XP SP2 Torrent Shows Legal P2P's Promise

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."

Now, really...

[Anonymous Coward]

...would I want to download a Windows operating system upgrade from an unknown source? Why not just wait for Windows Update?

Go Team Go!

[Short Circuit]

It definately helps to have object examples of good, legal use.

Though I'm not sure if the XP SP2 torrent is legal...What's in the EULA about redistribution?

Uh...Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have Microsoft's permission to redistribute the service pack?

No?

Surprise! It's illegal.

Unless MS Officially Seeded the Torrent...

[Rude Turnip]

Then this does not show how P2P can be used in a legal manner...INFINITELY USEFUL--yes!, but not legal.

The stigma of P2P

[lake2112]

Thanks to Napster and other infamous P2P networks it will be next to impossible for the bad stigma of P2P networks to be lifted. Sure a SP2 torrent has some usefulness but bittorrent is not main stream enough for this website to accomplish any significant good.

On one hand...

[DragonPup]

...this is a very good example of how p2p can be used in a productive legal way.

On the other, I wouldn't trust any 'security' patches found on p2p networks unless the file's link came from MS's site directly. :p

Here's how it's going to work

[grasshoppa]

MPAA and RIAA ( through our beloved Sen Hatch ) will outlaw p2p networks.

We'll use them anyway.

A few people will get lawsuits ( notably, those who run insecure versions on their OS that are running, in effect, an open proxy ), a few people will pay thousands of dollars, and the rest of us won't even bat an eye.

Congress versus BitTorrent?

[ubiquitin]

One thing that any law must possess in order to be a law is that it can be enforced. You can't rule that breathing air is illegal because the law enforcement couldn't follow the law and still make it take effect. How could Congress ever enforce a BitTorrent ban? Copying certain types of data (terrorism communications or child pornography) can be limited and the enforcement of these sorts of transgressionsn is relatively routine now, but in the absence of enforceability, don't look for anti-BitTorrent legislation in the near future. Larry Rosen is right, there is reason to be optimistic about the ability for law to protect our freedoms.

Torrents are obviously useful.

[GoNINzo]

There are many linux distributions and gaming videos that are using torrents for fast distribution. A great example was the doom 3 video that came out shortly before the release. I was getting 180KB on my T1 on download.

However, I don't think corporate america will embrace it entirely until another major corporation uses it. I suspect that the revamp of Steam to use bittorrent like behavior might be a great example of a bad system being replaced with a good system. Though I'm sure a few people will be upset that their bandwidth is being used without their expressed permission. (The guy who made BitTorrent got hired by value to help them out.)

Either way, I think it's a bright future for us gamers. `8r) That is, assuming technology problems are treated as technology problems, rather than criminal problems. Just because someone can use a BetaMAX machine to copy a tape doesn't mean they will...

Banning P2P entirely

[ShatteredDream]

I haven't actually seen anything that suggests that P2P protocols themselves might be banned, rather that certain companies will get their asses handed to them. BitTorrent has been often use illegitimately, but it is not billed as a big time file sharing network a la Kazaa. The fact that it is often used by geeks for legitimate purposes means that any judge who ruled against it on a "reasonable person" basis would probably get slapped down on appeals.

Which brings me to the next reason I'm not too concerned with this bill. A reasonable person standard on something like this is highly subjective. There is no general public opinion upon which a consistent, long term reasonable person standard could be based. The SCOTUS will probably realize that and slap it down as unconstitutionally vague.

Seriously people, if ya'll want to really make the copyright cartels eat crow, go out and buy music from non-RIAA labels like Century Media. If you've never heard of Lacuna Coil, they're an Italian metal band that is getting really big thanks to a stint on Headbangers' Ball and touring with Ozzfest. They're damn good AND not RIAA affiliated according to the RIAA Radar site. Century Media has a lot of affiliates, and chances are that if you buy European or underground metal, it's not RIAA affiliated.

Don't pirate software or movies, at least not openly. If you're going to do movies, go to blockbuster, rent a new release, rip it, use dvd2one or dvdshrink and burn it to a DVD-R instead of fueling the propaganda about file sharing networks. Afterall, if rental rates increase, they have no excuse that people aren't using legitimate means to watch movies ;)

Re:I'll Do it anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is telling employees not to install the patch, due to known conflicts with business-critical software that they use. They are not recomending that general users don't upgrade. If you're gonna link the artical, RTFA.

Re:A nice idea...

[bearl]

You see, there are these things called "Internal Networks," and some of these "Internal Networks" have "computers" on them that can be prevented from connecting to the "External Network."

But seriously, you might for example, use a Linux box to retrieve the update, then post it to an internal location, say a shared network drive, and have all the little XP machines get it from there.

I guess the point is that it doesn't have to be used by the machine that first downloads it.

Oh, good thinking!

[Otter]

How do you demonstrate that P2P isn't just a warez app? Show how readily it distributes Windows outside of Microsoft's normal channels!

Please note that:

1) I'm a Furthur.net user and understand that legal P2P exists.

2) I oppose restrictions on P2P and am perfectly happy to rely on the RIAA suing violators instead.

3) I understand that this is a patch, not Windows itself. (Although is this distribution within the rights of the EULA? I certainly hope they've made sure it is.)

But as PR, this seems like a really poor idea.

Great, but...

[Tom7]

I doubt Microsoft's bandwidth will suffer from this download.

Re:I'll Do it anyway

[MindStalker]

Well duh, they want to make sure it works with all their software. I'm sure they are mostly talking about their close customers who rely on IBM for their business, and IBM can't be sure everythig will be smooth. But seriously this is the same as me telling all my office not to download and install it personally to wait untill I have tested it and I will deploy it for them

Informative? slight correction:

[bach37]

..."IBM tells users not to install Windows XP update"

IBM told its INTERNAL employee users to wait before updating.

Re:Now, really...

[nacturation]

Well, unless someone hacked into microsoft.com and uploaded a trojan, I think it's the real deal.

Imagine If...

[emkey]

Imagine if the vaudeville and stage actors had gotten together back in the early 20th century and gotten motion pictures outlawed. Or if actresses and actors who had horrible speaking voices had gotten talkies outlawed in the late 1920's, etc. The recent legal trend to try to hold back technological progress is disturbing to say the least. Its also stupid and futile in the long run.

Re:hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

If Senator Orrin "Disney" Hatch wasn't interested in the slippery slope, he would have noticed that we have laws that make the current usage of Kazaa illegal already.

Going after the providers of the service is hypocritical to the nth degree, and counterproductive.

We don't outlaw gun manufacturers, although the overwhelming usage is for criminal purposes. We don't outlaw baseball bats, even though they can be used to beat somebody to a bloody pulp. We don't even outlaw cigarettes, even though we know they only have negative side effects.

Remind me again why Kazaa is such a threat to society that it needs to be treated differently?

Re:I'll Do it anyway

[bob670]

How does this get modded as informative? I'll be the first to burn MS as the stake, but IBM isn't rolling out because they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS, not becaue there is something wrong with SP2.

Legality aside....

[Emugamer]

Bittorret vs Alkwhateverthehellitscalled speed wise I think I can download it from Microsoft's site around 400 times before this bittorret gets to 50%. I have never been a big proponent of using P2P for something like this.
a) I want to totally trust the source, no matter how evil it may be
b) I want it to go faster....
c) see above...

I know bittorret could be a real tool if more people used it etc but it still doesn't always hit 500k when I click on a bittorret file... while whenever I download from Microsoft, it does... (except for a few DDOS days)

Re:Congress versus BitTorrent?

[s7726]

because the law enforcement couldn't follow the law

Are you telling the cops were you live actually follow the laws that they enforce? That would be cool.

Re:Now, really...

[jhoffoss]

I will check the md5, which is listed on at least ten separate websites, and a number of comments here on slashdot. I will also check the digital signature provided my Microsoft. MS is limiting connections, but I've got 40MB in the last five minutes from the torrent, and uploaded 50MB. Pretty good rates, if you ask me.

Maybe the wrong word.

[Lord Kano]

Perhaps this should have been titled "XP SP2 Shows Legitimate use for P2P."

LK

Re:Go Team Go!

[nacturation]

It could totally backfire if MS says "we dint give you permission to do that." MS has made murmurs before about limiting SP's to only verified serial #s. (I don't remember what the outcome of that was. A refresher would be appreciated.) If the SP's given out when MS is trying to control it, then you'll have made MS an enemy of it. Bad news.

Bit risky if you ask me.

Why is it risky? Microsoft provides the download to anybody with a web browser. I'm downloading XP SP2 on a Mac right now, directly from Microsoft's website [microsoft.com]. So they're clearly not checking for valid serials before allowing the download. Perhaps the *install* is a different matter, however.

As an aside, I'm also getting *much* better bandwidth directly from Microsoft than from the torrent.

US

[mr_tommy]

Lets be a bit more clear here : If the US wants to ban it, fine! But lets get away from the US-centric mentallity! Just because the US says you cant do it, doesn't mean the rest of the world cant. How they could possibly attempt to legislate something like this is rediculous- the internet is no longer centered in one country - you cant define what people worldwide can and cant do. Asides from being impossible, its a major waste of time and US tax payers money.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[DroopyStonx]

What the hell kinda thinking is that?

SP2 is a free update. If I download it, put it on a CD, and give it to someone else to install, it's not illegal. Likewise if I say "Hey, want SP2? Download it from my FTP." Now, if I MODIFY it and redistribute it, then yeah... but other than that, how would it be illegal?

There's nothing to "agree" to on the download page [microsoft.com]. The EULA is built into the setup.

I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind the fact that people on P2P networks are sharing it. It takes the load off their servers.

Re:I'll Do it anyway

[Mateito]

> they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS.

You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around.

You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room.

IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they.

In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.

This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[pbrammer]

So I can distribute Windows XP CDs to whoever I want provided I don't give them a CD key? (They won't be able to use it then, right?!) I mean, I know they won't go download a key off of the Internet or anything. Somehow, though, I think I'd find myself in handcuffs.

Fair use... Whatever.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[HeghmoH]

Free as in beer does not mean free as in speech. An author who gives his work away for free does not give up his copyright to that work. I can distribute a program for free and explicitly deny permission to redistribute it, and it will be copyright infringement for anybody to redistribute it beyond what is allowed by fair use, even though it's available for free.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[LiquidCoooled]

Even more than that, the very head of the page states the following:


Windows XP Service Pack 2 Network Installation Package for IT Professionals and Developers

This installation package is intended for IT professionals and developers downloading and installing on multiple computers on a network. If you're updating just one computer, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/protect.

we are IT Professionals, we wish to install it on other peoples' computers. In order that we can facilitate this, we are transfering the file to its target via Bittorrent.

nothing at all wrong here :)

Re:Uh...Legal?

[Wanker]

This was a singularly bad example to use as "legal" P2P. A better example might be 3dgamers.com [3dgamers.com] who use bittorrent as one of many download options for content they have been given to redistribute.

Also, the "default" state of copyright seems to be lost on many Slashdotters-- thanks for clearing up that in the absence of a EULA, "default" copyright law applies, which does not allow redistribution.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[sultanoslack]

What the hell kinda thinking is that?

Sound thinking. Give it a try sometime.

SP2 is a free update. If I download it, put it on a CD, and give it to someone else to install, it's not illegal.

Yes, it is.

There's nothing to "agree" to on the download page. The EULA is built into the setup.

That means nothing. You don't have the right of redistribution unless it's explicitly granted.

I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind the fact that people on P2P networks are sharing it. It takes the load off their servers.

Ah, so now you represent Microsoft too, eh? People, copyright law just doesn't work this way -- you're not allowed to copy it if they don't explicitly say you can't. You don't have to accept a license to not be able to copy it. You don't have a right to copy it. Period. The only way that you would have a right to copy it is if the copyright holder granted you such, which I'm pretty sure MS didn't. This was set up as a "legitimate use for p2p" but basically it's just another case of p2p being used for copyright infringement.

Okay, that's *one* example...

[sczimme]

F/OSS OS (e.g. Linux, *BSD) ISOs makes two examples. We could probably stretch to include OO.org et al to make three.

Three examples of legitimate use. Three.

You PR guys will have to work overtime if you want to make P2P look like anything remotely resembling legitimate.

No, I am not saying P2P should be criminalized. I am saying that the overwhelming majority of P2P traffic appears to be illegitimate (so to speak), most often for reasons of copyright infringement.

Be honest: when people mention P2P networks, what do they describe as its best feature?

A) "Dude, you can get stuff for free!"
B) "Dude, you can download lots of stuff in a completely legal manner without infringing anyone's copyright!"

I believe we all know the answer to that one, even if certain groups conveniently ignore it.

And - as mentioned elsewhere in the thread - the SP2 EULA does prohibit redistribution e.g. via torrent.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[NARHDD]

Microsoft isn't happy that P2P is distributing this and taking "a load off of their servers..." um maybe because MS wants to keep track of who is downloading this stuff and P2P is DESTROYING that.

Re:What's missing is authentication

[Phleg]

You're missing a big part of signature-based cryptography: trust. 95% of the folks who put out torrents aren't doing so by the will of the original distributor, so you're going to have to rely on the digital signatures of a bunch of random people.

Remember, digital signatures and hashes only verify that the content matches the original hash. It says nothing about whether or not the content was modified before a hash was made.

Re:Legal is as legal does...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

And yes, I explicitly neglected the question of what would give me the right to redistribute the SP aside from the EULA

And, of course, that's the kicker. Under standard copyright doctrine, you absolutely do not have the right to redistribute the SP; the only case in which you might would be under an explicit grant of license from Microsoft -- that is, in a EULA. (Well, perhaps you have entered into a different contract with the company, but, in that case, you know who you are, and you should be asking your attorneys.)

In this case, no EULA, no meeting of minds, no license, no contract, just as you said. That implies no redistribution.

Re:Okay, that's *one* example...

[LnxAddct]

Blizzard also relesaes some of its bigger or more popular demos through bittorrent. They may use it for patches too, not sure though.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Now, really...

[sweetooth]

I got the whole thing in under 2 minutes from the torrent... and the md5 matches. It's easier and quicker than waiting for the connection limited MS site.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[HobophobE]

Quoted in post:
SP2 is a free update. If I download it, put it on a CD, and give it to someone else to install, it's not illegal.

Post:
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.

Well. Humbly, I submit a hypothetical. Let's say my friend doesn't have 'net access, but he's got a box with XP SP1 on it. He decides he wants SP2 to install. Under your terms, me downloading it and putting it on a cd is illegal. Under your terms, him coming to my house, using my computer, 'net connection, and CD burner to make himself a copy to install on his own box is totally legit. Under your terms, it would seem, if I'd already downloaded the SP for my own use, left the file on my computer, and he copies it to a cd, that's illegal, but if I delete the SP, then he redownloads it, that's legal.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this kind of differentiation is hazardous and irresponsible. The law should not be making these distinctions in this case. I would hope (though, not being a lawyer, I don't know if it's the case) if this were brought to bear in an actual legal challenge, the court would dismiss it as absurd.

Anyway, hopefully this hypothetical will help to clear the air a bit, let me know.

Akamai

[Earlybird]

Microsoft's downloadables, including SP2, are hosted by Akamai. Akamai's proximity-based distribution mechanism is essentially a competitor to BitTorrent. As some users are discovering, downloading directly from Microsoft -- that is, through Akamai -- is actually faster and more bandwidth-efficient than with BitTorrent.

Not that this in any way puts BitTorrent in a bad light: First of all, Akamai is a commercial system, and Microsoft pays a lot of money to use it. Akamai is itself a system that scales statically, by providing fixed caches located around the globe; it must be manually maintained in order to scale.

BitTorrent, on the other hand, is free, and is built on a pool of dynamic caches (ie., seeders), allowing it to scale indefinitely. BitTorrent's seeding system has weaknesses, but it's one of the best solutions so far.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so now you represent Microsoft too, eh? People, copyright law just doesn't work this way -- you're not allowed to copy it if they don't explicitly say you can't. You don't have to accept a license to not be able to copy it. You don't have a right to copy it. Period.

Actually, as someone who works as a paralegal, I can fully, with complete and utter confidence, say you are full of it. :)

SP2 is a software update which cannot act on its own outside of the core OS (Windows XP). While you could be technically correct under other circumstances, the sole purpose for this particular executable does not fall under the same guidelines as general software use. Microsoft loses nothing from a redistribution of a core update such as SP2; those who share it have nothing to gain unless they were

1. selling it
2. modifying the executable to be used in a fashion it was not meant for

In other words, if Microsoft scouted out P2P networks and wanted to sue someone redistributing a software update package that they have available on their public download page, they would lose. They could probably get away with sending warnings, but it's a grey area and almost any judge will take into account the PURPOSE of what is being distributed.

I suggest that you spend some time researching about the topic and hand, and be sure to fully understand what you are talking about before your tender ego gets stepped on.

Re:hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows that they're for downloading MP3s and DivX's and warez.

Interesting statement...
1) Who is "everyone"? How do I join this group (as I am obviously not a member)?
2) When did MP3 and AVI file formats become illegal?
3) What happened to "substantial non-infringing use"?
4 Who decides the intent of each specific P2P network? You? Me? "Everyone"? Sen. Hatch?

Re:Congress versus BitTorrent?

[Hatta]

One thing that any law must possess in order to be a law is that it can be enforced.

Over 30 years of the War on Drug Users proves you wrong.

Re:Uh...Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent observation, and a prime example of why a case like this would never reach court.

If you made a copy of an update CD and redistributed it, as long as you weren't engaging in any fraudulent activity or using the material in question in such a manner it wasn't originally intended for, you are fine.

I invite you to look at 17 U.S.C. 506 - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html [cornell.edu] to see for yourself exactly what this law is defined as and how the courts will view a case involving sharing or redistribution of a software package that is freely avaialable for download on a public server.

It all boils down to intent. Unless you're modifying the setup, using in a manner in which it wasn't meant to be used for, or are engaging in fradulent activity (profiting from it or preventing Microsoft from making profit), the courts will see that and the case will be dismissed.