Slashdot Mirror
I2hub Shutdown Due to Legal Pressure
djabbour writes "I2hub, the only p2p client that catered to internet2 users has shutdown today due to legal concerns. A few hours ago, any user on i2hub got a message which read 'RIP 11/14/2005. It was a good run. Forced to shut down by the industry.' The i2hub site has been shutdown, and new clients can no longer login to the i2hub server."
What amazes me about the current copy paranoia is that PCs have been copying perfectly for decades. The Internet has been copying perfectly among strangers en masse for decades. It's been popular globally for a decade. Nothing has changed. The legal risks are exactly the same, our rights are exactly the same. Our laws protecting our rights are a little different, and the politicians are a new bunch. So I guess that's why there's a wild suppression running amok among the copyright industry. But they waited too long: the masses have grown accustomed to copying whatever we want. Momentum is against them - they might make some inroads, some local successes, but copyright was protected by inadequate tech for too long, and now has been exposed to disruptive tech for too long. The smart money is on the copyright holders who can harness the new distribution media, not those who fight it.
--
make install -not war
What's worse is that the new ones are easier and faster to use. I wouldn't trade bittorrent for napster any day. Thank you RIAA for those fast linux ISOs.
Wasn't Internet2 supposed to be for academic uses anyway?
On noes! We can't clog up this incredibly powerful and incredibly expensive network trading terabytes of movies and music! The humanity!
Seriously now, the whole point of the thing was to move multiple gigs of data coming out of CFD simulations and the like, not to get the latest episode of Lost.
The funny part about a well written P2P is that you shouldn't be able to shut it down. I envisioned P2P taking over where Napster left off as soon as they shut down Napster. I was partly right, but there's no reason to have P2P shut down. The fundamental flaw in P2P software today is that it banks on main servers for user list files. If instead, it simply kept a record of everyone's IP address on the client side, it could then:
A) Scan every single IP that was active last run. Not everyone has a static IP, but out of thousands of people, at least one person should.
B) As soon as you find someone with an active IP, you become on the network, and recieve a new list of IP addresses(all the active ones) from the client that's online. VOILA YOU'RE ONLINE WITH NO CENTRAL SERVER
The other fundamental flaw of P2P software is that the coders are very lazy, and use a single port. Once this port is identified to your software, ISPS can block that port and you're screwed. To be robust, it should use a variety of random ports of software that you're not using. I mean you can get really complex about what ports you're using: Up to and including scanning the computer for software so it knows which ports not to use... But that's getting crazy indepth, just a standard: Random number between 10000-30000 should do. And everyone keeps this port number along side your IP address in the list.
God spoke to me.
It's just too bad that the RIAA and MPAA weren't more vigilant back in 1979 or so. A few lawsuits and threats here and there, and they could have kept this whole Internet fiasco from happening. You just know that someone back then was using UUCP email to trade bootlegged concert tapes, or something.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Kazaa and Grokster were networks. BitTorrent is a technology. Since it's free(in all senses of the word), BitTorrent will go away when it's illegal and not before then. Actually, even then BitTorrent probably won't go away. The fact that trackers are 100% decentralized and don't talk to each other(there is no single, homogenous BT network) means it cannot be shutdown with the legal pressure of a single company attacking another.
They will have to legislate away BT if they want it gone. If that successully happens, we have a lot more to worry about than how to get free porn.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Since when did using software that allows the direct transfer and query of data become illegal? Shouldn't "the industry" shutdown the people that distribute copyrighted material, or would that just (be more difficult|cost more money) than supressing the software?
Bandwidth and cpu power will continue to increase, it's time certain groups realize that information can't be controlled in the same fashion as physical property. These strong armed tactics of shuting down services, instead of the actual source of the piracy, will only disgruntle the market.
Could it be that you aren't smart enough to figure out the difference in someone with a pro pirating agenda and someone who actualy uses the system for legal and reasonable uses?
You act as if someone records a radio program we should ban all tape recorders. You even act as if it is someone god given right to ban all tape recorders because some one taped a program. This attitude is bullshit. There are plenty of good uses for P2P that doesn't infringe on anyone copyright. You seem to think because someone just lost a tool they were taking advantage of(legaly) then makes a negative coment about the situation, they are automaticaly supporting piracy. You are wrong.
Rant and whine all you want. The majority of users are not pirates. some may be but if we followed these examples everywere we would ban car because some break laws or use them to steal from others. We would ban almost everythign. Of course that would be just fine with you wouldn't it?
I see your concern, and lawmakers may attempt to move in that direction. However, technologies like bittorrent probably cannot be legislated against directly. The media conglomerates will have to attack those who actually participate in the distribution process. Although it is easy to track infringement to a specific IP address, proving that the person who owns the IP address is actually the person engaging in the infringement is difficult as evidenced by the few defendants that have stood up to the RIAA.
Your logic does contain a fallacy. Right now, P2P technologies are one of the driving forces behind widespread broadband deployment and that is not something ISPs are willing to give up. As evidenced by some of their recent attempts to shield their users from the RIAA's legal efforts, some ISPs are realizing the value of protecting their client's anonymity. ISP's currently have common carrier status meaning they are not responsible for the contents of the traffic they carry, this has been upheld by the courts. ISP's do not care what you do with your bandwidth, unless of course you use so much of it(think 'excessive use') that it affects the people around you or begins to degrade the stability of their own network.
As far as college networks, you are probably correct. There are no guarantees that civil courts will find that college networks fall under common carrier provisions(especially private colleges). So they are in a special legal position in that they feel some legal liability to stop copyright infringement, especially when they are aware of what is going down on their networks.
Downloading and owning said software will also be illegal
That is highly unlikely as BitTorrent is a 'stupid' protocol in that it doesn't decipher/alter the data it is designed to transmit. If the BitTorrent protocol could be made illegal, then why not HTTP or SSL? SSL is only used by terrorists, you know... (sarcasm)
Programs like DeCSS used for copyright infringement that have been attacked were not covered only by the Copyright Act(which actually didn't seem to have an issue with DeCSS because it could be used for fair use), but they were covered also by DMCA which is a whole other beast. With BitTorrent, I can send you an ISO of a CSS encrypted movie and it still doesn't fall under the DMCA because I haven't decrypted it for you.
As you can see from this example, BitTorrent cannot be made illegal without significant changes to the laws governing your privledges. Notice I didn't call them rights, fair use is a privledge provided by the Copyright Act but with one amendment it could be removed. Even the most pro-corporate legislators won't do that, that would be political suicide of unimaginable proportions. So, I don't think BitTorrent software or the BT protocol are going anywhere. The media companies will have to attack the users of the software for specific acts of infringement, not just the technology itself. The fact that it's open source only means it's that much more resilient because no one can take it away from you now.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.