![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Operating Systems Operating Systems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/os_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
XP SP2 Torrent Shows Legal P2P's Promise 529
Downhill Battle writes "With Congress debating new legislation that would ban p2p networks (along with other innovations and beloved products), we thought it was important to demonstrate the huge potential of p2p software to benefit the public. So now at SP2torrent.com you can get Windows XP SP2 via BitTorrent." Update: 08/09 21:10 GMT by S : As commenters note, you can also get XP SP2 from Microsoft's site, but it's explained: "DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update."
Now, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now, really... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now, really... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Although Microsoft would prefer people that only need to install on a single machine wait for it to be pushed via Windows Update, which will be a considerably smaller download specific for your OS version.
Re:Now, really... (Score:4, Informative)
MD5 (Score:5, Informative)
As others have said:
WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe, MD5: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7, size: 278,927,592 bytes
I downloaded the file from Microsoft, and the MD5 checks.
Re:Now, really... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Now, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Go Team Go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I'm not sure if the XP SP2 torrent is legal...What's in the EULA about redistribution?
Re:Go Team Go! (Score:3, Interesting)
It could totally backfire if MS says "we dint give you permission to do that." MS has made murmurs before about limiting SP's to only verified serial #s. (I don't remember what the outcome of that was. A refresher would be appreciated.) If the SP's given out when MS is trying to control it, then you'll have made MS an enemy of it. Bad news.
Bit risky if you ask me.
Re:Go Team Go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bit risky if you ask me.
Why is it risky? Microsoft provides the download to anybody with a web browser. I'm downloading XP SP2 on a Mac right now, directly from Microsoft's website [microsoft.com]. So they're clearly not checking for valid serials before allowing the download. Perhaps the *install* is a different matter, however.
As an aside, I'm also getting *much* better bandwidth directly from Microsoft than from the torrent.
Re:Go Team Go! (Score:5, Funny)
Or it could be another fine example of quality Microsoft coding: since your Mac doesn't have a Windows serial number, it obviously can't have a serial number that's on the blacklist, and thus is allowed to download. This, in turn, means that your Mac can be used to circumvent the copy protection of the XP SP2 patch, and is therefore a copy protection circumvention device and in direct violation of the DMCA.
Report yourself to the police immediately, citizen !
Of course, the same would also be true for Linux, making Linux too a copy protection circumvention device and thus illegal. It seems I've uncovered the secret plot of Microsoft - will they sue me now for violating their patent on "method of having every competing operating system declared illegal to maintain monopoly position" ?
Re:Go Team Go! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, knock it off!!! Let people who can actually install it use the bandwidth.
Sheesh, I don't go around downloading OS X patches for the fun of it. Fucking Mac zealots!!!!!
</SATIRE>
Re:Go Team Go! (Score:3, Funny)
PS. Moderators: this is where you can use your funny points
Okay, that's *one* example... (Score:5, Insightful)
F/OSS OS (e.g. Linux, *BSD) ISOs makes two examples. We could probably stretch to include OO.org et al to make three.
Three examples of legitimate use. Three.
You PR guys will have to work overtime if you want to make P2P look like anything remotely resembling legitimate.
No, I am not saying P2P should be criminalized. I am saying that the overwhelming majority of P2P traffic appears to be illegitimate (so to speak), most often for reasons of copyright infringement.
Be honest: when people mention P2P networks, what do they describe as its best feature?
A) "Dude, you can get stuff for free!"
B) "Dude, you can download lots of stuff in a completely legal manner without infringing anyone's copyright!"
I believe we all know the answer to that one, even if certain groups conveniently ignore it.
And - as mentioned elsewhere in the thread - the SP2 EULA does prohibit redistribution e.g. via torrent.
Re:Legal is as legal does... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, that's the kicker. Under standard copyright doctrine, you absolutely do not have the right to redistribute the SP; the only case in which you might would be under an explicit grant of license from Microsoft -- that is, in a EULA. (Well, perhaps you have entered into a different contract with the company, but, in that case, you know who you are, and you should be asking you
Uh...Legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
No?
Surprise! It's illegal.
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:2)
The pro far outweights the con. Even if they ban p2p, other people can share service packs different ways. What are they going to do, ban bit-tolerant, ftp and every other protocol? This is lame. The government will never be ahead of the technology curve.
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, before you go off on me for thinking I missed your point, I agree that Congress is out of touch with the tech community and behind the curve on what legislation will have the intended impact. All they seem to do is make things harder for honest people (the copyright infringers won't be slowed down, but people trying to spread valid security patches might for fear of prosecution).
Maybe the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
LK
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the "default" state of copyright seems to be lost on many Slashdotters-- thanks for clearing up that in the absence of a EULA, "default" copyright law applies, which does not allow redistribution.
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:2)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
The torrent is non-commercial. Check.
It's a service pack, which is being distributed for free at MS. Probably check.
It's complete work, th
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, so a few kiddies will get at it to... no big deal.
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes it is. Reproduction and distribution are both exclusive to the copyright holder per 17 USC 106.
In that example, you are reproducing it probably beyond what MS has given you permission to do, and are definately distributing it without permission.
So that's illegal.
It doesn't matter if it's free. Free is a total non-issue.
Slashdotted ? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:2)
It may just be down temporarily, so I would recommend waiting a while.
This would be exciting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:2)
On another note, the torrent file's MIME type on the site is set to plain text. They might want to fix that for browsers which are actually compliant...
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:2)
Of course, it's probable that someone else would have made a torrent of the service pack anyway, and this is just a PR thing, but it might be useful.
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:2)
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:3, Informative)
I should use BitTorrent WHY?
What about last week? (Score:2, Informative)
A Good First Step (Score:5, Interesting)
My prediction is that MS will do the "embrace and extend" thing with bittorrent once they catch on to it.
Re:A Good First Step (Score:2)
A nice idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Download Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
Downloads require BitTorrent: Windows, Mac, Linux.
Why would I want to download SP2 for Mac or Linux? Normally I could so downloading it on another machine if you don't have access to the internet where you want to install it. Honestly, if the machine you want to install it on doesn't have access to the internet then why do you need the security changes of SP2?
Re:A nice idea... (Score:5, Informative)
btdownloadcurses --url "$URL" --max_upload_rate 5
That way I can start the download to my home machine at work and still have it done by the time I get there.
Re:A nice idea... (Score:2)
Re:A nice idea... (Score:2)
I dual boot, though I'm usually in Linux. I downloaded with QTorrent a couple days ago and stuck it on my FAT partition. Then I booted into Windows, installed it, and promptly went back to Gentoo :)
Re:A nice idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, you might for example, use a Linux box to retrieve the update, then post it to an internal location, say a shared network drive, and have all the little XP machines get it from there.
I guess the point is that it doesn't have to be used by the machine that first downloads it.
Re:A nice idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
So you can be another host and help with the cause?
"Honestly, if the machine you want to install it on doesn't have access to the internet then why do you need the security changes of SP2?"
Sadly, if you install XP and get it on the net, the odds are good you'll pick up a worm. So.. disconnect from the net, download the updates elsewhere.
Re:A nice idea... (Score:2)
Cuz there's more than just security fixes in SP2? Like Bluetooth support (well, that's kind of network stuff, but not generally internet type network stuff).
Or perhaps the windows machine isn't on the network until it gets the security fixes but will be shortly after?
Re:A nice idea... (Score:2)
Unless MS Officially Seeded the Torrent... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unless MS Officially Seeded the Torrent... (Score:5, Interesting)
MS has more bandwidth than jesus, and you'll download the patch much faster from them than from some torrent.
I've yet to see any torrent download max out my downstream on this T1 at work. They have no problem maxing out my upstream of course - I wind up sending at 150 and recieving at 20 or so. I've tried big torrents too, new linux releases, spiderman and matrix trailers, etc..
Which makes me wonder how well the bittorrent thing would/will be recieved by the general public. Why should our upstream bandwidth - which we pay for - be used to redistribute MSFT's shit? I don't see them mirroring our ftp distro site. I don't see them telling the Comcast rep to reactivate my account after it was suspended for bandwidth abuse. Fuck that, they already gouged me for 200 bucks for XP Pro, they can damn well foot the bandwidth bill for any patch I need to keep it working.
I mean, would you let (random big corporation) Johnson and Johnson store products in your living room, and deliver them using your car and your gas? Even if you got a 15% discount on shampoo?
The stigma of P2P (Score:3, Insightful)
Loads of uses on legal P2P (Score:5, Informative)
On one hand... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other, I wouldn't trust any 'security' patches found on p2p networks unless the file's link came from MS's site directly.
Here's how it's going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll use them anyway.
A few people will get lawsuits ( notably, those who run insecure versions on their OS that are running, in effect, an open proxy ), a few people will pay thousands of dollars, and the rest of us won't even bat an eye.
hyperbole (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see any law that threatens to make it illegal to send content from one node on the network (or peer) to another node - hence, peer to peer. I've never seen bittorrent threatened when used to distribute legal content, though sites like suprnova are walking a fine line by encouraging it as a means for piracy.
Complain, get active.. That's great. But dont exagerate or you wind up making a fool of yourself. If you want to write your congressperson or senator, do so with lucid well-thought arguments, not a bunch of "slippery slope" and hysterical dystopian visions of the future.. That, at most, gets chuckled at before crumpled and pitched into the can.
Re:hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the act's sponsor disagrees with you. Orrin Hatch claims [senate.gov] that users of Kazaa and eDonkey assume that because the program is from a corporation, then it's major use must be legal.
it bans the setup of networks explicitly for exchanging pirated materials..
No, it says nothing about networks or piracy. Sounds like you might be arguing from ignorance. Since the INDUCE Act is trivially short, I'll post the whole thing here:
So what it says is that "inducing copyright infringement" is now a form of copyright infringement itself, which is already illegal.
That's a nonsensical and moderately dangerous path: creating redundant laws. Copyright infringement is already illegal. Inducing a crime is also already illegal. Therefore INDUCE either has absolutely no effect and was a waste of Congressional time, or it means that inducement of infringement will be interpreted more loosely in the future.
Note that under this act, Bram Moolenar would've been guilty for the publication of the BitTorrent protocol, which by his own admission was intended to aid in copyright infringement (of Phish concert tapes, which are illegal to share, even though the band has no intention of ever enforcing).
The "Save The iPod" stuff is a stretch, but it'd be possible to prosecute Apple under this law too. All you'd have to do is show that iPod sales are somehow higher due to illegal copying. I bet a survey could be done showing that buyers of iPods often had pre-existing MP3 music collections, and that some of that came from copyright infringement.
Furthermore, and more realistically, freenet and similar anonymizing networks would become illegal. Anyone running a freenet node will be subject to arrest.
Get it direct from Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get it direct from Microsoft (Score:2)
"DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update."
'More appropriate'? Are they just talking about installing only the missing patches through Windows Update, or is there likely to be anything genuinely different about it?
I'm downloading from the link above anyway - I have family on dial-up and intend to burn this to CD and post it up. Still, interes
Congress versus BitTorrent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congress versus BitTorrent? (Score:2)
it seems to me enforcing a Bittorrent ban would be infinitely easier than enforcing a lot of things that are currently illegal. simply monitor networks for the protocol, grab the users IP address, get the address from the isp and break the door down and get to the PC before it can be turned off.
If ISPs 'had' to comply, and the resources were allotted, it would be a piece of cake to enforce.
You could even have an automated system - a GPS in the swat team van coupled with a network connection to a mas
Re:Congress versus BitTorrent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over 30 years of the War on Drug Users proves you wrong.
Kidding ourselves. (Score:2)
Re:Kidding ourselves. (Score:2)
Let's stop kidding ourselves on this subject. Stick to the porn, mp3's and warez!
It's downhillbattle (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, it's even worth you Linux users seeding the torrent. It'll mean your dsl connection gets less hammered with 0wn3d Windows boxes doing port scans.
Good on them - a lot of publicity for not much cash. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's downhillbattle (Score:2)
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Torrents are obviously useful. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I don't think corporate america will embrace it entirely until another major corporation uses it. I suspect that the revamp of Steam to use bittorrent like behavior might be a great example of a bad system being replaced with a good system. Though I'm sure a few people will be upset that their bandwidth is being used without their expressed permission. (The guy who made BitTorrent got hired by value to help them out.)
Either way, I think it's a bright future for us gamers. `8r) That is, assuming technology problems are treated as technology problems, rather than criminal problems. Just because someone can use a BetaMAX machine to copy a tape doesn't mean they will...
Re:Torrents are obviously useful. (Score:2)
So true. You might have seen that Debian 3.1 RC1 [slashdot.org] came out yesterday, and we have been offering full CD images -- via BitTorrent. I took the liberty of posting the torrents to Suprnova.org, of all places..
Just goes to show that most technologies are double-edged swords. I don't see how
Re:Torrents are obviously useful. (Score:2)
Banning P2P entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings me to the next reason I'm not too concerned with this bill. A reasonable person standard on something like this is highly subjective. There is no general public opinion upon which a consistent, long term reasonable person standard could be based. The SCOTUS will probably realize that and slap it down as unconstitutionally vague.
Seriously people, if ya'll want to really make the copyright cartels eat crow, go out and buy music from non-RIAA labels like Century Media. If you've never heard of Lacuna Coil, they're an Italian metal band that is getting really big thanks to a stint on Headbangers' Ball and touring with Ozzfest. They're damn good AND not RIAA affiliated according to the RIAA Radar site. Century Media has a lot of affiliates, and chances are that if you buy European or underground metal, it's not RIAA affiliated.
Don't pirate software or movies, at least not openly. If you're going to do movies, go to blockbuster, rent a new release, rip it, use dvd2one or dvdshrink and burn it to a DVD-R instead of fueling the propaganda about file sharing networks. Afterall, if rental rates increase, they have no excuse that people aren't using legitimate means to watch movies
Here's why it would be so subjective (Score:3, Interesting)
But what does a reasonable person now think about something as subjective as "inducing copyright violations?" To my
Oh, good thinking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note that:
1) I'm a Furthur.net user and understand that legal P2P exists.
2) I oppose restrictions on P2P and am perfectly happy to rely on the RIAA suing violators instead.
3) I understand that this is a patch, not Windows itself. (Although is this distribution within the rights of the EULA? I certainly hope they've made sure it is.)
But as PR, this seems like a really poor idea.
What's missing is authentication (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently there are all sorts of miscreants out there doing unspeakable acts to poor defenseless setup.exe files which will burn the end-user and turn them off to P2P.
If there existed a secure, integrated/easy way to verify that this XPSP2 fileset came from Microsoft without tampering (publishing MD5 sums is the antithesis to easy to normal users), I would click on the .torrent or whatever without hesitation.
The authentication would rely on the Public Key Infrastructure and have chains of trust that would go back to the CA's, just like we do with SSL certs.
I like "quotes"
Re:What's missing is authentication (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, digital signatures and hashes only verify that the content matches the original hash. It says nothing about whether or not the content was modified before a hash was made.
I just downloaded SP2 from MS... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I just downloaded SP2 from MS... (Score:2)
i regularly get >600k/s with bittorrent, fastest being 2mb/s
but not having forwarded ports limits the speed quite a bit.
Great, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine If... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not entirely legal p2p (Score:3, Interesting)
Download directly from Microsoft (link included) (Score:2)
Myself, I've downloaded it directly from Microsoft [microsoft.com]Yes, that link works for SP2- found it on Neowin.net earlier. Not sure why it's not being publicized yet.
We need to do this to help out Microsoft! (Score:2)
We all need to band together to help Microsoft. It'd be a shame and make us all suffer if they couldn't afford to pay their bandwidth bill and their ISP shut them down.
Legality aside.... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) I want to totally trust the source, no matter how evil it may be
b) I want it to go faster....
c) see above...
I know bittorret could be a real tool if more people used it etc but it still doesn't always hit 500k when I click on a bittorret file... while whenever I download from Microsoft, it does... (except for a few DDOS days)
Cool! (Score:2)
Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
I think inexpensive distributed file hosting is a great idea, and I think P2P networks are a great way to implement that. But, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, even if you're able to justify it to yourself.
US (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm.. (Score:3, Funny)
Help by not helping (Score:5, Interesting)
17 USC 106 tells us that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their works.
Downloading is reproduction. See MAI Systems v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993), Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999), and A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
Uploading is distribution. See A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
Does it matter that MS is letting people download this from MS for free? No. They, and they alone have the right to decide whether, by whom, when, where, and how, their works will be distributed or reproduced.
Does fair use apply? Almost certainly not. Three of the four factors are against it, and the fourth is basically a wash.
Does any other exemption in copyright law apply? No.
So basically this is a perfect example of P2P nets being used to break the law. And it also shows that many users (and many
Akamai (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that this in any way puts BitTorrent in a bad light: First of all, Akamai is a commercial system, and Microsoft pays a lot of money to use it. Akamai is itself a system that scales statically, by providing fixed caches located around the globe; it must be manually maintained in order to scale.
BitTorrent, on the other hand, is free, and is built on a pool of dynamic caches (ie., seeders), allowing it to scale indefinitely. BitTorrent's seeding system has weaknesses, but it's one of the best solutions so far.
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Informative? slight correction: (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM told its INTERNAL employee users to wait before updating.
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:2)
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around.
You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room.
IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they.
In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.
This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.
Re:I'll Do it anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is more IBM's fault than MS, I think. Betas and RC of SP2 have been out for quite some time, enough to evaluate and provide workarounds, if not total fixes.
Finally, if it does break stuff, why not bite the bullet ASAP, because you will have to someday.
Re:MD5 Handy? (Score:3, Informative)
59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7