« Lessig on Copyrighting the President | Main | Posner on Grokster »
August 27, 2004
In the wake of Grokster, is BitTorrent bulletproof?

In holding that Grokster is not illegal due to the potential for non-infringing use, the 9th Circuit seems to have given powerful legal ammunition to other P2P technologies with more promise for legitimate commercial uses. Specifically, swarming technologies like BitTorrent appear to have an even stronger case for commercial viability than the admittedly pirate-friendly (and legal) decentralized P2P programs like Grokster. The New York Times already has BitTorrent pegged as the next paradigm in file sharing.

A quick tech recap - BitTorrent allows publishers to post "torrent" files on a tracker, which is essentially a dedicated network only for that specific published file. The file is broken into small chunks and each downloader receives these chunks in a random order. Simultaneously, the pieces the downloader has already received are uploaded to his peers who are connected to the torrent. The net result is that a large number of users downloading the file at the same time equals faster download speeds for everyone. Once a file is no longer in high demand, the torrent eventually dies out. The technology is especially useful for large files because it alleviates the burden placed on the publisher's server in a traditional download. Swarming makes everyone who wants to get the file share the workload.

How does all of this technology relate to the current legal debate? Swarming has proven to be a viable legal distribution mechanism, as evidenced by high profile legitimate business uses. Linux is an open-source operating system, intended to be freely modified and made available for no cost to users. New builds of the Linux software are typically quite large, frequently exceeding 1GB. Problem - when the publishers of any popular Linux variant release a new version they are quickly overwhelmed with downloaders. Excessive bandwidth demands mean that servers are overloaded, users must wait in queues for their turn, and download speeds decrease for everyone. Enter BitTorrent. When users share the load amongst themselves, the publisher saves bandwidth and the downloaders are happy to get their large file in a speedy manner.

More examples of legitimate BitTorrent use are popping up every day. Blizzard Entertainment, one of the biggest names in the computer game industry, used BitTorrent to distribute beta versions of their World of Warcraft game to testers. Why bother printing CDs or taxing the company's servers when you can just harness the power of a bunch of anxious gamers who are waiting to grab your software the instant you choose to release it?

Sounds like a valuable business lesson for rival game maker Valve, who made a major download of their highly anticipated Half Life 2 game available on the company's proprietary Steam service on August 26. Valve's service sends encrypted files directly to registered users' machines, and paying the registration fee allows users to unlock the encryption. However, high demand for the game resulted in the following message for much of the first day of release: "The Steam servers are currently too busy to handle any more preloads of Half-Life 2. Please try again in a few hours." Applying swarming principles to similar future versions of the distribution service seems like a move that could ease frustrations for both the company and their customers. It appears that Valve is already aware of the potential - the company hired BitTorrent's creator, Bram Cohen, this spring.

The software industry is not the only one that can benefit from applying some of these peer-to-peer principles to their distribution strategies. It is certainly not inconceivable to envision a near future in which movie studios deliver encrypted digital versions of the latest hit film directly to users over high speed internet connections. Think of it as iTunes for movies. In order to make such a project feasible, the studios would want to address the problem of the massive bandwidth required to distribute such unavoidably large files. Swarming based technologies would take some of the burden and offload it to downloaders. Even if the system was not 100% peer-to-peer, a hybrid technology designed to kick in during peak download times and use the resources of concurrent downloaders doesn't seem like an entirely unrealistic proposition.

Ironically, the decision in Grokster might be the best thing that could have happened for the music labels and movie studios. The technologies that the entertainment companies are fighting may very well be incorporated into their future business models. Much like the RIAA's legal "victory" over Napster actually hurt the music companies by ushering in the age of decentralized P2P, the music industry's defeat in Grokster could be a key in the development of the next big thing for commercial entertainment.

The 9th Circuit was wise in taking a stand that will protect innovation. Now enterprising software developers are encouraged to push the boundaries of new technology with less fear of being sued by big entertainment. Besides, isn't giving authors an incentive to create one of the rationales of having intellectual property law in the first place?


See also nationally known network security expert Joe Stewart's 2004 paper "BitTorrent and the Legitimate Use of P2P"

Posted by John Arnone on August 27, 2004 at 04:48 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink

Coould I get a link to
See also nationally known network security expert Joe Stewart's 2004 paper "BitTorrent and the Legitimate Use of P2P"
if anybody has one?

http://www.joestewart.org/p2p.html

Just took a few seconds of googleing.

One internet source of new trace music which I frequently go to just recently started using bittorrent. Getting it set up was a bit of a pain, but once I got it set up OK it worked great. It sort of creates a private file sharing community for a single file which a web site is allowing folks to download.

Now, I have a question for the P2P 'techies' (such as goldenpi). If a P2P application starts using bittorrent technology (assuming that is possible) how easy would it be for RIAA folks to identify single souces of shared files for purposes of filing their John Doe lawsuits? What if, for example, I connect to a P2P application which utilizes bittorrent and I only share a portion of an mp3 music file?

Bufo, the whole premise behind BitTorrent is that it's a "swarm" of people uploading small pieces of the whole complete file from you. No one user transfers a complete coherent data stream that could be directly connected to any end-product material (copyright or otherwise).

This presents a problem as far as John Doe lawsuits are concerned because you would have to sue 5, 10, 20+ people just for *1* song. Their only chance of success at shutting down / removing torrents are attacking the web site that host's the tracker file. However since that only contains network and meta information and not any actual work, they'd need to throw some heavy weight at the ISP just for a slim chance.

Is it safe? For the moment, yes. Even the RIAA doesn't have the resources or legislation to even attempt going after swarmers.

fjones987,

Very interesting - thanks for the info.

I suppose, then, that in theory you could have a host web site which offers thousands of files without having a complete file on the web site or any one server. But of course if there are files which are not in high demand then it may not be possible for anyone to get a complete file at certain times, right?

In theory Bufo,
But in reality, as has happened many times already, RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc. go very heavily after the ISP's that host "link" sites. Often the threat is enough to cow the ISP into shutting down the site. Isohunt.com has been going through that.
Technically, link sites are legal, reality, Extortion and bully tactics are still more powerful.

BitTorrent shows promise, but like p2p, it only really works well for distribution the very well known/popular files. I wish there were a p2p type system that we starving independent artists could really take advantage of to get our stuff heard/seen/viewed. The record/movie/media industry's only REAL contribution to the grand scheme of things is the power they have to make the public aware of the song/movie/book/etc. Thanks to the internet and p2p for making distribution of indie stuff possible... now if we can just figure out a way to PROMOTE the stuff we are distributing as well as the RIAA/MPAA...

Sigh, I dream of that day when we will REALLY win the war against them.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

All such excellent posts I have little to add except for this.

I sincerely believe that bittorrent will ultimately not be bulletproof, but even if it is...this is not the best way to attack the issue.

It's like making the Slave Railroad, harder for the masters and sheriffs to find. The laws under which the lawsuits continue, are unjust.

We should not have to resort to more and more high tech means to avoid the wrath of the a-holes in big media.

The only REAL solution is for the voting public to say enough is enough, and to say that the laws are unjust and have to be changed and that message must be loud enough to blast legislators off their collective asses!

Bufo, that raises a good question...how little of a file must be transferred to constitute copyright infringement. Example, if I were copying War and Peace, and my contribution to the file transfer was the digital equivalent of the first letter of the work, or perhaps the first two letters...is that sufficient to make it copyright infringement?

"Ironically, the decision in Grokster might be the best thing that could have happened for the music labels and movie studios."

Hmmmmmmm. Same thing happened with the Betamax case.

"how little of a file must be transferred to constitute copyright infringement. "

There are serious proof issues as it stands now. It all depends on who your trial atty is. If its Jerry Spence, you win.

Hmm, not all 26 letters of the alphabet are in your post immediately above Code, but I bet at least %85 or %90 of them are. I am sure with a book as big as "War and Peace" that every letter was used at least once or twice. So, just by posting what you did immediately above, YOU are guilty of ripping off "War and Peace" you dirty filfthy scumbag you.

THINK people, THINK!

My humorus annalogy is meant to point out something! Do you SEE what it is?
(Hint, ideas and information are NOT physical commodities.)

THINK!

Ironically, the decision in Grokster might be the best thing that could have happened for the music labels and movie studios

yes but when will they wake up and see that. question I have is this. although no infringing files are kept on websites or servers the torrents are. could the industry shut down those sites that are posting torrents that lead to obviously infringing files? they've done it to sites that posts links

Bittorrent provides no more defence for the users than any other network, if the RIAA decides to take action against any. But there is no need for them to, when the trackers are a much more attractive target. Forget any defence about not transfering actual data. Napster tried that, it doesn't work.

Are you defining Ashcroft's "False Annonymity" phrase?

lol

"One way, or Another, wer'e gonna find you,
wer'e gonna gitcha gitcha gitcha"

(Hey Rick, good time to link the torrent of that vid you made with that Blondie cover we did!)

wink wink nudge nudge!

What is interesting, is that the internet and P2P appear to be adapting to various stress just as a living organism would do. As new stress is applied by the RIAA, DOJ, etc. it will continue to evolve until there is no longer a threat. Just as over use of antibiotics have brought about resistant strains.

This evolution will probably be in places no one expects. For example, if you can't anonymize the source or destination of a file, anonymize the content. You can break a file into various sequences that are common across many files. Arranging these in various ways can create virtually any file, just as musical phrases can create different songs. The Linux Kernel could be rearranged at the sequence level to create an MP3 file. Since a sequence can be part of many different files, there is no way to really know if I am downloading, or have on my hard drive, Linux or the MP3…

This is similar to the basic principle behind data compression. That is, substitute a small sequence to represent a larger sequence. In addition, the sequences could be retrieved from any file that contains it, not just the one the user is asking for. Therefore, it could result in even better throughput as the sequences could be retrieved from any of the files that has that sequence.

they forgot to mention some big companies (Microsoft) don't like our help in distributing their products (XP sp2). and even send DMCA crap to the users that are distributing free software. and also the entrie p2p thing will be dead for KaZaA and others with the mass roll out of XP SP2 which is not p2p freindly to say. many problems still lay ahead of making a bittorrent type network a greatly accepted commercial tool for file distribution.

yeah shmoo you'll see that vid real soon. I don't think I've seen that cover though

I don't have the torrents anymore.

ahh poo.

(Whacha mean I'll see that vid soon? You making us a vid?)

get on messenger

Did MS want BT distribution of SP2 stopped b/c, according to Downhill Battle, since the distribution test was so successful, MS would be forced to concede that BT P2P is very useful and very viable for future use? Which, of course, deals a blow to all companies with 'property'.

Just a thought. Or am I behind, as usual?

not behind at all. makes sense to me.

aaron29, or anyone else, do you know how small the data sequences are for BT files?? As low as a Byte, or in the KByte size??

Aaron, your point is well understood, through your sequencing transfer method wouldn't work. I cant explain why, its complicated, but it wont work.

Just think, if the INDUCE Act passes, BitTorrent won't be so bulletproof after all. From this article, it is obvious to see what real damage the passing of this INDUCE Act would do to innovation in the software business alone.

I'm not expert on BitTorrent but have been using it for awhile. Currently I'm downloading two files and I checked the details page and one has 256K chunks and the other, a much larger file, has 512K chunks, as far as I can tell.

As for monitoring, I already got warned by the MPAA for downloading some Stargate SG1 episodes so they are starting to monitor IP addresses on BitTorrent. I have stopped downloading any more of those episodes and instead have a friend tape them on the Sci Fi channel for me. So far they haven't figured out a way to stop that practice.

Intresting. Did the complaint specify which bot-for-hire company had detected you?

"I have stopped downloading any more of those episodes and instead have a friend tape them on the Sci Fi channel for me. So far they haven't figured out a way to stop that practice."

Yes they have. Just be patient. It is coming. It is called the "broadcast flag" which will prevent devices from recording flagged material. I assume Tivo-style devices will be immune, but will contain controls that prevent any exporting of the programs from the Tivo hard drive to a recording device.

They still haven't got over the Betamax decision, so they are trying to thwart it, by strangling it in the cradle of new digital broadcast technology.

"As for monitoring, I already got warned by the MPAA for downloading some Stargate SG1 episodes so they are starting to monitor IP addresses on BitTorrent."

The major problem apparently is that you don't even have Sci Fi or any channel with your cable company that provides SG1. If you did, then you would be legally entitled to download episodes you have the the free license to watch, tape, download, view, or anything for non-comercial private use. If you did and you were sued and brought to court, just show your paid cable bill, utter the word "betamax" then promptly give the rejects the finger.

""As for monitoring, I already got warned by the MPAA for downloading some Stargate SG1 episodes so they are starting to monitor IP addresses on BitTorrent."'

you must be getting them from suprnova ?

there are some lesser-known trackers that have them, and of course using a 'protection' app like protowall or peerguardian is a good idea too.

fjones- You can legally download episodes of TV shows if you get the channel it's on? There's probably more to it than that, but that's news to me...

"Intresting. Did the complaint specify which bot-for-hire company had detected you?"

It did detect I was running BitTorrent and it had the exact times I started seeding till when I stopped. It also listed each and every file in the torrent and since one torrent can contain multiple files, one download perhaps can cause multiple violations.

"you must be getting them from suprnova ?"

I don't think it was from suprnova but I can't remember. I do remember there were two of the same torrents, one using the name ...Comp33te using Internet slang and the other didn't. They claimed I downloaded the ...Compl33te torrent but when I checked my records, I really downloaded the other one that used the two e's instead of the 3s. Something did strike me as fishy about that when I downloaded the .torrent file.

So, in answer to the question posed by the introduction to this news artice: No, it isn't bulletproof.

Oh, but think again about that statement.

Bots are monitoring individual torrents of known-infringing content. The legal action is *not* being taken against Bittorrent itsself, and if it was the case would be very weak.

No, I think BT is proof against direct legal action. If the ??AA decided to go after it, I expect their stratagy would be a combination of scare campaign (sue 'em all again) and applying heavy pressure to ISPs, espicially educational networks, to filter it. ("Now university, if you just block these ports we wont have to send those three hundred subpoenas... we might even give you a discount on our new movie download service, Crapster."). The appropriate defence to this would be to encourage legitimate use, until ISPs are unable to block the BT protocol without customers complaining they cant download their demos.

"Weak", perhaps, as you say, but will that necessarily stop them from trying litigation anyway? I doubt it.
True, they might not prevail in the long run, BUT in the meantime;
If scare tactics are used again as has been the case during the past 14 months, and we see the out-of-court settlements once more, what then? How many of those getting served with papers have the money or inclination to fight it out in court to see things through for a potential (though perhaps elusive) favorable resolution?

Actually, this topic could ultimately hinge upon what a person envisions with the term "bulletproof," don't you think?