Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News Your Rights Online

BitTorrent Accounts for 35% of Traffic 788

Pranjal writes "According to a reuters article on Yahoo, BitTorrent accounts for an astounding 35 percent of all the traffic on the Internet -- more than all other peer-to-peer programs combined -- and dwarfs mainstream traffic like Web pages." The article goes on to talk about how BT is no longer beneath the radar of those who like to sue file sharers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitTorrent Accounts for 35% of Traffic

Comments Filter:
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:01PM (#10728027) Journal

    At least under U.S. law, it's a bit more difficult to find the makers liable as long as the software is capable of being used for innocent uses, which I think (BitTorrent) surely is."

    But that doesn't mean that they won't be sued into bankruptcy anyway. Anybody want to bet that is (MP/RI)AAs next move? Sue the creator and coders of the various BitTorrent applications to bully people who might consider writing useful P2P software in the future?

    Of course I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for anybody caught infringing on software/movie/music copyrights with BitTorrent. It's not anonymous by any means -- and the trackers provide a nice centralized target. Isn't it clear that BitTorrent wasn't designed with copyright infringement in mind?

    • by XiQ ( 776289 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:05PM (#10728076)
      Doesn't look like they can bankrupt Bram Cohen much more than he was some time ago...
    • by agoliveira ( 188870 ) <adilson@@@adilson...net> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:06PM (#10728101)
      The answer in in the question itself: don't develop/store in USA.
      This kind of software is not ilegal here in Brazil, for instance.
    • by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:15PM (#10728240)
      As I recall when they were suing the other P2P users, they were using a formula that took the number of songs being shared by some dollar amount. That was why people with huge libraries that were being shared, were being sued for astronomical amounts. With torrent users, there is only the one song that the user is currently downloading that is easily discoverable. So for the average user, how will they generate the large damage figures.... oops I forgot, they can just make up a figure for damages.
    • by nkh ( 750837 ) <exochicken@gmail. c o m> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:16PM (#10728259) Journal
      For the first time in my life I wrote a useful program: a BT client! The protocol is very easy to understand and the client easy to write. I would hate to be sued for just writing some stupid code on a keyboard and I know now what is the real difference between creating tools and using them to infringe on copyrights. Unix is a tool, someone could use it to wreak havoc across the earth but it's still a great tool. BT works great for big files which can be either Linux ISOs or DivX. Of course I don't expect the justice of my country to understand between a Linux and a DivX...
    • by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:36PM (#10728542) Journal
      If they are going to start suing BitTorrent application authors, then one of the most prominent ones would be Blizzard [blizzard.com], of Warcraft/Diablo/Starcraft fame... :)

      I don't find it very likely that BitTorrent authors will be sued. Many Linux distributions use BitTorrent to distribute Linux ISOs. Many download sites, like Filerush.com, offer torrents as alternatives in addition to normal HTTP/FTP download sites.

      Heck, even the entertainment industry could use BitTorrent-like technology to offer video or music on demand without having to invest truckloads of money into bandwidth.

      "Isn't it clear that BitTorrent wasn't designed with copyright infringement in mind?"
      Not at all. For one, banning tools like P2P clients just because some people are using them for illegal activities is silly. If that's the path we are going down, why don't we ban stuff like knives and guns? Or PCs. Or the Internet!

      Wheher BitTorrent was designed with copyright infringement in mind is completely irrelevant. It's seeing many useful legal purposes. I use it for completely legal downloads all the time.

      Blame the people, not the tools.

      • by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:57PM (#10728769)
        even the entertainment industry could use BitTorrent-like technology to offer video or music on demand without having to invest truckloads of money into bandwidth

        They *could*, but they won't, because it deprives them the means to control distribution.

        This is an industry whose MO has been to resist *every* new technology, whether it's beneficial to them or not - look at the lawsuit launched by Disney/Universal against the VCR - they wanted it banned, caput, illegal... even though today home video sales make up a huge percentage of their profits, they still hate it, because they no longer control the distribution (once they sell a video, they can't stop you from selling it to someone else.)

        Look at the music industry, who fought tooth-and-nail against *radio*, claiming it would end music (after all, who would pay to go to a concert when you can get the music for free in your own home, and if nobody will pay for live music, how will musicians earn money?) It wasn't until they discovered they could control the airwaves that they finally (and begrudgingly) gave in - until the advent of the home tape recorder gave them new reason to fear.

        The entertainment industries don't *care* about any potential benefits new technology will bring them, they're stuck in their old business model ways, and fear anything that might possibly provide competition for their cartels.
      • You misread. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:24PM (#10729079) Journal
        "Isn't it clear that BitTorrent wasn't designed with copyright infringement in mind?"
        Not at all. For one, banning tools like P2P clients just because some people are using them for illegal activities is silly. If that's the path we are going down, why don't we ban stuff like knives and guns? Or PCs. Or the Internet!

        No no no. He said it was clear that BitTorrent wasn't designed with copyright infringement in mind. And that's why copyright infringers should use something else. Because it is sub-optimal for stealing. The distributors (supernova or whatever) will be wide open targets.
  • Common Legal Uses:

    Linux and BSD ISOs (duh)
    Video Game Demos (those things are getting huge!)
    eBook Collections (e.g. Gutenburg)
    Publicly Available Videos (e.g. Star Trek fan videos, Presidential Debates, funny commercials)
    Software Distribution (How can a database application be more 1 gig in size?!)
    Website Content Mirrors (e.g. PDFs, promotional videos, images, etc.)

    That's a LOT of content right there. Can anyone think of items I'm missing?

    • Presidential Debates, funny commercials

      You put a comma where "aka" should be.
    • by PSUdaemon ( 204822 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:05PM (#10728079)
      Porn? I mean, isn't that what this whole crazy internet thing is for?
    • by loconet ( 415875 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:06PM (#10728088) Homepage
      It used to be ok to share funny commercial clips but sadly some of them might not be legal anymore [adcritic.com].

    • by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:07PM (#10728123) Homepage
      Live concert recordings [etree.org] with explicit permission from the copyright holders.
    • by eyeball ( 17206 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:23PM (#10729072) Journal
      I'm on the board of directors at a Buddhist center, and we have discussed distributing audio and video recordings of our teachings. The major barrier to doing something like this (especially for free to the community) is cost. I haven't brought up BT yet, but I probably will soon.

      My biggest concern of course is the inevitable take-down notice we'll 'accidentally' get. We're a non-profit with no money for legal folks, and slightly techophobic directors, so the possibility of legal threats could prevent this.

  • Oh yea. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <ag-slashdot@exBOYSENit0.us minus berry> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:02PM (#10728035) Homepage
    And spam uses another 60% I'm sure
  • C&D time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:02PM (#10728040) Journal
    Given that BT requires a link to a .torrent, how hard is it for companies to send a C&D to the ISP/owner of any site hosting illegal .torrent links?
    • Re:C&D time? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rew190 ( 138940 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:07PM (#10728118)
      It's a bit tricky since the .torrent isn't actually the illegal file you're downloading, and might not necessarily lead to the downloading of the actual file.
    • Re:C&D time? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:08PM (#10728142) Journal

      Given that BT requires a link to a .torrent, how hard is it for companies to send a C&D to the ISP/owner of any site hosting illegal .torrent links?

      Who says you need to put the .torrent file on a website? I could just as easily DCC it to you on IRC and you could manually key it into your BitTorrent program.

      Not that your point isn't valid -- I'm just pointing out that BitTorrent isn't dependant on a webhost to function.

    • Re:C&D time? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:12PM (#10728197) Homepage Journal
      easy.

      how easy it is to host it somewhere where you can post such files/links(torrents) without fear? just about just as easy.

      for example, piratebay gets such threats regularly. here's one of their responses http://static.thepiratebay.org/sega_response.txt [thepiratebay.org].

      how easy it is for a litigation company to milk a publisher for money, by offering them a service that they'll scan the net for infringiments and then bill them (the publisher) for every c&d they send(and sell it to the ceo's as if this created automagically more income for the publisher, however, conviently for the litigation company the effect of these c&d's on sales can't be measured at all so they got a good milking cow right there without any means for the client to measure their 'performance' ).

    • Re:C&D time? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:19PM (#10728303) Homepage Journal
      The tough part is that the .torrent file is pretty small. Just about anybody can host it, in fact many .torrent files get hosted from several sources online just because they're so small and organizing them is so useful. ISPs have a much tougher time tracking down people who have .torrents hosted because they don't take up massive bandwidth the way they would if the people were hosting .avis or .mp3s directly.

      If you really want to shut down a torrent you need to shut down the tracker. The tracker needs a fair bit of bandwith (noticable by ISPs) and is necessary for the whole thing to work. That said, trackers require an order of magnitude (or two) less bandwidth than people who host files directly, so even these guys can fall under the ISPs radar. Legal challenges can be spotty (some ISPs remove the files immediatly, others (in foreign countries) don't care), and suing the user is obviously not a viable option except as a way to extort money from 8 year old girls.
    • by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:10PM (#10728908) Journal

      "Given that BT requires a link to a .torrent, how hard is it for companies to send a C&D to the ISP/owner of any site hosting illegal .torrent links? "

      A few people are working on an anonymous BT tracker tool system for I2P [i2p.net].*ONLY* the BT tracker will be anonymous in this subtool that is being worked on as seen here on an update from 2 days ago [i2p.net]. This would allow for publisher anonymity and should be fast since the tracker only coordinates the peers, with the peers doing the heavy lifting.

      Of course having full anonymity (for the peers as well) would be useful , and maybe possible, but as your post suggsted - BT is vunerable at the tracker/publisher source. This is a solution to that vunerability, and in any event I2P is fully anonymous itself, if you want peer anonymity for a file :).

      This BT tool is not ready yet for I2P, but I2P itself is making remarkable progress so I would not be surprised if it is ready within less than a few months. For more information you can also find the #I2P channel, with the #Freenet channel, on irc.freenode.net , I2P's chat network and IIP (I2P and the Metro IIP are linked).

  • This means... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:02PM (#10728042)
    ...we'll all have to change p2p apps again soon, right?
  • by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:04PM (#10728061)
    I'm confused. Are they saying that mainstream web traffic accounts for far less than 35% of the bandwidth the internet consumes? By saying that BT is "dwarfing" the web traffic, that would make me think that something like 5-10% of traffic is HTTP. Am I wrong in finding that hard to believe?
    • by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:09PM (#10728156)
      Well, I would say it is safe to say that the average file traded over BT is, say, 1GB. That's about typical for the stuff I download via it. Mostly (legal) live concert recordings. A typical webpage is perhaps 100kb. So that's 10,000 webpage views (Probably a weeks worth for even the busiest net addict, probably more like 3 months worth for a typical home user. I often pull 10GB a week via bittorrent (http://bt.etree.org/ [etree.org] is your friend...)
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:29PM (#10728455)

      Am I wrong in finding that hard to believe?

      I'm with you on this one. I'm watching a big chunk of the internet. My top 3 numbers are as follow:

      25% http

      6% gnutella

      5% bittorrent

      Maybe what I'm looking at is atypical, but I'm just not seeing the numbers reported. The article does not seem to list any source for its numbers.

  • by jpmkm ( 160526 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:04PM (#10728063) Homepage
    What the FUCK does this have to do with my rights?
  • Thank god.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkMantle ( 784415 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:05PM (#10728070) Homepage
    ... that I live in Canada where this is still legal. [com.com]

    And you guys though that America was the home of the free.
    • Re:Thank god.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:27PM (#10728426) Homepage
      Wrong.

      I got a C&D letter from my ISP, who got one from AOL TimeWarner. My kid downloaded a movie via Bittorrent, and my account was at risk. It wasn't a legal thing other than my TOS with my ISP forbids downloading copyright protected works. Plus, I'm not convinced that trading of copyrighted works without some form of payment to the copyright holder is a good thing. Basically, what you're doing is showing them how large a market there is for thier crap. I'd rather everyone just boycott the crappy content (I gave the kid hell for risking my connection for "The Butterfly Effect") so they get the idea to produce better stuff, not try and suck all the downloaders into paying.

      I now only allow bittorrent when I need an ISO of ubuntu or fedora or something.

      If you're Canadian, be careful.

      Soko
      • Re:Thank god.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:06PM (#10728859)
        my TOS with my ISP forbids downloading copyright protected works

        Well, considering that almost *everything* on the internet is protected by copyrighted (thank you, Berne Convention), your ISP must only allow you to visit Project Gutenberg, right?

        What the hell are you doing reading this?!? It's copyrighted! Get the hell off the damn internet before your ISP shuts you down!
  • by MagicDude ( 727944 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:06PM (#10728087)
    35% of internet traffic is BitTorrent
    50% is pr0n
    10% is SPAM
    4% is actual content
    And the remaining 1% is slashdot talking about the 4% of legit websites
    • by Al Dimond ( 792444 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:24PM (#10728376) Journal
      Then where's the room for /. talking about BitTorrent, pornography and spam? Seems to me that the 1% of slashdot can be broken down just about the same way as the rest of the internet... .35% /. talking about BT .5% /. talking about porn .1% /. talking about spam .04% /. talking about actual content .01% /. talking about itself.

      Of that .01%, there can be a similar breakdown: .0035% /. talking about /. talking about BT .005% /. talking about /. talking about porn .001% /. talking about /. talking about spam .0004% /. talking about /. talking about actual content .0001% /. talking about /. talking about...

      Although I'd be willing to be /. spends more than 1% of it's time talking about itself, such as this post, and about 30% of the previous.

      (furthermore, I left out the proportion of /. traffic created by its ugly and stupid layout scheme, that could be less ugly and break less browsers AND use less bandwidth with the miracle of CSS. But I digress.)
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:06PM (#10728104)
    One interesting thing about Bittorrent is that most people are getting only a small bit of data from you, and from lots of other people.

    How much material needs to come from your computer in order for them to be able to sue you? If I provided only a second of content (say for a movie) how liable am I then for damages since I'm not providing the whole work?
    • by matth1jd ( 823437 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:15PM (#10728249)
      IANAL but I would assume that even though you're not providing the entire work (even if you are seeding a torrent), you could be in trouble.

      You have the following situations:

      You're a seeder of a torrent, so you posses the whole file - at which point you're obviously busted, because you possess copyrighted material obtained illegally.

      You're a peer on the network (or a leech as most are) and you're downloading a given torrent, and uploading to others as well. You're intent is obviously to get the entire file or collection of files. I would have to imagine you're busted here as well, a copyrighted piece of material is just that, and unless you're using it for education purposes - copyright law treats one second the same as a minute or an hour of material. Since your intent is to obtain the whole file, and aid others in the same, I think they have you.

      Again IANAL, but it seems logical...

      --J
      • by ironfrost ( 674081 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:02PM (#10728822) Homepage Journal
        >copyright law treats one second the same as a minute or an hour of material

        That's not actually true. According to the 1976 Copyright Act, as interpreted by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives (Source [sbl-site.org]):

        (9) Multimedia Material: Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less, in the aggregate of a copyrighted motion media work may be reproduced without permission. Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work (or in the aggregate of extracts from an individual work), whether the musical work is embodied in copies, or in audio or audiovisual works, may be reproduced without permission.

        Considering the way BitTorrent works, a possible defence might be that you're not copying more than 30 seconds of the work from any one source, so your actions are legal. Of course, this is completely against the spirit of the law and would result in further restrictions just as soon as the Government got around to passing them...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:06PM (#10728106)
    "We're studying our options, as we do with all new technologies which are abused by people to engage in theft."

    Phew, good thing I only use it to engage in copyright infringement.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:07PM (#10728127)
    My medium:
    35% bittorrent
    64% web
    1% other

    By content:
    99% p0rn
    1% Slashdot
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:08PM (#10728143)
    They are suing copyright infringers and only copyright infringers. Get it into your head if you wish to be taken seriously.
  • BT is not secure (Score:4, Informative)

    by bludstone ( 103539 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:08PM (#10728144)
    Not even remotly secure. People can see what you are downloading, no problems.

    Now, I love torrents. I use them for mostly anime, which the companies have, so far, given us a polite nod to do so. Just take them down when they put in a request, and no scary lawyers. (Although I am confident that this is going to change)

    Of course, torrent has also made people used to convenient downloading of big in-demand files.

    So, what will the *AA's going after BTs do? The same thing that going after p2p has done. Create a new, more secure, more stealthy "sequal" to bittorrent.
  • by Serveert ( 102805 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:09PM (#10728151)
    BitTorrent wasn't designed to hide your identity unfortunately.

    It's only a matter of time until they seriously crack down on Bit Torrent which is too bad because it's the only p2p app that will pull down 160KB/sec for me.

    The secret is to allow for unlimited d/l and u/l but then create a perl script to monitor netstat -na and kill those connections via iptables which have a high recv q. Otherwise they'll suck down all your upload bandwidth.
    • by System.out.println() ( 755533 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:33PM (#10728503) Journal
      But if you're only uploading 2% of a given file to someone, are you still liable? if 50 people upload 2% of a file each, who gets nailed for sharing?

      The best answer is the one running the tracker, but then, they're not providing any content.

      So while it's easy to find out who's sending data, it won't be so easy on the legal side to actually prosecute them for it.
    • by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:15PM (#10728968) Homepage
      When I was using torrent to d/l the latest Ubuntu Linux ISOs, I noticed a huge spike in the number of probes and scans to my system. It's not just the RIAA/MPAA that BT doesn't hide your identity from! :)

      Interestingly, I don't see this kind of spike when getting (legal) concert recordings from bt.etree.org. But that's probably subject to change without notice at any point. Fortunately, my only open port (ssh) is configured with libwrap to block access from any but a few specific IPs, and I keep an eye on my logs just in case. But I definitely think this is something people should be aware of. Using BT does make you a more visible target for attacks, and not just legal ones!
  • by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:09PM (#10728154) Homepage
    Anybody got a torrent?
  • by freelunch ( 258011 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:11PM (#10728186)
    How about some torrent sites with great legal content?

    This [archive.org] site is excellent.

    If you have never used BT and watched how it consumes bandwidth, you really ought to check it out. Pretty neat.

    Tools like Etherape [sourceforge.net] will draw funky realtime network connectivity maps. Watching your computer talk to that many other peers makes you feel pretty exposed.

    Azureus [sourceforge.net] is my preferred graphical client under Linux. Any other favorites?

  • by A5un ( 586681 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:13PM (#10728204)
    I'm experiencing this and I'm not alone as evidenced here [dslreports.com] and here [dslreports.com].

    Sandvine's [sandvine.com] product is being speculated as the culprit. More details here [gnomeblog.com]. Is there anyway around this? I don't want to be stuck downloading new distros (which are coming soon) with slow BT.

  • Television Shows (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DavidLeblond ( 267211 ) <(moc.dnolbeldivad) (ta) (em)> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:17PM (#10728270) Homepage
    I know the RIAA can bust you for downloading music, and the MPAA can bust you for downloading movies... is there any large organization (other than HBO, CBS, etc) that is looking to bust people for downloading television shows?

    I have in the past downloaded shows when my VCR or DVR crapped out and didn't tape them so I was curious of the legalities of this.
    • Re:Television Shows (Score:4, Informative)

      by famewolf ( 248372 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:25PM (#10728413)
      MGM is big about cracking down on people downloading their movies or tv shows...recently they cracked down on several people sharing the "Dead like Me" show which is only available on Showtime.

      • Re:Television Shows (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ars ( 79600 ) <assd2@noSPaM.dsgml.com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:19PM (#10729022) Homepage
        But that's (showtime) a pay access cable channel.

        The situation is quite different for over the air free broadcasts.

        In fact it's far from clear to me that's it's illegal to download those in the first place.

        And don't tell me the it's because commercials are edited out of the downloads: if I want to I have the right to ask someone to edit commercials out of a tv show I recorded, and then watch the show (for example someone who's time is quite valuable could hire someone to do this).

        I can see arguments both ways for this, but it's not a clear one in any direction, so lawsuits are quite unlikely.
  • by sserendipity ( 696118 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:18PM (#10728286)
    Can someone tell me how many percentage points there are in all the internets? I'm pretty certain that about 70% is pron, 50% is spam mail and at least 85% of all internet traffic was in the form of mysterious, partisan, hard to prove or disprove, statistics about internet traffic.
  • by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:19PM (#10728299) Homepage
    In reference to Suprnova [suprnova.org] "They're doing something flagrantly illegal, but getting away with it because they're offshore," said (Bittorrent creator)Cohen. He is not eager to get into a battle about how his creation is used. "To me, it's all bits," he said."

    I've always liked Cohen's attitude, and his transparency about Bittorrent's lack of privacy. I do though wonder if Slovenian law might differ from that of the United States.
  • Here is the study (Score:5, Informative)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:20PM (#10728318) Homepage Journal

    ... that apparently started all of this. It was published by Cache Logic, who make traffic statistics boxes.

    http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide1.php [cachelogic.com]

  • by k3v0 ( 592611 ) <k3v0.k3v0@net> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:21PM (#10728345) Homepage Journal
    Other than freenet, what options are there for anonymous p2p?
    a google doesn't show much
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=anon ymous+p2p&spell=1 [google.com]
    Can any bit torrent clients/plugins use anonymous proxies?
  • by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:22PM (#10728355)
    I know I _always_ have bittorrent running constantly. Right now I'm torrenting a couple gigs of Love Hina [bandai-ent.com] songs and miscellaneous stuff.

    Seriously, who here runs bittorrent 24/7/365? Every college guy (like myself) should be running bittorrent. If not, you're missing some good stuff.

  • by aderusha ( 32235 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:34PM (#10728516) Homepage
    The study comes from CacheLogic (http://www.cachelogic.com), which sells bandwidth throttling appliances to ISPs, schools, companies, etc. Considering that their business is to scare large-scale internet users into throttling the bandwidth use of your typical BT user, I don't find it at all surprising that they are claiming somewhat inflated numbers for P2P use on the internet at large.
  • by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:45PM (#10728620)
    We've [plkr.org] been happily using BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] to distribute all of our releases [plkr.org] for almost two years now. We've served up over 97GiB in the last 5 months for our current release. Pretty funny, considering its really just a tiny little Palm application. On release weeks, we generally serve up 8-10GiB/night over http, and quite a bit less over BitTorrent. I'm hoping to flip those values, so BitTorrent becomes the main distribution medium.

    I even took the time to write a Plucker BitTorrent mini-FAQ [rubberchicken.org] for the users who are misinformed about the technology itself. We've had great success overall, but it has definately tapered off. When we make our next release, it'll spike to 3-5GiB/day served up as before.

    You can see some of our snazzy usage graphs [plkr.org] of the BitTorrent traffic as well.

    I also modified our tracker [plkr.org] so you could sort and click to download the files directly from the tracker webpage itself, instead of using the normal download page [plkr.org] from our site. Thanks to some helpful http and rsync mirrors, the load is spread out nicely, and the mirror links are randomized to make sure it spreads evenly.

    If anyone is interested in seeding for us, or being an http or rsync mirror for Plucker, please contact me.

  • BT and Blizzard (Score:4, Informative)

    by meplaysocr ( 715112 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:08PM (#10728888)
    Blizzard is using BT for transfering files to their Testers of their World of Warcraft game. Every time we get a new client download its well over 2gigs of data they are pushing. Patches are around 250-300megs. That's a lot of data to be pushing around.
  • Torrents and the *AA (Score:5, Informative)

    by colonslashslash ( 762464 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:13PM (#10728943) Homepage
    Myself and Matt from The Linux Mirror Project run BitTorrent 24/7/365, seeding out from 4 servers on 100mbps pipes, and thats just for the Linux ISO torrents, I also am usually running it from home a good 18 hours a day.

    The thing to consider is that unlike Kazaa-like networks where the big bad *AA could search for their albums / movies and find out how many illegal files a user has by viewing their shared folder, torrents exist only for a single entity at a time, so the *AA trying to sue someone for downloading [insert crappy pop album here] would only be able to sue for that particular infringment, and they wouldn't be able to prove the user has 10,000 other albums on their system.

    This, I would think, makes it dramatically harder, and alot less financially viable for them to start dragging BitTorrent users downloading illegal files into court, and is probably why it hasn't happened yet.

    • by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:38PM (#10729209)
      "...so the *AA trying to sue someone for downloading [insert crappy pop album here] would only be able to sue for that particular infringment, and they wouldn't be able to prove the user has 10,000 other albums on their system."

      No, but it DOES allow them to see every single IP address of every single peer, seed, and client using that .torrent... which gives them enough ammo to go to ISPs and begin scaring people with threat letters.

  • by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv&ivoss,com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:16PM (#10728986) Homepage Journal
    A company [cachelogic.com] who's main product is a device [cachelogic.com] designed to monitor and cache P2P network traffic, has a study that shows P2P networks account for an insane amount of network traffic.

    Certainly no reason not believe them, its not like they have a conflict of interest or anything. Nothing to see here, move along please!

  • by bshroyer ( 21524 ) <bret@bretsh[ ]er.org ['roy' in gap]> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:45PM (#10729263)
    If you're not downloading copyrighted material, then you're not uploading it, either. Since BT was not built with any sort of security in mind, then the "man" (the *AA, your campus network admin, your boss) can check on the bits you're passing... and will see that you're not passing any copyrighted bits.

    What's that, you say? You want to transmit copyrighted bits? Then be warned: with BT, the "man" is watching you, and if you're doing something illegal or unethical, you may be caught. There's enough freely distributable bits out there to keep you happy for the rest of your life. Try it out.
  • by bacomage1 ( 736588 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @07:30PM (#10730185)
    The mpaa isn't just contemplating going after bt users: they've already done it. A few weeks ago my ISP sent me an email saying that the MPAA had logged a specific complaint about copyright infringment from my IP address using the Bittorrent client. So... watch out.
  • I got nailed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikeg22 ( 601691 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @09:18PM (#10731026)
    I downloaded a popular recent movie off of a suprnova bittorrent link, and the next day my internet connection was down. I called up the Cox customer support and they gave me another number to call but wouldn't tell me who I was calling. I called the other number and the guy on the other end knew the exact movie I had downloaded, explained politely that I was not supposed to be "uploading" that movie (which bittorrent automatically does), and then turned my internet connection back on.

    I asked the guy if Cox was monitoring my usage, and he said no, that "someone else" had called them to complain. I assume this someone else was the MPAA or somebody working for them.
    • by humankind ( 704050 ) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @09:58PM (#10731277) Journal
      A friend of mine who is a lawyer in the music industry told me the other day that Cox is one of the ISPs that coughs up subscriber information without adequate legal due dilligence. I also believe that the RIAA and other organizations are primarily targeting users of specific ISPs that are more cooperative.

      If you're doing any P2P activity, you should shop around for a more responsible ISP that fights to protect their customers' privacy. Generally speaking, the cable Internet providers are much less respectful of customer privacy than the telco companies. This is why I will not use Cox or Comcast.

If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson

Working...