XP SP2 Torrent Shows Legal P2P's Promise 529
Downhill Battle writes "With Congress debating new legislation that would ban p2p networks (along with other innovations and beloved products), we thought it was important to demonstrate the huge potential of p2p software to benefit the public. So now at SP2torrent.com you can get Windows XP SP2 via BitTorrent." Update: 08/09 21:10 GMT by S : As commenters note, you can also get XP SP2 from Microsoft's site, but it's explained: "DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update."
What about last week? (Score:2, Informative)
Loads of uses on legal P2P (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now, really... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A nice idea... (Score:5, Informative)
btdownloadcurses --url "$URL" --max_upload_rate 5
That way I can start the download to my home machine at work and still have it done by the time I get there.
Get it direct from Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now, really... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:2, Informative)
you can download it from microsoft now (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now, really... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Although Microsoft would prefer people that only need to install on a single machine wait for it to be pushed via Windows Update, which will be a considerably smaller download specific for your OS version.
Re:Now, really... (Score:4, Informative)
Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
I think inexpensive distributed file hosting is a great idea, and I think P2P networks are a great way to implement that. But, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, even if you're able to justify it to yourself.
Re:Slashdotted ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This would be exciting.. (Score:3, Informative)
I should use BitTorrent WHY?
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, before you go off on me for thinking I missed your point, I agree that Congress is out of touch with the tech community and behind the curve on what legislation will have the intended impact. All they seem to do is make things harder for honest people (the copyright infringers won't be slowed down, but people trying to spread valid security patches might for fear of prosecution).
Re:hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the act's sponsor disagrees with you. Orrin Hatch claims [senate.gov] that users of Kazaa and eDonkey assume that because the program is from a corporation, then it's major use must be legal.
it bans the setup of networks explicitly for exchanging pirated materials..
No, it says nothing about networks or piracy. Sounds like you might be arguing from ignorance. Since the INDUCE Act is trivially short, I'll post the whole thing here:
So what it says is that "inducing copyright infringement" is now a form of copyright infringement itself, which is already illegal.
That's a nonsensical and moderately dangerous path: creating redundant laws. Copyright infringement is already illegal. Inducing a crime is also already illegal. Therefore INDUCE either has absolutely no effect and was a waste of Congressional time, or it means that inducement of infringement will be interpreted more loosely in the future.
Note that under this act, Bram Moolenar would've been guilty for the publication of the BitTorrent protocol, which by his own admission was intended to aid in copyright infringement (of Phish concert tapes, which are illegal to share, even though the band has no intention of ever enforcing).
The "Save The iPod" stuff is a stretch, but it'd be possible to prosecute Apple under this law too. All you'd have to do is show that iPod sales are somehow higher due to illegal copying. I bet a survey could be done showing that buyers of iPods often had pre-existing MP3 music collections, and that some of that came from copyright infringement.
Furthermore, and more realistically, freenet and similar anonymizing networks would become illegal. Anyone running a freenet node will be subject to arrest.
Re:Uh...Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes it is. Reproduction and distribution are both exclusive to the copyright holder per 17 USC 106.
In that example, you are reproducing it probably beyond what MS has given you permission to do, and are definately distributing it without permission.
So that's illegal.
It doesn't matter if it's free. Free is a total non-issue.
Re:MD5 Handy? (Score:3, Informative)
59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7
Re:Imagine If... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually I recall watching a documentary on Thomas Edison that said he tried to do exactly that. He wanted to retain firm control over silent motion picture distribution and sued anyone that tried to compete with his patents. Truly ahead of his time. ;-)
MD5 (Score:5, Informative)
As others have said:
WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe, MD5: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7, size: 278,927,592 bytes
I downloaded the file from Microsoft, and the MD5 checks.