That would likely get the user and the torrent client banned from the private tracker.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
41 points (87.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
218 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This way, private torrents could “escape” into the wild, still maintaining the privacy and social/closed community effects of the private tracker.
Except that it wouldn't. The infohash that the private flagged torrent generated is different vs a public non-private torrent of the same contents. Your suggestion would purposely share the same exact private torrent infohash into public DHT/PEX, that would certainly get people banned at the source private tracker(s). I also suspect most/all torrent client developers would consider that incorrect behavior.
If you wanted to do a more "correct" approach on this - Create a brand new public non-private flagged torrent of those contents, which would generate its own unique infohash, then it's just a regular torrent. You'd end up needing to seed multiple copies of the same torrent (the original private flagged torrent and your new public torrent) but sure that would be possible as long as the torrent client itself has DHT/PEX enabled. Most private trackers won't care too much but some of that does depend on individual trackers and uploaders, you'd need to check their rules.
Your suggestion would purposely share the same exact private torrent infohash into public DHT/PEX,
Yes, but not necessarily. It is trivial to recompute the infohash with the private bit disabled. This would split the network, but that is probably a good thing to preserve the anonymity of the private tracker users, as pointed out by another commenter.
Yes, with this solution, internally it could be seen a two separate torrents, but if it is an option easily accessible in the client settings, and it is handled transparently as a single torrent, much more people will do it, and the scene as whole would gain with the network effect.
More people should use BiglyBT and its Swarm Merging feature. You get the ability to seed or download chunks from peers across separate torrent files.
It's a shame because if more people used it, the BiglyBT devs might add hash-based merging (with v2 torrents) instead of just size-based. Hybrid/v2 merging is still possible, but file size is less reliable and caters to files only larger than 50MB.
Some kinda auto v1/v2/hybrid private<->public torrent maker plugin for BiglyBT would be... bigly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you also end up exposing the IP of every peer on that torrent to anyone who joins the swarm, even if you masked the tracker and stats or whatever?
Like, IIRC that's kind a requirement for how torrents work in general, and so this idea would be making all activity on private trackers public, and I'd have to say that seems like a really, really stupid thing to want to do given the current situation where corpos are going after infringers again.
So, if I'm understanding your intent correctly/distilling it out a bit: you want a feature that lets you seed a new public torrent from a private torrent (using the same local files) in one click?
I'm not too familiar with the plugin APIs of a lot of torrent clients but this sounds like something a plugin could handle.
To be fair, I thought of modifying my client privately to do it, but I guess it will only have an impactful network effect if it is distributed as native feature of popular clients.
Private torrent content escapes naturally because it's often shared on other P2P tools in use by the peers.
@ovovo Peer exchange is only for local area networks I believe.
I don't think so, otherwise magnetic links wouldn't work.
Isn't that ghost leeching?