Bittorrent on Newsnight

Auvers

Have a look at this http://rapidshare.de/files/14294980/Bittorrent_on_Newsnight.avi.html

Overall I'm disgusted. I used to trust Newsnight. If they can be this bad about something I know about, what rubbish are they feeding me that I can't check on?

Linoge

They're trying to flog their own version of bittorent?

Never heard of them, and i wont be going near them anytime soon either!

MisterAnarchy

Most of that newspiece is out of context.
'If left unchecked Bittorrent would use 100% of our resources'
What a load of rubbish.
The clip they showed from Hostel was real DVD quality footage and not available on the internet via Bittorrent or any other means I may add.
The Skype bit was interesting though.

Boomer23

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The clip they showed from Hostel was real DVD quality footage and not available on the internet via Bittorrent or any other means I may add

obviously you have not searched for it, or have not heard of Supertorrents.org

matrim

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Most of that newspiece is out of context.
'If left unchecked Bittorrent would use 100% of our resources'
What a load of rubbish.

While not quite true it isn't complete rubbish. If you leave bittorrent with the standard settings and start a download it will leave the upload unlimited. Therefore it could use 100% of your upload and as much of the download as it can get.

MisterAnarchy

Boomer23 wrote:

obviously you have not searched for it, or have not heard of Supertorrents.org

The versions available before today were poor quality,I am aware a DVD Screener has surfaced today though.

DonkeyStyle \o/

No mention of Linux iso's

Boomer23

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The versions available before today were poor quality,I am aware a DVD Screener has surfaced today though.

today? you know this for a fact?

then can you tell me how i i downloaded a divx version over 3 weeks ago?

MisterAnarchy

This is going a bit off topic and down the road of warez.
Suffice to say the versions of Hostel released on the major scene sites and newsgroups were of sub standard quality,they may have been in Divx format but they were not DVD or watchable quality.

Boomer23 wrote:

today? you know this for a fact?

then can you tell me how i i downloaded a divx version over 3 weeks ago?

watty

matrim wrote:

While not quite true it isn't complete rubbish. If you leave bittorrent with the standard settings and start a download it will leave the upload unlimited. Therefore it could use 100% of your upload and as much of the download as it can get.

And if a bunch of people are doing this then other people on the same circuit (Cable, Wireless sector, contended ADSL) may get consistently worse performance.

People running bittorrant and similar on default setting are parasites in more than one way.

matrim

watty wrote:

People running bittorrant and similar on default setting are parasites in more than one way.

I don't agree with you there. If you pay for a 3 Mb\ 384 Kb service with a 30Gb cap you are entitled to use as much of it as you can, whenever you want, once you aren't raping the bandwidth all the time and going over the cap.

ricey

Boomer23 wrote:

today? you know this for a fact?

then can you tell me how i i downloaded a divx version over 3 weeks ago?

DivX LOL i aint seen a rls in DivX for a long time ha ha ha.

watty

matrim wrote:

I don't agree with you there. If you pay for a 3 Mb\ 384 Kb service with a 30Gb cap you are entitled to use as much of it as you can, whenever you want, once you aren't raping the bandwidth all the time and going over the cap.

You're not breaking any law or contract.

But the theory of Contention based usage assumes a particular pattern of usage. Someone using P2P filesharing all the time makes those assumptions wrong. In reality the "normal" users are subsidizing them. I have been using computers since 1979 with online services and Internet and home LAN with server over 10 years. There is nothing legitimate that requires such usage so those doing it are likely IP thieves as well as parasites.

It is such activity that has fuelled the draconian DRM which is reducing everyone's traditional "fair use" rights of copyrighted material.

Even large legitimate activity such as Linux ISO images would not need more than a few Gigabyte a month, and for majority that much in 6 months. I've been using UNIX since 1985 and Linux since 1998.

bk

watty wrote:

But the theory of Contention based usage assumes a particular pattern of usage. Someone using P2P filesharing all the time makes those assumptions wrong. In reality the "normal" users are subsidizing them. I have been using computers since 1979 with online services and Internet and home LAN with server over 10 years. There is nothing legitimate that requires such usage so those doing it are likely IP thieves as well as parasites.

The BBC in the UK now deliver "legimate" content to people in the UK via P2P.

Sky are also delivering movies and sport via P2P to all customers in the UK and Ireland (if you are subscribed to Sky Sports or Movies).

NTL:UK are currently experimenting with P2P to help deliver "legitamate" VoD and HD content to all thier customers.

Skype uses P2P.

All of these are completely legitimate uses of P2P technology and they are only the start of a growing trend to use P2P to deliver "legitamate" video content.

The ISP's will simply have to adjust to this new reality.

philologos

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm

the BBC have apologised

MisterAnarchy

I gave up using Bittorrent ages ago ,it is parasitic software .
Newsgroups is the cleaner option.

Peanut

re: watty,
Often the people using p2p apps will have little or no idea on what the protocol does at the network level, so it's ludicrous to label them as thieves etc. when they are most likely to be unassuming, normal, members of the public.

Even if you know that a given app. will most likely chew up bandwidth constantly, it is really up to the ISPs to deal with this instead of the end-user themselves. Hence caps & monthly quotas.

As for using this as a scapegoat for increasing DRM, well do you really believe that record companies would have acted any other way regardless?

Case in point, the noises made by IRMA (and the RIAA more recently) about ripping CDs into mp3 FOR YOUR OWN USE being illegal. Was this because of
p2p or just a knee-jerk last grasp by outmoded organisations trying to keep control of their monopolistic distribution channels?

Don't blame the users, they're not the ones eroding the fair use rights.

philologos

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The clip they showed from Hostel was real DVD quality footage and not available on the internet via Bittorrent or any other means I may add.

sorry your wrong. The guy is searching on torrentreactor.net. try looking with more detail

RuggieBear

actually i thought it was bit bonkers for them to show the address of one of the torrent sites too.

philologos

well it was on the screen they couldnt help it

Chad ghostal

i realise it's slightly off topic, but since when have the americans been monitoring all Voice and internet traffic in europe?..
and why would the english let them?

i realise they try to monitor all calls/traffic switched/routed through north america but europe?
it's nice to know we're being 'protected' so thoroughly :rolleyes:

MisterAnarchy

Jakkass wrote:

sorry your wrong. The guy is searching on torrentreactor.net. try looking with more detail

No I am not wrong.
The versions listed on torrentreactor are Telesyncs and Cams
Do you know what a Telesync is ?
Precisely Telesync means a copy which was shot in an empty cinema or from the projection booth with a professional camera, directly connected to the sound source.
These versions are of poor sub standard quality even for a Telesync.
These were the sources available until the 25th Feb when a DVD Scr was released on a top site.
The clip shown was not downloaded using Bittorrent.
It was very misleading.

jor el

Also, the clips of Hostel that they show has the words 'Courtesy Columbia Tristar Films' printed on it. I'd imagine that they could find themselves in trouble if they actually downloaded the movie.

Boomer23

MisterAnarchy wrote:

No I am not wrong

yes, yes you were , we already had this conversation!

neilled

Interesting development with Clearwire - whenever you go to download a torrent file via a search engine ie : right click save as, Clearwire now tells you that the connection with the server reset! The good auld "Problem Loading Page" in Firefox and "This page cannot be displayed" in internet explorer.

MisterAnarchy

Boomer23 wrote:

yes, yes you were , we already had this conversation!

So the Divx version you downloaded was crystal clear DVD quality was it ? :rolleyes:
I'm guessing it was a Cam M8 and a bad one at that ,I've seen samples of it.
Just because its Divx doesnt mean it is good quality.
If it was DVD quality then fair play to you.

philologos

hold on perhaps he is right. The BBC couldnt openly show a downloaded movie could they? Perhaps its a cinematic trailer from Hostel.

watty

Chad ghostal wrote:

i realise it's slightly off topic, but since when have the americans been monitoring all Voice and internet traffic in europe?..
and why would the english let them?

i realise they try to monitor all calls/traffic switched/routed through north america but europe?
it's nice to know we're being 'protected' so thoroughly :rolleyes:

The British monitored almost all cable traffic (World Wide!) since WW1. C&W and others had to forward copies. Oddly the Japanese and Germans either trusted their codes too much or didn't take account of this. Since WW2 the USA NSA and UK GCHQ have pretty much monitored all traffic they could get their hands on.

Anyone that beleives that the Internet is "different", "private" or that ISP don't co-operate with Governments and others is nieve as history shows. It is easier to monitor traffic today than in days of 1920s/1930s telegraphic cables.