Slashdot Mirror
Overpeer Spewing Bogus Files on P2P Networks
nimec writes "Zeropaid.com has posted news of a company called Overpeer which is the source of all the bogus mp3 files that are popping up on the various P2P networks. Zeropaid, in the news article, said: 'If you've encountered the "loop" files, in which a section of the chorus or hook is repeated over and over, you've been tricked by OVERPEER. OVERPEER are doing this with the full knowlege and consent of Interscope and Universal Music, in fact they are under contract to Universal and other major record labels, and will be doing a LOT MORE of this type of "interdiction" in the near future.' Right now this doesn't bother me because these bogus files are few, very spread out and it is easy spot them. I'm just afraid that over time people will keep downloading these bogus mp3s and become too lazy to delete them, like they are when it comes to incomplete songs."
That's the problem with running a service that's (for the most part) black market...when someone starts fucking it all up with counter-attacks, there's really not a lot of recourse.
I was thinking that a moderation system would work, if it's implemented correctly. For instance, once a person has been sharing X GB of files for, say, 2 weeks, they start getting moderation points....they can use these points to flag a file as being a dummy. (or just a shitty rip) If a user gets too many files modded down, he becomes unable to gain moderation points for a certain period. The sharing requirements will make it undesirable for RIAA droids to pollute the moderation system, since they'll have to be sharing material of their own. (and any dummy files they have will hopefully be moderated down...and if they ARE sharing valid material, well, cool, they're contributing to their own demise)
Please, nitpick at this suggestion, I'd like to see if it's feasible or not.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
What is needed to stop this is a moderating system which ranks the various traded products, as identified by their MD5 checksum signatures, according to some "measure of quality". By rank ordering, it cannot be used to entirely shutdown a trading network since everything would still be available. Products at 50 out of 100 would have received a ratio of good vs. bad moderations better than 50% of other products, and worse than the other 50% of products. It would not necessarily be a 50/50 good/bad moderation. Thus flooding of bad moderations across the board would have no effect, though it could be used to drive very specific classes of products down the list. But eventually, people would see the abuse and mod them back up. It would be sort of like moderation on slashdot, but everyone gets to play.
Now would it be possible to have selective moderation like slashdot has? Only a central authority could do that the way slashdot does. The big question would be judging who gets moderation points. As far as I know, on slashdot, it's almost entirely automated. With product trading, it would be harder to measure the quality by automation, so someone has to manually make the judgement calls and that brings some risks as well.
If individuals could be identified uniquely in some way, without the risk of exposing real identity, then meta moderation might work. One way to do that would be a slow rate of generating some kind of signed digital certificate that allows only so many to be generated at a time per network that receives it (and no personal identifying info included, and no records kept). Moderations and meta moderations would be signed by these anonymous certificates. You wouldn't know who moderated, but what you would know is that a group of moderations by the same certificate are probably from the same person and can be judged accordingly, good or bad. Excessive levels of moderation would also weaken your merit and derate your contributions.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'm surprised nobody has pondered the fact that this could be a Very Good Thing(TM). If they continue to do this, surely they'll be blowing big holes in any future court cases. They say "Napster [replace with future contentious system] can't feature songs which are copyright". Napster says "How do we tell?". Judge says "Fine, you have to filter by filename". Napster says "But wait a minute, half the stuff with filenames of copyright songs isn't those songs at all". The fact is, by engaging with these networks, even to undermine them, the record industry damages their own court defence. Basically they will single-handedly prove that these networks aren't just for exchanging copyright material which you might not have the right to do, but for just about anything. When a court realises that, their case is blown to hell... ...I guess it's wishful thinking to imagine they would notice, though...
Let the RIAA take out those services which are too weak to defend themselves, it will only make the others stronger.
It is possible to design a filesharing service that defends itself against bogus files.
It is possible to define a protocol that hides the file lists of individual users.
It is possible to build CDRs that play, copy and rip copy-preventing CDs.
The pressure exerted by RIAA will turn these possibilities into realities - simple Darwinian evolution.