BitTorrent Bullies: BitTyrant and BitThief
Impatience doesn't get you anywhere. It causes stress and frustration and it usually gives everyone around you the impression that you're a total jerk. And as these two new P2P clients demonstrate, impatience also has the potential to ruin BitTorrent.
Yesterday, TorrentFreak alerted us to a new BitTorrent client with a "selfish" anti-social streak. BitTyrant, a project of the University of Washington's computer science department, is based on the code for Azureus 2.5. So, it's a cross-platform Java application -- that's good. What makes BitTyrant bad is that prioritizes your upload connections, favoring the peers that provide the best download speeds. You end up sharing more of the torrent with only the peers that give you the biggest chunks. The slower peers that aren't giving you as much data are choked and relegated to the bottom of the list.
This velvet rope approach improves the client's download performance, and it probably doesn't do a lot to harm the distribution of a fileset within a massive swarm. But BitTyrant still rotten bananas, especially if people start to use it in large numbers.
Now there's BitThief, which is straight-up nefarious and wrong -- the client downloads torrents without uploading. TorrentFreak tells us how it works:
[BitThief] constantly pretends to be a newly arrived peer that doesn't have anything to offer itself. Additionally, the client re-announces itself many times during the start of the download, and it ignores the 30 minute announce interval.
According to TorrentFreak's Ernesto, who tells me he has tested the client first-hand, BitThief (a Swiss project, go figure) does what it promises by clocking higher download speeds on large swarms. On regular swarms, it performs about the same as any other client. But it also opens 500 simultaneous connections (compared to the Mainline client's default 80) so it hoses your router almost instantly.
These clients go against the fundamental purpose of BitTorrent: efficiently distributing files to a large number of peers at once.
But BitThief is total jerkware. Downloading without uploading? Seriously, what's the point? So you have to wait 20 minutes to download a file instead of 15 -- big deal. What's the rush? Is the world going to end if you don't get that Lost episode before everyone else?
I'm with Ernesto -- I hope these clients get banned on every tracker in the universe.
Posted by: Faiz | Jan 4, 2007 1:02:52 PM
All networked games are designed to be easy on the bandwidth, so that's not an issue as long as you throttle your upload and download rates (latency, QoS are important, and BitThief "hosing your router" probably hurts this more).
I also don't think that having a limited quota is a justified reason to lie, cheat, and steal from the other peers in your network; again, just throttle your upload. I don't know what your quota is, but a couple GB of upload a month is plenty for 99% of users, and since BT users fall into that last 1% that uses more, the telcos expect us to pay more to make up for it.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 4, 2007 1:51:43 PM
You get in a twist about "BitThief", but you say "Is the world going to end if you don't get that Lost episode before everyone else?". I take it you are referring to all of those LEGAL episodes of Lost that are out there in the BitTorrent network? Otherwise, downloading it IS theft - even if you do upload it too! Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it.
Posted by: Richard Trevors | Jan 4, 2007 2:43:46 PM
this might hurt the bit torrent world in the long run if all the leechers start using this instead of bitlord and similar clients... but then again their have been hacks around for a long time to stop uploading so i really cant see this hurting the network much, even if it starts to the clients will just get banned straight away by trackers with any sense.
www.snarf-it.org - The future of bit torrent indexing sites
Posted by: bob | Jan 4, 2007 2:51:37 PM
"Otherwise, downloading it IS theft - even if you do upload it too! Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
Ohhh those poor multi billion dollar studios. God forbid we steal some more of their incredibly lousy product.
If they put out something worth purchasing, it gets purchased.
Posted by: DBR | Jan 4, 2007 2:52:38 PM
BitTyrant doesn't seem all that bad. In fact it seems like a perfect response to BitThief.
Posted by: John | Jan 4, 2007 3:00:09 PM
Just use private trackers, that require a certain ratio to stay in good standing.
Posted by: BlackCat supporter | Jan 4, 2007 3:02:30 PM
"Ohhh those poor multi billion dollar studios. God forbid we steal some more of their incredibly lousy product."
Well, you can say that, the problem is when a LOT of people begins to think the same jerky way.... and maybe U don't know, but there's a LOT of people using P2P clients.
Posted by: UbuntuFreak | Jan 4, 2007 3:07:25 PM
"Otherwise, downloading it IS theft - even if you do upload it too! Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
"Downloading" is "downloading"; not "theft".
Downloading copyrighted material is a possible copyright infringement; not "theft".
Encouraging efficient distribution of large data sets is not the same as encouraging copyright infringement. The Internet provides a unique opportunity for rapid, efficient distribution of large files. For example, if the media conglomerates got a clue they would be using torrent-like mechanisms to offer HD trailers or even encrypted/watermarked movies.
Defeating the anti-selfishness measures does no one any favours. For example, the media companies wouldn't benefit from the clever thinking of torrent software developers (who have basically done all the dev for free!) *or* the bandwidth uploaders (who are taking the load from the media companies).
In the meantime those of us who are disgusted at the 20 minutes of commercials in a cable TV show (for which I am paying a monthly subscription) will continue downloading episodes to watch on our own time, in our own way. The Internet is my Tivo.
Posted by: Johnny Mnemonic | Jan 4, 2007 3:09:47 PM
"I take it you are referring to all of those LEGAL episodes of Lost that are out there in the BitTorrent network?"
I still don't understand how you could have an illegal episode of Lost. Don't they already give it to you for free on their website and on TV?
Posted by: Jeremy | Jan 4, 2007 3:14:47 PM
"I still don't understand how you could have an illegal episode of Lost. Don't they already give it to you for free on their website and on TV?"
Those are all streaming forms of media, but if you want to have a high quality copy of the episode that you can watch at your convenience, then you have to pay. Or get Tivo.
Posted by: JerryJackson | Jan 4, 2007 4:00:00 PM
"I still don't understand how you could have an illegal episode of Lost. Don't they already give it to you for free on their website and on TV?"
The real issue here is that old laws are not valid anymore. We can record shows that are broadcast. No one disputes this. What is the difference if the recording device is in another location than where it is played? That's like two VCRs in your house. Obviously doing this over the Internet is not the intent, but it is also not explicitly illegal. Either way, the problems are this: old laws based on old technologies, and the times have changed and we need to adapt, and by we I also mean the big media companies. The big media companies have made the majority of their money not on creating the art, but in distribution. That's why they are *claiming* huge losses due to illegal downloading on the Internet. When in reality they are waging war on the Internet through our policy makers because it threatens their cash cow portion of their industry.
Times change, and some industries go away because they are no longer relevant. The big media companies need to learn this and embrace it, or they will be replaced by someone that is willing to embrace new technology.
Posted by: The Dude | Jan 4, 2007 4:04:42 PM
People are allways going to want more speed even if
these services are banned another one will pop up this is the world we live in.I myself like the idea of getting more
speed If your faster but thats why i used irc bittorrent is slow either way you look @it.
Posted by: weap0nkil | Jan 4, 2007 4:18:56 PM
"Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
I think that's precisely WHY it should be encouraged.
Posted by: Jeb Ebben | Jan 4, 2007 4:36:09 PM
Michael,
The manner of your condemnation of BitTyrant implies ignorance on your part. Just because there is the word "selfish" in its algorithm description does not mean that BitTyrant is bad for networks. BitTyrant is selfish in the sense that it doesn't allow other clients to take advantage of it. This means that the clients that currently get bilked (high capacity clients) don't get taken advantage of.
In real world contexts, selfish algorithms are almost always better than any other kind. In real world contexts, each entity only has partial information about state of the system within which it is operating.
Given that each node only knows about itself and some of its peers, it makes sense for each node to try to maximise it's efficiency with what it knows. If a node doesn't look after itself, who will? The node on the other side of the swarm that doesn't know anything about it?
Now it may remain that BitTyrant doesn't use a selfish algorithm that is the best possible, but that is simply a reason for further research. One thing that is clear is that the current version is arguably fairer than other clients, and this will necessarily negatively impact the clients that were taking advantage of the current pervasive lack of fairness.
So, please don't get confused by the word "selfish" before calling for the banning of BitTyrant.
-Ray
(Who has no association with the BitTyrant people at all)
Posted by: Ray Heasman | Jan 4, 2007 4:50:33 PM
well, i've thought about the effects of not having a 1:1 dl/ul ratio. there are a large portion of people, myself included, who do have such a ratio. this lies mostly in the fact of have a 128kbit upstream. were i to have symmetrical transfer rates i would certainly have a 1:1 ratio. this, in turn, is why i have pondered this often. however, with the current trends of upstream/downstream ratios spread among the populace torrent life is not overly affected. this mainly is due to the fact that not everyone merely maintains an even ratio. for every torrent you have multiple people who maintain a ratio skewed to the upload side which counter acts the people who have a ratio skewed to the download side. torrents, by their very nature cannot have an indefinite time life. all torrents have a limited amount of seeding time regardless if what the content is. torrents that go down prematurely inevitably go back up or by request get reseeded. therefore you cannot say that people abusing the "torrent ethic" are negatively affecting the torrent life themselves.
this does not excuse clients like bittyrant. however, i have noticed even with azureus, no matter what i do to the cap on my upstream, left untouched my downstream isn't affected.
Posted by: bluebonics | Jan 4, 2007 4:54:00 PM
>> Piracy is destroying the music and film
>> industry, let's not encourage it.
>
> I think that's precisely WHY it should
> be encouraged.
Here, here!
Posted by: TitByrant | Jan 4, 2007 4:57:30 PM
That is completely capitalist. Give the highest priority to those able to upload fastest. It is discriminatory against those with slower connections, does not give an unbelievable boost in speed, and totally undermines the basic principle of bittorrent.
Peers of the world, unite against BitJerks.
Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 4, 2007 4:59:13 PM
Ray Heasman,
actually... the concept of bittyrant is selfish in regards to the concept of torrents. the fundamental principle that drives the torrent "culture" (so to speak) is the 1:1 ratio. you give what you take therefore allowing anyone who wants to actually receive. granted, as the ratio can skew to the download side so can it skew to the upload side, which is what i addressed in my post above. however, the "selfish" algorithm is still detrimental overall to the torrent concept. in fact, on a server that hosts torrents that is correctly optimized, you do, in fact, download equally to your uploading. that is the inherent problem with clients such as bittyrant. in summation, your idea that "selfish" algorithms are inherently the best is severely flawed from the basic principle concept of the torrent culture.
Posted by: bluebonics | Jan 4, 2007 4:59:30 PM
Hey. Richard Trevors.
SHUT THE FCK UP.
Destroying the music industry? WTFE. Obviously you haven't been reading the news for the last 6 years since the whole Napster issue.
It's HELPING it. They just don't want to admit it because they're GREEDY MOTHER F'ERS who feel that they just AREN'T rich enough, don't send their kids to the BEST private schools in the country and drive that most gas-guzzling, greenhouse-gas-emitting SUV on the market.
Yeah. THEY need SO much more money.
Again...
SHUT
YOUR
MOUTH.
IDIOT.
Posted by: Cyryl | Jan 4, 2007 5:08:42 PM
I think Cyryl said it best.
On the other hand, I find it hilarious that people who download copyrighted materials, sich as lost, from the internet feel they are getting their bandwidth ripped off, and have the gaul to complain about it.
I'd use one of those clients just to let the MPAA lawsuit get somebody else, who was uploading... that is, if I p2p'd at all.
Posted by: Afreyt | Jan 4, 2007 5:14:13 PM
"God forbid we steal some more of their incredibly lousy product...if they put out something worth purchasing, it gets purchased."
If it's so lousy it's not worth purchasing, why do you want to download it at all? And who gave you the authority over how much you have to pay for other peoples' work?
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. However, that doesn't make it morally permissible. If you don't support their product or their approach to commerce, feel free to boycott. But only hypocrites would boycott McDonalds when they have a Big Mac in their hands, whether they paid for it or not.
As for BitTyrant and BitThief... the former seems like a good thing for the health of the system, as long as it offers fair prioritizations. I'm just speculating, but it seems like it would be beneficial to distribute content as quickly as possible to the nodes that can, in turn, spread it quickly themselves. The low prioritization of dial-up users, for example, would be offset by there being more available nodes with the data they want. In practice, though, this might get hosed by people who stop sharing as soon as they get the file, but it might not. IANA Network Theorist.
BitThief breaks the system and is antisocial, but I can see why it exists. It's not so you can get that "Lost" episode five minutes faster... it's so you can legally deny being a *distributor* of copyrighted or illicit material. This is important for the same reason that it's better to be caught using marijuana than dealing it. And the solution won't be banning those clients, because they can always just add a feature where they "pretend" to be Azureus or another "sociable" client, as long as the protocol technically supports their behavior. The real solution will be to rework the protocol to make it technically impossible to repeatedly pretend to be a new, unseeded peer.
Posted by: Boing | Jan 4, 2007 5:34:32 PM
Posted by Richard Trevors : "Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
--
I don't encourage any kind of piracy, but, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Posted by: Josh | Jan 4, 2007 5:52:40 PM
I think a lot of people here are commenting without actually understanding how BitTyrant differs from traditional BitTorrent clients. The simple explanation is that BitTyrant will try to allocate more of your upstream bandwidth towards the clients which are giving you the most bandwidth in return. What this means is that the clients on a torrent with the highest upload capacity are going get the torrent completed first. To some of you this may seem like a "velvet rope" scenario when in fact that isn't necessarily the case, and that certainly isn't the point of BitTyrant. Although more research needs to be done on the subject (I mean it was only JUST released, people), the idea is that the clients with the highest upload capacity will finish the torrent first. This means that the torrent gains very high capacity *seeders* as fast as possible, which allows them to use their high upload bandwidth to distribute the entire torrent to EVERYONE more quickly. Once you are a seeder, the upload capacity of your peers becomes completely irrelevant. The more seeders, and the higher capacity of those seeders, the faster the torrent will be for everyone. BitTorrent is all about efficient distribution, and there is a good chance that this minor change in the algorithm will get incorporated into the official BitTorrent spec if it actually achieves its intended purpose: getting a large file to the most people as quickly as possible.
Posted by: aethr | Jan 4, 2007 5:55:31 PM
If a private tracker wants to ban a certain client, they will. I think it's great different clients are coming out.
Posted by: BitDude | Jan 4, 2007 6:11:22 PM
so what you're all saying is that since the music industry takes all of the money for itself and gives the artist some piddly shit like 12 cents a cd thats okay, but us "stealing" the music, enjoying it, and then going to a show and buying stuff straight from the artist, as well as paying directly for the show, no label involved is wrong? sounds like a crock of shit to me....and i'm a musician...
Posted by: jeremy | Jan 4, 2007 6:33:37 PM
bluebonics,
You do not seem to realise that BitTyrant is a small step TOWARDS guaranteeing 1:1 ul/dl ratios. BitTyrant is "selfish" in that it doesn't like leechers. BitTyrant still uses all of your upload capacity; it just allocates it differently. I repeat, BitTyrant clients still upload as much data as other clients, they just distribute it differently.
You are arguing FOR BitTyrant. Try reading the paper on the BitTyrant website, instead of jumping to conclusions because of the word "selfish".
-Ray
Posted by: Ray | Jan 4, 2007 6:36:58 PM
yep. that got me thinking, the perfect metaphor w/ mcds and a big mac in hand. tho i think the bigger issue that we should speak to, really, isn't this silly hoo-haw and yip-yap about piracy vs. flow o' info, or what is theft vs. what is just sharing 1's and 0's, vs. this client or that or flim flam mamba-jamba. it's relaly the mcdonalds metaphor. because when you all really wise up and get past axioms and set ways of thinking and let your energy shift into a waveform rather than sitting in stagnant points, you'll realize that we should all just eatpeople. and drop the cliches. dot com. doo doo. dit dit dit.
Posted by: mogar | Jan 4, 2007 6:40:33 PM
Is anyone else sick of the clumsy, inept analogys people are making with regard to filesharing?
"This is important for the same reason that it's better to be caught using marijuana than dealing it"
This one is a classic. It could almost be up there with the idea that downloading is, indeed, theft -which is broadly defined as the fraudulent taking of property belonging to another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. I would compare downloading content more closely with counterfeiting. But again, this analagy is woefully inept since counterfeiting would require that the duplicate is being passed off as an original.
Clearly, our present definition of copyright infringement is not very well understood by the wider public. But a much better question is this: why on earth are people debating the ills of copyright 'theft' when the article in question is about 'selfish' bit-torrent clients?
Posted by: Liam | Jan 4, 2007 6:54:56 PM
Richard Trevors: Your a cock. They are not losing money and if you paid any attention to the facts and not to the bullshit spouted from the MPAA and others then you would know that.
Posted by: Paul` | Jan 4, 2007 7:27:51 PM
Andrew said:
"also don't think that having a limited quota is a justified reason to lie, cheat, and steal from the other peers in your network"
OMFG!! Did you really just say that? Everyone knows that 99% of non-Linux related torrents are pirated software, movies and music.
Posted by: Nick Fotopoulos | Jan 4, 2007 7:28:50 PM
I don't see it as dangerous at all to the industry. Maybe even beneficial. I have all of Futurama on HDD but still watch it religiously on Adult Swim every night (sucking in all of their subliminal marketing venom during the commercials). And because I had Metalocalypse on HDD, over the holidays, I turned my visiting brother and his wife on to the show and now they are watching it on the TV.
File sharing sure didn't hurt the industry in this case.
Posted by: Tennessee Mike | Jan 4, 2007 7:39:49 PM
God forbid I do something that someone else doesn't like! Heh heh. All I've read all the way down this page is "I'm a hypocrite!", "Me too but you're wrong!". Like Nick said pretty much everything you are all downloading is stuff you should be paying for initially. So if I decide to "take advantage" or "be smart" depending on your perspective then you're pretty much wasting your breath telling me I'm a wrong doer.
BTW... you think i'm a supporter of Bittyrant and Bitthief? Heh, wrong. :)
Posted by: In Awe | Jan 4, 2007 8:38:24 PM
BitTyrants and BitThiefs; the haves and have-nots of the new bit based economies.
It is quite interesting how an idealistic approach advocating equality and sharing degenerates into sides trying to take advantage of each other once the system grows big enough.
And it makes no difference whether it is global politics or data distribution networks :)
Posted by: Mert Torun | Jan 5, 2007 1:48:41 AM
I'm not sure what was inept about my analogy. Perhaps you're imagining it as mere simile; thinking that I'm saying "copyright infringement is like drug use," as your counterfeiting counterexample would seem to indicate.
Let me be clear, then. Mine was an analogy in the SAT sense, a comparison between relationships. A:B::C:D and whatnot.
Distributing copyrighted works is to downloading copyrighted works,
as,
Distributing illegal drugs is to consuming illegal drugs.
...which I don't think is clumsy or inept at all. It's also, sadly, not very illuminating. I simply used it to clarify the larger point I was making (why people would prefer an uploadless BT client) -- a point you neglected to address on its own merits.
Posted by: Boing | Jan 5, 2007 2:04:47 AM
The idiot who wrote this just doesn't understand bittorrent. BitTyrant is a great program, it is much more fair than the the regular client. It is simply more strict about the bittorrent tit-for-tat strategy. It ensures that those who upload get a maximal return.
Posted by: Eirik | Jan 5, 2007 2:19:08 AM
Piracy isn't killing the record and film industries at all (that's just pro-gouging propaganda); the first time I see Jack Valenti in a bread line I'll feel bad but 'til then.....
Posted by: Anthony Ponzio | Jan 5, 2007 2:19:37 AM
"Otherwise, downloading it IS theft - even if you do upload it too! Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
Every year I've contacted the RIAA and MPAA naming sample music/tv/film downloads and asking who I owe what royalties to. I have never received a reply. I want, and have, uncrippled versions that I don't have to replace when I change my computer or go on the road and have offered to pay for them. They just won't accept my money or tell me who it should go to!
I did manage to clear up the royalties for one track though - I bought the lead guitarist a drink which was much more than the 12 cents he would have got from the record company!
Posted by: Mike | Jan 5, 2007 2:24:23 AM
I think you're doing more harm than good making an article about BitThief, but maybe that's just me..
Posted by: xr0 | Jan 5, 2007 3:21:10 AM
basically stop cryin about bittorrent bittyrant bitbotherd or whatever. Sign up to giganews and get youself a newsreader. Takes peers out of the question. much faster more reliable. any you can be as selfish with you like hahahahaha
Posted by: Tcnarss | Jan 5, 2007 3:59:32 AM
Isn't it ironic that these apps are the result of the same anti-social streak that created P2P in the first place to steal copyrighted material with impunity (which *is* anti-social, since it reduces the incentive to create it, and the point about copyright is to encourage the creation of creative works)?
The fact is that P2P is about greed. People want things they cannot or would rather not pay for and P2P provides an easy way to get them. Unfortunately for the people using it, it also provides an incentive to "cheat", by taking advantage of the system.
Posted by: alastair | Jan 5, 2007 4:04:51 AM
p2p isnt about greed and it affects the music companies in a minor way. Personally if i didnt have the ability to obtain the music/films for a nominal fee. i would not purchase them at all. therfore the companies are not loosing anything as they would have had nothing to gain from me. if i really want a film/album or whatever then i will buy it. if i am just curious or mildy interesed then i will not!
Posted by: Tcnarss | Jan 5, 2007 4:11:08 AM
All of you guys/girls that are saying you don't have a 1:1 ratio because your upload speed isn't proportional to your download are full of crap. You don't have a 1:1 ratio because you close your torrent client as soon as you've downloaded what you want. My net connection is 10mbps down, 512kbps up - talk about non-proportional. What's my ratio on Demonoid? 1.23:1 - I've recently set my torrent client (Xtorrent) to seed until my ratio is 2:1, so that ratio should just get better because my torrent client is open 24/7.
Seed and stop being selfish.
Posted by: CaptObvious | Jan 5, 2007 5:10:29 AM
It's all a conspiracy by the studios to kill bittorrent mannnnn, it's the government and the man coming to squash down the little guy mannnn.
Wow I hate hippy speak.
I use uTorrent to get stuff I can't buy. If I can buy it, I do. 1.99 for an episode of Lost (for example) that I was too lazy to set up the dvd recorder for isn't so bad.
My main bittorrent addiction at the moment is foreign programming, particularly UK programs that I can't get here. Now if the BBC's new setup they're working on allows folks outside the country to buy episodes too, I'll likely go legit and just pay to play.
Oh, and the network's streaming players are nice and all, but they pull down episodes after a while and they have a REALLY irritating "feature" where the commercial is twice as loud as the feature content. So say I want to watch that episode of CSI I missed and my baby's down to sleep in the next room. That doesn't last long.
Posted by: TK | Jan 5, 2007 5:18:10 AM
I like the idea of BitTyrant, stop the leechers freeloading off me.
It should be obvious if a client is Bitthief ... same IP reannouncing multiple times with the same client type, I dont know how hard it would be for the trackers to be modified to forbid that IP
Posted by: Meh | Jan 5, 2007 5:18:29 AM
Hi mates!!!
AAArrrgghhh!! What you have against pirates???????
BTW, who are the true pirates on this entertainment F@*&6 ing World????
AAArrrgghhh!! Poor minds.... Still think we are a problem for that rich, rich, very rich guys. Weak up, they having the gold chest. bigger and bigger....
They can traffic shaping, whatever they want!!! P2P/Torrent is our Black Pearl
hehehehehehe!!!
Posted by: jack sparrow | Jan 5, 2007 6:02:27 AM
"Ohhh those poor multi billion dollar studios. God forbid we steal some more of their incredibly lousy product.
If they put out something worth purchasing, it gets purchased."
boy oh boy so true.
Posted by: Vargas | Jan 5, 2007 6:17:38 AM
What is with bittorrent clients built on java? Java sucks and so do the programs built on its platform. All of the speed gains you might get out of this will be wiped out by its bloatness.
Posted by: D | Jan 5, 2007 6:48:36 AM
Here's a thought experiment for you:
First off, presume I have a legitimate subscription to a cable network which carries a certain show ("Lost" is used as an example here, but any show will do)
Case 1:
I own a TiVO and record the show to the device's hard drive at HD quality. I can playback and skip commercials.
I already own a legitimate copy of the content in digital form, and am not obligated in any way to watch the ads. Is it morally wrong for me to acquire a digital copy of this content for playback on a different device? (Consider I could theoretically just use a TV Tuner card to record the AV data from TiVO to the computer)
Case 2:
I own a generic PVR system (probably cable-company supplied) without the capability of skipping commercials (unless I manually fast-foward past them). I record the show in HD quality.
Is it morally wrong for me to acquire a second copy of this content for playback on a different device, albeit with commercials already removed?
Case 3:
I still have the cable connection, but either don't have the PVR or miss recording the show for whatever reason (power loss, technical issues, whatever).
Is it morally wrong for me to acquire a copy of this content for playback on my computer?
-----
Additionally, as for BitTyrant, selfish algorithms work. Consider that with the golden rule of the 1:1 ratio, upload will always equal download. That means that in a 10 meg torrent with a static swarm of 30 people, 300 megs of data (discounting failed hashes and control data) will be uploaded - 30 megs per person (we're sort of discounting the need for a seed here for simplicity). Each person requires 10 megs to complete the torrent, 10 megs w/ 30 peers means 300 megs are downloaded. Each person in turn needs to upload 10 megs to maintain a 1:1 ratio. With 30 people, 300 megs are uploaded. Everyone gets their fair share - nobody is left without a complete download because of the 1:1 ratio.
That said, the faster nodes are going to collaborate and complete each others' requests fastest because they are going to prioritize each other for being fast. This means that the people with the biggest pipes get their downloads faster than those without. Consider that among other things, this is going to disseminate every single piece of the torrent (100% completion) to the fastest nodes in the torrent ASAP. Fast nodes with 100% of the torrent pieces are an asset, as they're capable of handling any request for a piece that the swarm can throw at them.
Also consider the slow nodes in this exchange. Okay, so they won't be primarily hitting the fast nodes. Likewise, if the slow nodes are utilizing a 'selfish algorithm', they are going to move onto exchanging data with other slow nodes - and since these slow nodes are serving up content to them (while the fast nodes ignore them), the slow nodes will prefer to serve content to other slow nodes - which isn't really a huge deal, because the slow nodes can't HANDLE much downstream traffic anyway, and wouldn't come close to saturating the upstream of most fast nodes.
Posted by: VTG | Jan 5, 2007 8:43:30 AM
I think Michael, the author of this weblog post, may not understand how BitTorrent works, exactly. First off, BitTyrant is selfish only when it is downloading itself. As a seed, there is no difference.
Second, in a large swarm, BitTyrant's "selfishness" may be a good thing for the entire network because it will get a torrent distributed more quickly to faster nodes. It does not throttle back total uploading but rather favors faster hosts. When those hosts receive pieces, other peers will benefit almost immediately.
In economic terms, this is Kaldor-Hicks efficient in that the entire network of downloaders is better off in the end, though some individual nodes with slow upload rates may be a bit worse off. But real-world performance is likely to tip things toward, if not meeting, Pareto efficiency--that is, every node is better off, or nearly so, than with less "selfish" clients.
The real mistake here is that the BitTyrant creators described their work using an inapt word. But Wired should know better than to build an entire report on that single word. Why not speak with the developers?
As for BitThief, it does seem motivated by ill will. On the other hand, agents like BitTyrant would actually discriminate against BitThief-like clients. BitThief is likely to result in slower downloads for its users, but probably less uploading, too. As to whether it makes a difference in the end, we shall see.
Posted by: Andrew | Jan 5, 2007 11:22:38 AM
It appears to me that BitTyrant is the perfect answer to BitThief.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 5, 2007 11:33:15 AM
Richard Trevors is a fag
Posted by: yourmom | Jan 5, 2007 11:51:00 AM
Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it.....
ok i got to comment on thi.. its true piracy is a small part of why the industries are supposedly hurting now but lets call a apde a spade its not the only reason . the main reason why the music / movie industries are hurting is because they put out crap. seriously look at the music of now compared to the music of a few years ago
and movies in this country are crap too out of the thousands of movies that come out each year i would say about 5 movies are watchable then there are the "huge hits of the summer that are comming soon" what a load of crap "superman was made for 200 million this was supposed to be the blockbuster hit of the summer last year this was supposed to be the return of big blue but you know what instead of spending 200 million on this they could have done it for 10 million and taken the other 190 million and worked on the script better or better yet give it to there r& d department so they can find a clue on how to get in touch with there audience
either way as long as there is loot bad movies and justin timberlake songs there will always be pirates......
Posted by: bajasoprano | Jan 5, 2007 11:54:30 AM
For example, I run a modified bittorrent client that, for each packet it receives, it logs the IP address that sends the packet along with the timestamp. Once the download completes, I can compile the list of IP addresses, sort by the ISP, and then forward this list to our clients legal departments who initiate the lawsuits. With closed source P2P clients a considerable amount of reverse engineering would have to be done to accomplish the same thing. So clearly I approve of open source P2P clients and clearly BitTyrant stearing toward high bandwidth owning pirates is good for business. Not so thrilled with BitThief though for obvious reasons.
Posted by: open source is good for the movie industry | Jan 5, 2007 11:55:45 AM
i would think that BitTyrant, if used properly could be helpful.. giving people a better chance of getting what they want if they, in turn, share what they have.. the people it would adversely affect are the people with crummy upload speeds or people who have quotas. BitTheif is the exacy opposite of the point of torrents, whether for legitimate reasons or not.. thats why traffic shaping programs like BitTyrant get created.. for the people who DONT share... and for Faiz, i definately disagree with how uploading doesnt hinder regular browsing... when i have BT running, my internet screeches to a halt, but if i cap my upload at like 20k, its like im not even running BT, so, yes.. it does affedt it a lot
Posted by: Nate | Jan 5, 2007 12:32:21 PM
I actually think BitTyrant is a good idea. It keeps the stupid leechers at bay, it helps you get your torrent faster, and it creates lots of speedy seeders. It's not selfish at all, I think it's more efficient and a good way to make sure the truly selfish people get the content after everyone else.
Posted by: Aaron | Jan 5, 2007 12:38:17 PM
I'm still not seeing a response from the "I'll buy it when it's worth buying" crowd. Who gave you the authority to decide how much you should have to pay for things? You may think an iPod is crap that shouldn't cost more than $10, but that doesn't mean you get to have one for only $10. When you sell (or license) something, you can set the price. But you have a moral obligation to either respect the prices others set, or accept that you don't get to own their product.
VTG:
I like the cases you set up, and it is a dilemma because videotaping/tivoing is considered fair use, and fast forwarding through commercials is considered fair use, and skipping them altogether is more or less agreed to be fair use as long as you got the recording from the freely-available broadcast.
But take this to its logical extension... a world in which everyone with a TV has a Tivo-like device to remove commercials instantly. Presumably, almost no one would voluntarily watch commercials. So advertising revenue disappears. Programs still cost money to produce, but their primary income source is gone. /wave goodbye to the sustainability of ad-supported "free" TV.
And maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the HBO model is the future, and NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox are relics of an era when the technology was too limited to circumvent their business model. It's fine by me if that happens, but it may not resolve your cases the way you like...
If you start paying the networks individually for the service they're providing, then you're entering a contract with them. If that contract doesn't allow for timeshifting and backups and BT downloads, then you're morally prohibited from doing those things. It becomes a moral issue, not of copyright, but of contractual agreement.
Posted by: Boing | Jan 5, 2007 1:12:35 PM
I think everyone has missed a major problem with BitTyrant. It sounds like it only checks the upload download ratio for a single swarm at one point in time. A lot of users have asymmetrical connections, like a Cable modem, which are not necessarily detrimental to BitTorrent performance if they are managed correctly. In this case, during the inital download, the upload to download ratio will be less than one. However, once the download is finished, the uploading continues. I personally leave it running for a long time - 5 or 10 to one upload to download ratio. My overall ratio is over 5 to 1. Does BitTyrant look at overall ratios? From the description, it sounds like it only regulates upload rates to a peer based on the ratio that it sees for that specific swarm up to that point in time. BitTorrent relies on the overall performance of swarms over long periods of time, not instantaneous measurements. It sounds like BitTyrant will penalize someone who has an asymmetrical internet conection even though they run very high overall long term upload to download ratios which contribute to the overall filesharing performance.
Posted by: Haruchai | Jan 5, 2007 1:59:28 PM
I downloaded BitTyrant as soon as the slashdot article came out. 1 Day later, my download speeds went to 0. Looks like I've been blocked. No worries. I just wish the tracker community would do more research before blacklisting a client.
On the bright side, the Azureus client that this is based on isn't my favorite anyway. Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Posted by: shun | Jan 5, 2007 2:47:41 PM
Interestingly enough, this article seems to be very critical of both BitTyrant and BitThief, and ignores the fact that, were BitThief type algorithms to become a problem, BitTyrant (or an even more 'selfish' algorithm) would stop it dead in its tracks.
Posted by: rodarmor | Jan 5, 2007 3:56:29 PM
Excellent post. They must be banned. Especially for legal content such as linux distros, I enjoy seeding for others, because its not fair that we put up all these server costs on the original seeders.
The solution to this problem is a higher internet upload speeds (and download, but more so upload). NOT a selfish BT client.
Posted by: dude | Jan 5, 2007 4:44:55 PM
easy solution, trackers just ban these clients according to the app name they send back.
Posted by: Watch TV Online | Jan 5, 2007 4:59:00 PM
Depending on the material, downloading -is- stealing. Downloading a broadcast television program, just a copyright violation.
If you go download a dvd rip for, say, A Scanner Darkly (the commercial just popped up is why I pick that movie) and burn yourself a copy you have definitely stolen that movie. It was never broadcast to you for free.
Pretending it's not theft is just clawing at moral absolution the same way that "The studios have tons of money" is used to trivialize your theft. It's okay because it really doesn't matter.
I use bittorrent and I steal movies and music. So do you. Period.
Posted by: Trev | Jan 5, 2007 6:06:05 PM
Name: Sebastian
BitTyrant is nothing evil or new for that matter
The fact it purposely chooses the fastest uploader means one thing.
this disperses the file as quickly as possible through the swarm allowing more people to finish quicker.
Azureus loosely supports this using Super Seeding
(only works on complete Seeding Files, not active Downloads)
Say i Have a 10MB file and can send it at 40K/s
How fast can you upload?
Tom 90K/s
Sam next fastest 40K/s
James 30K/s
a group of 20 between 5-30K/s
Joe Slowest 3KB/s
I will upload at 40K/s to Tom first.
Tom can then send at 90K/s to Sam
Sam can then send at 40K/s to James
James then at 30K/s to others
Sam
If however i sent to Joe first at 40K/s
it would take him 3413 Seconds to completely send it to One person.
Tom can then send the complete file in 113 seconds
In the same time as Joe 30 People will have the file thanks to Tom.
Posted by: carl0ski | Jan 5, 2007 6:57:19 PM
This is not about piracy, this is not about the media industry have trouble with file sharers. This is just about a file transfer client, a misbehaving file transfer client. Clients that misbehave such as these should be baned from all trackers.
These clients because of there cheating ways do noting to enhances the performance of the network.
If you just want to download more than you up load just tune that torrent using upload download feature of the Azures. Don't run cheating clients like these your not helping.
Posted by: zbeast | Jan 5, 2007 7:00:51 PM
I go to a restaurant. The food sucks. I don't pay.
I buy a couch. It is crap. I get my money back.
I buy a CD. It sucks. too bad for me.
I download an mp3. It sucks. I delete it.
I download an mp3. It Rocks. I buy the album
I download a movie. It sucks. I delete it.
I download a movie. It Rocks. I but the deluxe DVD.
See a theme here???
MPAA, RIAA..... Ha!
Release decent product...make money
Release Crap... Marry K-Fed.
Posted by: Oh Canada | Jan 5, 2007 8:04:16 PM
anyone who squabbles about "Lost" being legal or otherwise to download, simply dont know what law is or is not being broken.
the only law being violated when peers distribute tv shows is the copyright infringement that occurs when the broadcaters logo appears (usually) in the bottom left of the screen. if this logo is blurred, or extracted, there is no law being violated.
same with movies....take out any copyrighted sequences by the studios and its all legal-begal.
---thus sayeth the MPAA
Posted by: nonamehere | Jan 5, 2007 11:28:14 PM
Firstly, I'd like to say, "HA!", to that little diddy by Oh Canada. The "Marry K-Fed" thing actually made me laugh out loud.
Secondly, for the most part, the quality of music and video you can download off of either a torrent and/or IRC is usually horrible. The video is usually best suited for something like an iPod Video or the like. Not a larger screen. Audio tends to sound pretty dang flat as it's usually at 192kbs for the low average. Anything lower doesn't deserve recognition.
Thirdly, it's like those before me have said: If it's something that those of us downloading this media actually like, we'll buy it. When it comes down to it, the people who have no intention of buying it ever, no matter what, wouldn't buy it even if that was their only means of getting it. They'd just live without it.
So why does it matter so much to them whether people have their media or not? Either they should focus more on quality products as opposed to the number of products they can release. It's like being happy you made a car that'll last two years instead of five so that the customer HAS to buy a new(er) car in two years.
People are materialistic. They aren't happy with just having "the bare basics" of things. They want the brand spanking new, shiny, delux-super edition. Not just to say they have it, but to show it off and be proud of it. You don't get that with just having the media itself.
Saying that the movie and music industries are hurting from people downloading the media they put on to discs is hurting them is akin to saying car manufacturers making hybrids is hurting the oil industry. It's idiotic to say the least.
Fourthly, to the guy who said he collects IP Addresses in order to turn it in to the legal department and sue people: Congrats! You are a PROFESSIONAL douche bag! I'm sure your wife, Mrs. Yeast Infection, is proud of you. Hopefully your kids won't be complete dumb***es like you are! If you sue one million people, congrats! There are only a minimum of six BILLION potentials whom might be downloading! You're ALMOST there! :D
Lastly I'd just like to say, that in theory, BitTyrant has the potential to work exactly as that Sebastian fellow said. Overall it could be a benefit, but as always we have to wait and see how the execution is. I'm one of the people that although my bandwith sucks eDonkey, I make sure to share! I upload a file until either I haven't had peers for a good while or I have uploaded it a total of four times, (by the amount of data sent and recieved). Whichever comes first.
The main thing the MPAA and the RIAA doesn't consider is that they ARE fallible. It isn't that they can just keep on going and EVENTUALLY they'll either have gotten everybody that has downloaded or scared them off. Downloading media is an IDEA!
"We are told to remember the idea, not the man. Because a man can fail. He can be killed and forgotten. But four hundred years later an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed firsthand the power of ideas. I've seen people kill in the name of them; and die defending them. But you cannot touch an idea, cannot hold it or kiss it. An idea does not bleed, it cannot feel pain, and it does not love." -V for Vendetta
So please do bring on your needless war MPAA and RIAA. Just remember: You shouldn't start what you have no prayer of finishing...
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
Posted by: Shalkar | Jan 5, 2007 11:42:23 PM
To those who think BitTyrant is bad for the BitTorrent network i have just a comment: READ!!!!
I've tested this client and i fell in love with it instantly. The 1:1 philosophy is great. Wish more people would use this client because it detects those morons who dont like to share and doesn't share a bit to them at all. Saw it working and it was great. Uploading more to those who share = more speed. Uploading less to those who share less makes things more equal to all (dont whine about your high asymetric DSL. 1:1 = 1:1) It even manages my seeding marvelously: it pauses those torrents who have been seeded more and starts seeding those with less upload 'til things get even for all. Its a beauty.
Now, if you're into just downloading and NOT uploading anything i have news: YOU'LL EAT COW CRAP! hehehe
Its NOT about leeching. Its about uploading selectively and fairly.
Leechers beware ;)
Posted by: Ernest Goes to Disney | Jan 6, 2007 1:28:58 AM
I didn't know about BitThief before, but now that you told me about it, I'm going to use it! Hahaha you FOOL!
Posted by: Thanks | Jan 6, 2007 7:24:37 AM
Aww - there's no honesty with thieves is there?
How can you complain that a group of people have figured out how to steal from those who are also stealing????
Posted by: Steven Herod | Jan 6, 2007 2:45:37 PM
Thanks suckers, I will start using BitThief right away.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 7, 2007 5:06:52 AM
"Piracy is destroying the music and film industry, let's not encourage it."
Lemme get this straight - do you actually think, for example, that the leaked 24 searson 6 (over at torrentz right now) is going to do any harm to the TV show? not in a million years mate, it's only going to promote it. Same as all other music & film downloads.
Posted by: Bruce Wayne | Jan 7, 2007 8:56:40 AM
It's 2006, the consumer’s still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I’m writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It’s all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic’s up in my face like, “Don’t steal our songs Lars,”
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R’s
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it’s wrong
Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!
I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don’t need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger’s in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can’t sell bottled water when it’s freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD’s, and compact disks!
Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!
You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You’ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we’re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!
Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Posted by: Download This Song | Jan 7, 2007 10:27:22 PM
Nice guide on how to download more from private bittorrent sites:
Works with standard client: Azureus, Utorrent, BitComet
"Everything you always wanted to know about leeching but where afraid to ask...and they sure don't want you to know"
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 8, 2007 3:58:56 PM
I feel that moderators of private trackers will be, at this very moment, writing scripts to ban BOTH of these clients. As everybody knows, private (invite / ratio) trackers are where better quality torrents are available with stricter quality control, but they wont cut off their noses to spite their faces by allowing clients to restrict uploads in relation to downloads in this way. Even those on the slowest pipes will generally have something worth posting, and that is what keeps the torrent scene thriving.
Secondly, I cant believe that at throway sentence at the end of the article (or rather a rediculous bloody statment in reply to it!!) has sparked the most debate..
I dont buy all this "harming artists through theft" theory, lets get this straight...
EVERY person who makes music makes it because they want to and they enjoy it (or at least they did at one point), and would continue to make it even if there was no financial benefit. Recording artists usually only get 10 per cent of the retail price. The reason record companies dont like it is because it takes money away from the fat, talentless, money-grabbing, cigar smoking MoFo's who are looking for the next big multi-million seller rather than nurture and develope artists worth listening to / films worth watching...
Posted by: good for nuthin bum | Jan 9, 2007 12:51:29 PM
The algorithm for BitTyrant is not selfish at all. It just proportions (rewards/allocates) more bandwidth to those who are giving faster. Therefore, this software benefits those with faster bandwidths.
From the page:
"BitTyrant can detect when additional upload contribution is unlikely to improve performance. If a client were truly selfish, it might opt to withhold excess capacity, reducing performance for other users that would have received it. However, our current BitTyrant implementation always contributes excess capacity, even when it might not improve performance. Our goal is to improve performance, not minimize upload contribution."
But anyway it doesn't really matter because all it is doing is allowing you to download the file faster, as long as you upload/seed the file back to 1 to 1 (what you should be doing anyway) I can't see anything wrong in using this program as people with slow speeds are still receiving the file, all the program is doing is rewarding people with faster upload speeds what I think is fair, If you can upload faster you should be able to download faster.
Posted by: pinguy | Jan 19, 2007 1:17:05 PM
It's a bit of a shame that Michael Calore hasn't got a clue about BitTyrant because of him the client is getting bad reviews all over the web when it should be getting good ones. If everyone used BitTyrant it would improve the torrents swarms and increase everyones speeds by letting people with higher upload speeds finish first so they can seed the file and slowing down the speed of people that are just leeching the file and not uploadiing it. It seems like a win-win to me.
Posted by: pinguy | Jan 19, 2007 7:52:12 PM
Im currently using bit tornado and i have uploaded 6 gigs to only get 3 and if this so called greedy program would guarentee that i got what i gave then it is not greedy only fair and im sure if u want it to upload fairly it is possible so dont necissarilly blame the program as if i wanted to choke my upload i could take it to 0 on my so called fair program
Posted by: tim | Jan 20, 2007 7:07:17 PM
I have a 784kb/s and 128kb/s dsl line. I download/upload all day long- music,videos,...etc.... but since i download BIG torrents such as discographies and others that are >5gb, i never manage to upload that much. Usually to download those torrents it takes 5-10days, afterwards i do seed for another 10 or so days, but never to the extent to have 5gb uploaded. Parallel to this, though im downloading and uploading others... so i continuously have a growing download rate and a constant small upload one. The obvious answer would be to stop downloading for a while and let it upload but i have 7 seeds and a pc open 24/7 and still have a very poor , 5:1,4:1 or 3:1 ratio. Im not sure why i posted this, but i would appreciate some kind of response.
Posted by: Sib | Feb 3, 2007 1:58:08 AM
hi
gow r u ?
Posted by: david | Apr 21, 2007 6:39:30 AM
One type of group that "needs" Bitthief is people who have highly handicapped uploads by their ISP, i know a number of people who simply don't use bit torrent because it destroys their monthly quota. And they often cant change ISP's because of double or triple play packages or simply the fact that its the only ISP in their area.
I don't see how anybody other than these people would want to use bitthief, since uploading does nothing to hinder normal browsing experience.
Though i suppose idiots who would want to play CS or WOW while downloading stuff would like this...)