BitTorrent Contributed To Network Decongestion

Erik Klinker, BitTorrent’s Chief Executive Officer, attended the Broadband World Forum that took place in France. As a result, he came with a new solution for an old problem of network congestion because of P2P. A new open-source technology called Micro Transport Protocol or xTP has already been introduced into the company’s application in order to increase the performance of network by decongesting it.

Most of the information flying around the web is transmitted through TCP, which works by breaking it down and later reassembling at the other end of the network link. However, Klinker explained that this method is obsolete, because TCP defines congestion based on lost packets. He compared the network congestion to driving a car through a school zone and only slowing down after having struck the first pedestrian.

As opposed to TCP protocol, the xTP technology would detect the network congestion on the early stage and try to fix it, because it was designed in the philosophy of yielding to traffic. BitTorrent promised that xTP will no longer be the cause of the web congestion thanks to new mechanisms. Mr. Klinker noted that if the company could somehow address the problem of network congestion, it would end up addressing the network cost issue. He also came with a prediction, saying that the worldwide web is going to evolve and develop in the direction of a multimedia network. What is it for the users? A lot more big files at the very least, and you can consider many other advantages.

BitTorrent CEO announced that the company will develop this new direction. BitTorrent has already begun to facilitate transferring large amounts of information from digital devices and gadgets, and it will do much more in the nearest future. Klinker promised that the industry will soon see the company rolling out software that would help liberate media from the above mentioned devices in order to share it easier with family and friends.

Many will agree with Erik Klinker that content doesn’t present any value until it is shared and seen. That’s where it becomes hard for today’s networks in the first place. While the devices at the edge of the network are rapidly increasing in capability, the today’s networks stay the same and are governed by the same old mechanisms.

CBS And CNET Sued For LimeWire Distribution

Alki David, the owner of FilmOn.com, has organized a coalition of music and movie artists claiming that CBS Interactive Inc., as well as CNET Networks, Inc., were the largest source for LimeWire and other peer-to-peer clients, which means that they are therefore responsible for the “mass-scale copyright violation” P2P clients are liable for.

FilmOn.com owner is now leading a coalition of artists in another class action lawsuit against CBS and CNET for massive copyright violation. The lawsuit was filed in LA federal court, claiming that CBS Interactive Inc. and CNET Networks, Inc. directly participate in massive copyright violation on peer-to-peer systems, committed through the now defunct LimeWire.

The lawsuit mentions that back in 2010 District Judge ruled that LimeWire had committed copyright violation, had been engaged in unfair competition, and even encouraged others to violate the law. In October 2010, the P2P application faced permanent injunction, as well as responsibility for billions of dollars in damages.

Alki David accused CBS Interactive and CNET of acting as the “major distributor” of LimeWire file-sharing client and of promoting other peer-to-peer systems in order to profit from massive copyright violation. The first allegations were made in December 2010, and then were followed by the announcement of the formation of a class action lawsuit in 2011. David admitted that he saw nothing illegal about file-sharing software, but did see illegal in distributing such applications in order to infringe on copyright. He also pointed at video clips featuring a number of CNET representatives (and “paid employees of CBS”) advocating the use of unauthorized DRM-circumvention software.

The lawsuit claims that CBS and CNET have been the largest source for such P2P clients as LimeWire and FrostWire, which makes them responsible for the infringement theses the clients are liable for. The plaintiffs complain that unauthorized file-sharing via LimeWire has led to huge damage to the entertainment community. Currently more and more creative content owners are reported to join the lawsuit in question, turning it into the most significant copyright violation case around that will make sure that such large corporations as CBS Interactive and CNET won’t profit from copyright infringement.

WikiLeaks Collected Data From P2P Networks

A company called Tiversa is engaged in providing “P2P Intelligence services”. It recently made an interesting report, revealing some examples in which information published on WikiLeaks appeared to first have been exposed by government employees that used file-sharing programs on PCs containing sensitive information.

It’s not the first time that the reports emerge, saying that classified data is being inadvertently available on file-sharing networks. The public has already seen Congress holding a number of hearings proclaiming the chances of a so-called “cyber Pearl Harbour.”

Usually it was suggested that the information has been sought by spies, or “bad actors”. However, no-one has ever considered that the information would be collected and leaked by individuals with good intentions.

According to Tiversa, it has collected evidence proving that the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks may have used some P2P clients to collect classified data. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks CEO, Robert Boback, announced that it is doing searches themselves on P2P networks, and that there would be no chance that somebody else from Sweden is issuing the same searches and finding the same type of data. WikiLeaks claimed that the accusations are entirely false, but the company is pointing at the list of coincidences.

For example, in 2009 Tiversa detected 4 Swedish PCs that have been searching for and downloading content on file-sharing networks. It turned out that their searches resulted in finding a computer of Department of Defence in Hawaii sharing some survey file of the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The file, of course, was downloaded, and, what is more interesting, posted later on WikiLeaks.

Robert Boback pointed out that there are not that many whistle-blower sites to get you many documents, but if you are getting those documents yourselves, such data is out there and available.

Another example provided by Tiversa is a spreadsheet listing potential terrorist targets in California, also published on WikiLeaks. The document detailing locations of caches of bomb-grade fertilizers and other sensitive information turned out to have been shared by a California state employee, again through some P2P program. Tiversa adds that it has more examples in which information published on WikiLeaks proved to be first exposed by government employees using file-sharing clients on PCs with sensitive information.

More File-Sharers Will Face Prison Like TPB Founders

Henrik Rasmusson, a senior public prosecutor of Sweden, believes that in case of more file-sharing lawsuits are filed to the courts, and the cases prove to be indeed a very serious problem for the entire society (like was reasoned in the case with the Svea Court of Appeal), convicted file-sharers will more often face a jail sentence.

After Sweden’s Svea Court of Appeal having reaffirmed the previous convictions of 3 of The Pirate Bay’s co-founders for the facilitation of copyright violation, a senior public prosecutor for the country Henrik Rasmusson came to conclusion that illegal file-sharers should be convicted to jail sentences more often.

As you might remember, the appeal of the TPB’s co-owners resulted in their conviction, with the court meting out the length of jail terms for them in accordance with their level of involvement in operating the world’s largest BitTorrent tracker The Pirate Bay. For example, Fredrik Neij received a 10 month jail time, while Peter Sunde got only 8 months prison sentence, and Carl Lundström faced 4 months conviction. As for the 4th co-founder of The Pirate Bay, Gottrid Svartholm Warg, he didn’t participate in the trial because of illness. Nevertheless, his individual case will be heard later, and he will most likely face prison time like his fellows.

Rasmusson said to press that the court made a huge step in the issue of illegal file-sharing when reasoned that such activity had become a very serious society problem. Consequently, future sentences will undoubtedly be impacted by this precedent. His logic is clear: if there are more cases of illicit file-sharing, the Swedish courts can start reasoning in the same manner as the Svea Court of Appeal that it represents a serious problem for the entire society, which will more often cause convictions to a prison time.

Meanwhile, the co-founders of The Pirate Bay don’t feel bad for the conviction, as it was decided from the very beginning that the case will move up to the Swedish Supreme Court, where it is highly expected to wind up. However, the hearing will not be scheduled in the near future, and the file-sharers accused of copyright infringement might already feel the effect of the TPB’s case.

Major BitTorrent Trackers Have Been Offline

It has been almost 2 weeks since two of the most popular online BitTorrent trackers, PublicBitTorrent and OpenBitTorrent, started going down. Considering the recent news of DDoS attacks at many BitTorrent tracker websites, the public feared that both this trackers became victims of such an assault. However, the cause is friendly fire now, though the largest trackers are really overloaded.

Both PublicBitTorrent and OpenBitTorrent are BitTorrent tracker sites of a non-commercial origin using Opentracker software. None of this services hosts or links to the .torrent files. Besides, the trackers are free to use by any BitTorrent user. The services are actually listed on the top of the most popular services, coordinating in common the downloads of twenty million users at any given time.

One of the services, OpenBitTorrent, though had a seemingly neutral setup, managed to get lots of legal troubles last year. The tracker faces legal issues from both movie and music industry that were fighting against what they understand an illicit service. Hollywood was the first to win the court case against the Internet service provider of the tracker. Then, after the tracker found a new one, IFPI traced it in Spain, thus forcing the service to move again.

With all this intensive history in mind, it wasn’t a surprise that many file-sharers were afraid of the worst when the tracker appeared to become unresponsive a few days ago. Nevertheless, this time the outages were not caused by legal issues. It turned out that the downtime is actually caused by a constantly increasing number of file-sharers. OpenBitTorrent’s servers are just overloaded and aren’t able to process all the requests. However, the operators ensured the users that the troubles will be dealt with in a few days.

At the same time when OpenBitTorrent faced the issue, another major BitTorrent tracker, PublicBitTorrent, also had to solve the problem of too many users in the network, with similar results. Over the last few days PublicBitTorrent has also been unresponsive for 50% of the time, because its servers were also overloaded. This proves only how vulnerable the BitTorrent tracker ecosystem can be. The tracker also ensured the users it’ll be all right in a few days.

Still, the good news is that most users can continue downloading, because torrents work fine relying on DHT and PEX.

New US Bill WIll Force ISPs Close Down Piracy Sites

The new proposed Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) may provide the Department of Justice with an accelerated process for blocking websites hosting unauthorized copyrighted content. It would include the ability to block the import into the country of products offered by online websites devoted to infringing activities.

Recently Senators announced they want to introduce a bill able to solve the growing problem of online piracy and counterfeiting. A group of Senators believe the proposed Bill would give the Department of Justice the instrument it needs for finding and closing down online sites dedicated to providing access to illegal downloads or sale of counterfeit goods and copyrighted material. The latter part is a cause for concern for many, as it refers to the very heart of non-commercial copyright violation in the Internet. In fact, unauthorized peer-to-peer and streaming online services are not like the websites that traffic in physical counterfeit goods, and therefore are not making any profit. The controversial issue of the commercial and non-commercial infringement is again discussed in connection with a new Bill, which ignores this distinction.

The tool the new Bill would give the Department of Justice in order to address the abovementioned trouble is quite heavy handed. Although the Department has always been able to block any domestic infringing sites, it would now be able to prosecute foreign sites as well, in its attempt to prevent the import into the country of goods sold by infringing websites in case it harms US copyright owners.

The new Act, if enforced, would provide courts with the power to force ISPs to block access to any sites hosting unauthorized material by American citizens. For rights owners like the RIAA and MPAA it would be pennies from heaven, and the RIAA has already expressed its happiness with the suggestion.

But the problem is that the sponsors of the proposal still believe that commercial and non-commercial violation is the same, while they definitely aren’t: one can see a big difference between sharing material to enjoy it for free and unfairly profiting from the stolen copyrighted works. Individual file-sharers never profit from file-sharing, so they two can’t be linked together. If the Bill is enforced, the chances are that the US will get a filtering system resembling one of China, which is not even funny.

RIAA Calling For Forcing ISPs To Fight P2P

President of the Recording Industry Association of America Cary Sherman said recently they were looking forward to the law formalizing the “voluntary” cooperation between rights owners and service providers to tackle unauthorized file-sharing. Moreover, they want such cooperation to extend to advertisers, payment processors, and search engines.

Another day, another announcement from the RIAA, keeping telling and doing the things more disturbing than ever before. For example, recently the RIAA President Cary Sherman told the public at a Technology Policy Institute forum held in Aspen, Colorado that the DMCA is completely failing rights owners. He insists that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act needs to be revised and include another provision allowing Internet service providers and others to filter the web of copyrighted content.

Cary Sherman said that day that the DMCA was not working for content people. All the infringements can’t be monitored on the Internet, because it’s just not possible. The music industry isn’t able to search all the locations containing infringing material, like cyberlockers, as it appears new every second.

That is the exact reality of the new digital world, but the RIAA would prefer to make another attempt to break the Internet to satisfy its own economic demands rather than to give it a try and figure out how to adapt to the new reality. Everyone understands there’s no way to completely stop the unauthorized transfer of copyrighted content short of information packet inspection.

The RIAA President highlights that they are looking for a “voluntary” cooperation with broadband providers, and even advertisers, search engines, and payment processors. They believe such co-operation would help stop unauthorized file-sharing. The only thing, he believes, they lack now is the law that would encourage this kind of cooperation, though not mandate it.

In fact, the story of the RIAA’s partnership with ISPs is not a long one, if any. Two years ago the outfit claimed to switch from its strategy of fighting individual file-sharers to cooperation with service providers to filter copyrighted content and disconnect repeat infringers (in other words, implement voluntary “three-strikes” regime. So far no ISPs have chosen to cooperate with the RIAA, and you can guess why. So why can’t the RIAA?

U2 Band Manager Accused ISPs Of Profiting From Piracy

Paul McGuiness, U2 band manager, believes that illegal file-sharing constitutes a part of a commercial agenda of large telecoms and technology industries, earning high money at the expense of right owners.

Paul McGuiness, a longtime band manager for U2, argues that Internet service providers are to be blamed for the damage unauthorized file-sharing has done to the record industry. In addition he claims that ISPs have been profiting over the years at the record industry’s expense.

McGuiness says that despite the fact that service providers introduce themselves as neutral bystanders, they have contributed much to the depreciation of music and all the consequences it caused to the music industry. What ISPs did wrong is that they failed to aggressively sanction unauthorized file-sharing users.

U2 band manager highlights that faster connection speeds, for which service providers normally increase subscription fees, are actually only developed for illegally downloading customers. He refuses to believe that users may want more bandwidth to speed up their e-mails, but increasing the speed of downloading illegal content sounds as a good reason.

He also says that free material is a part of commercial agenda of large technology firms and broadband providers that need more content to create demand for services they provide. To prove this Paul McGuiness points at the figures of the past decade. Profits derived from the Internet access (both fixed line and mobile) quadruplicated within the last 5 years, while record industry revenues fell twice.

His argument sound reasonable for a number of reasons. First of all, considering that the memory storage capacity of portable players like iPod is huge, expecting people to fill it with legally acquired music isn’t reasonable at all, as it may cost up to $16,000. Is McGuiness ready to spend that much money for filling the music player? Guess not. So that’s why people download the content illegally or share music with family and friends. Although the manufacturers, for example Apple, are aware of the situation, they keep increasing the memory storage capacity to charge users more.

Also the ISPs advertise faster connection speeds to charge users more as well, though most people need only surf the Internet and check email.

So he’s probably right when considering that companies won’t stop using illegal file-sharing to profit. Still, they only have to do that because of inability of rights owners to adapt to a new business model.