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."

Comments

Even though I'm not a big fan of copyright....

[forkboy]

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.

Re:Even though I'm not a big fan of copyright....

[gengee]

It's actually a bit of a complicated problem though. For instance:

How do you know how long someone has been online? What stops the client from simply reporting they've been online since January 1st, 1970? You can't really trust the peers to whom they're directly connected to know either, because in a P2P network people constantly drop on and off.

How do you stop Overpeer and like-minded companies from lying about the moderation points? Why can't they give it +100, CD Quality?

The only solution I have thought of is rather slow and clumsy. Basically everyone gets unlimited moderation points...instead of incrementing the count, you simply say "This file is good" or "This file is bad". When the file is downloaded, the P2P client creates a small hash of the file and stores that hash, along with the filename and moderation of the file. Then during the search process, you do 2 searches. First you search for a filename. Instead of all the clients returning "Yes, I have that file" they return "Yes, I have that file, with a hash of: 34232SFDSFSDSDSD2323DSD". Then a search is done for all the hashcodes returned by the first search asking for everyone's moderation on that hashcode.

Then you give that file a percentage-score (i.e., 95% of users say this file, with this hashcode is bad) or 92% of users say this file, with this hashcode is bad.

But the solution won't really work, because it exponentially increases the amount of bandwidth/cpu time required to do a file search.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Re:Even though I'm not a big fan of copyright....

[josh crawley]

---"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."

Yeah there is. You fight back. No holes barred type of fighting too. If you can catch him in the act, do shit , like ping floods. It's effective in cutting bandwidth 1 way.

---"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."

Already incorrect implementation. I'd simply have a writable part of the P2P fs that allows you to GPG sign a file. You sign the MD5 sum to your 'nick'. If it's good, you sign. If bad, you dont. Now if some idiot is signing bad shit, you can assign trustworthiness to 0. You could also apply 'trusted' user signs to other known good MD5 sums (from untrusted users).

This system creates a "Web of Trust" that cannot be spoofed. No moderation point system will ever cut it (since it relies on a server-no reason to)

---"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)"

First, even 1 screech is enough to 'kill' a file. For example, in Cool Edit plugins, they inset a bell after 30 seconds. Very effective. Also, might I remend you that it's legal for the RIAA to warez these files. Who's gonna pick on them?

Please, nitpick at this suggestion, I'd like to see if it's feasible or not.

Predators are good for an ecosystem

[Cryogenes]

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.