Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
from the pointless dept
There was quite a bit of chatter recently about a Torrentfreak article discussing an operation called "Pirate Pay," which was funded by Microsoft, and claimed it could track and shut down unauthorized works being transmitted via BitTorrent. The report claimed that Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures were already customers. The description of how it works is as follows:“We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every P2P client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real IP-addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other,” Andrei Klimenko says.John Pettitt, former VP of engineering at BitTorrent (who we've heard from before in a very different context related to software patents), noted in a mailing to Dave Farber's IP list that what Pirate Pay described didn't sound particularly effective or (more importantly) particularly legal.
Reading the article it sound like they are spoofing traffic to confuse torrent clients and force disconnects. It's not at all clear if this will work against all versions of the protocol (particularly the udp based version). Leaving aside the technical issues it's also unclear if such action is legal. It sounds like a targeted denial of service attack, a major corporation paying for such an attack leaves itself wide open to civil and criminal legal action particularly if they accidentally target the wrong torrent which given the history is highly likely.Anyone want to take a guess as to how long it will be until a major entertainment company issues one of these misguided attacks on the wrong torrent, leading to an effective denial of service against legitimate content?
One other thought on this. The company's name is "Pirate Pay," which I'm sure the Hollywood folks get a kick out of. However, it's worth asking the question: how much of this activity would actually get anyone to pay? We've noted in the past that the entertainment industry seems much more focused on "stopping piracy" than it is on "getting more people to pay." You can argue that the former leads to the latter but there's little evidence to suggest that's true. Yet there is tremendous evidence that offering compelling services without significant restrictions at a reasonable price does, in fact, get people to pay. It's a tragedy that the industry isn't doing nearly enough of that, but instead seems focused on these harebrained (and potentially illegal) schemes to attack people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bittorrent, john pettitt, p2p, piracy
Companies: pirate pay, sony pictures, walt disney studios
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Preliminary analysis suggests that it would not be difficult for a third party to redirect an attack launched by X intended for torrent A toward torrent B -- without X's knowledge. Emphasis "preliminary": a great deal more work needs to be done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now that was a sticky situation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, Microsoft has managed to twist the arms of various companies so that they sign patent extortion agreements. Examples would include: Tom Tom, HTC, Samsung, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and many others.
In fact, Microsoft claimed they make more money from each Android phone than from each Windows phone.
Sarcasm: this must surely mean that there is something there of substance to Microsoft's patent extortion license agreements of Linux devices.
Therefore, disrupting Linux torrents must be okay, somehow. Microsoft must just be protection unlicensed distribution of Linux which is covered by Microsoft patents.
(I'm going to be sick now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course they contribute code, they also rip off tons of open-source projects and take credit for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for the link, though. I especially liked the part about Microsoft contributing 20k lines of code for server virtualization, and after a few years of work, that part is down to 7k, and is now less buggy and supports more devices. Hadn't heard that one before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, but what kind of contributions are those? They are all drivers for the kernel to be used as a guest system in MS's Hyper-V. The code even fell out of the kernel development once because it was very buggy and after they put it in noone from MS maintained it.
Yes, Microsoft contributes code to the Linux kernel. But nothing useful. Only to keep companies who are switching to Linux as a VM to use Hyper-V (and thereby Windows) as a host.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easily blocked...
Once these "bad peers" are detected, and added to one of the popular peer-blocking lists, their effectiveness would immediately drop substantially.
All this will do is force more people to use peer-blocking programs - and I suspect all the major torrent clients will eventually include such functionality if they don't already.
Yet more cat and mouse antics - and someone is there to gobble up the money from the corporations who believe this shit actually works (the same who spend millions on DRM schemes that fail quickly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily blocked...
The most popular torrent clients all have peer-blocking capabilities built in, if not turned on by default. These include:
uTorrent
Transmission (comes default with Ubuntu and variants)
Deluge
Azureus, and Vuze.
There are other security features available in bittorrent as well, such as using encryption, and blocking peers dynamically when they send too many bad packets.
Finally, there are also pseudonymous file sharing services like anomos, and others that can guarantee at the very least, plausible deniability.
Any attempt to try and destroy filesharing is bound to fail. People HATE being censored, and that is what blocking the transfer of ANY information is.
Even if society is willing to tolerate low levels of censorship, there will always be those who can't stand it.
"Like a splinter in their mind" as stated in The Matrix (fair use goddamnit, I can quote small passages without anyone's permission)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easily blocked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easily blocked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily blocked...
As I gather, it involves spoofing IP addresses.
In that case, peer blocking is something that would have totally the opposite effect, it would assist the attack.
For example, nodes A and B are sending one another data. This makes them peers. Node C, sends fraudulent data to B while pretending to be A. B blocks A.
Node C never reveals its IP address. You can't add it to any kind of a blacklist.
That doesn't mean that there aren't ways to defend against the attack. I get the impression that an individual packet analysis hasn't yet been conducted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you talking about? It got Disney and Sony to pay.
And the amount Disney and Sony are paying is most likely less than what they think they are losing by allowing Piracy to run rampant. So they CBA checks out.
This is one of those win/win situations everyone loves, right?
Except for the part of it not stopping piracy, not offering the consumer anything, costing legacy players more money in a futile attempt to change reality and potentially screwing innocent users - I don't see anything wrong with this plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just don't complain when pissed off pirates DDoS microsoft.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When has Sony ever shied away from illegal? They certainly don't have problems with pushing out backdoors and using fraud to get their DRM installed on their customer's computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Replace "President" with "Microsoft", and it's still the same old pile of horse manure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again, assuming they don't inevitably cry foul when the same denial of service is done to a service like Windows Update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean Windows Downgrade? Taking that out would be something like a public service, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(I dislike ddos attacks too, but it's pretty easy to spot where they'll happen now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still don't get it.
They won't get anyone to magically switch to "legal" methods of acquiring material. That isn't their goal anyhow, this tool won't even target movies or music from major labels, it will target the competition, the indies.
In the words of Sam Kinison on It's a Bundyful Life "No, much like a neutered dog... you don't get it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still don't get it.
> methods of acquiring material.
If talking about movies, what legal methods could you mean?
Going to the theater?
Eventually someday buying a DVD?
Or eventually being forced to buy Bluray instead of DVD?
Maybe someday it is on TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I for one am becoming less willing to pay
I am not currently a pirate. But the more difficult the industry makes it to get content, consume content, pay a reasonable price for content, the more and more likely I am to become a pirate. Putting in DRM, anti-piracy notices, region restrictions, etc is causing me to think more and more of getting my content elsewhere so that I can consume it when, where and how I want to not when, where and how the industry wants me to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
I don't believe I am currently a pirate.
FTFY
Most likely by the definition of Pirates by the MAFIAA, you are, and just dont realize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
This is most likely true. Would you recommend I go ahead and just make it official?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
Support & Buy INDIE !
Frak Off MS............we already know who you are and what you are about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
Which is also the most cheapest way of doing things, on the consumers side that is.
On the corporates end, not so much!
Hence the resistence, cant buy a single media once, and then being able to use it on ALL my media devices, can i ....oh no, i gotta pay for the exact same media, again, for all my devices i decide to consume said media on
Its good to be greedy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I for one am becoming less willing to pay
You got your
Walled gardens
Proprierty cables
Proprierty video codecs
Exclusive rights to resources necassary for companies to stay competitive with one another such as popular, hence profitable, music, tv shows, movies, ebooks, games, "gadgets" etc etc
and my all time favorite, greed, negotiating to store, sell, host, produce, advertise, represent etc etc, is gonna be a pain in the butt, if the person selling is trying to butt rape you at the same time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There need to be serious statutory penalties
What's sauce for the goose, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There need to be serious statutory penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
The hypocrisy would be pathetic if it weren't already so typical it's even expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
Poetry at its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Madonna swears at music pirates - 22 April, 2003
Popstar Madonna is known as a woman who does not mince her words.
She has used her forthright manner to try to stop online piracy of her latest album, American Life.
File-sharing networks have been flooded with fake tracks, which contain no music but instead have Madonna saying; "What the f*** do you think you are doing?"
But despite efforts to stop unauthorised copies appearing on the net before its release, the album was readily available for download on several MP3 websites last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stewie
you feel better now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It would be easy to write a program that made minor modifications to file bits and titles and kept uploading files via Tor. Before long the poisoned files would vastly outnumber the real ones. It would take pirates many manual hours to identify the poisoned files and take them down. Meanwhile they will have proliferated to other seeds. You can't fight automated with manual, no matter how many ways you paraphrase John Gilmore.
The AAholes can do this legally (or at least as legally as their opponents) and I would support it if that would mean they would get off their imperial control trips and stop attacking liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you not aware that this has already been tried and that it was a miserable failure?
If it were that easy to disrupt P2P networks, they wouldn't be nearly so useful. But it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AHAHAHAHA, yeah, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This briefly worked back when Morpheus/Kazaa/Limewire were the main sources. Two things happened: they started to implement peer based ratings, then the copyright holders killed those networks off (kinda). Pirates moved on to the next platforms, and now anyone who regularly uses torrents knows to pay attention to the ratings and comments which fill up quickly with "Fake" for that stuff.
You can't fight automated with manual
Tell that to China, with their near inexhaustible supply of cheap labor. Tell that to the spammers who blow through CAPTCHAs with ease by using humans en masse who think they're doing something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it's been tried before, a couple of years ago, and it didn't work. they were fake torrents uploaded by no-name accounts. even though they had thousands of seeds, the comments were jammed by warnings that they were fakes. within a day or two the bad torrents just fell off the vine.
release groups have reputations to maintain and they take it very seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you mean it hasn't already been done? surprising. since when have any of the entertainment industries worried about whether what they are doing is legal or not?
such a shame that even though they keep saying how many more legitimate sites there are, how many more legitimate options there are for downloading music and movies, not once has there been any admission that the prices being too high, the formats being what they want and not what the customers want, the speed being too slow, the availability being too spasmodic worldwide and the constant presence of crippling DRM is keeping people from buying from those legal options. they want people to buy. people are prepared to buy but it has to be what the people want, not what the industries want or think customers want. they have tried that approach and failed miserably. move on!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, they wrote the laws and paid to have them put on the books, so they probably feel that they legitimately have the right to do whatever they want to "protect" their interests, including disrupt pathetic legitimate torrents from creators too bad at business to understand how to properly "monetize" their creations.
I wish I were being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would find it hilarious if they could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well this is stupid.
As for the 'revolutionary' product they are selling; well, unless you're a bot, this won't stop even the stupidest of pirates. We have this thing called checksum now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a brilliant idea that will absolutely work!!!
At worst, a month until some more resilient protocol emerges.
In the meantime, have fun DDoS'ing legitimate bittorrent users (e.g. Blizzard) and getting their legal attack teams all frothy.
*golfclap* for MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a brilliant idea that will absolutely work!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a brilliant idea that will absolutely work!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microbloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Microbloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But something tells me nobody from Microsoft will be facing 15 years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No More TV For Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stock major entertainment company answer
All torrents are infringing.
(Summarized from previous statements.)
Based on that, they will not care what traffic gets blocked.
End of debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's funny Masnick. When your heroes at Anonymous are DDoSing the Library of Congress, The White House, etc it's a digital sit-in. However when companies do it to protect their own intellectual property, it "might break the law".
Your obsession keeps making you nuttier and nuttier. You should pirate a copy of "The Caine Mutiny" to see how you end up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one takes any voice contrary to the Techdirt narrative seriously. It's simply laughable to suggest otherwise. For the record, you too are as full of shit as Masnick. The companies have a legitimate grievance in that their copyrighted intellectual property is being distributed in this manner. And for the record, fuck Anonymous for being the bunch of dumb asses that they are. When CISPA passes, they should get the credit. The stupid fucks swam right into the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The 'companies' - only care about their profits.
Exactly the same, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I told you to stop playing in the middle of the street because you'll get hit by a car in a kind manner you'd probably listen. If I swear at you, call you a bleeping moron, insult your mother and tell you to move your fat@ss, you're probably going to laugh, swear back at me, and keep doing what you're doing until someone runs you over with their truck.
I don't always agree with what Mike and Techdirt's views on everything, just most of the time. I've also seen some really good opposing views from some people, but it was framed in a respectful tone with evidence and support.
Name calling usually ends up with more name calling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And now that we've come to the realization of what your problem is and what effect it's having on you, what are we going to do about it? Perhaps stop visiting the site written by the Lord High Pirate Apologist and frequented by his Socialist Minions who reign praise on him daily? Seriously, you don't like it, get lost. You come off as having a huge hard on for Mike in general, in a "Mike get a restraining order from EVERYONE who resides at the address where this loon's IP address is coming from" kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's funny Masnick. When your heroes at Anonymous are DDoSing the Library of Congress, The White House, etc it's a digital sit-in. However when companies do it to protect their own intellectual property, it "might break the law".
Your obsession keeps making you nuttier and nuttier. You should pirate a copy of "The Caine Mutiny" to see how you end up."
That one stank of desperation, try again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
That's funny Masnick. When your heroes at Anonymous are DDoSing the Library of Congress, The White House, etc it's a digital sit-in. However when companies do it to protect their own intellectual property, it "might break the law".
In other words.
Anonymous coward who is Anonymous states that he/her/it has committed an illegal offence Anonymously.
Please take yourself to the nearest LEO station and submit yourself for re-education or a new brain.. both are most likely needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also Anonymous do NOT all come from 4chan's /b/ you might be intrigued where some of them actually hail from and who they actually are. I'm not talking about the script kiddies or those with the ability to download DDOS utils. I'm talking about the multitude of individuals who have been working with, for and via the internet (and before) who are fed up to the eyeballs with the hypocrisy that is the bureaucratic and corporate controlled feudalism we find ourselves in.
As I have stated before[...]Anonymous is everything anyone wants it to be and everything you don't.
It's an IDEA not a group, its a meme not a gathering, its a conceptual take on the original virtuality and Plato's shadows.
Or it's none of the above. Though it could just be that person sitting across from you, that person you see fleetingly everyday and give a nod too, or that person who stares back at you in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does bother me is the potential for accidentally or deliberately blocking a legitimate peer offering legitimate content. Microsoft are funding this thing. Microsoft are currently trying to kill the competition. Linux is part of that competition and many Linux distros use torrents.
And then there's Hollywood whom it seems regularly asserts copyright on content it has no right to if bogus take down notices are anything to go by.
And if you can block a torrent peer, surely it's not a huge leap to start blocking other content.
Given the potential for abuse I think this sort of thing should be illegal if it isn't already. The law exists to deal with criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait a sec...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The difference between 'no judge order needed to shut down a service/site', and 'judge order needed, but both sides aren't equally represented or able to affect the case' are negligible at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, no. Just no. You do not respond to one person's act of breaking the law by breaking the law yourself. If nothing else, that just paints the person breaking the law in retaliation as a, oh, what's that word... ah yes, it's hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A Denial of Service attack on a communications service is a CRIMINAL offence and therefore absolutely breaking the law
They are not the same. One is a civil offence (and only in certain circumstances can be considered criminal and only if for commercial purposes) the other is definitely criminal at all times and can also be classified as a terrorist action or even "act of war".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A Denial of Service attack on a communications service is a CRIMINAL offence and therefore absolutely breaking the law
They are not the same. One is a civil offence (and only in certain circumstances can be considered criminal and only if for commercial purposes) the other is definitely criminal at all times and can also be classified as a terrorist action or even "act of war".
The rest of your comment is perfect though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What difference will it make? Everyone knows that the entertainment industry gets a free pass, since they're the ones calling the shots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Nerdwars ensues....
Corporate a55h0le nerds vs heroic pirate innovation nerds....
LET THE BATTLE COMMENCE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctrine of Unclean Hands may apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I heard that Bill sent out a worldwide notification that he wanted to return half his personal profits to customers who had had troubles with his software and EVERYONE wrote him back, saying, "No, we'd rather you go around the world giving it away while promoting vaccines and Monsanto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]