Could we have two flavors of utorrent?

[condorito]

I would like to use the TOR network to do my BTing, but I am aware doing so would put a heavy load on the TOR network, if everybody did the same; also the speeds suck real bad, mostly due to its too few servers. So now, wouldn't it be cool if every utorrent client were also a server, a channel through which other people get their torrents downloaded, even if you are not downloading that torrent, kind of a la TOR, but with a lot more bandwidth? It would provide plausible deniability to everybody using it, which would be useful against law suits coming from RIAA/MPAA/BSA etc... I would also like to be able to block certain clients that appear suspicious, as if the were just connecting only to see who's downloading what. More ideas? Flamming? It's all good.

[DreadWingKnight]

Just a pure waste of bandwidth trying to use a tor-style relay system at all for a p2p network.

The RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc have extortion charges pending trial against them.

It's really just going to slow everyone down.

[silverfire]

Please put that tinfoil hat away. If you're that paranoid, then you really shouldn't be using any peer-to-peer technologies since anonymity even on the Internet is a joke. Whether you like it or not, you can be found.

[condorito]

^ Please don't pollute just because you don't agree. You added nothing of value, really.

I figured you had a problem of attitude, no wonder, here we go http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=16390

[Switeck]

The other posters make it sound like if it's not likely to be a complete success, the venture is not worth trying.

So by the same token, Protocol Encryption was a collossal waste of time.

Sure it doesn't hide your ip.

But it was intended to hide your data to a small degree from ISP packet-sniffing BitTorrent throttling/blocking equipment.

Already a handful of ISPs have equipment that can defeat it.

The next logical step may be something like a Tor network...possibly even as a replacement of DHT? It might use UDP packets. Maybe it will even support UDP NAT Transversal hole-punching?

[condorito]

^ That's what I am saying. It's not possible to hide IP addresses, but by adding an element of plausible deniability to all file sharing applications, one could argue... "hey! I didn't download that, my machine is just a node." Giving someone extra ammo against frivolous law suits.

The **aa need to be pushed around, until they change their current business model to something more like... "the price of an audio or video item is the price at which downloading it elsewhere is not worth one's time." They wouldn't be losing money, because with the comming of the internet for the masses thing, their potential market segment exploded to the power of ten, but if they think they're now be able to charge every single new potential costumer $10 a piece, they're f@$%ing crazy. They can only lower prices enough so that it'll stop illegal file sharing.

[emtec666]

I know Azureus has the option to use SSL (https) when seeding on the embedded tracker. It doesn't hide your IP of course but you can make access to the torrent itself more difficult (password protection etc.).

But true anonimity on (public) torrents will be very, very hard to achieve. Doesn't hurt to ponder the things that can be done to improve anonimty/security though

[anoxan]

...if they think they're now be able to charge every single new potential costumer $10 a piece, they're f@$%ing crazy. They can only lower prices enough so that it'll stop illegal file sharing.

lol, you obviously have no idea how business works.

I can't really make any sense out of the rest of that post, so I'll leave it at that.

[splintax]

Encryption pretty much had a negligible impact on the speed / efficiency of the BT protocol.

Running the whole thing through some sort of Tor-like process would have a HUGE impact. Not to mention that it would be significantly more complex than encryption - at least I'd imagine so.

You'd probably be better off downloading whatever it is that you so desperately want to remain anonymous through Freenet. You'll probably get faster speeds than you would using BT over Tor.

[condorito]

^ and ^^, nobody f@#$ing gets it. This is about including a plausible deniability element built into every file sharing app. I could leave my utorrent client on, even if I am not downloading anything so that others can get their torrents served through my client, my IP address would be the one visible, not theirs, but it would be up to the **aa to prove my client wasn't acting just as a node. The whole idea is that there's no way to prove who DLed what. Anyone who thinks it would be too slow is just thinking of the closest thing, the TOR network, which only happens to be slow as molases, because not a lot of people wants to run a server, but everyone wants to run a client, and even some abuse the system running p2p through it. My idea was to turn a client into an instant server, meaning if you run the client, voila, you've got the server running as well, no work around, other people would be DLing stuff thorugh your node (if your client is idle, or seeding), thus their IP addresses wouldn't be viewable to anybody but to the guy running the node (your bit-torrent client/server). Your IP would be the one that would show up though, as the one DLing stuff, but you'd just be the node, and it would be up to the **aa to prove otherwise. What's so hard about this to understand?

And for the guy who thinks I have no idea how business works, dude, when I left my country, mailmen were started at $200 a month, do you think he/she is going to pay $10 (actually it's more like $18 down there) for a music CD, hell no! Do you think he/she is going to pay $15 to $20 for a movie, hell no! They are going to just DL illegally. Even though it can be a pain in the butt, slow speeds, no seeds sometimes, time wasted, but at least they keep some moeny in their pockets for more important things, like bread, milk, utility bills, rent, etc... Perhaps if prices were $2 for a music CD (as a downloadable item), and $3.50 for a movie (as a downloadable item), they would be willing to shell out that kind of money for a legal DL, just so that they don't have to deal with the annoyances of illegal DLs. The only solution to illegal file sharing is a pricing scheme that makes illegal DLing not worth one's time, it needs to be low enough. Licensing and zhit don't really mean anything to most people, now I know that's another issue, but it all connects, people just don't want to be bothered. How many people actually do read EULAs? How many care about what they say? I have always had at least 2 computers at home at any given time, do you think I got 2 copies of that OS, because Billy wants me to get one license per 'puter, hell no!

[Lord Alderaan]

U do know you are responsible for what is downloaded from your IP. Whether the data isn't on your computer, is forwarded or whatever you did with it doesn't matter. If they can prove the copyrighted material came from your IP, you are responsible. There is no deniability. If they find drugs being transported from your house you can't claim you were just a node for dealers who came through the back door... I confess I have no idea what exactly TOR is so if I'm wrong about the illegal material being transferred by confirmed packets with your IP as sender and the RIAA's IP as receiver then tell me.

There is more to a price of a product then the costs of the alternatives. Just because you can download movies for free doesn't mean they should be very cheap. Arguing that the prices are high starts with a good argument about how they should be cheaper.

Just because you can steal an apple without anyone noticing it on a market doesn't mean that the apples are too expensive... even whether someone can afford the apple or not doesn't make a good argument. An apple is grown, cleaned, distributed and then sold on the market. For one there are people putting time and effort in it that should get a reasonable fee for that. By disregarding that u indeed make a poor impression of understanding how businesses and the economy works.

I'm not saying prices of CDs aren't inflated. They are imho, and they should rethink the whole chain from recording and advertising to distribution and make the whole production chain a bit more efficient. But there are just too many people making a buck from it that would then be left out. And THEY and their powerful friends are the ones that halt any change and try hard to crackdown the illegal market.

imho that is

[splintax]

Lord Alderaan: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe some of what condorito is saying is correct. If someone was to break into your wireless LAN and download child pornography or something through your internet connection, you have some defense under some legal systems - 'plausible deniability'.

However, the keyword is plausible. Once again I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of these things is that most of the time illegal downloads don't count as criminal offenses, and any legal action would be taken through the civil courts system, meaning a trial, etc.. Additional evidence would probably have been gathered against you. If you're using a client that's advertised as using some sort of noding system for 'plausible deniability', and if you can be shown to have downloaded illegal materials (eg. HDD data), then your defense is no longer 'plausible'.

The legal system is not designed to have such loopholes in it. Often these sorts of laws are open to interpretation by a judge so just because you think this could or should bypass a law doesn't mean that a judge would see it that way.

And in my opinion, that makes it not worth the bandwidth. Either way, you're using some sort of network proxy, doubling (or greater) the amount of bandwidth used. Not to mention that some people wouldn't want to redirect other people's traffic in case they did get blamed for it, and would move to other clients, download a non-routing version (you proposed two 'flavours'), or hack uT.

[Lord Alderaan]

Well maybe there MIGHT be a way to plausible deny stuff. Btw I always focus on the sending/sharing/upload part because in my country downloading movies, music and the such is perfectly legal. Its the uploading party that is illegal here. Still u sign a contract with ur ISP taking responsibility for your connection and illegal activities that are done through it, its up to you to make sure nobody abuses it.

Besides every copyright infringement is an criminal offense. However the copyright owner has the right to start sue for losses even if the no criminal case is made.

[marxx]

Are we not a kind of unformal , cultural comunity in which we share on personal level our library without any kind of compensation ?

If I download a book is very possible that the first one to upload it , buy it and , seems to me , got all the right to share it with me , for no compensation other then the pleasure to share a cultural affinity with a`friend .....

[Lord Alderaan]

Nope, it doesn't work that way. When you buy a movie/cd/game/software program you buy the right to use it. This does not include the right to spread it further, show it publicly and I think sometimes your not even allowed to trade, sell or give it away to someone else.

Books are a different case I think. Your allowed a bit more cos its more difficult to reproduce. But I think its still illegal to read it publicly, scan it and spread it or even handwrite copy it and give that away. There are even laws about when and how you are allowed to quote passages out of books in for example an review or article.

I don't know the exact details of all these laws though. But you don't automatically have the right to share these things with informal, cultural communities.