Pirate Pay torrent 'blocker' backed by Microsoft

hamba

Inactive User
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,345
Location
Down Here
Pirate Pay torrent 'blocker' backed by Microsoft

A Russian company has developed software it says can disrupt and prevent people from downloading pirated content


_60229184_piracypic.jpg

Blocking tool Pirate Pay draws its name from controversial piracy site The Pirate Bay



Pirate Pay has been backed by Microsoft and has so far worked with Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures to stop "thousands" of downloads.

The tool poses as real bit torrent users but then "confuses" peer-to-peer networks, causing disconnections.

Critics argue that the method will be ineffective in the long term.

The entertainment industry claims that the downloading of pirated material costs copyright holders billions of pounds in lost revenue every year.

Last month, the British Phonographic Industry won a court battle to force UK internet service providers to block its customers from accessing high-profile piracy site The Pirate Bay.

However, the true extent of the financial impact is strongly questioned by internet rights campaigners.

Swamping

Bit torrent blog Torrent Freak reported that Pirate Pay began life as traffic management software for internet service providers.

From here they discovered it could be used to swamp peer-to-peer networks - which are used to share the files - with false information.

"After creating the prototype, we realised we could more generally prevent files from being downloaded, which meant that the program had great promise in combating the spread of pirated content," said Andrei Klimenko, the company's chief executive, in an interview with Russia Beyond the Headlines.

The technology has received high-profile praise from the president of Microsoft Russia - Pirate Pay was awarded one million rubles (£62,000, $100,000) from a seed investment fund set up by the company behind Windows.

A recent campaign saw Pirate Pay "protect" recent Russian film Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I am Alive, made by Walt Disney Studios.

Pirate Pay said it blocked 44,845 attempted illegal downloads of the film.

However, as the Torrent Freak blog pointed out, the blocked downloaders might have simply just tried again later.

'Social issues'

Although exact details on how the system operates are not known outside of the company, security researcher Richard Clayton from the University of Cambridge told the BBC it was a process that could work, if only in the short term.

"If you flood the network with lots of lies, then you will be short of real things.

"[But] the networks are robust about this in the long term because you will say to your peer 'please give me this data', and when it gives you the data it will say 'this doesn't match' and throw it away."

Mr Clayton, who blogs about such issues, said peer-to-peer networks would eventually adapt, sharing information about "bogus" peers such as those reportedly utilised by companies like Pirate Pay.

Mr Clayton added: "You don't solve social issues with technical fixes.

"The social issue here is that a lot of people think that the legal offerings are too expensive and don't provide what they want.
"Once you solve that, nobody's going to want to mess around with complicated bits of software to get what they need."




14 May 2012 Last updated at 17:37
BBC © 2012

BBC News - Pirate Pay torrent 'blocker' backed by Microsoft
 
They can stick their blocking software where the sun dont shine!!!!!
 
Um btw most people dont even use p2p lol so their system would be rendered pointless
 
Um btw most people dont even use p2p lol so their system would be rendered pointless

Peer-to-peer being bit-torrent I guess quite a lot of peeps use it.

It just meant from 1 "peer" (user) to another which is just a common way of saying it.

Unlike newsgroups where you only need to connect to 1 server (and also don't have to open your firewall to let tons of IP's (peer's, users) connect to you, each one a potential risk you cannot verify).

The industry always complains that they are losing billions in revenue, but it's well know they make billions every years any way. If they made a loss each time they would soon shut up shop.

Perhaps they should look within themselves for ways to cut costs and make films for less and pass those savings on to use peeps making it more acceptable to buy films or goto the cinema.

What make peeps like Bruce Willis or Tom Cruise worth paying £60 million or £100 million per film. Or even the cast of the simpsons who get $1 million each per episode (or season maybe).

That's where they want to tighten the purse strings.

They even come up with ways to pay them more by giving them meaningless jobs, watch the credits on a tv show or film and you can see, for example, "Starring Bruce Willis" and then "Executive Producer Bruce Willis". 2 Jobs twice the pay. Plus all the marketing rights.

How much money can one actor spend in a lifetime.

You can bet the real workers on the films don't get anywhere near that much, like the camera peeps or grips or make-up artists etc....

Feck them. I'll be a "pirate" for as long as I can and when they find a way to block everything I'll do without and not miss a thing.
 
Avengers made 200million dollars in US opening weekend, highest grossing weekend opening of all time, beating last harry potter and titanic. Cinemas have the highest numbers of bums on seats this year too. They say record shops/supermarkets are taking less sales over the counter of music and this is PURELY down to piracy - no, it's a general shopping trend as most people now purchase that sort of thing online cheaper.

"piracy killing copyright" has been a myth for 30+ years now, ever since i'd record adam and the ants off the radio to tape-to-tape my mates copy of 'Desert Island Dizzy' for the speccy - they should change the record

it's greed, they've had it too good - times change. if it's something i like, i'll often buy the original
 
Not directly related to "pirating" per se, but more so in a similar vein to what Captin posted about funding and aligning focus. Media companies spend too much time trying to sell things with big actor names. For example I watched an advert the other day for Pepsi Max, new one where several footballers play over a crowd.

Few million in payments there which I'm sure the cost is passed onto the average Joe, yet as my missus said to me; " I really don't care who the are, it isn't going to make be buy Pepsi because they are drinking it but rather because I like it. I would buy even if it was advertised by a nobody"

I really don't care if Bruce Willis uses Andrex and washes his hair in Head and Shoulders and the more they pander to this the more money they command.

Don't get me wrong I like some of the big actor names, but they have a place.

In terms of the technology, it's just another media hype which will be quickly circumnavigated by someone much cleverer than them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top