Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does this really surprise anyone that reads Slashdot? I've certainly come to expect tactics such as this from any media company.
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...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
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.
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.
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.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
...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."
Three Squirrels
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump