uTorrent is my favorite torrent client. It's such a joy to use – a tiny, native application that offers a best-of-breed implementation of the BitTorrent protocol. Everybody loves BitTorrent, and I love it too. I'm not the only one. By some estimates, torrent data may account for as much as 35% of all internet traffic.
I recently rented the television series Boomtown from Netflix, but I belatedly realized that the particular episode I really wanted to see was a part of season two. Unfortunately, Boomtown, like so many other great shows, was cancelled in its prime. In this case, it was cancelled right in the middle of season two – and the incomplete season was never released on DVD. What's a poor, law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to do?
BitTorrent to the rescue. I was able to locate a torrent of all the Boomtown episodes, and I'm downloading it now.
I've talked before about the remarkable parity between the uTorrent web user interface and the windows user interface. However, as good as the web UI is, it pales in comparison to the incredibly deep informatics that uTorrent provides on the state of your BitTorrent download. I love poring over the torrent metrics; they're beautifully presented – an excellent example of how to visually depict a complex set of data in a meaningful way. Let's take a quick visual tour through the main tabs in uTorrent; I'll point out the most interesting parts.
On the General Tab, we can see that the torrent is fairly well seeded. That's important, because the biggest weakness of the torrent system is that it requires a certain level of popularity to work at all. In our case, the availability graphic is a nice, solid blue – there are no red bars indicating missing sections. The darker the bars, the more copies of that particular section are available in the swarm.
It's also indicated numerically; an availability of 1 means the entire file is available. That's the minimum, assuming you want to download everything. An availability of 5.93 indicates there are almost 6 complete copies of the torrent data in the swarm. It's no coincidence that there are also 6 peers with a complete copy of the data – these critically important peers are known as "seeds". The other 19 peers will remain peers until they manage to download 100% of the data, and then they become seeds too. If a torrent loses all its seeds, it is in deep trouble.
On the Files Tab, we can see the state of individual files in the torrent. There's a nice little graphic next to each file that shows how many pieces of the files have been downloaded. The blue sections indicate parts of the file that have been successfully downloaded; green sections indicate parts of the file that are being downloaded right now.
You can also tag files with a priority, so they're retrieved in a particular order. Well, roughly – the torrent protocol retrieves in random order from whatever's available in the peer swarm, so order is never guaranteed. Or, you can set them to "skip" if you don't want to retrieve those files. Since I already rented all the season 1 DVDs, I set all the season 1 epsiodes to skip, and I switched the particular season 2 episode I wanted to "high". This will prevent me from becoming a seed, but it dramatically shortens my download time.
On the Peers Tab, we can get a glimpse into the democratic nature of the BitTorrent protocol. These are our fellow peers and seeds, sharing whatever bits of the data they have with everyone else in the swarm. Given enough peers, downloads are fast for everyone. uTorrent conveniently does a DNS lookup and shows little flags next to each peer, so you can get a sense of how global the BitTorrent protocol really is.
On the Pieces Tab, we can see the real-time state of the current pieces we're downloading from our peers in the swarm. Dark blue means downloaded; light blue means requested but not yet downloaded.
On the Speed Tab, we can view a history of transfer rates over time, including both upload and download speeds. BitTorrent is a shared download, so you're supposed to give as much as you get – although altruism is difficult to enforce.
Another section of the Speed Tab shows an incredibly detailed breakdown of disk activity. BitTorrent is designed to download enormous files. This torrent is over 8 GB in size, for example. With such large amounts of data in play, managing disk caches and optimizing disk activity is unusually important.
Most of this is also explained in the official uTorrent FAQ, and it goes into greater detail, too.
I'll admit that I tend to completely geek out on the way Torrent exposes all the inner workings of the BitTorrent protocol in such a beautiful, highly visual way. It never takes the easy way out and renders as a boring table of numbers when a visualization would work better. I think many programs could learn a lot from the way uTorrent so effortlessly presents the mountain of data it is processing internally.
I think there's a deeper lesson here as well. The commercial market failed me. As far as I can tell, there's no way I could obtain these elusive season 2 Boomtown episodes through legitimate channels. I was only able to obtain them through a torrent graciously seeded and shared by fellow Boomtown enthusiasts. Perhaps that's the real beauty of BitTorrent – it's the world's most efficient and democratic distribution network, because it's driven entirely by us.
This comment thread is saddening proof that the RI/MPAA's scare tactics are working. Say anything loud enough and often enough and people will start believing you, I guess...
Dan G. on October 15, 2007 2:06 AMOf course Petzold hates Jeff. Jeff would've knocked the little old lady with the iPod to the next subway stop.
For free.
(As an aside, do scrub the personally identifiable information from screenshots. Not because of MPAA/RIAA lawsuits - it's just a good habit.)
tcliu on October 15, 2007 2:36 AMPerhaps true, but I think my favorite episode is in season 2. I'm trying to figure out which one that is, which prompted the download
Yeah, I will say that as flat as it became, it was only so in comparison to the first 6 or so eps. I still watched every one and would certainly watch more if they made them.
Plus, my wife (an English teacher) used the scene from season 2 with the walled in frat boy in her Poe unit. (-:
Mack on October 15, 2007 2:49 AMOne word stood out: "What's a ***poor***, law-abiding citizen"
The whole "the market has failed" argument can be used to explain many things - drugs, prostitution, the failure of prohibition, etc. But a lot of times I hear people say that "X was to expensive so I torrented it". The problem with these people is that the only price at which they would buy it would be $0.
I think the thriving torrent scene has caused a general trend towards people not valuing things that can be copied easily, and toward simple laziness - why save money to buy X when I can blame the market and get it for free?
The example I have in mind are "poor students" who can't afford to buy CDs, but who can afford to blow $50 on beer drinks three times a week.
tcliu on October 15, 2007 2:55 AM...the only price at which they would buy it would be $0.
And doesn't that imply that there is no economic loss to the creator?
@Mack:
...the only price at which they would buy it would be $0.
And doesn't that imply that there is no economic loss to the creator?
No, because if the buyer didn't have access to bittorrent, they would buy the item at a price above $0. So the sentence should be read "the only price at which they would buy it given that torrenting it is an alternative would be $0".
There's only no loss if the person would under no circumstances whatsoever pay anything for the item.
But if the item were that worthless, they wouldn't bother to torrent it either.
The fact that the person is torrenting the item means that it has value for them. And *that* value is lost to the creator, because the person should be willing to pay that much.
tcliu on October 15, 2007 3:17 AMtcliu:
This is why Radiohead's new approach is so great, I think. See their latest offering at http://www.inrainbows.com - they have their album up for download at their site at whatever price you are willing to pay.
Dan G. on October 15, 2007 3:48 AMif the buyer didn't have access to bittorrent, they would buy the item at a price above $0.
Or not buy it at all -- a lot more likely. That's what's implied in your original statement, and it rings true.
I don't argue that every torrented copy is a copy that would never be purchased, or that there is not some average loss when you look at all such copies -- some people likely would pay more than $0.
But I would argue that the loss is a lot closer to $0 than it is to the retail price.
As it is, there are only two prices: $0 or retail. What if the market clearing price is somewhere in between? Isn't this is the market establishing the clearing price in the only way it can?
Mack on October 15, 2007 3:54 AMI don't agree with Charles' position, but I thought his response in the comments was pretty funny:
"I actually have written an entire book that demonstrates how to resolve all copyright issues to everyone's satisfaction, but I have chosen not to publish it or make it public in any way. — Charles"
kweeket on October 15, 2007 4:24 AMJeff could have bought the missing episode if he had just bought the network. Couldn't afford it? then just take it
oh ... the uTottent stats are neat too.
Scott on October 15, 2007 4:29 AMI used Azureus for a while before switching to uTorrent. While I agree many of the features are similar, I prefer uTorrent b/c it is a much lighter application.
Kevin on October 15, 2007 4:50 AMI hate to break it to some of you above who are yelling about Federal crime, but copyright infringement is not considered a crime in the United States, Federal or otherwise.
stubblechin on October 15, 2007 5:08 AMSome of the screens look remarkably similar (say, 90%) to the other popular client, Azureus. Which I believe is older.
MLeo on October 15, 2007 5:09 AMTechnically, you are admitting to something that is a prosecuted crime in your country (are you sure you REALLY want to post about it?). If there is no legitimate way to get a hold of it, you are supposed to be just plain out of luck. This is why RIAA and MPAA etc are all such rabid haters of technology. Remember when only they controlled distribution? Remember when getting a movie on tape only happened YEARS after it came out. Now movies are pushed out in months just because they have no alternative, after all, movies are frequently available for download BEFORE the theatrical release (by over a year in some cases!)
That aside, there is another lesson to be learned from uTorrent. You can start a trend with a good idea and lousy software and eventually BUY your way to quality. I don't think anyone can argue that Bram's python client was lousy - it did the job, almost, but there were variants available immediately to address shortcomings and the original bit torrent client continually changed with features coming and going version by version (stability in features was part of the reason to use anything BUT the original author's version).
Fortunately, Bram was recently able to buy uTorrent, and in doing so stepped from a quality idea to a quality implementation. I sincerely hope that this does not become a lesson about how to destroy great software.
Xepol on October 15, 2007 5:09 AMWhile we're talking about Torrent, can I branch slightly and ask if the dreaded "Event 4226" an issue with this client?
(The Microsoft imposed limit on the maximum number of half-open TCP connections: see http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/transform.aspx?ProdName=Windows%20Operating%20SystemProdVer=5.2EvtID=4226EvtSrc=TcpipLCID=1033 )
I know there are suitable patches out there, http://www.lvllord.de/ ,but there doesn't seem to be a current patch for XP x64 so my torrent use is really suffering (I'm currently using Shareaza).
Graham Stewart on October 15, 2007 5:19 AMI find it interesting how angry Charles seems to be at you, seeing as you have committed no crime.
Regardless, uTorrent is a great program, so great, that I even use WINE to run it on my Linux box. I just can't find something to beat it (feature-wise), for the extremely small memory footprint it has.
The statistics are even nicer in Azureus while the ones they both share and highly similar.
dc on October 15, 2007 5:37 AMReading most of the comments on this blog and Charles Petzold's i am surprised that noone has brought up the way studios market their products, emphasizing that you have to get everything now at any cost, everything is a MUST watch extravanganza, and then they expect you to just forget something if they cant be bothered realeasing it after spending millions telling you that your extremeties will rot off if you dont get it.
Everyone seems to be praising azureus' swarm visuilisation. I see this as windows 98 defragmenter vs windows xp. One is more fun to watch, one defragments your hdd. I am still not going to roll back to 98.
Evan Skibin on October 15, 2007 5:37 AMIf there is no legitimate way to get a hold of it, you are supposed to be just plain out of luck.
Well, here I see a future for the production team to make their website, and then to offer the rights to get the file for a price - or to put 'm through another distribution channel.
I admit I don't know much about the payment pyramids in video, and I'm aware that they can become pretty hairy and convoluted with music, not releasing episodes (when there's a possibility to eliminate distribution costs) is letting intellectual property rot and deprecate instead of turning in more of a profit than it generates currently.
Rob Janssen on October 15, 2007 5:49 AMEvan-- have you seen Vista's defragmenter? It's even more minimalistic than the one in XP, it provides nothing other than a spinning circle to indicate progress!
Jeff Atwood on October 15, 2007 5:49 AMTorrent is my favorite BitTorrent client as well.
There's only one thing that annoys the hell out of me : the ETA.
Estimated Time of Arrival is a point in time not a duration.
If you need a duration it should be ETE : Estimated Time En route.
KristofU on October 15, 2007 5:52 AMHey Now Jeff,
I've never tried uTorrent only BitComet Azureus. Since it's what you recommend, I'm looking forward to trying it. Everyone sure does love bitTorrent.
Coding Horror Fan,
Catto
"What's a poor, law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to do?
BitTorrent to the rescue. I was able to locate a torrent of all the Boomtown episodes, and I'm downloading it now."
Um, those two statements are mutually exclusive. As Xepol, above, noted, you might not want to admit things like this in a blog.
David A. Lessnau on October 15, 2007 5:57 AMWow dude, repeating what the other guy said... you're blogging about committing a Federal crime and unlike say the rest of us, wouldn't your status as a A/B list blogger make you even more likely to be sued by the MPAA?
I really like the majority of what you blog about, so maybe could you fuzz out the images a little and say your using uTorrent to download, say Ubuntu or gparted?
DjW on October 15, 2007 5:59 AMAlso, I don't think that your peers (screenshot #3) appreciate that you made a static snapshot of their illegal download/upload activity and distributed said activity to the public via this blog.
Did you get their consent beforehand?
Duderino on October 15, 2007 6:06 AMI think the Wikipedia link you meant is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomtown_%28TV_series%29
I have to agree with the people above. CodingHorror is a pretty popular blog, and this constitutes a crime, AFAIK. I remember you made a similar post about the Torrent WebUI ( http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000815.html ) which showed you were downloading episodes of Rome and The Chronicles of Riddick. It might be a good idea to just have some Linux ISO's in your screenshots or something.
LHR on October 15, 2007 6:10 AMWhy in God's name do you get sued for downloading something that could have been recorded off the airwaves with a capture card, for free? There's little chance he'll be sued, although it's copyright infringement. All this post proves is that there's something wrong with the way TV stations work.
And another thing Xepol, specifically, what do you think uTorrent was used for before it was bought by BitTorrent?
yahoo on October 15, 2007 6:15 AMfor all the people worrying about the legality of Jeffs post and the details. It's not like the powers that be, couldn't do the same thing to get seed peoples information from their own bittorrent downloads.
Take off the tin foil hat. They don't want to go after someone downloading a trashed, canceled show episode. They want the people that have this weeks movies releases, AND 2000+ songs available to anyone.
Why in God's name do you get sued for downloading something that could have been recorded off the airwaves with a capture card, for free?
That's obvious. Home taping is killing music, downloading is killing TV.
Rob Janssen on October 15, 2007 6:27 AMStick it to the man Jeff!
If you need shelter from the feds, rent a ship in the Swedish archipelago, aka the pirate bay. :)
I used to use Azureus, but with version 3 included so much crap so I went for uTorrent instead. I do miss the various plugins tough..
C-J on October 15, 2007 6:27 AMWelcome to the RIAA, MPAA the rest of the MafiAA's hate list.
Great article, but please censor the net addresses of the rest of your peers in that torrent!
paketep on October 15, 2007 6:51 AMJeff, you should check out Azureus' "Swarm" view, aka The Big Eye. That's my favorite visualization of the state of the torrent.
Correction for a couple of folks: Torrenting copyrighted material is not a "federal crime". It's not even a crime. It is, however, prosecutable in civil court.
Tim McCormack on October 15, 2007 6:55 AMRob Janssen:
That's obvious. Home taping is killing music, downloading is killing TV.
That is a separate debate... and you are wrong.
drukus on October 15, 2007 6:58 AMHey, maybe bloggig about crimes isnt such a good idea, we wont blame you if you change some words around to make it a third person type of story. "a buddy of mine...." and just hope that all the caches were purged within a reasonable timeframe...
At the same time, i have to agree, torrent is great, when i used to get linux distributions and other open source software via torrents, i was an Azureus user. The moment i found out about torrent, instantly switched, and boy, did it teach me some lessons. I replaced a lot of my software with less bloaty things in the following months and extended life of quite a few of my machines. Also the simplicity and design quality are something all software designers should aspire to.
Evan Skibin on October 15, 2007 7:00 AMVery brave to post this on a public blog :)
Btw, you posted an image with IP numbers of fellow partners in crime. You might want to blurr these.
Frans Bouma on October 15, 2007 7:02 AMDoes anyone else see the irony that just last week Jeff was decrying the evils of YouTube (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000972.html) and now he's proud he could find a TV show in breach of copyright using BitTorrent?
CJ on October 15, 2007 7:20 AMI think people are missing the point in the "What's a poor, law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to do? BitTorrent to the rescue." sentence.
The point is, there is no "legal" way to get that episode. But, with Bittorrent:
- You can get pretty much any episode you like, of any show made ever made (almost).
- There's no annoying, unnecessary warnings along the line of "You were not allow to have downloaded this DVD over the internet, by the way.. Even though the downloaded copies don't have these warnings, so only the legal-owners of this disc will ever see this.."
- No unskippable company-logos/copyright notices you've seen hundereds of times and have never read.
- With something like a modified Xbox, one of those Media Extender devices, or a Windows Media Center or MythTV box, or a Mac Mini/Front Row - you can watch any episode you want without finding and changing discs, on your normal TV (Espically easy with LCD/Plamsa, which have VGA or DVI ports)
- You can easily make backups (Something that is basically illegal with DVDs..), and if you do lose it, just download it again. Not like with DVDs, where you need to break the law to back them up. Or buy the entire thing again, just because of that small scratch..
Seriously, aside from a legal-aspect, the "piracy" way of watching films is *FAR* superior for consumers, in every way. You get the material as soon as it's released. You can watch it on any device you want (desktop, laptop, phone, MP3 players like the iPod), as many times as you like. You have far more freedom with the content (to back it up. Or to recompress it for a portable device)
As for the Author getting sued for posting screenshots of him downloading this TV show - It will *never* happen. The chances of any anti-piracy organization caring enough even if they do see this post is about zero. The fact the show was canceled, and the DVD was never created, reduces the chances of that even more.. And the chances of anyone being sued on the basis of a few screenshots is fairly ridiculous.
/fairly rambling post
- Ben
@ drukus : I should use the sarcasm tags ;).
On the other hand, the dropping incomes from commercials cause more and more blatant product placement, so one could argue that it'd be possible that the quality of the series suffers because of it.
Rob Janssen on October 15, 2007 7:27 AMHey Jeff, if you like boomtown, I highly recommend you check out "Deadwood" if you haven't seen it already. It's a great series. Only ran for 2 seasons but all episodes are available to rent, probably on netflix.
Chris D on October 15, 2007 7:34 AMIf I were you I would remove this post immediately.
Umm on October 15, 2007 7:37 AMOy, I don't like seeing all that useless info in my face. Just tell me how fast it's going, how much progress has been made, and when it will be finished. I use Transmission.
JS on October 15, 2007 7:53 AMDoes anyone else see the irony that just last week Jeff was decrying the evils of YouTube (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000972.html) and now he's proud he could find a TV show in breach of copyright using BitTorrent?
I don't think he was blasting YouTube as much about it was ignoring copyright as he was commenting about how they are profiting from copyright infringement.
Moving on: I love uTorrent as my client of choice, and have been pushing it to my friends and family. However, what's been really annoying me for the past 2 years now has been the fact that all BT clients have all been coded to work in single user environments. However, now that we live in the day of house LANs, with 2 or 3 (or more computers), with each user wanting BT access at the same time. Having 3 clients all siting behind a router, running at the same time is a bad idea. It'll either leave your outbound pipe underutilized, or over utilized. Plus, by default, you must always have someone logged in to run these clients.
Why hasn't anyone developed a client/server BT app yet. One where the BT protocol is running on a central server, managing the torrents of several users, running as a service/daemon not requiring anyone logged in. Then the users have their own client that they can access the server with, and get a full featured experience.
I know you can use srvany.exe and the WebUI to get a pseudo experience, but I like my full statistical information.
Evan M. on October 15, 2007 7:57 AMHonestly man, blur out people's IP addresses.
Horatio on October 15, 2007 7:57 AMI use BitTorrent as a testing ground for something i want to purchase... Spending $20 to get the latest CD from a band only to find out there is 1 good song and 10-13 fillers is a terrible thing... So, I will DL the cd and if I like it, go to iTunes and purchase the CD for $10... If i don't like it, I will go to iTunes and buy the one song for $0.99.
Everybody wins. I don't feel raped by the record label and develop a bad taste for the artist, and they get their money in the end. I am sure Jeff will rent Season 2 of Boomtown when it's available...
Wayne on October 15, 2007 8:05 AM Did you get their consent beforehand?
Honestly man, blur out people's IP addresses.
If they didn't want their IP addresses known, then shouldn't be participating in a P2P swarm. I think it's the best part of the article.
Privacy is one thing, but when you head out to the local GlobalMart, expect people to take notice.
Matt on October 15, 2007 8:06 AMHow's this for fitting,
After I closed the tab for this article I had one for a daily meditation open:
Buddha: If you do not tend to one another then who is there to tend to you? ...
The rest didn't fit in with the article... but this part made me go ha!
Scien on October 15, 2007 8:17 AM@ Xepol:
"There is another lesson to be learned from uTorrent. You can start a trend with a good idea and lousy software and eventually BUY your way to quality. I don't think anyone can argue that Bram's python client was lousy - it did the job, almost, but there were variants available immediately to address shortcomings and the original bit torrent client continually changed with features coming and going version by version (stability in features was part of the reason to use anything BUT the original author's version).
"Fortunately, Bram was recently able to buy uTorrent, and in doing so stepped from a quality idea to a quality implementation. I sincerely hope that this does not become a lesson about how to destroy great software."
No, I'd say this is a lesson about how to use Free Software (i.e. open-source) to make your project succeed.
Andrew Conkling on October 15, 2007 8:23 AMCharles Petzold hates you now, Jeff. He really does.
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2007/10/151219.html
If the episodes were never released on DVD and not shown on tele. Is it still illegal to download :O
Robert on October 15, 2007 8:27 AMCan I ask if the dreaded "Event 4226" an issue with this client? ( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/transform.aspx?ProdName=Windows%20Operating%20SystemProdVer=5.2EvtID=4226EvtSrc=TcpipLCID=1033 )
Still an issue. All I could find were shady kernel patches to get around it.
Jeff Atwood on October 15, 2007 8:31 AMiAs for the Author getting sued for posting screenshots of him downloading this TV show - It will *never* happen. The chances of any anti-piracy organization caring enough even if they do see this post is about zero. The fact the show was canceled, and the DVD was never created, reduces the chances of that even more.. And the chances of anyone being sued on the basis of a few screenshots is fairly ridiculous./i
I agree. You are not even factoring in the blowback associated with the bad PR of them trying to. The essence of this post is talking about how great of a show it was. It makes me want to watch it now.
Legal issues aside, I want to pick on your comment relating to disk caching. On the write side of things, the fastest I've ever had a set of torrents go is at around 1MB/sec, and I'm sure all the other disk activity I was doing at the time easily dwarfed that figure. On the read side of things, usually you'd be sending blocks non-sequentially anyway, depending on your peer's request, and also at a far slower rate. I hardly think having an optimized disk would make any difference at all.
Kamil Kisiel on October 15, 2007 9:04 AMThe music industry don't seem too bothered about getting bad PR.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm
24 songs shared, fined $222,000. The punishment doen't exactly match the crime but I'd imagine the TV industry may well decide to work along the same lines. This post could give them a pretty good prosecution case I reckon (although IANAL)
Doogal on October 15, 2007 9:14 AMI think there's at least one other thing we can learn from uTorrent. Guess what language it is written in?
Ole Eichhorn on October 15, 2007 9:21 AMBlurring IPs, hiding data. Oh please. Do you really think the RIAA can't get a copy of [insert favorite torrent client here] and get *exactly* the same information posted on this blog?
They know what's out there. There is absolutely, totally nothing that's news to any of the frantic ranters at the RIAA/MPAA mafia.
Honestly though, they are not a large risk, and they are as doomed as dinosaurs. The internet will eventually choke off their air supply. Money itself will put an end to their censorship nonsense more effectively than any legislation.
Ian on October 15, 2007 9:24 AMI have to side with Charles Petzold on this one (though I'm no fan of how the industry operates). I just dont think this is right at all. But I'm guessing I'm probably the minority opinion here :-)
Sriram Krishnan on October 15, 2007 9:31 AM/me is another uTorrent fan
The greatest thing (imho) about uTorrent is that the program is entirely portable.
Well, about this being a crime -- I am no lawyer, but I believe that equating ____ piracy and stealing is not accurate. Here's why: when you steal X, then not only do you now have X, but whoever you stole it from does not. Piracy, then is only half as bad in that you now have (a copy of) X, but the only thing you have done is hindered the right of the copyright holder to make money from selling it.
Now, by similar reasoning, it would seem that DISSEMINATING copyrighted material is as bad as N x (stealing/2), where N is the number of people that you disseminated the copies to. That's the amount of hurt you dealt to the copyright holder (who may be a millionaire, a starving artist, or a corporation with lots of mouths to feed).
Of course, the content markets are changing. Look at music. When I was growing up, it was super-lucrative to release an album. Now, artists are moving more toward live concerts, because of developments like the iPod and YouTube. But guess what, things like the iPod are great for making people impulsively buy songs, and with DRM may be bringing in a lot more money than and overall than CDs, and with more convenience o the user. Similarly, small clips on YouTube entice many people watch TV shows and movies and a lot of them would probably qualify as fair use.
All I can say is, the landscape is changing. I don't think going after ostensibly upright, honest citizens like Jeff who spend hundreds (if not more) of dollars each year on media, when they download an unavailable episode, is in the RIAA's best interests. Doesn't mean they won't do it, but that's my opinion. The RIAA should focus its attention on bigger things. And why aren't we indignant about all the lobbying going on in congress by companies with lots of money to extend the copyright to a ridiculous amount of time (vs. say patents) ?
All I can say is
www.dontdownloadthissong.com
Greg
Gregory Magarshak on October 15, 2007 9:54 AMAll this commentary about uTorrent and none about Boomtown?
The series started out as greatly innovative, highly engaging and watchable. Then the panic set in and one by one the innovative bits dropped away until it was just another ho-hum procedural.
Shame. I guess it required an attention span of more than a minute or so, which doomed it for US TV.
Mack on October 15, 2007 9:58 AMyahoo wrote: "Why in God's name do you get sued for downloading something that could have been recorded off the airwaves with a capture card, for free? There's little chance he'll be sued, although it's copyright infringement. All this post proves is that there's something wrong with the way TV stations work."
---
Right, that's why the RIAA never sues people for downloading music that could've easily been recorded from "free" FM radio.
And TV execs never declare that "skipping commercials is stealing". And PVR manufacturers never remove commercial-skipping technology from their devices.
And businesses never get sued for playing the radio too loud:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/07/2335244
Wake up.
Will on October 15, 2007 10:08 AM"Oy, I don't like seeing all that useless info in my face. Just tell me how fast it's going, how much progress has been made, and when it will be finished. I use Transmission."
JS, uTorrent doesn't give you all this useless info in your face, its small and sits happily where-ever you put it showing you just what you want - a list of blue bars with ETA etc. If you press F5 you get the 'more info' screens. (admittedly you might need to set it up so the summary is shown by default).
just another example of how good the UI of uTorrent is, you just get the summary until you choose to see more by pressing the 'expand' button.
You also forgot the other good bits - when minimised it sits in the tray, with the right-click options you really want such as pause/resume all torrents.
AndyB on October 15, 2007 10:12 AMBlurring IPs, hiding data. Oh please. Do you really think the RIAA can't get a copy of [insert favorite torrent client here] and get *exactly* the same information posted on this blog?
So you think the RIAA monitors every single torrent? Ohhh please!
Joe Beam on October 15, 2007 10:13 AMThe greatest thing (imho) about uTorrent is that the program is entirely portable.
I wouldn't consider it portable if Linux users have to run it through wine!
Azureus written in java is completely portable.
Joe Beam on October 15, 2007 10:16 AMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm
I'm surprised I hadn't heard about this sooner - strikes me as the sort of thing that would cause a fundraiser - I'd throw some money her direction (Being that she's being used as the poster child for file-sharing).
Might send a good message if that fine just vanished... (heck, it works for corporate execs, why not for us?)
Allen on October 15, 2007 10:24 AMEvan,
You should check out rtorrent (and possibly other linux-based torrent clients). If you were to set up a central server (rtorrent doesn't take much processor power - typically around .5% or so on my 2 GHz processor, with about 200 (completely legal) torrents running) it'll handle itself pretty well. You can run it via screen or dtach, if necessary, or just in one of the terminal windows on that computer. And it's really easy for multiple users to add / remove torrents - just put the torrent file in a specific (network) directory and it'll start downloading.
You can find it here:
http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/
Unfortunately it's a linux only client - but I'm sure you could get it running via Cygwin or something along those lines.
Corvec on October 15, 2007 10:31 AMIt's like this: if the knucklehead producers cancel a show and do not release it on DVD, and somebody wants to watch it -- there is no recourse!! No sales are lost because there are none in the first place.
If Jeff sells it then that's different.
Wake up sheeple.
Azureus written in java is completely portable.
Which would explain why it eats such ridiculous amounts of resources.
J. Stoever on October 15, 2007 10:51 AMWhile I like that bt can offer people the chance to see shows that have been cancelled or long forgotten... Like many others, I do find it extremely odd and frankly, disturbing that you chose to keep the IPs and identifying data visible for the other nodes.
While you can make the decision to publicly share what you are doing, I do not think it is wise to post other peoples activity and/ or identifying data.
While the mpaa (or riaa) might not bother with *this* file, some people might like to use that info to access said machines for both scurrilous or other reasons entirely. It is a bit of information that says IP x is using software/tech y. Knowing that enables the riaa, mpaa or hackers to have a look.
Basically, it seems to be in bad to terrible form to leave the identifying data of others in the image.
benb on October 15, 2007 10:55 AMs/Boomtown/Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows ME/
is it still OK to torrent and use things?
Windows 2000 has a similar status as this TV show. It can no longer be purchased. It is no longer supported.
I guess I'll go find a torrent and I'll run my home PC with it.
Just because it is easy or available doesn't make it any more right.
I think Jeff makes his money selling software for a living, or building software which someone else sells for a living. What if it were your creation that people were stealing for free, Jeff?
The state of copyright in the US is disgusting. It is stifling our culture and creativity. We need to revert back to 7 year or maybe 14 year copyrights.
Imagine if you could just wait 7 years and then watch this TV show LEGALLY because it were released into the public domain! That is the situation we had with all copyright materials less than 100 years ago.
I agree with several people above, Azureus had many of these features first. uTorrent just came along and implemented them in a restrictive Windows-only interface.
Also Corvec raises an excellent point. I've been using rTorrent for months now, and I love how lightweight it is. I can easily push 100Mbps upstream without the CPU breaking a sweat.
Jeff S on October 15, 2007 11:10 AMThe series started out as greatly innovative, highly engaging and watchable. Then the panic set in and one by one the innovative bits dropped away until it was just another ho-hum procedural.
Perhaps true, but I think my favorite episode is in season 2. I'm trying to figure out which one that is, which prompted the download.
Charles Petzold hates you now ( http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2007/10/151219.html )
That's interesting. Obviously, I don't agree. I totally support things like the Amazon MP3 store with my pocketbook, but there was no way for me to obtain season 2 of Boomtown through any legitimate means that I'm aware of. Personally, I think obscurity and scarcity are the greater sins here-- Boomtown was a great show.
Windows 2000 has a similar status as this TV show. It can no longer be purchased. It is no longer supported.
Not entirely true-- I can easily buy legal copies of Windows 2000 on eBay for almost nothing. Where is the equivalent for Boomtown season 2?
Jeff Atwood on October 15, 2007 11:24 AMyou should check out Azureus' "Swarm" view, aka The Big Eye. That's my favorite visualization of the state of the torrent.
Screenshots:
http://images.google.com/images?q=azureus+swarm+view
I've never used Azeureus, so I can't say with authority who had these views first.
Jeff Atwood on October 15, 2007 11:32 AMInteresting post, Jeff.
I can't wait until your book is available for download, because, you know, I want it *now*.
Richard on October 15, 2007 11:37 AMI hate to repeat what everyone has already said, but you should blur the peer IPs. Just as a courtesy to the people willing to risk legal action in order to share with you something you desperately wanted for no reward (a good ratio at demonoid is almost meaningless due to its public/private nature.)
Also, the chances of anti-p2p organizations reading this blog entry are 1 out of 1. And contrary to all rationalizations, they are NOT only looking for people sharing massive amounts of anything, they are looking for exemplar targets like defiant public violators, or a selection of people that fit the profile of the typical downloader to hopefully have a terrorist effect amongst other file sharers and raise an erroneous perception of the probability of their being caught and sued, which is currently less than the probability of being struck by lightning on a cloudless day.
I am absolutely sure that at least two or three people are having or will be having a discussion today of the possible PR merits of suing Jeff.
Jamaal on October 15, 2007 11:37 AMMy prediction: Jeff was after the episode "The Hole-In-The-Wall Gang". Because it featured a "Members Only" jacket joke. At least, that's why I would want to download it. :)
IvyMike on October 15, 2007 11:48 AMI use eMule (eDonkey/Kad client) and it has many of the same metrics available.
But in regard to the downloading copyrighted material thing.
I downloaded every episode of the first season of Heroes, I came in mid-season so I downloaded to catch up to the story arc. Then I started watching it at a friends house. Then I bought it on DVD.
This would not have happened if I hadn't downloaded it. (Plus, I think Heroes is funded in part by Nissan (Versa in the first season, Rogue in this season)).
I do this a lot. Hell, TV is probably the only thing I do download. I delete the crappy shows (Code Monkeys) and I eventually wind up buying the good shows (Venture Brothers, Futurama, The Office, and probably House next).
So where does that leave content creators? They do get my money or advertisers' money. Advertisers should know that the way we consume content is changing and change their tactics accordingly. Actually, they should have done so already with shows like the Sopranos and Entourage which have no typical commercials.
I think with Heroes NBC is approaching the problem in a positive way. By the deal with Nissan that gets their cars specifically mentioned by name in the show. That's probably a bonus for both parties. NBC gets advertising revenue and Nissan gets a slightly subversive ad that you cannot ignore.
eMule on October 15, 2007 12:09 PMuTorrent seems to make a big deal out of being 100% C++. How big is this advantage over develop the same thing in .NET? Afaik there is no major .net torrent client out there to compare with.
As for the RIAA/MPAA paranoia, come on people... all you need is tinfoil cap.
//Signed interweb citizen nr 81.224.30.112
(Currently downloading the latest album of swedish rockgroup Mustasch witout a qualm)
uTorrent seems to make a big deal out of being 100% C++. How big is this advantage over develop the same thing in .NET?
There's really only one reason that they make a big deal out of it being done in 100% C++; lower resource (memory) usage.
At the time uTorrent was first starting to get released, the only other client that had as much functionality was Azureus. Being made from Java, it was significantly more resource heavy than uT. I don't really care what language is used to code the program, but I do care about it's resource usage when running. Saying that it's made from 100% C++ (compared to Az, which is the "natural" comparison) gives me an easy way to justify why the resource usage would be lower (without having to do my own testing).
Evan M. on October 15, 2007 12:30 PMAll Petzold's examples require depriving someone else of the use of something.
Should the estate of Shakespere (sp?) get royalties every time a high school performs one of his plays?
How about the first singer of the "happy birthday" song?
Finally, how frequently do the actual authors get the money and how often do huge corporations whose only accomplishment is to have a legal monopoly get all the cash?
You Need to Think This Through on October 15, 2007 12:38 PMUnreal, blur the ip's already! Trying to prove some sort of a point? Maybe your peers aren't interested in proving the same point. They share the file with you, and you put them at potential risk (however small). Nice.
Steven on October 15, 2007 12:39 PMAll Petzold's examples require depriving someone else of the use of something.
Should the estate of Shakespere (sp?) get royalties every time a high school performs one of his plays?
How about the first singer of the "happy birthday" song?
Finally, how frequently do the actual authors get the money and how often do huge corporations whose only accomplishment is to have a legal monopoly get all the cash?
You Need to Think This Through on October 15, 2007 12:41 PMRe the blurring of network addresses: if downloading is legal, what are you concerned about? Oh, that's right...
Re Shakespeare's getting estate getting royalties: show Jeff your support for downloading by not buying his book and instead just download it from somewhere. Information should be free, right?
Look, I hate the record companies and the movie studios as much as the next guy, but this "I want it now, therefore I have the right to grab it wherever I find it." mentality is puerile.
Richard on October 15, 2007 12:53 PM"Re the blurring of network addresses: if downloading is legal, what are you concerned about? Oh, that's right..."
Its not legal, thats the point of why he should blur them.
Did I miss your point somehow?
Steven on October 15, 2007 12:58 PM@richard
the addresses should be blurred not just because of legality. It is pointing out an entry point to whomever - riaa/mpaa/crook... whomever. It is akin to randomly posting a person's email address.. Or sending out a mail blast where everyone's email address is in the to list. It is improper- regardless of legality.
ben b on October 15, 2007 1:06 PMGeeze, whats with the blasting? How many of you jay-walked or loitered? Infrigment is != to stealing!
Lasander on October 15, 2007 1:53 PMI'm also a prime advocate of uTorrent and have been using it since its conception. Did you know that BT actually acquired that from the original creator? Now that is saying something. Ludvig did better than the actual creator of the protocol could. Wow! What an amazing program that is, and it's free!
And by the way, I alse feel that Demonoid kicks ass (as long as the servers stay up)!
Josh Stodola on October 16, 2007 2:03 AMConsidering the episode you were looking for was never released commercially, you could make a request at the "Digital Archive Project" (http://www.dapcentral.org/) that someone with recordings of it post them up.
The DAP is a community of people who share copies of tv shows which were never released on VHS/DVD- Since they weren't released in any commercial context, the DAP is free to publish them without risking impending lawsuit. They're actually fairly militant about this- Anything released on DAP but then released commercially (e.g the occasional episode of MST3K) is instantly blacklisted from the server.
I got the entire season of Clone High from them. They've got a lot of other gems too... worth checking out.
Alex on October 16, 2007 3:45 AM I don't argue that every torrented copy is a copy that would never
be purchased, or that there is not some average loss when you look
at all such copies -- some people likely would pay more than $0.
But I would argue that the loss is a lot closer to $0 than it is
to the retail price.
Yes, I agree with that.
On the whole, the small loss on each torrent is made up for in volume, though.
tcliu on October 16, 2007 4:40 AMSo many comments, without one a convincing defense of Mr. Atwood's piracy on ethical grounds. Mr. Atwood says he disagrees with Charles Petzold's comments, and says no more.
Just because a person probably won't get caught, and that it can be argued it isn't exactly stealing, doesn't make this right.
@Rob Janssen - "not releasing episodes [...] is letting intellectual property rot [...]" Unfortunately, that is the right of the owner. Thank the government for extending copyright well beyond anything the rest of society considers reasonable. Thank the judicial system for deciding that doesn't matter either.
@yahoo - Actually, Bit torrent does have legal uses. In fact, I got an update to URU from Cyan Studios by way of bit torrent. I recognize that there are many gray and black market uses, but don't forget it does have legitmate uses like a photocopier and video recorder as well. (I live in Canada, where fair use still actually stands a chance, at least until corrupt politicians change the rules of the game)
All this said, I do agree that the system is out of control, consumers are getting screwed and the entire issue has some interesting parallels to historical events like the Boston Tea Party, which individuals who felt that the powers that be had gone to far and took matters into their own hands. Oh, that and the whole revolution too. Are the stakes as high? Are the powers as corrupt? History will decide.
Just remember, when you are in the theater next time and they run the anti-piracy ad and the guy says "it's wrong to just click a button and get the benefit of all that work without paying", just remember how you watched that movie on TV the night before, you know, the tv hooked to the antenna instead of pay cable...
Xepol on October 16, 2007 5:31 AMHello jackass.... seriously, hide your Peer's IP's at the very least, that's just dumb and rude. Second, don't mention the name of the actual show you're downloading, that's just dumb.
What are you going to do next, post a video of you stealing movies from your local Blockbuster?
SmarterThanYou on October 16, 2007 7:26 AMThe reason why there are no defenses of Jeff on ethical grounds is because there are no ethical defenses of copyright law, only pragmatic ones (which have been abandoned and replaced by some bizarre natural right of a human to all of its emanations). Trademarks do have an ethical component, but not copyrights.
He should feel as guilty downloading that show as you should if I tell you a joke I heard on the radio.
Jamaal on October 16, 2007 7:38 AMStill an issue. All I could find were shady kernel patches to get around it.
Well the "shady" LvlLord patch works ok on XP (last time I tried it), just not on XP x64.
I guess you could probably do a binary diff on the files to see what has changed if you don't trust it. I believe it only changes the TCPIP.SYS file.
Still an issue. All I could find were shady kernel patches to get around it.
Well the "shady" LvlLord patch works ok on XP (last time I tried it), just not on XP x64.
I guess you could probably do a binary diff on the files to see what has changed if you don't trust it. I believe it only changes the TCPIP.SYS file.
(Sorry for the double post - I got an error from your script saying that it was unable to rename 000978.html the first time I tried).
Graham Stewart on October 16, 2007 7:41 AMGod bless uTorrent. It is a testament to good software design.
Around the time when it first came out, all other BT clients brought even a powerful computer to it's knees by running a bunch of torrents. uTorrent can run a TON of torrents and the computer won't so much as flinch.
Also, to all you commenters talking about how Jeff
a) was stupid to admit to what he did
b) might get sued
c) should blur the ip addresses
LOL! I hope you are all joking because this type of paranoia would be a testament to how well the RIAA/MPAA's psychological terrorism has worked in this supposedly "free" country (soon to become a police state thanks to people like you).
Please call your Me.GetAGrip() methods. Thanks!
Matias Nino on October 16, 2007 8:03 AM@ Xepol: this is where I see shareholders come in; their value is not maximized because valuable IP of which they basically own shares is left to rot instead of thriving. Duplication costs can be sort of ignored, and the rest is pretty much pure profit (again, correct me if I'm wrong). Initial production costs have been paid and the material's not new - but still desired.
I wonder why not more of 'm are balking (or it could be that I have a completely wrong idea of the actual mechanics). Their investment money is spent on costly legal issues.
Rob Janssen on October 16, 2007 8:11 AM[...] there are no ethical defenses of copyright law [...]
What I meant by ethics is the ethical (moral) choice not to pirate.
Aside from abiding laws because we generally agree to do that in a civil society, there's the issue of what the content creators (and copyright holders) want. They might not mind their work being pirated, but without knowing that for sure, it doesn't seem right to assume it's OK.
John on October 16, 2007 8:41 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
|
|
Traffic Stats |