To Media Companies, BitTorrent Implies Guilt

kripkenstein writes "The big media companies immediately assume you are guilty by your mere presence on a BitTorrent swarm, an investigation by a university security worker reveals. Turns out companies like BayTSP (which the media companies employ) will send shutdown notices to ISPs without any evidence of copyright infringment; all they feel they need is an indication that you are reported by the tracker to be in the swarm." From the post: "For my investigation, I wrote a very simple BitTorrent client. My client sent a request to the tracker, and generally acted like a normal Bittorrent client up to sharing files. The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content. It obeyed the law... With just this, completely legal, BitTorrent client, I was able to get notices from BayTSP. To put this in to perspective, if BayTSP were trying to bust me for doing drugs, it'd be like getting arrested because I was hanging out with some dealers, but they never saw me using, buying, or selling any drugs."

Comments

Come on...

[ack154]

Does this really surprise anyone that reads Slashdot? I've certainly come to expect tactics such as this from any media company.

Absolutely

[cdrguru]

One of the best ways of getting arrested and released - repeated - is to hang around with drug dealers and users when they are dealing and using.

Sure, you are going to get released most of the time. But it is going to be a significant hassle for you. You got to choose that course when you chose your dealing and using friends.

I believe the same is applicable to BitTorrent.

Re:Absolutely

[grimJester]

Yes, using any p2p software is suspect. Actually, just like if you purchased a means to store data, you should pay a tax just as if you were guilty. Guilty of what!?!? . Doesn't matter. You must be guilty of something. Like playing World of Warcraft.

Re:Absolutely

[Garridan]

Not at all. The only time I use bittorrent is to download free software. I don't equate this to "hanging out with drug dealers", I equate it to "riding the bus". Drug dealers ride busses all the time. So do I. Does this implicate me? Hell no. Neither should using bittorrent.

Another analogy. Criminals use guns. Therefore, we should arrest anybody who uses guns. First stop, police shooting range.

Just like VCRs

[Jabrwock]

Anyone who buys a VCR is CLEARLY only interested in pirating as many movies as they get their hands on, camcorder owners are only interested in filming screeners, people who run spyware scanners and firewalls obviously have something to hide, and anyone who asserts their rights is obviously doing something illegal...

Re:Just like VCRs

[HTH NE1]

But what other use has taking part in a copyright[-violating] torrent?

Corrected it for you.

Same as the VCR: timeshifting. The damn cable box didn't change the channel when the TiVo told it to, so the only options to catch all episodes in order is either to skip the rest of the season and get the DVD or download someone else's copy. Either way, the advertisers are going to miss out on their impressions.

Did people hesitate borrowing VHS tapes of the previous night's TV they'd missed? Have friends record each other's scheduling conflicts?

IMO, as long as there was a good-faith effort or intent to watch or record the broadcast yourself, downloading it within the week shouldn't be illegal.

It is more like

[qwerty1]

Hanging out in a Pawn Shop. Cops know there are stolen items in there as well as legitimate items. So, anyone going into the pawn shop has to be only there for stolen items. Therefore you are served a warrant. What a bunch of A$$ Hats.

Re:It is more like

[shawb]

After reading the article, BayTSP is running the tracker. What this guy is doing is like walking up to an undercover police officer and asking them about any illegal wares they have for sale... when he already suspects that this is a cop. Okay, it's a private company... so it's more like walking up to a security guard and asking whether they'd be willing to help you steal something from the store they're guarding. Okay, bring on the "copyright infringement is not theft!!!" lines, I believe that's true. And in fact, so does the law... copyright infringement has much stiffer penalties than mere theft. I don't believe that's right if the infringer is not gaining financially (I.E. selling bootlegs on the street) but I don't feel there are many places where the law is not just.

Okay, I just came up a better analogy that doesn't cross the "copyright infringement/theft line." This is like going to a movie theater and asking an usher if he can hold your camcorder pointed at the screen while you go to the concession stand. Even if there is no tape in the camcorder (such as this guy's specially written client) you're still likely to get in trouble, and at least lose the camcorder (Like this guy's ISP reportedly responding to the take-down notice.) I wouldn't expect anything else in this situation... the online world is no longer some lawless frontier untouchable by the hands of the real world wielders of power (And I mean lawless in the dramatic Old West as represented by Hollywood way, not the lawlessness of a near future post-apocalyptic manner.)

Re:It is more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Old West (hollywood style) is exactly what the internet has become: BayTSP is like a crooked sheriff who shoots first and asks questions later vis-a-vis copyright infringement. Every so often the feds step in to try and impose order, but mostly we're at the mercy of lawyers (ruthless, mercenary, outlaw gangs) or whoever has the most money to buy influence.

  The camcorder in the theatre is a perfect example. There's no law against having a components of a device capable of recording media in a venue for the presentation of movies, but you'd still probably forfeit your camera. What they're supposed to do is check to see if you've recorded anything and give your camera back since they only own the recordings you've made that violate their copyrights. Instead they'll probably just confiscate (steal) your camera and ban you from that venue.

Compare to legitimate drug dealers?

[tepples]

One of the best ways of getting arrested and released - repeated - is to hang around with drug dealers and users when they are dealing and using.

If I use my PC to connect to a BitTorrent tracker that offers legitimate free software, free media, and fair-use parody media, I still get a notice. This is as if I were to get arrested for hanging around outside a legitimate drug dealer such as CVS or Walgreens or Rite Aid.

Re:Compare to legitimate drug dealers?

[bperkins]

I'm a bit confused about the orginal article.
What I _think_ he is claiming is that if connects to a swarm that is downloading an illegal file, but doesn't actually downlaod or upload anything, he still gets a notice.

While I understand that he may have a technical argument to avoid conviction, I don't think this means you have much of a chance for getting caught if you share a legitimate file.

I'd say his analogy that it's akin to hanging out with drug dealers isn not apt. It's more like hanging around on street corners intentionally taking something that looks like money for something that looks like drugs and complaining that you got arrested.

Again, I might be missing something.

more like what a cop told me

[Some_Llama]

" I was hanging out with some dealers, but they never saw me using, buying, or selling any drugs."

Reminds me of the time i was pulled over, handcuffed, searched, and my car ripped apart looking for drugs because (as the cop said) "I was in the wrong part of town".

Not a fair comparison

[Chris_Jefferson]

You aren't getting arrested for being in a bittorrent swarm.

Also, if you want a fair comparison, this would be like finding a notice board marked "people who buy/sell drugs", copying all the names off it, and putting yours on. Now, this isn't something you should be locked up for, but I think it's reasonable for the police to pop around and ask a few questions.

This kind of technical fiddling really doesn't help anyone, although I'm sure it helps you feel clever.

Er

[jb.hl.com]

These torrents...what were they of exactly? If they were of Linux ISOs or other legally available material, then sure, get angry. But if you're connected to a torrent for movies, games, music etc...well, they can't tell how much you've uploaded or downloaded, can they? Whether you're connected to a torrent or not is the only truly reliable metric that there can be. I mean, if you're seen hanging around with drug dealers and talking to them in places where they tend to deal drugs, isn't it fairly safe to assume you're trying to buy drugs?

Outside of this application, a BitTorrent client designed to not do anything BitTorrent was designed to do except connect to a torrent, how many other people connect to torrents only not to (attempt to) download/upload what's on them?

So, the message here is: don't try to download copyrighted stuff and you won't get sued for downloading copyrighted stuff.

OB Terrorist reference

[rueger]

...t'd be like getting arrested because I was hanging out with some dealers, but they never saw me using, buying, or selling any drugs."

Hmmph - sounds like you're on the side of the Terrorists!

There once was a crazy ass country that had laws about "innocent until proven guilty", but in these Terroristic times it's just so much safer to fall back on "Suspicion of being under suspicion."

To the general public...

[Billosaur]

...Media Companies imply greed and incompetence.

Guilt by association

[Bullfish]

Is coming back into vogue? It never left, the media companies have based a lot of their cases on it. Mostly they make money from the cases where their target simply doesn't have the cash to fight back. Thing is, they want to blame the net for their problems, well, it's true to an extent. Before the net and widespread cable TV, videos and DVD's, they had very little competition. Those were the glory days. Now they unfortunately for them, they are creatively bankrupt as a result of flooding the market with so much crap that a lot of people are going back to 60's, 70's and 80's music. Therefore, a lot of sales of new music suffers and kids are listening to ACDC and Led Zeppelin again.

Ditto for movies, only this time the industry is rehashing old TV shows, old movies and dusting off hackneyed plots that wouldn't see the light of day when they made fewer movies. Kind of like you see what happens to sports leagues with uncontrolled expansion. The more you try to produce in such endeavours, the closer you move to mediocrity.

So their sales suffer. It must be the web's fault. Like an old has-been blaming the new kid on the block, they whine and complain, and in this case lobby. Next, they will be demanding a tithe if you own a computer.

After all, the problem couldn't be with their product.

The important part is the proof!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that doesn't surprise us any, but it DOES provide proof. Why is that important? If you happen to get sued by them, it undermines their case!

This could, in theory, be introduced as evidence in a case and might be enough to shoot down their allegations of copyright infringement. I'd say that THAT is pretty important, wouldn't you?

Here's to hoping that it screws up a few of their copyright infringement lawsuits!

Re:The important part is the proof!

[ack154]

IMO, it would only undermine their case if the judge understands what is going on... not necessarily in all situations. But as per usual Slashdot commentary, IANAL. So I could be wrong.

But ya, important in a sense that we know it's proof, but I would be very interested in seeing how it might actually help someone - or if it even would.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[Skreems]

I don't know about that... unless a significant number of people start using this essentially broken client, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if you're connected to a bittorrent swarm, you're participating in the data flow. I mean, it IS the only function the software is made to perform. And remember, in civil cases like this, reasonable doubt isn't enough to get you off the hook.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[Anonymous Coward]

brianosaurus writes:

"While I believe that explaining bittorrent is complicated, surely understanding of the protocol is prerequisite to a judge making a decision in any of these cases."

Unfortunately, the judge decides whether they understand the protocol, and may feel that the internet is a series of tubes.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[poot_rootbeer]

it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if you're connected to a bittorrent swarm, you're participating in the data flow.

Assumptions aren't proof.

Assumptions aren't even EVIDENCE.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[shmlco]

"The harder part would more likely be convincing the judge that the user was using a torrent client in this manner, rather than for downloading. "

Yeah, especially given the gigabytes of files found on the user's hard drive.

For that matter, one would think that a simple check of the ISPs records regarding bandwidth utilization would disprove this argument pretty easily.

And?

[mpapet]

Don't vote. Don't voice your opinion to the representatives most of you didn't vote for. Don't organize a coordinated political attack on the DMCA and this is what we all get.

For dog's sake don't support the eff either. http://www.eff.org/ You wouldn't want to be marginalized as a zealot, fanatic or crackpot.

[\rant]

That's why I pick and choose the laws I obey.

[FatSean]

The system is unjust, and getting worse. I simply obey the laws I agree with, and disobey the ones I don't agree with. If the chance of getting caught is high, and the penalty stiff enough, I MIGHT not do the illegal things...but then again I might.

Can't let my 18-year-old son have a beer with dinner? Fuck you, bust me.
Can't trade DVDs in person with my friends? Fuck you, bust me.
Government using misleading statistics to incite fear (and then over reaching legislature) for issues like drunk driving and terrorism? I simply make misleading statements to police when given the opportunity. Alas, it isn't often I get that chance since I moved out of the city.

I can't imagine I'm the only freak like this.

Re:That's why I pick and choose the laws I obey.

[malchus842]

Can't let my 18-year-old son have a beer with dinner? Fuck you, bust me.

One of my pet peeves. My kids have been allowed to drink wine with dinner since they were little. The state can shove their laws right up their collective...well, you know. The nanny state is getting worse by the minute, prodded along by big business like the MPAA, RIAA, etc, etc, and trying to control everything we do. Well, I have news for them:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

They seem to have forgotten about that in the past 200 years. Of course, it's not just a right, but a duty to get a new government, according to the Founders:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Unfortunately, too many people are too concerned about who is going to win on American Idol and just ignore the long train of abuses. Bread and circueses....

Re:That's why I pick and choose the laws I obey.

[networkBoy]

Teenage alcohol intake is a leading factor in [...] starting a dependency that will carry on through life etc. Really! Wow! Why then does the US have a higher rate of dependence on alcohol than Italy or France, both countries for which there is no minimum legal drinking age?
While I don't see the need to feed a 12 year old whiskey and vodka, I also see no problem with said same 12 year old partaking in a champaign toast, a sip of wine, or with an 18 year old drinking anything they like. Got a problem with that? Raise the age of service to 21 and I'll raise my "no problem age" commensurately.

You are not my kids' parent. I am.
My kids will be allowed to drink with the toast at age 12. That is my decision as a parent.
At age 16 I will allow a glass of wine with dinner. That is my decision as a parent.
At 18 a beer after working outside in the sun. That is my decision as a parent.
Their education on DUI will be complete and thorough, the penalties if I catch them severe (they _will_ prefer jail time if there ever is a second time). That is my decision as a parent.
Their parties sober will be sober (I'll even spring for the "non" alcoholic beer keg). These are my decisions as a parent.

Multiple medical conditions are caused by alcohol intake including, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary aretery disease, cirrhosis, liver failure, esophageal ca, stomach ca, etc and the lists goes on. like reduced LDL, reduced incidents of heart disease, reduced incidents of Alzheimer's? All from the phenols found in wines (and to a lesser extent beers and red grape juice)

Lets hope your son won't be one of those that goes and drinks because his dad said it was okay and then gets killed on the road drunk driving. That is the only statement you made that I think everyone agrees with. . . because it's the only one not trying to impose your misguided morality onto others.

-Disgusted in Minnesota with you. -Flipping the bird to you in California.
-nB

Re:That's why I pick and choose the laws I obey.

[RhunDraco]

You, sir or madam, are an asshat, if I may say so. The US has a problem with teen drinking and all its associated problems not because some parents allow their children a sip, or cup, of wine or beer with dinner. These parents are actually the responsible ones! They know that their kids are going to be exposed to alcohol, and drugs, etc, at some point in their lives and they understand that teaching the kids that a little drink, every once in a while, is well, OK. You can take a stand against abuse, while engaging your children to be more responsible at the same time. Drinking is so rampant because this nation has a history of trying to put such a clamp on it! Prohibition was an effort to make people give up the vice of drinking, so guess what, it just went underground and got worse. The more you tell someone, especially a rebellious teen, "you can't do that" the more they want to do it! If Americans didn't have knee-jerk reactions to every little thing "just to protect the kids" then I bet there wouldn't be so many problems with drug and alcohol abuse, kids having sex, teen pregnancy, etc. These kids do these things because they keep getting it rammed into their heads that it's wrong, and guess what kids do when they want to piss off their parents or to rebel against society and conformity? You cannot say that any person, teen or not, who ever has a drink or smokes weed at any point in their lives will end up on the path of alcoholism or drug addiction. That is generalization and you know it. My parents allowed me to drink beer when I was a kid, probably starting at around 12 or 13 and guess what, I drink very rarely, don't do any drugs and don't smoke! Sure, I experimented with pot, hard liquor and all that, but it was just that, a short experiment that turned out more boring than anything else because I'd already experienced it. It wasn't anything special nor was it all that exciting. If my parents had been hardasses about me not doing it, then I can definitely say that I would have done more just to piss them off and perhaps fallen into the addiction trap. You say that the person you replied to is reprehensible but it is in fact you, who are so jaded and willing to cast your soapbox-level disgust around with ease who are reprehensible. Your "patients" who are so sick with the illnesses caused by their vices were likely the people who had social mores rammed down their necks and they never had the breathing room to make up their own minds. They have no concept of "moderation" because they never learned what is OK. To many people, it's either all or nothing. You either don't do it at all, or there's no hope for you. You seem to be that kind of thinker. Sad, really. Every one of my friends throughout high school and after who are heavy drinkers or drug addicts nearly to a one all came from families that took fanatic positions against it all. Now, that is not the case with all of them. Several were allowed to do whatever they want, and this is on the other end of the spectrum, as their parents didn't seem to really give a damn at all as long as the trouble didn't come home with the kids. Out of sight, out of mind. I see it around me all the time, when parents try to teach their children to avoid all the "bad stuff" but without ever really teaching them why it's considered bad, it "just is." I see it with my nephews and nieces, the kids of coworkers, etc. The kids do all the "bad stuff" because they know it ticks off their mom and dad and all the cool kids do it. The poster you replied to is actually more responsible than the parent who beats their children when they catch them with a beer, a pack of cigarettes, or porn. He (I think) is teaching his son that a little bit is OK and hopefully the kid will understand that a little *is* OK. You cannot shield kids from everything life has to offer, good or bad, or they grow up not having an understanding of themselves or the world around them. I could give plenty of examples, but I won't. I bet this kid is gonna grow up just fine. And if not, then let's not forget that we still have responsibility for our own choices. meh.

Not missing anything

[gr8_phk]

No, you're not missing anything. Notice that this guy had to write a special bit-torrent client in order to avoid actually doing anything wrong during his tests. Anyone connected with normal software would be either a) downloading the file and/or b) providing parts of that file to others. No one connects to a swarm just to "hang out". They are only targeting people connected to swarms that are sharing copyrighted works. I'd say the media companies method is sound, and accurate - if you're going to pretend to engage in illegal activity, you have to expect people to treat you like a criminal.

Re:Reminds me of ..

[t0rkm3]

They are required to prove that the content is their protected works. Considering the content is digital, they should have a burden of proving 100% of the content is a usable part or whole work.

If they can't prove that the content is theirs, they have no business sending a C&D.

Similarly, if I claim a television in your home is actually mine, I have to be able to prove through serial number, receipt, etc., that the television is, in fact, mine.

It is a trivial exercise to determine whether the content is legit or not. md5sum? Proprietary compression algorithm? Tough shit, take what evidence you have and get a warrant.

The whole C&D thing is crap. It sets up copyright holders as vigilantes with next to zero accountability for abusing their power.

Re:Invalid metaphor

[gordyf]

There was nothing legal about the torrents he joined with his modified client -- he was joining torrents for copyrighted material and got the notices.

This really is like approaching a drug dealer with a cop in plain view, pretending to buy something, then just claiming you were there to hang out.

The police already choose which laws to enforce.

[FatSean]

They have to, there are way too many laws already. Ever wonder why the guy on the side of the road only gives out speeding and seatbelt tickets, but nothing for following too close or unsafe lane change? They're told to concentrate on certain laws. The Police already decide whether to give someone a ticket or a warning. What was your point?

Re:Invalid metaphor

[Jon Luckey]

There was nothing legal about the torrents he joined with his modified client -- he was joining torrents for copyrighted material and got the notices

Yet the very people who sent him the notices had agents also joined to that swarm. Applying your suggested standard would mean they were breaking the law. (actually that case is arguable, since sending false DMCA takedown notices is a violation in the DCMA too)

I could easily see the experimenter claiming he was doing exactly the same thing as BayTSP, collecting data on BitTorrent swarms without actually sharing files. I suggest that he could even offer the data collected for sale. Say like (pinkie to smirked lips) $1 Million Dollars per IP address to establish his Bono Fides. :)