UTorrent Theory

[Marco33]

Say you are downloading a PDF file. You can see the IP's of the Peers of that file. That means they can see the IP of your computer. What is to stop the Government from downloading the PDF to their computer, reading the IP's and tracking you down for having an illegal PDF file or whatever. Seems like an easy way for them to find you. In theory.

[jman98]

1100+ posts and you're just now figuring this out? Wow.

Ever heard of the MPAA suing people for illegal moving sharing? What you're talking about is one easy method of getting a list of people to sue, but there are other methods as well. The RIAA uses the same tactic and others as well in looking for people to sue.

[Moontrash]

1100+ posts and you're just now figuring this out? Wow.

ah the kindness u spread jman98

more than likely you don't have a whole lot to worry about. If they were doing this at a heavy clip there would millions of back logged courts with lawsuits...there aren't. The music and movie industry has stated that most likely they will not be pursuing file sharing with court dates and subpoenas anymore. They will be contacting your isp and they will be asking for a 3 strike and your booted from your isp typa deal.

the stories you read about movie producers scaring or threatening isp's with court papers if they don't give up your identity is rare. I'm not saying it's full proof or that it'll never happen to anyone but there are millions of torrent users and I don't see an influx of file sharers being sued in the news.

[Marco33]

I was thinking more along the lines of the government. Forget the movies and music. What about files that teach people to do things like, make a gun from a pencil, or breaking into a Gov building. Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't. The program is new to me jman, I was thinking this was some other "good" use it could have.

[Noahtuck]

I seem to remember the majority of people that were getting busted music and file sharing back when were using those virus breeding ground programs like Limewire, not actual torrents from torrent sites using torrent programs like Utorrent.

When you use torrent programs for a specific site the way others see your IP is from what the tracker for that specific site reports.

Another good reason to stay away from "dump sites", open torrent sites, etc. as anyone can start a torrent and they are not really monitored which tends to allow a lot of fake torrents and who know's who is watching.

And who is to say that private torrent sites trackers are reporting peoples actual IP's ?

There are many way's to beat torrent sites and trackers so not only can you spoof your IP but you can spoof the trackers and not even show up as downloading anything
Hence no one can see or get your IP.

And the things you are talking about in your last post are not illegal to get, read or know the information, just illegal if you try to do it, have it done or do it

I have mad books from many many years ago, that show you with exact specs, how to build suppressors, make many different semi auto firearms into fully automatic firearms, etc.

Not illegal, until you actually do it.

[jagabo]

Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't.

Governments around the world track people down by IP all the time. You need to use an anonymizer service if you need to keep secrets. VPNs, Tor, anonymizer.com, etc.

[Noahtuck]

1100+ posts and you're just now figuring this out? Wow.

ah the kindness u spread jman98

And i get crap for giving crap, being cynical & to much to the point!!

LOL!!!

[Marco33]

Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't.

Governments around the world track people down by IP all the time. You need to use an anonymizer service if you need to keep secrets. VPNs, Tor, anonymizer.com, etc.

So the people they realy want are covering themselves. Figured there was a reason. o'well.

[Bonie81]

p2p sharing is a debatable issue. there were may sites hunted down for legal reasons...
and finally there are up again.
Quick Qs?
How about sharing contents over p2p in the country where p2p sharing is legal?
How about streaming tons of copy righted videos from un-authentic uploaders?
Who gonna hunt whom?

[jagabo]

How about sharing contents over p2p in the country where p2p sharing is legal?

That's why the USA puts heavy pressure on other governments to change their laws.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/how-wikileaks-killed-spains-anti-p2p-law.ars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

How about streaming tons of copy righted videos from un-authentic uploaders?
Who gonna hunt whom?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

The way this has been handled with the RIAA suits is the copyright holder (or the company they hire to investigate) downloads the file from the person they plan to sue. Then they verify it's really their copyrighted material.

The recent suits from the XXX movie industry have been about torrents. I don't know how much real evidence they have gathered (none has gone to trial yet) but they probably don't care if the file was authentic. They have no intention of going to trial. For the lawyers it's a shakedown business ("pay us $2000 and we won't take you to court"), for the copyright holders it's about intimidation of other downloaders ("you might get caught too so you better stop"). Many people, guilty or not, will pay $2000 to avoid going to court -- which will cost them tens of thousands of dollars in the USA, whether they are found guilty or not, and to avoid the embarrassment of having been caught (or accused of) downloading porn.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/do-riaa-snoops/

The recent judge's decisions to disallow joinder (the joining of thousands of IP addresses into a single court filing -- to harvest names and addresses associated with IP addresses), the ruling that the copyright holder has to pay the ISPs for the IP lookups, and limiting the number of lookups the ISPs have to perform each month, will probably put an end to this.

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/12/only-one-of-over-7000-batman-xxx-p2p-defendants-remains.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/put-up-or-shut-up-time-for-us-copyright-group.ars

[deadrats]

I was thinking more along the lines of the government. Forget the movies and music. What about files that teach people to do things like, make a gun from a pencil, or breaking into a Gov building. Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't. The program is new to me jman, I was thinking this was some other "good" use it could have.

ever hear of the first amendment? the government has been able to track what people read since the inception library cards, reading or possessing materials on how to make a gun, bomb, poison, etc is not illegal, possessing the necessary materials to do so may or may not be be illegal depending on a number of factors.

also, i don't think you'll find any one using torrents to share pdf's, the small size makes for inefficient use of torrent technology, i would venture to guess that most torrent users are sharing porn, movies and apps.

[AlanHK]

I was thinking more along the lines of the government. Forget the movies and music. What about files that teach people to do things like, make a gun from a pencil, or breaking into a Gov building. Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't. The program is new to me jman, I was thinking this was some other "good" use it could have.

You don't need to use Bittorrent to get stuff like that. Most of it is not illegal (to read anyway; if you actually try to build a bomb, that's another story) and you can find it in Wikipedia or at your local library.

Of course if you ARE downloading files that could get you sent to jail (hardcore kiddie porn, e.g.) then yes, you should use more clandestine methods. The FBI is probably seeding much of the more obviously named stuff.

[deadrats]

That's why the USA puts heavy pressure on other governments to change their laws.

ah yes, the arrogant stance that every citizen in every country should change their local laws to conform to ours, yet God forbid anyone points out that perhaps other countries have superior laws, for certain things, to ours, that person gets shouted down for promoting the notion that we should live by someone else's standards.

in so far as the porn lawsuits are concerned, i have a gut feeling that they won't be around for too much longer. for one thing the porn industry has lived in a rather grey legal area for quite some time and more specifically the hard core porn industry has lived in a sort of legal limbo that no one seems too eager to sort out.

when you consider that with a hard core porn movie you have 2 or more people engaged in sex acts for which they are compensated financially, yet in most places prostitution is illegal (in some places like nyc the legality of prostitution is avoided and the charge is either solicitation or pandering), i don't think the porn industry as a whole is going to be too keen on bringing the topic of what is effectively legalized prostitution to far into the public eye.

as it stands now the federal government already prosecutes for title 2257 record keeping infractions (the charge is child pornography even if the participants are 18 if insufficient evidence of their age isn't properly recorded) and there have been numerous prosecutions for so called "indecent acts", such as "fisting", i just can't imagine that the porn industry, that currently makes billions, will really push the issue and risk a public backlash that results in all pornography being ruled illegal.

i think that's the real reason larry flint productions recently fired it's attorney that had started filing copyright infringement cases against suspected pirates of "this ain't avatar xxx", LFP asked the attorney to back off after the attorney tried to get the names of suspected pirates from their isp, time warner cable, the word is that LFP and TWC have some sort of partnership and LFP didn't want to go against TWC, but i personally think that LFP, well aware of the numerous civil and criminal cases larry flint fought over the years, didn't want to push the issue and end up losing big in the end.

as a side note, i think it would be fairly easy to defeat any lawsuit brought against someone for pirating copyrighted materials via torrent technology. all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

and for those that wonder how you spoof a tracker, an easy way is to use a program like nrpg ratio master or code your own spoofing program, you can change how much data it's reported you are uploading, downloading, the speeds, quite a few things.

[jagabo]

all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

Damages are statutory (in the USA). It doesn't matter how much you uploaded or downloaded. All they have to do is download a single packet from you. And you may have to pay $750 to $150,000 per infringement. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA bought these laws for their own benefit.

In any case, it's not about winning in court. It's about scaring people into paying after a settlement letter. Look at the numbers: maybe it costs a few dollars a piece to collect IP addresses that potentially downloaded or uploaded a file. It costs maybe a few hundred dollars to file a suit with 5000 John Does. Then the ISPs have to provide names and addresses. It costs a few more dollars to send settlement letters to each of those people. Maybe 10 percent of those people will send you $2000 as settlements. That's a million bucks for $20,000 in costs. Nice profit for the law firm, even if they have to split it 50/50 with the copyright holder. Even if only 1 percent send settlement checks they've made a decent profit. They don't have to take anyone to court. That's the business model. The copyright holder gets to point to all those letters that were sent out to scare other potential sharers. Fortunately, the courts seem to be dismantling this form of "legal" extortion.

[Sartori]

I was thinking more along the lines of the government. Forget the movies and music. What about files that teach people to do things like, make a gun from a pencil, or breaking into a Gov building. Seems like a great program to track these people. I guess that would be too easy. Must be a reason they don't. The program is new to me jman, I was thinking this was some other "good" use it could have.

The governments of countries would have active scanners in place for keywords . I would expect it to be through phone calls as well . Personally I think that no one really needs to know these things for reasons other than bad ones , if you look for or obtain these files , you`ll end up on a list somewhere - and Im glad of it . ps no one make me laugh by quoting Wikipedia , imo a dispensary of "information"(not facts) from people who wear silver foil helmets .

[deadrats]

all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

Damages are statutory (in the USA). It doesn't matter how much you uploaded or downloaded. All they have to do is download a single packet from you. And you may have to pay $750 to $150,000 per infringement. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA bought these laws for their own benefit.

you don't seem to understand, first of all i'm fairly certain a fair use claim could be made with regards to a single packet of data but more importantly, it's not even possible to prove conclusively that even a single packet was shared.

all it would take is a computer with a torrent client, any legal .torrent as an example and the aforementioned spoofing software, and a 2 minute demonstration showing how the data can be easily faked. it would be impossible for the plaintiff to make a prima fascia case. as soon as you demonstrate that the transmission of a single packet can be spoofed, their evidence quickly loses value.

[jagabo]

I believe Joel Tenenbaum tried that defense and it was disallowed along with his fair use argument. And once again, it doesn't matter. There is no intention of going to trial in any of these recent mass-filing cases.

[deadrats]

I believe Joel Tenenbaum tried that defense and it was disallowed along with his fair use argument. And once again, it doesn't matter. There is no intention of going to trial in any of these recent mass-filing cases.

for the record, joel was accused of using kazaa (just like thomas), and despite both cases being won by the labels, no monetary damages have ever been collected, in both cases the judge reduced the jury awards on the grounds that the awards were unconstitutional.

i know of no case where any suit has been filed, let alone successfully prosecuted, for using torrents to violate copyright.

but you're right, it's all a massive fishing expedition, they hope to scare people into a quick settlement, i'm just glad that it does appear that people are waking up and such legalized extortion may be coming to an end.

[AlanHK]

i know of no case where any suit has been filed, let alone successfully prosecuted, for using torrents to violate copyright.

There was one case in Hong Kong in 2005, and another in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent

Note that they were actually seeding the files.

[RLT69]

as a side note, i think it would be fairly easy to defeat any lawsuit brought against someone for pirating copyrighted materials via torrent technology. all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

You're missing the obvious point that they found the file on the machine. The cases that the RIAA won were based on the fact that the files were found on the defendants computers. So your point only works if you don't have a file on your machine. If you have a file on your machine and it is not a backup of a purchased version, you're screwed.

[jagabo]

as a side note, i think it would be fairly easy to defeat any lawsuit brought against someone for pirating copyrighted materials via torrent technology. all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

You're missing the obvious point that they found the file on the machine. The cases that the RIAA won were based on the fact that the files were found on the defendants computers.

Actually, in the Jammie Thomas case they didn't find the files because she had either wiped the drive or installed a new drive (I think she claimed her computer malfunctioned and a repair shop replaced the drive). Apparently, the jury took that as an admission of guilt.

[deadrats]

as a side note, i think it would be fairly easy to defeat any lawsuit brought against someone for pirating copyrighted materials via torrent technology. all one has to do is show that it's possible to spoof the tracker into believing that incorrect amounts of data were uploaded and downloaded, once it's shown that spoofing is possible then it's impossible to prove that any sharing took place, just that the tracker thinks it took place.

You're missing the obvious point that they found the file on the machine. The cases that the RIAA won were based on the fact that the files were found on the defendants computers. So your point only works if you don't have a file on your machine. If you have a file on your machine and it is not a backup of a purchased version, you're screwed.

and how exactly are they going to find any files on my pc? do you really think that i would turn over a hdd with pirated materials for examination? and what's to stop me from simply going out and buying a legit copy of a copyrighted work to "prove" that the other copy is just a "backup"?

also, with torrents it's easy to simply delete the trackers and rely on dht, which makes it extremely difficult to track you down.

[jagabo]

and how exactly are they going to find any files on my pc? do you really think that i would turn over a hdd with pirated materials for examination?

Destroying or hiding evidence is a crime in and of itself. A forensic examination of the drive may find evidence of other computers on your network (which will lead to questions about what was on those computers and why you didn't provide or preserve the files on them, obviously your guilty), maybe even evidence of the files in question if you ever played them or even viewed a share with them on that computer.

I know what you're going to say: You're going to set the date back on one of your computers, wipe a drive, reinstall Windows and a few apps (with no internet access), change the date a bit, run a few apps, install a few apps, copy a few files from other computers via a thumb drive or CD/DVD, repeat several times, then give them that drive saying it's your only computer. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

and what's to stop me from simply going out and buying a legit copy of a copyrighted work to "prove" that the other copy is just a "backup"?

It will be very hard to argue the "backup" you made yourself just happened to match the hash of the torrented file. And since they got packets from your IP address it's pretty clear you uploaded parts of it. They are suing for uploading (distribution without a license), not downloading or possessing the file.

Keep in mind civil trials in the USA only require a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". So you need to do more than provide a little doubt. And they can afford much better lawyers than you.

[mh2360]

also, with torrents it's easy to simply delete the trackers and rely on dht, which makes it extremely difficult to track you down.

A Bittorrent client still has to connect to an IP address in order to send or recieve data. Data trackers download the file in question using a modified Bittorrent client which they will use to collect the IP addresses of all those who are sharing it. Any Bittorrent client will show a complete list of the peers/seeds you are connected to.

Anyone following the recent ACS:Law email leak in the UK will know that this is exactly how these companies operate.

[Bonie81]

here is a nice cartoon


Excerpts from MPAA website:
MPAA’s members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios:
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Universal City Studios LLLP
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

What are the key functions of the MPAA?
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives. These efforts range from safeguarding intellectual property rights to using technology to expand consumer entertainment choices, to championing fair trade agreements and a secure future for artistic freedom of expression.


In reality, there are thousands of illegal videos uploaded by un-authentic uploaders who do not hold copy rights and these illegal/un-authentic videos are being streamed by major online video sharing websites.

1) Does MPAA is really effective in Home-Land for restricting or filtering such illegal videos from such video sharing websites?
-or-
2) Do MPAA and RIAA are the shelter to rip the rest of the world off in terms of CopyRights?

================================================== =================================================
On the Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, european asked a clumsy american " how come you look so messy?". The reply was "I am totally out of control, while controlling the rest of the world. It really does not matter how much messy I am, coz it's matter of big bucks."