1. Microsoft Torrent Download
2. Download Microsoft Access Torrent
3. Microsoft Visual Studio Download
4. Visual Studio 2010 Iso Download

Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate Crack. 51% Off Norton AntiVirus 2012 + Free Shipping on $50+.

• Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Premium Key Code, Inventor 2015 Torrent, How To Activate Autodesk Smoke 2016, Intuit TurboTax Home & Business 2013 USA Crack Free Download.
• Stay Private and Protected with the Best Firefox Security Extensions The Best Video Software for Windows The 3 Free. Visual Studio 2010. Visual Basic 2010. Download Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Professional cracked. Use it free of risk. Press the link 'Continue Reading' below the description to get access to Mic.

Visual Studio Setup and Installation Question 10 5/21. Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate (final RTM build) Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate is the comprehensive suite of application lifecycle management tools for teams to ensure quality results, from design to deployment. Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010 Professional is an integrated solution for developing, debugging, and deploying all kinds of applications. It takes up several.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents or electronic books. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange intellectual property that is subject to copyright law or licensing.

• 2Jurisdictions
  • 2.5Germany
  • 2.16United States

File hosting and sharing[edit]

File hosting services may be used as a means to distribute or share files without consent of the copyright owner. In such cases one individual uploads a file to a file hosting service, which others may download. Legal history is documented in case law.

For example in the case of Swiss-German file hosting service RapidShare, in 2010 the US government's congressional international anti-piracycaucus declared the site a 'notorious illegal site', claiming that the site was 'overwhelmingly used for the global exchange of illegal movies, music and other copyrighted works'.^[1] But in the legal case Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG in Germany (Legal case: OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated 22 March 2010) the Düsseldorf higher regional court examined claims related to alleged infringing activity and reached the conclusion on appeal that 'most people utilize RapidShare for legal use cases'^[2] and that to assume otherwise was equivalent to inviting 'a general suspicion against shared hosting services and their users which is not justified'.^[3] The court also observed that the site removes copyrighted material when asked, does not provide search facilities for illegal material, noted previous cases siding with RapidShare, and after analysis the court concluded that the plaintiff's proposals for more strictly preventing sharing of copyrighted material – submitted as examples of anti-file sharing measures RapidShare might have adopted – were found to be 'unreasonable or pointless'.^[4]

In January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down the file hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. Their indictment concluded that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses, suggesting a number of design features of its operating model as being evidence showing a criminal intent and venture.^[5]

Jurisdictions[edit]

Australia[edit]

A secondary liability case in Australia, under Australian law, was Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242 (5 September 2005). In that case, the Court determined that the Kazaa file sharing system had 'authorized' copyright infringement. The claim for damages was subsequently settled out of court.

In the case of AFACT v iiNet which was fought out in the Federal Court, an internet service provider was found not to be liable for the copyright infringement of its users. The case did not, however, create a clear precedent that Australian ISPs could never be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users by virtue of providing an internet connection. AFACT and other major Australian copyright holders have stated their intention to appeal the case, or pursue the matter by lobbying the government to change the Australian law.

Canada[edit]

The Copyright Modernization Act was passed in 2012, and came into effect on 2 January 2015. It provides for statutory damages for cases of non-commercial infringement between $100 and $5 000 and damages for commercial infringement from $500 to $20 000.

China[edit]

The People's Republic of China is known for having one of the most comprehensive and extensive approaches to observing web activity and censoring information in the world.^{[citation needed]} Popular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook cannot be accessed via direct connection by its citizens. Mainland China requires sites that share video files to have permits and be controlled by the state or owned by state. These permits last for three years and will need renewal after that time period. Web sites that violate any rules will be subject to a 5-year ban from providing videos online.^[6] One of the country's most used file sharing programs, BTChina got shut down in December 2009. It was shut down by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television for not obtaining a license to legally distribute media such as audio and video files.^[7] Alexa, a company that monitors web traffic, claims that BTChina had 80,000 daily users. Being one of the primary file sharing websites for Chinese citizens, this shutdown affected the lives of many internet users in China. China has an online population of 222.4 million people and 65.8% are said to participate in some form of file-sharing on websites.^[8]

European Union[edit]

On 5 June 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that making temporary copies on the user's screen or in the user's cache is not, in itself, illegal.^[9][10] The ruling relates to the British Meltwater case settled on that day.^[11]

The judgement of the court states: 'Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.'^[12]

The Boy Genius Reportweblog noted that 'As long as an Internet user is streaming copyrighted content online ... it’s legal for the user, who isn’t willfully [sic] making a copy of said content. If the user only views it directly through a web browser, streaming it from a website that hosts it, he or she is apparently doing nothing wrong.'^[13]

In November 2009, the European Parliament voted on changes to the Telecoms Package. With regard to file-sharing, MEPs agreed to compromise between protecting copyright and protecting user's rights. A European Parliament statement reads 'A user's internet access may be restricted, if necessary and proportionate, only after a fair and impartial procedure including the user's right to be heard.' EU members were given until May 2011 to implement these changes into their own laws.^[14]

Germany[edit]

In Germany, file sharing is illegal and even one copyrighted file downloaded through BitTorrent can trigger €1000 fines or more. The GEMA also used to block many YouTube videos.

Graduated response[edit]

In response to copyright violations using peer to peerfile sharing or BitTorrent the content industry has developed what is known as a graduated response, or three strikes system. Consumers who do not adhere to repeated complaints on copyright infringement, risk losing access to the internet. The content industry has thought to gain the co-operation of internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide subscriber information for IP addresses identified by the content industry as engaged in copyright violations. Consumer rights groups have argued that this approach denies consumers the right to due process and the right to privacy. The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in April 2008 admonishing laws that would require ISPs to disconnect their users and would prevent individuals from acquiring access to broadband.^[15][16]

In a number of European countries attempts to implement a graduated response have led to court cases to establish under which circumstances an ISP may provide subscriber data to the content industry. In order to pursue those that download copyrighted material the individual committing the infringing must be identified. Internet users are often only identifiable by their Internet Protocol address (IP address), which distinguishes the virtual location of a particular computer. Most ISPs allocate a pool of IP addresses as needed, rather than assigning each computer a never-changing static IP address. Using ISP subscriber information the content industry has thought to remedy copyright infringement, assuming that the ISPs are legally responsible for the end user activity, and that the end user is responsible for all activity connected to his or hers IP address.^[16][17]

In 2005 a Dutch court ordered ISPs in the Netherlands not to divulge subscriber information because of the way the Dutch content industry group had collected the IP addresses (Foundation v. UPC Nederland). According to Dutch law ISPs can only be ordered to provide personal subscriber data if it is plausible that an unlawful act occurred, and if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the subscriber information will identify the person who committed the infringing act. In Germany court specifically considered the right to privacy and in March 2008 the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that ISPs could only give out IP address subscription information in case of a 'serious criminal investigation'. The court furthermore ruled that copyright infringement did not qualify as a serious enough offense. Subsequently, in April 2008, the Bundestag (German parliament) approved a new law requiring ISPs to divulge the identity of suspected infringers who infringe on a commercial scale. Similarly, in Sweden, a controversial file sharing bill is awaiting the Riksdag’s approval. The law, which would enter into effect on 1 April 2009, would allow copyright holders to request the IP addresses and names of copyright infringement suspects in order to take legal action against them. The copyright holders, though, should present sufficient evidence of harm to justify the release of information regarding the Internet subscribers.^[18] In Italy, the courts established that criminal liability does not extend to file sharing copyrighted material, as long as it is not done for commercial gain. Ruling on a case involving a copyright holder who employed a third party to collect IP addresses of suspected copyright infringers, the Italian Data Protection Authority ruled in February 2008 that the systematic monitoring peer-to-peer activities for the purpose of detecting copyright infringers and suing them is prohibited.^[16]

France[edit]

In October 2009, France's highest constitutional court approved the HADOPI law, a 'three-strikes law';^[19] however, the law was revoked on 10 July 2013 by the French Government because the punitive penalties imposed on copyright infringers was considered to be disproportionate.^[20]

Ireland[edit]

In May 2010, Irish internet provider Eircom have announced they will cut off the broadband connection of subscribers suspected of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Initially, customers will be telephoned by Eircom to see if they are aware of the unauthorized downloads. When customers are identified for a third time they will lose their internet connection for 7 days, if caught for a fourth time they will lose their internet connection for a year.^[21]

Japan[edit]

File sharing in Japan is notable for both its size and sophistication.^[22] The Recording Industry Association of Japan claims illegal downloads outnumber legal ones 10:1.^[23]

The sophistication of Japan's filesharing is due to the sophistication of Japanese anti-filesharing. Unlike most other countries, filesharing copyrighted content is not just a civil offense, but a criminal one, with penalties of up to ten years for uploading and penalties of up to two years for downloading.^[23] There is also a high level of Internet service provider cooperation.^[24] This makes for a situation where file sharing as practiced in many other countries is quite dangerous.

Download Microsoft Visual 2010 Free

To counter, Japanese file sharers employ anonymization networks with clients such as Perfect Dark (パーフェクトダーク) and Winny.

Malaysia[edit]

In June 2011, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has ordered the blocking of several websites including The Pirate Bay and several file-hosting websites via a letter dated 30 May to all Malaysian ISPs for violating Section 41 of the Copyright Act 1987, which deals with pirated content.^[25]

Mexico[edit]

Mexican law does not currently address non-commercial file sharing, although Mexican legislators have considered increasing penalties for unauthorized file sharing. Broadband usage is increasing in Mexico, and Internet cafes are common,^[26]. Due to the relative lack of authorized music distribution services in Mexico, filesharing continues to dominate music access. According to the recording industry in 2010, Internet sharing of music dominated approximately 90% of the total music market in Mexico with peer to peer networks the most dominant form of music copyright infringement.^[27]

Netherlands[edit]

According to Dutch law reproduction of a literary, science, or art work is not considered a violation on the right of the creator or performing artist when all of the following conditions have been met:

• The copy has not been made with an (in)direct commercial motive
• The copy's purpose is exclusively for own practice, study or use
• The number of copies is limited

Such a copy is called a 'thuiskopie' or home copy.

Since 2018, following a decision by the Ministry of Justice, there is an organization which guarantees that artists and rights holders get a compensation for copies of their works made for private use.^[28] This compensation is levied indirectly through a surcharge on information carriers such as blank CD's, blank DVD's, MP3 Players, and, since 2013, hard drives and tablets.

North Korea[edit]

File sharing in North Korea is done by hand with physical transport devices such as computer disk drives, due to lack of access to the Internet. It is illegal, due to regime attempts to control culture.^[29] Despite government repression, file sharing is common, as it is in most other countries.^[30]

Download Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Torrent Pirates

Because official channels are heavily dominated by government propaganda and outside media is banned, illegally traded files are a unique view into the outside world for North Koreans.^[30] The most shared media is from South Korea; k-pop and soap operas.^[29]

South Korea[edit]

In March 2009, South Korea passed legislation that gave internet users a form of three strikes for unlawful file sharing with the intention of curbing online theft.^[31]This is also known as graduated response.As the number of cases of unauthorized sharing increases, the proportion of youth involved has increased. As file shares are monitored, they are sent messages instructing them to stop. If their file sharing continues, their internet connection may be disconnected for up to six months.^[32]The force behind this movement is the Korean National Assembly’s Committeeon Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C). With help from local internet service providers, the CCSTB&C have gainedaccess and formed communication channels to specific file sharing users.^[33]

Spain[edit]

In a series of cases, Spanish courts have ruled that file sharing for private use is legal.In 2006, the record industry's attempts to criminalize file sharing were thwarted when Judge Paz Aldecoa declared it legal to download indiscriminately in Spain, if done for private use and without any intent to profit,^[34][35] and the head of the police's technology squad has publicly said 'No pasa nada. Podéis bajar lo que queráis del eMule. Pero no lo vendáis.' ('It's ok. You can download whatever you want with eMule. But don't sell it.').^[36] There have been demonstrations where the authorities have been informed that copyrighted material would be downloaded in a public place, the last of which took place on 20 December 2008.^[37] No legal action was taken against the protestors.^{[38][39][40][41][42]} In another decision from May 2009,^[43] a judge ruled in favor of a person engaged in the private, non-commercial file-sharing of thousands of movies, even though the copying was done without the consent of the copyright owners.

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that personal data associated with an IP address may only be disclosed in the course of a criminal investigation or for public safety reasons. (Productores de Música de España v. Telefónica de España SAU).^[16]

It has been reported that Spain has one of the highest rates of file-sharing in Europe.^[44] Over a twelve-month period there were 2.4 billion reported downloads of copyrighted works including music, video games, software and films in Spain. Statistics for 2010 indicate that 30% of the Spanish population uses file-sharing websites, double the European average of 15%.^[44]

Record labels would have it that this has had a negative impact on the industry, with investment drying up, according to IFPI head John Kennedy. In 2003, for instance, 10 new Spanish artists appeared in the top 50 album chart, but in 2009 not a single new Spanish artist featured in the same chart. Album sales dropped by two-thirds over a period of five years leading up to 2010. 'Spain runs the risk of turning into a cultural desert ... I think it's a real shame that people in authority don't see the damage being done.'^[45]

However, the Spanish Association of Music Promoters (APM) states that 'Music is alive,' as despite the decrease in record sales the revenues from concert ticket sales has increased 117% over the last decade, from €69.9 million to €151.1 million in 2008. The number of concerts doubled from 71,045 in 2000 to 144,859 in 2008, and the number of people attending concerts increased from 21.8 million in 2000 to over 33 million in 2008.^[46]

Despite the troubles weathered by the entertainment industry, file sharing and torrent websites were ruled legal in Spain in March 2010. The judge responsible for the court ruling stated that 'P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws'.^[47]

On 20 September 2013, the Spanish government approved new laws that will take effect at the beginning of 2014. The approved legislation will mean that website owners who are earning 'direct or indirect profit,' such as via advertising links, from pirated content can be imprisoned for up to six years. Peer-to-peer file-sharing platforms and search engines are exempt from the laws.^[48]

Since January 2015, Vodafone Spain blocks thepiratebay.org as requested by the Ministry of Interior. And since 29 March 2015 thepiratebay is blocked on multiple URLs from all ISPs^[111]

United Kingdom[edit]

Around 2010, the UK government's position was that action would help drive the UK’s vital creative and digital sectors to bolster future growth and jobs.^[49] According to a 2009 report carried out by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry95 per cent of music downloads are unauthorised, with no payment to artists and producers.^[50] Market research firm Harris Interactive believed there to be 8.3 million file sharers in the UK. Moreover the BPI claimed that in 1999 UK music purchases totaled £1,113 million but had fallen to £893.8 million in 2008.^[51] The Digital Economy Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 9 April 2010.^[52] But subsequently its main provisions were never legislatively passed.

Historical situation prior to 2010

Previous cases in the UK have seen internet users receive bills of £2500 for sharing music on the internet.^[53]

Digital Economy Act 2010

The Digital Economy Bill proposed that internet service providers (ISPs) issue warnings by sending letters to those downloading copyrighted files without authorization. Following this, the bill proposed that ISPs slow down or even suspend internet access for repeat offenders of unauthorized file sharing. The bill aimed to force internet service providers to disclose the identities of those offenders as well as making conditions for the regulation of copyright licensing. The Digital Economy Bill incorporated a graduated response policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences.^[54] The bill also introduced fines of up to £50,000 for criminal offences relating to copyright infringement – for example if music is downloaded with intent to sell. The high penalty is considered to be proportionate to the harm caused to UK industries.^[55] An appeals process exists whereby the accused can contest the case however, the concern has been expressed that this process will be costly and that, in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, the bill reverses the core principles of natural justice.^[56] Similarly, a website may be blocked if it is considered that it has been, is being, or is likely to be used in connection with copyright infringement^[57] meaning that a site does not actually have to be involved in copyright infringement – rather intent must be proved.

The Act was seen as controversial, and potentially creating serious repercussions for both file sharers and internet service providers.^[58] The bill was met with a mixed response. Geoff Taylor of the BPI claims the bill is vital for the future of creative works in the UK.^[56] The Conservative party spokesman for Culture and Media stated that those downloading should be given a criminal record. Conversely, the Liberal Democrat party spokesman for Culture and Media claimed the bill was reckless and dangerous stating that children could unwittingly be file sharing causing an entire family to lose their internet connection. In addition to this, there was concern that hackers may access internet connections to download files and leave the bill payer responsible. Specific concerns raised included:

• Providers of public Wi-Fi access is uncertain. Responsibility for breaches could be passed on to the provider due to the difficulty in identifying individual users. The internet provider therefore may risk losing internet access or facing a hefty fine if an infringement of copyright takes place. Many libraries and small cafés for example may find this impossible to adhere to as it would require detailed logging of all those requiring internet access. In libraries in particular this may provide challenges to the profession’s importance of user privacy and could force changes in future policies such as Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Public libraries utilise AUPs in order to protect creative works from copyright infringement and themselves from possible legal liability. However, unless the AUP is accompanied by the provision of knowledge on how to obey laws it could be seen as unethical, as blame for any breaches is passed to the user.^[59]
• Hospitality sector - may also be affected by the Digital Economy Act. The British Hospitality Association has stated that hotels would have particular problems in providing details of guest’s internet access to Internet Service Providers and entire hotels may face disconnection. They have also expressed their concern that an individual's actions may lead to such a drastic outcome.^[60]
• Internet service providers were also hostile towards the bill. TalkTalk stated that suspending access to the internet breached human rights. This view may be shared by many, as a survey carried out by the BBC found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the 'fundamental right of all people'.^[61] Certainly, people require access to the internet for many aspects of their life for example shopping, online banking, education, work and even socialising. Furthermore, TalkTalk Director of Regulation, Andrew Heaney has acknowledged that file sharing is a problem but the answer is to educate people and create legal alternatives. Heaney has also argued that disconnected offenders will simply create other user names to hide their identity and continue downloading. TalkTalk has claimed that 80% of youngsters would continue to download regardless of the bill and that internet service providers are being forced to police this without any workable outcomes.^[62]
• Cable company Virgin Media also criticized the Digital Economy Bill believing it to be heavy handed and likely to alienate customers. Virgin advocated the development of alternative services which people would choose instead of file sharing.^[63]

The bill provoked protests in many forms. The Guardian reported that hundreds were expected to march outside the House of Commons on 24 March 2010.^[64] Moreover, an estimated 12,000 people sent emails to their MPs, through the citizen advocacy organization 38 degrees. 38 degrees objected to the speed with which the bill was rushed through parliament, without proper debate, due to the imminent dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.^[64] In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of unauthorized file sharing.^[65] By November 2009 the petition had almost 17,000 signatories^[66] and by December had reached over 30,000.^[67] The Pirate Party in the UK called for non-commercial file sharing to be legalized. Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance.^[68]

The Code which would implement these sections of the Act was never passed into law by Parliament, and no action was taken on it after around 2013.

Download Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Full Version

Digital Economy Act 2017

The Digital Economy Act 2017 updates the anti-infringement provisions of existing laws, creates or updates criminal copyright breach provisions, and provides for a wider range of sentencing for criminal infringement.

United States[edit]

In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court found that Sony's new product, the Betamax (the first mass-market consumer videocassette recorder), did not subject Sony to secondary copyright liability because it was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Decades later, this case became the jumping-off point for all peer-to-peer copyright infringement litigation.

The first peer-to-peer case was A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the 9th Circuit considered whether Napster was liable as a secondary infringer. First, the court considered whether Napster was contributorily liable for copyright infringement. To be found contributorily liable, Napster must have engaged in 'personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.'^[69] The court found that Napster was contributorily liable for the copyright infringement of its end-users because it 'knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights.'^[70] The court analyzed whether Napster was vicariously liable for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court was whether Napster 'has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.'^[71] The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.^[72] The court denied all of Napster's defenses, including its claim of fair use.

The next major peer-to-peer case was MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which the Sony court found was enough to relieve one of secondary copyright liability, Grokster was still secondarily liable because it induced its users to infringe.^[73][74]

It is important to note the concept of blame in cases such as these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are hybrid. This has led groups such as the RIAA to file suit against individual users, rather than against companies. The reason that Napster was subject to violation of the law and ultimately lost in court was because Napster was not a pure P2P network but instead maintained a central server which maintained an index of the files currently available on the network.

Around the world in 2006, an estimated five billion songs, equating to approximately 38,000 years in music were swapped on peer-to-peer websites, while 509 million songs were purchased online. The same study which estimated these findings also found that artists that had an online presence ended up retaining more of the profits rather than the music companies.^[75]

In November 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Secure Federal File Sharing Act,^[76] which would, if enacted, prohibit the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing software by U.S. government employees and contractors on computers used for federal government work.^[77] The bill has died with the adjournment of 111th Congress.

Copyright law[edit]

A copyright in the United States consists of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC 106.^[78] When having to do with pictures, music, literature or video, these exclusive rights include:1. The right to reproduce or redistribute the picture, music, lyrics, text, video, or images of a video.2. The right to distribute the picture, music, lyrics, text, video, or images of a video.3. The right to produce derivative works of the copyrighted work.4. The right to perform the work publicly.5. The right to display the work publicly.6. The right to transmit the work through the use of radio or digital transition. In summary, these exclusive rights cover the reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display of a copyrighted work (subject to limitations such as fair use).^[79]

Anyone who violates the exclusive rights of copyright has committed copyright infringement, whether or not the work has been registered at the copyright office. If an infringement has occurred, the copyright owner has a legal right to sue the infringer for violating the terms of their copyright. The monetary value of the lawsuit can be whatever a jury decides is acceptable.

In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law.

Primary infringement liability[edit]

The fundamental question, 'what use can a P2P file-sharing network's customers make of the software and of copyrighted materials without violating copyright law', has no answer at this time, as there has been almost no dispositive decision-making on the subject.

This issue has received virtually no appellate attention, the sole exception being BMG Music v. Gonzalez,^[80] a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held that where a defendant has admitted downloading and copying song files from other users in the P2P network without permission of the copyright holders, she cannot claim that such copying is a 'fair use'. Since Gonzalez involves a defendant who had admitted to actual copying and downloading of songs from other unauthorized users, it is of limited applicability in contested cases, in that it relates solely to the reproduction right in 17 USC 106(1), and has no bearing on the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right.

A series of cases dealing with the RIAA's 'making available' theory has broad implications, not only for the subject of P2P file sharing but for the Internet at large. The first to receive a great deal of attention was Elektra v. Barker,^[81] an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student. Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of 'making available' did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act.^[82][83] The RIAA countered with the argument that even without any copying, and without any other violation of the record companies' distribution rights, the mere act of 'making available' is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Copyright Act, as a violation of the 'distribution' right described in 17 USC 106(3).^[84] Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed^[85] with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker.^[86][87] The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF,^[88] but did not take any position on the RIAA's 'making available' argument, noting that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available'.^[89] The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on 26 January 2007,^[90] and decided on 31 March 2008.^[91]

The decision rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory but sustained the legal sufficiency of the RIAA's pleading of actual distribution and actual downloading. Additionally, the Court suggested to the RIAA that it might want to amend its complaint to include a claim for 'offering to distribute for purposes of distribution', but gave no guidance on what type of evidence would be required for an 'offer'. The Court's suggestion that merely 'offering' to distribute could constitute a violation of the Act has come under attack from William Patry, the author of the treatise Patry on Copyright.^[92]

Three other decisions, also rejecting the RIAA's 'making available' theory, came from more unexpected sources.

The Barker decision was perhaps rendered anticlimactic by the decision of Judge Janet Bond Arterton, from the District of Connecticut, handed down six weeks earlier, in Atlantic v. Brennan,^[93] rejecting the RIAA's application for a default judgment. Brennan, like Barker, rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, but unlike Barker it found the RIAA's specificity on the other issues to be insufficient, and it rejected the conceptual underpinnings upon which Judge Karas based his 'offer to distribute' idea.

And Barker was perhaps overshadowed by the decision of Judge Gertner, rendered the same day as the Barker decision, in quashing a subpoena served on Boston University to learn the identity of BU students, in London-Sire v. Doe 1.^[94] Here too the Court rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, but here too—like Atlantic but unlike Elektra – also rejected any possible underpinning for an 'offer to distribute' theory.

And then came the decision of the District Judge Neil V. Wake, in the District of Arizona, in Atlantic v. Howell.^[95] This 17-page decision^[96] – rendered in a case in which the defendant appeared pro se (i.e., without a lawyer) but eventually received the assistance of an amicus curiae brief and oral argument by the Electronic Frontier Foundation^[97]—was devoted almost exclusively to the RIAA's 'making available' theory and to the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested by Judge Karas in Barker. Atlantic v. Howell strongly rejected both theories as being contrary to the plain wording of the Copyright Act. The Court held that 'Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution....The statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute 'copies' of their works to the public 'by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.' 17 U.S.C. ...106(3). Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a 'distribution' under ...106(3) has not taken place.' The Court also expressly rejected the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested in Barker, holding that 'An offer to distribute does not constitute distribution'.^[98]

The next critical decision was that in Capitol v. Thomas, which had received a great deal of media attention because it was the RIAA's first case to go to trial, and probably additional attention due to its outsized initial jury verdict. The RIAA had prevailed upon the trial judge to give the jurors an instruction which adopted its 'making available' theory,^[99] over the protestations of the defendant's lawyer. Operating under that instruction, the jury returned a $222,000 verdict over $23.76 worth of song files.^[100] Almost a year after the jury returned that verdict, however, District Judge Michael J. Davis set the verdict aside, and ordered a new trial, on the ground that his instruction to the jurors—that they did not need to find that any files were actually distributed in order to find a violation of plaintiffs' distribution right—was a 'manifest error of law'.^[101] The Judge's 44-page decision agreed with Howell and London-Sire and rejected so much of Barker as intimated the existence of a viable 'offer to distribute' theory.

There may be indications that the RIAA has been jettisoning its 'making available' theory. In a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, where the Judge dismissed the RIAA's complaint as 'conclusory', 'boilerplate', 'speculation', the RIAA filed an amended complaint which contained no reference at all to 'making available'.^[102] In subsequent cases, the RIAA's complaint abandoned altogether the 'making available' theory, following the model of the Interscope v. Rodriguez amended complaint.

In its place, it is apparently adopting the 'offer to distribute' theory suggested by Judge Karas. In the amended complaint the RIAA filed in Barker, it deleted the 'making available' argument—as required by the judge—but added an 'offer to distribute' claim, as the judge had suggested.^[103] It remains to be seen if it will follow that pattern in other cases.

Secondary infringement liability[edit]

Secondary liability, the possible liability of a defendant who is not a copyright infringer but who may have encouraged or induced copyright infringement by another, has been discussed generally by the United States Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster,^[74] which held in essence that secondary liability could only be found where there has been affirmative encouragement or inducing behavior. On remand, the lower court found Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus software, to be liable for its customers' copyright infringements, based upon the specific facts of that case.^[104]

Under US law 'the Betamax decision' (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), holds that copying 'technologies' are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them. Although this decision predated the widespread use of the Internet, in MGM v. Grokster, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the applicability of the Betamax case to peer-to-peer file sharing, and held that the networks could not be liable for merely providing the technology, absent proof that they had engaged in 'inducement.'

In 2006 the RIAA initiated its first major post-Grokster, secondary liability case, against LimeWire in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, where the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that LimeWire induced copyright infringement and granted a permanent injunction against LimeWire.

Electronic Frontier Foundation[edit]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seeks to protect and expand digital rights through litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. The EFF has vocally opposed the RIAA in its pursuit of lawsuits against users of file sharing applications and supported defendants in these cases. The foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted materials and alternative methods to provide compensation to copyright holders.^[105]

In September 2008 the organization marked the 5th 'anniversary' of the RIAA's litigation campaign by publishing a highly critical, detailed report, entitled 'RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later',^[106] concluding that the campaign was a failure.

Reported suspension of RIAA litigation campaign[edit]

Several months later, it was reported that the RIAA was suspending its litigation campaign,^[107] followed by a report that it had fired the investigative firm SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) operating on its behalf.^[108] Some of the details of the reports, including claims that the RIAA had actually stopped commencing new lawsuits months earlier, and that its reason for doing so was that it had entered into tentative agreements with Internet service providers to police their customers, proved to be either inaccurate or impossible to verify^[109] and RIAA's claim not to have filed new cases 'for months' was false.^[110]

Effects[edit]

A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloading may lead to an increase in overall video game sales because newer games charge for extra features or levels. The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. The study relied on self-reported data about game purchases and use of illegal download sites. Pains were taken to remove effects of false and misremembered responses.^{[111][112][113]}

Notable cases[edit]

EU

• Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG (Germany)
• OiNK's Pink Palace (England)

USA

• The AACS encryption key controversy of 2007
• Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter - appeal case which analyzed contributory infringement in the context of linking to infringing material and social bookmarking.
• Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (The Betamax decision)

Sweden

Singapore

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'RIAA joins congressional caucus in unveiling first-ever list of notorious illegal sites'. RIAA. 19 May 2010. Archived from the original on 23 April 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
2. ^Roettgers, Janko (3 May 2010). 'RapidShare Wins in Court'. Gigaom.com. Archived from the original on 26 February 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011. - cite from ruling: 'Es ist davon auszugehen, dass die weit überwiegende Zahl von Nutzern die Speicherdienste zu legalen Zwecken einsetzen und die Zahl der missbräuchlichen Nutzer in der absoluten Minderheit ist.' (It is to be expected that the vast majority of users use the storage services for lawful purposes and the number of abusive users are in the absolute minority.)
3. ^From the Atari v. RapidShare ruling: 'entspricht einem Generalverdacht gegen Sharehoster-Dienste und ihre Nutzer, der so nicht zu rechtfertigen ist' (corresponds to a general suspicion against shared hosting services and their users, which is not to justify such)
4. ^Legal case: OLG Dusseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated 22 March 2010.
5. ^Department of Justice indictment, on Wall Street Journal's websiteArchived 15 July 2012 at Archive.today - see sections 7 - 14.
6. ^Moya, Jared (4 January 2008). 'China to Require Video File-Sharing sites to get permits?'. Zeropaid. Archived from the original on 5 October 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
7. ^'China Shuts Down File-Sharing Site'. Canadian Broadcasting Company. 9 September 2009. Archived from the original on 4 October 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
8. ^Moya, Jared (8 December 2009). 'China Shutters BitTorrent Sites Over Porn, Copyrighted Material'. Zeropaid. Archived from the original on 11 February 2010. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
9. ^'Good news everyone: after 5 years, we now know that what we do every day is legal…No, seriously'. Copyright for Creativity: A Declaration for Europe. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
10. ^'CJEU Judgment: No Copyright Infringement in Mere Web Viewing'. www.scl.org. SCL - The IT Law Community (UK). Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
11. ^Meyer, David. 'You can't break copyright by looking at something online, Europe's top court rules'. Gigaom. Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
12. ^'Case C‑360/13'. Court of Justice of the European Union. Court of Justice of the European Union. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
13. ^Smith, Chris. 'Pirating copyrighted content is legal in Europe, if done correctly'. www.bgr.com. Boy Genius Report. Archived from the original on 19 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
14. ^European MPs votes on new telecoms law, 24 November 2009
15. ^Herseth Kaldestad, Oyvind (9 September 2008). 'Norwegian Consumer Council calls for Internet complaint board'. Forbrukerradet. Archived from the original on 27 October 2008.
16. ^ ^abcdKlosek, Jacqueline (9 October 2008). 'United States: Combating Piracy And protecting privacy: A European Perspective'. Mondaq. Archived from the original on 14 October 2008.
17. ^Herseth Kaldestad, Oyvind (28 February 2008). 'ISP liability: Norwegian Consumer Council warns consumers not to sign letter of guilt'. Forbrukerradet. Archived from the original on 26 October 2008.
18. ^'Government presents controversial file sharing bill'. Archived from the original on 1 March 2009. Retrieved 31 January 2009.
19. ^France Approves Wide Crackdown on Net Piracy. Pfanner, Eric (2009). https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/technology/23net.html?_r=2/Archived 8 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
20. ^Siraj Datoo (9 July 2013). 'France drops controversial 'Hadopi law' after spending millions'. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
21. ^'Inside Ireland'. 28 March 2012. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012.
22. ^Shirley Gene Field (2010). 'Internet Piracy in Japan: Lessig’s Modalities of Constraint and Japanese File Sharing'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineUniversity of Texas Masters Thesis.
23. ^ ^ab'Japan introduces piracy penalties for illegal downloads'.Archived 19 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineBBC.
24. ^George Ou (16 March 2008). 'Japan's ISPs agree to ban P2P pirates'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineZDNet, .
25. ^'No more free downloads as MCMC blocks 10 file sharing sites'. The Star (Malaysia). 11 June 2011. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
26. ^'In Mexico, music piracy rising with broadband'. MSNBC. 7 July 2006. Archived from the original on 12 November 2017. Retrieved 12 November 2017.
27. ^International Intellectual Property Alliance (18 February 2010). '2010 special 301 report on copyright protection and enforcement'(PDF). MEXICO. Mexico: 66. Retrieved 27 May 2010.^{[permanent dead link]}
28. ^interactive, 4net. 'top free hosting'. brightcobracenter.com. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012.
29. ^ ^abJeremy Hsu (22 May 2012). 'Illegal File-Sharing Opens North Korea to World'.Archived 5 March 2016 at the Wayback MachineYahoo! News.
30. ^ ^abIan Steadman (6/08/2012). 'Report finds rampant filesharing in North Korea, despite the risks'.Archived 7 April 2014 at the Wayback MachineWired.
31. ^Moya, Jared (23 July 2009). 'South Korea's 'Three-Strikes' Law Takes Effect'. Zero Paid. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
32. ^Barry, Sookman; Dan Glover (20 January 2010). 'Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times'. Archived from the original on 12 June 2010. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
33. ^Tong-hyung, Kim (23 July 2009). 'Upload a Song, Lose your Internet Connection'. Korea Times. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
34. ^'Spanish judge says downloading is legal'. Archived from the original on 15 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
35. ^'Spanish court decides linking to P2P downloads is legal'. Archived from the original on 27 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
36. ^'Del '¿Por qué no te callas?' al 'No pasa nada, podéis bajar lo que queráis del eMule''. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
37. ^'Manifestación a favor del intercambio de archivos frente a la sede del PSOE'. Archived from the original on 23 February 2009. Retrieved 12 March 2009.
38. ^'Operation Teddy: P2P sharing is not illegal'. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
39. ^'Compartir Es Bueno! Lo hemos hecho! Y nadie nos ha detenido'. Archived from the original on 14 September 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
40. ^'Spanish copyright society hounds Uni teacher out of job'. Archived from the original on 2 June 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
41. ^'Jorge Cortell – Descargar y copiar música es legal y bueno'. Archived from the original on 10 February 2009. Retrieved 27 August 2008.
42. ^'Downloading files from p2p networks is legal in Spain'. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
43. ^Downloading 3322 Copyrighted Movies is Okay in SpainArchived 31 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine, at TorrentFreak
44. ^ ^abSpain finds that film piracy is a hard habit to break. Tremlett, Giles (2010). 'Spain finds that film piracy is a hard habit to break'. Archived from the original on 4 February 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011..
45. ^Allen, Katie. Piracy continues to cripple music industry as sales fall 10%Archived 7 April 2017 at the Wayback MachineThe Guardian. 21 January 2010.
46. ^El número de conciertos en España y la recaudación por venta de entradas se multiplicaron por dos en la última década. 'Últimas noticias'. Archived from the original on 30 December 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
47. ^File Sharing and Torrent Websites Now Legal in Spain. Wilhelm, Alex. (2010). 'File Sharing And Torrent Websites Now Legal In Spain'. Archived from the original on 22 July 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
48. ^Mike Butcher (21 September 2013). 'Spanish Pirate Site Owners To Get 6 Years Of Jail Time, But Users Off The Hook'. TechCrunch. AOL Inc. Archived from the original on 25 September 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
49. ^'Progress of the Digital Economy Bill'. Interactive.bis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
50. ^'International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IPFI) Digital Music Report 2009'. Ifpi.org. 16 January 2009. Archived from the original on 7 December 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
51. ^Rory Cellan-Jones (27 November 2009). 'Cellan-Jones, Rory (2009) 'Facts about file-sharing' BBC NEWS 27th November 2009'. BBC. Archived from the original on 23 August 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
52. ^Emma Barnett (9 April 2010). 'Digital Economy Act: what happens next?'. The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 3 June 2010.
53. ^'Mother to settle web music charge BBC News 20th August 2005'. BBC News. 20 August 2005. Archived from the original on 13 December 2006. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
54. ^Digital Economy BillArchived 30 April 2010 at the Wayback Machine
55. ^'Digital Economy Bill Copyright Factsheet November 2009'. Interactive.bis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2 April 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
56. ^ ^abJohnson, Bobbie (16 March 2010). 'Concern as Lords Pass Digital Economy Bill to Lords'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 8 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
57. ^Charles Arthur (8 April 2010). 'Arthur, Charles (2010) 'Digital Economy Bill rushed through Wash-Up in late night session' The Guardian'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 10 September 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
58. ^Phillips, Tom (8 April 2010). 'Phillips, Tom (2010) Digital Economy Bill passes as critics warn of 'catastrophic disaster' Metro'. Metro.co.uk. Archived from the original on 7 September 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
59. ^Britz, J. J. (2002). Information Ethics: its Demarcation and Application. In: Lipinski, T. A. (eds.) Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Era of Information. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 194–219.
60. ^Arthur, C. (2010). Opposition to the Digital Economy Bill. The Guardian. Availability: 'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2016.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link). Last accessed 30 March 2010.
61. ^'Internet access is a fundamental right BBC News'. BBC News. 8 March 2010. Archived from the original on 20 October 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
62. ^'Music fans will sidestep filesharing clampdown says TalkTalk' TalkTalk Press Centre 15 March 2010Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine
63. ^Technology (25 August 2009). 'Andrews, Amanda (2009) 'BT and Virgin Media attack Government plans to curb illegal downloading' Telegraph 25th August 2009'. The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 25 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
64. ^ ^abArthur, Charles (24 March 2010). 'Hundreds expected outside parliament to protest at digital economy bill'. The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 21 January 2016. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
65. ^'Don't Disconnect Us campaign group website'. Dontdisconnect.us. Archived from the original on 27 December 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
66. ^'Beaumont, Claudine (2009) 'Stephen Fry backs Digital Economy Bill protests' Telegraphy 14th November 2009'. The Daily Telegraph. UK. 24 November 2009. Archived from the original on 24 February 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
67. ^'Heaney, Andrew (2009) 'Our Don't Disconnect Us petition passes 30,000 signatories' TalkTalk Blog'. Talktalkblog.co.uk. 14 December 2009. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
68. ^Pirate Party Official website, 'Archived copy'. Archived from the original on 5 January 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2011.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
69. ^A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) citing Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ'g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998)
70. ^Napster, at 1020.
71. ^Napster, at 1022, citingGershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971.
72. ^Napster, at 1024.
73. ^MGM v. Grokster, 514 U.S. 913, 940 (2005).
74. ^ ^ab'MGM v. Grokster'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
75. ^June 2008, The Tables Have Turned: Rock Stars – Not Record Labels – Cashing In On Digital Revolution^{[permanent dead link]}, IBISWorld
76. ^H.R. 4098, The Secure Federal File Sharing Act, introduced 17 November 2009
77. ^Richard Lardner (18 November 2009). 'House Pushes Ban On Peer-To-Peer Software For Federal Employees'. Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 20 November 2009. Retrieved 18 November 2009.
78. ^'17 USC 106'. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Archived from the original on 28 August 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
79. ^'17 USC 106 notes'. Codes.lp.findlaw.com. Archived from the original on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
80. ^'BMG v. Gonzalez'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
81. ^'Elektra v. Barker'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
82. ^'Elektra v. Barker, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
83. ^'Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
84. ^'Elektra v. Barker, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Dismissal Motion'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
85. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of MPAA'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
86. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of EFF'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
87. ^'Amicus Curiae brief of USIIA and CCIA'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
88. ^'Statement of Interest of U.S. Department of Justice'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
89. ^'Statement of Interest, page 5, footnote 3'. Ilrweb.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
90. ^'Elektra v. Barker 'Making Available' Oral Argument Now Available Online'Archived 18 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 27 February 2007
91. ^'Judge rejects RIAA 'making available' theory but sustains complaint, and gives RIAA chance to replead defective theory in Elektra v. Barker'Archived 5 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 31 March 2008.
92. ^'The recent making available cases'Archived 26 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Patry Copyright Blog, 3 April 2008.
93. ^'Default judgment denied in Atlantic v. Brennan, RIAA complaint insufficient, possible defenses of copyright misuse, excessive damages'Archived 28 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 25 February 2008.
94. ^'RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed in Arista v. Does 1–21'Archived 10 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 3 April 2008.
95. ^'Atlantic v. Howell'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
96. ^'RIAA summary judgment motion denied in Atlantic v. Howell; RIAA 'making available' theory & Judge Karas 'offer to distribute' theory rejected'Archived 2 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 29 April 2008
97. ^'Jeffrey Howell is not alone; Electronic Frontier Foundation files amicus curiae brief refuting RIAA arguments in Atlantic v. Howell'Archived 16 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 12 January 2008
98. ^For commentary on Atlantic v. Howell see 'Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell'Archived 6 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Patry Copyright Blog, 30 April 2008. For the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of Mr. Howell, see 'Jeffrey Howell is not alone; Electronic Frontier Foundation files amicus curiae brief refuting RIAA arguments in Atlantic v. Howell'Archived 16 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 12 January 2008
99. ^'Jury Instructions in Virgin v. Thomas Available Online'Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Recording Industry vs. The People, 5 October 2007 (See instruction number 15)
100. ^'RIAA Wins in First-Ever Jury Trial; Verdict of $222,000 for 24 Song Files Worth $23.76'Archived 20 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 4 October 2007.
101. ^'RIAA's $222,000 verdict in Capitol v. Thomas set aside. Judge rejects 'making available'; attacks excessive damages.'Archived 28 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 24 September 2008.
102. ^'RIAA Abandons 'Making Available' in Amended Complaint in Rodriguez caseArchived 21 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine', Recording Industry vs. The People, 10 September 2007.
103. ^'Amended complaint filed in Elektra v. Barker'Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 2 May 2008.
104. ^'Streamcast Held Liable for Copyright Infringement in MGM v. Grokster, Round 2Archived 25 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine', Recording Industry vs. The People, 30 September 2006.
105. ^Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'Making P2P Pay Artists'. Archived from the original on 25 April 2006. Retrieved 25 April 2006.
106. ^'RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later'. Eff.org. Archived from the original on 7 October 2011. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
107. ^'p2pnet reports that RIAA dropping 'mass lawsuits' to look for 'more effective ways' to combat copyright infringement'Archived 7 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 19 December 2008.
108. ^'Wall Street Journal confirms that RIAA dumped MediaSentry'Archived 8 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Recording Industry vs. The People, 4 January 2009
109. ^'Recording Industry vs. The People'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
110. ^'Recording Industry vs. The People'. Recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
111. ^'Illegal downloads may not actually harm sales, but the European Union doesn't want you to know that'. 22 September 2017. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017.
112. ^Polgar, David Ryan. 'Does Video Game Piracy Actually Result in More Sales?'. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017.
113. ^'EU study finds piracy doesn't hurt game sales, may actually help'. Archived from the original on 1 October 2017.

Top 4 Download periodically updates software information of visual basic 2010 full versions from the publishers, but some information may be slightly out-of-date.

Using warez version, crack, warez passwords, patches, serial numbers, registration codes, key generator, pirate key, keymaker or keygen for visual basic 2010 license key is illegal. Download links are directly from our mirrors or publisher's website, visual basic 2010 torrent files or shared files from free file sharing and free upload services, including Rapidshare, MegaUpload, YouSendIt, Letitbit, DropSend, MediaMax, HellShare, HotFile, FileServe, LeapFile, MyOtherDrive or MediaFire, are not allowed!

Your computer will be at risk getting infected with spyware, adware, viruses, worms, trojan horses, dialers, etc while you are searching and browsing these illegal sites which distribute a so called keygen, key generator, pirate key, serial number, warez full version or crack for visual basic 2010. These infections might corrupt your computer installation or breach your privacy. visual basic 2010 keygen or key generator might contain a trojan horse opening a backdoor on your computer.

BitTorrent (abbreviated to BT) is a communication protocol for peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) which is used to distribute data and electronic files over the Internet.

BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, such as digital video files containing TV shows or video clips or digital audio files containing songs. Peer-to-peer networks have been estimated to collectively account for approximately 43% to 70% of all Internet traffic (depending on location) as of February 2009.^[1] In February 2013, BitTorrent was responsible for 3.35% of all worldwide bandwidth, more than half of the 6% of total bandwidth dedicated to file sharing.^[2]

To send or receive files, a person uses a BitTorrent client on their Internet-connected computer. A BitTorrent client is a computer program that implements the BitTorrent protocol. Popular clients include μTorrent, Xunlei,^[3]Transmission, qBittorrent, Vuze, Deluge, BitComet and Tixati. BitTorrent trackers provide a list of files available for transfer, and allow the client to find peer users known as seeds who may transfer the files.

Programmer Bram Cohen, a former University at Buffalo student,^[4] designed the protocol in April 2001 and released the first available version on 2 July 2001,^[5] and the most recent version in 2013.^[6]BitTorrent clients are available for a variety of computing platforms and operating systems including an official client released by BitTorrent, Inc.

As of 2013, BitTorrent has 15–27 million concurrent users at any time.^[7]As of January 2012, BitTorrent is utilized by 150 million active users. Based on this figure, the total number of monthly BitTorrent users may be estimated to more than a quarter of a billion.^[8]

• 2Operation
• 3Adoption
• 5Technologies built on BitTorrent
  • 5.2Web seeding
• 11Malware
  • 11.1BitErrant attack

Description[edit]

The BitTorrent protocol can be used to reduce the server and network impact of distributing large files. Rather than downloading a file from a single source server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a 'swarm' of hosts to upload to/download from each other simultaneously. The protocol is an alternative to the older single source, multiple mirror sources technique for distributing data, and can work effectively over networks with lower bandwidth. Using the BitTorrent protocol, several basic computers, such as home computers, can replace large servers while efficiently distributing files to many recipients. This lower bandwidth usage also helps prevent large spikes in internet traffic in a given area, keeping internet speeds higher for all users in general, regardless of whether or not they use the BitTorrent protocol. A user who wants to upload a file first creates a small torrent descriptor file that they distribute by conventional means (web, email, etc.). They then make the file itself available through a BitTorrent node acting as a seed. Those with the torrent descriptor file can give it to their own BitTorrent nodes, which—acting as peers or leechers—download it by connecting to the seed and/or other peers (see diagram on the right).

The file being distributed is divided into segments called pieces. As each peer receives a new piece of the file, it becomes a source (of that piece) for other peers, relieving the original seed from having to send that piece to every computer or user wishing a copy. With BitTorrent, the task of distributing the file is shared by those who want it; it is entirely possible for the seed to send only a single copy of the file itself and eventually distribute to an unlimited number of peers. Each piece is protected by a cryptographic hash contained in the torrent descriptor.^[6] This ensures that any modification of the piece can be reliably detected, and thus prevents both accidental and malicious modifications of any of the pieces received at other nodes. If a node starts with an authentic copy of the torrent descriptor, it can verify the authenticity of the entire file it receives.

Pieces are typically downloaded non-sequentially and are rearranged into the correct order by the BitTorrent client, which monitors which pieces it needs, and which pieces it has and can upload to other peers. Pieces are of the same size throughout a single download (for example a 10 MB file may be transmitted as ten 1 MB pieces or as forty 256 KB pieces).Due to the nature of this approach, the download of any file can be halted at any time and be resumed at a later date, without the loss of previously downloaded information, which in turn makes BitTorrent particularly useful in the transfer of larger files. This also enables the client to seek out readily available pieces and download them immediately, rather than halting the download and waiting for the next (and possibly unavailable) piece in line, which typically reduces the overall time of the download. Once a peer has downloaded a file completely, it becomes an additional seed. This eventual transition from peers to seeders determines the overall 'health' of the file (as determined by the number of times a file is available in its complete form).

The distributed nature of BitTorrent can lead to a flood-like spreading of a file throughout many peer computer nodes. As more peers join the swarm, the likelihood of a completely successful download by any particular node increases. Relative to traditional Internet distribution schemes, this permits a significant reduction in the original distributor's hardware and bandwidth resource costs. Distributed downloading protocols in general provide redundancy against system problems, reduce dependence on the original distributor^[9] and provide sources for the file which are generally transient and therefore harder to trace by those who would block distribution compared to the situation provided by limiting availability of the file to a fixed host machine (or even several).

One such example of BitTorrent being used to reduce the distribution cost of file transmission is in the BOINC client-server system. If a BOINC distributed computing application needs to be updated (or merely sent to a user), it can do so with little impact on the BOINC server.^[10]

Operation[edit]

A BitTorrent client is any program that implements the BitTorrent protocol. Each client is capable of preparing, requesting, and transmitting any type of computer file over a network, using the protocol. A peer is any computer running an instance of a client. To share a file or group of files, a peer first creates a small file called a 'torrent' (e.g. MyFile.torrent). This file contains metadata about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the computer that coordinates the file distribution. Peers that want to download the file must first obtain a torrent file for it and connect to the specified tracker, which tells them from which other peers to download the pieces of the file.

Though both ultimately transfer files over a network, a BitTorrent download differs from a classic download (as is typical with an HTTP or FTP request, for example) in several fundamental ways:

• BitTorrent makes many small data requests over different IP connections to different machines, while classic downloading is typically made via a single TCP connection to a single machine.
• BitTorrent downloads in a random or in a 'rarest-first'^[11] approach that ensures high availability, while classic downloads are sequential.

Taken together, these differences allow BitTorrent to achieve much lower cost to the content provider, much higher redundancy, and much greater resistance to abuse or to 'flash crowds' than regular server software. However, this protection, theoretically, comes at a cost: downloads can take time to rise to full speed because it may take time for enough peer connections to be established, and it may take time for a node to receive sufficient data to become an effective uploader. This contrasts with regular downloads (such as from an HTTP server, for example) that, while more vulnerable to overload and abuse, rise to full speed very quickly and maintain this speed throughout. In general, BitTorrent's non-contiguous download methods have prevented it from supporting progressive download or 'streaming playback'. However, comments made by Bram Cohen in January 2007^[12] suggest that streaming torrent downloads will soon be commonplace and ad supported streaming^[13] appears to be the result of those comments. In January 2011 Cohen demonstrated an early version of BitTorrent streaming, saying the feature was projected to be available by summer 2011.^[14]As of 2013, this new BitTorrent streaming protocol is available for beta testing.^[15]

Creating and publishing torrents[edit]

The peer distributing a data file treats the file as a number of identically sized pieces, usually with byte sizes of a power of 2, and typically between 32 kB and 16 MB each. The peer creates a hash for each piece, using the SHA-1 hash function, and records it in the torrent file. Pieces with sizes greater than 512 kB will reduce the size of a torrent file for a very large payload, but is claimed to reduce the efficiency of the protocol.^[16] When another peer later receives a particular piece, the hash of the piece is compared to the recorded hash to test that the piece is error-free.^[6] Peers that provide a complete file are called seeders, and the peer providing the initial copy is called the initial seeder. The exact information contained in the torrent file depends on the version of the BitTorrent protocol. By convention, the name of a torrent file has the suffix .torrent. Torrent files have an 'announce' section, which specifies the URL of the tracker, and an 'info' section, containing (suggested) names for the files, their lengths, the piece length used, and a SHA-1hash code for each piece, all of which are used by clients to verify the integrity of the data they receive. Though SHA-1 has shown signs of cryptographic weakness, Bram Cohen did not initially consider the risk big enough for a backward incompatible change to, for example, SHA-3. BitTorrent is now preparing to move to SHA-256.

Torrent files are typically published on websites or elsewhere, and registered with at least one tracker. The tracker maintains lists of the clients currently participating in the torrent.^[6] Alternatively, in a trackerless system (decentralized tracking) every peer acts as a tracker. Azureus was the first^[17] BitTorrent client to implement such a system through the distributed hash table (DHT) method. An alternative and incompatible DHT system, known as Mainline DHT, was released in the Mainline BitTorrent client three weeks later (though it had been in development since 2002)^[17] and subsequently adopted by the µTorrent, Transmission, rTorrent, KTorrent, BitComet, and Deluge clients.

After the DHT was adopted, a 'private' flag – analogous to the broadcast flag – was unofficially introduced, telling clients to restrict the use of decentralized tracking regardless of the user's desires.^[18] The flag is intentionally placed in the info section of the torrent so that it cannot be disabled or removed without changing the identity of the torrent. The purpose of the flag is to prevent torrents from being shared with clients that do not have access to the tracker. The flag was requested for inclusion in the official specification in August 2008, but has not been accepted yet.^[19] Clients that have ignored the private flag were banned by many trackers, discouraging the practice.^[20]

Downloading torrents and sharing files[edit]

Users find a torrent of interest, by browsing the web or by other means, download it, and open it with a BitTorrent client. The client connects to the tracker(s) specified in the torrent file, from which it receives a list of peers currently transferring pieces of the file(s) specified in the torrent. The client connects to those peers to obtain the various pieces. If the swarm contains only the initial seeder, the client connects directly to it and begins to request pieces. Clients incorporate mechanisms to optimize their download and upload rates; for example they download pieces in a random order to increase the opportunity to exchange data, which is only possible if two peers have different pieces of the file.

The effectiveness of this data exchange depends largely on the policies that clients use to determine to whom to send data. Clients may prefer to send data to peers that send data back to them (a 'tit for tat' exchange scheme), which encourages fair trading. But strict policies often result in suboptimal situations, such as when newly joined peers are unable to receive any data because they don't have any pieces yet to trade themselves or when two peers with a good connection between them do not exchange data simply because neither of them takes the initiative. To counter these effects, the official BitTorrent client program uses a mechanism called 'optimistic unchoking', whereby the client reserves a portion of its available bandwidth for sending pieces to random peers (not necessarily known good partners, so called preferred peers) in hopes of discovering even better partners and to ensure that newcomers get a chance to join the swarm.^[21]

Although 'swarming' scales well to tolerate 'flash crowds' for popular content, it is less useful for unpopular or niche market content. Peers arriving after the initial rush might find the content unavailable and need to wait for the arrival of a 'seed' in order to complete their downloads. The seed arrival, in turn, may take long to happen (this is termed the 'seeder promotion problem'). Since maintaining seeds for unpopular content entails high bandwidth and administrative costs, this runs counter to the goals of publishers that value BitTorrent as a cheap alternative to a client-server approach. This occurs on a huge scale; measurements have shown that 38% of all new torrents become unavailable within the first month.^[22] A strategy adopted by many publishers which significantly increases availability of unpopular content consists of bundling multiple files in a single swarm.^[23] More sophisticated solutions have also been proposed; generally, these use cross-torrent mechanisms through which multiple torrents can cooperate to better share content.^[24]

Concerns[edit]

BitTorrent does not, on its own, offer its users anonymity nor security. It is possible to obtain the IP addresses of all current and possibly previous participants in a swarm from the tracker. This may expose users with insecure systems to attacks.^[21] It may also, in rare cases, expose users to the risk of being sued, if they are distributing files without permission from the copyright holder(s). However, there are ways to promote anonymity; for example, the OneSwarm project layers privacy-preserving sharing mechanisms on top of the original BitTorrent protocol. A moderate degree of anonymity, enough to keep ISPs from giving the user trouble at least, can be achieved with seedboxes which download the torrent files first to the companies' servers, followed by a direct download to the user.^[25][26] Torrents can be downloaded with a high degree of anonymity by using services such as i2p. Tor does not provide anonymity on BitTorrent,^[27] and its use is also discouraged (by blocking this type of connections) for performance reasons.^[28] Unlike Tor, i2p is designed to work with BitTorrent^[29] However, with i2p, torrents can only be downloaded from within the i2p network. This can be useful for users trying to avoid copyright complaints from their ISPs, maintaining privacy, or avoiding censorship.

Private trackers offer users a greater degree of privacy, compared to public trackers, but have the downside of a single centralized point of failure.

Bridging between i2p and the clearnet[edit]

Vuze is the only client that makes clearnet torrents available on i2p and vice versa. It has a plugin that connects to the i2p network. If the user adds a torrent from i2p or clearnet, it will be seeded on both i2p and the clearnet. For this reason, torrents previously published only on i2p are made available to the entire Internet, and users of i2p can download any torrent on the Internet while maintaining the anonymity of i2p.^[30][31]

Adoption[edit]

A growing number of individuals and organizations are using BitTorrent to distribute their own or licensed works (e.g. indie bands distributing digital files of their new songs). Independent adopters report that without using BitTorrent technology, and its dramatically reduced demands on their private networking hardware and bandwidth, they could not afford to distribute their files.^[32]

Some uses of BitTorrent for file sharing may violate laws in some jurisdictions (see legal issues section).

Film, video, and music[edit]

• BitTorrent Inc. has obtained a number of licenses from Hollywood studios for distributing popular content from their websites.
• Sub Pop Records releases tracks and videos via BitTorrent Inc.^[33] to distribute its 1000+ albums. Babyshambles and The Libertines (both bands associated with Pete Doherty) have extensively used torrents to distribute hundreds of demos and live videos. US industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails frequently distributes albums via BitTorrent.
• Podcasting software is starting to integrate BitTorrent to help podcasters deal with the download demands of their MP3 'radio' programs. Specifically, Juice and Miro (formerly known as Democracy Player) support automatic processing of .torrent files from RSS feeds. Similarly, some BitTorrent clients, such as µTorrent, are able to process web feeds and automatically download content found within them.
• DGM Live purchases are provided via BitTorrent.^[34]
• VODO, a service which distributes 'free-to-share' movies and TV shows via BitTorrent.^[35][36][37]

Broadcasters[edit]

• In 2008, the CBC became the first public broadcaster in North America to make a full show (Canada's Next Great Prime Minister) available for download using BitTorrent.^[38]
• The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) has since March 2008 experimented with bittorrent distribution, available online.^[39] Only selected works in which NRK owns all royalties are published. Responses have been very positive, and NRK is planning to offer more content.
• The Dutch VPRO broadcasting organization released four documentaries in 2009 and 2010 under a Creative Commons license using the content distribution feature of the Mininova tracker.^[40][41][42]

Personal works[edit]

• The Amazon S3 'Simple Storage Service' is a scalable Internet-based storage service with a simple web service interface, equipped with built-in BitTorrent support.^[43]
• Blog Torrent offers a simplified BitTorrent tracker to enable bloggers and non-technical users to host a tracker on their site. Blog Torrent also allows visitors to download a 'stub' loader, which acts as a BitTorrent client to download the desired file, allowing users without BitTorrent software to use the protocol.^[44] This is similar to the concept of a self-extracting archive.

Software[edit]

• Blizzard Entertainment uses BitTorrent (via a proprietary client called the 'Blizzard Downloader', associated with the Blizzard 'BattleNet' network) to distribute content and patches for Diablo III, StarCraft II and World of Warcraft, including the games themselves.^[45]
• Wargaming uses BitTorrent in their popular titles World of Tanks, World of Warships and World of Warplanes to distribute game updates.^[46]
• CCP Games, maker of the space Simulation MMORPG Eve Online, has announced that a new launcher will be released that is based on BitTorrent.^[47][48]
• Many software games, especially those whose large size makes them difficult to host due to bandwidth limits, extremely frequent downloads, and unpredictable changes in network traffic, will distribute instead a specialized, stripped down bittorrent client with enough functionality to download the game from the other running clients and the primary server (which is maintained in case not enough peers are available).
• Many major open source and free software projects encourage BitTorrent as well as conventional downloads of their products (via HTTP, FTP etc.) to increase availability and to reduce load on their own servers, especially when dealing with larger files.^[49]

Government[edit]

• The UK government used BitTorrent to distribute details about how the tax money of UK citizens was spent.^[50][51]

Education[edit]

• Florida State University uses BitTorrent to distribute large scientific data sets to its researchers.^[52]
• Many universities that have BOINC distributed computing projects have used the BitTorrent functionality of the client-server system to reduce the bandwidth costs of distributing the client-side applications used to process the scientific data.
• The developing Human Connectome Project uses BitTorrent to share their open dataset.^[53]

Others[edit]

• Facebook uses BitTorrent to distribute updates to Facebook servers.^[54]
• Twitter uses BitTorrent to distribute updates to Twitter servers.^[55][56]
• The Internet Archive added BitTorrent to its file download options for over 1.3 million existing files, and all newly uploaded files, in August 2012.^[57][58] This method is the fastest means of downloading media from the Archive.^[57][59]

As of 2011, BitTorrent had 100 million users and a greater share of network bandwidth than Netflix and Hulu combined.^[60][61] In early 2015, AT&T estimates that BitTorrent represents 20% of all broadband traffic.^[62]

Routers that use network address translation (NAT) must maintain tables of source and destination IP addresses and ports. Typical home routers are limited to about 2000 table entries^{[citation needed]} while some more expensive routers have larger table capacities. BitTorrent frequently contacts 20–30 servers per second, rapidly filling the NAT tables. This is a known cause of some home routers ceasing to work correctly.^[63][64]

Indexing[edit]

The BitTorrent protocol provides no way to index torrent files. As a result, a comparatively small number of websites have hosted a large majority of torrents, many linking to copyrighted works without the authorization of copyright holders, rendering those sites especially vulnerable to lawsuits.^[65] A BitTorrent index is a 'list of .torrent files, which typically includes descriptions' and information about the torrent's content.^[66] Several types of websites support the discovery and distribution of data on the BitTorrent network. Public torrent-hosting sites such as The Pirate Bay allow users to search and download from their collection of torrent files. Users can typically also upload torrent files for content they wish to distribute. Often, these sites also run BitTorrent trackers for their hosted torrent files, but these two functions are not mutually dependent: a torrent file could be hosted on one site and tracked by another unrelated site. Private host/tracker sites operate like public ones except that they may restrict access to registered users and may also keep track of the amount of data each user uploads and downloads, in an attempt to reduce 'leeching'.

Web search engines allow the discovery of torrent files that are hosted and tracked on other sites; examples include Mininova, BTDigg, BTJunkie, Torrentz, Torrentus, The Pirate Bay and isoHunt. These sites allow the user to ask for content meeting specific criteria (such as containing a given word or phrase) and retrieve a list of links to torrent files matching those criteria. This list can often be sorted with respect to several criteria, relevance (seeders-leechers ratio) being one of the most popular and useful (due to the way the protocol behaves, the download bandwidth achievable is very sensitive to this value). Bram Cohen launched a BitTorrent search engine on www.bittorrent.com/search that co-mingles licensed content with search results.^[67]Metasearch engines allow one to search several BitTorrent indices and search engines at once. DHT search engines monitors the DHT network and indexes torrents via metadata exchange from peers. In the 2010s, some P2P, decentralized alternatives to Torrent search engines have emerged, see decentralized keyword search below.

Technologies built on BitTorrent[edit]

The BitTorrent protocol is still under development and may therefore still acquire new features and other enhancements such as improved efficiency.

Distributed trackers[edit]

On 2 May 2005, Azureus 2.3.0.0 (now known as Vuze) was released,^[68] introducing support for 'trackerless' torrents through a system called the 'distributed database.' This system is a Distributed hash table implementation which allows the client to use torrents that do not have a working BitTorrent tracker. The following month, BitTorrent, Inc. released version 4.2.0 of the Mainline BitTorrent client, which supported an alternative DHT implementation (popularly known as 'Mainline DHT', outlined in a draft on their website) that is incompatible with that of Azureus. Recent measurement shows users of Mainline DHT is from 10 million to 25 million, with a daily churn of at least 10 million.^[69] Mainline DHT is arguably the largest realistic DHT in the world.

Current versions of the official BitTorrent client, µTorrent, BitComet, Transmission and BitSpirit all share compatibility with Mainline DHT. Both DHT implementations are based on Kademlia.^[70] As of version 3.0.5.0, Azureus also supports Mainline DHT in addition to its own distributed database through use of an optional application plugin.^[71] This potentially allows the Azureus/Vuze client to reach a bigger swarm.

Lansweeper license keygen. Lansweeper isn't saying the software is still installed on the machine; it is merely indicating that the license key is still present in the registry.

Another idea that has surfaced in Vuze is that of virtual torrents. This idea is based on the distributed tracker approach and is used to describe some web resource. Currently, it is used for instant messaging. It is implemented using a special messaging protocol and requires an appropriate plugin. Anatomic P2P is another approach, which uses a decentralized network of nodes that route traffic to dynamic trackers. Most BitTorrent clients also use Peer exchange (PEX) to gather peers in addition to trackers and DHT. Peer exchange checks with known peers to see if they know of any other peers. With the 3.0.5.0 release of Vuze, all major BitTorrent clients now have compatible peer exchange.

Web seeding[edit]

Web 'seeding' was implemented in 2006 as the ability of BitTorrent clients to download torrent pieces from an HTTP source in addition to the 'swarm'. The advantage of this feature is that a website may distribute a torrent for a particular file or batch of files and make those files available for download from that same web server; this can simplify long-term seeding and load balancing through the use of existing, cheap, web hosting setups. In theory, this would make using BitTorrent almost as easy for a web publisher as creating a direct HTTP download. In addition, it would allow the 'web seed' to be disabled if the swarm becomes too popular while still allowing the file to be readily available. This feature has two distinct specifications, both of which are supported by Libtorrent and the 26+ clients that use it.

Hash web seeding[edit]

The first was created by John 'TheSHAD0W' Hoffman, who created BitTornado.^[72][73] This first specification requires running a web service that serves content by info-hash and piece number, rather than filename.

HTTP web seeding[edit]

The other specification is created by GetRight authors and can rely on a basic HTTP download space (using byte serving).^[74][75]

Other[edit]

In September 2010, a new service named Burnbit was launched which generates a torrent from any URL using webseeding.^[76] There are server-side solutions that provide initial seeding of the file from the webserver via standard BitTorrent protocol and when the number of external seeders reach a limit, they stop serving the file from the original source.^[77]

RSS feeds[edit]

A technique called broadcatching combines RSS feeds with the BitTorrent protocol to create a content delivery system, further simplifying and automating content distribution. Steve Gillmor explained the concept in a column for Ziff-Davis in December 2003.^[78] The discussion spread quickly among bloggers (Ernest Miller,^[79]Chris Pirillo, etc.). In an article entitled Broadcatching with BitTorrent, Scott Raymond explained:

I want RSS feeds of BitTorrent files. A script would periodically check the feed for new items, and use them to start the download. Then, I could find a trusted publisher of an Alias RSS feed, and 'subscribe' to all new episodes of the show, which would then start downloading automatically – like the 'season pass' feature of the TiVo.

The RSS feed will track the content, while BitTorrent ensures content integrity with cryptographichashing of all data, so feed subscribers will receive uncorrupted content. One of the first and popular software clients (free and open source) for broadcatching is Miro. Other free software clients such as PenguinTV and KatchTV are also now supporting broadcatching. The BitTorrent web-service MoveDigital added the ability to make torrents available to any web application capable of parsing XML through its standard REST-based interface in 2006,^[81] though this has since been discontinued. Additionally, Torrenthut is developing a similar torrent API that will provide the same features, and help bring the torrent community to Web 2.0 standards. Alongside this release is a first PHP application built using the API called PEP, which will parse any Really Simple Syndication (RSS 2.0) feed and automatically create and seed a torrent for each enclosure found in that feed.^[82]

Throttling and encryption[edit]

Since BitTorrent makes up a large proportion of total traffic, some ISPs have chosen to 'throttle' (slow down) BitTorrent transfers. For this reason, methods have been developed to disguise BitTorrent traffic in an attempt to thwart these efforts.^[83] Protocol header encrypt (PHE) and Message stream encryption/Protocol encryption (MSE/PE) are features of some BitTorrent clients that attempt to make BitTorrent hard to detect and throttle. As of November 2015, Vuze, Bitcomet, KTorrent, Transmission, Deluge, µTorrent, MooPolice, Halite, qBittorrent, rTorrent, and the latest official BitTorrent client (v6) support MSE/PE encryption. In September 2006 it was reported that some software could detect and throttle BitTorrent traffic masquerading as HTTP traffic.^[84]

Reports in August 2007 indicated that Comcast was preventing BitTorrent seeding by monitoring and interfering with the communication between peers. Protection against these efforts is provided by proxying the client-tracker traffic via an encrypted tunnel to a point outside of the Comcast network.^[85] Comcast has more recently called a 'truce' with BitTorrent, Inc. with the intention of shaping traffic in a protocol-agnostic manner.^[86] Questions about the ethics and legality of Comcast's behavior have led to renewed debate about net neutrality in the United States.^[87] In general, although encryption can make it difficult to determine what is being shared, BitTorrent is vulnerable to traffic analysis. Thus, even with MSE/PE, it may be possible for an ISP to recognize BitTorrent and also to determine that a system is no longer downloading but only uploading data, and terminate its connection by injecting TCP RST (reset flag) packets.

Multitracker[edit]

Another unofficial feature is an extension to the BitTorrent metadata format proposed by John Hoffman^[88] and implemented by several indexing websites. It allows the use of multiple trackers per file, so if one tracker fails, others can continue to support file transfer. It is implemented in several clients, such as BitComet, BitTornado, BitTorrent, KTorrent, Transmission, Deluge, µTorrent, rtorrent, Vuze, and Frostwire. Trackers are placed in groups, or tiers, with a tracker randomly chosen from the top tier and tried, moving to the next tier if all the trackers in the top tier fail.

Torrents with multiple trackers can decrease the time it takes to download a file, but also have a few consequences:

• Poorly implemented^[89] clients may contact multiple trackers, leading to more overhead-traffic.
• Torrents from closed trackers suddenly become downloadable by non-members, as they can connect to a seed via an open tracker.

Decentralized keyword search[edit]

Even with distributed trackers, a third party is still required to find a specific torrent. This is usually done in the form of a hyperlink from the website of the content owner or through indexing websites like isoHunt, Torrentz, BTDigg, Torrentus or The Pirate Bay. The Tribler BitTorrent client is the first to incorporate decentralized search capabilities.

With Tribler, users can find .torrent files that are hosted among other peers, instead of on a centralized index sites. It adds such an ability to the BitTorrent protocol using a gossip protocol, somewhat similar to the eXeem network which was shut down in 2005. The software includes the ability to recommend content as well. After a dozen downloads the Tribler software can roughly estimate the download taste of the user and recommend additional content.^[90]

In May 2007, researches at Cornell University published a paper proposing a new approach to searching a peer-to-peer network for inexact strings,^[91] which could replace the functionality of a central indexing site. A year later, the same team implemented the system as a plugin for Vuze called Cubit^[92] and published a follow-up paper reporting its success.^[93]

A somewhat similar facility but with a slightly different approach is provided by the BitComet client through its 'Torrent Exchange'^[94] feature. Whenever two peers using BitComet (with Torrent Exchange enabled) connect to each other they exchange lists of all the torrents (name and info-hash) they have in the Torrent Share storage (torrent files which were previously downloaded and for which the user chose to enable sharing by Torrent Exchange). Thus each client builds up a list of all the torrents shared by the peers it connected to in the current session (or it can even maintain the list between sessions if instructed). At any time the user can search into that Torrent Collection list for a certain torrent and sort the list by categories. When the user chooses to download a torrent from that list, the .torrent file is automatically searched for (by info-hash value) in the DHT Network and when found it is downloaded by the querying client which can after that create and initiate a downloading task.

Implementations[edit]

The BitTorrent specification is free to use and many clients are open source, so BitTorrent clients have been created for all common operating systems using a variety of programming languages. The official BitTorrent client, µTorrent, qBittorrent, Transmission, Vuze, and BitComet are some of the most popular clients.^{[95][96][97][98]}

Some BitTorrent implementations such as MLDonkey and Torrentflux are designed to run as servers. For example, this can be used to centralize file sharing on a single dedicated server which users share access to on the network.^[99] Server-oriented BitTorrent implementations can also be hosted by hosting providers at co-located facilities with high bandwidth Internet connectivity (e.g., a datacenter) which can provide dramatic speed benefits over using BitTorrent from a regular home broadband connection. Services such as ImageShack can download files on BitTorrent for the user, allowing them to download the entire file by HTTP once it is finished. The Operaweb browser supports BitTorrent,^[100] as does Wyzo. BitLet allows users to download Torrents directly from their browser using a Java applet. An increasing number of hardware devices are being made to support BitTorrent. These include routers and NAS devices containing BitTorrent-capable firmware like OpenWrt. Proprietary versions of the protocol which implement DRM, encryption, and authentication are found within managed clients such as Pando.

Development[edit]

An unimplemented (as of February 2008) unofficial feature is Similarity Enhanced Transfer (SET), a technique for improving the speed at which peer-to-peer file sharing and content distribution systems can share data. SET, proposed by researchers Pucha, Andersen, and Kaminsky, works by spotting chunks of identical data in files that are an exact or near match to the one needed and transferring these data to the client if the 'exact' data are not present. Their experiments suggested that SET will help greatly with less popular files, but not as much for popular data, where many peers are already downloading it.^[101] Andersen believes that this technique could be immediately used by developers with the BitTorrent file sharing system.^[102]

As of December 2008, BitTorrent, Inc. is working with Oversi on new Policy Discover Protocols that query the ISP for capabilities and network architecture information. Oversi's ISP hosted NetEnhancer box is designed to 'improve peer selection' by helping peers find local nodes, improving download speeds while reducing the loads into and out of the ISP's network.^[103]

Legal issues[edit]

Although the protocol itself is legal,^[104] problems stem from using the protocol to traffic copyright infringing works. There has been much controversy over the use of BitTorrent trackers. BitTorrent metafiles themselves do not store file contents. Whether the publishers of BitTorrent metafiles violate copyrights by linking to copyrighted works without the authorization of copyright holders is controversial. Various jurisdictions have pursued legal action against websites that host BitTorrent trackers. High-profile examples include the closing of Suprnova.org, TorrentSpy, LokiTorrent, BTJunkie, Mininova, Demonoid and Oink's Pink Palace. The Pirate Bay torrent website, formed by a Swedish group, is noted for the 'legal' section of its website in which letters and replies on the subject of alleged copyright infringements are publicly displayed. On 31 May 2006, The Pirate Bay's servers in Sweden were raided by Swedish police on allegations by the MPAA of copyright infringement;^[105] however, the tracker was up and running again three days later. In the study used to value NBC Universal in its merger with Comcast, Envisional examined the 10,000 torrent swarms managed by PublicBT which had the most active downloaders. After excluding pornographic and unidentifiable content, it was found that only one swarm offered legitimate content.^[106]

In the United States, more than 200,000 people have been sued for filesharing on BitTorrent since 2010.^[107] On 30 April 2012, the UK High Court ordered five ISPs to block BitTorrent search engine The Pirate Bay.^[108]

Security problems[edit]

One concern is the UDP flood attack. BitTorrent implementations often use µTP for their communication. To achieve high bandwidths, the underlying protocol used is UDP, which allows spoofing of source addresses of internet traffic. It has been possible to carry out Denial-of-service attacks in a P2P lab environment, where users running BitTorrent clients act as amplifiers for an attack at another service.^[109] However this is not always a effective attack because ISPs can check if the source adress is correct.

Challenges[edit]

Microsoft Torrent Download

'Leeches', are those users who download more than they share. As BitTorrent is a collaborative distributed platform, there is a section of the community that wants solutions to punish and discourage such behaviour.^[110]

Malware[edit]

Several studies on BitTorrent have indicated that there exist files, containing malware, available for download via BitTorrent. In particular, one small sample^[111] indicated that 18% of all executable programs available for download contained malware. Another study^[112] claims that as much as 14.5% of BitTorrent downloads contain zero-day malware, and that BitTorrent was used as the distribution mechanism for 47% of all zero-day malware they have found.

BitErrant attack[edit]

Due to SHA1 collisions, an attacker can alter the execution path of the executable by serving altered chunks when the victim is downloading the executable using the BitTorrent protocol.^[113]

Skins for GTA San Andreas with automatic installation. Download and install easily and for free. GTAinside is the ultimate GTA Mod DB and provides you more than 45000. GTA:SA Skins: New look / model. GTA Online Random Skin #7 Lonedigger Cat. Recent GTA:SA Mods. Skins/New look / model (18.08.18) Leon RPD ULTIMATE HD. Skins/Shoes (18.08.18). Mar 28, 2010 - Change player's skin to former one after load game. Copy 'gta.dat' to 'GTA San Andreas data ' or add a line 'IMG CLEO SKIN. Player-Skins (GTA: San Andreas) - GTAvision.com - Grand Theft Auto News, Downloads, Community and more.| THOUSANDS OF DOWNLOADS FOR. Myspace music player skins.

Criticism of BitErrant attack[edit]

Despite the fact that a proof of concept exists, the attack may succeed in very limited cases: such as small chunk size (32kB). By selecting larger chunks (i.e. >256kB) the amount of resources required to find SHA1 collision is tremendous, which makes the attack virtually impossible.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^Schulze, Hendrik; Klaus Mochalski (2009). 'Internet Study 2008/2009'(PDF). Leipzig, Germany: ipoque. Archived from the original(PDF) on 1 April 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2011. Peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) still generates by far the most traffic in all monitored regions – ranging from 43% in Northern Africa to 70% Eastern Europe.
2. ^'Application Usage & Threat Report'. Palo Alto Networks. 2013. Archived from the original on 31 October 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
3. ^Van der Sar, Ernesto (4 December 2009). 'Thunder Blasts uTorrent's Market Share Away - TorrentFreak'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 20 February 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2018.
4. ^'UB Engineering Tweeter'. University at Buffalo's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Archived from the original on 11 November 2013.
5. ^Cohen, Bram (2 July 2001). 'BitTorrent – a new P2P app'. Yahoo eGroups. Archived from the original on 2 July 2011. Retrieved 15 April 2007.
6. ^ ^abcdCohen, Bram (October 2002). 'BitTorrent Protocol 1.0'. BitTorrent.org. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
7. ^Wang, Liang; Kangasharju, J. (1 September 2013). 'Measuring large-scale distributed systems: Case of Bit Torrent Mainline DHT'. IEEE P2P 2013 Proceedings. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1109/P2P.2013.6688697. ISBN978-1-4799-0515-7. Archived from the original on 18 November 2015. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
8. ^'BitTorrent and µTorrent Software Surpass 150 Million User Milestone'. Bittorrent.com. 9 January 2012. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
9. ^Menasche, Daniel S.; Rocha, Antonio A. A.; de Souza e Silva, Edmundo A.; Leao, Rosa M.; Towsley, Don; Venkataramani, Arun (2010). 'Estimating Self-Sustainability in Peer-to-Peer Swarming Systems'. arXiv:1004.0395 [cs.NI]. by D. Menasche, A. Rocha, E. de Souza e Silva, R. M. Leao, D. Towsley, A. Venkataramani.
10. ^Costa, Fernando; Silva, Luis; Fedak, Gilles; Kelley, Ian (2008). 'Optimizing the data distribution layer of BOINC with Bit Torrent'. 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing. IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, 2008. IPDPS 2008.(PDF) format= requires url= (help). IEEE. p. 1. doi:10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536446. ISBN978-1-4244-1693-6.(registration required)
11. ^Urvoy-Keller (December 2006). 'Rarest First and Choke Algorithms Are Enough'(PDF). SIGCOMM. Archived(PDF) from the original on 23 May 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2012.
12. ^Ernesto (17 January 2007). 'Interview with Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 15 July 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
13. ^Ernesto (18 December 2007). 'BitTorrent Launches Ad Supported Streaming'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 19 June 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
14. ^Cohen, Bram (January 2011). 'BitTorrent Inventor Demos New P2P Live Streaming Protocol'. torrentfreak.com. Archived from the original on 27 October 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
15. ^'BitTorrent Live'. Bittorrent.com. Archived from the original on 25 October 2013. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
16. ^'BitTorrent Specification'. Wiki.theory.org. Archived from the original on 26 June 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012.^[dubious]
17. ^ ^abJones, Ben (7 June 2015). 'BitTorrent's DHT Turns 10 Years Old'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 11 June 2015. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
18. ^'Unofficial BitTorrent Protocol Specification v1.0'. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 4 October 2009.^[dubious]
19. ^Harrison, David (3 August 2008). 'Private Torrents'. Bittorrent.org. Archived from the original on 24 March 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2009.
20. ^'BitComet Banned From Growing Number of Private Trackers'. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 4 October 2009.
21. ^ ^abTamilmani, Karthik (25 October 2003). 'Studying and enhancing the BitTorrent protocol'. Stony Brook University. Archived from the original(DOC) on 19 November 2004. Retrieved 6 May 2006.
22. ^Kaune, Sebastian; et al. (2009). 'Unraveling BitTorrent's File Unavailability: Measurements and Analysis'. arXiv:0912.0625 [cs.NI].
23. ^D. Menasche; et al. (1–4 December 2009). Content Availability and Bundling in Swarming Systems(PDF). CoNEXT'09. Rome, Italy: ACM via sigcomm.org. ISBN978-1-60558-636-6. Archived(PDF) from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2009.
24. ^Kaune, Sebastian; et al. 'The Seeder Promotion Problem: Measurements, Analysis and Solution Space'(PDF). Queen Mary's University London. Archived(PDF) from the original on 9 August 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2017.
25. ^'This Website Could Be The Ultimate All-In-One Torrent Machine'. 8 April 2016. Archived from the original on 8 April 2016.
26. ^'Torrent From the Cloud With Seedr - TorrentFreak'. 17 January 2016. Archived from the original on 19 April 2016. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
27. ^'Bittorrent over Tor isn't a good idea - The Tor Blog'. Archived from the original on 13 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
28. ^Inc., The Tor Project,. 'Tor Project: FAQ'. Archived from the original on 22 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
29. ^'I2P Compared to Tor - I2P'. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 16 December 2015.
30. ^'Vuze Speeds Up Torrent Downloads Through 'Swarm Merging' - TorrentFreak'. 20 March 2015. Archived from the original on 17 October 2017. Retrieved 16 December 2015.
31. ^'I2PHelper HowTo - VuzeWiki'. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 16 December 2015.
32. ^See, for example, 'Why Bit Torrent'. Archived from the original on 28 January 2013.. tasvideos.org.
33. ^'Sub Pop page on BitTorrent.com'. Archived from the original on 14 January 2007. Retrieved 13 December 2006.
34. ^'DGMlive.com'. DGMlive.com. Archived from the original on 11 November 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
35. ^'VODO – About..'. Retrieved 15 April 2012. (WebCite).
36. ^Cory Doctorow (15 October 2009). 'Vodo: a filesharing service for film-makers'. Boing Boing. Happy Mutants LLC. Retrieved 15 April 2012. (WebCite)
37. ^Ernesto. 'Pioneer One, The BitTorrent Exclusive TV-Series Continues'. TorrentFreak. Retrieved 15 April 2012. (WebCite)
38. ^'CBC to BitTorrent Canada's Next Great Prime Minister:'. CBC News. 19 March 2008. Archived from the original on 14 June 2010. Retrieved 19 March 2008.
39. ^'Bittorrent' (in Norwegian). Nrkbeta.no. 2008. Archived from the original on 24 October 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
40. ^'Torrents uploaded by EeuwvandeStad'. MiniNova. 2009. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
41. ^Denters, M. (11 August 2010). 'Tegenlicht – Download California Dreaming'. VPRO.nl. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
42. ^Bol, M. (1 October 2009). 'Tegenlicht – VPRO gemeengoed' (in Dutch). VPRO.nl. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
43. ^'Using BitTorrent with Amazon S3'. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014.
44. ^Rustad, Roger E. (26 August 2004). 'Blog Torrent and Participatory Culture'. Grep Law. Archived from the original on 12 June 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2006.
45. ^'Blizzard Downloader'. Curse Inc. 4 November 2010. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2010.
46. ^'World of Tanks FAQ'. Wargaming. 15 December 2014. Archived from the original on 18 December 2014. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
47. ^MJ Guthrie (11 March 2013). 'EVE Online reconfiguring launcher to use BitTorrent'. Massively.joystiq.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
48. ^CCP Games (20 July 2010). 'All quiet on the EVE Launcher front? – EVE Community'. Community.eveonline.com. Archived from the original on 13 March 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
49. ^'Complete Download Options List – BitTorrent'. Ubuntu.com. Archived from the original on 24 April 2010. Retrieved 7 May 2009.
50. ^HM Government (4 September 2012). 'Combined Online Information System'. Data.Gov.Uk Beta. Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
51. ^Ernesto (4 June 2010). 'UK Government Uses BitTorrent to Share Public Spending Data'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 27 October 2013. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
52. ^'HPC Data Repository'. Florida State University. Archived from the original on 2 April 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
53. ^'Torrents Help Researchers Worldwide to Study Babies' Brains'. Torrent Freak. 3 June 2017. Archived from the original on 5 January 2018. Retrieved 4 January 2018.
54. ^Ernesto (25 June 2010). 'Facebook Uses BitTorrent, and They Love It'. Torrent Freak. Torrent Freak. Archived from the original on 19 April 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
55. ^Ernesto (10 February 2010). 'Twitter Uses BitTorrent For Server Deployment'. Torrent Freak. Torrent Freak. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
56. ^Ernesto (16 July 2010). 'BitTorrent Makes Twitter's Server Deployment 75x Faster'. Torrent Freak. Torrent Freak. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
57. ^ ^abErnesto (7 August 2012). 'Internet Archive Starts Seeding 1,398,875 Torrents'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 8 August 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
58. ^'Hot List for bt1.us.archive.org (Updated August 7, 2012, 7:31 pm PDT)'. Archived from the original on 3 August 2012. Retrieved 8 August 2012.. Archive.org.
59. ^'Welcome to Archive torrents'. Archived from the original on 19 January 2016. Retrieved 22 December 2015.. Archive.org. 2012.
60. ^Carr, Austin (4 January 2011). 'BitTorrent Has More Users Than Netflix and Hulu Combined—and Doubled'. fastcompany.com. Archived from the original on 10 January 2011. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
61. ^Hartley, Matt (1 July 2011). 'BitTorrent turns ten'. Financialpost.com. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
62. ^'AT&T patents system to 'fast-lane' BitTorrent traffic'. Thestack.com. 8 May 2006. Archived from the original on 23 February 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
63. ^'FAQ:Modems/routers that are known to have problems with P2P apps'. uTorrent.com. Archived from the original on 13 September 2008. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
64. ^Halkes, Gertjan; Pouwelse, Johan (2011). Jordi Domingo-Pascual; et al. (eds.). UDP NAT and Firewall Puncturing in the Wild. NETWORKING 2011:10th International IFIP TC 6 Networking Conference, Valencia, Spain, May 9–13, 2011, Proceedings. Springer. p. 7. ISBN9783642207976. Archived from the original on 9 May 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
65. ^Ernesto (12 July 2009). 'PublicBT Tracker Set To Patch BitTorrent' Achilles' Heel'. Torrentfreak. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 14 July 2009.
66. ^Chwan-Hwa (John) Wu, J. David Irwin. Introduction to Computer Networks and Cybersecurity. Chapter 5.4.: Partially Centralized Architectures. CRC Press. February 4, 2013. ISBN9781466572133
67. ^Worthington, David; Nate Mook (25 May 2005). 'BitTorrent Creator Opens Online Search'. BetaNews. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 9 May 2006.
68. ^'Vuze Changelog'. Azureus.sourceforge.net. Archived from the original on 1 December 2006.
69. ^Wang, Liang; Kangasharju, Jussi. (2013). 'Measuring Large-Scale Distributed Systems: Case of BitTorrent Mainline DHT'(PDF). IEEE Peer-to-Peer. Archived(PDF) from the original on 12 May 2014. Retrieved 15 May 2014.
70. ^'Khashmir.Sourceforge.net'. Khashmir.Sourceforge.net. Archived from the original on 2 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
71. ^'Azureus.sourceforge.net'. Azureus.sourceforge.net. Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
72. ^'HTTP-Based Seeding Specification'. BitTornado.com. Archived from the original(TXT) on 22 August 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2006.
73. ^John Hoffman, DeHackEd (25 February 2008). 'HTTP Seeding – BitTorrent Enhancement Proposal № 17'. Archived from the original on 13 December 2013. Retrieved 17 February 2012.
74. ^'HTTP/FTP Seeding for BitTorrent'. GetRight.com. Archived from the original on 28 December 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2010.
75. ^Michael Burford (25 February 2008). 'WebSeed – HTTP/FTP Seeding (GetRight style) – BitTorrent Enhancement Proposal № 19'. Bittorrent.org. Archived from the original on 13 December 2013. Retrieved 17 February 2012.
76. ^'Burn Any Web-Hosted File into a Torrent With Burnbit'. TorrentFreak. 13 September 2010. Archived from the original on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
77. ^'PHP based torrent file creator, tracker and seed server'. PHPTracker. Archived from the original on 19 December 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
78. ^Gillmor, Steve (13 December 2003). 'BitTorrent and RSS Create Disruptive Revolution'. EWeek.com. Retrieved 22 April 2007.
79. ^Miller, Ernest (2 March 2004). 'BitTorrent + RSS = The New Broadcast'. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013.. The Importance of.. Corante.com.
80. ^Raymond, Scott (16 December 2003). 'Broadcatching with BitTorrent'. scottraymond.net. Archived from the original on 13 February 2004.
81. ^'MoveDigital API REST functions'. Move Digital. 2006. Archived from the original on 11 August 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2006. Documentation.
82. ^'Prodigem Enclosure Puller(pep.txt)'. Prodigem.com. Archived from the original(TXT) on 26 May 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2006. via Internet Wayback Machine.
83. ^'Encrypting Bittorrent to take out traffic shapers'. Torrentfreak.com. 5 February 2006. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 9 May 2006.
84. ^Sales, Ben (27 September 2006). 'ResTech solves network issues'. studlife.com. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014.
85. ^'Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible'. Archived from the original on 11 October 2013., TorrentFreak, 17 August 2007.
86. ^Broache, Anne (27 March 2008). 'Comcast and BitTorrent Agree to Collaborate'. News.com. Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
87. ^Soghoian, Chris (4 September 2007). 'Is Comcast's BitTorrent filtering violating the law?'. Cnet.com. Archived from the original on 15 July 2010. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
88. ^'BEP12: Multitracker Metadata Extension'. BitTorrent Inc. Archived from the original on 27 December 2012. Retrieved 28 March 2013.
89. ^'P2P:Protocol:Specifications:Multitracker'. wiki.depthstrike.com. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 13 November 2009.^[dubious]
90. ^'DecentralizedRecommendation –'. Tribler.org. Archived from the original on 2 December 2008. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
91. ^Wong, Bernard; Vigfusson, Ymir; Gun Sirer, Emin (2 May 2007). 'Hyperspaces for Object Clustering and Approximate Matching in Peer-to-Peer Overlays'(PDF). Cornell University. Archived(PDF) from the original on 17 June 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
92. ^Wong, Bernard (2008). 'Cubit: Approximate Matching for Peer-to-Peer Overlays'. Cornell University. Archived from the original on 31 December 2012. Retrieved 26 May 2008.
93. ^Wong, Bernard. 'Approximate Matching for Peer-to-Peer Overlays with Cubit'(PDF). Cornell University. Archived(PDF) from the original on 29 October 2008. Retrieved 26 May 2008.
94. ^'Torrent Exchange'. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2010. The torrent sharing feature of BitComet. Bitcomet.com.
95. ^Van Der Sar, Ernesto (4 December 2009). 'Thunder Blasts uTorrent's Market Share Away'. TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 15 September 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
96. ^'uTorrent Dominates BitTorrent Client Market Share'. TorrentFreak. 24 June 2009. Archived from the original on 3 April 2014. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
97. ^'Windows Public File Sharing Market Share 2015'. opswat. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
98. ^Henry, Alan. 'Most Popular BitTorrent Client 2015'. lifehacker. Archived from the original on 9 April 2016. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
99. ^'Torrent Server combines a file server with P2P file sharing'. Turnkeylinux.org. Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
100. ^Anderson, Nate (1 February 2007). 'Does network neutrality mean an end to BitTorrent throttling?'. Ars Technica, LLC. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
101. ^Himabindu Pucha; David G. Andersen; Michael Kaminsky (April 2007). 'Exploiting Similarity for Multi-Source Downloads Using File Handprints'. Purdue University, Carnegie Mellon University, Intel Research Pittsburgh. Archived from the original on 18 June 2013. Retrieved 15 April 2007.
102. ^'Speed boost plan for file-sharing'. BBC News. 12 April 2007. Archived from the original on 7 December 2008. Retrieved 21 April 2007.
103. ^Johnston, Casey (9 December 2008). 'Arstechnica.com'. Arstechnica.com. Archived from the original on 12 December 2008. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
104. ^'Is torrenting safe? Is it illegal? Are you likely to be caught?'. 29 November 2018. Archived from the original on 6 October 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
105. ^'The Piratebay is Down: Raided by the Swedish Police'. TorrentFreak. 31 May 2006. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Retrieved 20 May 2007.
106. ^'Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet'(PDF). Envisional. 1 January 2011. Archived(PDF) from the original on 25 April 2012. Retrieved 6 May 2012.
107. ^'BitTorrent: Copyright lawyers' favourite target reaches 200,000 lawsuits'. The Guardian. 9 August 2011. Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
108. ^Albanesius, Chloe (30 April 2012). 'U.K. High Court Orders ISPs to Block The Pirate Bay'. PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 25 May 2013. Retrieved 6 May 2012.
109. ^Adamsky, Florian (2015). 'P2P File-Sharing in Hell: Exploiting BitTorrent Vulnerabilities to Launch Distributed Reflective DoS Attacks'. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
110. ^Bhakuni, A; Sharma, P; Kaushal, R (2014). 'Free-rider detection and punishment in Bit Torrent based P2P networks'. 2014 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC). International Advanced Computing Conference. p. 155. doi:10.1109/IAdCC.2014.6779311. ISBN978-1-4799-2572-8.
111. ^Berns, Andrew D.; Jung, Eunjin (EJ) (24 April 2008). 'Searching for Malware in Bit Torrent'. University of Iowa, via TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.(registration required)
112. ^Vegge, Håvard; Halvorsen, Finn Michael; Nergård, Rune Walsø (2009), 'Where Only Fools Dare to Tread: An Empirical Study on the Prevalence of Zero-Day Malware', 2009 Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection(PDF), IEEE Computer Society, p. 66, doi:10.1109/ICIMP.2009.19, ISBN978-1-4244-3839-6, archived from the original(PDF (orig. work + pub. paper)) on 17 June 2013
113. ^'BitErrant'. biterrant.io. Archived from the original on 19 March 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2017.

Further reading[edit]

• Pouwelse, Johan; et al. (2005). 'The Bittorrent P2P File-Sharing System: Measurements and Analysis'. Peer-to-Peer Systems IV. Berlin: Springer. pp. 205–216. doi:10.1007/11558989_19. ISBN978-3-540-29068-1. Retrieved 4 September 2011.

External links[edit]

• BitTorrent at Curlie
• Unofficial BitTorrent Protocol Specification v1.0 at wiki.theory.org
• Unofficial BitTorrent Location-aware Protocol 1.0 Specification at wiki.theory.org
• Czerniawski, Michal (20 December 2009). 'Responsibility of Bittorrent Search Engines for Copyright Infringements'. SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1540913. SSRN1540913.Missing or empty url= (help)
• Cohen, Bram (16 February 2005). 'Under the hood of BitTorrent'. Computer Systems Colloquium (EE380). Stanford University.

Pirate bay is one of the world’s most popular and widely used Best Torrent sites entertainment media and software-based Torrent download website in recent days.

Most recent days Pirate bay facing downtime for many reasons and Pirate bay fans are troubling to viewing and download. Initially, it was running as ThePirateBay.se and later it was changed.

The main reason is 40 percentage of Traffic has been a dropped in Dutch traffic because of local ISP blocking the Pirate Bay website.

The user can Access using Anonymous Browsers to safely access Pirate Bay alternative Sites using a torrenting VPN also, you can use proxy servers and Torto access thePirate Bay Alternatives.

VPN

VPN can provide reliable and coordinated work between computers of the company. It is also capable of transferring corporate IP traffic using the secure protocol. The abbreviation comes from Virtual Private Network.

With the VPN you can mask the address and there are some Super Simple VPN Service with Blazing speed and with strict no-log policy no-log policy, keep you secure and protect your privacy online.

Top 10 Pirate bay Alternative& Best Torrent sites

1.KickAssTorrents

One of the Best Pirate bay alternative Best Torrent sites are popular all the time, it is one of the biggest directories on the internet for a good number of torrent files to get the magnetic links for software, games, ebooks, music, movies, TV shows. Here you can see the list of very fast Kickass Proxy Websites.

2.ExtraTorrent

ExtraTorrent is at one time the greatest BitTorrent and best alternative for Pirate bay. We will likely give a simple to-utilize index and web crawler for all sort of torrent files.

Pirate bay alternative Guests of ExtraTorrent can transfer deluges to this site, followed by any BitTorrent tracker. One of the principle reasons you should visit extratorrent is that they have excellent torrents and friendly site and a dynamic group

3.Yify Torrent

Another Best Pirate bay Alternative that All the movie lovers aware of the infamous YIFY torrent site to download YIFY Movies and YTS Movies, but it goes dark after its leader was discovered was pleaded guilty in New Zealand Jurisprudence. In this article, we show you how to access Yify Torrent via YIFY Proxy and download YIFY Movies and YTS Movies.

Download Microsoft Access Torrent

4.1337x

For some veteran BitTorrent clients like Pirate bay, 1337x is a commonplace name. The site has been around for a long time and was for the most part known for its enthusiastic community and that makes it a prominent alternative for The Pirate bay. While 1337x hasn’t been at the focal point of consideration much, the previous year has been a significant memorable one for the torrent index.

5.RARBG

RARBGTransformers prime season 2 hindi dubbed all episodes. is a website, founded in 2008, that provides torrent files and magnet links to facilitate peer-to-peer file sharing using the BitTorrent protocol. It’s full of quality, high-resolution torrents and the alternative of Piratebay.

Microsoft Visual Studio Download

6.YourBittorrent

YourBittorrent uses automated software to search the Internet for host file information and does not actively oversee what is indexed in its database. With a lack of oversight, the site hosts some torrents which allow users to access software, movies, music, and other items under which are under copyright and thus illegal to distribute publicly, though the files themselves remain on other servers.

Illegal trackers are removed by the site when a request is made by a legitimate party and best alternative of Pirate bay.

7.Torlock

One of the best alternative Pirate bay to Download verified torrents: movies, music, games, software, Torlock is a torrent index and torrent search that helps to access the latest in TV series and movies. Calling itself the No Fakes Torrent Site, Torlock is dedicated to list verified torrents only. Torlock pays its users a compensation of $1 per fake torrent they can find.

8. limetorrents

Pirate bay Alternate of Limetorrents can user spend the time to Download like Movies, Games, Music, Anime, TV Shows and Software, Bittorrent Downloading Absolutely for free at LimeTorrents and it is simple and user-friendly for everyone and it works very fast.

9.Torrentdownloads

TorrentDownloads is easy to use and a standout amongst the most went to astounding downpour supplier site. You can download downpours identified with TV appears, films, music, recreations, programming, anime, and books, and so on. The official site of TorrentDownloads can be gotten to here at Torrentdownloads.me that playing the best role to be alternative to Piratebay Torrent.

10. idope

An effective internet searcher for torrents alternative to pirate bay. idope is the authority application from the downpour internet searcher of a similar name.

It lets you rapidly discover anything you’re searching for to download. All things considered, the application just gives you a chance to discover downpour records.

iDope is a site made in tribute to K.A.T. The chairmen of idope.se likewise offer a versatile application for those clients who utilize tablets and cell phones for their P2P diversion. It is said that it has a much bigger accumulation of deluges than KAT

Update:

Visual Studio 2010 Iso Download

The pirate bay is DOWN for everyone for more than 1 week, experts say, it might a reason of server glitch.