Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Poisoned Torrents Plague Mybittorrent 542

Posted by Zonk
from the five-bucks-says-it's-the-mpaa dept.
jambarama writes "One of the biggest problems with the Fasttrack network has been poisoning. This is the practice of sharing a file on a P2P network that looks like the real thing, but isn't. Bittorrent until recently has been largely immune to this. Now a new type of torrent is tricking bittorrent sites to rising to the top of the download lists." From the article: "According to Rex, about 50 new torrents have been released from what he calls "fake" trackers (~31 in total.) These trackers are seemingly part of an elaborate plot to infiltrate the BitTorrent community with intentionally corrupt files. These movie and film titles are specifically designed to report false information to trackers, thereby gaining artificially inflated popularity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Poisoned Torrents Plague Mybittorrent

Comments Filter:
  • by flowerp (512865) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:24AM (#13649366)

    In addition to fooling unsuspecting users into downloading these broken torrents, it is likely that IP addresses were also harvested - potentially for future lawsuits. So BitTorrent clients will have to add/invent a trust systems for trackers now - not just for files.
    • It's it an unsuccesful attempt to violate IP rights? Afterall, you will never be able to get the complete package.
      • But you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.

        • Aaah, but if the RIAA is distributing the file (or giving it to people to distribute), that's implied consent, so therefore you can't be sued (well okay. You can be, but the RIAA should lose).
        • by schon (31600) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:44AM (#13650160)
          you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless.

          No, it's not actually copyright infringement.

          When you download something from itunes, is it copyright infringement?

          Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?

          Now, here's where this example ties into this discussion:

          If the copyright holder puts their work up on a P2P service, with full knowledge that the file will be downloaded and uploaded, how can they claim infringement? They know how the protocol works, they know that copying will occur. By putting the file up, with knowledge of how the protocol works, they are implicitly giving permission for the copying to take place.

          It's not copyright infringement if you have permission.
          • "you may have received 98% of actually copyrighted data. So it's copyright infringement nonetheless even if the product turns out to be useless."

            Why not? because it's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright holder, right?


            I know that here you can be charged with smuggling flour if they can prove that you thought you were smuggling drugs. If you thought you were illegally downloading a copy of "The O.C.", then you were breaking the law regardless of what the bits actually are. In
    • by fm2503 (876331) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:32AM (#13649392)
      Esepcially as from TFA:
      Those who download these torrents are unable to complete a full download, as the file transfer stops at approximately 97%-98%.

      Guess that would give plenty of time to harvest the IP, whilst the pirates end up with gigabytes of useless 1s & 0s....

      I mean given the reported posioned torrents so far are:
      "The Wedding Crashers"
      "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
      The first three episodes of "The O.C."

      It seems unlikely that there is any legitimate use of these.
      • Guess that would give plenty of time to harvest the IP, whilst the pirates end up with gigabytes of useless 1s & 0s....
        Downloading a bunch of useless 1s & 0s is not illegal in any way, regardless of how that collection is called. They own the copyright on the meaningful content. Maybe they can sue based on "intent to violate copyright" or so, but you did not violate any copyright downloading that stuff...
      • by slavemowgli (585321) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:04AM (#13650323) Homepage
        True, but still... there's two possibilities.

        *If* the downloaded material is, in reality, not the movie it was claimed to be, but rather just a random collection of ones and zeros, then obviously, anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement.

        On the other hand, *if* the downloaded material really *is* what it was claimed to be, then, well... anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement, as it was the rights holders themselves that voluntarily and knowingly uploaded the material. You don't even have to argue about entrapment, because copying movies is not something that is *inherently* illegal - it's just illegal if you haven't gotten permission, and if you're downloading from the rights holders themselves, then you can argue that you had permission - it's called concludent behaviour.

        The only thing that you *might* get sued for is attempted (i.e., not actual) copyright infringement - but then, it's not clear whether an unsuccessful attempt to infringe on someone else's copyright is something you can be sued for at all, and the matter is furthermore complicated by the fact that you could, in this case, still argue that it was entrapment (probably not legal, either, if it's not the police doing it - and even then, it's not at all clear), etc.
        • Do not miss the point of the harvested IP-s. Even if they have no case, a lawsuit brought on you by **AA is a HUGE inconvenience, and will have the desired deterring effect.
    • by TheSurfer (560640) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:34AM (#13650059)
      For those who're interested: reaction from the mininova admins here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=207569 #207569 [slyck.com]
  • EULA (Score:5, Funny)

    by wall0159 (881759) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:25AM (#13649370)
    Simple. Bittorrent needs an EULA so that people are forced to post legitimate pirated files. Damned liars - spoiling it for all us honest freeloaders.
    • This wouldn't work unless the BitTorrent protocol were patented. Patent licensees would be required to comply with terms that required them not to attempt to poison tracker sites, as well as to include that requirement as part of an EULA for any software they produce that uses the patent license. Without the patent restriction, someone could just develop software that independently implements the BitTorrent protocol and be unencumbered by EULA terms.

      And we all know that software patents are a Good Thing.
  • So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis&gmail,com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:26AM (#13649372) Homepage
    When you're a big boy you can afford the $5 movie rental at blockbuster.

    Then you know what you do with the rental? Rip it.

    Takes far less effort, gets higher quality, supports the economy how you choose to do it and doesn't zap so much bandwidth for your own ego-stroking purposes.

    Honestly folk, get a life. Copying music and videos is cool when you're 9 because you can't afford shit but even a teenager working a burger joint can afford a rental once in a while. And frankly how much media is there out there that is WORTH wasting the three hours downloading every night anyways?

    I say all the power to them.

    Tom
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Freexe (717562) <serrkr@tznvy.pbz> on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:40AM (#13649434) Homepage
      Show me a place I can buy, rent, watch or download the entire X-men oringal series cartoon and I will stop downloading it now and buy it.

      In fact most of what I download are things that I simple cannot buy or or so expensive that I wouldn't ever consider paying that much money for it (would you pay £180 / $321 USD (£150 now) for My So Called Life [amazon.co.uk] which is only 19 episodes long and a one of my faviourate shows from when i was a kid, or would you download load it for free?).

      If they would be reasonable about the whole thing I would be happy to pay for old shows and films, but this simply isn't the case.
      • RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

        by Stickerboy (61554) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:34AM (#13649683) Homepage
        Your privilege to download an unauthorized copy of the X-Men TV series isn't being hurt.

        "These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases."

        Hmm... The Wedding Crashers, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the OC. Yep, sounds like old and obscure stuff to me that you can't find at the theater/DVD aisle at Wal-Mart.

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)
      Then you know what you do with the rental? Rip it.

      With this line, I read your whole comment as "Online pirates are using an inefficient way of pirating, here's a better one." The rest is just arguments for and against. In that case, I'll raise you one. Burn DVDs and trade with your friends. No rental fees, no bandwidth costs.

      Also, look at the development. Locally, over the last two years CD and DVD prices have been reasonably constant. In the same period I could either keep my bandwidth (1Mbit), and cut cos
  • Enforcement (Score:3, Funny)

    by minginqunt (225413) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:28AM (#13649378) Homepage Journal
    Why won't people leave me to break the law in peace, dammit!?

    I mean, what did I ever do to them? Oh, wait...

    Martin
    • Re:Enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Grey Ninja (739021) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:55AM (#13649513) Homepage Journal
      Well, I'm a Canadian. I break no laws when I download music on bittorrent... but these people are making it extremely difficult to download my music in peace.
      • Re:Enforcement (Score:5, Informative)

        by barthrh2 (713909) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:41AM (#13649723)
        Bad news: You do break the law. Downloading is legal here, but uploading definitely is not. While you're downloading, you are feeding data to peers and that makes you an uploader. Also, if you leave the torrent open after downloading, you are seeding (which of course you should do, lest you be branded a leecher).
        • Well, I have heard the story both ways. Some say it's legal, some say it's not. I'm not going to argue that today.

          I will just mention that if I am downloading poisoned data... then I am probably going to be uploading poisoned data as well... meaning no crime is being committed. I can also just arbitrarily say that I am the world's biggest leech. :P
      • Re:Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Errtu76 (776778) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:23AM (#13649985) Journal
        you say you don't break a rule while downloading. But did you consider that downloading anything with bittorrent immediately means you're uploading as well? You might be breaking laws anyway.

        I found out recently that it's legal in my country (Netherlands) to download music and movies . As long as i'm not uploading anything, i'm perfectly safe. This doesn't go for software though. Downloading that is still illegal.
  • by aussie_a (778472) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:28AM (#13649380) Journal
    Files that impersonate other files (e.g. get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static) tend to only impersonate files that people don't have permission to distribute (and are therefore breaking the law). Most files that are legally distributable tend to not suffer from having poisonous files out there, so therefore people that follow the law don't actually have a problem with them.

    If the past is any indicator (and it normally is), the bittorrent poisonous files will mostly (if not only) be impersonating files that people aren't allowed to distribute. Your garage bands or Linux distributors that use bit-torrent, are most likely not going to have people impersonating their files out there (there may be a little bit of it, but chances are it'll be a very small amount).

    So really, for people that follow the law, this isn't going to be a problem. For people breaking the law, you really have no reason to complain. However what can be a problem is when legit files falsely report information to increase their perceived popularity.
    • by Mr2001 (90979) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:35AM (#13649404) Homepage Journal
      Files that impersonate other files (e.g. get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static) tend to only impersonate files that people don't have permission to distribute (and are therefore breaking the law). Most files that are legally distributable tend to not suffer from having poisonous files out there, so therefore people that follow the law don't actually have a problem with them.

      Well, no kidding. There's no incentive, at this point in time, for anyone other than MPAA/RIAA/BSA type organizations to launch a campaign to undermine BitTorrent.

      That doesn't mean the BT community (i.e. client authors) shouldn't try to detect and work around it, though. It's an attempt to trick clients, and possibly to harvest identifying information from the people who are interested in a certain type of content, and we never know who else might try something similar in the future.
    • by JohhnyTHM (799469) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:49AM (#13649485)

      get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static

      I thought they were sounding better than usual...

    • by Solandri (704621) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:24AM (#13649622)
      I bought Photoshop CS. Photography is a hobby, but one I take seriously enough to be semi-pro at it with the occasional paid job. The product activation in PS CS turned out to be a real problem. Nearly every time I did a system restore, PS CS would deactivate, requiring I call Adobe to reactivate it. Windows being the way it is and me liking to tweak with my laptop, I had to restore a lot. It was getting beyond annoying and I was starting to worry about Adobe blacklisting my copy of PS CS. So I downloaded a pirated copy of it along with a key generator. I kept that on my hard drive and started reinstalling instead of having Adobe reactivate.

      At the end of a trip to Europe, I was working at editing and printing a bunch of pictures I'd taken of an event. I needed to use a photo printer someone else provided. The printer driver install went awry and I had to do a system restore to fix it. Sure enough Photoshop deactivated itself. I was at a hostel in the mountains, about 12 hours before my departing flight, without any Internet access, at 4 am, with no idea what phone number I was supposed to call to reach Adobe tech support if they were even open at that time on a Sunday. So I uninstalled Photoshop, dug up the pirated copy, and installed that. Worked like a charm. I got the pictures edited and printed, the people at the event were happy, and I made my flight home.

      When Photoshop CS2 came out, I bought that as well. And I downloaded a pirated copy of it off bittorrent. Of course the real irony is that if Adobe handn't put in product activation as an anti-piracy measure, I never would've needed to get the pirated version.
    • Are you sure? I admit I've not RTFA, but if this poisoning causes you to get different content than you expected, then I imagine it could be a great tool for black hats to insert backdoors into downloaded Linux distributions. You e.g. expect to download a genuine Debian torrent, while you actually download a modified Debian with backdoor.
  • by KiroDude (853510) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:29AM (#13649385)
    First of all, I cannot read the article because of the corporate proxy filter, so I'm talking "blind" here.

    Ok, so what is the real problem with this???

    If this is being done to prevent "ilicit" files from being spread, then I do not see what could be wrong with it. Some people are getting free stuff and then complaining the file is corrupted or it isn't what they expected to download???

    Another matter would be for example contaminating "licit" files, but I'm sure that this is not the case (again, I couldn't read the article), which could be used from preventing downloading of some linux distros for example. That'd be something to worry about though.
    • by msim (220489) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:39AM (#13649427) Homepage Journal
      Here's the article text, enjoy :-)

      New Breed of Corrupt Torrent Infiltrates BitTorrent
      September 24, 2005
      Thomas Mennecke

      myBittorrent is a popular BitTorrent listing site used by tens of thousands of individuals each day. It also has become the focus of an individual or group of individuals looking to undermine the integrity of the BitTorrent community. Although false and corrupt files have been a part of the BitTorrent community since its beginning, a new kind is emerging that aims for maximum exposure.

      "I think they are doing this to give BitTorrent a bad name," Rex, the administrator of myBittorrent told Slyck.com.

      Of course the proverbial "they" is the real question. According to Rex, about 50 new torrents have been released from what he calls "fake" trackers (~31 in total.) These trackers are seemingly part of an elaborate plot to infiltrate the BitTorrent community with intentionally corrupt files. These movie and film titles are specifically designed to report false information to trackers, thereby gaining artificially inflated popularity.

      "In a very short period of time, these false torrents have become most of my top downloads," Rex told Slyck.com. "I've never seen anything else before like it."

      Those who download these torrents are unable to complete a full download, as the file transfer stops at approximately 97%-98%.

      Here's how this clever plot works.

      These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases.

      This is done to disguise the origin of the torrent, and also to present a diverse array of choices. For example, if all were DVD-rips, their exposure would be limited to those only with enough bandwidth to download such large films. Having DVD-rips and XviDs exposes the torrent to a wider market.

      According to Rex, the torrent originating from false trackers are intentionally reporting false information. For example, a corrupt torrent will report 400 seeds with 3000 leeches. Since the more individuals having a file are indicative of the file's download speed, it becomes a highly downloaded torrent and aids in its popularity.

      The ruse is additionally disguised by spreading the torrent release from over 31 different trackers. Interestingly enough, although the identified trackers have different sub domains, they all originate from the same IP address.

      It appears myBittorrent has borne the brunt of this attack; however these types of corrupt torrents have begun to appear on Mininova as well. Since the threat has been identified, the administration of myBittorrent has begun eliminating any torrent files originating from the identified trackers. At this time, the origins of the attack are unknown. But their initial goal of gaining maximum exposure certainly did work, if only for a short while.
    • First of all, I cannot read the article because of the corporate proxy filter, so I'm talking "blind" here.

      It would appear your workplace doesn't approve the use of the internet for personal uses. Perhaps you should stop surfing slashdot instead of "talking blind." If it is allowed, perhaps you should speak with your sys-admin, if surfing slashdot is somehow tied in to your job and not for personal use, you should definitely speak with a manager and/or sys-admin to see about changing the proxy filter so y
      • Wow there's a lot of assumptions there.

        For example, my work filters do in fact filter out MP3 sites as well as some other categories of sites. However, limited personal surfing is explicitly allowed in the official Acceptible Technology Use documentation, subject to filtering (no porn, warez, mp3, etc.).

        It's a far cry from 'allow everything on the internet' to 'no personal surfing allowed'.
  • DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:30AM (#13649386)
    no, what bittorrent needs to implement is some kind of encrypted protection or key for trackers so that any attempt to subvert them is a DMCA violation. turn their own weapon against them.
    • Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interactive_civilian (205158) <{mamoru} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:51AM (#13649495) Homepage Journal
      timmarhy said:
      turn their own weapon against them.
      Why bother? As this post insightfully noted [slashdot.org], (probably) the only torrents that will be affected are illegal files anyway. Those of us who are using bitTorrent for legal downloads will not be affected by this.

      It seems kind of stupid to try to get Them(tm) to break the law while trying to catch you (in general, not timmarhy personally) break the law, doesn't it? If you have a problem with the business and legal practices of the **AAs (or similar associations depending on your country) then the easiest way to deal with them is to not deal with them at all and not use their products.

      Rather than turning their weapons against them, don't give them a reason to use their weapons. Go for the legal stuff. IMHO it tends to be very good anyway. Here is a good place to start:
      LegalTorrents.com [legaltorrents.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:31AM (#13649389)
    when the "poisoners" just tricked you by putting porn in place of the movie? that was always my favorite poison. that's why i drank a small dose of it everyday until i became immune.
  • If the poisioning is over material that is normally non-paid, that's a problem.

    If it's content that is normally paid for...I don't see any problem.

    Maybe someone can make an argument I understand...

  • YEA! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hate poisoned files!
    I try to download a game... and what do I get? A french version!
    DELETED!

    I try to download another game... and what do I get? A polish version!
    DELETED!

    A friend of mine tried to download some real good lesbian porn and what did he get? No... worse than what you think....... a britney spears clip!
    UGH. DELETED!
    • by RPoet (20693)
      A friend of mine tried to download some real good lesbian porn and what did he get? No... worse than what you think....... a britney spears clip!

      Difference being ...?
    • Re:YEA! (Score:2, Funny)

      by fixinah (809681)
      Yeah I remember that lesbian clip of Britney kissing that old lady, oh the horror.
  • by Udo Schmitz (738216) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:45AM (#13649458) Journal
    This is why you should access torrents through community forums. From the comments sections here you'll quickly learn which torrents are bad. Helps the network in general because you'll also have to look after you UL/DL ratio not going too low.
  • To little to late. (Score:5, Informative)

    by thelonestranger (915343) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:45AM (#13649459)
    Theres already a plugin for Azureus that prevents it connecting to the IP addresses of known bad torrent seeders and goverment agencies using a regularly auto-updated list. I think its called 'Safepeer'.
  • Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RasendeRutje (829555) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:46AM (#13649467)
    The solution to this is simple: Moderation on the tracker sites. Let users report what torrents succed and what not. And release lists of poisoned torrents to be used on all sites.
  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:50AM (#13649486) Homepage Journal
    "Locks Plague Burglars"
    "Mace Plagues Rapists"
    "Speed Cameras Plague Speeding Motorists"
    "Forensic Science Plagues Careless Criminals"
    "Crazy Frog Ringtone Plagues Absolutely Everyone..."
  • isn't it illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by curious.corn (167387) on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:58AM (#13649527)
    Luring someone into engaging in some illegal activity and then suing or reporting it to law enforcement is considered a crime over here in Italy. Is it the same in the US? One thing is a police officer infiltrating a mob, another one is wiretapping a communication device without a judge's supervision by a private individual. On top of that, if the network sniffing is done by joining it and participating in the transmission of data, they are actively participating to the eventual crime.
    • criminal vs civil (Score:3, Informative)

      by tacokill (531275)
      We have the same thing in the US but it only applies to criminal cases. Copyright, etc are CIVIL CASES. That is, they are not government prosecuted, rather, they are prosecuted by the perceived vicitim (RIAA, MPAA, Big Company, etc) -- at the victim's expense. No jail time can be rendered. Only fines and penalties.

      We do have entrapment laws when it comes to criminal cases, however. IANAL but there is lots of controversy around how entrapment is applied. The basics are just like you outlined above.
    • Re:isn't it illegal? (Score:3, Informative)

      by KZigurs (638781)
      No, why. there is no crime here, except for misuse of, probably, trademarked names :) The rest is just a garbage.

      And as we know - the intent is not enough. Or is it over there in USA?
  • If these torrents point to bogus trackers, why do they allow them? The tracker info is easily findable in the torrents, surely they'd be able to blacklist trackers? And if they can't, they could just use whitelists, or have a private tracker and just allow new torrents that use that one... There are some huge trackers out there, and I've seen at least one of those simply denying a user from uploading a torrent to them if the tracker field wasn't set to point to theirs.
  • "These movie and film titles are specifically designed to report false information to trackers, thereby gaining artificially inflated popularity."

    Can someone tell me what the difference is between a movie, and a film?
  • by Boomshanka (788195) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:18AM (#13649603)
    I wonder if they can corrupt "battlefield earth" in such a way that it would be actually watchable....
  • by Zocalo (252965) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:24AM (#13649620) Homepage
    I see there is already a growing list of known bad trackers out there, so this is just going to turn into a game of Whack-a-Mole between the parties responsible for the bad tracker and the downloaders. Problem is, there are an awfully large number of people trying to download the files; it's not going to take very long at all before bad trackers are detected and their IPs permanantly blocked. I'd expect this to happen even quicker on Torrent listing sites that allow their users to provide feedback on a per Torrent basis or have forums for feedback. And since we're talking about a community built on sharing data, I doubt that the individual sites are going to be keeping their lists to themselves either...

    Not withstanding the fact that bandwidth is cheap. If someone finds their latest Torrent download has frozen at 98%, they are probably just going to shrug it off and find another Torrent, only by this point there will have been enough time for forums to get some feedback about which Torrents are actually good. All this is going to buy the Studios is a short delay in the time it takes someone to get their files, probably less than a day for even the highest quality feature film. Plus, they'll almost certainly be cursing the studios even more for the delay instead of thinking "Gee, maybe I should go and spend some money".

    Somehow, I suspect that this is yet another instance of a media company being taken to the cleaners with a "magic bullet" solution by a group of snake oil salesmen. Heck, it might even be some of the same bunch that told them DRM would prevent people taking unauthorised copies of audios CDs, and we all know how well that's working out for them. I can't help but wonder what the situation would be like if instead of assuming all of their customers were crooks they had spent that money on providing tangible extras people might actually want and/or reducing prices...

  • by Celt (125318) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:28AM (#13649649) Homepage Journal
    While this may affect public trackers theirs 100's of private torrent sites out their that will remain unaffected. Worth a try by the RIAA/MPAA I suppose and it might stop Mr John Smith and/or his son but plenty of people will continue to use torrent sites.

    Unlike kazaaaaaaaaaaaa *ahem* torrent sites are well enough maintained and policed and false files can be easilyed removed.
  • "Community" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:35AM (#13649685)
    These fuckheads need to stop calling themselves the "BitTorrent Community". I use BitTorrent to download large files for whom the creator(s) have FREELY GIVEN PERMISSION FOR REDISTRIBUTION. I'm all for fair use (an underloved concept these days), but uploading DivX copies of Resident Evil 4 and Revenge of the Sith to random people IS NOT FAIR USE.

    If these retards keep dressing themselves up with the BitTorrent name, then we're all going to find ourselves explaining why downloading legitimate stuff isn't illegal.

  • I agree, it won't be very effective. I've already seen it going on for a couple weeks now. I use Azureus with safepeer, and I know that if I start a torrent download and suddenly get 15 blocked IP's by safepeer, something is not right. Usually SP will block the IP's of every seeder of that torrent, thus preventing me from downloading any of it. A sure sign to drop the download, inform the site listing the torrent/tracker, and find a different copy of that torrent. Generally the site will drop the torre
  • its bizarre - I see this huge trend towards p2p for d/ling various content, but BT has never lived up to its promise to me as a cable modem user.

    correct me if i'm wrong, but d/l speed is based on a ratio to u/l speed. being that i'm on cable, my max u/l is crap - which means my d/l is capped off at a snails' pace.

    with usenet, I can d/l as fast as my provider allows me to so my sustained speed is much faster.

    i guess if i'm on a T1 or greater, BT makes more sense. but for the average home based user, usenet s
  • by mc_barron (546164) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:21AM (#13649969) Homepage
    I compiled a list of the IP addresses of the banned trackers listed here: http://www.mybittorrent.com/bantrackers.txt/ [mybittorrent.com]

    Here are the IP's:
    85.64.70.229
    71.130.204.152
    71.132.6.18
    206.81.133.67
    69.236.99.244
  • Writ in! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:49AM (#13650652) Journal
    I'm writing my Congressman today. We need a law to make it illegal for copyright holders to offer fake movies when I wanna download the real one without paying! God almighty, can't Congress work for the people?!?!?
  • Technical solutions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NicenessHimself (619194) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:49AM (#13650654)
    I am completely against sharing things illegally.

    But that aside, technical solutions present themselves to me. Maybe they have not be investigated by others, so I give them here in the hope its helpful to those fighting the corruption of _legal_ shares.

    As a file downloads, it typically contains sufficient information in parts to be understood without the entirity of the file.

    For example, as a movie is downloaded in segments, segments themselves contain keyframes. By fast-forward playing the the movie as it arrives, skipping incomplete segments, in a small thumbnail, bad quality or fake torrents would be easily identifable.

    Further statistical tools could measure such things as the rate the scene moves, so fake movies that contain promising keyframes but then garbage to obliterate the content might be tagged as suspicious long before the complete movie is downloaded and ready for viewing fullscreen etc.

    If you have downloaded 99% of a movie, you ought to be able to play that 99%.

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...