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.

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.)

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.

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!

[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.

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]

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.

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.

[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

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

[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. :)