BitTorrent Inherently Illegal? 857
Nohbdy001 asks: "Today I received a letter from my university's network administration advising me that my network access would be terminated due to 'illegal P2P activity.' The P2P activity that the e-mail cited was BitTorrent and the file being transferred was an update to the Azureus BitTorrent client. The letter stated, 'Until the courts decide that student P2P activity is permitted we will continue to block this activity on our network,' implying that BitTorrent is inherently illegal. It seems such misunderstandings are common, but it is particularly frustrating when coming from people in the IT field. How can a student respond to such an accusation in order to defend the validity of BitTorrent and continue to benefit from its legitimate uses?"
Let the NetAdmin scan your pc.... (Score:3, Interesting)
educate them. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why even deal with incompeten admin? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know about defending it's validity, but as far as still enjoying the use of BitTorrent is concerned, netcat is your friend. ;)
Just tell them... (Score:2, Interesting)
Only a terrorist would be against Linux!
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Good news and bad news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly. This isn't just a matter of legal versus not legal, it's a question of whether it complies with their own Acceptable Use Policies. And depending on how those policies are written, Bittorrent may be a no-no anyways, "Because we say so." And I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that when they say "illegal," they don't mean 'criminal,' they mean 'against our own policies.' Good luck to you, man (or woman, whichever).
legitimate uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that your definition of "legitimate use" may be quite different from theirs. University IT departments tend not to consider anything to be "legitimate" unless it has a valid academic application. Do you know of any academic uses for BitTorrent? Not trying to rain on your parade, but "I need it to download X" probably won't cut much ice.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Letter to IT (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm stuck also (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Let the NetAdmin scan your pc.... (Score:5, Interesting)
To the parent: whatever you do. DO NOT give up your rights to privacy to get your net connection back. No matter if you did nothing illegal. If you give up your privacy, then you justify it to the administration that it is ok for them to do the same thing to other students.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course I agree that universities should not censor information, especially not in such unclever ways as declaring a protocol illegal. But I can understand why some universities have to kneel before the commerical powers that be.
Talk to the CS Department. (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting a professor to talk to the Network Admin about the legal uses. If you can convince a professor to use it in a class you might actually stand a chance.
Citoahc
Fighting senseless stuff is not likely to work... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, it is very unlikely that any court would rule specifically on student P2P activity. Students are strange animals, but in general rulings like this would apply to everyone, not just to students.
They are obviously playing on threatening people, and hiding behind vague statements in an effort to simply avoid the entire risk of people potentially using P2P technology to download (or upload) illegal materials. I'd personally recommand replying back to the university, explaining your legal use of P2P, and explaining that their letter seems to be based on some flawed assumptions, both legally and factually.
But do not expect to win unless you really want to fight this desperately. It's their network and though you pay tuition and all that, it is still their network, and so they get to decide what goes, whether it makes sense or not.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why I bring the question to the community. Obviously using BT for legit purposes is not anymore dangerous than, say, browsing the web.
WARDRIVING IS ILLEGAL (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard at my last contract that they didn't use SSH because it was "inherently insecure." They used telnet instead.
Best thing to do, is be patient, try to educate the uninformed, and convince others to do the same.
Just don't get too angry, or they won't want to listen to you in the first place.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
My university simply blocked the Napster port (as well as 80, among others), no questions asked. It didn't effect me and my friends because we were using gnutella by then, anyway, and we just mainly used it for gaming, so we valued clean bandwidth. I support your reasoning for leaving it alone, and I agree with it, but practically, it was probably also just the best way to do it. If the students want to use a shit-ton of bandwidth, just smile, nod your head, and charge them for it.
I'd say the university was smokin crack... (Score:2, Interesting)
"During the heyday of Napster, the University of Wisconsin - Madison had a difficult decision. As it watched the traffic for Napster consume over 70% of total inbound bandwidth at its peak, we asked ourselves: do we start blocking Napster? After all, it's mostly used for stealing music. Right?"
What the administrators *should* have done is an analysis on that traffic, and examined what exactly it was being used for. If 70% of your bandwidth in one direction is being smoked because of non-essential traffic, in any business, you stop that traffic...period. It doesn't matter whether the traffic is legal or illegal. If it could cause others to not be able to get their jobs (or in this case their bonafide homework) done, then you put an end to it.
I'd say they didn't think too hard about this one...nor do I think this applies to the original post at all. Napster was used for downloading music...that's it...that was always illegal.
Bittorrent is used for downloading all kinds of content...basically anything you want to create a torrent for...whether that be CD images of legit software (Linux), software updates like someone alluded to for gaming, or anything else. It can get used for legit as well as non-legit purposes. However, Napster was pretty much illegal, whether anyone wanted to admit it or not. I'm not passing judgment on anyone who used it...hell, I used it. But I KNEW it was illegal, and I still did it. It was used for nothing but *sharing* music...not distributing software updates. Bittorrent can't even be compared to Napster...it's completely different, and it's uses are endless.
My overall gist? Napster has nothing to do with academics, so your analogy is laughable at best...it's about increasing your music library for free. Bittorrent IS about freedom. It gives you a way of getting and distributing any type of content (legal or otherwise) by using the rest of the world's bandwidth if they so desire.
Legal Avenues (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, they penalize you for taking part in a perfectly legal exchange of data. It could be a First Amendment issue. But that's only if your university is state-run.
Give your local chapter of the ACLU a call and see what they think. You never know, they may be interested in representing you.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You have no real alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that any more absurd than blocking something such as BitTorrent, especially as BitTorrent's legitimate applications are increasing?
Color me naive, but I never realized BitTorrent had a following of pirates until recently. I always saw it billed as a way to grab large files (e.g. Linux ISOs) in a lot less time than HTTP or FTP transfers. In fact that is the only thing I ever use it for. To see organizations ban or restrict it pisses me off.
Fortunately, the content industries seem to be taking a halfway correct approach: find people violating copyright using a technology, and prosecute those people. Even if BitTorrent gets a bad reputation, there are enough of us using it legitimately that 1) we won't go to jail and 2) BitTorrent will still have a legitimate user base and stay alive (thank you, OSS!).
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You have no real alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Censorship of the Web, using Websense http://ww2.websense.com/global/en/ [websense.com].
2) Throttling bandwidth on network ports using Storm Control http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/p
3) Filtering out spam using Ironmail http://www.ciphertrust.com/products/index.php [ciphertrust.com]
Each these measures have had a negative impact on genuine study and research.
Our Computer Centre Director, who is in the invidious position of having to balance academic freedom against meeting JANET http://www.ja.net/ [ja.net] regulations, released this message which I reproduce here to show what Universities are dealing with.
-END OF QUOTE-
The introduction of restrictions is not something
that we have come to lightly. We certainly have
no desire to apply censorship to our users;
however, unlike Internet Service Providers,
we have somewhat more legal responsibility for
the material that is carried over or stored
within our network. In particular, the University
can be held 'vicariously liable' for a number
of offences relating to, for example, the
display or storage of pornography. Similarly,
material relating to religion or race that is
capable of offending is a potential threat, in
a legal sense, to the University. There are others.
On the matter of websites that just plainly offer
no business value to the University, we need to
strike the right balance between the various
interests. We have real concerns about the
capacity of our network and to compromise academic
and business activity on the network because we
are hosting a flood of dubious traffic does not
make good sense. However, under this specific
concern, clearly there may be scope for relaxing
restrictions outside the 'working day'.
-END OF QUOTE-
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if they receive information from outside the university (ie, from the RIAA) then they will take action and disconnect the user from the network.
This seems reasonable to me as only people actually breaking the law will suffer, and the legitimate users will be allowed to continue.
Ask for details (Score:3, Interesting)
Only informed people can properly react to such a troublesome statement, on a universety they should understand this...
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither Legal nor Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
The file you have is legal and legally distributed. Period. If they wish to limit your free speech rights on legal speech, that is a first ammendment issue and should be dealt with in a separate court battle.
If you can find a lawyer to write a letter to that effect for you, it might get their attention. I'm sure you could find a classmate whose parent relative or family friend is a lawyer willing to put a note like that under his/her firm's name. No explict threats -- just a letter from a lawyer.
There is a joke... (Score:2, Interesting)
And that is what most IT departments do... It doesnt matter what kind of protocol you use to share your data. If there people out there that want to share, they'll find a way to do so.
What if some one devellop a p2p software based on HTTP? Should we block it too? There is Peer2Mail, lets ban SMTP, POP and IMAP altogheter!! Better yet, lets get rid of TCP/IP as it is cleary the foundation of those evil sharing technologies.
How about add value to your products, so people will actually want to buy them? Do you think people are stopping to buy CDs because piracy, or online sharing?!? No, its because the lack of quality, and the abusive pricing!! No one will buy for an entire CD when they just want one song or two...
I would not immediately go over their head (Score:1, Interesting)
Be very polite and very positive. This is not to challenge, but to gather information. One reason not to go over their head right away is that by being pro-active, polite, and engaged, you may actually gain allies. At the least you won't piss them off by going over their head too fast.
At the same time, you want to be gathering information about legitimate uses of BitTorrent--both in general and in your own life. I highly recommend that you got to WashingtonPost.com and find the recent article by Rob Pegoraro regarding BitTorrent and its legitimate uses. What you are looking to build is a case for the university to not block or discourage BitTorrent. A big part of that is supporting evidence from the outside world or (even better) from other similar universities.
Think of it like an informal court case. Get your info straight, your arguments clear and coherent, create organized documentation to leave behind, and dress up nice when you meet with the policy person.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:0, Interesting)
Milwaukee School of Engineering (Score:1, Interesting)
(oddly enough, the majority of bad PCs we see are full of pr0n and everything else under the sun...so..I suppose that is GOOD for the student
Time for SSL mod for BitTorrent. (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't even tell what you are doing if this is done. If they can't tell, they cannot be dumb azzes about it.
Put the trackers on HTTPS also. Allow self signed certs.
Of course, self signed certs are illegal in some countrys, but not the USA. So it would have to be optional.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
This system, while stifling, works better than time-based limits, because it allows students to spend their bandwidth whenever they want. However, its fatal flaw (listen up UI freshmen!) is that it's MAC based. just change your MAC every 600MB, and you'll be fine! until the net techs figure you out...
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Blocks ALL outbound traffic on port 25, except to their mail server. No exceptions, sorry. Need to access a mail server outside the network? "Tough luck" (I love the quotes from these motherfuckers when I call in.)
2. Bittorrent? Ha! They don't explicitly block it, but it is throttled down to 2k or so. They had the fucking gall to claim that it was "simply assigned a lesser priority" on the network when I emailed them about it. Either they are incompetent fucktarts that don't know the difference between "intentionally crippled" and "given lesser priority" or they are fucking liars. Yeah, we also get letters stating that if we use X program again, they will bill us $200 for violating such and such regulation. Mind you there isn't a master list of "programs not to use"
3. Virtually everything else is blocked, inbound and outbound. POP3 still works outbound, but a "receive only" account is a cunt hair less useful than not having any fucking mail access.
They haven't blocked terminal services inbound, but I think it is only a matter of time.
4. I've had periods of 500ms to 800ms latency for HOURS a day for the last several months. Happens randomly, but when it happens, it effectively cripples services such as Vonage or any other VOIP.
I suspect that this is an intentional effort as this forces everyone to use their magical phone company with "almost like calling from prison" long distance fees. 10-10-321, et al are also blocked if dialing from POTS, so you can't call using those services. Calling cards still work, but I have no doubt that they would block them if they could. I can't even get a fucking stable 56k connection (at least skype would work then) over the phone lines in the dorm.
I've actually made a little app with a green, yellow and red light that changes according to ping times to an IP just right outside the network.
I'm tempted to set up a whitescreen on my window, invert the image and project it, which would let others know to not even bother trying to use VOIP or anything else that is sensitive to latency. Of course, I'm facing the wrong direction.
Oh, and before you ask, I do get good connections some of the day, normally around 19ms to Seattle, which isn't stellar, but it works well enough when it does.
The worst part is that when I moved in here in August, everything was fine. No filtering, no throttling, none of this bullshit. No fucking upstream cap.
Now, the net access is basically useless for VOIP, and they add filtering of something (you never know what) on a weekly basis, no change in any written or verbal policy (if there even is a written policy somewhere).
Fuck you Portland State.
Again, if you are considering Portland State University, know that your internet access will be crippled to the point of unusability at times and that VOIP and everything else that is sensitive to latency (i.e. games, video conferencing) will basically be useless at random parts of the day.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:1, Interesting)
I currently do IT at a Law School. I have yet to see one student bother to read the AUP they sign before getting their logins. I had expected better from future landsharks.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
Firstly, IANAL, but I am a law student. There needs to be a causal link between the promise made and the detrimental reliance engaged upon. The reliance needs to be more than ancillary to the promise, and needs to be (even if implicitly) encouraged by the promisor.
For example, if you promise to buy me lunch tomorrow and I go and buy a car, clearly these are not connected. I would suggest that the promise of provision of network services at a University is not fundamental to the nature of the contract with the University.
The importance of this is my second point. In Australia, damages will not be awarded for a successful case of promissory estoppel. Only the cost incurred for acting to one's detriment will the promisor be liable for.
But then again, naturally there will be differences in the law, and it would not surprise me if estoppel functioned in a fundamentally different manner.
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/fa
q: If a state university calls computer or network access a
"privilege", can they remove an individual's access arbitrarily?
a: In most cases no.
Everything in that directory is quite useful for convincing the powers-that-be that their AUP is stupid. I tried here at UIC and just got ignored (and got some BS reply about how the lawyers think it's ok, blah blah blah).
My solution is to publish controversial material and when my account gets shut down I sue the University. If they don't want to talk about it, maybe a judge does
Re:It's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
Get together a cabal of linux (or *BSD or whatever) users when a new release comes out. Instead of using bittorrent, you arrange for the whole cabal to fire up http downloads of the ISOs simultaneously. This will drag the university net to a crawl.
When they hit you with a complaint, you nicely explain that you would have used bittorent for the downloads, which would have created only 1% of the load. But the administration has decreed that, if you do that, you'll be treated as criminals, so you didn't.
Also, it helps if you can bring up class- or job-related reasons that you were doing the downloads. If it's required for a class, they can't very well fault you for downloading it from the public repositories.
It might be fun if you could find a bittorrent source for something like the next big MS Service Pack, and arrange for a whole flock of Windows users to attempt to download it at the same time. This will really confuse the dummies in the U's admin. They can't very well object to people installing security stuff in Windows. And if you can make it clear that bittorrent would have greatly lessened the network load if not for their dumb ban on its use, maybe the idea will start to get through their thick skulls.
After all, bittorrent is merely a way to make copying big, popular files a lot faster and a lighter network load. It isn't restricted to just illegal copies; it works just as well for files that it is legal for you to download.
If you can pull it off, let us know how it works.
Is WoW's update system deemed illegal then to U's? (Score:1, Interesting)
So how can they deem all p2p activity illegal since it uses a BT system to distribute each patch file unlike prior mmorpg's update systems of d/ling them directly from the companies servers. Look it's just a CYA act on the IT departments behalf if anything comes down the pike where p2p is somehow outlawed outright.
Well, if it was ME... (Score:3, Interesting)
"First of all, this is a misunderstanding. I wasn't downloading or distributing copyrighted material, I was just downloading an update to the software, and I had an appropriate license for it. So I haven't broken the law and I haven't done anything that'll get YOU in trouble, either. I only use BitTorrent to download Linux ISO's (or whatever), and I didn't think anyone would care about that -- it's all properly licensed to me, no laws broken...
I understand why you might not want me to run BitTorrent, and since you obviously don't want me running it on your network, I won't, ok? But do me a favor and restore my network access, because this is all just a misunderstanding and no law has been broken. I'm sorry if I've caused you any trouble."
I would be very polite and businesslike, I would show the network admin respect, and I would try VERY hard to not come across as hostile in any way.
Network priviledges are important to a college kid. And they don't have to turn the tap back on, remember that. BE NICE and clear the mess up, and maybe it'll all get settled in a friendly way.
Of course, if you WERE trading movies or music, you're probably SOL. But you probably weren't (you deserve the benefit of the doubt). Treat it as a misunderstanding that has to be cleared up, and you'll be ok.
shouldn't be surprised (Score:2, Interesting)
Your reply (Score:3, Interesting)
2. The internet is a p2p network
3. MPAA v Sony (Betamax)
4. Point to the large number of legitimate torrent sites, and explain how bittorrent's design makes it pretty unsuitable for copyright infringement.
They have the right if it was in the TOS (Score:3, Interesting)
This even shows up on occasion in rental agreements where people are silly enough to sign rights for the landlord to enter the premises without notice at any time. People don't read, and they sign. Seems like an unreasonable thing to put in a lease, but if people are willing to sign it, the courts generally uphold it. However, in the example I just gave, some states are stepping up to protect the citizens who sign these things by creating laws that say that even if you sign away that right, it's not legally binding. (In the case of entering the premises by a landlord. However, college dorms are treated differently than apartments--I don't know why--and I have yet to see a single "you can't sign away your rights to maintaining the privacy of your PC contents on a network" law.) I generally maintain the stance that someone should be accountable for what they agree to or sign when what they are agreeing to is posted in a clear, conspicuous manner. And yes, I read EULAs. However, Iguess I can see the occasional reason for not forcing someone to abide by that agreement.
I know of a symposium that sorta (meaning, unofficially) recently conducted an experiment where they gave out TOS for their wireless connections to people who were standing in long lines, and took note of who read it and who didn't. One iteration of the TOS had "You are not reading this" written into it. Almost no one (all college-aged students) actually read the agreement.
I don't know if right-to-search is part of this school's particular policy, but it's something to consider.