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

[Nos.]

If you read the article you'll see that he connected specifically to torrents of questionable legality, ones he believed were being monitored:

I placed this client on a number of torrent files that I suspected were monitored by BayTSP

Its not like they block everyone going to thepiratebay.org, only people who appear to be partaking in the sharing of a copyrighted work. I'm not saying this tactic is a good one, just not quite as bad as its being made out to be.

Re:Just like VCRs

[curunir]

...in the absence of any indication of what a user has downloaded or uploaded

Why wouldn't there be an indication that the user has downloaded or uploaded something? There's nothing that prevents them from actually connecting to the tracker and pretending to be a BitTorrent client, so all they have to do is start downloading and anyone who actually sends them something will give them a clear indication that they've both downloaded and uploaded copyrighted material. Moreover, they'll have an exact idea of what that copyrighted content is.

This isn't rocket science, it's just going the extra mile to actually prove the infringement took place rather than simply taking a short cut and making an assumption that can obviously prove to be wrong.

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.

Re:Just like VCRs

[Sancho]

I think the BitTorrent protocol makes this difficult. Especially for large swarms, it's possible that they wouldn't catch everyone (not everyone might upload to their tracker). Also, people who don't upload tend to be penalized, exacerbating the problem. And there are untested and very strange legal implications if they do upload....

Also, their assumptions are correct almost all of the time. Though some researchers might use modified clients to connect to trackers without up/downloading, the overwhelming majority of people who connect to the trackers will be people who are in the process of committing copyright infringement. Any court would say that the MPAA/RIAA filed the suit in good faith. If a person is doing research, they probably have evidence to back that up. The case would probably be dismissed or even dropped once that evidence was provided. For the remaining 0.0001% that might get tagged... well frankly, even the US government doesn't always get it right[1], so why should we expect a corporation to be any better?

Now there will be some detractors. Some people will make the broad claim that, "Why don't they just sue everyone on the Internet? You're allowing them some error, how much will they take?" These people don't understand the concept of "gray areas." The RIAA/MPAA know that they cannot sue everyone on the Internet. They also know that, legally, they have to have a reasonable belief that infringement is occurring before they file suit. The definition of "reasonable" in this case is left to the courts, and it's probably a situation where the judge will know it when he sees it. That may not be much consolation, but maybe you can rest assured that if the RIAA started wrongly suing people en masse, the massive backlash and numerous lawsuits that would result would be devastating. They know this, which is why they aren't going to do this sort of thing.

[1] Meaning that the US government and the court system has convicted and imprisoned people who were innocent of the charges against them. DNA evidence sometimes proves this years after the fact.

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

[HTH NE1]

After reading the article, BayTSP is running the tracker.

Then you didn't read the article correctly.

BayTSP is monitoring particular torrents on trackers with their own torrent client designed for monitoring the swarm, not operating their own trackers.

Move house to switch ISPs?

[tepples]

Choose your ISP wisely and you won't run into these problems.

Should people really have to choose where to live based on the ISPs available in the area? Often, there is only one or there are only two ISPs in a particular geographic area apart from dial-up: the local cable television provider and the local land-line telephone provider.

Re:Move house to switch ISPs?

[jandrese]

You're lucky to have DSL service on that landline. A lot of people live outside of DSL range and are stuck with Cable for the most part. There are various wireless solutions, but they almost invariably suck for one reason or another (a big one being that the spectrum is just plain limited). There are lots of people that are lucky to have a single broadband option where they live, so they'd better hope that the guys are dicks (Whoops, non-dicky behavior and local monopolies don't go together at all).

At least with DSL you DO have some choice. The phone companies don't want to tell you this, but they're required to share the lines with competitors because it was your tax money that put up a lot of those lines to start with. If your DSL company is jerking you around, you can often switch to Covad or Speakeasy or some other provider and tell your phone company where they can stick it. Beware that most third party DSL providers are more expensive than the phone company, but they generally have much better service and TOS to make up for it.

Re:Move house to switch ISPs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The phone companies don't want to tell you this, but they're required to share the lines with competitors because it was your tax money that put up a lot of those lines to start with.

Not anymore they don't. The FCC ruled about 2-3 years ago that starting at that time if the phone company made any improvement to your line at all, it no longer had to lease it to a competitor at cost.

They called this "deregulation" since, after all, it was regulations that was forcing phone companies to share.

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.

Re:Compare to legitimate drug dealers?

[fishdan]

Not quite:

From the article:

I placed this client on a number of torrent files that I suspected were monitored by BayTSP (For my own protection I don't want to identify the torrents used for this research. I used the fact that NBC is a client of BayTSP to find trackers.

So it's like going up to an illegal drug dealer (because the torrent is not of a legally shared file) and asking him/her "Can I buy some crack from you." (because the client sent a request to the tracker). Even though no illegal goods changed hands, we're are definitely NOT talking about the companies disconnecting people because thry are downloading FC6 or Ctrl-Alt-Chicken via bittorrent.

I'm not agreeing with the media companies here, but it's not as draconian as you are making it out to be.

Don't understand the analogy

[letsgolightning]

In the spirit of slashdot, could I request that we instead get a car analogy? Preferably one involving hookers... and blackjack. You know what? Forget the analogy.

Re:Don't understand the analogy

[slim-t]

It's like picking up a hooker to have someone to talk to while playing blackjack, then getting thrown out for counting cards even though you were just trying to make sure they were 52 in the deck, then a cop seeing you starting your own car with a screwdriver and arresting you for soliciting prostitution when he sees who you're with. Not a perfect analogy, but it happened to a friend of mine once.

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.

Re:Er

[snarlydwarf]

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

I think you mean "illegal stuff". I download copyrighted music with BitTorrent quite often and it is very legal: DGMLive has lots of great King Crimson and Robert Fripp material that you are encouraged to use BitTorrent to download after paying them. Since DGM is owned by Fripp and has rights to the King Crimson catalog: they can do that legally and even make a profit.

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.

Wrong.

[AltGrendel]

The client refused to accept downloads of, or upload copyrighted content. It obeyed the law...

Basically, it had the connection setup but kept it idle.

Doing nothing.

And he got a letter saying that he was downloading illegal content while it was...

...doing nothing.

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!

[techno-vampire]

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

I agree, but it probably won't have that much affect. Remember, in a civil suit, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove it's case "to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt" as the prosecution does in a criminal case. The standard is the more simple "preponderance of evidence." That means that if the jury feels it's more likely that the plaintiff is right than that the defendant is, they vote for the plaintiff even if they're not completely sure. This would make their claims less believable, but probably wouldn't be enough in and of itself to disprove them.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[brianosaurus]

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. Once that has been established, demonstrating how this client collects swarm info, but rejects any data transfer should be a simple matter.

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. Its a good thing we're all "innocent until proven guilty." IANAL, but this should establish that the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that defendants actually distributed content. Presence in the swarm is clearly not enough for a conviction, so it certainly should not be enough for an ISP takedown.

The article's author would make for a great expert witness in any of these cases. If the only evidence being shown is the defendant's IP address in the cloud, they have nothing.

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.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[number11]

Assumptions aren't proof.

Civil cases (i.e. suing you) don't require proof to win, at least in the USA. All they require is "better than 50:50".

Assumptions aren't even EVIDENCE

Having your IP number in a BitTorrent swarm is EVIDENCE. It may not be airtight, but see above.

Re:The important part is the proof!

[insignificant_wrangl]

If you read the transcripts from the Supreme Court Grokster appeal, you can isolate the exact moment when Justice Scalia realizes what Grokster does. And you can taste the immediacy of his determining that it was very, very illegal.

Fortunately, Grokster's advertising campaign, which featured the ability to get new releases for free, kept the justices from rendering a ruling that affected all P2P sharing. While a big supporter of P2P file sharing, I fear for its future.

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]

Reminds me of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your article on these BayTSP notices reminds me of when large parts of the Windows NT4/2000 source code were leaked. I created a fake "Windows Longhorn Source Code" file which was about 1.2GB in size and full of zeroes, and then shared it on eMule to see how far it spread (quite far, initially.)

A couple of weeks later I received a copyright infringement notice from my ISP for this fake file. They had been contacted by one of Microsoft's agents who obviously conducted their analyses using a method of similar incompetence to BayTSP's.

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.

Weak

[mfh]

If someone adds your IP to a swarm by sending you a mysterious link using a URL shrinking site, how could you possibly have intent to break a law? IANAL, but copyright infringement must require intent, no?

It's a really weak legal angle for them to take, and if it's all they have going for them, most people have very little to worry about (except really long and boring lawsuits that cost way too much money and only enrich the lives of lawyers).

Meh.

Re:Weak

[cpt kangarooski]

IANAL, but copyright infringement must require intent, no?

No. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense. Intent is not required.

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.

My BayTSP experience

[sir_larrikin]

My experience with BayTSP came a few months ago. My ISP, Adelphia, sent me a notice that they had received a complaint from BayTSP (on behalf of a movie studio), that I was sharing the movie "Mission Impossible 3." I was confused, since I do not trade Hollywood movies. I read further in the complaint, and found the Hash for an eDonkey file, supposedly the movie in question. Checking my "shared" files, I found that this movie was, in fact, a file that was being mislabeled by others that were sharing it. It was not Mission Impossible 3 at all, but an old porno movie.

My repeated emails to my ISP (explaining BayTSPs idiocy) were not acknowledged, so I chose to ignore the entire thing.

What defines a "Client"?

[ReadWryt]

I'm in deep trouble. I am obviously guilty of heinous criminal behavior...Opera on my Mac laptop has a Torrent Client built in...

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:Not missing anything

[Dilaudid]

So essentially it's a bit like hanging around with dealers and wearing a sign saying "I buy and sell crack cocaine".

Re:Not missing anything

[number11]

Are the "swarms" disjoint sets of nodes that are only sharing certain types of files?

The "swarms" are sets of nodes that are sharing (and downloading, usually) the same file.

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?

You forget that people hate this crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to stop some people from adding a "screw BayTSP" feature to trackers and BT clients? I.E. the tracker could feed random IPs into the mix, or because TFA states that the BayTSP clients use peer exchange, they could exchange lots of phony peers with them.

This is even more a possibility due to the fact that TFA gives a number of features by which one can detect them. And when you further factor in the fact that they do such a poor job of figuring out whether or not they actually own whatever content they complain about people sharing, well...

Re:You forget that people hate this crap!

[Skreems]

I didn't say I thought it was right :-) Just that from a legal standpoint, this probably isn't gonna save anybody's ass. And as I pointed out, if lots of clients start screwing with the protocol by running non-sharing clients or feeding media companies fake peer addresses, this would gain a whole lot more credibility.

Charge me with rape!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I have the equipment.

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. :)

Civil Disobedience

[SanityInAnarchy]

It might be nice to setup a website where we can all list the laws we don't obey (anonymously), rather than simply silently disobeying. That way, we can provide some sort of feedback to legislators and law enforcement -- basically, if 90% of people disobey a given law, and think it's a bad law, it's probably time to change that law.

In any case, I'm mostly with you. I don't care much for alcohol, but I do plenty of things that are illegal -- mostly filesharing, also speeding (on occasion). I do take steps to ensure I'm not caught, but I also am prepared to defend my actions: Where the law and my ethics are at odds, I follow what's right, not what's legal.