Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

BitTorrent May Prove Too Good to Quash 484

gollum123 writes "There is an article on washignton post on bittorrent where the author discusses why BitTorrent is here to stay. According to the author it is being increasingly used to distribute software and entertainment legally. It also mentions that in BitTorrent, unlike many other file-sharing programs, legitimate use doesn't amount to a token minority. It's central to this program's existence. It concludes by saying that the MPAA may be able to drive BitTorrent movie downloads into what Green called "the dark corners of the Internet," but this program isn't going to go away. It might, however, be just what movie studios and record labels need to market and distribute their own content efficiently on the Web."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitTorrent May Prove Too Good to Quash

Comments Filter:
  • by ShadowBlasko ( 597519 ) <shadowblaskoNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:02PM (#11943596)
    Over at Empornium...

    150k member max, and still beating them away with a stick!

    No leechers rocks!

    Just as long as admins remember to lose those logs... I just *hate* hardware failures...

    dont you?
  • Re:Sources ? (Score:1, Informative)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:07PM (#11943654) Homepage Journal

    Try googling for "whatyouwant filetype:torrent" or just "filetype:torrent torrent". You'll find zillions of trackers out there.

    BitTorrent isn't going away.
  • Re:Sources ? (Score:4, Informative)

    by turtled ( 845180 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:08PM (#11943665)
    Sources are all over. Just do a google search for torrent, and you have pages and pages of results. I use
    http://isohunt.com/
    http://www.novatina.com/
    m y fav: http://www.btefnet.org
    or a shit load here:
    http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t =8690
  • Re:Sources ? (Score:3, Informative)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@nOspam.xmsnet.nl> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:08PM (#11943666)
    This [defiant.ws] is a good starting point, even if it isn't entirely up-to-date.
  • Re:Sources ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by AnonymousCowheart ( 646429 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:08PM (#11943667)
    suprnova.org was used mostly for illegal content, this is about LEGAL uses for bittorrent.
    Check out legaltorrents.com [legaltorrents.com]
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:10PM (#11943691)
    Not that I don't recognize that BitTorrent is currently used for many legitimate applications (whereas that was extremely difficult to argue with a straight face with P2P), but I think this statement is a little overboard. I'd say that, currently, "legitimate" use of BitTorrent is a "token minority" of its use. The vast, vast majority is pirated software, pirated movies, and pirated TV shows (and, to a lesser extent, music, just because of the nature of BitTorrent being more conveniently applicable to small amounts of large files, rather than large amounts of small files).

    Anyone not admitting that at this particular point in time is lying to themselves.


    Maybe that was true when SuperNova and LokiTorrent were around. We are sorta heading back into the "time before torrents" when stuff wasn't easily available on a huge online database available on the web.

    Have you take a split second to look at the legitimate uses of torrents recently? easytree [easytree.org], Etree [etree.org], etc? HUGE repositories of legal music for download?

    It's obvious to me that you haven't.
  • Re:Distribute & Pay? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:10PM (#11943693)
    Well, if you dont agree, dont click the "I agree" button. Simple as that.
  • by ShadowBlasko ( 597519 ) <shadowblaskoNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:14PM (#11943732)
    Most likely because of the intensified server load that results from account analysis, throttling, and "upload only" limiting to prevent leeching.

    If you are running without that kind of tracking, sure, open it up and go hog wild. With it, you need to keep an eye on your capacity. It's a pretty big load.

    That and the hardware is somewhat expensive.

    I know the Big E tracker is handwritten, and babied, it could probably handle many more, but stability seems best at a cap of around 150K
  • by sjvn ( 11568 ) <(moc.1anv) (ta) (nvjs)> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:20PM (#11943793) Homepage
    With the new version, 4.0, now available

    http://www.bittorrent.com/index.html

    for both Windows and Linux (MacOS real soon now), it's a lot easier for both users and network administrators to manage the protocol's bandwidth hungry ways. It's so much easier now that I think that you'll be able to talk organizations, which have banned its use, on the grounds that it eats up too much bandwidth, into rethinking their positions.

    Heck, for that matter, I think that since BitTorrent bandwidth use is now mindlessly simple to manage, it will become a popular tool for businesses that need to move large data files back and forth between offices.

    For more on all this see:

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775223,00. as p

    Steven
  • by LowneWulf ( 210110 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:34PM (#11943924)
    I'll post one use of Bittorrent that is:
    - Perfectly legitimate
    - Backed by a large corporation
    - Had heavy usage.

    World of Warcraft.

    Their open beta (over a gig) was distributed by BitTorrent. The larger patches are all BitTorrent. This alleviates pressure on their patch servers for that rush on the first day after a patch, so we can all get back to our addiction faster.

    Blizzard is pretty damned mainstream.
  • Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by bonch ( 38532 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:36PM (#11943946)
    It might, however, be just what movie studios and record labels need to market and distribute their own content efficiently on the Web

    Now why would it be in their best interest to distribute movies and music so that everyone else could get it without compensating them for it? Is this more of the silly "free advertising" argument? Seriously, how would you expect them to get paid if they did that? I guess a recording artist is expected to spend three months renting out a studio and equipment, just to have the music blasted onto Bittorrent where he won't get paid for his work.

    Are you telling me the Bittorrent system has DRM or some other way of preventing people from getting the material without paying for it? If not, is there a way to graft on such a system? Only then would studios even consider using it. Otherwise, it's silly wishful thinking on the part of people who are, shall we say, used to the convenience of downloading whatever they want and so invent reasons for everything to be on P2P.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:37PM (#11943958)
    You might want to forward and use a set of 10 consecutive ports starting from an arbitrary number between 50000 and 60000. Some ISPs use packet shaping or throttling on the standard ports. A number of Other people I know have noticed a marked increase after following this advice.
  • by Slack3r78 ( 596506 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:43PM (#11944002) Homepage
    Most home connections are asynchronous and have a far higher download rate than upload rate. Leeching is when someone finishes a download, and doesn't seed back at least as much as they took.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:45PM (#11944030)
    Actually this is not at all how it works, BitTorrent downloads chunks of the file in any order. The 90% you reffer to isn't the first 90% of the file it's just 90% of the file, the reason this happens is the seeder may disconnect before giving out a complete copy of the file and the sum of the stuff the connected peers have is only 90% of the file.

    Who the hell modded you up?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:51PM (#11944117)
    That question is answered in the Bittorrent docs --of all places. If you're using pre-built binaries they automatically turn on uploading. But it's an open source project hosted at SourceForge and freely available to you and everyone else right now and for all time. It's a just a click or two away.
    The source is heavily commented and not obfuscated at all so if you look at it, you should find it plainly tells you where to turn off uploading and recompile it if you so desire. That is how you can leech with BT according to the docs.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:55PM (#11944174)
    That's just wrong, sorry. Bitttorrent grabs bits and pieces of the file from points all throughout the file.

    Here's how to prove this to yourself: download a song or an episode of a TV show or something, and try to play it when the progress bar hits 50%. If you can make it even 5% of the way through the file before getting to a chunk of information you don't have, I'd be impressed.

    In fact, the bittorent protocol is specificaly designed to send different pieces of the file to different users, to maximize the effect of sharing bandwidth.
  • Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:56PM (#11944192)
    I don't know where you're getting your music but the majority of the CDs I've purchased have anywhere from 10-18 songs on them. They were purchased for roughly 10-$20 an album, at $1 a song those are pretty even costs.
  • by gwydion04 ( 756582 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:58PM (#11944232) Journal
    I do not believe this is true at all. I'm pretty sure that bittorrent preferentially seeks out the least common "bits" among those downloading the file in order to ensure that there is a complete copy available, sometimes allowing a complete file to be downloaded even though there are no seeds. I've completed downloading (legal) unseeded files quite frequently. They do NOT load "from the beginning of the file to the end of the file," IIRC.
  • by Daverd ( 641119 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @12:58PM (#11944234) Homepage
    http://sailes.co.uk/sy22/bittorrent.htm [sailes.co.uk]

    What you said is completely false. BitTorrent uses either Random First, i.e. selects a random chunk to download, or Rarest First, i.e. downloads the chunk that the fewest clients have. It definitely does NOT go linearly from beginning to end of file. If it stalls around 90%, this is only because there are some chunks which are much more rare than others.
  • If you're doing it commercially, act as both a seeder and a tracker. For unpopular content, you simply seed the individual download it, giving them download speeds not short of HTTP. For popular content, they get the speed they'd have got from HTTP plus the benefit of other people's upstream.

    Note that in this case, you closing your client as soon as the download completes reduces the benefit the seller gets, but does not negate it, as BitTorrent uploads and downloads simultaneously, even if the file is incomplete.

  • by ThatsNotFunny ( 775189 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:02PM (#11944277)
    The main problem with BitTorrent is that files are loaded from the beginning of the file to the end of the file.
    Completely untrue. This is not how BitTorrent works at all. In fact, if you use a client that graphically shows how the bits are being downloaded, such as "Bits on Wheels" for Mac OS X, you see exactly which segments of the files are being downloaded.
  • by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:07PM (#11944344) Journal
    If the band is giving open permission to do so (e.g. a notice at the venue or on the band's website), a signed letter isn't required under promissory estoppel-style doctrines. Even without a signed contract, any prosecution attempted would run into the "But you said it was okay!" defense.
  • by Lelon ( 443322 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:15PM (#11944422) Homepage Journal
    bittorrent evolved beyond that limitation a long time ago. multi-tracker torrents are now the norm.
  • by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:18PM (#11944451)
    This is basically what Steam does.

    Steam? As in Valve's distribution mechanism? That Steam, at least, doesn't do anything like that. There is no P2P mechanism in steam, clients are pure clients. Updates are downloaded from a network of mirrors distributed geographically [steampowered.com] ("Total Available Bandwidth: 14,635.00Mbps"). Come to think of it, I wonder what protocol is used to transfer data from the content servers... it might be some Steam-proprietary protocol, but chances are it's simply HTTP or FTP.

    Anyway, maybe you're thinkink of Blizzard's World of Warcraft. They used to rely heavily on BitTorrent to transfer the beta client and major updates. These days, it seems that all updates are downloaded from the servers, at least from the looks of it. Maybe that will change with the next major update. (And maybe it's different in the US, I'm in the EU.)
    That was a disaster for me and many other people, because Blizzards were too dumb to limit the upstream either manually or by some sort of algorithm, which lead to extremely slow downloads on asynchronous connections. You could extract the .torrent file, though, and download with your favorite client, which I did getting, oh, about 1000x the download rates.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by farnz ( 625056 ) <slashdot&farnz,org,uk> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:22PM (#11944484) Homepage Journal
    BitTorrent is just a file transfer method; like HTTP or FTP, it transfers files. DRM is applied at the file level, and is not related to the file transfer method, whether it be BitTorrent or HTTP (iTunes can use HTTP to download purchased music; I don't know if it uses it exclusively, or only when behind a strict firewall).
  • by Puggles ( 126272 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:25PM (#11944521) Homepage Journal
    BitTorrent is banned at my university (University of Florida). See: http://freeculture.org/wiki/index.php/Icarus for links, including a slashdot article on the matter.
  • by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:30PM (#11944566)
    Hell, while they're at it demand that all recording devices be banned from the world!
    I wonder if people that read this actually know how close to the truth it is. Sony tried to kill the VCR when it came out. Motion picture studios sued ReplayTV out of existence. Now they're trying to pass the "Induce" act to make it illegal to sell portable players without Digital Rights Management built in. I'm sure the entertainment industry would be perfectly happy if there were no commercially available recorders.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @01:36PM (#11944632)
    This is basically what Steam does. ...and it's a crock, because it's basically paying the company to use YOUR resources.

    On the general topic of media companies delivering content to you via Bittotrrent, and you using some of your upstream to distribute the file...

    Yes, they are using some of your resources. However the way to look at it is not that you are paying them to use your bandwidth - instead realize that you are offering a mix of bandwidth and money for the services offered. To put it another way, they could also distribute the content via a standard means, but then you'd also have to pay more to support the far greater cost of bandwidth.

    It's a win-win in another way - when content starts finally flying around in large qualities via a bittorrent like protocol, then said content companies and consumers will push for greater upstream caps instead of the measly 256k most of s with high-speed connections have now.
  • by Manchot ( 847225 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @02:14PM (#11945034)
    Almost all BT clients allow you to adjust your maximum upload bandwidth. You probably just need to lower it a bit, until you find that "sweet spot" where your download rate = your upload rate.
  • by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @02:20PM (#11945087) Homepage
    With BitTorrent it's difficult to do this, because unless you upload (and peers report packets coming from you to the tracker) then your download speed is gonna suck. Leave your client uploading freely and your download rate will get fast quickly, but block uploads and it will stay slow.
  • by sp3tt ( 856121 ) <<sp3tt> <at> <sp3tt.se>> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @02:24PM (#11945133)
    TCP requires you to confirm that you have recieved each packet you recieve. Those acknowledgements can kill your download speed. Maybe your maximum upload speed is too high? Try to lower it.
    Or it could be a firewall.
  • by jascat ( 602034 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @03:02PM (#11945530)
    Use Azureus [sf.net] with the AutoSpeed plugin [sourceforge.net]. This dynamically changes your global upload speed depending so you are always in that "sweet spot".
  • by Rezonant ( 775417 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @03:27PM (#11945781)
    Asynchronous? You probably mean asymmetric.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @05:17PM (#11946926)
    Perhaps you're close, but it's not fair to call that instant. I'm assuming that the Internet doesn't close for holidays, unlike video stores.

    Well, I don't know what video stores you frequent but the ones I do (Hollywood and Blockbuster) are open 365 days a year.

    Hollywood Video (source [hollywoodvideo.com])
    Hours of Operation:
    We're open 365 days a year
    Sun-Sat 10a.m. to Midnight
    ** Most Locations


    The three Blockbuster Video stores closest to me are open 365 days a year as well but their store locator is down at the moment for proof.
  • by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @05:41PM (#11947175)
    With BitTorrent it's difficult to do this, because unless you upload (and peers report packets coming from you to the tracker) then your download speed is gonna suck.
    This is only the case when you are trying to download from a torrent where there isn't enough bandwidth available on the torrent to serve all of the downloaders. In that case, those who are uploading will tend to get better rates than those who are not (or who are severely limiting it.) However, when the available bandwidth starts increasing compared to the number of downloaders, they can start getting their downloads for "free." This often happens after the torrent is a few days old, and there are a bunch of people sitting on the torrent.

    If you have too many people with low upload rates, then the people who aren't restricting their uploads won't end up connected to each other -- and so will frequently end up uploading significantly more than they eventually download. That's one likely explanation for the parent poster's experience of uploading much more than he downloaded.

    One other thing that can affect this is that most of the popular clients -- the last time I looked at them, anyway -- normally try to take as much bandwidth as they can for each torrent that you are uploading/downloading. Imagine that you are on two torrents, one popular and one unpopular. A bunch of people are connected on the first, and only one on the second. Often, half of your upstream will be used to upload to the one person on torrent 2, regardless of whether he is uploading or not.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:16PM (#11948072)
    Try googling something like "japanese tv torrent".

    Here's a couple I found. #japan-tv [afraid.org] and d-addicts [d-addicts.com].

  • Re:bad design (Score:3, Informative)

    by Slack3r78 ( 596506 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:13PM (#11949163) Homepage
    Others have already pointed out Azureus' warning about not having seeded enough.

    Also, Azureus is UPnP aware. This means if you have a relatively new router (everything I've used in the last year or so has been UPnP compliant) Azureus should go ahead and punch the holes it needs in the firewall for you. It's always worked well for me.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...