Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Networking

Azureus Decentralizes Bittorrent 672

Posted by timothy
from the infinite-onion-rings dept.
BobPaul writes "While the eXeem project to decentralize Bittorrent remains in open beta, the Azureus Java Bittorrent project has recently released a major update that, among other things offers 'a distributed, decentralised database that can be used to track decentralised torrents. This permits both "trackerless" torrents and the maintenance of swarms where the tracker has become unavailable or where the torrent was removed from the tracker.' It doesn't contain the search functionality of eXeem, but it's also not a beta product and is licensed under the GPL. Could this and compatible clients be the replacement to SuprNova and Lokitorrents, or does the lack of search negate its effectiveness?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Azureus Decentralizes Bittorrent

Comments Filter:
  • by Lostie (772712) * on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:22AM (#12418127)
    ... but the RIAA/MPAA lawyer teams don't need to start hiring again just yet.

    does the lack of search negate its effectiveness?

    I'd say it "limits" it's effectiveness, not negates it. It's not really de-centralized if you still have to rely on sites like suprnova in order to search for stuff, is it? This is a major reason why BitTorrent hasn't completely dominated eMule yet.
    But since this removes another potential point of failure in the network (the tracker), it is still a good thing(tm).
    • by DenDave (700621) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:26AM (#12418146)
      A pity these technologies always end up being dissed as being "vehicles of sin" ... I actually hope it works... I download alot of Linux/bsd isos and it's a pain sometimes because of poor mirrors and shitty trackers, however if these swarms appear upon a new release then it makes sense to start downloading during the swarm as opposed to waiting for the rush to pass.

    • by shird (566377) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:15AM (#12418346) Homepage Journal
      Which you have to ask, why not just use emule/edonkey network?

      Before you say 'wah wah bit torrent is faster', etc, it is only like that because it is centralised and so a tracker can make sure everyone is seeding, there are statistics which encourage people to seed, and most importantly, there are far less files, and so the bandwidth isnt spread out as thinly.

      The more these guys work on decentralising BT, the closer you get to just being a less efficient and less established clone of emule. Whats the point?

      As far as 'warezing' is concerned (99% of traffic), BT is a terrible protocol. The trouble is, these kids see the speed of BT and think thats the way to go. They realise the centralisation is a problem, and so try to fix that. Without realising they are just reinventing the wheel. They think they are going to get the best of both worlds, because they are just warezing kids and don't know any better.
      • As far as 'warezing' is concerned (99% of traffic), BT is a terrible protocol. The trouble is, these kids see the speed of BT and think thats the way to go. They realise the centralisation is a problem, and so try to fix that. Without realising they are just reinventing the wheel. They think they are going to get the best of both worlds, because they are just warezing kids and don't know any better.

        How is eMule any better? It certainly doesn't protect your anonymity. The eMule server acts in much the same
        • How is eMule any better? It certainly doesn't protect your anonymity. The eMule server acts in much the same role as the BT server, except the speeds are better on BT. Remove the tracker, and you got a "flash mob" of peers. Each dumpsite could just point to one member of the swarm, making it ten or a hundred targets instead of one lone tracker. BT has always been about security in numbers, except the users have been many and the sites many, but the tracker only one.

          eMule eliminates this need for a 'dump
          • Re:How is eMule... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by InvalidError (771317) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:29AM (#12418751)
            Basicaly, they don't realise it, but they are coming full circle, and the outcome is just going to be a another eDonkey network. Which means, why not just use the existing one.

            Here goes one reason: 9500KB pieces
            Another: MD5-class hashes

            The eD2k network uses oversized basic blocks and weak reference block hashes. Wasting up to 9.28MB because someone sent a bad bit is somewhat wasteful. So far, I have yet to see a torrent with >1MB pieces. Since MD5 is EOL, it is very likely that undetectable corruption exploits will appear in the near future (ViralG?). Killing legacy eD2k would be a good thing - those oversized blocks need to go, hopefully to be replaced by a scalable recursive tree hash.
          • Re:How is eMule... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Hast (24833)
            Because eDonkey sucks?

            Seriously every time I have tried to use that network I have quit the download after a day or so of waiting in queues. This is before getting anything at all of the file. It sould be faster to just go down to Germany or whatever by car and copy the file to a CDR and go back.

            I know I'm supposed to be online for a while before the eDonkey style queues start working in my favour; but I just can't be bothered.

            Also note that BT isn't like a typical P2P as you can't really search for file
      • Which you have to ask, why not just use emule/edonkey network?

        Hell, why not use a Gnutella2, as Shareazaa does ?

        Gnutella2 is a smaller network but is still pretty large, and it has the advantage of much shorter queues. Edonkey is cool for very large files which you don't mind waiting for, or for rare files. Gnutella2 is ideal for smaller files which you want to download quickly.

        The more these guys work on decentralising BT, the closer you get to just being a less efficient and less established clone of
  • by Aioth (870942) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:23AM (#12418134)
    I don't think Exeem has anything to worry about.
  • Torrent distribution (Score:4, Informative)

    by Joakim A (313708) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:29AM (#12418150)
    Torrents could be distributed in the swarms too. Possibly according to user preferences if the swarm has many torrents/many types of data. Could get really nice. We do need a python version though..

    (Cant access the linked sites due to company policy (they allow /. :) so i don't know if this is supported.)

    • by Errtu76 (776778) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:34AM (#12418169) Journal
      We do need a python version though..

      No we don't. This (java) version works perfectly already. Why does this _need_ to be ported?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Look at the screenshots: Azureus has an IRC client embedded! This is where I draw the line and say that this program is seriously bloated.
        • by Errtu76 (776778)
          I didn't look at the screenshots. I do have the application running at home, so i can tell you that this client is a plugin. And according to my knowledge of plugins, it means it can be disabled.

          Correct me if i'm wrong. I start to doubt as well now (not that it's bloated - only an (minimalistic) irc client doesn't make an app bloated) wether or not it can be removed/disabled.
      • by JanneM (7445) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:57AM (#12418256) Homepage
        No we don't. This (java) version works perfectly already. Why does this _need_ to be ported?

        It doesn't _need_ to be ported. There are at least two possible reasons to do so anyhow, one "moral", one pragmatic:

        * It's difficult to distribute the Java runtime environment for some Linux distributions due to licensing issues. That means that for some of the most popular distros, installing Azureus is decidedly non-trivial for someone that's not fairly familiar with non-standard installation.

        * If you are using no other Java app on the system (I don't), the footprint of Azureus + JavaVM is very sizeable. Having something run under a VM that's in use anyhow makes the app use much less resources.

        Bonus reasons is that more alternative clients will shake out bugs and issues with the system, and will encourage further experimentation and exploration of the system and the UI.

        At the same time, porting it (or reimplementing in another client) takes away exactly zero from the Azureus developers or users. It's a win-win situation.
        • I don't quite agree with you on the java issue. I mean, jre from sun/java.com comes as an installer that only requires you to ./run-it and follow instructions. True about the distro's and licensing. That's why Gentoo prompted me with an url where i should download it (manually). Even for newbies this should be doable.
          • That's why Gentoo prompted me with an url where i should download it (manually). Even for newbies this should be doable.

            You obviously have neither parents nor an Uncle Bob who "knows computers" but who is always ringing you up for advise.

          • by JanneM (7445)
            "only ./run-it" is enough to bring most people to a screeching halt. Not to mention you first have to figure out that you need something named Java, that you get it from Sun's website and then figure out on that site what you are supposed to download (which really isn't trivial even if you do know what you are doing - is it EE, RE or DE? Do I need stuff like JavaBeans?).

            For all intents and purposes, if it can't be pulled down and installed automatically as part of the application install process, that prec
            • This is really a non-issue, on most distributions Java is either included or easily installable through the distributions tools.

              If your distribution limits your choices according to some religious view of software you might not share, then change distribution.

        • At the same time, porting it (or reimplementing in another client) takes away exactly zero from the Azureus developers or users. It's a win-win situation.

          I don't buy into the logic that creating competing open source projects automatically is a win-win situation. I can in fact come up with several negative consequences (this applies to all projects, not just Azureus).

          Many projects means developers will be spread thin, negating the old "Many eyes make all bugs shallow". Developers for Azureus will have to
      • by afd8856 (700296)
        Because it needs X to run. I want to run it remote, in console version.
      • ALthough Azureus is one of the better java written applications I've used, it still feels like java.

        Everything updates just a little slow. You can be downloading via torrent something and have like 18%.
        Then, go to another workspace and then later when I click back onto the Azureus workspace, it still shows 18% for about a second, then bam, all the values update. It's not my machine (p4,3.0ghz, gig ram).

        Azureus, as an application, totally rules. It would be excellent in C or even python.
        • Azureus, as an application, totally rules. It would be excellent in C or even python.

          Then why isn't there a corresponding application in C or Python? How do you know that re-implementing them in another language doesn't create new bugs (security issues for C, for instance) that using Java has eliminated?
        • You can blame SWT for that. Especially now that Java 1.5 is around, SWT is a hell of a lot slower than Swing.
      • by jridley (9305)
        I'd like to see it ported to something other than Java. I really like Azareus's interface, and it works well, but it scales horribly. I really can't use it. I tried it out and it seemed good, then I tried using it as my main service, and it just destroyed my system. Try seeding 30 or 40 torrents out of a modest (2GHz, 1GB RAM) machine sometime. It's horrible. If you're web browsing, editing/encoding video, using PhotoShop, scanning film, etc on the same machine, you'll be crying.

        By contrast, BitComet
        • by BobPaul (710574) *
          Try seeding 30 or 40 torrents out of a modest (2GHz, 1GB RAM) machine sometime. It's horrible. If you're web browsing, editing/encoding video, using PhotoShop, scanning film, etc on the same machine, you'll be crying.

          If you were doing all of that on a 2GHz with only 1GB RAM, you'd be crying even if you weren't running Azureus.
          --
          Need Referals? The ref stops here [refstop.com]
      • by X.25 (255792)
        No we don't. This (java) version works perfectly already. Why does this _need_ to be ported?

        Erm... because you can't run it in the background over SSH session on another server through 56kbit link? Or just choose any other reason...
    • We do need a python version though.

      Oh please, why that ? I have not much against py but I do have against py-written apps. I had so much trouble with such apps, that I avoid anything related to it if I can. You can call this FUD spreading, but that was not my intention, it just what happened. If you want so much to port the stuff, make it c+gtk or c+qt or c# based, it still would be multi-platform. I don't have anything against the java client, still, I always used other torrent clients (like bitcomet) be
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:30AM (#12418152)
    Bad Pirates
    Whatcha want, watcha want
    Whatcha gonna do
    When sheriff RIAA come for you
    Tell me
    Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna dooo
    Yeaheah

    CHORUS:
    Bad Pirates, bad Pirates
    Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
    When the RIAA come for you
    (Repeat)

    When you were twenty
    And you had bad traits
    You go to College
    And learn the golden rule
    So why are you
    Acting like a bloody fool
    If you get hot torrents
    You must get cool

    CHORUS
  • Using it now (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fgl (792403) <daniel@notforsale.co.nz> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:30AM (#12418155) Homepage Journal
    After upgrading a few hours ago, I opened up the appropriate UDP prts as requested (pol;itely I might add) & watched the number of clients that I was trackerlessly connected to rise from ~50,000 ot more than 76,000
    I've used it for a long time now, but the latest itteration just seems to go beyond the call of duty.
    • Re:Using it now (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Handpaper (566373)
      Is this a 'visible hosts' number or do you actually have 76000 open sockets?
      I'd love to see Win95/98 try to handle that :)
      Waiting for netstat to finish it's output could be fun, too.
    • by AndroidCat (229562) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:08AM (#12419077) Homepage
      What happens when you want to shut it down? I tried it out last night, and when I was done and gracefully stopped and removed the torrent, waited, and then shut down Azureus, my fricken connection was hammered with UDP packets.

      Exactly how long does this decentralized system take to recognize that someone is no longer connected, don't want to talk and (especially) has perhaps handed the DHCP IP address to the next person? I think I'll give it another try, but if I get results like last night I'll either disable that feature or give Azureus the boot.

  • Why not ANts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nehle (784297) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:33AM (#12418165) Journal
    This kind of thing is not new ANts P2P [sf.net] is a decentralized, encrypted anonymous protocol that works in the same way as BitTorrent. From the page "ANts P2P realizes a third generation P2P net. It protects your privacy while you are connected and makes you not trackable, hiding your identity (ip) and crypting everything you are sending/receiving from others." Why not give that a try?
    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:15AM (#12418348) Homepage
      BT is not anonymous, nor are these attempts at decentralizing BT. They are simply a match-making service pairing off peers. Ants (and Freenet+++) try to create an anonymous network, which means acting as data proxies.

      That means
      a) helluva lot more complexity in terms of making it work
      b) lots of complexity in making it actually anonymous
      c) massive loss of bandwidth due to proxying data around

      Judging by the website:
      "NOTE: The only way to speed up the ANts connection system is to let the net grow. Only with a reasonable number of high speed peers (i.e. peers that handles up to 30 connections) properly configured (firewall, ip etc.) initial connection can be easy and fast. So don't care about connection speed by now... let your node run and it will find peers or they will find it! DON't ASK TOO MUCH TO A NET MADE UP OF 20/30 peers..."

      I call shenanigans. The demand will scale with the supply, in fact you start running into MORE problems with finding content on a large network, not less. See Freenet. Oh, and I hope the actual number of nodes is higher. With that few, you can map out the entire network and analyze it apart almost no matter how brilliant the software is...

      Kjella
  • Kind of been done... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gilesx (525831) * <(gil) (at) (foresightlinux.com)> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:35AM (#12418173) Homepage
    This is a little like Shareaza.

    Shareaza has support for Gnutella, Gnutella 2, Edonkey and Bittorrent. As it provides a "bridge" between these networks, it means I am able to search for torrents from the two Gnutella networks, and edk. When I have this torrent, I can open it using the bittorrent part of Shareaza, and if that torrent is down, Shareaza will still hash the torrent and attempt to download the appropriate files from the Gnutella and eDonkey neworks. It's a nice idea, and really unites all the various p2p methods, using each method's strength to give an all round solid result.

    I'm surprised that it's taken Azureus this long to catch up, and I'm sure we'll start to see a lot more bittorrent clients either offering their own solutions to this issue, or as in the case of Shareaza, using existing p2p networks to give backup to the Bittorrent protocol.
    • I'm surprised that it's taken Azureus this long to catch up, ...

      Catch up? You don't seem to understand what the new features in Azureus are. From what I can see, they are nothing like what you mention. Different solutions for different problems.
  • Azureus is fast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by illtron (722358) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:35AM (#12418176) Homepage Journal
    I gained a lot of respect for Java apps when I tried Azureus for the first time. It was at least 6-7x faster than the official client or Tomato Torrent on OS X, and it connects to way more hosts for me. Like I said, I'm on OS X, so I've never tried exeem.

    Making it easier to get to torrents is all well and good, but let's keep in mind that most of the *legal* stuff available through bittorrent is easy to find as it is.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:38AM (#12418181)
    How will the trackerless stuff interact with sites that require login? In the normal case you would login to the website and after that the tracker only allows you to connect from the same IP, but does the new trackerless thingie allow anyone to connect to these swarms? Might be (way too) good way to get past share ratio requirements.
  • Lack of search... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aragorn992 (740050) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:38AM (#12418183)
    " or does the lack of search negate its effectiveness?"

    No the lack of search is exactly what differentiates the BitTorrent network (though its not really a network is it? It piggy backs off webservers) from other P2P apps.
  • by solidox (650158) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:38AM (#12418185) Homepage
    The bittorrent client BitComet has been doing this for a long time now.
    Simply what it does is shares lists of peers between clients for matching infohashes...
    It dosn't nessecerely decentralize it or remove the need for a tracker, as you need to get at least 1 ip from a member of the swarm (who has a compatible client)
    It can help to get new peers if a tracker fails half way through, but you still need the initial peers ips from a tracker or similar.
  • Tor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by natrius (642724) * <.gro.narin. .ta. .narin.> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @06:39AM (#12418190) Homepage
    It also looks like they integrated Tor into the client, which should lead to fairly interesting results. When a client as popular as Azureus has anonymity built in, I think some people might be angry.

    When the **AA see an IP address downloading from an infringing torrent, they direct their lawsuits towards the account holder for that IP. This puts people running Tor at risk of being sued. Is "It wasn't me, it was another Tor user" a valid defense? Are people going to be held accountable for the traffic that passes through their Tor server?
    • Re:Tor (Score:4, Informative)

      by moonbender (547943) <moonbenderNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:21AM (#12418383)
      Oh. The Tor guys won't like that. People figured out how to run BT over Tor a while ago (I tried it myself in January after seeing a presentation on Tor). Google for anonbt and you end up on a subsection [sourceforge.net] of the Azureus homepage, saying:
      Please *DO NOT* use Tor for routing peer-to-peer data traffic, it can not handle the bandwidth. They have indicated that they will make efforts to ban such usage if it continues, which will likely affect both legitimate and unwanted use!
    • Re:Tor (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually that is exactly what TOR is for. There is no way(except sophisticated traffic analysis) to prove what traffic is yours. This should stand up in court, as TOR just routes encrypted traffic. The EFF actually runs their own TOR onion router, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got involved in any sort of lawsuits involving TOR. Although, as soon as the dopes in Congress and the whitehouse understand this technology, and get lobbied by the RIAA, it may not be legal for long.
    • Are people going to be held accountable for the traffic that passes through their Tor server?

      IANAL but I think we're back to the 'substantial non-infringing uses' arguement again. Unlike P2P software, Tor has wide ranging uses covering a multitude of applications and protocols. I doubt the RIAA can sucessfully bring it down.

      OTOH I doubt Tor can afford to defend itself unless the FSF comes to the rescue.
  • Isn't this the same feature that has been getting Bitcomet clients banned from various trackers?
  • Java 1.5 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mattr (78516) <mattr.telebody@com> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:01AM (#12418276) Homepage Journal
    You MUST install java 1.5 on linux.
  • JPC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dakisha (526733) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:11AM (#12418320)
    I was also interested to see they included 'Joltid Peer Cache (JPC)' - in their words "Joltid Peer Cache (JPC) is now integrated into Azureus. For users whose ISP support this, JPC should allow faster downloads, while helping the ISP reduce its bandwidth costs. The JPC Plugin is safe in the way that your ISP won't know what you are downloading, and can't use it to spy on you."

    Given that torrents are supposed to account from anywhere between 30-70% of all internet traffic, depending on who you believe - this could go a long way towards easing bandwidth consumption issues. Of course, I have no idea how many ISPs are actually using this, the website http://www.joltid.com/index.php/peercache/ [joltid.com] is rather limited in it's information, and a google for the name reveals that there is still some question over the legality, so a lot of ISPs are keeping their heads down and using it on the quiet.

    For flash traffic, such as a new game demo being released - or even torrented anime, which often sees in excess of 10-20 thousand people downloading it within 48 hours for the more popular series, this could save ISPs a lot of money.
  • eXeem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aleatory_story (862072) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:13AM (#12418333)
    I heard about eXeem a while back when SuprNova disbanded... the creator's next project or something. I also heard that it was being backed by spyware companies... so I haven't jumped to try it out. Could someone who has tried out eXeem give their thoughts about it?
    • I tried it when it first came out, so I have no idea if there is a newer version... but it was nothing special... not very fast (downloading, and system resource wise) not enough files, and not enough sources for the files... overall, crappy.
  • Was looking foward to using as as soon as i heard they updated.But looks like the OSX port is not avalible yet.Must be working a version that is compatible with Tiger.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Sure, search for decentralised trackers might be convenient; but it would probably make it rather easier for everyone(read *IAA) to find all the good stuff rather quickly. Without search we've got a formidable tool; bittorrent efficiency added onto the standard "I know a guy who knows a guy" search method of the good old social darknet.
  • This tech should be very useful on the public trackers (no registration required) as the torrents will continue to work even when the tracker is offline.

    But what about the sites where a ratio is enforced so people seed and not just leech? This might break it as the clients might not talk to the main tracker anymore.

    Is it even possible to enforce share ratios with distributed tracking?
  • by Cereal Box (4286) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @07:57AM (#12418576)
    Wait a minute, I thought Bittorrent was OVERWHELMINGLY used for legitimate purposes, with only a small percentage of users having the audacity to (gasp) break copyright law (if you're to believe what's said on Slashdot).

    Why the need for decentralized trackers? I don't get it! Bittorrent is supposed to be a haven for law-abiding citizens to trade Linux ISOs and Project Gutenberg text files.
  • Nice work, but the thing that needs to be worked on is hiding the users IP addresses. How abuot bouncing ICMP packets with the data in the payload from hosts with the return address set to the recipient, and the source address set randomly? That way no-one knows the senders IP. You'd need some kind of out of band broadcast system for asking for files too.
  • I gotta say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trawg (308495) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:35AM (#12418802) Homepage
    I find it in-fucking-credible that Slashdot editors are willing to post an item that includes comments to the effect of: "gee, I hope [insert name of software/network/strategy] allows us to easily replicate the behaviour of [insert name of some other software/network/strategy that has previously been shut down for basically doing nothing but providing a system for people to easily infringe copyright, and more often than not charging users to do it]!"

    BitTorrent is great. p2p is great, in general. But continually highlighting how great it is for piracy (yeh, regardless of how lame the RIAA/MPAA are) just puts more negative attention on it and further affixes the concept of "p2p is bad" in people's minds, rather than what they should be thinking.

    I don't know if slashdot editors actually are willing to edit posts rather than just put them up (I can see reasons for doing it and reasons for not doing it), but this post would have been just super without the last sentence.
  • OMG pretty (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Julian Morrison (5575) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:54AM (#12419514)
    Seriously, if you want to know why Azureus is so damn cool, just click on the new "swarm" tab on a running torrent. Ye gods, but that's beauty! Perfectly abstract, instantly comprehensible, informative in realtime, mesmerizing as a screensaver. You have to respect the kind of people who'd think up something like that.

    (Karma bonus turned off because this is OT, but damn, I just had to say that.)
  • by chris311 (87683) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:01AM (#12419578)
    I've just completed a Master's project on incorporating Reputation Management into BitTorrent. The idea is that if you give file slices first to people who are likely to stay connected and share, it will increase the overall bandwidth of the system and eventually increase everyone's performance. My simulation results show an average speedup of 5% for everyone in the network (good citizens get up to 15% speedup). I don't have a website, but if anyone wants to contact me about getting my research into the spec, I'd be happy to send you the paper.
    clenfest@yahoo.com
  • Finally... (Score:3, Funny)

    by xRelisH (647464) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:40AM (#12420760)
    those Paris Hilton Torrents wont be broken!
  • by d_jedi (773213) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @12:48PM (#12421511)
    besides for scum sucking pirates. The story even hints at this use:
    Could this and compatible clients be the replacement to SuprNova and Lokitorrents, or does the lack of search negate its effectiveness?"

    ignoring the fact that Lokitorrent and Suprnova would still be in business if they had trackers to legal files (like Linux distros) instead of illegal pirated music/movies/software.

    All of the pirates can go fcuk themselves. The more you hide, the worse the penalties will be.. and the more inclined content creators will be to use draconian measures to protect their intellectual property.
  • I2P technology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shoota (834369) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @02:53AM (#12429465)
    Does anyone have a clue what this I2P techonology is and how the azureus plugin incorporates it into bittorrent. Thanks.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...