Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MPAA Goes After More Bittorrent Site Operators

Posted by michael on Thu Dec 23, 2004 08:55 AM
from the money-for-nothing dept.
Just another Coward writes "DSL Reports grabbed a copy of the lawsuit threat letters sent by the MPAA to the bittorrent website owners. This latest document was sent to a Torrent site called 'demonoid.com', which is now offline."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by SoTuA (683507) on Thursday December 23 2004, @08:58AM (#11167331)
    ...it took this long to start.

    Remember the napster trial? Saying "I just post links" doesn't cut much cheese against deep-pocket *AA's lawyers.

          • Quite wrong.

            Try searching for "csi filetype:torrent" sometime. They do directly link to torrent files, from CSI episodes to TeleSyncs of new movies.

            However, search engines are protected from things like __AA by US law, I believe.
                • 17 USC 512 [findlaw.com]

                  Okay, so they have to comply with take-down requests from copyright owners if received, but may otherwise allow transmission so long as they don't filter, modify, or keep longer than needed any of the content being exchanged by users across their equipment. Oh, and they have to not know what's going on, and not get money directly from illegal activity. And the service provider has to make clear and accessible a way to send take-down notices. And have a stated policy of banning users if they are repeat infringers (note that the law specifically states repetition is involved.) The same applies to linking, indexing, referecing, pointing, or using informatin-location-tools, and "service providers" is defined very broadly. I'd say it applies to bittorrent trackers. And based on subsection (j), the most courts get to do is somehow order the service providers to make stuff stop, including just terminating specific users' accounts if that's sufficient, or ordering the service provider to block of IP's, etc. There's also mention of "standard technical measures" and mention of cost burden to service providers, such that if the service provider cannot reasonably find out who's infringing or whether or not the content is being illegally copies, the law seems to just let them off the hook. But hey, I'm not a lawyer either. (Then again, the law really shouldn't be the realm of lawyers. We should just as soon sue priests for misleading us on theology when God sends us to hell. People are just whiny babies about advice.)
  • by djeddiej (825677) * on Thursday December 23 2004, @08:59AM (#11167338) Homepage

    They should at least post funny responses, like like pirate Bay

    http://www.piratebay.org/frame.html [piratebay.org]

    Here was a sample response PirateBay sent to Dreamworks

    As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. For your information, no Swedish law is being violated. Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium, will result in a) a suit being filed for harassment b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for sending frivolous legal threats. It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are (expletive) morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.
    lol. oh and first post?
    • by skyshock21 (764958) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:46AM (#11167719)
      My favorite is where the UK company tells them they are going to sue Pirate Bay in the UK (Pirate Bay is based in Sweden). Their response?
      Please sue me in Japan instead. I've always wanted to visit Tokyo. Also, I'm running out of toilet paper, so please send lots of legal documents to our ISP - preferably printed on soft paper. No, but seriously. That's simply not how international law enforcement works. Using the same logic, a country where web sites are forbidden could press charges against you for having one.


      Classic.

      • by mjmalone (677326) * on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:50AM (#11167765) Homepage
        I am not sure about Swedish law, but in most countries simply _signing_ a treaty does not make the treaty provisions legally binding. In the United States, for example, the Congress must pass legislation that conforms with the treat provisions before any of the provisions are _law_. Further, many treaties (like the bullshit international copyright treaties) have a lot of room for interpretation, so very different laws may be crafted from the same basic framework provided by the treaty. International copyright law is enormously complex, and it's not surprising that it would be difficult for a US company to sue a person residing in another country over a copyright related matter, especially if that 'other country' is a country like Sweden.
      • by Lachek (584890) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:43AM (#11168248)
        The Pirate Bay is run in parallel with Piratbyran [piratbyran.org] ("the Pirate Company") which is a Swedish organization created to encourage new approaches to IP laws and media culture. They are probably Sweden's foremost champion of P2P file sharing, having participated in numerous national radio and TV interviews and debates, and organizing and sponsoring events related to P2P file sharing and internet media culture.

        If you know Swedish, their site [piratbyran.org] provides you among other things with P2P and IP related news, tutorials on ripping, compressing and distributing media on various P2P networks, papers on how various P2P protocols work, links to articles and research papers on P2P, internet media and Open Source, as well as an entire section on legal matters regarding P2P in Sweden and abroad.

        This is not what I would consider typical "geek fare", although I must say that I would generally lend more credence to a well-informed geek's knowledge of IP law than, say, whatever FUD the **AA happens to be spouting on a particular day.

  • by nutznboltz (473437) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:00AM (#11167346) Homepage Journal
    Where can I get an IP address like that? :)
    • by mordors9 (665662) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:05AM (#11167378)
      That could be the out for everyone. Flush the real log records and keep the ones for this (nonexistent) IP address. "Well your honor, we preserved the information they requested" :-)
    • by mausmalone (594185) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:31AM (#11167581) Homepage Journal
      You know,... I'm surely an idiot. When I heard it couldn't exist, I just assumed that that must mean that it's a private address or something. I never actually looked to see what was wrong with it.

      BTW, if this lawyer has figured out a way to encode 450 in 8 bits, please tell me so I can make a fortune with compression software :)
      • You win the I refuse to RTFA prize of the day. Not only did you not read the article, you go out of your way to prove it too ;)

        The text of the threat letter talks about "the website, www.demonoid.com, and server at 66.250.450.10".
  • And? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .sinedtsmot.> on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:01AM (#11167352) Homepage
    Last I checked piracy was still piracy. What gives you the right to faciliate piracy?

    It's wrong to draw from this that "MPAA is making BitTorrent illegal". That's just stupid /. pandering.

    What the MPAA is doing is cracking down on people who pirate and help people pirate movies. Big whoop.

    Though I have my own ideas on how the movie studios could save money. STOP PAYING THEM SO MUCH. I mean how many studios are there? A dozen at most? If they all colluded and salary capped the stars to say 50,000$ per movie [give or take] we wouldn't have "multi-million dollar movies" where most of the money goes to the actors and not the actual crew behind the scenes WHO ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN.

    You think Keano made the matrix? No it was 100s if not 1000s of "much lower paid" crew that did the CG, the sets, costumes, makeup, lighting, cameras, editing, etc...

    I'll never understand how they can get off and say things like "oh the Olsen twins are worth 20 million dollars"... um to who? They're a pair of uneducated no-talent actors who ride their "being twins and decently good looks". Let's see what they're upto in 20 years shall we?

    Same goes for all the other little "artistes". They poperzize their music, everything is staged, etc, then think they're worth a couple million per performance...

    Well hate to break the news to ya little gal and guys. Most people work their entire lives and don't see a couple million. They "earn" a million dollars for a day long shoot then blow it on a rave and some diamonds... Then they have the audacity to wonder why people [other than brainwashed puppet teenagers] despise them... Hmmm... .../rant
    • And there are plenty of reasonable uses for systems like bittorrent--for example downloading RPM isos. If they go after the pirates, I couldn't care less--they deserve it. But going after the technology would be like suing car manufacturers because their products are used as getaways in robberies. Pure genius...
        • I agree with you. They are simply taking care of the people who are trading things illegally. But, learn how to argue and make your point without being such a prick. Address the issue, not the person.
        • Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Tom (822) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:34AM (#11167604) Homepage Journal
          First off, piracy is still stealing.

          No, it is not and never has been(*).

          Theft, according to the criminal code in my country is defined as:
          "The taking away of a moveable thing owned by someone else."

          Note: "taking away"

          Unauthorized copying is not stealing. It is illegal, but it is not theft.

          If you have any education in logic - and as a geek I simply assume you do - then you know that if your assumption is false, your entire train of argument derails, since it is impossible to get a correct result from a false assumption.

          (*) actually, unless you talk about actual piracy, that thing with the boats and the parrots on the captain's shoulder. That, of course, is stealing.
          • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday December 23 2004, @11:13AM (#11168564) Journal
            Theft, according to the criminal code in my country is defined as:
            "The taking away of a moveable thing owned by someone else."

            Note: "taking away"


            The theft claim comes from the idea that part of the value (in the form of potential profits) is removed.

            It's similar to the doctorine of "partial taking". Courts use that to force payments to landowners out of zoning/land-use planning agencies when they drastically reduce an owner's property values by changing the rules to reduce the things that can be done with the property. "Partial taking" applies the fifth amendment prohibition on "private property be[ing] taken without just compensation". Even though the property is still there, some of the value has "been taken".

            If the Supreme Court applies this interpretation of "taking" to GOVERNMENTS, you can bet it will apply it to individuals as well. And other people than judges can grasp the concept easily, as well.

            So splitting hairs with dictionary entriesmight make you feel good. But it isn't going to convince any judges, anyone leaning toward the other side, or bring any significant numbers of fence-sitters around to your position. Instead it makes you look like you're disconnected from economic reality, making it counter-productive.

            IMHO the thing to do is avoid this argument and concentrate on the Founders' original one: That copyright is a TEMPORARY PRIVILEGE intended to INCREASE the amount of creative material FREELY available in the middle-distant future by letting authors and their publishers make money on it without competition from copiers for a SHORT TIME after its creation.
        • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Long-EZ (755920) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:08AM (#11167914)
          First off, piracy is still stealing.

          No. The truth is, in this context, "piracy" is an emotionally charged word used to make copyright infringement sound a lot worse than it is.

          Piracy involves stealing, raping and murdering innocent people when caught in remote locations where society can offer no protection. Copyright infringement is illegal, and should be punished appropriately. But calling it piracy is ridiculous. So are the ridiculous "you're punishing the gaffers and set builders" propaganda commercials.

          At the heart of this is money, like everything else. this is about the MPAA and RIAA executives making a LOT of money for making the stupid executive decicisions that Michael Eisner apparently makes every day.

          When something is stolen, something is missing. When a copyright is enfringed, the original work remains. Does that help clarify the difference?

          If you call it piracy and stealing, you are a tool of the MPAA and RIAA viral marketing campaign.

          We should all insist on the correct term "copyright enfringement" as society deals with these intellectual property issues. The illegal behavior is being made a lot worse by the RIAA and MPAA who cling to outdated distribution methods to try to maintain a profit margin that is normally only seen in organized crime and illegal narcotics. There are laws against what the RIAA does, and the major companies in the recording industry have all been found guilty of collusion and price fixing. The settlement? After consumers fill out forms and other high-hassle jumping through hoops, they get a discount on their next CD purchase. So, who are the REAL criminals here?

          There is plenty of behavior among RIAA executives and those enfringing copyrights that is both illegal and immoral. I say we start calling the record company executives "rapists".

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)

      by rxmd (205533) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:06AM (#11167389) Homepage
      Last I checked piracy was still piracy.
      Damn straight! And last I checked, piracy still required a boat of some sorts, rather than a computer.
    • Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)

      I agree with you that in any objective sense, most "stars" aren't worth anything like what they get paid. Unfortunately consumer bahaviour makes these people worth those sums in economic reality. The fact is the vast majority of people will put a CD or DVD down right away if they don't recognize the names on it. Whereas if they recognize the names, even if fairly neutrally, they're likely to give it a shot. Hence the studios can guarantee large sales of a movie purely by putting a "big name" on the credits,
    • Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)

      Piracy ? Funny, until the tracker went down, Demonoid was where I generally downloaded the latest .ISOs of Mandrake. I wasn't aware Free Software was piracy. .
    • Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tom (822) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:28AM (#11167562) Homepage Journal
      Last I checked piracy was still piracy.

      Last I checked, pirates used cannons and cutlasses, had beards and a bad accent.

      "unauthorized distribution" is the proper term, and I'm not nitpicking for the heck of it. A chinese proverb says "Calling things by their proper name is the first step of wisdom." I think they got that right. As long as you don't see it for what it is, but instead mix it up with images of bloodshed and destruction, your judgement is clouded.

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ann Elk (668880) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:28AM (#11167564)
      Last I checked piracy was still piracy. What gives you the right to faciliate piracy?

      Yes, and murder is still murder, but AT&T is not responsible when someone uses a telephone to conspire to commit murder. IANAL (nor do I want to be), but I would think the "common carrier" laws that protect the phone companies should also protect these sites. But then again, the MPAA has More Money than I, so they are obviously More Right (in the US, at least).

      • I disagree. ISPs and their providers should be common carriers. All they're responsible for is providing the bits [and making sure asshats don't find ways to stop the bits].

        Sans that we would have to have our ISP inspect each packet to make sure it was "legal". You could also kiss encryption bye bye [or use escrow...]. Then at the same time we could limit mail to postcards only so that they can be readily viewed, etc. etc. etc.

        I think it's not too much to hold the invididual users accountable for thei
  • by Agent Green (231202) * on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:02AM (#11167360) Homepage
    ...because I'm a stickler for quality and don't feel like monopolizing my connection for so long to get it.

    The more I read about this, though, the more it pisses me off...so there's little seed in the back of my head that tells me not to waste my time with movies...and I don't. Gouging for a ticket is bad enough, but the additional gouging for food and beverage just adds insult to injury anyway.
  • to use google to search for torrents directly.
  • by CodeWanker (534624) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:04AM (#11167370) Journal
    people mistake "free exchange of ideas" and "I don't have to pay for it."
  • by TrollBridge (550878) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:06AM (#11167386) Homepage Journal
    It should read something like "Bittorent Site Operators Invite Lawsuits". Seriously, who could have predicted that posting so many links to copyrighted works would draw the ire of the MPAA?
  • by saterdaies (842986) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:06AM (#11167387)
    I think it's a bit of a pitty because BitTorrent has/had such potential to revolutionize how the internet worked, but in the end it just became a place for illegal file sharing. Everyone talks about filesharing and the terrible things that the RIAA and MPAA want to do to stop it, but they act like illegal filesharing is a good thing - like it is a pious act. The EFF has kept defending it as if they have a righteous cause. Filesharing technologies do have legitimate uses. At the beginning, the EFF was telling the RIAA/etc. to go after indivivuals who were using it for illegal purposes. Now, the EFF has decided that those illegal actions need to be defended too. I think that someone needs to create a movement around real fair use. Nothing more, nothing less. Not stealing and not totalitarian MPAA/RIAA crap. Something that would allow me to use my music in the ways that I should be able to and for a fair price without resorting to stealing. Something that the majority of people in America (and the world) could agree with.
  • by F7F7NoYes (740722) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:07AM (#11167402)
    Well, when mp3's became hip, I downloaded them off sources on IRC. Then napster came out and every moron with an aol account was downloading mp3's. Then napster was shut down. Then connection speeds improved and I started downloading movies and apps from IRC. Then Kazaa/Fastrack came out. Then every moron with an aol accound was on Kazaa. Then they started suing said morons that put their email address in. THEN I started using bittorrent to download Linux ISO's, the pirating started with Bittorrent, and before I knew it, more morons with aol accounts were talking about suprnova. Then it died. Meanwhile I'm still on IRC and still no problems.
  • 1337 ip! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Maljin Jolt (746064) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:09AM (#11167410) Journal
    TFA says: 66.250.450.10

    Maybe mirror is located at 666.666.666.666...
  • They were vulnerable (Score:4, Informative)

    by KarmaOverDogma (681451) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:18AM (#11167479) Homepage Journal
    Demonoid went down only because the site owner(s)/operator(s) and/or their site host reside in a country that has and actually cares to enforce DMCA-like/Copyright laws. A site similar to this will probably pop up in Russia or elsewhere in due time.

    Notice that bi-torrent.com, supernova.org and their kin are still alive and well, and likely remain so for a quite a while.

    The only way **AA will make any real headway here is to sue the .torrent users themselves.
  • The List (Score:5, Funny)

    by theraccoon (592935) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:21AM (#11167501) Journal
    Did you happen to see the list of movies they're accused of pirating? Dodgeball, 50 First Dates, and Catwoman, to name a few. How sad.

    I'd hate to be his mom. "You went to jail for WHAT?? Couldn't you have been doing something I wouldn't be embarrassed to tell my book club about, like drugs or attempted murder!?"

  • Where does it end? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skyshock21 (764958) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:21AM (#11167504)
    Something tells me the MPAA won't stop until FTP and Bit Torrent protocols themselves are rendered useless.

    Does the MPAA have jurisdiction over sites hosted overseas as well???? Many of these web sites will eventually just off-shore to places where the MPAA can't touch them. This is rediculous, it's like the war on drugs. You can't fight this wholly on the supply side - you shut one down, and three more pop up. Why are they being so naive?
    • by ArbitraryConstant (763964) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:38AM (#11167635) Homepage
      They're trying for a decapitation attack. It's not going to work long term (any more than shutting Napster down did), but I can see how they'd feel they had to do something.

      Of course, the problem with doing this is a lot like the problem with antibiotics. If you use them too much, the target adapts.
      • Raising the bar... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kjella (173770) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:16AM (#11167977) Homepage
        They're trying for a decapitation attack

        ...not really. They're trying to remove the single-most userfriendly and simply way to get pirated content. They have no illusions that this will stop most filesharing. Remember, that to a common user, it went like this.

        1. Install BitTorrent
        2. Click on link

        They don't really care how it works. There's no ratios, no shares, no slots, no configuration, nothing. And it was fast, at least with popular content (which is, by definiton, what the common user wants). Many of these will find other P2P apps too complex.

        Kjella
  • by akepa (213342) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:39AM (#11167652)
    First they came for Napster
    and I did not speak out
    because I switched to Kazaa.
    Then they came for Kazaa
    and I did not speak out
    because I switched to bit torrents.
    Then they came for bit torrents
    and I did not speak out
    because I switched to ED2K.
    Then they came for ED2K
    and there was no one left
    for the entertainment industry
    to blame for their troubles.
    So they went out of business,
    and now there is only me.
  • by johnhennessy (94737) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:03AM (#11167874)

    I think its becoming very clear that centralised torrent distribution isn't going to work.

    If you are going to host a popular torrent site then you are going to need bandwidth (for the site alone, no mention of trackers yet). Most bandwidth providers (a.k.a ISPs) are getting very paranoid about letters like these arriving. In fact I'm guessing that most ISPs have terms and conditions stating that they can switch you off faster than a light-bulb if they get such a letter.

    The problem with these ISPs is that they need things like credit card details for payment, etc. etc. etc. This trail will eventually lead to a physical person who paid for the hosting - and thus someone the MPAA can put the rap on.

    Lets just rewind here a sec. First there was FTP/HTTP for downloading "stuff". This worked while demand was average, and no one was paying much attention. The head came on, people (read: lawyers) took notice. Letters were sent, people abandoned FTP/HTTP for P2P networks.

    Everything was good so far until it came to delivering large content (read: Movies, Apps, whatever). The P2P networks simply scale well to delivering this content well. But they still provided a reasonable amount of privacy.

    Next (roughly speaking) came BitTorrent - it fixed the P2P bottle necks of gnutella & co. But it now depended on a centralised infrastructure for informing people on where to find the Trackers.

    More experienced hands at BitTorrent and Gnutella might be able to help out here:

    What if the .torrents were put on a P2P network ? The files are no longer very big so the scaling issues are not that important. If people are worried that the MPAA are going to go after people who store .torrents, why not encrypt them, or spread them between two/three "buddy" hosts, for example: host (A) stores the first 1/3 of the file, host (B) the next 1/3 and so on. It could even be stored redundantly in case one or more are offline.

    This could be taken to the next level then - if the content is coming from multipe sources, and if individually the "copyright" material does not arrive from a single source - what can you prosecute the individual sources for - serving up a fragment ? If the data is interleaved between 10 hosts and every 10th byte is stored on one host, it would be very difficult to prove that the host contains the material.

    Just my $0.02
    • by kryptkpr (180196) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:45AM (#11168284) Homepage
      What if the .torrents were put on a P2P network? The files are no longer very big so the scaling issues are not that important. If people are worried that the MPAA are going to go after people who store .torrents, why not encrypt them, or spread them between two/three "buddy" hosts...

      The MPAA is not just going after big .torrent hosts, that's either shitty reporting or a diversion. They're going after big trackers.

      Storing and distributing .torrents anonymously isn't the problem.. they're such little files, you can usually cram them just about anywhere (DNS maybe even?). Storing and distributing peer lists is the real problem.

      BT isn't a p2p network in the conventional sense, it's a network of p2p networks. Each "torrent" is a p2p network on it's own, self contained and independent of any other torrent.

      This p2p network needs a way to keep track of it's members, and hereing comes the tracker. The tracker's primary duty is to deliver random subset of the peerlist to peers when they request it.

      So, an effective tracker must

      1) Know of -all- the peer's IPs in the swarm
      2) Be easy to contact
      3) Give away peer's IPs to anyone who asks

      Thus, BT as it currently sits (a quick, efficient way to offload some server bandwidth onto users) is not suited for illegal content: That same thing which makes it good/strong/fast (the trackers) is what makes it easy to litigate.

      PS: In BT, pieces very, very rarely arrive from a single source.. I don't think this has stopped anyone from litigating.
    • by sgtrock (191182) on Thursday December 23 2004, @12:31PM (#11169361)
      No, centralized torrent distribution works just fine for what it was designed for! At no time was the capability of providing anonymous services for warez a consideration.

      Don't like it? Solve the problem yourself. Bram Cohen has stated time and again that he has no interest in solving it for you. The BitTorrent code is readily available in several languages, now. You are free to use that as a starting point if you really care that much about it.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday December 23 2004, @10:48AM (#11168306) Homepage Journal
    You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful [slashdot.org] than you could possibly imagine.
    • Re:p2p torrent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) <john DOT oyler AT comcast DOT net> on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:13AM (#11167444) Journal
      Peerguardian is a joke. When it comes time to sue you, the MPAA or their BayTSP minions will simply use a consumer broadband account to gather the evidence. Duh.

      If we knew every single employee of both companies, adn we have our spies working at all major ISPs on the lookout for those names (and assuming they don't use other names), we *might* be able to have some level of protection. Maybe. That's assuming that "our guy" isn't out sick the say they sign up, or the day that their cable modem gets a new DHCP lease.

      P2p still sits on the internet, and for that reason, it's no safer than anything else. You have to build your own network, and it has to have moderately strong anonymity. Nothing else will work.
    • Shareaza [shareaza.com] does it, kinda, but it's basically eDonkey and a couple other things mixed into one. It has a BT client built-in, and you can use eDonkey/Mule/Dingo/Fox to search for the torrent files (usually they were torrents from SuprNova), then run the torrents (don't think there's a way to automatically do it though).

      Granted, this was 2.0. 2.1 may be different. I stopped using Shareaza because it felt pretty slow. I suppose a similar way to do this would be to use eMule to download the torrents and then run
    • These sites don't have any repository of any pirate material. They are a repository of LINKS... What the links are, ore are not, is not their responsibility. As is how you use them. In court, the *AA would loose, but of course these cases will never get to court as the people running the sites cant afford to fight. Its "justice" for the one with the most money. So if I link to some where else that has something offensive to you, does that make me the bad guy? No its your fault for going to the link.. N
      • Re:frist post (Score:5, Informative)

        by jafomatic (738417) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:24AM (#11167529) Homepage
        First replier to your post explained the solution, but not so much why. Your bandwidth looks much like mine (Verizon DSL) and it is because of the "a" in aDSL that we would suffer that horrific downstream problem when uploading and downloading at the same time.

        In short, the downstream and upstream share a buffer; if the buffer becomes full (i.e. maxxed out your upload capacity) then both streams will suffer. As the guy pointed out, Azureus (and other clients) will allow you to throttle your upstream.

        In addition to this, you should also throttle your downstream just a bit (in case you are able to max it out, I believe the same problem could arise). I had mine throttled around 90% of each maximum (so about 175KB/12KB) and it worked like a charm.

        As to the memory requirements, you might want to look into how often the client commits its memory cache to disk in order to alleviate this.

      • Re:frist post (Score:4, Insightful)

        by EasyTarget (43516) on Thursday December 23 2004, @09:52AM (#11167784) Homepage Journal
        I have a 1.5 down/128 up DSL

        Well.. that's not DSL, it's very ADSL.

        Bittorrent is a system that rewards you the more you upload. If you're on an asymmetric line it will probably max the UL even if the DL is not so good. If most users in the swarm are on massively asymmetric lines, well the total upload bandwidth available will be terrible. And you'll all be maxed UL while throttled DL.

        The real issue here is greed, bittorrent is a co-operative system. Do you let torrents run to a share ratio over 1:1? I leave them until I've shared twice what I downloaded. I Contribute. If you are not willing to pay for the upload bandwidth to contribute properly, don't expect sympathy from those of us who do.

        Oh, and you have to be willing to -wait- (yep, strange concept to most people I realize) for the torrent to complete. Of course you can always try to find a ftp, or whatever, site that can match your awesome download bandwidth. But I bet you want that for free too.

        Basically, Bittorrent is socialist, greed is not a attribute that it rewards. But it's in a capatalist system, so you can have an alternative. Try Kazzaa.
    • Quite a few reasons, not all of which are freenet's fault.

      Fault of the users:
      1) It assumes that the average warez dude actually be aware of all the copyright nazidom going on, at a "current events" level of awareness.
      2) It assumes they are smart enough to recognize that freenet would be a solution to the legal problems that they *will* eventually face.
      3) It assumes that they are smart enough to use it (this will cease to be a problem when the freenet guys figure out how to dumb down the interface enough).
      4