Posted by
Hemos
on from the bad-bad-leroy-brown dept.
Klaruz writes "There's an interesting writup here on why the idea of hosting an offshore OpenNap server on Sealand won't work. It looks like the idea of offshore hosting isn't all it's cracked up to be, I wonder if there are any ways around this."
The situation is not that bad.
by
Amphigory
·
· Score: 5
I saw the following in Napster's MOTD:
Record companies and other rights holders are required to certify that they hold the rights to specific songs that are available on Napster. When we receive notices from them, Napster will take every step within the limits of our system to
exclude their copyrighted material from being shared.
Notice the order of operations:
The file is shared.
The record companies find it.
The record companies have to certify that they own copyright on it.
Napster must then attempt to stop sharing it.
This leaves an awful lot of wiggle room. Must the record company certify each iteration of the file, as identified by napsters checksumming algorithm? (I forget the details, but there is one.) If so, I can foul it up by adding three bytes of static to the end of the file and post it. The CRC is the only way that this can work, because as many have pointed out it is easy to misspell titles etc. Furthermore, live recordings are not necessarily under RIAA copyright and many artists *like* Napster. However, even the CRC can be subverted. How long will it take to come up with a napster client that automagically changes the CRC every time it advertises a file?
The point? All is not yet lost. The record companies do not have infinite resources (even if it does seem that way), and eventually they will get tired of playing wack-a-mole. I really think they are just trying to buy some time until they can come up with a post-Internet business model. By now, they've figured out that any copy protection can be broken, any law can be subverted, and that, as they currently stand, they will be about as useful as a chocolate covered wrist-watch in ten years. The Napster thing is at best a pyrrhic victory, and they know it. In the past, copyright infringement required a manufacturing facility to make a dubbing tape deck, a betamax, or whatever. Now it does not -- it's all in software -- so there's no fixed target they can go after.
If you really care about this (I don't) just make sure there are many, many moles to whack. Use OpenNap. Start an OpenNap server. Write that napster client that munges titles and crc's. Come up with something like Napster over IRC. Make all the clients advertise by logging into an IRC channel, chosen by a random protocol daily, then doing DCC connection to each other.
There are many, many ways around this that the RIAA will never be able to stop. So stop fretting.
--
-- -- Slashdot sucks.
Re:Sealand isn't part of the solution
by
rdl
·
· Score: 5
Correct. We rate-limit individual servers to 256kbps at present, to ensure everyone gets fair access to bandwidth. We upgrade individual servers to 1mbps for an additional fee. We have 50Mbps of low latency bandwidth, and pretty much arbitrary amounts of VSAT 600-1000ms bandwidth, at the present time.
We can get enough bandwidth to do 100mbps for individual servers, but it's like 30-90 day leadtime. We're working on enhancing the overall bandwidth situation, and will upgrade servers automatically when more bandwidth is available.
Our competition is places in the third world where a T1 with 95% reliability will cost you USD 30k/month or more, though, and have like 60ms latency to any real internet center, so even with our current situation, USD 1500 for colo and 256kbps bandwidwidth is pretty competitive.
Sealand isn't part of the solution
by
eXtro
·
· Score: 5
First of all, Sealand is only a haven till some country gets pissed off enough to blow it out of the water. Assuming that this doesn't happen then there is a possibility but its remote. Sealand itself, or a citizen of Sealand, would have to offer the Napster service.
This is remote for two reasons: Sealand itself probably wants to avoid doing anything thats outright illegal. Sure, they store data, and maybe that data is suspicious, but they can claim ignorance of it. It's all encrypted ones and zeroes to them. Once they offer a service that violates the law of some country their "see no evil, here no evil and speak no evil" act disappears. It may not be contrary to Sealands laws, but its contrary to other countries laws. This increases the chances of them being blown out of the water.
The second reason is that even if they threw caution to the wind, is Sealand really suitable for this? They've got a 256K connection, how saturated would it be? They'd effectively apply their own slashdot effect against themselves. Their other business interests would not be able to connect (the ones who actually pay the bills).
I think the only real solution is civil disobedience, but be prepared and willing to take your lumps if they come. Do your best to minimize this though. Don't take funds, don't run a site with banner adds and don't engage in any form of barter. Make sure that YOU DO NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM SHARING FILES, in fact MAKE SURE THAT IN TOTAL YOU CAN SAY THAT IT COSTS YOU.
I agree almost with what you say. Basically, the near future is not so bleak as people would think.
People have been trading illegal bits (pirated software, digitized music and video, whatever) for a long time. They will still do so, just perhaps not with the ease of Napster. The reason Napster got the attention it did was because of its scope. If you use Aimster, or opennap, or IRC channels, or usenet, or whatever, and trade with a small group of friends/strangers -- nobody is going to notice. File trading on IRC is not going to make the cover of Time. And by extension with that old "7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" you'll eventually be able to track down all the music you want, by friends-of-friends-of-friends, etc.... Just not instantly.
If something like Napster (huge, open) exists, and is somehow (boggling the mind) regulated to only trade legal bits, that's even better. It gives you the ability to find the lesser-known music you might otherwise not get, stuff that people are distributing through these methods intentionally, bootleg live performances that the artist has allowed to be distributed, etc.
Now, the distant future may be more bleak. Through bullying of the legal system, bullying of the standards, etc... the big companies will eventually make it illegal or technically difficult to copy/time-shift our recordings. However, as has been stated multiple times here... if you can _hear it_ you can _record it_ and nothing can really stop that.
-- Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
What does location have to do with it?
by
BillyGoatThree
·
· Score: 5
Let's say Taco has an MP3 of "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica, called nem.mp3. He ripped the MP3 from a CD he owns and uploads it to some server inside the US. I (also in the US) download it.
Question 1: Who has broken the law? Taco, the server owner or me? The RIAA has gone after the server owner, but that's largely pragmatics (not to mention PR).
Now let's imagine a mythical, ideal offshore server location. Call it Luna (see my other post). Let's say Taco has an MP3 of "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica, called nem.mp3. He ripped the MP3 from a CD he owns and uploads it to Luna. I (also in the US) download it.
Now the RIAA is unable (hypothetically) to get the server owner, right? Taco does a "magic upload" and I do a "magic download". But if your answer to Q1 was either "Taco" or "Me" (or both) then answer this question:
Question 2: How is the mythical, Luna server with the "magic" ul/dl any different than a strictly peer-to-peer, decentralized system that has NO server where Taco just sends the file right to me?
My contention is that it's not. Instead of figuring out where to PUT the server, we should be figuring out how to ELIMINATE the server. This would especially be the case if your answer to Q1 was "the server"--because then the system would even be legal. Bonus! --
Slashdot Mirror
- The file is shared.
- The record companies find it.
- The record companies have to certify that they own copyright on it.
- Napster must then attempt to stop sharing it.
This leaves an awful lot of wiggle room. Must the record company certify each iteration of the file, as identified by napsters checksumming algorithm? (I forget the details, but there is one.) If so, I can foul it up by adding three bytes of static to the end of the file and post it. The CRC is the only way that this can work, because as many have pointed out it is easy to misspell titles etc. Furthermore, live recordings are not necessarily under RIAA copyright and many artists *like* Napster. However, even the CRC can be subverted. How long will it take to come up with a napster client that automagically changes the CRC every time it advertises a file?The point? All is not yet lost. The record companies do not have infinite resources (even if it does seem that way), and eventually they will get tired of playing wack-a-mole. I really think they are just trying to buy some time until they can come up with a post-Internet business model. By now, they've figured out that any copy protection can be broken, any law can be subverted, and that, as they currently stand, they will be about as useful as a chocolate covered wrist-watch in ten years. The Napster thing is at best a pyrrhic victory, and they know it. In the past, copyright infringement required a manufacturing facility to make a dubbing tape deck, a betamax, or whatever. Now it does not -- it's all in software -- so there's no fixed target they can go after.
If you really care about this (I don't) just make sure there are many, many moles to whack. Use OpenNap. Start an OpenNap server. Write that napster client that munges titles and crc's. Come up with something like Napster over IRC. Make all the clients advertise by logging into an IRC channel, chosen by a random protocol daily, then doing DCC connection to each other.
There are many, many ways around this that the RIAA will never be able to stop. So stop fretting.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Correct. We rate-limit individual servers to 256kbps at present, to ensure everyone gets fair access to bandwidth. We upgrade individual servers to 1mbps for an additional fee. We have 50Mbps of low latency bandwidth, and pretty much arbitrary amounts of VSAT 600-1000ms bandwidth, at the present time.
We can get enough bandwidth to do 100mbps for individual servers, but it's like 30-90 day leadtime. We're working on enhancing the overall bandwidth situation, and will upgrade servers automatically when more bandwidth is available.
Our competition is places in the third world where a T1 with 95% reliability will cost you USD 30k/month or more, though, and have like 60ms latency to any real internet center, so even with our current situation, USD 1500 for colo and 256kbps bandwidwidth is pretty competitive.
This is remote for two reasons: Sealand itself probably wants to avoid doing anything thats outright illegal. Sure, they store data, and maybe that data is suspicious, but they can claim ignorance of it. It's all encrypted ones and zeroes to them. Once they offer a service that violates the law of some country their "see no evil, here no evil and speak no evil" act disappears. It may not be contrary to Sealands laws, but its contrary to other countries laws. This increases the chances of them being blown out of the water.
The second reason is that even if they threw caution to the wind, is Sealand really suitable for this? They've got a 256K connection, how saturated would it be? They'd effectively apply their own slashdot effect against themselves. Their other business interests would not be able to connect (the ones who actually pay the bills).
I think the only real solution is civil disobedience, but be prepared and willing to take your lumps if they come. Do your best to minimize this though. Don't take funds, don't run a site with banner adds and don't engage in any form of barter. Make sure that YOU DO NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM SHARING FILES, in fact MAKE SURE THAT IN TOTAL YOU CAN SAY THAT IT COSTS YOU.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
I agree almost with what you say. Basically, the near future is not so bleak as people would think.
... the big companies will eventually make it illegal or technically difficult to copy/time-shift our recordings. However, as has been stated multiple times here ... if you can _hear it_ you can _record it_ and nothing can really stop that.
People have been trading illegal bits (pirated software, digitized music and video, whatever) for a long time. They will still do so, just perhaps not with the ease of Napster. The reason Napster got the attention it did was because of its scope. If you use Aimster, or opennap, or IRC channels, or usenet, or whatever, and trade with a small group of friends/strangers -- nobody is going to notice. File trading on IRC is not going to make the cover of Time. And by extension with that old "7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" you'll eventually be able to track down all the music you want, by friends-of-friends-of-friends, etc.... Just not instantly.
If something like Napster (huge, open) exists, and is somehow (boggling the mind) regulated to only trade legal bits, that's even better. It gives you the ability to find the lesser-known music you might otherwise not get, stuff that people are distributing through these methods intentionally, bootleg live performances that the artist has allowed to be distributed, etc.
Now, the distant future may be more bleak. Through bullying of the legal system, bullying of the standards, etc
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Let's say Taco has an MP3 of "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica, called nem.mp3. He ripped the MP3 from a CD he owns and uploads it to some server inside the US. I (also in the US) download it.
Question 1: Who has broken the law? Taco, the server owner or me? The RIAA has gone after the server owner, but that's largely pragmatics (not to mention PR).
Now let's imagine a mythical, ideal offshore server location. Call it Luna (see my other post). Let's say Taco has an MP3 of "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica, called nem.mp3. He ripped the MP3 from a CD he owns and uploads it to Luna. I (also in the US) download it.
Now the RIAA is unable (hypothetically) to get the server owner, right? Taco does a "magic upload" and I do a "magic download". But if your answer to Q1 was either "Taco" or "Me" (or both) then answer this question:
Question 2: How is the mythical, Luna server with the "magic" ul/dl any different than a strictly peer-to-peer, decentralized system that has NO server where Taco just sends the file right to me?
My contention is that it's not. Instead of figuring out where to PUT the server, we should be figuring out how to ELIMINATE the server. This would especially be the case if your answer to Q1 was "the server"--because then the system would even be legal. Bonus!
--
324006