Slashdot Mirror
BitComet Banned From Private Trackers
An anonymous reader writes "Slyck news is reporting that because BitComet does not recognize the 'private flag' on torrents originating from pirate BitTorrent trackers, this client is being banned from these communities. Private trackers are finding their torrents spread via the private DHT layer, allowing leechers to bypass ratios and download content freely."
Is there a way to change the 'user-agent' of bitcomet to make trackers think it's another client?
And that means what in English?
Actually, it becomes a bit clearer when you read TFA. Apparently there are private torrent sharing communities that don't want to broadly distribute files, just share amongst themselves. This one BitTorrent client, BitComet, does not respect the keep-out signs, so such communities are having to be more proactive about keeping BitComet users from trespassing.
Or at least that's what I think it means.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
First slashdot article I've seen for a while that has read like total gibberish. Anyone got a link to what half those terms mean?
Does anyone with a slashdot id under 5000 understand it?
The title says "private trackers", but the text says "Pirate trackers" once... Is this a typo, or fruedian?? :)
People who think they're a good idea really oughta read up on Pareto Efficiency.
I call bullshit. The tracker itself can be privatized simply by doing authentication based on IP address (several bittorrent communities do this). Even if you get the torrent file that uses the tracker, it will deny you access.
Bittorrent private trackers are sites that depend on a healthy share ratio for success. If you download something, it's tracked, and you must then upload a comparable number in order to stay a member of that site or receive certain benefits of membership. This creates a healthy environment of seeders--not like many public trackers, which have an inordinate amount of leechers. Bitcomet doesn't recognize or follow the conventions that enable such private trackers to exist. It can bypass that, and enable anyone to download from a private tracker site without worrying about a ratio. This is extremely detrimental to the private tracker. I'm in favor of this move by the private trackers; Bitcomet is misrepresenting itself as a fully-functional BT client.
Does this strike anyone else as an ironic, considering that all the people that are downloading *aren't* the owners of the content to begin with?
That's a very bold generalization to make. It is almost RIAA-esqe.
There could very well be a family wishing to share a large collection of digital family videos that they have taken at holidays and birthdays, for instance. They want them to remain fairly private while sharing the content that they own.
BitTorrent has many, many legitimate uses. It is completely incorrect to claim that all users who wish to limit the sharing of their data are pirates.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Well what'd you expect from something running in a Java VM? I've seen 150mb of RAM go to Azureus, Eclipse and the JVM while using me computer. Not that it matters a whole lot when you've got a gig of RAM.
Insert Sig Here
Azureus is the best for multi-platform.
But for Windows, uTorrent is the best. It's small (115KB), uses not alot of RAM (~5mb) and has most of the features that Azureus has! It even has a bandwidth scheduling function.
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
BitComet was also found to ignore the "evil bit."
In so doing, they block anyone with a dynamic IP.
Don't you have to log in to a web site to use private trackers? So when you log in it updates your IP address on the seeder's list, or however it works. I wouldn't think dynamic IP addresses would be a problem.
1) Buy better hardware. The java footprint is negligible on a modern machine.
2) Get a better platform. Java on Windows sucks because Windows sucks. Java on Linux isn't bad at all. There are plenty of low-overhead clients for Linux/Unix (rtorrent, ctorrent, ktorrent) but most people use Azureus because it's better.
What is the DHT Layer? I would consider myself as being torrent savvy, but I have no clue what this means.
... DHT is a networking protocol that enhances the scalability and efficiency of decentralized networks by creating a virtual index rather than broadcasting search queries. Decentralized networks that utilized DHT technology are able to search and locate files significantly faster than networks that do not use it.
? t=10991
A little bit of research later...
DHT stands for Distributed Hash Table
source (non-authoritative): http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=772
DHT is a layer added on top of the BitTorrent network to assist in Azureus' performance. BitTorrent is a distinct networking protocol, of which is specified by creator Bram Cohen. Anything existing outside of those specifications is not BitTorrent.
source (non-authoritative): http://www.unitethecows.com/forums/showthread.php
(So DHT is not part of the bittorrent specification; At least, it wasn't in May 2005, but who knows now...)
So basically, my understanding now is that the DHT Layer is what allows for the decentralization of torrents. Thus, by not respecting the "private" flag, the clients can leech all day without it affecting their ratio. Slap me if I am wrong or missing something, but aren't most (re:99.999%) of these "communities" that care about leechers, ratios, and keeping their torrents to themselves going to be trading/torrenting copyrighted content/material? Call me crazy, but I just have this hunch that this isn't exactly the latest Knoppix torrent. And then you can call me crazy again, but I must ask why we care what these "communities" ban or don't ban?
But then again, this is slashdot where anything that approaches conservative or rational gets modded down by the mob.
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
Here are the bittorrent stats seem by my mldonkey bittorrent client for the last month(non-stop)
According to this they are banning 60% of bittorrent traffic... not a intelligent move IMHO.
BitTorrent Total Uptime: 29 days, 20h:10m 2578216 seconds
Brand Seen
Total 88212 (100%)
BitComet 52601 (60%)
BitLord 30318 (34%)
Azureus 2392 (3%)
Mainline 839 (1%)
BitTornado 466 (1%)
MLdonkey 433 (0%)
ABC 345 (0%)
uTorrent 334 (0%)
Shareaza 206 (0%)
Azureus uses SWT, and can, like Eclipse, be compiled to native binaries using GCJ (or various other native Java compilers). Such binaries are often far faster and less memory-hungry than JVM-run Java applications.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
At least give downloading Linux distributions as an example. The one you gave was tortured so effectively I have to wonder if you work for the White House.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Maybe the video-trading family example is weak. I'll offer you a real example instead: Mandrake Club. Mandrake Club members pay an annual fee for access to expanded versions of the Mandrake distribution. This depends on the level (read: cost) of your membership. In all cases, the content that members can download is different from the freely-available Mandrake content. Now, why would Mandrake or its club members want non-members using their private bittorrent distrubution method? In this case, they certainly own the content.
"Grandma, we love you, but it's about time you seed some vids of your own!"
If this "private" flag relies on cooperation from clients, then it is broken.
Why those bitcommet users, they just cheat to get content they didn't pay for. HOW DARE THEY, I should call the MPAA/RIAA depending on what you are sharing. The number of private trackers that share legal content can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I mean why would say a linux distro give a fuck who gets their content and at what share ratio? There are probably enough die hard fans to keep the seeds populated without enforcing it with ratios.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Peer-to-peer sharers thwarted in their ability to control who participates in sharing by a peer-to-peer protocol.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
The thing with BT is: if you have say 10 seeds, then your torrent is fine. If you have even 1 seed, it won't die. It doesn't matter that some folks leech and then run. So, the core premise of these private sites is bunk. Worse, it's immensely counterproductive. DHT can keep a torrent alive and supplied with seeds. Barriers to access mean fewer downloaders, hence slower torrents and fewer seeds. I wouldn't be surprised if torrents on these sites died at least as often as on fully public sites.
Really, it seems to me that these folks want some sort of private domain to boss around and feel elite. The rest is just their rationalization.
Okay, Admittedly, I'm taking a logical leap here, let's hope that I land on safe ground.
Doesn't this Private Flag seem a lot like the Broadcast Flag? It prevents people from getting content. So, in a way, you've just legitimized DRM for the movie industry. Haven't you?
I know it sounds like an odd argument, but you're essentially wanting the same abilities that the RIAA/MPAA want -- to control the distribution of content. And when a client doesn't respect those rules, you ban it. How silly is that? You want to pilfer xbox games and mp3's, yet, you don't want to give others the same rights that you claim for yourself.
Didn't you get the memo? There's no honor among thieves.
Besides what's to stop BitComet from doing something like this:
#define USE_PRIVACY_FLAG 1
Since all you need is one client it might be possible to modify the original BitTorrent client to achieve the same ends. All it takes is one misbehaving client to publish the torrent to the DHT and then many people can leach.
Good going losers. You've just started an arms race in the BT community. There's no way to prevent the forking of clients now into incompatible clients.
A Freudian Slip is when you say one thing, but mean your mother...
Required reading for internet skeptics
The 'private' flag was introduced probably by Azureus when they made their own DHT. People should have banned it (it = Azureus) right then and there because adding the 'private' flag broke every torrent in existance that wanted to keep private.
Mainline/official supports their own DHT, but only uses it if a torrent is explicitly marked as trackerless. This is probably best for sites that want to stay private, but people have been bitching that "if the tracker goes down, I can't download. Therefore DHT rules."
So personally they can all go to hell for breaking our stuff. (Well, except for mainline).
Grab a seat yourself...
A large number of people on the internet who use stuff like BT to download legit software really don't give a rat's ass about dickhead movie/software pirates.
I use BT to get ISOs for Linux distros and other legal free data. I don't like the fact BT gets whatever negative publicity the *AA like to throw out to the public due to people using it for illegal acts, and I'm sure there are others who feel the same.
Get a job, buy the movie/CD/software. Don't like the prices? Buy second-hand. Don't like that? Complain to the *AA/developer and/or don't buy it. Stop acting like a 12-year old with a cable modem.
Why the hell would someone want to restrict themselves to a small group of file sharers ?
:)
Mate. You've obviously never been a member of a serious, hardcore BT site. Restricting membership and being strict about ratios works because
a. it keeps the leeches away. It really does.
b. the speeds are fantastic, since everyone is very interested in seeding for weeks and weeks.
c. one quick request in the forums and you're guaranteed to find ANYTHING you want. no matter how obscure the album/performer/version. If you're serious about music, this is the best thing about private trackers.
And no, I won't tell you which sites are like that, I value my invites
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw