uTorrent Sign PeerFactor Agreement

According to a statement by PeerFactor, the lead developer of µTorrent, Ludvig Strigeus, has agreed to help develop “new content distribution applications on the Web”.

The developer has signed a contract with PeerFactor for an initial six month evaluation period.

Since the public release of uTorrent in September, the client has risen to the number one spot on Slyck’s list of BitTorrent clients for Windows, as voted by users. This is mostly due to the tiny memory usage, which is around 6MB, compared to second most popular, Azureus, which is typically over 70MB. Yet uTorrent remains feature-rich.

By developing the PeerFactor software, which uses the BitTorrent protocol, Strigeus will be entitled to a share of any advertising revenue generated by the final product.

This move into the authorised distribution market is a step away from anti-P2P technology for PeerFactor, which was a subsidiary of French anti-piracy group RetSpan. The two companies became independent companies six months ago.

PeerFactor shot to notoriety in April 2004 by giving financial rewards to file sharers for spreading fake files and directing downloaders to authorised download sites.

News that µTorrent are selling their software will fuel speculation as to why uTorrent has remained close source, which is extremely uncommon for BitTorrent clients.

This is not of concern to Strigeus, who told Slyck News, “This doesn't affect µTorrent, it's just a side project. If people like to be paranoid, I won't stop them.”

Strigeus denies that he is helping PeerFactor fight the P2P community by providing the coding.

“The agreement says that the software will be used to distribute legal content over the internet. In my understanding, everything in our agreement says that it will be used for downloading legal content,” Strigeus told Slyck News.

Although Strigeus rejects that he knew PeerFactor’s history of attacking and disrupting P2P networks, he defends working with the company now he does know.

“Just because I sell cleaning services to Microsoft doesn't mean I like Windows.”

Update: Please note there is a correction to this article. It was originally reported that PeerFactor is a subsidiary of RetSpan. The two companies parted ways six months ago.

PeerFactor deny ever being involved in anti-P2P operations, despite the reports to the contrary.

“We do not distribute any fake file over P2P, but only useful content,” Frenchman Richard Rodrigues, head of PeerFactor told Slyck. “We have never distributed fakes file (unreadable) because no user would […] want to distribute [them]."
_________________

From irc chat - don't know source :/

I found this to be funny though : Peerguardian blocking uTorrent with the report 'Packet to "utorrent.com works for anti-p2p RetSpan" ( 207.142.136.45 ) blocked. [protocol: TCP - src:'

What was even funnier was the chat they had with some admin of it :

[16:18.24] <+ludde> can you remove the silly PG2 "utorrent works for RetSpan" thing? I don't work for Retspan and I never will.
[16:30.45] <@fa> well, what is it that you are doing for them then?
[16:32.23] <@fa> or with them
[16:32.28] <+ludde> I'm providing a DLL file to PeerFactor, that they can use to download content through the BitTorrent protocol. It does not have any features for getting IPs or anything from users, it can only be used to download stuff.
[16:32.33] <+Benjones> I think thats been widely published everywhere
[16:32.50] <+ludde> exactly.
[16:33.56] <+Benjones> so, why was the block added?
[16:34.06] <+ludde> ignorance?
[16:34.32] <@fa> fuck you
[16:35.09] <@fa> you better pick the peeps you work for a littel better if you wanna make utorrent apps
[16:35.15] <@fa> its staying int
[16:36.24] <@fa> lol
[16:36.40] <+ludde> fa: utorrent is not related to anti-p2p. I don't see what the reason for the block is.
[16:37.10] <@fa> helping anti-p2p in any way is relating it to it
[16:37.43] <+ludde> I'm not helping anti-p2p. I'm helping a company (separate from retspan) that wants to provide a download service.
[16:37.45] <@fa> and yes, if you did the same for microsoft, you would have made the list as well
[16:38.00] <+ludde> so, microsoft is on the list?
[16:38.01] <@fa> staying in till the source is public
[16:38.27] <+ludde> that is not going to happen.
[16:39.23] <@fa> we have a list jsut for M$ yes
[16:39.46] <+ludde> fa: utorrent is not in any way related to anti-p2p. I'm just selling an "off the shelf" DLL product to PeerFactor, more or less.
[16:39.48] <@fa> they are the biggest anti-p2p organization
[16:40.23] <+ludde> this agreement is not about µTorrent.
[16:40.30] <+ludde> so I don't see why you punish utorrent.
[16:41.57] <+ludde> fa: can you remove the block please? If I was anti-p2p, I would never have created utorrent.
[16:42.32] <@fa> everyone should get to make the Decision for themselves, first they need to see that you have worked with them, then they can choose to use the app or not
[16:42.43] <@fa> the block is the best way atm to show peeps
[16:43.33] <+ludde> why put the decision on the people? They don't have enough information to tell what the deal is about. they just have the information provided by media, which is written in a way to generate attraction.
[16:44.25] <+ludde> this deal is really nothing, they contract doesn't even MENTION µTorrent.
[16:44.27] <@fa> the whole thing is dodgy as hell, they prolly needed that dll to build an anti-p2p torrent app, and you just handed it to them

:source: Source: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0

_________________________

The uTorrent stand point

For the record, Ludvig was not aware of PeerFactor's ties to RetSpan at the time he signed the contract with PeerFactor.

I was present during the interview Mike had with Ludvig.

Ludvig didn't know anything about the RetSpan connection, or that PeerFactor was distributing fake content to begin with. He found out about all of this from Mike.

What PeerFactor got from Ludvig in the contract, was a DLL file with the BT protocols so they could interact with other BT clients. No source was shared with PeerFactor, and the contract was for a 6mo evaluation period.

I was alarmed when hearing the new details.

Mike asked "can't they get that from bittorrent.com?"

Ludvig replied "they can just get a big & bulky python implementation from buttorrent.com"

I had a different reaction to that however.

I answered "why would they go through bittorrent.com when they've already been discredited in the sharing community by selling out to the MPAA?"

Mike commented why would they worry about someone working with the MPAA, but didn't initially get the point I was making.

Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, maybe not, but a little paranoia is a healthy thing.

Think about it. Since when do anti-P2P groups need to contract out to do things like post fake files on various P2P networks? All the tools they would need are already freely available.

I'm trying to see this from the anti-P2P groups' point of view, and what I'm seeing doesn't look pretty.

Anti-P2P groups don't care one bit about distribution. Sure, they want to get their fake and poisoned files out on the networks, but that isn't their goal. Their goal is to hurt file sharing. Any way they can.

Why didn't they go through bittorrent.com? They were already in the pocket of the MPAA, and if I were running an anti-P2P group looking to develop a distribution system, wouldn't I naturally choose to work with people who were already sympathetic to our goals?

Yes... if the distribution system was what I was after.

However, still looking at it in the eyes of an anti-P2P group, my goal isn't the distribution, but to hurt the file-sharing community itself.

There is nothing to be gained by going with bittorrent.com... they've already been bought and discredited. Going with them, would do nothing to further my cause as an anti-P2P group.

No... I need to go with someone popular in the community. Someone who has a good reputation, credibility, exposure.

So I would do what PeerFactor did. I would try to make a deal with one of the big players in the community, to help develop a content distribution system. After all, to many torrent utility authors, legitimacy for the protocol and community ranks quite high on the list of what they want.

We won't tell them that we'll be distributing fake or poisoned files. We'll try to appear legitimate. Whether or not anything is actually developed, is irrelevant. Eventually, someone is going to make the connection between PeerFactor and its parent company, and word will get out. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, the general public doesn't care about facts. Give the general public as many facts as you have, and none of that will make one bit of difference. All people will pay attention to are the links back to the anti-P2P group, and the damage is done.

Just look at the first two replies to Mike's story for an illustration of what I'm talking about.

Then there is the confidentiality clause. We'll make the author agree to a confidentiality clause for the next 6mo duration of the contract, while we can say anything we want to.

We'll post a web page somewhere announcing our "deal" with the author of µTorrent and draw some attention to it.

Why µTorrent? It is a big threat to anti-P2P's efforts to thwart file sharing now. Its growing popularity, combined with their new joint encryption protocol with Azureus makes it a very big threat to anti-P2P's goals.

Why not Azureus? It is open source. There is no single person they can discredit like there is with µTorrent. This isn't a matter of open source vs closed source, but of the number of people involved, and which is more vulnerable.

Is it possible that PeerFactor's claim that they really are working on a distribution system for authentic legal downloads? Yes, it is possible.

Does it matter?

Not one bit. By association alone, the damage will already be done.

I like Ludvig a lot. I have had plenty of time to get to know him, and what kind of man he is, over the past several months I have been involved in the µTorrent support team. Had he known about PeerFactor's parentage ahead of time, I don't believe he would have gone forward with the contract.

In the meantime, µTorrent is no more a security risk than it was before the contract. Nothing has changed in the program.

In my perspective, this wasn't about the program at all, but about damaging reputations and credibility, and in the process, keeping people away from a program that is such a threat to the anti-P2P group.

People, after all, rarely care about the facts. They're inconvenient. They make people think. Thinking takes effort. They'd rather have other people tell them what to think. They'll jump at the obvious "µTorrent is working with RetSpan" hysteria because the facts of the situation are inconvenient.

Maybe I'm too paranoid. Maybe you aren't paranoid enough.

Maybe both are correct.

but...

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you... and anti-P2P groups, are, in fact, out to get you.

-- Smoovious
-- µTorrent Support Team

WTF is going on. There better not be any ads in utorrent or bundled shit becuase it is a good client and i wish it went open source so we wouldnt need to deal with this.

Damn i would be happy if that source code was stolen. :D

here is the topic discussed on the PG2 forum

http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/showth...1852#post81852

and this is a quote from them


The µTorrent fiasco

March 7th, 2006 by phrosty You may have noticed that PG2 started blocking utorrent.com. This is because µTorrent’s developer recently licensed his backend technology to a company known for monitoring P2P networks.
Today we confirmed that it is for a new content distribution system - something explicitly stated in the contract, meaning they are not allowed to use it for monitoring P2P users or anything else.
So is helping out a company known for P2P monitoring morally wrong? Maybe. But everyone needs to eat. The licensing had no malicious intent toward P2P users, and it does not affect µTorrent in any way.
Yet it is still blocked. This is because we are still silently redirecting all of your list downloads to our friends at Bluetack while we get our own lists ready. Adding or removing things from their lists is something we have no control over.
Fortunately, we have been preparing to launch our own lists for about a week now! Within the next few days PG2 should automatically start pulling the lists from Blocklist.org - no work on your end required.



so in my opinion there is nothin to worry about :)

cool. cuz i really like utorrent and before that i was using bittorando which sucks ass.

so where do we all stand, avoid utorrent like a sand trap and use azureus or what!?

ffs, no. uTorrent is the same old program, the guy just sold a DLL file with the BT protocol. What this means for you, the end-user, is that uTorrent development will no longer stop as a result of the landlord kicks Ludde out for not being able to afford to pay his rent.
uTorrent will not be modified.
uTorrent will not be monitored by an anti-piracy institution.
uTorrent will continue to rock on.

Rock On!!