'll get you laughed out of court so fast it's not funny.
If the MPAA hands out a torrent into a network that is designed for end users to share the files, they can't complain when exactly that happens.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I feel an idea forming - get some data from /dev/random, give it a name a couple of gigabytes long, and share it. That name just happens to decode to a ogg theora file for the latest hit movie (yes, the one from 2001 ;), but surely I can call my extremely important sample of random data whatever I want, no ?-)
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Part of the problem is cost: movies are expensive; to make, to market, to purchase.. because they're giving zillions of dollars to trained monkeys so they can hand it over to L. Ron Hubbard's legacy, and whatever's left goes to Pablo Escobar. Screw that!
Another part of the problem is that the various media associations have been so far behind the times, and trying to compensate for their ignorance with lawsuits and deceptive advertising to take down the competition. We, as (former) consumers, often take pride and glee in "sticking it to the man". We can't do much in the face of these billion-dollar cartels, except rebel in whatever ways we have access to. They have shafted us long enough.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
One might argue that the copyright holders themselves caused this upload to occur; after all, they did know how BitTorrent operates, and it was obvious that this would be a direct result of their actions. On the other hand, none of this really matters, since the RIAA has money on its side, and can therefore win any legal dispute simply by dragging it out until their opponent goes banckrup, whether or not that opponent is guilty of anything, or simply buy the neccessary changes to law by bribing (sorry, "contributing to") the right politicians.
We really, really, really need some kind of point-2-point instant wireless untraceable magical quantum communication device...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I think it's better to say: In Soviet Russia, responsible jokes use you!
I know that here you can be charged with smuggling flour if they can prove that you thought you were smuggling drugs.
Link please.
If you thought you were illegally downloading a copy of "The O.C.", then you were breaking the law regardless of what the bits actually are.
Link please.
Question. Does this count for distribution also, because I downloaded your post with the intention and belief that Misha Barton's copyrighted breasts were encoded in you message. Please post some par files, I think your upload was corrupted.
If my belief makes it a crime, we are both in trouble. There can be no infringement without copying, and this dance takes at least two people. Don't worry I won't rat you out unless they offer me a really sweet deal.
Australia? I don't think that drinking-beer-from-your-boots type persons are qualified to decide on matters of jokes and responsibility. You're way too deviant to have sufficient insight.
the most thought you should put into it is "is this going to hurt anyone's feelings."
Apparently it did.
If the laws weren't being violated then there would be no reason to change them.
By your logic the Patriot act is just fine.
I think broken laws should be fixed, irrespective of if people break them or not.
IANAL, but it seems to me that the *AA crowd is "circumventing the security measures" of a piece of software. Bittorrent has mechanisms that try to keep it secure from being used in unauthorized ways. If the *AAers are creating hacked versions of Bittorrent that circumvent these protections by hacking the protocol, seems like they're committing a DMCA violation, or at least a violation of some hacking law? I'm sure there's some reason my analysis is wrong, but I'd love to know what it is.
No, that's just because drug laws are written by a bunch of lunatics, where the intent to smuggle drugs is illegal in some places.
This isn't true of any other laws. (Except maybe attempted murder.)
In fact, it is actually a legal defense that what you were trying to do is impossible.
For example, if you attempt to walk off with the Washington Monument, it is not theft, as that is impossible. Even if you create plans involving distractions of guards, and have aquired a fence to resell it, and a way to smuggle it out of the country, the simple fact is that you cannot pick up the Washington Monument, and thus the crime is impossible, and thus not illegal.
That's an absurd example, but that defense has actually been used before.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If you want to harvest IP addresses, just connect to a normal torrent and you see the addresses of the people you connect to.
You cannot sue over things you did not even vaguely try to stop, and in this case have actually encouraged, even if they are explicit torts under the law.
They not only have delibrately used a system where the users upload, they actually set up the system (the tracker) itself.
They cannot turn around and sue when people do exactly that, even if that would otherwise be a civil offense.
It's kinda the civil version of entrapment. If someone commits 'harms' me, I cannot silently put up with their behavior and then someday sue them for damages from the past X years, when I have never bothered to ask them to stop. The courts assume that the 'harm' wasn't actually harmful. (In fact, I'd probably get no damages at all, whereas if I has just immediately sued them without asking them to stop I might have gotten some.)
And I certainly cannot put a 'kick me' sign on my back, stick a valuable object in my back pocket, and sue them for it when they kick me, which is what the MPAA is (hypothetically) doing here.
No, they're just running trackers to hand out crap and confuse people. A lawsuit based on uploading they enabled and encouraged would get nowhere, and any lawyer and a lot of non-laywers (me, for example) could tell them that.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Who needs Bittorrent? My ISP hosts their OWN servers to provide multi-gigs of movies and pirated software for my downloading pleasure - and since it's on my own ISP's network, it's super-fast.
Ever heard of Usenet?
I pay my ISP a monthly fee for the privelege of downloading this stuff, right? I mean, they are the ones offering it to me.
Do not miss the point of the harvested IP-s. Even if they have no case, a lawsuit brought on you by **AA is a HUGE inconvenience, and will have the desired deterring effect.
Most of these files are files are small in size usually 1mb and therefore easily to detect. Some of these are exe files which is an obvious red flag. For this reason, I think that this is not a big problem. People should know better than to download a movie that is 52k in size.
I also recommend using a seperate computer for downloading. This is a good idea for security because if the computer gets infected, you can just reinstall without damaging your main computer. The other benefit is that it does not use the resources of you main computer
Just use the `Installation Wizard' found under the Plugins dropdown.
Please explain? This would be of great use to me.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
How do you get your Linux distro? Or freeware? Or are you referring to copyrighted software, without the expressed written consent of the copyright holder?
I know what you meant, but I think it is VERY important to be exact on these things. Is it illegal to download software from the internet? It is illegal to download music? If your initial reaction is "yes", then you are buying into the proprietary group-think. ALWAYS qualify your statements. It will maybe open someone else's eyes and mind.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I guess you have a point. IANAL, and IANAA (the last A is for American :->), so I don't know how all that stuff works. As far as I know (which isn't much) entrapment only applies to actions by the government (police) and has to be somehow shocking to the public.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
1) only some video formats "survive" missing chunks; mpeg does what you suggest, but I haven't had much luck viewing frames from partial xvid/divx encoded videos. maybe all valid chunks can be extracted, but
2) some programs don't start downloading at the beginning of the file; the single blocks maybe in a "wrong" order well suited for distributed downloading; a rearranged tmp file might be necessary to start the above extract-valid-frames code.
3) certain people sometimes "release" in multiple archive files; rar comes to mind. This would really ruin any analysis attempts.
4) image analysis is not trivial; scanning moving images including noise generated by incomplete frames to detect garbage (== more noise) is probably quite hard. Certainly not impossible and maybe there are easy solutions but the average p2p program would require *a lot* more coding.
In the end a forum/board based list of fake files/hashes and maybe a helper build into the download tool(s) to check those pages seems like a far easier solution.
Once again someone has stolen my original concept. Several companies (Loudeye/Overpeer for one) are selling this type of service to the major labels so now someone has probably sold a BitTorrent version to the major movie studios (major labels = major studios in most cases anyway). Too bad I didn't attempt to patent the concept back in 2000.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
I doubt that the NET Act requires that a complete copy be transmitted. MSRP for a CD album is roughly US$18. Now, say you have a collection of, oh, sixty MP3s from different artists. Now let's say that each of those files is at least partially uploaded within a six-month period. Do a little multiplication and---oh!---welcome to felony-land.
You don't honestly think that if you don't upload every singly part of a file you're sharing, you're not liable for copyright infringement, do you? Because that's what it seems like.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So I say let them infiltrate it with poison all they want. It will have a possitive, two fold effect on our 'Community'.
One, it will force bittorent (type) systems underground where they belong.
Two, it will decrease the amount of normal bittorents that we have all come to know & luv, therebye decreasing sales of the scum bag ceo's and the riaa's. :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Wouldn't Torrent Poisoning fall under the guise of "hacking" and "network disruption"?
It would be extremely funny if the **AA was behind this and was brought up before the court on formal charges, or even a class action suit to recover data charges.
"I feel an idea forming - get some data from /dev/random, give it a name a couple of gigabytes long, and share it."
That's been used to piss off the RIAA/MPAA, it was some type of modified compressed file that gave reported the stats of an average song, 3-6mb and generated random file content when downloaded. The only reference to copyrighted material was the name, but in most cases it was variation on the spelling of a popular title the **AA might want to send out a take down notice for. So your server lists moviereleasedfriday.avi 700MB but when downloaded all the client gets is random 1s and 0s. I was someone's idea of stalling the **AA with honeypots, but then it was all automated so it only stalled them for a few seconds.
Leela: 0101100101, what does it mean?
Bender: It's just gibberish.
If it's random data then there is no infringement. Yes the file name sounds like it could be a copyrighted work, but I download the ipodlinux demo video, rename it as "hackers" and redistribute it. At most it could be some trademark dispute because of the word used as the title.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
If the RIAA distributes the Metallica themselves, then to protect their IP they must sue themselves for at least the value of the distributed copies, plus all the people who got the file directly from the RIAA should technically have legal copies right?
Visualize Whirled Peas
Isn't this maliciously disrupting a computer network and causing damage?
That's a crime. Report them.
They have to make it look like trying to do something to stop the "harm".
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
In Missouri:
195.241. 1. It is unlawful for any person to possess an imitation controlled substance in violation of this chapter.
2. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(21) "Imitation controlled substance", a substance that is not a controlled substance, which by dosage unit appearance (including color, shape, size and markings), or by representations made, would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance is a controlled substance. In determining whether the substance is an "imitation controlled substance" the court or authority concerned should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:
(a) Whether the substance was approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for over-the-counter (nonprescription or nonlegend) sales and was sold in the federal Food and Drug Administration approved package, with the federal Food and Drug Administration approved labeling information;
(b) Statements made by an owner or by anyone else in control of the substance concerning the nature of the substance, or its use or effect;
(c) Whether the substance is packaged in a manner normally used for illicit controlled substances;
(d) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or anyone in control of the object, under state or federal law related to controlled substances or fraud;
(e) The proximity of the substances to controlled substances;
(f) Whether the consideration tendered in exchange for the noncontrolled substance substantially exceeds the reasonable value of the substance considering the actual chemical composition of the substance and, where applicable, the price at which over-the-counter substances of like chemical composition sell. An imitation controlled substance does not include a placebo or registered investigational drug either of which was manufactured, distributed, possessed or delivered in the ordinary course of professional practice or research;
Use the distributed trackerless database and compare it with tracker stats. If no match, mark the torrent false or at least suspicious.
Of course, MPAA can create false peers as well, but that's another problem:
For that, also implement protocol that will allow peers to report stat data to torrent site (but not keep logs of that permanently...).
It will help mark if all files are actually available for download or not.
Real peers should usually request random parts of data and if many peers report availability problems for same chunks, tracker can check them itself (or using some other *trusted* remote peer) and decide if tracker is valid or not.
After that maybe identify peers that reported those files as available and blacklist them by peerguardian (but using caution here).
are not an excuse to break the law.
There are and always have been countless ways to confirm the quality of music, videos, movies, etc before you buy them, all of which are perfectly legal.
What about long term abuse? Child, spouse, or whatever. That's an exception.
While in the past, there have been times when I have been guilty of downloading items, the takedown notice I received involved them noticing I was sharing my collection of Harry Potter fanfiction. No actual books were in their list. Still, your point is well received that most people out there indignant over their "persecution" are actually guilty. I view it as being like speeding. Most people drive a bit over the limit. *wry grin* And most are most indignant when they're caught at it. Me, the one time I've been caught speeding, I paid the ticket. I was stupid enough to get caught, so I feel it's only right that I pay the fine. I was still a bit indignant since it was Christmas day, there were no other cars on the road that morning, and that he was camping right inside a zone where it went from 65 to 55. *shrug* Nonetheless, I earned it and I will live with it.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
What damage is it causing? Wasted bandwith? You think any police anywhere in the world will take that seriously? If these files were viruses, MAYBE you'd have SOMETHING of a point. Otherwise, no dice.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
Thank you, awesome research....but,
This law covers representation not belief. I do not have to believe a bag of oregano is pot to be convicted under this law, I just have to represent that it is pot. In fact, by using the term "imitation" in the law it would imply I would have to know something is not illegal drugs, but represent that they are. Of course, I don't believe a "I didn't know this wasn't illegal drugs" would be much of a defense.
This law just follows the fine tradition of the "if it makes the cops look stupid, it should be illegal" school of legislation.
Pretty much the only rights you have when it comes to the viewing of "free" TV are that you can choose to not watch the commercials if don't want to, but you're not allowed to redistribute or disseminate without the express written consent of the copyright holder. But this is where things get hazy. You're allowed to record your shows to tape or whatever but they don't like it when you record their shows onto a digial format. Especially without the commercials. And especially not when you plan to put it on a p2p network.
Look at TiVO; they recently changed their system so that the copyright holder can arbitrarily delete their recorded programs off your HD whenever they feel like it. Is *that* legal?
Back to books, look at Google's plans to put entire books up for search on the web. Is *that* copyright infringement?
Seems to me like both sides are taking advantage of the gray area of the law.
(sigh) it doesn't matter if the *result* of the two are the same; the ends do not justify the means in this case.
The way the laws were written were so that the copyright holders can decide through what channels their works get distributed. You're allowed to watch their program on free TV or make a personal copy for later viewing but you're NOT allowed to distribute that copy. The act of taking that copy out of your house (pysically or through the Internet) to sell or disseminate is illegal.
The reason for this (as much as I hate it) is so that it becomes difficult for us to have other alternatives to watching their show on our TVs. This has to do with their business model. If we're allowed to copy, edit and redistribute their programs, it becomes way easier to strip the commercials off their broadcasts, thus causing them "losses". THAT'S why it is illegal.
My copyright law intstructor once said something like: "The law is the law. Lines have to be drawn and in this day and age of technology, the lines sometimes cause the law to not be completely logical." Think about this: Why is it legal to gamble on one side of Lake Tahoe but illegal on the other?
There are plenty of legitimate problems in the world to solve. Why waste everyone's time by finding devious ways to subvert the law or other peoples' legitimate rights?
If you want a challenge, cure cancer for Christ's sake.
However, if someone sets up a pirate movie distribution kiosk in their lobby, and they wait a decade and then sue him, they're not going to get very far.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Downloading a copyrighted work automatically gives you the ability to reproduce the work,
No more or less than purchasing the work does. (Less any DMCA twiddlery, which doesn't affect whether a work is protected under copyright or not.) See, I can duplicate a work, but it's whether or not I do that matters. And hey, if I duplicate and distribute a work that I downloaded, that's called uploading, and we're back where we started.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
when people cease paying them for their work?
You seem like an intelligent person with plenty of resources. There is no excuse for downloading what you obviously could and should be paying for. It is not that expensive to collect a wide variety of legal music, movies, etc.
And don't give me the "I just want to test to see if it is good" garbage. There are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, too. In fact, it is easier than ever thanks to the internet. Reviews and samples are easily found and shared.
IANAL. The US courts have consistently held that the act of downloading is not making a copy and hence cannot violate copyright. The act of uploading is the act analogous to print publication, and uploading copyrighted material in the absence of permit or license is a violation of the copyright. I.e. leeching is legal, sharing is not.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The only thing that you *might* get sued for is attempted (i.e., not actual) copyright infringement - but then, it's not clear whether an unsuccessful attempt to infringe on someone else's copyright is something you can be sued for at all, and the matter is furthermore complicated by the fact that you could, in this case, still argue that it was entrapment (probably not legal, either, if it's not the police doing it - and even then, it's not at all clear), etc.
It's not entrapment. No one forced you to download the material. It's a sting. No, law enforcement doesn't have it initiate the sting. Everything is fine as as long as the sting is being performed within the law and to law enforcement standards.
If your IP and track it back to you, you and everyone on the swarm, could be charged with conspiracy for criminal infringement. The conspirators don't have to know each other. They just have to come together for a common criminal enterprise. Rapid illegal distribution of copyrighted material is a such an act.
I was a poor undergraduate as well. I have about 300 of them. Most of my DVDs (about 100) were purchased while I was a poor graduate student. These serve to cover most of the old music and movies I care about. I occasionally purchase new ones when something new appears that I like. As I said, it is not that expensive. I probably paid no more than $2000 for the CDs and no more than $1500 for the DVDs, over the course of about ten years. Thats about $30 each month.
Either way, poverty is not an excuse. Nor is not having all you want. I sure don't have everything I want, either, nor does anyone else.
Actually, I applaud the RIAA and hope they "irritate" people like you. It almost makes me feel like donating to their cause.
It was a while ago and I was using EMule at the time, so disregarding the fact that I probably deserved to get caught for using that, it could have easily been for seeding it shortly after I finished. If I remember correctly, they do spread files to catch people on that network, but the movie played fine, so who knows.
You're absolutely right, and i'm sorry for not mentioning this. Actually, on the anti-piracy website (official) is just said "software". Exactly. Ofcourse, i doubt they mean freeware/OSS/etc, but a novice could think this was illegal too.
Nope, a derivate work still infringes on the copyright of the original.
Only if it's distribution was without the copyright holder's permission. If a file is an infringing copy, then both the sender and reciever are liable for cooperating in copying it (no copy would occur if there had been only an uploader or only a downloader). Either both upload and download is illegal, or neither is illegal.
But of course, the people distributing these tainted files are not exposing themselves to liability, because they were hired by the copyright holder and are her approved agents.
If the derivative copy is unauthorized, then these hackers cannot be serving corrupted files without breaking the law.
If the derviative copy is authorized, then whoever downloads it is not breaking the law.
All the copyright holder's lawyers can do is demonstrate an intent to infringe, which is adequate for many of their desired "chilling effects", and also as leads in further investigations.
The US courts have consistently held that the act of downloading is not making a copy and hence cannot violate copyright.
When have they EVER done so? I know that lawyers frequently concoct alternative definitions for existing words (like "statutory rape"), but what you suggest would be a huge violation of both the English and Computer Science definitions of "copying".
Also, if that were the case, then the RIAA's dozens of successful lawsuits against music downloaders would've never happened.
Hang on. - Distributing a broken file is illegal?
Sure. If you KNOW the file is broken, and take steps to conceal that fact, then what you've done is an intentional denial-of-service attack. This is illegal under the usual anti-hacking regulations.
And I agree with what you and he were saying, a filename that says 'the.island-dvdscr.avi' but contents of just random bits don't infringe on the copyright.
You should feel a bit irritated about not following the law and not compensating those that entertain you. I hope RIAA irritates you to the tune of a few grand, too.
Whether the users in question were downloaders or merely cd rippers is irrelevant. The RIAA sued because they were uploading, i.e. offering the copyrighted content to share.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
than someone with a few illegal albums. I know people with thousands of songs, and you probably do too.
You probably are safe as long as you are not one of the big fish, just like you can readily expect to exceed the speed limit by 10%, as long as others are doing 15%.
Either way, you should be paying for what you consume.
Actualy downloading isn't legal question here. There is noting illegal about downloading. It is the distrobution and copying that is in question. When you download something you aren't making the copy, the computer hosting the file is (outside your temp directory that colects bits unntil it is complete.)
There is the little flaw in the argument about downloading being ilegal. Now if you continue to redistribute it then you in troubler but then the GP's post become srelevent were you have implied permision by the nature of how the network operates. Sure there are some grey areas here. It would be a good legal question to have answered. I do know that if bestbuy starts selling pirated video games/music cds and you buy them, load them onto the computer and play them, you havn't broken any laws at all. You could asume the same pprotectiosn here.
Most bittorrent client have the ability to control how may people you seed. You can stop others from getting it from you altogether. That kind of defeats the way torrents work but it is possible.
I guess my weakness is that i like to search for garage bands doing covers of hit songs. I'd rather download someone else singing whats on the radio 20 time a day then pay to hear the real thing another 20 times.
Donate free food here
> Those who download these torrents are unable to complete a full download, as the file transfer stops at approximately 97%-98%.
Damn... are there still poeple out there who don't get it??
DONT'T EVER download anything were the amount of incomplete downloads is big while there are only some or none complete ones. (it's the difference).
I can *guaratee* you that they are fakes, or at least that the complete ones are gone by the time you need those last parts.
In mldonkey you have a nice column in the search results called "complete sources". if it's less than 3, and it's not some kind of extremely rare thing, then: DON'T DOWNLOAD IT.
It's that simple.
And b.t.w.: If your favourite network does not support showing complete and incomplete sources in separate columns, then consider switching to another network.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.