BitTorrent is popular because it lets anyone distribute large files at low cost. Which kinds of files are available on BitTorrent? Sauhard Sahi, a Princeton senior, decided to find out. Sauhard's independent work last semester, under my supervision, set out to measure what was available on BitTorrent. This post, summarizing his results, was co-written by Sauhard and me.
Sauhard chose a (uniform) random sample of files available via the trackerless variant of BitTorrent, using the Mainline DHT. The sample comprised 1021 files. He classified the files in the sample by file type, language, and apparent copyright status.
Before describing the results, we need to offer two caveats. First, the results apply only to the Mainline trackerless BitTorrent system that we surveyed. Other parts of the BitTorrent ecosystem might be different. Second, all files that were available were equally likely to appear in the sample -- the sample was not weighted by number of downloads, and it probably contains files that were never downloaded at all. So we can't say anything about the characteristics of BitTorrent downloads, or even of files that are downloaded via BitTorrent, only about files that are available on BitTorrent.
With that out of the way, here's what Sauhard found.
File types
46% movies and shows (non-pornographic)
14% games and software
14% pornography
10% music
1% books and guides
1% images
14% could not classify
Movies/Shows
For the movies and shows category, the predominant file format was AVI, and other formats included RMVB (a proprietary format for RealPlayer), MPEG, raw DVD, and some multi-part RAR archives. Interestingly, this section was heavily biased towards recent movies, instead of being spread out evenly over a number of years. In descending order of frequency, we found that 60% of the randomly selected movies and shows were in English, 8% were in Spanish, 7% were in Russian, 5% were in Polish, 5% were in Japanese, 4% were in Chinese, 4% could not be determined, 3% were in French, 1% were in Italian, and other infrequent languages accounted for 2% of the distribution.
Games/Software
For the games and software category, there was no clearly dominant file type, but common file types for software included ISO disc images, multi-part RAR archives, and EXE (Windows executables). The games were targeted for running on different architectures, such as the XBOX 360, Nintendo Wii, and Windows PC’s. In descending order, we found that 74% of games and software in the sample were in English, 12% were in Japanese, 5% were in Spanish, 4% were in Chinese, 2% were in Polish, and 1% were in Russian and French each.
Pornography
For the pornography category, the predominant encoding format was AVI, similar to the movies category. However, there were significantly more MPG and WMV (Windows Media Video) files available. Also, most pornography torrents included the full pornographic video, a sample of the video (a 1-5 minute extract of the video), as well as posters or images of the porn stars in JPEG format. Also, as these videos are not typically dated like movies are, it is difficult to make any remarks regarding the recency bias for pornographic torrents. Our assumption would be that demand for pornography is not as time-sensitive as demand for movies, so it is likely that these pornographic videos constitute a broader spectrum of time than the movies do. In descending order, we found that 53% of pornography in our sample was in English, 16% was in Chinese, 15% was in Japanese, 6% was in Russian, 3% was in German, 2% was in French, 2% was unclassifiable, and Italian, Hindi, and Spanish appeared infrequently (1% each).
Music
For the music category, the predominant encoding format for music was MP3, there were some albums ripped to WMA (Windows Media Audio, a Microsoft codec), and there were also ISO images and multi-part RAR archives. There is still a bias towards recent albums and songs, but it is not as strongly evident as it is for movies—perhaps because people are more willing to continue seeding music even after it is no longer new, so these torrents are able to stay alive longer in the DHT. In descending order, we found that 78% of music torrents in our sample were in English, 6% were in Russian, 4% were in Spanish, 2% were in Japanese and Chinese each, and other infrequent languages appeared 1% each.
Books/Guides
The books/guides and images categories were fairly minor. We classified 15 torrents under books and guides—13 were in English, 1 was in French, and 1 was in Russian. We classified 3 image torrents—one was a set of national park wallpapers, one was a set of pictures of BMW cars (both of these are English), and one was a Japanese comic strip.
Apparent Copyright Infringement
Our final assessment involved determining whether or not each file seemed likely to be copyright-infringing. We classified a file as likely non-infringing if it appeared to be (1) in the public domain, (2) freely available through legitimate channels, or (3) user-generated content. These were judgment calls on our part, based on the contents of the files, together with some external research.
By this definition, all of the 476 movies or TV shows in the sample were found to be likely infringing. We found seven of the 148 files in the games and software category to be likely non-infringing—including two Linux distributions, free plug-in packs for games, as well as free and beta software. In the pornography category, one of the 145 files claimed to be an amateur video, and we gave it the benefit of the doubt as likely non-infringing. All of the 98 music torrents were likely infringing. Two of the fifteen files in the books/guides category seemed to be likely non-infringing.
Overall, we classified ten of the 1021 files, or approximately 1%, as likely non-infringing, This result should be interpreted with caution, as we may have missed some non-infringing files, and our sample is of files available, not files actually downloaded. Still, the result suggests strongly that copyright infringement is widespread among BitTorrent users.
Showing posts with label torrents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torrents. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
The Pirate Bay verdict, dishing the dirt
The Pirate Bay ruling has been translated into English, and it's full of little surprises. Ars dives in to answer the big questions: who possessed those Klomifen tablets, how much did the state pay to defend The Pirate Bay admins, and why did the backers consider moving to Argentina?
Thanks to music trade group IFPI, the recent Pirate Bay ruling has now been "Englished" (PDF). While the verdict itself is well-known, numerous case details will be surprising to non-Swedish speakers—such as who paid for The Pirate Bay defense, which defendant was also arraigned on drug charges, and what happened to all that Pirate Bay computer equipment confiscated by the police?
A masterpiece of prose, the verdict is not. "A number of different filesharing programs and technologies have been developed over the years," says one representative section. "There have been or are two main types of filesharing systems."
But it does offer plenty of fascinating detail that was difficult for those not at the trial to learn. Let's take a look.
Confiscated equipment. All the confiscated servers and routing equipment from a police raid on The Pirate Bay "is declared forfeit," while other seized computers will remain confiscated "until the sentence has become legally binding." That process could take years, given the appeal already filed in the case, so by the time the equipment could be released, it will be obsolete.
Confiscated drugs. In the section devoted to defendant (and lover of wispy beards) Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, we come across this curious section. Not only were computers confiscated, but police picked up "three confiscated tablets of Klomifen," "narcotic drugs," and a "spoon containing traces of amphetamine."
Turns out that Warg wasn't just accused of aiding copyright infringement but also of violating Sweden's Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act. As part of the 2006 police raids on The Pirate Bay, the cops searched an apartment belonging to Warg's parents, where they found several of the listed items in "a drawer unit" and "a cupboard at the desk." Warg said that the apartment had been rented out to others at the time and that he had no knowledge of the drugs there; the court agreed that nothing had been proven against him.
But there was a second incident in June 2007, when a police patrol was called to an apartment and found Warg "heavily intoxicated." In his backpack, other "preparations" were found. Warg told the court "that, despite being intoxicated, he can remember the event. He has also stated that the backpack was his, but that he, at some point during the evening, had lent it to some individuals at the party. He knows 'approximately' who he lent the backpack to, but he does not want to reveal the names of these individuals."
This didn't go over well with the court, which found "beyond reasonable doubt that Gottfrid Svartholm Warg has been in possession of the preparations in question, and that he should, therefore, be sentenced for breach of the Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act."
Who paid for the lawyers? The older (and much richer) defendant Carl Lundström apparently paid for his own lawyer, but the three Pirate Bay admins did not. Their lawyers were all supplied an eventually paid for by the Swedish government, and they weren't cheap. Fredrik Neij's lawyer, for instance, was given 949,025 kronor (about $115,600) for his services; 35,525 kronor of that amount was given for "time wasted."
On moving to Argentina or Russia. As it became clear that Sweden might not be the best long-term base for The Pirate Bay, Carl Lundström explored the possibility of moving the site to Russia or Argentina—and he asked the Swedish Embassy for help. "A request by Carl Lundström to the Swedish Embassy in Argentina for assistance in relocating the operation there, since the situation vis a vis copyright in Argentina could be assumed to be more user-friendly than in Europe, was turned down by the Embassy," says the verdict. "Carl Lundström then contacted an Argentinean lawyer with the aim of ascertaining the cost of establishing the operation as a company in Argentina."
Similar moves were made in Russia; nothing appears to have come of them.
Legal advice. Why the interest in getting out of Sweden? A new copyright law came into effect in 2005, and Lundström worried that it would make the site illegal. "Carl Lundström contacted a lawyer," says the verdict. "Following discussions with his legal representative, he e-mailed Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and mentioned that as of 1 July 2005, the operation would be unlawful and that they should, therefore, consider relocating the operation to another country."
In the meantime, Fredrik Neij sought some legal advice of his own. Rather than pay a lawyer, though, he sought out the advice of a "law student who, in turn, checked with his teachers and professors." Based on advice from the student, Neij told the court that he believed The Pirate Bay was legal.
The Pirate Bay meets... TV? One other curious revelation was that Lundström had the idea back in 2006 "for new services in the form of a pooling of The Pirate Bay’s website and a digital television receiver." Few details are offered, but this sounds a bit like a set-top box that could tune TV and also grab video content from The Pirate Bay. As with many of the other schemes mentioned in the verdict, nothing came of this.
The Google defense. During the trial, the defendants harped on the fact that Google also indexes .torrent files, many of them infringing; why was a search engine like The Pirate Bay on trial while a search engine like Google was not?
Here is the judge's answer in its most condensed form: ""In accordance with what will be further demonstrated below, all the defendants were aware that a large number of the website’s users were engaged in the unlawful disposal of copyright-protected material. By providing a website with advanced search functions and easy uploading and downloading facilities, and by putting individual filesharers in touch with one other through the tracker linked to the site, the operation run via The Pirate Bay has, in the opinion of the District Court, facilitated and, consequently, aided and abetted these offences."
What happened to the "safe harbor"? US law offers immunity (under both the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to certain websites and ISPs for the actions of their users. Europe's "Electronic Commerce Act" contains a similar provision, but the judge found that The Pirate Bay didn't qualify. Why not? Because the law requires that a service provider was "not aware of the existence of the illegal information or operation, and was not aware of facts or circumstances which made it obvious that the illegal information or operation existed or who, as soon as he received knowledge about or became aware of this, prevented the spread of the information without delay."
Since they posted many of the takedown letters sent in by copyright owners, the admins certainly knew about all sorts of copyright infringement taking place on their site. They did nothing about it and instead mocked the rightsholders. "It must have been obvious to the defendants that the website contained torrent files which related to protected works," said the court. "None of them did, however, take any action to remove the torrent files in question, despite being urged to do so. The prerequisites for freedom from liability under §18 have, consequently, not been fulfilled."
Translation: no immunity.
The end of the beginning
Despite the verdict, the case is just getting started. Defense lawyers have already filed an appeal and have since accused the judge overseeing the case of a conflict of interest. Judge Tomas Norström belongs to a couple of Swedish copyright associations, a fact no one managed to dig up before the trial.
While the court's judgment sheds plenty of light on how The Pirate Bay operated and what its backers believe, the least relevant part of it may in fact be the legal reasoning.
Thanks to music trade group IFPI, the recent Pirate Bay ruling has now been "Englished" (PDF). While the verdict itself is well-known, numerous case details will be surprising to non-Swedish speakers—such as who paid for The Pirate Bay defense, which defendant was also arraigned on drug charges, and what happened to all that Pirate Bay computer equipment confiscated by the police?
A masterpiece of prose, the verdict is not. "A number of different filesharing programs and technologies have been developed over the years," says one representative section. "There have been or are two main types of filesharing systems."
But it does offer plenty of fascinating detail that was difficult for those not at the trial to learn. Let's take a look.
Confiscated equipment. All the confiscated servers and routing equipment from a police raid on The Pirate Bay "is declared forfeit," while other seized computers will remain confiscated "until the sentence has become legally binding." That process could take years, given the appeal already filed in the case, so by the time the equipment could be released, it will be obsolete.
Confiscated drugs. In the section devoted to defendant (and lover of wispy beards) Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, we come across this curious section. Not only were computers confiscated, but police picked up "three confiscated tablets of Klomifen," "narcotic drugs," and a "spoon containing traces of amphetamine."
Turns out that Warg wasn't just accused of aiding copyright infringement but also of violating Sweden's Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act. As part of the 2006 police raids on The Pirate Bay, the cops searched an apartment belonging to Warg's parents, where they found several of the listed items in "a drawer unit" and "a cupboard at the desk." Warg said that the apartment had been rented out to others at the time and that he had no knowledge of the drugs there; the court agreed that nothing had been proven against him.
But there was a second incident in June 2007, when a police patrol was called to an apartment and found Warg "heavily intoxicated." In his backpack, other "preparations" were found. Warg told the court "that, despite being intoxicated, he can remember the event. He has also stated that the backpack was his, but that he, at some point during the evening, had lent it to some individuals at the party. He knows 'approximately' who he lent the backpack to, but he does not want to reveal the names of these individuals."
This didn't go over well with the court, which found "beyond reasonable doubt that Gottfrid Svartholm Warg has been in possession of the preparations in question, and that he should, therefore, be sentenced for breach of the Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act."
Who paid for the lawyers? The older (and much richer) defendant Carl Lundström apparently paid for his own lawyer, but the three Pirate Bay admins did not. Their lawyers were all supplied an eventually paid for by the Swedish government, and they weren't cheap. Fredrik Neij's lawyer, for instance, was given 949,025 kronor (about $115,600) for his services; 35,525 kronor of that amount was given for "time wasted."
On moving to Argentina or Russia. As it became clear that Sweden might not be the best long-term base for The Pirate Bay, Carl Lundström explored the possibility of moving the site to Russia or Argentina—and he asked the Swedish Embassy for help. "A request by Carl Lundström to the Swedish Embassy in Argentina for assistance in relocating the operation there, since the situation vis a vis copyright in Argentina could be assumed to be more user-friendly than in Europe, was turned down by the Embassy," says the verdict. "Carl Lundström then contacted an Argentinean lawyer with the aim of ascertaining the cost of establishing the operation as a company in Argentina."
Similar moves were made in Russia; nothing appears to have come of them.
Legal advice. Why the interest in getting out of Sweden? A new copyright law came into effect in 2005, and Lundström worried that it would make the site illegal. "Carl Lundström contacted a lawyer," says the verdict. "Following discussions with his legal representative, he e-mailed Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and mentioned that as of 1 July 2005, the operation would be unlawful and that they should, therefore, consider relocating the operation to another country."
In the meantime, Fredrik Neij sought some legal advice of his own. Rather than pay a lawyer, though, he sought out the advice of a "law student who, in turn, checked with his teachers and professors." Based on advice from the student, Neij told the court that he believed The Pirate Bay was legal.
The Pirate Bay meets... TV? One other curious revelation was that Lundström had the idea back in 2006 "for new services in the form of a pooling of The Pirate Bay’s website and a digital television receiver." Few details are offered, but this sounds a bit like a set-top box that could tune TV and also grab video content from The Pirate Bay. As with many of the other schemes mentioned in the verdict, nothing came of this.
The Google defense. During the trial, the defendants harped on the fact that Google also indexes .torrent files, many of them infringing; why was a search engine like The Pirate Bay on trial while a search engine like Google was not?
Here is the judge's answer in its most condensed form: ""In accordance with what will be further demonstrated below, all the defendants were aware that a large number of the website’s users were engaged in the unlawful disposal of copyright-protected material. By providing a website with advanced search functions and easy uploading and downloading facilities, and by putting individual filesharers in touch with one other through the tracker linked to the site, the operation run via The Pirate Bay has, in the opinion of the District Court, facilitated and, consequently, aided and abetted these offences."
What happened to the "safe harbor"? US law offers immunity (under both the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to certain websites and ISPs for the actions of their users. Europe's "Electronic Commerce Act" contains a similar provision, but the judge found that The Pirate Bay didn't qualify. Why not? Because the law requires that a service provider was "not aware of the existence of the illegal information or operation, and was not aware of facts or circumstances which made it obvious that the illegal information or operation existed or who, as soon as he received knowledge about or became aware of this, prevented the spread of the information without delay."
Since they posted many of the takedown letters sent in by copyright owners, the admins certainly knew about all sorts of copyright infringement taking place on their site. They did nothing about it and instead mocked the rightsholders. "It must have been obvious to the defendants that the website contained torrent files which related to protected works," said the court. "None of them did, however, take any action to remove the torrent files in question, despite being urged to do so. The prerequisites for freedom from liability under §18 have, consequently, not been fulfilled."
Translation: no immunity.
The end of the beginning
Despite the verdict, the case is just getting started. Defense lawyers have already filed an appeal and have since accused the judge overseeing the case of a conflict of interest. Judge Tomas Norström belongs to a couple of Swedish copyright associations, a fact no one managed to dig up before the trial.
While the court's judgment sheds plenty of light on how The Pirate Bay operated and what its backers believe, the least relevant part of it may in fact be the legal reasoning.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
BT blocks off Pirate Bay
BT and other mobile broadband providers are blocking access to The Pirate Bay, as part of a "self-regulation" scheme.
Read our top ten Pirate Bay putdowns here.
BT Mobile Broadband users who attempt to access the notorious BitTorrent tracker site are met with a "content blocked" message.
The warning page states the page has been blocked in "compliance with a new UK voluntary code".
"This uses a barring and filtering mechanism to restrict access to all WAP and internet sites that are considered to have 'over 18' status," the warning states. It goes on to list a series of categories that are blocked, including adult/sexually explicit content, "criminal skills" and hacking.
It's not stated which category The Pirate Bay breaches, although the site does host links to porn movies.
BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted. The message also invites users to seek further information on the self-regulation scheme on the Internet Watch Foundation's website, although an IWF spokesman denies any involvement with the mobile filtering scheme.
All mobile networks
The self-regulations scheme includes all five of the major mobile networks. (BT's service is based on the Vodafone network).
The Code says that members agree to block even legal "adult" content on mobile connections, in case phones or laptops fall into the hands of minors.
"The Code covers new types of content, including visual content, online gambling, mobile gaming, chat rooms and internet access," the code of practice states.
However, it then goes on to state that "the Code does not cover peer-to-peer communications but it does give assurances to customers that the mobile operators are taking action to combat illegal, bulk and nuisance communications."
Pirate Bay's founders last week lost their landmark case against several leading record companies and now face a huge fine and up to a year in jail, pending an appeal.
BT says that it alone took the decision to block The Pirate Bay site. "BT and the other UK mobile operators have agreed and implemented a voluntary Code of Practise for mobile content that restricts access to content unsuitable for customers under the age of 18," the company claims in a statement.
"The list of sites and content that is restricted is compiled by individual operators themselves. The warning that BT provides links to the IWF website is for information on the Code only. BT customers who wish to have access to particular sites reactivated can do so by calling 150."
Read our top ten Pirate Bay putdowns here.
BT Mobile Broadband users who attempt to access the notorious BitTorrent tracker site are met with a "content blocked" message.
The warning page states the page has been blocked in "compliance with a new UK voluntary code".
"This uses a barring and filtering mechanism to restrict access to all WAP and internet sites that are considered to have 'over 18' status," the warning states. It goes on to list a series of categories that are blocked, including adult/sexually explicit content, "criminal skills" and hacking.
It's not stated which category The Pirate Bay breaches, although the site does host links to porn movies.
BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted. The message also invites users to seek further information on the self-regulation scheme on the Internet Watch Foundation's website, although an IWF spokesman denies any involvement with the mobile filtering scheme.
All mobile networks
The self-regulations scheme includes all five of the major mobile networks. (BT's service is based on the Vodafone network).
The Code says that members agree to block even legal "adult" content on mobile connections, in case phones or laptops fall into the hands of minors.
"The Code covers new types of content, including visual content, online gambling, mobile gaming, chat rooms and internet access," the code of practice states.
However, it then goes on to state that "the Code does not cover peer-to-peer communications but it does give assurances to customers that the mobile operators are taking action to combat illegal, bulk and nuisance communications."
Pirate Bay's founders last week lost their landmark case against several leading record companies and now face a huge fine and up to a year in jail, pending an appeal.
BT says that it alone took the decision to block The Pirate Bay site. "BT and the other UK mobile operators have agreed and implemented a voluntary Code of Practise for mobile content that restricts access to content unsuitable for customers under the age of 18," the company claims in a statement.
"The list of sites and content that is restricted is compiled by individual operators themselves. The warning that BT provides links to the IWF website is for information on the Code only. BT customers who wish to have access to particular sites reactivated can do so by calling 150."
Saturday, 4 April 2009
France to Block The Pirate Bay, Disconnect File-Sharers
Despite public protests the French Parliament has passed a controversial new law that will see alleged copyright infringers disconnected from the Internet. In addition, France’s Minister of Culture Christine Albanel has stated that under the new law, ISPs may be ordered to block The Pirate Bay.
In order to clamp down on piracy the French have passed a new law requiring Internet service providers to cut off Internet access for persistent offenders. Under the new legislation ISPs have to warn alleged copyright infringers twice, and if they they ignore these warnings their Internet access is terminated for up to a year.
One of the biggest problems with the new law is that copyright infringers will be identified only by an IP-address, which will undoubtedly lead to many false accusations. Those who want to prove their innocence have only one option, namely, to install a spyware application that will monitor their every move on the Internet and report it back to the authorities. Hardly practical.
The law goes much further than disconnecting alleged file-sharers though. In addition it is now possible to take “any action” in order to put a halt to copyright infringement. Minister of Culture, Christine Albanel, explicitly named The Pirate Bay as one of the sites that could be easily blocked under the new law.
Thus, without having to provide evidence that a website is engaging in illegal activities, it can still be blocked. Potentially this could mean that access to BitTorrent sites is disallowed in France, as well as access to sites like YouTube or perhaps even Google.
In summary, the new law introduces unlimited options for the copyright holders to go after sites and people that may or may not infringe copyright, without having to actually proove that the accused are guilty. To date, this is by far the most aggressive and unbalanced piece of copyright legislation that we’ve seen.
Even more so, only last week the European Parliament spoke out against such disproportionate legislation by adopting a report that aims to protect the rights and freedoms of Internet users and excludes ‘three strikes’ as a punitive sanction. Unfortunately, members of the French parliament completely ignored this.
What struck us most is that the people who get to decide on these issues have no clue about file-sharing at all. Many of them don’t know what BitTorrent is, or how it works. Yet, they decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of Internet users.
In order to clamp down on piracy the French have passed a new law requiring Internet service providers to cut off Internet access for persistent offenders. Under the new legislation ISPs have to warn alleged copyright infringers twice, and if they they ignore these warnings their Internet access is terminated for up to a year.
One of the biggest problems with the new law is that copyright infringers will be identified only by an IP-address, which will undoubtedly lead to many false accusations. Those who want to prove their innocence have only one option, namely, to install a spyware application that will monitor their every move on the Internet and report it back to the authorities. Hardly practical.
The law goes much further than disconnecting alleged file-sharers though. In addition it is now possible to take “any action” in order to put a halt to copyright infringement. Minister of Culture, Christine Albanel, explicitly named The Pirate Bay as one of the sites that could be easily blocked under the new law.
Thus, without having to provide evidence that a website is engaging in illegal activities, it can still be blocked. Potentially this could mean that access to BitTorrent sites is disallowed in France, as well as access to sites like YouTube or perhaps even Google.
In summary, the new law introduces unlimited options for the copyright holders to go after sites and people that may or may not infringe copyright, without having to actually proove that the accused are guilty. To date, this is by far the most aggressive and unbalanced piece of copyright legislation that we’ve seen.
Even more so, only last week the European Parliament spoke out against such disproportionate legislation by adopting a report that aims to protect the rights and freedoms of Internet users and excludes ‘three strikes’ as a punitive sanction. Unfortunately, members of the French parliament completely ignored this.
What struck us most is that the people who get to decide on these issues have no clue about file-sharing at all. Many of them don’t know what BitTorrent is, or how it works. Yet, they decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of Internet users.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)