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."
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.
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.
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.
> Otherwise you'll turn it into "all your base" and we saw where that went.
To Us?
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."
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.
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.
"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
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
I wonder if they can corrupt "battlefield earth" in such a way that it would be actually watchable....
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Actually, most of the time there was neither. eg. Armour that was not invincible, and a weapon that was not unstoppable. The solution was, and still is to use combinations.
:) .
Example: My firewall will not stop viruses, but will stop most other intrusion attempts. Similarly, my antivirus program does not stop people portscanning my box, but can stop viruses reliably. A computer with one but not the other is vulnerable, a computer using both working together is far more secure. Similarly, most nations send in the troops with an assortment of weapons and tools, because they are more effective across a variety of situations than one weapon ever will be.
There will not be a protection mechanism for Bittorrent that cannot be broken, forged or otherwise avoided. Likewise, nothing the RIAA can throw at Bittorrent cannot be countered in some fashion. By using combinations of protection mechanisms, Bittorrent can be protected to a degree that attacks can be tolerated. The RIAA gets this, that's why they try many tactics, such as torrent poisoning, DRM, the DMCA, sending goons to street vendors, etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just tweaking your points a bit
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.
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'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%.
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.
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)
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?