Poisoned Torrents Plague Mybittorrent 542
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."
IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:2)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:2)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:2)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
Right. When non-police do it, it's called something else. If I trick you into doing something that hurts me, and then sue you for doing so, that's fraud instead of entrapment.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone harm you, and you fail to do anything about it for long enough, despite you being in communications with them, you can't sue them for damages. You must make some effort to migrate the damages beforehand.
Civil law is based on the idea of 'tort', that other people caused harm to you, and you can't let other people keep 'hurting' you and then sue them when you think they've racked up enough damages. You have to try to stop them at some point. Otherwise the court rightly supposes that you weren't really being harmed, or didn't mind the harm.
I.e., I can't let my next-door neighbor can't drive over a corner of my grass for ten years as he pulls into his driveway, keep track of how much grass he's killed, and then sue him for that amount. I have to actually have tried for stop him for the last ten years, via talking to him and even putting up a pole so he can't do that anymore. (And then I can sue him for the cost of the pole. ;) )
And you can't cause people to keep 'hurting' you and then sue them for it. That'll get you laughed out of court so fast it's not funny.
If the MPAA hands out a torrent into a network that is designed for end users to share the files, they can't complain when exactly that happens.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Informative)
The definition states:
Government agents have performed entrapment if three things occur:
1) the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2) the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crim
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
*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.
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
One might argue that the copyright holders themselves caused this upload to occur; after all, they did know how BitTorrent operates, and it was obvious that
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IP addresses for copyright infringement lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
EULA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:EULA (Score:2)
And we all know that software patents are a Good Thing.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
"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:2)
They're obviously falling down on the supply side, and not meeting his demand.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
What entitles you to the entire x-men cartoon series?
Now I don't want to equate piracy with theft, I know they're different, however. Lots of things are expensive. Computers, cars, homes, textbooks, etc. They're all made under the "I produce it, they either buy it and use it or not at all."
But your logic escapes the flow of things. If you're such an oddity and rare then you wouldn't see the traffic on BT you do. Clearly there are millions of people like you. In such case the demand for a product s
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I don't think its acceptible behaviour to try and scam your customers (The new Outer Limits 'Complete Series') or just to deprive/control content with no good reason. When corperations can't keep a check on these things themselve its up to us as the people to do it. If that means creating a P2P network to 'compete' then so be it.
I would prefer to buy the content and reward the artist but sometimes they make thi
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Should BT exist: yes. Your China argument seems to suggest I think otherwise.
Do the corps really fuck around with media and "history" in general: yes.
Is P2P'ing a MPAA or otherwise copyrighted title competition: no.
That's like saying you better sell your soap at what I think are reasonable prices or we'll just steal it.
If you don't like what corps are doing with media and what not STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MINDSPACE. Seek out alternatives, specially to watching TV which is just retarded
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, I do feel entitled to the X-Men cartoon series, as well as any other media, because I actually am entitled to it! The Public Domain is the natural state of intellectual works. It is only by my (and every other American citizen's) good graces that artist have any monopoly at all.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I just think if you want to see the latest vin diesel movie [or whatever his fucking name is] you should pay for it. They paid to make it, you want to see it, you pay to see it.
If you want to get a freely available indy movie then go for it.
But you know and I know that 99.999% of the BT traffic [outside of linux ISOs] is movies, tv shows and music that IS NOT free to be distributed in such said manner.
Tom
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Literally I could track the population of the school from early in the morning to mid morning just by seeing my download go from 1MiB/sec down to ~50KiB/sec and lower. When you look over some of the screens in the labs you'll see the whole spectrum of P2P apps running [usually on laptops] as well as 3d shooters and what not.
And also keep in mind that your "sleep time" and mine may vary, say, for example, if we're not on t
Enforcement (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, what did I ever do to them? Oh, wait...
Martin
Re:Enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Enforcement (Score:2)
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.
Re:Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Law breakers only fall for poisonous files (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Law breakers only fall for poisonous files (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Law breakers only fall for poisonous files (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. If MS would release Windows under the GPL, I'd honestly be surprised. Not that I'd expect that
Re:Law breakers only fall for poisonous files (Score:5, Funny)
get the latest britney spears song when it's really just static
I thought they were sounding better than usual...
Only if you never have a problem with software (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Only if you never have a problem with software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only if you never have a problem with software (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Law breakers only fall for poisonous files (Score:2)
So what is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
IP Ban! (Score:5, Informative)
The solution suggests itself. Is PeerGuardian [sourceforge.net] onto that IP address yet?
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:2)
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
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:2)
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'.
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:2)
DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
do you remember the time (Score:5, Funny)
Er...so the complaint is? (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re:YEA! (Score:2)
Difference being
Re:YEA! (Score:2, Funny)
Not really a problem? (Score:3, Informative)
To little to late. (Score:5, Informative)
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Next Week On Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
"Mace Plagues Rapists"
"Speed Cameras Plague Speeding Motorists"
"Forensic Science Plagues Careless Criminals"
"Crazy Frog Ringtone Plagues Absolutely Everyone..."
Re:Next Week On Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next Week On Slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
isn't it illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
criminal vs civil (Score:3, Informative)
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)
And as we know - the intent is not enough. Or is it over there in USA?
Don't allow those trackers in the torrents... (Score:2)
Re:Don't allow those trackers in the torrents... (Score:2, Informative)
Movie AND Film? (Score:2)
Can someone tell me what the difference is between a movie, and a film?
Re:Movie AND Film? (Score:3, Insightful)
Armageddon and The Core are movies.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a film.
Gee I wonder if... (Score:3, Funny)
Probably not going to be very effective (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
The nature of torrent sites (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike kazaaaaaaaaaaaa *ahem* torrent sites are well enough maintained and policed and false files can be easilyed removed.
"Community" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yeah, this won't last long. (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I the only one? (Score:2)
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
IP Addresses of the Banned Trackers (for Azuerus) (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Technical solutions (Score:3, Interesting)
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%.
Re:Poison! (Score:5, Funny)
To Us?
Re:Poison! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Woah! Watch out! I think he's got a soviet russia joke! Quick, everyone! Evacuate the city before he uses it. He doesn't look like he's going to use it very responsibly so we're all in danger!"
Seriously. Use a joke responsibly? WTF? Maybe where your from using jokes is a serious business, but out here in Australia making a joke is anything BUT serious. People don't think about "using a joke responsibly", it's
Answer me this. (Score:4, Interesting)
What if I were to download "The Simpsons" from last nights free broadcast? I'm not uploading anything, just downloading and watching it, then deleting it after I watch it. Can I be arrested for this or is it copyright violations? I'm not selling anything. I'm not causing the lost revinue from watching this. No, even though the commercials are not on the download, it still doesn't matter as I never watch commercials anyway. If I were to watch it on TV and don't watch the commercials, can I be arrested for that then? Is that copyright violation also? What if I were to tape the show with a VCR, but not the commercials...wouldn't this also be exactly like just downloading the show? I still have the end product. The Simpsons from last night. What if I were to record the show from last night and put it on my HD. Again, the exact same result. I would have the exact same show on my HD without commercials wither I downloaded it or taped it. And how could they prove it otherwise? Unless of course I were to take the show I recorded and then distributed it.
This is all a grey area here. Is this illegal like stealing a car and downloaders should go to jail, or is it copyright violation and downloaders should just be made to feel guilty (or go to jail) or is it really nothing? Again, I'm not trying to justify anything here...just want to know where the law stands on people that record a free show vs downloading the exact same free show...both WITHOUT commercials. If some say that the it's the commercials that make it a free show then I suppose I should be hauled off for jail for YEARS of not watching the commericals.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answer me this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
The downloader is not copying or selling the work; not importing or exporting it; not creating a derivative work; not performing it or displaying it publically; not selling or assigning those above rights. So, if downloading is infringement, and infringement is horning in on the copyright holder's exclusive rights---which rights is the downloader infringing on?
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
"Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders' exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights." See A&M RECORDS, Inc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer me this. (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're confused about what entrapment actually is. Entrapment is inducing someone to break the law, like if an undercover cop was luring ricers into racing him so his buddy down the road could bust them. Simply setting up a situation where people will get caught doing what they would be doing anyway is NOT entrapment.
Those prostitution stings are carefully arranged so that they aren't entrapment. The undercover cop doesn't go walking up to peoples cars and soliciting them. Instead, she just stands around looking like she might be a prostitute, and the johns approach her. It's still a honeytrap, but not entrapment, since the john walks into it entirely of his own accord.
And while we're on the subject, a civil case has a much lower bar for what's admissible as evidence than a criminal trial. Something that would be thrown out as entrapment in a criminal case could be perfectly acceptable in a civil one.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer me this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes, you are uploading it too. That's the way BitTorrent works - only one person needs to seed the original copy, but while people are downloading from the seed, they upload the chunks they have to other downloaders as well, so the original seeder doesn't get hammered.
Downloading via BitTorrent is equivalent to downloading with Kazaa and then placing the downloaded item in your shared folder. So, as far as the law stands, it's copyright infringement.
Giving away free copies once does not automatically put something into the public domain. The copyright holders still retain copyright.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The odd thing is that you're not the customer of the Simpsons, you're the product. You're sold to advertisers with the promise that some of you might just possibly not skip their commercials or walk out of the room while their messages are broadcast.
By downloading the episode, you've broken that relationship. The media empires may just need to find a new business model. I do hope that whatever it is, it moves us back to a relationship where the content is the product and the viewer is the customer.
I think it's a great act of civil dissobedience. The public airwaves are overrun by television which I think is crap soley because of this messed up viewer-product relationship. :-)
IANAL, but I think you can be sued in a civil court for downloading your episodes. If a do-not-record flag is set, you can be hauled off to prison by the federal police for violating the DMCA.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:5, Insightful)
By downloading the episode, you've broken that relationship.
An important point to remember here is that you haven't broken any relationship. You never signed up to any of this. No one who watches TV signs an agreement guaranteeing that they will watch ads. No one.
If people stop watching ads, for whatever reason, they are certainly NOT "stealing" TV (a ridiculous concept). They may not be obeying time honored consumer models, but that is not, yet, a crime, or even morally ambiguous. It just is.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:3, Insightful)
When commercials make up 33% of a show and we have to watch it at a certain time, it's crap.
When they make up 0% of the show, and we can watch it at some random time when we are bored, then it has value.
Somewhere between those extremes is a tipping point.
Shows from the 1970's are 52 minutes long (8 minutes of commercials, ~12%)),
Shows from the 1980's are 48 minutes long (12 minutes of commercials, 20%).
A recent episode of a modern show (Alias, I think) was 38 minutes long (+24 minutes of commerc
Re:Answer me this. (Score:2)
Re:Answer me this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe it is the TV stations
No, you're wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
I got pimp-slapped for repeating this some time ago right here on Slashdot, so allow me to pass on some enlightenment about US copyright law.
The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act [wikipedia.org] "amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines".
Nothing there about any "organized ring". If you're running a P2P client and you upload six hojillion copies of the latest plebeian pablum, guess what---you're liable for jail time and a hefty fine. Enjoy!
Uh, no. (Score:3, Informative)
Now, skipping commercials on DVDs, if it requires that you go around the CSS, does violate the DMCA [wikipedia.org]---though I'm not sure if only the coder who cracked CSS (thus creating a device to circumvent copyright protection) is liable under that law, or you are for using it. IANAL, after all. But what you d
Re:cat vs mouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: My firewall will not stop viruses, but will stop most other intrusion attempts. Similarly, my antivirus program does not stop people portscanning my box, but can stop viruses reliably. A computer with one but not the other is vulnerable, a computer using both working together is far more secure. Similarly, most nations send in the troops with an assortment of weapons and tools, because they are more effective across a variety of situations than one weapon ever will be.
There will not be a protection mechanism for Bittorrent that cannot be broken, forged or otherwise avoided. Likewise, nothing the RIAA can throw at Bittorrent cannot be countered in some fashion. By using combinations of protection mechanisms, Bittorrent can be protected to a degree that attacks can be tolerated. The RIAA gets this, that's why they try many tactics, such as torrent poisoning, DRM, the DMCA, sending goons to street vendors, etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just tweaking your points a bit
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if people don't find a way to get rid of the crappy torrents, things could get bad for anyone who wants to distribute something that someone else doesn't want them distributing.
Okay, here's a doomsday scenario for you: Hacker releases virus. Virus causes infected boxen to publish craptorrents, masquerading as material hacker wants people not to download, and to register said craptorrents on major torrent sites. Suddenly, it becomes very difficult to figure out which fil