Slashdot Mirror


MUTE: Simple, Private File Sharing

oohp writes "MUTE is a new file sharing network that provides easy search and download functionality while protecting your privacy. It does this by routing all messages through a network of neighbour connections, using virtual addresses and encrypting all the traffic (using RSA for public/private keys and AES for the actual encryption). MUTE's routing mechanism is inspired by ant behaviour. The program is available for Linux, Windows and Mac OS X."

523 comments

  1. Pretty clean code, too... by tcopeland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...although CPD was able to find a few duplicate chunks.

    1. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by Frisky070802 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This might be getting off-topic, but while CPD might be a nice tool, wouldn't a better plagiarism detector look for really similar code rather than identical chunks?

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    2. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by redJag · · Score: 1

      it's not to detect plagiarism, but to find duplicate code in the SAME source.

    3. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone actually cared about this pseudo-metric couldn't they just run the "analysis" themselves?

      If you are just a user, it probably won't matter since even if you store the source, an extra, what, 200kb on the drive isn't going to fscking kill you, and I doubt that there is a strong correlation between this measure of quality and "the user experience".
      If you want to develop, it would be pretty stupid to make your decision (not) to do that based on one quantitative variable.

    4. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > really similar code rather
      > than identical chunks?

      Hm. Yup, I agree that identical dupes are rarer than similar bits. That's why CPD discards comments and whitespace - so that it doesn't get thrown off by an extra newline or a "// copied from foo.c". I kind of feel like there's a continuum here - for example, if you ignore the variable names, you might find a lot of "duplicate chunks" that look like this:
      for (int i = 0; i<n; i++) {
      // blah blah
      }
      But does that really qualify as a duplicate code chunk? It's more of a language idiom.

      Well, anyhow, you're right, there's a lot of ways of looking at this sort of thing. Fun stuff!
    5. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote a tool that ignored variable names (but still treated different variables differently), and sucessfully used it to detect plagiarism. You just have to set your dup-length higher than the largest common idiom.

    6. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > anyone actually cared about this
      > pseudo-metric couldn't they just run
      > the "analysis" themselves?

      If they knew it existed, yes.

      > I doubt that there is a strong correlation
      > between this measure of quality and
      > "the user experience".

      Could be, hard to say.

      > it would be pretty stupid to make
      > your decision (not) to do that based
      > on one quantitative variable.

      But it would be smart to use tools to do tedious work - like finding chunks of duplicated code - for you.

    7. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by tcopeland · · Score: 0, Redundant

      > a tool that ignored variable names

      Cool. Yup, that would be a good feature to add to CPD.

    8. Re:Pretty clean code, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure mozilla could use some help from this CPD program. gtk+ too.

  2. Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by corebreech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...with the same strengths (privacy) and weaknesses (slow).

    My asymmetrical DSL connection just won't work well with a system like this. I don't have the bandwidth to act as a node that relays data for the sake of maintaining your anonymity. If we all had T3 connections in our home this would be great, but we don't.

    An A for effort though. Implementations on most of the major platforms, with source code, and a neat analogy to how ants work to make it all understandable to the lay audience. Nifty.

    (interesting that this story gets posted the day the federal appeals court forbids exactly the tactic by the RIAA this software attempts to work around.)

    1. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but I think you may be reaching here.

      I've never heard the ant analogy used to describe Freenet. Also, it seems likely to me that you haven't tried it and are just assuming that privacy implies slowness (you may be right, but maybe not). Lastly, if a p2p network is just beginning, it's very likely to be slow due to a lack of users rather than inherent technical limitations of the network itself.

    2. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the software features have nothing to do with what was actually ruled upon today - the RIAA can still get your name and information if the ISP knows your IP address, they just have to file a lawsuit first.

      So, this IS still useful.

    3. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      actually Ian Clarke in his first paper stated he was inspired by ants.

      --
      People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
    4. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by adamshelley · · Score: 0

      Freenet lacked the ability of searching. Yes it had spiders but this obviously offers less anonymity but offers the ability to search.

    5. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With a HASH being calculated for each file, they need to allow multi-part downloads. This would speed up like bittorrent. Freenet doesnt have search results, you need an external freenet search engine.

      MUTE returns search results. The only protection is Virtual Address that is randomly generated on startup.

      The only weakness I noticed, is the "Hints" on which nodes to use, over time, keep a list of "Hints", you could in theory, do packet tracing to the hosts. You could spider, and try to map Virtual addresses. You could limit or block noisy hosts, that might be a simple solution.

      The RIAA would have to go after the high bandwidth NODES, or hosts that site directly next to you. Simple port scan for a MUTE response would validate the user. They would assume you are guilty just for using the program. People need to use legtimate files to make seperate it from piracy only p2p networks. Maybe torrent style downloads with hash checking would do the trick.

      Also, nice to see multiple clients and opensource, and GPL license.

    6. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by corebreech · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, I haven't tried it, but I've read the spec. You should do the same before commenting further.

      The privacy arises from the fact that the file you request isn't sent directly to you but through a chain of other systems running MUTE on the Net. This means that for every file delivered, more than one node is labored with the uploading of this file, and given that, for most people, upstream bandwidth is a rather limited resource, the ultimate consequence will be that the system will be slow as compared to one where the files are sent directly, e.g., FastTrack or gnutella.

    7. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by El+Neepo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "Lastly, if a p2p network is just beginning, it's very likely to be slow due to a lack of users rather than inherent technical limitations of the network itself."

      Its slow because of asymmetric connections, which most of us have. You'd be transfering data through your connection that you have nothing to do with. I can download 150 kb/s but upload at 26 kb/s max.

      BitTorrent suffers from the same type of issue. Unless you have some people on a torrent with high-speed symmetric connections, transfer is pretty slow since upload caps are low (or worse, people are being selfish and uploading nothing)

    8. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by va3atc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Subject : Seems an awful lot like Freenet..
      ..with the same strengths (privacy) and weaknesses (slow).
      My asymmetrical DSL connection just won't work well with a system like this. I don't have the bandwidth to act as a node that relays data for the sake of maintaining your anonymity. If we all had T3 connections in our home this would be great, but we don't.


      I have a DSL connection with a p2 266, 128MB RAM, Redhat 8.0.

      I find that my DSL connection is plenty of bandwidth the only thing that slows me down on Freenet (to the point of being unusable) is that it is written in *shivers* Java. Its a huge memory hog.

      --
      Candle burns its brightest in the dark
    9. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Doomdark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This means that for every file delivered, more than one node is labored with the uploading of this file, and given that, for most people, upstream bandwidth is a rather limited resource, the ultimate consequence will be that the system will be slow as compared to one where the files are sent directly, e.g., FastTrack or gnutella.

      Not necessarily, in theory (in practice, probably). If routing is done in a way similar to wireless ad hoc routing is supposed to be done, it could just mean that routing decisions are not done end-to-end, but by independent routing (and encrypting) nodes. Thus, there need not necessarily be additional unnecessary nodes; theoretically it could even reach better routing decisions, since it's not (just) your ISPs router trying to optimize based on financial reasons ("we have deal with MCI and thus we'll go from NY to LA and then back to Boston, instead of using direct route"). Your other point (asymmetric connections) is still valid though...

      In practice it is likely that optimal behaviour won't be achieved, esp. in cases where endpoints are reasonably close to each other (in which case guaranteeing anonymity prevents best shortcuts). However, it really comes down to how well implementation works, not that specification dictates bad performance; and also in your usage patterns. If you want to swap files with your neighbour, this would be pretty suboptimal; but that's probably not very common use case. Inter-continental transfer, on the other hand, may not be much less efficient than "direct" connections.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    10. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "ant analogy" that MUTE is referring to is actually a rather well-known AI programming algorithm technique known as the ANT Algorithm. So although Freenet may be routing stuff through everyone, I don't think it's doing any optimization of the routing, thereby slowing the "travel time" to a crawl over long distances (i.e. lots of nodes). Although I think it would be possible for MUTE to be circumvented, at this time that would be a really difficult task given the following two benefits of MUTE:

      1) randomized initialization of the 'virtual IP' as they call it. This will effectively KILL current companies tracking abilities who are in league with the RIAA.

      2) RSA encryption of the traffic in and out of each node. I wouldn't be surprised if John Ashcroft finds out about this one and really gets pissed, because a native file transfer encryption scheme over a real-time random path through constantly changing nodes makes it REAL hard to track traffic.

      Mind you, I haven't tried MUTE out yet, but I will be this weekend for SURE!!! This tech looks like a real gold-mine for finally moving files around the internet much more securely than current P2P systems. And using an AI optimization system for the file transfers. Nice!

    11. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that you don't know what you're talking about - but that's normal for bigots.

    12. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by jamboarder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think freenet works on a slightly different premise that the location of the file is unknown even to a user inserting a file into the network, much less anyone else. That means the file that I upload won't neccesarily reside on my machine for retrieval but on an area (or several areas) of the network that provides the shortest path to the most requests for that piece of information (which is of course encrypted). Requests go directly to the wherever the info is rather than necessarily to me.

      MUTE would work quite differently in that nobody neccesarily knows who/where I am. Each node simply knows that the neighbouring nodes know more or less about who/where I am, and as such passes the information in the direction "most likely" to get the info to me. If my node happens to receive info intended for me, then the journey's over.

      What's not so clear is how to stop propogation of info along nodes that have no idea who/where I am (broadcast nodes), since this amounts to (bandwidth) waste, especially if the info has long since gotten to its destination.

      Cool idea though, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they work out these issues.

    13. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by gabec · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Assuming you're guilty for using the program wouldn't work simply because p2p programs have been deemed legal applications in and of themselves. Any copyright holder would need to prove that you obtained and were distributing illegal copies of their copyrighted material before they could attack you legally.

      Even if they did use the approach that "we noticed this illegal file going to his IP address" they would need to prove that you were the one willfully hosting and distributing the file, not your neighbor in apt 44b.

    14. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by InShadows · · Score: 1

      Mute should team up with Bonzi Buddy or Gator or whatever else they want to so that unsuspecting people will be using Mute in the background to increase adoption and speed up the downloads.

    15. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not really sure but I think MUTE doesn't use Caching for the Files as Freenet does, e.g.

      The way freenet routing works ((or used to work)involving caching, load balancing, etc..) performance can actually get better and especially much requested files can become very fast in a very short time period.

    16. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      But seeing as BitTorrent can download from many people at once, you get the sum of their combined upload bandwith. If you are downloading different chunks of a file from 3 people at 26 kb/s each, that's 78 kb/s. That's the whole point of BitTorrent.

    17. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      With a HASH being calculated for each file, they need to allow multi-part downloads. This would speed up like bittorrent.

      Yeah, I'd like to see this "virtual address" concept applied to BitTorrent. Everyone could just route portions of files, with a file coming via dozens of different paths. Also, nodes could check to see if they had the portion they are being requested to forward.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    18. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by gid13 · · Score: 1

      While it is true that direct systems will in general be faster than indirect systems, I think your claim is worded slightly misleadingly.

      In particular (whether MUTE achieves this or not), it is likely possible to design a private system that beats Gnutella for speed. Indeed, the ant analogy is an attempt to achieve SOME kind of speed "optimization" given the restrictions required by having privacy due to multiple nodes.

    19. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Echnin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. This appears to be correct.

      --
      Lalala
    20. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      The original BT client is written in Python (which isn't exactly fast...), but there're also clients in other languages. You use a java one (Azureus?), and I think there's a C++ client out there somewhere.

    21. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by n1k0 · · Score: 1

      > True, I haven't tried it, but I've read the spec. You should do the same before commenting further.

      How about _trying it_ before YOU comment further? Geez. Freenet's bandwidth consumption is very reasonable given the small size of the network (networks - the development branches keep splitting the network up to test new ideas), and includes (albeit somewhat inaccurate) rate limiters. I've run it for months on a 256kbps upstream with 3.5mbps downstream with little interference with day-to-day Internet usage.

      > e.g., FastTrack or gnutella.

      Yeah, I really want the RIAA arresting my children for copyright infringement. I think I'll pass.

      The average rate of bandwidth affordably available to the average Internet user may not be great enough to support mass acceptance and use of networks like Freenet right now, but that's _right now_. This isn't necessarily a product flaw of Freenet; by the time we've got the bandwidth to support such networks with huge numbers of users, the protocol implementations will have moved out of the research phase and hopefully native implementations will start appearing and making the damn thing a bit more painless to run. (More frustrating than bandwidth usage is system resource utilization - as long as Freenet's implemented in Java we're all going to be suffering. Has anyone tried JITting Freenet on Linux?)

      Hmph,

      -Nick

    22. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by lohan · · Score: 1

      Has anyone heard of the RIAA going after people using BitTorrent? I know they've gone after the websites that link to torrents, but actual users?

    23. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      Even if they did use the approach that "we noticed this illegal file going to his IP address" they would need to prove that you were the one willfully hosting and distributing the file, not your neighbor in apt 44b.

      The RIAA has a habit of filing lawsuits against the elderly and 12 year-old girls first and asking questions later. Unless your bandwidth-borrowing neighbor plans on paying your legal bills, that doesn't help much.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    24. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Feztaa · · Score: 1
      This is all well and good -- but there's a problem: I can't connect!

      MUTE.log is just getting filled up with this:

      L4 | Fri Dec 19 19:34:54 2003 (877 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to add a new connection.
      L4 | Fri Dec 19 19:34:54 2003 (877 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Adding a connection failed.
      L4 | Fri Dec 19 19:34:54 2003 (877 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Found no hosts to connect to.


      Also, STDOUT says this:

      Host name lookup failed: katcher.2y.net:4900
      Host name lookup failed: monolith.2y.net:4900


      Anybody have any ideas?
    25. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by benna · · Score: 1

      What are the hints I can't figure out how to get connected.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    26. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont know about the riaa but i do know that the mpaa and frends are going after bittorrent movie downloaders hard core, i have receved one of these wonderfull letters via my university and two of my friends have gotten the same. fortanatly the letters were a bit nicer then the riaa versions as they only demanded that we delete the file in question and discontinue downloading infringing files. As far as i know and understand they wont file lawsuits agenst us unless we continue to download more infringing movies that they are tracking.

      mute seems like just the thing for me now to protect my privacy, now if i counld only get the thing to connect to other nodes it would be great.

    27. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the nodes are DSL/Cable links in peoples' homes. Routing anything through them is going to be slow. It will also be inefficient, because you will have two routing protocols which are more likely than not to work against one another. The only way to have a fast, anonymous network is to make the internal nodes fast and anonymous. For that, you need the cooperation of ISPs.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    28. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by jellybear · · Score: 1

      That's assuming the 3 people are not downloading from each other as well (maybe they're seeds or something) If you have 3 BT users, each uploading at 26 kb/s, then the total available UL bandwidth is 78kb/s, split among the three. If the other two users are seeds, then yes, you get 78 kb/s dl. If all three are downloading at the same rate, everyone only gets 26 kb/s.

    29. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Interesting sig. Very interesting indeed. Coupled with Michael Moore's "Dude Where's My country" where he goes into some depth over Bush's business deals with the Saudi family, this is interesting indeed.

      One question, why a torrent? Close your window, and it will be undownloadable, right? Want me to mirror it or anything?

    30. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Boltronics · · Score: 1

      Same deal here... under both GNU/Linux (source code) and Windows versions. I opened up the port on my firewall 4900, but it did nothing.

      Someone will figure it out soon I hope, since there seems so little documentation available.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    31. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by oohp · · Score: 1

      So use entropy. It'swritten in C.

    32. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      mute seems like just the thing for me now to protect my privacy

      Let's be honest, now. MUTE is not protecting your privacy, it's contributing to your copyright infringement.

    33. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, If you run and IDS client on your machine, you could proactivly trigger intermittent disconndects as soon as the RIAA portscans your box.

    34. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Juzam(KTF) · · Score: 1

      A few days ago a friend of mine forwarded me an e-mail from his ISP. They said they were contacted by universal about his IP address serving one of their movies and the client listed was BitTorrent. Although they said if he just stopped uploading the file then no other actions would be taken.

    35. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that Freenet has no GUI...

    36. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Troed · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with FProxy for that part, Frost for the other part and ...

      What you just wrote was equivalent to: "Except for the fact that TCP/IP has no GUI..."

    37. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I even tried changing my port.ini file in the settings/ folder to 8346 which I know gtk-gnutella works with just fine behind my firewall, and no luck. I get the same kinds of messages. What a bummer!

    38. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, I'm asking this here because y'all seem to know this stuff. I don't know anything really about P2P networks, secure or not, but what I'm wondering is this...

      If the packets eventually end up at the same place, then what does it matter how many hops they take? I mean, wouldn't it be more anonymous if the packets kept on going after hitting the intended recipient, and just 'faded out' somewhere, or were forced to make the max number of hops allowed(isn't it 255)? Does this happen with any of these 'secure' networks? Or are they simply based on encryption (for content protection) and lots o' jumping around?

      Hope this makes sense.

      (tig)

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    39. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by bitspotter · · Score: 1

      Freenet's problem isn't speed - it's reliability.

      I'm more than happy to wait for a private or anonymous page to load. It's the fact that every time I install freenet, connect, and let the links saturate for a few days, half my requests still timeout instead of producing the requested content.

      Alternatives are welcome.

    40. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by enigma971 · · Score: 1

      The cool thing about MUTE is that you have no idea who your neighbor is, so you can't tell if someone is sitting right next to you. All that nodes know is that a packet from bob came from neighbor node x. You don't know if that packet from bob originated with that neighbor node or not. All that you know is packets addressed to bob should be passed to that neighbor node. So basically, you don't know that bob is your neighbor, you just know that bob is somewhere in that direction. Bob may or may not be your neighbor. That's a poor explanation, they do a better job in the docs.

    41. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I (and probably a lot of people) can't download a torrent with a realistic speed because I'm behind a Uni NAT.. :(

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    42. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by araemo · · Score: 1

      Oh, heres the other thing.. I replied to your reply lower, but I forgot about this point.

      For them knowing where packets 'end up' at. It's not quite that easy if the packets are encrypted properly. Yes, they can tell that encrypted packets are going to your computer, but they shouldn't be able to tell if they're destined for your computer, since you'll be uploading encrypted packets at the same time. The could make an assumption that some are destined for your computer, if you're downloading many more encrypted packets than you upload. But if, like freenet, the network stores encrypted data on your hard drive that you didn't request, this isn't a fair assumption. Of course, if you then decrypt the data and store it in the clear on your hard drive, all it takes is one properly worded warrant to find out that you DID download something illegal. :P If they can get the warrant. :P

    43. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I mirrored the file for everyone.

    44. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by gabec · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. It means they can't prove you broke the law. All they know is that someone connected to you on the internet may have broken it. All of this only helps you if you're willing to actually fight it in court and not just pay them off...

    45. Re:Seems an awful lot like Freenet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered why it is necessary for ALL requests to be routed through other nodes. Wouldn't a statistical sample (say, 10%) be enough to establish doubt about who the requester is?

  3. well this is circumventing... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The way they explain things shows that the single reason for this software is to trade files that belong to the RIAA.

    They might have wanted to think twice before doing that.

    1. Re:well this is circumventing... by corebreech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I was struck by that too.

      They should've taken a page out of Bram's book, representing the software as a way to let businesses scale their upstream capacity by exploiting the unused capacity held by their customers, etc.

      Or Freenet, which likes to talk about working to ensure the anonymity of a political dissident in a authoritarian state.

      To just come right out and use downloading a Metallica MP3 as an example of how the software works is asking for grief I think.

    2. Re:well this is circumventing... by chatooya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, we do have free speech in this country (most of the time). There's no reason to shy away from saying that this software is designed to avoid getting spied on by the RIAA. It's perfectly legal to code it and to use it.

    3. Re:well this is circumventing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you cannot create a device for theft and market it as such. That is NOT free speech.

    4. Re:well this is circumventing... by Stone316 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing that has saved other P2P apps in court is the fact that they weren't designed for illegal purposes. Now with these guys saying right on their site that its sole intent is for grabbing MP3's they could possibly find themselves in trouble with the law. Lets hope they don't live in the states.

      --
      "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
    5. Re:well this is circumventing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem.

      the RIAA does not own ANY intellectual property.

      Copyright belongs to creators. The RIAA creates nothing in and of itself.

      Member organisations which subscribe to the RIAA administer the rights to certain works, but likewise, they themselves create nothing apart from shareholder value.

      Please try to be more accurate.

    6. Re:well this is circumventing... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those engaged in file shareing are political dissidents in an authoritarian state.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:well this is circumventing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.. get over yourself. You are nothing more than a common thief.

    8. Re:well this is circumventing... by Hatta · · Score: 1
      From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

      dissident
      adj 1: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or
      standards [syn: {heretical}, {heterodox}]
      2: disagreeing, especially with a majority [syn: {dissentient},
      {dissenting(a)}]
      n : a person who dissents from some established policy [syn: {dissenter},
      {protester}, {objector}, {contestant}]
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:well this is circumventing... by laird · · Score: 1

      "You know, we do have free speech in this country (most of the time). There's no reason to shy away from saying that this software is designed to avoid getting spied on by the RIAA. It's perfectly legal to code it and to use it."

      Well, it's perhaps legal to implement, distribute and run the software, but they're encouraging people specifically to use it to break the law. IANAL, but I think that if the application of a product is to break the law, that makes the technology illegal. That's how it works with cable descramblers, for example -- in theory they "clean the video signal" but of course they're really used to steal cable service, and people who use (or sell?) them get arrested.

  4. Ants? by mopslik · · Score: 5, Funny

    MUTE's routing mechanism is inspired by ant behaviour.

    Rumour has it that the RIAA is secretly developing software that emulates a giant maginfying glass...

    1. Re:Ants? by Dreadlord · · Score: 5, Funny

      actually, I heard that they ditched the maginfying glass project and went directly to a giant anteater...

      --
      The IT section color scheme sucks.
    2. Re:Ants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn - and I used my last mod points yesterday... someone mod parent up...

    3. Re:Ants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heehee you said teat

    4. Re:Ants? by pablo_max · · Score: 0

      "Rumour has it that the RIAA is secretly developing software that emulates a giant maginfying glass..."

      You forgot to mention that they are having microsoft develope software that acts as a giant sun!

    5. Re:Ants? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Magnifying glasses and Ant-eaters are all too proactive. They should just use a honeypot and let the ants come to them, letting them get stuck in a gooey sweet heaven.

  5. And you get your subpoena... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    ...with the text scattered through 100 different letters.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Kids! Tell your folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    CDs from RIAA labels : "What a crappy present!"

    1. Re:Kids! Tell your folks! by glucoseboy · · Score: 1

      Too Funny!!! Now I'm trying to think of all my friends with Teenage kids I can send this to.

    2. Re:Kids! Tell your folks! by tstoneman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if there's a connection, but links on this site go to www.downhillbattle.org, which was co-created by a developer for MUTE

  7. hmm.. by grub · · Score: 3, Informative


    Well, I just installed it at home (thanks, VNC!) and did a search for "mp3" assuming that would generate a lot of hits but haven't seen anything happen. The docs are sparse, to say the least. "Is this thing on?"

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, its new!

    2. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm.. maybe you should connect to a server...

    3. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's serverless... RTFA

    4. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm... everyone acts as a "server"... he needs to connect to another node initially.. RTFA.. jackass

    5. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you see me now?

    6. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what to type to Address in Connections tab.. and what ports should one open in firewall.. Could not find really any docs to help..

    7. Re:hmm.. by grub · · Score: 2, Informative

      yeah, a peer address is what I'm looking for now.. :) As for ports, it looks like it uses port 4900 by default.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    8. Re:hmm.. by understyled · · Score: 1

      in the 'connections' tab, add in monolith.2y.net .. should see a couple of nodes being added soon afterwards.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    9. Re:hmm.. by grub · · Score: 1

      I saw in the logfile that it was already attempting that. Also to katcher.2y.net

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    10. Re:hmm.. by understyled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      even so, though.. after i managed to get it to connect to *something*, a search for 'mp3' returned a whopping 26 results.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    11. Re:hmm.. by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it's new? :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    12. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I installed it too and the search on mp3 gives only a broken homedir of a developer sharing his own mp3s with the wrong version of SAMBA. But seriously maybe if we all start to use it we can see if the performance and hits can imporve indeed.

      Maybe we need to share something before we try to download, if that is possible anyway?

    13. Re:hmm.. by enigma971 · · Score: 1

      I think that the point of it is to set up your own private sharing networks (kind of like Waste, but without the whole nullsoft patent thing). That's what I plan to use it for, at least.

  8. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by gsperling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that we DO need one that both protects the user's identity, and one that does not pass your downloads through my asymmetrical connection.

    Perhaps a web of trust is in order? Everybody exchanges AES256 keys, and only then can you transfer files on the network.

  9. Strike II by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a much better approach than Legal or Court based ones. You can always count a crazy judge to screw things up. But good hard encryption and hidden internet paths are a much larger stumbling block to the likes of the RIAA, which is on the whole, technically incompetant.

    Even IF they win the court battle with ISP's (they just took a hard knock in the last court case) there won't me much left for them to do if their ability to track is lost.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:Strike II by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Which in translation says that this program's killer app is in evading law enforcement... copyright and homeland security implications be damned.

    2. Re:Strike II by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Which is what people have been pushed to by the RIAA.

      Look, whether you like the implications or not; whether the implications are legal or moral; whether this will make life more hellish for everyone involved, from the consumers frustrated by continual harassments and being told they are criminals to the RIAA themselves, it doesn't matter. The RIAA brought this upon themselves. A program like this would have never been created, if the RIAA treated P2P sharing as a promotional tool instead of a "pirating" tool. Instead, we would have been left with the original killer app: Napster.

    3. Re:Strike II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the RIAA loses the ability to discover the source of the file, it loses the ability to prosecute. At least the random suing of users will stop.

      The tactic of flooding the internet with bogus files will still keep the majority of users away from P2P.

      The gang traders and child pornographers will be the big winners of this new P2P.

    4. Re:Strike II by lurker412 · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the opposition. If today's court defeat is upheld, it won't be long before we see new legislation directed at P2P. Seems to me it would be fairly easy to convince congress that a network like MUTE threatens national security, copyright holders, apple pie and motherhood. Look for conspiracy prosecutions, which are often much more serious than a simple misdemeanor.

    5. Re:Strike II by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      evading law enforcement...copyright and homeland security implications be damned.

      Secure communications are a gain for the security of the people's liberties. Which, present administration's confusion notwithstanding, is what "homeland security" is supposed to be about. "Secure the blessings of liberty", ya know?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:Strike II by janbjurstrom · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're actually equating - in a way - your country's security with copyright... Tihi.

      C'mon, lemme hear you chant "USA! USA! USA!" to really deep-freeze my bone marrow.

      **AA's propaganda machines welcome another suc...soul to its (high-numbered) rung deep in Inferno.

      --
      668.5
    7. Re:Strike II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody:

      Turn off your computer!

      NOw!!

    8. Re:Strike II by thales · · Score: 1

      " Which is what people have been pushed to by the RIAA"

      Do you mean the postion the RIAA was pushed to by people ILLEGALY distrubiting copyrighted materials via P2P?

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    9. Re:Strike II by knobmaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this program's killer app is in evading law enforcement... copyright and homeland security implications be damned.

      Oh for heaven's sake. Do you really believe that terrorists are using P2P to transmit secret plans? Why in the world would they do this? The thing about P2P is that you can't really control who gets your files. Does that really sound like something that would appeal to a terrorist?

    10. Re:Strike II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the one. Millions want it - legalize it. Deal.

      BTW, how's the air up on that horse?

    11. Re:Strike II by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      We're already worried about terrorist websites hiding messages in pictures... the idea of hiding the data within a porn picture so that it's accessed by thousands of people, only a few dozen of which know to run it through the right de-steno program to get the coded message. That logic could very well translate to P2P...

      How many police busts over the years came as a result of a court-order wiretap allowing the police to overhear plans of a crime? In the case of terrorism, we've got intercept attacks before they happen... there's no need to catch the murderers after the crime, they're already dead.

      Technologies that leave absolutely no way to be snooped on might be great for you to use, but when they're used against you they can get scary.

    12. Re:Strike II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who are willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither security nor freedom.

    13. Re:Strike II by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      The thing about P2P is that you can't really control who gets your files.

      Well, they could disguise the filename as something nobody would want to download. The Hulk.avi maybe.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  10. sounds like onion routing by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

    ... though from the top-level technical pages, the author(s) seem to think the idea is novel. Can someone explain how this compares to onion routing?

    --
    Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    1. Re:sounds like onion routing by SkjeggApe · · Score: 0

      Except this isn't sitting on a server tacking on this warning to it's pages:

      NOTICE: All Department of Defense telecommunications and automated information systems and related equipment are for the communication, transmission, processing, and storage of U.S. Government information only. The systems and equipment are subject to authorized monitoring to ensure proper functioning, to protect against unauthorized use, and to verify the presence and performance of applicable security features. Such monitoring may result in the acquisition, recording, and analysis of all data being communicated, transmitted, processed, or stored in this system by a user. If monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, such evidence may be provided to law enforcement personnel. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring.

    2. Re:sounds like onion routing by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

      Onion routing is a general concept, of which that page is one example. Look at crowds for another example.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    3. Re:sounds like onion routing by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      I am SO patting myself on the back!

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89781&cid=77 65 336

  11. Freenet. by E1ven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is this system different from Freenet in it's design?
    Both seem to use a system of specilization for data, so that a specific node carries a series of data is one specific area, more than others. This is VERY useful, in that nodes can learn about what each one carries.
    It also seems similiar in that routing is intelligent enough that nodes can hint to each other about a specilization, and share routing information..

    I'm not knocking either project, I'm just not informed enough. What is the major differences? Wouldn't it be equally do-able to just replace the routing engine in Freenet, if that is the design goal?

    The pacakage seems to be a very Freenet/Frost like utility, passing messages about the locations of keys around the anonymous ether.

    -Colin

    --
    Colin Davis
    1. Re:Freenet. by corebreech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the big difference is that Freenet lets you push content out into the net, whereas MUTE still works with the standard client/server model where the data must first be requested before being transmitted.

      It's good to have the alternative. It's been awhile since I've checked out Freenet, but one of the fears I had for the system was that it would be susceptible to spam. If everybody took to trading their MP3's using it, for instance, the remedy on the part of the RIAA would be to simply publish terabytes of nonsensical data. MUTE doesn't seem to suffer from this weakness.

      (although there still is the problem of the file you downloaded actually being the file you requested.)

    2. Re:Freenet. by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      Freenet Vs MUTE:

      Upside: Freenet has distributed caching, which may help with bandwidth distribution.

      Downside: freenet uses Java as its primary development platform, and it has been the cause of numerous development problems. It probably would have been more portable had it been written in C/C++.

    3. Re:Freenet. by E1ven · · Score: 1

      Freenet doesn't let you push, though.
      The way Freenet works is that you tell your server- "I have file X, with Hash XX on my computer."
      Then, if anyone comes looking for a file with hash XX, you respond "Hey, I have that!"

      They (who have already ASKED FOR IT), make a copy onto their machine, and start answering that they, too, have hash XX.

      The only time the material get's copied out onto the network is when it's being requested.. So Spamming it would be impossible.

      --
      Colin Davis
    4. Re:Freenet. by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Methinks Freenet has no search algorithm, you must know the name of the file before downloading.

      (I think)

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    5. Re:Freenet. by E1ven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frost, a client application that works via Freenet, has a Search algorithm. Think of the difference between your TCP/IP stack (freenet), and Kazaa (Frost)

      Freenet is really just a way of exchanging this information. The specifics of what to exchange is left to the client writers. There are front ends for SMTP, NNTP, Searchable file transfers, and of course webpages.

      It's really a much more importaint system than most people realize. It's not just about filesharing. It's about redefining the internet.

      --
      Colin Davis
    6. Re:Freenet. by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1


      That's an odd statment. "X uses Java, but should have used C/C++ so it could have been portable."

      Aren't portability and system-independence some of the major benefits of using Java over compiled languages?

    7. Re:Freenet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are files on it that you actually want to download

    8. Re:Freenet. by corebreech · · Score: 1

      The file itself isn't pushed, but the information describing that file is. So while you may not be able to spam it with content, you can certainly spam the keyspace, and that will be an avenue of attack.

    9. Re:Freenet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't portability and system-independence some of the major benefits of using Java over compiled languages?

      No.

    10. Re:Freenet. by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
      Freenet doesn't let you push, though.
      The way Freenet works is that you tell your server- "I have file X, with Hash XX on my computer."
      Then, if anyone comes looking for a file with hash XX, you respond "Hey, I have that!"

      I don't believe this is correct. In order to preserve antinimity(sp?) when you add content into freenet, the content is not stored on your machine, it is immediatly pushed out to other servers where it is pushed though to yet other servers, where it is stored. That way when the Narcs break down your door and confiscate your hard drive, they cannot find that you are the source of some content. Plausible deniability.

      This has been a sore point for the protocol, because sometimes publishing data on freenet can take an eternity. You have to be relativly well connected (bandwidth wise) and you have to leave your node up to get "established" on the net for a while before you can get any reasonable speed out of it.

    11. Re:Freenet. by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Well sure, in theory. You know the difference between theory and practice, right?

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    12. Re:Freenet. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it's not impossible. As far as I understand it, when someone requests a file with a given hash, the end result is not only that the source node and the end node have it, but several nodes in between. This is how things get cached and ultimately wind up having more than one source, thus providing anonymity.

      A while back someone on this site explained how a successful attack could work. Basically, the RIAA (or whoever, really) would put lots and lots of machines with terabytes of nonsense data on Freenet. Each node would not only serve the data, but also continually request it from many other spam nodes. In this way it would get seen by Freenet as high-demand data and would tend to push real data out of cache. Then when Johnny Pirate looks for his favorite mp3s on Freenet... they just aren't there anymore.

      This would ruin the utility of the network.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    13. Re:Freenet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would've been better off writing it in Ada, much less C/C++. Java is the worst platform they could've picked because there's only one JVM (currently) that it'll run on. If I wanted to compromise Freenet, I'd first try to work through the autoupdate that Windows systems use. Second I'd try to virus the JVM via some Windows vulnerability.

    14. Re:Freenet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How is this system different from Freenet in it's design?"

      It's new. People try new things.

      It doesn't have a reputation. i.e. it doesn't have a reputation for slowness.

    15. Re:Freenet. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Both seem to use a system of specilization for data, so that a specific node carries a series of data is one specific area, more than others. This is VERY useful, in that nodes can learn about what each one carries.

      "Yes, we can see how that would be VERY useful."
      - Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti, sitting behind the keyboard that controls a $1M (Beowulf!) cluster connected to the network by means of half a dozen T-1s and several gigabit ethernet switches in promiscuous mode happily sniffing away.

    16. Re:Freenet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem you describe is given more detail in this message. Ian Clarke then responded to the idea here.

  12. I've tried MUTE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but the only music I can find is by the "Sugar Cubes." And The Archie's version of "Sugar."

    1. Re:I've tried MUTE... by djscottd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As an unnecessary aside, the Sugarcubes is Bjork's group before she went solo.

    2. Re:I've tried MUTE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be all the music you need

  13. Reminds me of Crowds... by tuxette · · Score: 4, Informative

    All I got was a 404 when I tried to find the Crowds homepage (AT&T research labs), but it was one of the privacy-enhancing technologies I looked at while doing my thesis. It's a similar concept with connecting to many different nodes than directly with who you want to communicate with, download files from, etc.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  14. Sounds like mixmaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    sounds like the old anon email software mixmaster.

    Why did anonymous email die, anyway?

    1. Re:Sounds like mixmaster by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Probably because the spam kings got ahold of the idea...

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    2. Re:Sounds like mixmaster by slagish666 · · Score: 1
      Why did anonymous email die, anyway?

      I seem to recall that the Church of Scamology, er, Scientology successfully sued for the identity of a user of a famous Scandanavian anonymous remailer who had the gumption to actually post something critical of the Church.

      Oops, I suppose that was critical of the church.

      --
      "Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."
    3. Re:Sounds like mixmaster by piranha(jpl) · · Score: 1

      Mixmaster still works great for me. And by the way, I haven't noticed any spam coming from public anonymous remailers, surprisingly. But then, I'd be VERY paranoid about spam abuse if I ran an outgoing anonymous remailer of any sort.

  15. In a related news item by sammyo · · Score: 1

    The RIAA is investigating the purchase of several supercomputers.

    1. Re:In a related news item by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      I was going to shoot you down, but I see that their encryption is only 128-bit. Despite the fact that they use a new key for every stream, you only need to crack one stream to prove a copyright violation. However, there are probably laws against actively sniffing someone else's traffic. Bless the media for provoking anti-hacking laws!

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    2. Re:In a related news item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their encryption is only 128-bit

      Baka. I suppose you'd feel safer with 65536-bit military strength super random number OTP virtual matrix encryption (implemented in JScript through a VB.net GUI).

    3. Re:In a related news item by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Well, supposedly the NSA has the computing power to crack 512-bit keys in a reasonable amount of time. Surely the RIAA has the funding to buy enough power to crack 128-bit keys in the same emount of time, since there're 2^(512-128) times less possible keys...

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    4. Re:In a related news item by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I was going to shoot you down, but I see that their encryption is only 128-bit. Despite the fact that they use a new key for every stream, you only need to crack one stream to prove a copyright violation.

      128-bit public/private or 128-bit symmetric key? The two are very different things.

      It's quite possible to crack 512-bit public/private key encryption in a reasonable amount of time, since you just need to factor large numbers into their prime factors. 128-bit symmetric key encryption is much more secure, since every possible 128-bit number works as a key, and the only way to crack it is by trying every possible key. The distributed.net project took 5 years to crack 64-bit RC5 encryption, and it's looking like it'll take 500-1000 years to crack 72-bit RC5.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    5. Re:In a related news item by Saratoga+C++ · · Score: 1

      IBM has announced a deal with the RIAA to run a "proof of concept" example using its Computing on Demand group of products.

  16. When will they learn by cluge · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The RIAA hasn't learned that necessity is the mother of invention. While they try hard to shove substandard products down our throats (oh yeah I'm sorry, the last Brittany album is a "work of art", my bad") we try hard to pick the weat from teh chaff. Lets face it, if I could by an album with at least 5 good cuts on it, I woulnd't be spending my time taking the albums I own and making MP3 version of just he "good songs". If the Recording industry even paid the artists what they agreed to I might feel guilty about the occasional MP3 download. Since the recording industry has a regular habit of screwing their "artists", I don't.

    PS: RIAA - can you prove that I didn't by that PIL album back in 1986, and am now just D/L ing a legitimate eletronique copy? If the encryption on mute is any good, the answer is no. Thankfully I still have my PIL vinyl in case I get dragged into court.

    AngryPeopleRule

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:When will they learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recording industry has a habit of screwing their artists, so to strike back, you're going to screw the artists instead? Good plan. Way to eliminate the middleman.

    2. Re:When will they learn by cluge · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the post did you? I'm generally D/L ing stuff I already purchased, either on tape or vinyl and am getting it in electronic format. If I enjoy an artists music I buy the CD. Call me silly, but I DO NOT buy music that I listen to on-line and dont like.

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    3. Re:When will they learn by bleaked · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Lets face it, if I could by an album with at least 5 good cuts on it, I woulnd't be spending my time taking the albums I own and making MP3 version of just he "good songs".

      I'm sorry, but what music are you listening to? Every album I purchase I enjoy every last song on there. If you really like the artist you would at least appreciate their other works of art on the album. As far as I'm concerned the entire album is the artist's work of art. Only liking "parts" (i.e. songs) is like looking at a painting and saying you don't "like that certain red line in the corner", and would prefer it if the painting only had "blue and red lines" and none of the other colored lines. (This is just an analogy.)

      And honestly, this may be out of my place to say this, but if you like artists who have "bad" songs, why are you listening to them? (Only my opinion)

    4. Re:When will they learn by reve · · Score: 1

      Heh. You know what's _really_ funny there?

      The '86 PIL release was called "Album" or "Cassette" or "Compact Disc" depending on which format you purchased it on. One of the very few times in recording history where the cannonical title of the release changed with the format it was released on. This makes it difficult for you to claim that you are entitled to download MP3s made from "Compact Disc" when in fact you only own "Album."

      I see humor there.

      I also see humor in the fact that you'd want to touch anything PIL put out after '83 or so.

      --
      -- r . m o s q u i t o --
    5. Re:When will they learn by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're suing the downloaders, are they? Isn't it just the sharers?

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    6. Re:When will they learn by Random832 · · Score: 0, Troll

      what makes you assume the mp3s came from the cd and not the vinyl record (using generic terms, as people have actually tried to apply your argument to stuff that _was_ released with the same title on both formats) ?

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    7. Re:When will they learn by laird · · Score: 1

      "can you prove that I didn't by that PIL album back in 1986, and am now just D/L ing a legitimate eletronique copy" A few mistakes in this one sentence (very efficient): 1) Buying the album doesn't give you the right to download it, any more more than buying the LP gave you a free CD. :-) 2) The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading, they're going after people for sharing, so they're not going to go after you, even for downloading a PIL album. 3) Since it's sharing that they're going after, it doesn't matter where the bits came from. So even if you bought the CD and ripped it yourself, they don't want you broadcasting it to everyone on the planet.

  17. Can this really work?? by scovetta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No matter what, you can ALWAYS see who you are connected to. If A gives a file to B, but it actually goes through C, D, and E, then if it is determines that the content is infringing, then C, D, and E are all responsible too. Ingnorance is no excuse. Of course, IANAL, but I think this would be great for the RIAA, since they could theoretically sue just about anyone who RUNS this, since they're essentially ALL uploaders.

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    1. Re:Can this really work?? by grub · · Score: 1


      If A gives a file to B, but it actually goes through C, D, and E, then if it is determines that the content is infringing, then C, D, and E are all responsible too

      Nonsense. That's the skewed reasoning the RIAA has been using to go after the ISPs. What you're proposing is to "shoot the messenger" where the messenger is the computer passing packets and not holding the entire file

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Can this really work?? by scovetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it's fair, moral, ethical, right, good, proper, decent, or a Good Thing, but I believe there's legal precedent. I don't think you can go after ISPs, or, say, an entire country if the packets get routed all over the place, but if I give you a bomb and you give it to a terrorist, aren't you just as liable as I would be if I gave it to them directly?
      If you have knowledge that the contents are likely infringing and you transmit them to someone else, you are liable. I believe that "Oh, I didn't know what I was routing" will hold as much water as "But I didn't know that 'share my 40 gig mp3 collection with everyone in the world'-option was turned on"

      Why do you think that you are required to hold the entire file to be accountable for it? If that was the case, then you and your friend could each store half of each mp3 and exchange them back and forth so you never actually hold the entire mp3. No way, it's not going to stand up in court.

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    3. Re:Can this really work?? by melete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RTFA -- the contents of the packets you are passing are encrypted. The only way to get around it would be for the RIAA to run the node hosting the file AND watch the packets reach your machine.

      But if the RIAA is uploading the file, are you infringing if you download it?

    4. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groovy logic. I better stop making zip lock baggies. You see, I make zip lock baggies, the truckers haul them to stores, the stores sell them, the drug dealers put drugs in them and the kids buy the zip locks full of drugs. So anyone involved in the sale of zip lock baggies is guilty of selling drugs to children!

      Same goes for every person involved with any item used in any illegal activity ever.

    5. Re:Can this really work?? by Julian352 · · Score: 1

      But how is that any different from me being a server on the way of the TCP packet. If I look at the packet's destination port I could "know" that it is a Mute/Kazaa/etc. packet. That doesn't make me responsible for the content. I don't know if the packet is a music file, or a personal video that I'm sending to my brother due to firewall restrictions. It could also be just a search result or some other legal file. Here you have a much higher deniability because you never know what the content is, you are just like ISP that is forwarding the packets.

      Otherwise you could claim that if the ISP has a caching proxy and it has a child porn cached on the proxy and therefore ISP is now distributing child porn.

    6. Re:Can this really work?? by grub · · Score: 1


      then you and your friend could each store half of each mp3 and exchange them back and forth so you never actually hold the entire mp3.

      At what point will the courts decide that a collection of bits is the property of another? 100 bytes of an MP3? 1K? 10K? Will the MD5 or SHA1 hash of a file become the property of the copyright holder? It's a very slippery slope.

      Anyhow, this product can be used to distribute legal files as well (although I'd be the last person to say that'd be its main use :)) Sending out lawsuits to people just because the run the client wouldn't work. One could say "I share pictures of my nieces and nephews, Your Honour." leaving the onus on the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if I give you a bomb and you give it to a terrorist, aren't you just as liable as I would be if I gave it to them directly?

      Of course not! You gave me a package that I couldn't open (encrypted) and had no idea what the contents were and asked me to deliver it. I had no idea that you were a filthy rotten terrorist sympathizing commie pinko scumbag.

      Why do you think that you are required to hold the entire file to be accountable for it? If that was the case, then you and your friend could each store half of each mp3 and exchange them back and forth so you never actually hold the entire mp3. No way, it's not going to stand up in court.

      Likely you are right that storing half a file would be infringing. But what if you only hold 1/4 or 1/8 or....or 1/1,000,000th of the file. At the limit, let's say you have one byte from the file. At what point does the data become "too small" to be considered a copyright infringment? Does Metallica own a copyright on the value 0x42? No. What about the sequence 0x42 0x82? No.

      Taking your terrorist argument a step further, what if I only sent an alarm clock to the terrorist. Someone else sent him chemical "A". Others sent him chemical "B", a container, and a fuse. None of us individually sent him anything illegal. By mixing the chemicals and assembling the parts he created a bomb.

      No way in hell is any one of the providers responsible for the terrorist's actions. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for needing each of those parts. Just like there are plenty of legitimate reasons for passing data around anonymously.

    8. Re:Can this really work?? by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      RTFA -- the contents of the packets you are passing are encrypted. The only way to get around it would be for the RIAA to run the node hosting the file AND watch the packets reach your machine.

      Maybe I'm missing something here, but why couldn't the RIAA simply pose as a downloader on the network? Once infringing material is downloaded, out go the subpoenas to the "neighboring nodes" who facilitated transfer of the infringing material.

      As a previous poster mentioned, ignorance isn't an excuse for one's actions in the eyes of the law. If you are stupid enough to allow encrypted traffic to pass through a node under your control, with no idea of what exactly you are allowing to pass, expect to face the consequences.

    9. Re:Can this really work?? by TeddyR · · Score: 1

      guess what... they have "looked closer" are people who buy lare quanteties of baggies through "store card" records....

      --

      --
      Time is on my side
    10. Re:Can this really work?? by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

      Sending out lawsuits to people just because the run the client wouldn't work. One could say "I share pictures of my nieces and nephews, Your Honour." leaving the onus on the RIAA/MPAA.

      I dunno... There's a lot of time and money involved in getting to stand in front of the judge to tell him that all you share is pictures of your relatives.

      Whether he believes you or not, the whole process has already cost you a load of time and money. Either way, the RIAA still wins.

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    11. Re:Can this really work?? by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

      This isn't like passing an entire bomb around. What if I just gave you a chunk of steel? How were you supposed to have any clue what it was going to be used for? If legitimate and illegitimate content look the same, I don't think you'd be held responsible. Think about the US Postal Service. They have no idea what the contents of a given letter are. One letter might be plans to kill the President, and another might be a kid's letter to his grandma. There's no way to tell them apart, so the USPS just delivers them. Now imagine if both letters were encrypted and sent as 10 separate letters. Even if they were opened and read, the two would be equally meaningless.

    12. Re:Can this really work?? by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course not! You gave me a package that I couldn't open (encrypted) and had no idea what the contents were and asked me to deliver it. I had no idea that you were a filthy rotten terrorist sympathizing commie pinko scumbag.

      I can see why you posted as an AC, because if you really believe this, there are some folks down along the US-Mexico border who would love to use your services. Ever heard of "mules"? They transport "packages of unknown contents and/or origin" across the US/Mexico border. Guess what happens when a mule is caught with a payload that contains illegal contraband? I can tell you that they don't escape jail time by claiming they didn't know what was in the payload.

      It's only a matter of time before the same doctrine is applied consistently when it comes to transmission of illegal/infringing content across a network. Those of you who think Freenet/MUTE/etc. will somehow come to your legal defense might be surprised at how quickly those communities will scatter like leaves in the wind when the Feds come knocking.

    13. Re:Can this really work?? by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a previous poster mentioned, ignorance isn't an excuse for one's actions in the eyes of the law. If you are stupid enough to allow encrypted traffic to pass through a node under your control, with no idea of what exactly you are allowing to pass, expect to face the consequences.

      My ISP might have something to say about that...

    14. Re:Can this really work?? by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      You can have audio / video clips in your possesion even if you don't have the full song / video, as long as the clip is no more than a certain number of seconds (which I can't remember right now to be honest). Now can this reasoning be applied to p2p networks? No clue but think about this...

      If packets were made of just 1 bit, then having that single bit in your computer would be copyright infringement? How could someone claim copyright over a single bit? Make that two bits, three, four... when does it become copyright infringement?

      Diego Rey

      --
      diegoT
    15. Re:Can this really work?? by PincheGab · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...Ingnorance is no excuse. Of course, IANAL, but I think this would be great for the RIAA...

      You are right, you are not a lawyer. For starters, ignorance and lack of control over the content is an excuse. It's a valid excuse if you have a good lawyer. Read the news and take some law classes...

    16. Re:Can this really work?? by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that the US Post Office is responsible for the anthrax letters a while back? Is the airline that gave a ride to a terrorist who is using a fake name responsible for any attacks he performs at his destination?

    17. Re:Can this really work?? by FictionPimp · · Score: 0

      "f I give you a bomb and you give it to a terrorist, aren't you just as liable as I would be if I gave it to them directly? " What if I sell a chemical used in a bomb to a terrorist that I didn't know was going to be used as a bomb. Like Fertilizer. If I sell that to someone who uses it to make a bomb, I wouldn't be responsible. I would say the same thing about you routing packets of illegal files without your knowing. I mean, if thats the case, i'm gonna start suing everyone for my spam. I mean its their fault I just gave money to some guy in nigeria. :-p

    18. Re:Can this really work?? by beni1207 · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you'd see that you can't actually see who you're sending packets to with this. Say you're node A and you want to send a packet to node B (or node B requests it...whatever). You have a neighbor that may or may not be node B - all you know is that your neighbor is closer to you than node B. It may be node B or it may be node C that sits between you and node B. Doesn't matter, and only node B upon receipt of the packet has the ability to say "Hey, that's for me" and keep it and stop resending it. Nobody else knows who he is or who he's connected to.

    19. Re:Can this really work?? by maraist · · Score: 1

      IANAL
      Not withstanding the other poster's comments (which I don't think would stand up in court.. phone companies are regulated and thereby recognized. End users are not).

      This is one of my biggest concerns; cover your own ass. Thus I recommend if using such a network to apply filters (you should be able to hack the source if this doesn't already happen). If you receive a broadcast discovery packet for some filtered-out info, just drop the request; don't pass it along.

      It's sort of a free-rider system.. I'll happily make requests to peers for any data, but I wont pass along requests for most forms of data.. To be safe, you'd have to limit yourself to things like non mp3, etc.

      If there are specific legitimate files that are being thwarted by the system, then a manual override of the trust-tree can be accomplished (allowing a specific matching rule to pass). Since this requires human interaction, this can be very innefficient, but ultimately through refinement (and abuse) it would produce a legitimate network; out of fear.. But many would say, "it's not likely that my friends have gotten caught", so many would still participate fully.. It would be something akin to speeding.. Many speed, many do not, and most go back and forth between the two.

      --
      -Michael
    20. Re:Can this really work?? by falltime · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry Friend, but Mules do KNOW that they are carrying illegal drugs and if they dont they have a defense. In fact that is the defense used in virtually all "courier" cases (as they are called). The Government must prove that they knew they were carrying illegal drugs, which usually isnt hard to prove circumstantially when they swallow condoms of a white powder. It becomes more difficult when it is concealled in toy they say that a relative gave them to deliver. - sometimes they slipup other times they walk free. KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED!

    21. Re:Can this really work?? by falltime · · Score: 1

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but Ignorance that something is contraband is most definitly an excuse. BTW - willfull or intentional ignorance is not an excuse either

    22. Re:Can this really work?? by beni1207 · · Score: 1

      Put another way - say I'm node A. None of my neighbors know that I'm node A, they just know that I'm closer to node A than they are, so any packets destined for node A should go through me. Simple enough, yes?

    23. Re:Can this really work?? by midav · · Score: 1
      I must be missing your point. How it is different from how postal service or phone service works?

      Are you going to sue the postal service because they delivered to you a parcel from the unibomer or a letter with anthrax? Or now postal service has to look up into every piece of correspondence to see if there some copyrighted material being illegaly dissiminated?

      Or you think that a phone company has to evesdrop on every phone call, or be accused with abeting to a crime, if they do not?

      While you believe that 'Oh, I did not know what I was routing' does not hold much water, I believe that an ISP should have no more rights at looking what it is routing then postal service to read letters or phone companies to listen to phonecalls.

      If you have personal problems with P2P networks you do not have to use them. If you are a concerned citizen, you welcome to redress your grievances to the Goverment and have P2P networks outlawed (why stop with them, though, go for the whole Internet.) But you should not turn public services into Big Brother's Eye, otherwise you may end up with something quite different then what you are striving for.

      --In Soviet Russia you need protection from Homeland Security.

    24. Re:Can this really work?? by pyros · · Score: 1
      Whether he believes you or not, the whole process has already cost you a load of time and money. Either way, the RIAA still wins.

      If the RIAA fails to prove in any modest sense that you were disitrubting infringing content, you would be able to recoup your financial loss. You might have to counter-sue but I think the time would be worth it.

    25. Re:Can this really work?? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      If A gives a file to B, but it actually goes through C, D, and E, then if it is determines that the content is infringing, then C, D, and E are all responsible too.

      By that argument, if I make an obscene phone call the guys who strung the copper and wrote the software that drives the telecom network are guilty. If I send you a bootleg DVD in the mail, the postman's guilty.

      If I'm a participent in a peer-to-peer filesharing, I have no idea of the copyright status of what's being routed through my box.

      So, not, C, D, and E aren't responsible. Legally or ethically.

      (Remember that a lot of what goes around is porn, and a lot of that is amateur stuff that people voluntarily share...yes, porn can be your defense of non-copyright-infringing use.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    26. Re:Can this really work?? by cens0r · · Score: 1

      But if I mail you anthrax does the post office get charged with criminal behavior?

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    27. Re:Can this really work?? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      They're more interested in the SOURCE of the information as opposed to who's helping spread it. If you use that analogy, you could say that the ISPs of file sharers on P2P networks are equally as responsible because those packets are going through their gateway. That will never hold in court.

      While you might be transmitting packets of shared mp3s, you won't know it. They can't prove whether you generated or routed the request. Since it's their job to PROVE you actually did it (as opposed to you disproving that you did it), it won't stick and they'll have no case.

      They can pull your node and try to sue you, but it still doesn't solve the problem as other nodes will just take your place and resume transmitting the data.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    28. Re:Can this really work?? by pablo_max · · Score: 0

      " but if I give you a bomb and you give it to a terrorist, aren't you just as liable as I would be if I gave it to them directly?"

      You are an ASS!! Enough with the fucking terrorist analogies. Oh..what if you do this and it's used by a terrorist. Shut the fuck up fear monger. Like MP3's or files distro has any thing to do with terrorist.
      Oh let me guess...I drive an SUV so I support terrorism and drugs. ASS!

    29. Re:Can this really work?? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a previous poster mentioned, ignorance isn't an excuse for one's actions in the eyes of the law.

      "Ignorance of the law" does not mean the same thing as "plausible deniability".

      If congress passes a law making it illegal to twiddle one's thumbs in public, and I do not realize this, then the idea of ignorance not giving me an excuse applies - The fact that I did not know about the anti-twiddling law does not exempt me from its penalties.

      If, on the other hand, I run a shipping company (such as FedEx), no one could reasonably expect me to know the contents of every package I deliver. I have plausible deniability about knowing that I delivered, sone illegal package, and unless someone can prove that I knew the contents of that package and delivered it anyway, I would have no legal liability for its contents.


      The same applies to file sharing and routing schemes such as MUTE uses. If I somehow don't know that trading (some) MP3s online violates the law, too bad, the RIAA can still screw me. If I allow my computer to serve as a waystation for packets, arguably for the same of overall network efficiency, why would I have any responsibility for those packets?

      The word "waystation" gives me another good analogy - Harboring a fugitive breaks the law. Running a hotel that happens to unknowingly have a fugitive staying there does not.

    30. Re:Can this really work?? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      You are right, you are not a lawyer. For starters, ignorance and lack of control over the content is an excuse...

      Er... when the homepage of the software claims that its designed for piracy, and the examples shown involve swapping pirated material - just how much ignorance can you claim? Remember, its "plausible deniability," not just "deniability." No ignorance, no excuse. Not that there should be for this, anyway. Either you have play-licenses (in the form of CDs/officialDownloads) for the music you have in other formats, in which case you have nothing to worry about, or you probably shouldn't be doing it.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    31. Re:Can this really work?? by nessus42 · · Score: 1
      If I allow my computer to serve as a waystation for packets, arguably for the same of overall network efficiency, why would I have any responsibility for those packets?

      A court might deem you responsible if they deem that you are "willfully blind". From the Aimster decision:
      A retailer of slinky dresses is not guilty of aiding and abetting prostitution even if he knows that some of his customers are prostitutes -- he may even know which ones are. [...] The extent to which his activities and those of similar sellers actually promote prostitution is likely to be slight relative to the social costs of imposing a risk of prosecution on him. But the owner of a massage parlor who employs women who are capable of giving massages, but in fact as he knows sell only sex and never massages to their customers, is an aider and abettor of prostitution (as well as being guilty of pimping or operating a brothel). [...] The slinky-dress case corresponds to Sony, and, like Sony, is not inconsistent with imposing liability on the seller of a product or service that, as in the massage-parlor case, is capable of noninfringing uses but in fact is used only to infringe. To the recording industry, a single known infringing use brands the facilitator as a contributory infringer. To the Aimsters of this world, a single noninfringing use provides complete immunity from liability. Neither is correct.
      |>oug
    32. Re:Can this really work?? by nessus42 · · Score: 1

      KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED!

      This is not quite correct. "Willfull blindness" is not a defense. So if your relative gave you the toy, and you asked, "What's inside of it?" and he said, "You don't want to know", and you took the toy anyway saying, "Alrighty then", and it could be proved that this is what happened, then you could be found guilty.

      |>oug

    33. Re:Can this really work?? by shadowmatter · · Score: 1
      Of course, IANAL, but I think this would be great for the RIAA, since they could theoretically sue just about anyone who RUNS this, since they're essentially ALL uploaders.

      I just wish I had the answer to that riddle. I'm currently working a P2P project with some fellow undergrads at a university, and this issue has come up many times. The fact is, to anonymously send a file to another computer, there typically has to be an intermediate node between you, otherwise the receiving node has your IP address. Now the question is, can this node get the shaft? If so, there's not much inclination for users to join your network, since now they can be incriminated for not just downloading "censored" material, but simply forwarding it between a source and destination.

      My opinion is that this is legal (but again, IANAL). An extreme anology to this sort of policy is the postal service dealing with mail bombs. The postal service obliviously forwards the mail bombs to the recipient, ignorant of their contents, just as intermediate nodes on a network mindlessly forward a file between a sender and a recipient. When a bomb reaches its destination and detonates, is the postal service held responsible? Likewise, should the intermediate nodes on our P2P network be responsible?

      If anyone is a lawyer and can answer the question of whether an intermediate node would be held responsible in this situation, I would very much appreciate it :)

      Also, about MUTE -- after skimming the design, it looks to be a good idea (after reading "Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Cities, and Software" I always thought a P2P network based on ant-like behavior would be cool; it's great to see someone follow up on it). My only concern is with how well it scales. Have simulations been done on this? They sacrificed organizational structure for anonymity (distributed hash tables, such as Chord, Pastry, etc. often work the other way around), and with this lack of organizational structure comes no bound on the number of hops between a source and destination. It would be interesting to hear some feedback on this. (I'd try and participate, but alas, I'm at home on a 28.8K modem so I hardly think it would be proper for me to join a network and serve as a bottleneck...) Perhaps there is some way to overlay a reasonably static organizational structure on top, to ensure good performance when scaling (such as a deBruijn graph, for example)?

      - shadow

    34. Re:Can this really work?? by nessus42 · · Score: 1

      The only way to get around it would be for the RIAA to run the node hosting the file AND watch the packets reach your machine.

      Even that is not good enough, since MUTE uses vitual host ID's. They'd also have to verify that you didn't forward the packets to any other machine.

      |>oug

    35. Re:Can this really work?? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Well, what about all the networks that are carrying whatever the user send ? They are doing exactly the same thing. What's the difference? And yes, those networks are sending those cowardly hidden encrypted packet willingly, knowing it CAN contain something illegal too!

    36. Re:Can this really work?? by melete · · Score: 1

      I think that would be called entrapment. They can't prove that you let anyone else download illegal content via your node. All they can prove is that either they downloaded something which they're responsible for protecting from infringement, which is not illegal, or that they downloaded something which they have no legal claim to protect, in which case they are the culpable party and could not sue for in any case.

    37. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our society is becoming a mix of 1984/Brave New World, there's no doubt about that. But we still have some time left of limited "freedom" (where "crime" is possible). The Feds will come one day, but we're still safe for a few years.

    38. Re:Can this really work?? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      It would take a monumental amount of hubris to think it possible to identify and drop any and all encrypted traffic without severely limiting the functioning of a given node. I suppose if you were an email administrator you would know the contents of every PGP encrypted message, uuencoded file etc. that passed through your server(s)? Come on, fess. You wouldn't, would you? It's practically impossible and you'd have to be really bored, disturbingly paranoid, or perhaps very stupid to bother.

    39. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think ISPs give a toss? I had a nice conversation and they in the end told me i can take my money elsewhere, it doenst mean a toss to them.

      They dont give a rats ass, therye too big. (The telco ISPs that is).

      THeyre too big for theyre boots and every right to be, everybody bends over and takes an ass reaming yet WE ARE THE CUSTOMER.

    40. Re:Can this really work?? by hugesmile · · Score: 1
      Certainly all of the major ISP's and telecommunications companies understand that their lines are being used CURRENTLY to transmit copyrighted materials in violation of the license.

      Using the "Mule" analogy, AOL, AT&T, Level(3), etc, all would be held accountable for transporting. In fact, more so, because they KNOW that it's going on.

      If the purpose of the technology (such as MUTE) is solely for sharing copyrighted materials, then it's likely going to be problematic. If it has other legitimate uses (as Freenet, BitTorrent, AOL, normal Internet Fiber lines, etc), then it's not as likely that you'll get implicated simply for using the product. Which is why they should get their Metallica RIAA example off their home page.

      Advertise a bong as a drug device, and you'll get shut down. Advertise it as a Middle-Eastern flower pot and you'll probably be able to sell it.

      Of course, once kiddie porn starts floating around on that network, ask yourself if you want to risk "forwarding" it on. Then you aren't violating copyrights, you may breaking the law! Sure, AOL, AT&T, etc, are also parties to the forwarding, but who do you think the law will go after?

    41. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But if the RIAA is uploading the file, are you infringing if you download it?"

      Not in Canada!

    42. Re:Can this really work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like it's been impossible to buy drugs ever since the War on Drugs... although your crack supply doesn't seem to have been affected.

  18. Re:Slashdot Personals! by gsperling · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to be matched up with 95% of the readership on /. Most of us are guys, and I'm certainly not gay!!!

  19. As long as TCP/IP exists, it's not anonymous by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's all there is to it. As long as you have an IP, there will be a method to trace. No software is 100% secure, and IP's are still used apparantly for this product.

    It's like anonymous email. Yea, right, that't a real offer.

    Call now and I got a bridge to sell for only 2 payments of $19.95. This is a $50 million dollar offer, but it's yours if you CALL NOW.

    Come on, it's old.

    1. Re:As long as TCP/IP exists, it's not anonymous by musikit · · Score: 2, Informative

      your right. it isn't anonymous per say. but if both you and i were nodes in this system then your TCP/IP logs and ISP logs would show that i downloaded something from you or vice versa.

      however i may have been a stopping point for the data in a similiar way that proxy servers are a stopping point for highly requested html pages. so that can't say that "I downloaded it" because i may have simply just been relaying the request

    2. Re:As long as TCP/IP exists, it's not anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even then, you have to decrypt it to find out WHAT I downloaded. When you find out I downloaded a chocolate brownie recipe with lots of JPG's of the end result (making an incredibly large file), boy are you gonna be pissed!

    3. Re:As long as TCP/IP exists, it's not anonymous by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      "your TCP/IP logs and ISP logs would show that i downloaded something from you or vice versa."

      The point to this network seems to be that, while the logs will show that packets were transferred from IP address A to IP address B, that doesn't imply that address A was the original source, or that address B was the final destination. Additionally, since it appears that the data is encrypted to the final destination, the packets have no intrinsic value to any of the intermediary nodes.

      The technical failing, as I see it, is that a majority of these nodes have a single physical network connection through their ISP, so it would be theoretically trivial to determine if any node is in fact a net producer or net consumer by simply looking at the differences between inbound and outbound traffic. The way they draw their graphs implies that traffic to different neighbors is somehow distinct and that it's difficult to monitor all of your connections at once, which isn't the case at all.

      The moral/ethical failing is that they've created this system for the express purpose of committing a crime (copyright infringement) and state such up front. I can't off the top of my head think of any particularly useful legal uses for this system, and none are offered by the creators.

      Where something like the ant algorithm -could- be interesting (and legal) would be for routing connections between wireless or other mobile nodes.

    4. Re:As long as TCP/IP exists, it's not anonymous by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It's like anonymous email. Yea, right, that't a real offer"

      Althought NOTHING is totally safe or uncrackable....anonymous email pretty much is available. It would take a pretty large effort to trace you by using nym remailers. You can set up a nym acct...that others can mail to...it can either come to you through a series of remailers..each hop is encrypted to each server...each time the email headers are stripped..etc. One way through the remailers I'd say is virtually untraceable...and if you really wanted anonymity...have your nym acct. send messages to you to the special USENET groups just for this. You go the USENET group...pick your encrypted message out of the thousands out there...and only you can decrypt it with your secret key.

      I've not used it in a little while...but, it can be set up to be virtually un-traceable I do believe...

      Some links: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/nym.html

      http://www.nuther-planet.net/farout/

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/mixmaster/

      At this point, I think most of the remailers only still use PGP 2.6.2...hoping they start using GPG here soon...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  20. Really good nam...! by twoslice · · Score: 3, Funny

    MUTE - a song sharing system for deaf people...

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    1. Re:Really good nam...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you hear me now?!!

    2. Re:Really good nam...! by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I'll bet the compression rate is really good.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    3. Re:Really good nam...! by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Ah, a funny. I'll tell you, though, I know a guy who went to Gallaudet University for the Deaf. You've never heard so much music, played so loud. Turns out, the Deaf *do* like music. They turn it up so high they can *feel* it.

      Frightening, eh? This guy was hearing, so it was kind of a nightmare. :)

      C//

    4. Re:Really good nam...! by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Minus the see no evil.

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
  21. The files do not beling to the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The files do not belong to the RIAA. Few if any of the files on Kazaa belong to the RIAA (and only if the RIAA is actually listing them for download).

    1. Re:The files do not beling to the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Semantics. They do not belong to the RIAA, but since the RIAA represents its members, the effect is the same - RIAA members authorize the RIAA to act on the members' behalf. And, although the members may not own the copyrights, they are authorized on behalf of the artists to act on the artists' behalf.


      So, you're right, the RIAA doesn't own the copyrights, but the effect is the same. Since this isn't a court, I think that we don't have to be pedantic assholes.

  22. We are not valueable nodes by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Well, thats a good point: sites with crappy upload speeds will not be valuable participants in P2P networks.

    This may actually benefit the network by weeding out those nodes which are asymmetric leech-only types.

    I have DSL too, and it sucks hard not being able to use my inroute to help my downroute (Bittorrent), or to lose download capacity whenever someone hits my website.

    If a decent ISP shows up with non extortionist pricing for symmetric connections, and static adressing (v4 or v6) then Im definitely switching.

    1. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      If a decent ISP shows up with non extortionist pricing for symmetric connections, and static adressing (v4 or v6) then Im definitely switching.
      If you're in or near Maryland or Virginia, I recommend Cavalier Telecom.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:We are not valueable nodes by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      On bittorrent, you can cap your max upload speed. By leaving a bit of room for ACK packets, you can maintain a decent download speed. I'm assuming decent routers (ie, not my crappy $50 linksys wifi deal) can be set to give priority to ACKs and other meta-packets.

      For other apps, there is a preload library called ... erm... splunge!, that will wrap all networking syscalls to transparently throttle any app. Unclear whether you can quota them as a group.

      Or you can see this as motivation to buy an Iopener from ebay (~$60), two Netgear USB 10bT boxes (~$10 each), and make a cool little linux powered gateway. That also shows pictures and surfs the web.

      -- the small print --

      (*) Product not actually called Splunge. Look for trickle, facuet, flow... somethign like that.

    3. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On bittorrent, you can cap your max upload speed. By leaving a bit of room for ACK packets, you can maintain a decent download speed. I'm assuming decent routers (ie, not my crappy $50 linksys wifi deal) can be set to give priority to ACKs and other meta-packets.

      I would say the best router for the job (without burning too big a hole in your pocket) would be a Cisco, such as the Cisco 1605R, and setting up traffic shaping. You can probably pick up one of these on ebay or used for maybe 150-200 bucks? Something around there. I use this for limiting bandwidth on BitTorrent, and it works with just about any other P2P app. The only problem is that I have noticed that BitTorrent uses either random local or remote ports (atleast going through NAT on my end), so I usually have traffic-shaping limit all tcp connections on my WAN port and I can limit it to 64kbps, 128kbps, or whatever the hell I want - its great.

      The only problem you might have with this setup is that I have found some bittorrent links will limit your download speed relative to your upload speed, so even if you limit your uploads to not flood your connection - your downloads will suffer regardless. (note: I have only found this to be the case on certain bittorrent links)

    4. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a decent ISP shows up with non extortionist pricing for symmetric connections, and static adressing (v4 or v6) then Im definitely switching.

      If Speakeasy.net is in your area, you might want to check them out. I dont have them personally, but know a few people who do and their service and reliability is great. I'm sure theres also a few people on /. that can vouch for that as well. But last I checked their SDSL connections were a bit pricey, but they have an ADSL package that is 1.5mbps download / 768kbps upload for 60-70$/mo (US) with 4 static IPs (bridged). I think they have a special promotion going on too where they only charge $20/mo for the first three months. This might only cover their lower-end packages, but you might want to check them out if you are looking for that extra upload speed. I currently have 1.5mbps download / 384kbps upload with 5 routed IPs through SBC and I am looking to switch real soon.

    5. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      I do cap my upload speed, but bt works on a tit-for-tat algorithm, so a capped uproute still hurts my download. Also, sometimes I really do want to upload large files.

      (I run a iptables firewall with customized user-land firewall packet manglers, so im u to speed on that end. it doesnt have qos compiled in tho,..)

    6. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      now that is a damn good link.
      Thanks, ill look into them.

    7. Re:We are not valueable nodes by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      it does? did it always?

      At the least, please tell me it's not at a 1:1 ratio, or at the very least that if you simulcast a chunk to several people, that counts several times.

      It seems that a strict 1:1 would fail to adequately take advantage of sites with high-outbound bandwidth, or people who have finished, but left the torrent running.

    8. Re:We are not valueable nodes by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      ah! it's per link! interesting. Could it be that the original dl-server has a strict 1:1, just for backup, and the links you notice as being limited are ones which there aren't enough people downloading for you to hit others as well?

    9. Re:We are not valueable nodes by DrPascal · · Score: 1

      Am I missing the point? Why not just use:

      btdownloadcurses.py --max_upload_rate N

      --
      DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
    10. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      When there's lots of excess bandwidth i do fine.
      You're right its not nearly 1:1 or itd be useless for me.

      Even then, like i said, sometimes i want to seed, ya' know.

    11. Re:We are not valueable nodes by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      it does? did it always?

      Yes and no.

      If there are seeds who are done downloading and have upstream to spare, they basically upload to anybody.

      But the leechers who are downloading and uploading, will more or less only upload to people who they have downloaded from, at 1:1. There is a bit of wiggle room for people who are just starting and don't have any bits of the file yet, though.

      That's why BT always starts off slow and then speeds up. The more of the file you have, the more you can upload, and the more you upload, the faster you download.

      In an extreme case, though, like when you're the only leech on a torrent with tons of seeds, your download will go shockingly fast and will have uploaded nothing. There you go.

    12. Re:We are not valueable nodes by joto · · Score: 1

      Try this:

      # Mark packets to select which priority they should have (1..5)
      $iptables -t mangle -N PRIO_MARK
      $iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j PRIO_MARK
      $iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j PRIO_MARK
      # ICMP in queue 1
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p icmp -j MARK --set-mark 1
      #$iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:80 -j MARK --set-mark 1
      # "Fast" ports in queue 1
      for port in $FAST_TCP; do
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
      done
      for port in $FAST_UDP; do
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 1
      done
      # Too many large packets in queue 1, and they go to queue 4 (e.g. scp)
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m length --length 0:512 \
      -j RETURN
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --name bulk1 --set
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -m recent --rcheck \
      --seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 1 -j MARK --set-mark 4
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 4 -j RETURN
      # Streaming to queue 2
      for port in $STREAM_TCP; do
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
      done
      for port in $STREAM_UDP; do
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p udp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 2
      done
      # Packets from "bulk" ports get Maximize-Throughput, and queue 5
      for port in $BULK_TCP; do
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --sport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -p tcp --dport $port -j MARK --set-mark 5
      done
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 5 -j RETURN
      # Everything left is now normal data (queue 3)
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 3
      # If packet is small, let it go
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m length --length 0:512 -j RETURN
      # 2 large packets per connection per second is ok
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --set
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m recent --name bulk3 --rcheck \
      --seconds 1 --hitcount 2 -j RETURN
      # The remaining large packets are demoted to queue 4
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -m mark --mark 3 -j RETURN
      $iptables -t mangle -A PRIO_MARK -j MARK --set-mark 4

      # Mangle TOS fields of outgoing packets to prioritize non-bulk data
      $iptables -t mangle -N MANGLE_TOS
      $iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS
      $iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MANGLE_TOS
      $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 1 -j TOS \
      --set-tos Minimize-Delay
      $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 2 -j TOS \
      --set-tos Minimize-Delay
      $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 3 -j TOS \
      --set-tos Normal-Service
      $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 4 -j TOS \
      --set-tos Maximize-Throughput
      $iptables -t mangle -A MANGLE_TOS -m mark --mark 5 -j TOS \
      --set-tos Maximize-Throughput

      # Prioritize traffic according to firewall marks
      $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET root handle 1: htb default 15
      $tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit \
      ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit
      for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do
      $tc class add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1 classid 1:1$i htb \
      rate $[$UPLOAD_SPEED/5]kbit ceil ${UPLOAD_SPEED}kbit burst 6k prio $i
      $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET parent 1:1$i handle 1${i}0: sfq perturb 10
      $tc filter add dev $IF_INET parent 1:0 protocol ip prio $i \
      handle $i fw classid 1:1$i
      done

      # Now throttle inbound speed to avoid long queues at the ISP
      $tc qdisc add dev $IF_INET handle ffff: ingress
      $tc filter add dev $IF

  23. Re: too slow for DSL (!?!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I used to use Kazaa on my DSL, but had a tendancy to get infected/bogus files. Then I switched to eDonkey and looked for published links to known good files. After that I always got good/safe files. I did notice eDonkey was MUCH slower. But I just adjusted my expectations and qued up many files that I wanted. Then I would add new files each day and check out the completed downloads as well. Once a que is going, it doesn't feel like a long wait!
    This network sounds like it could be used the same way, only it is even safer. Also, folks could share files longer and feel safe in their privacy.

  24. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by nate+nice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know what you mean and you shouldn't be modded as flamebait (well, it's debatable) but heres the thing: File sharing networks and a new(er) concept in the way we are implementing them now days. There is a lot of research at places such as MIT (and other up-and-coming, less known campuses) into P2P networks and such. It's a rather exciting field to be involved in right now with new ideas coming up all the time.

    I haven't used MUTE but it sounds like they use onion routing or some derivation of it. To me, that's interesting. Perhaps they are doing something Freenet is not? Then again, perhaps not.

    Anyways, if you're interested in networks, graph theory and have some creative energy then P2P network research may be for you. ALthough most systems we see today are not very practical, they seem to all be trying to head to a certain goal: anonymous, encrypted file sharing. We are seeing the bandwidth costs these have but I digress.

    So, even though we may not practically need another file sharing protocol, it's important people keep working on ideas and implementations so we can move the state of the art forward. I think many of these pioneer systems are laying the groundwork for a whole field of study within computer science as one day we will all have many networked devices that need to share information and the pure client-server approach will just not do it.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  25. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by polymorp · · Score: 1

    Didn't someone from nullsoft release WASTE that did just that?

    I wonder what ever happened to it.

  26. Welcome! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 0, Troll

    MUTE's routing mechanism is inspired by ant behaviour.

    I, for one, welcome our our silent file-sharing ant overlords.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  27. not plagiarism by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here, CPD isn't looking for plagiarism; instead, it's looking for opportunities for refactoring.

    1. Re:not plagiarism by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I misunderstood, thanks. I assumed that one would care more about "stolen" code than about a decision to reuse a basic block.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    2. Re:not plagiarism by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Not if it's your code.

  28. How does this compare to Waste? by Argyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've played Waste the encrypted private network tool started by Justin Frankel.

    MUTE sounds similar. Has anyone tried both? How do they compare?

    --
    nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
    1. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by El+Neepo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Waste doesn't try to hide IPs to keep people pseudo-anonymous. All traffic is encrypted, but you know who is sending it pretty much.

    2. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by exhilaration · · Score: 3, Informative
      MUTE appears to be for large, public networks - networks in which users don't necessarily trust or know each other. Its goal is to mask both the sender and recipient of data, thereby preventing RIAA/MPAA-like organization from cracking down on either. This privacy comes at the cost of bandwidth and performance as data must be routed through various users to remain anonymous.

      WASTE, on the other hand, is for small, private networks in which users know or trust each other. Both the sender and recipient know each other's IP addresses. This is far more efficient as users can download files directly from each other.

      Both MUTE and WASTE encrypt data, thereby making it far more difficult for ISP's to determine exactly what is being transferred. WASTE has the additional benefit of being a "by invitation only" system - you can't get in unless your public key has been accepted by other users.

    3. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one, the logo is the symbol of Trystro, the underground "competitor" to WASTE in Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49".

    4. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      Waste starts of small... maybe your friends and you.

      One of your friends knows someone with stuff to share, so he gives his public key to that person and vice versa. That person is now on your network.

      That person tells someone else, etc etc... until one day an RIAA employee discovers your "private" network and slaps every person sharing MP3s with a lawsuit because he CAN see your IP address.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    5. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by agrippa_cash · · Score: 1

      Just to expand on the theme: Trystero's symbol is a MUTEed trumpet.

    6. Re:How does this compare to Waste? by bitspotter · · Score: 1

      Very much an opposite principle:

      WASTE builds networks by authenticating users,
      so that YOU can make judgements about who to trust.
      MUTE builds networks by anonymizing users,
      so that THEY can't.

  29. seed node? by n1ywb · · Score: 1

    I can't find any mentions of seed nodes here, I guess they don't plan on hosting one. That makes it kind of hard to use until you get some of your friends to use it too... Anybody feel like throwing out some MUTE node IP addresses so we can test this bitch?

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:seed node? by rende · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the log files it seems it wants to connect to monolith.2y.net. At first attempt, this failed to connect to any hosts because I had not setup my router to forward port 4900. Once I did this and manually entered monolith.2y.net under the connections tab, I have 5 hosts listed and a search for mp3 yields some results.

      The software seems a little buggy tho. It has crashed twice on me once it is connected to a host and I have only been playing around with it for a few minutes.

      --

      telnet://zombiemud.org:3000
    2. Re:seed node? by BrianEnigma · · Score: 1

      Mine (the OS X version) seems stable, but that might just because I have not yet connected with anyone. I can see the log trying to connect to monolith.2y.net, and I have manually entered that a few times, but something tells me that server has been Slashdotted and no alternate is in sight.

    3. Re:seed node? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the RIAA just shut down monolith.2y.net, thus closing the entire p2p network (or at least crippling it enough to kill it - ref. napster).

    4. Re:seed node? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it is really a good idea to post my ip-address here, but anyways.... here you go:

      217.162.25.202:4999

      please do _not_ moderate this comment up! ;P

    5. Re:seed node? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      service providers aren't responsible for what users do on their network. (kazaa, etc)

    6. Re:seed node? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24.57.37.118: 4900

      212.95.98.205: 4900

      208.151.97.207: 4900

    7. Re:seed node? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      209.188.70.74 4900

  30. We're Still Going to Get You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear File-Swapping Pricks,

    You may try to avoid us as much as you like. However, we have other means to discover who you are and sue you into oblivion. We have already employed Miss Cleo and we are willing to unleash her fury whenever we want to! Yes, Yes! Oh god, yes! You cannot hide from Miss Cleo when she picks your name randomly from a phone book.

    We are also aware that there is a great deal of high-speed file sharing going on at your "LAN Parties". We will begin to infiltrate your so-called "LAN Parties", so that you cannot hide from us even from there! So, please ignore the balding lawyer taking pictures of your computer screens.

    FEAR US!

    The RIAA grows stronger by the day. No longer do we just sue people about music, but we have teamed up with SCO to protect their copyrighted information as well. Today, we are officially launching lawsuits against all those that dare share Linux Distros through Bit-Torrent, at "LAN Parties" or over any other sharing method!

    We will continue to sue you until you learn that you cannot live without buying every CD that comes out, even if its not music that you like! Yes! You will give us all your money or you will suffer our wrath!

    Sincerely,
    David Bowie
    and the RIAA

    1. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Why pick on Bowie? Given a recent interview with him that I read (forgot the URL, but it's up on one of the RIAA boycott sites), he's in favor of online filesharing. Here's a quote:

      "I was very pleased to notice that Reality, my new album, is up there on Kazaa. But if you actually download it, all the tracks are "Jean Genie" repeated about seven times. I think it's endlessly frustrating for people. But I really think the industry's collapsing. I think the record companies are on their way out. I honestly don't believe they will survive much more than three or for years from now. The emphasis will be on performance, more than anything else, and music itself and the distribution of music will undergo such a radical change that we won't think of music in the same way."

    2. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by dragin33 · · Score: 1

      Need you remember that some of the RIAAs tactics were to put those bad songs into the mix?

    3. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why pick on Bowie? Given a recent interview with him that I read (forgot the URL, but it's up on one of the RIAA boycott sites), he's in favor of online filesharing. Here's a quote:

      Bowie was also on Carson Daly a few nights after the news hit about that 12 year old girl getting sued by the RIAA for file sharing. I can't remember his exact words, but they were anything but positive in regards to the music industry. Something about them being greedy. Either way though, it sure didn't sound like he is AGAINST filesharing.

    4. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah. David Bowie is totally in with this shit. Fuck, I downloaded a David Bowie discography yesterday, and even though it did have all his songs, they weren't sorted by album, and had no ID3 tags. They were just the song names sorted into folders by YEAR. Stupid fucking shit. 1.1 GB wasted downloading.

    5. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why pick on Bowie? Given a recent interview with him that I read (forgot the URL, but it's up on one of the RIAA boycott sites), he's in favor of online filesharing.

      Don't forget that he raised dumper truck loads of money a few years back by selling the rights to future income from his back catalogue to investors... He got his money upfront: share his old stuff all you like, give him free mindshare for his new stuff, and he doesn't lose a penny! (unlike the investors, who seem to have made a rather poor bet)

      I just can't decide whether it was inspired deduction of how things might go, or just plain luck.

    6. Re:We're Still Going to Get You by Onanismous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I would have understood if the guy had picked Metallica but not Bowie. What's more, Bowie must be one of the few famous musicians who know a lot about IT (I read he spends huge amounts of time on the net, hey I wouldn't be too surprised if he read Slashdot!).

  31. And its purpose? by stealth.c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to draw flames, but what use does anyone put these p2p networks to other than pirating copyrighted media? If there was a p2p network where you could be assured that the only available music/video available were by indie artists who WANTED to share, then that would be terrific. Unfortunately, the behaviors of p2p users have only strengthened the case for DRM. The architecture of this one is obviously meant to thumb its nose at the RIAA.

    1. Re:And its purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the behaviors of p2p users have only strengthened the case for DRM.

      ...which is why the **AA should go after the violators, and not the technology. While I agree that this application seems to be motivated by piracy, it's still an issue of what the users do with it, rather than with the application itself.

      We don't take the Department of Transportation to court because drug-runners use roads to transport their goods. We prosecute the drug-runners instead.

    2. Re:And its purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The architecture of this one is obviously meant to thumb its nose at the RIAA.

      That's right, and what's wrong with it? If musicians want to earn money they should play live concerts and not expect to make millions off some song recorded once upon a time in a studio!

    3. Re:And its purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If musicians want to earn money they should play live concerts and not expect to make millions off some song recorded once upon a time in a studio!

      That's a piss-poor justification. Why should artists have to cater to your business model to turn a profit? By your argument, all authors should not make money off of their novels -- they should do public readings instead. All painters should put aside selling their paintings in order to do performance art. All journalists should work for free, and hope that kind strangers ask their opinions on the bus.

      But hey, justify your piracy however you want.

    4. Re:And its purpose? by stewball · · Score: 1

      and of course, why should anyone ever have to pay for software, or submit to any conditions on its use. after all, it was just written once a while ago by some programmer sitting in a cube/their basement.

      i hope you're kidding. the RIAA is not good people, and the studio system screws musicians and puts out dreck, but musicians deserve to profit from the things they build. for example, every musician i've known to be interviewed says that they don't make ANY money on their albums no matter how many they sell -- the contracts and some creative accounting take care of that. instead, they make music when they tour and sometimes from radio play (which is ironically, sort of what you're proposing).

      --
      Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
    5. Re:And its purpose? by dot+niet · · Score: 1

      From my brief (1 day) experience with freenet, the other popular use will probably be kiddy porn. I saw a more than a few areas on freenet that just by their name were obviously child pornography. I uninstalled shortly after.

    6. Re:And its purpose? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      This doesn't apply so much to things like MUTE, but BitTorrent is catching on as a replacement or simply a supplement for anything that you would traditionally download from someone's web site. For a group that survives off of donations or ancillary sales while providing enormous media files for free, such as Red vs Blue, BT provides an excellent way to reduce bandwidth use without inconveniencing their users. Such things could presumably be distributed via any P2P network, it's simply that BT integrates the best with the 'traditional' web site model. There's a ton of media out there which is free to distribute, and it's growing every day. Of course, I will admit that most P2P networks are mostly used for distributing copyrighted media without permission, but that's not to say there isn't a great potential for more legitimate uses.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    7. Re:And its purpose? by stealth.c · · Score: 1

      I know the RIAA is not good people. That's why I advocate indie music whenever possible.

      What needs to be fixed is the RIAA itself. Once the musicians actually make money from the work they distribute through labels, then the defense of the copyrighted material becomes more legitimate. Yet copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.

      I don't see how your comparison to software connects. A software writer can license his work however he pleases. Personally, I'm going to stick with Free Software. It's a simple decision: I personally disagree with many Microsoft EULAs, so I don't use their products.

  32. MUTE node addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know where to find a list of nodes to connect to?

  33. Pseudo-anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As their Sourceforge page says, it only aspires to pseudo anonymous P2P.

  34. It wont work :( by billybob · · Score: 1

    There's no indication in the program of being "connected" nor is there a connect command, and searching results in nothing.

    If you look at the "MUTE" file in the folder, apparently it's an error log. Here's what mine says:

    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:52 1969 (937 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to add a new connection.
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:52 1969 (937 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to connect to katcher.2y.net:4900
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:58 1969 (296 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Timed out connecting to host.
    L2 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:58 1969 (296 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Connection failed to katcher.2y.net:4900
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:58 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Adding a connection failed.
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:58 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to add a new connection.
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:50:58 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to connect to monolith.2y.net:4900
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:51:03 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Timed out connecting to host.
    L2 | Wed Dec 31 21:51:03 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Connection failed to monolith.2y.net:4900
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:51:03 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Adding a connection failed.
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:51:03 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Trying to add a new connection.
    L4 | Wed Dec 31 21:51:03 1969 (406 ms) | ConnectionMaintainer | Adding a connection failed. ...

    So apparently katcher.2y.net:4900 is the "connect" server, or something. It's trying to connect to it every 5 seconds. I can ping it OK so .... ? Not sure whtas wrong.

    --
    Joseph?
    1. Re:It wont work :( by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      I added these 2 servers and searched for 'a' and found a bunch of files but then the program crashed.

      oh well, it is version 0.1. I think we've been spoiled a lot by 0.1 versions of programs actually working. ;)

      a lot of the trouble is that there isn't much indication that the program is doing anything at any time...

      graspee

    2. Re:It wont work :( by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same here - using the Mac OS X version

  35. Date comments by billybob · · Score: 1

    Now I just noticed the date/time also.. not sure where it's getting that... My BIOS clock is correct and it shows the right date in Windows.. :O

    --
    Joseph?
  36. Re: Bandwdth by doublebackslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One user mentioned a bandwidth concern, I would like a adress it.
    I was working on a project like this, and am now looking into contributing to GNUNet, a similar project. My framework had peers moving data in a similar way as these ants. The way I looked at it was that most of the time I select some files, let them download, and come back later. I'm sure the downloading takes only ten or twentey minues, but I'm at work or busy otherwise. Once I'm done downlaoding my computer just sits there folding. The bandwidth is going un-used!
    There is plenty of bandwith sitting idle out there, so long as the ants are clever enough to avoid busy relays noone will really notice the drop in their performance. I think that they would have a similar approach (it seems it would work this way as a concequene of their ant design).
    I sincerely hope that one of these true P2P private networks takes off in a big way, till then I will support them in every way I can.

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  37. VINES Routing, anyone -- and packet storms? by Hayzeus · · Score: 1
    Didn't Banyan VINES use a similar method of discovering routes to a remote node via this kind of nearest-neighbor arrangment? Been a while, but this rings a bell.

    This looks pretty cool, but it seems like there will be problems when nodes go on and offline, since broadcasts get used to find nodes. Won't nodes that come and go periodically cause problems -- or is this a non-issue?

  38. WASTE by rudeboy1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You know, I submitted this same story, based on the Popular Science article about WASTE: a secure, private P2P system. I never get my articles published. Who's palm do I have to grease to get a decent article put on Slashdot?!?

    --
    Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    1. Re:WASTE by teamhasnoi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You might want to do a search and see that we talked about WASTE about a zillion months ago. Although, I don't see why the editors don't just dupe it. ;)

    2. Re:WASTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who's palm do I have to grease to get a decent article put on Slashdot?!?

      Your own. Didn't you read the FAQ? Submissions are supposed to include a handjob for the editor.

    3. Re:WASTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WASTE has already been on slashdot and gone. Old news, you're too late

  39. how is this anonymous? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    Couldn't the RIAA just subpoena (theoretically) all the ISPs to find out which IP addresses are accessing this program? From what I gather, this program might be able to mask the actual downloads, but the RIAA could still prove that someone's computer was attached to the network (vs. the RIAA currently being able to state the actual music files being shared). I think the other concern would be that since each user is helping to transmit data files between users, it is probable that users will be hitting the downloading/uploading caps some of the broadband providers are instituting.

    And for another question to the readers: why aren't people renaming the file types of MP3s shared? People have been doing this with "adult-oriented files" to fool AOL, Yahoo, Tripod, and other providers for years (i.e. labeling an MPEG file as a TXT or Word file and then have the end user rename them once the download is completed)...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    1. Re:how is this anonymous? by JLyle · · Score: 1
      Couldn't the RIAA just subpoena (theoretically) all the ISPs to find out which IP addresses are accessing this program?
      Not if this appeals court ruling holds up, they can't.
    2. Re:how is this anonymous? by Hayzeus · · Score: 1
      I guess MUTE tries to solve this in two ways (I haven't been able to get the software yet, and the doc details are a little thin:

      • Traffic would appear to be encrypted, making it difficult to identify exactly what is being shared, and ultimately by whom.
      • The sheer number of nodes -- assuming a large network -- would make this approach prohibitively expensive considering that it would be impossible to identify large sharers -- only nodes carrying traffic.

      In the end, I guess a more effective attack would be to become a node, compromise your neighbors, use the compromised neighbors to compromise more neighbors, and so on. Again, though, this seems to be extremely cost ineffective (and difficult, requiring a lot of cooperation from ISPs) in terms of rewards reaped.

    3. Re:how is this anonymous? by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Why would simply using this program be illegal? Internet access certainly isn't, nor is attempting to maintain one's privacy.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
  40. WE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone ever thought to just be legal? Ya know don't download things that don't belong to you or that you don't have a right to! Hmmmm....

    I think this would solve a lot if people would do this simple little thing.

    1. Re:WE... by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

      That's what Steve jobs said last week to Rolling Stone (yeah, I know, ancient news...). Jobs said people don't want to pirate, they want a quick way to get music. That's part of the reason iTMS is doing as well as it is.

      Now, get the prices down on the songs, and I'll start buying. $1 is too much for a song I will listen to for a week and then delete.

  41. Can anyone explain this MUTE error log by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Server1: Protect the Queen!
    Server2: Server 2 thinks it's the master browser and is calling for an election. Which one's the queen?
    Server3: I'm the Queen.
    Server2: No you're not.
    Freedom! Horrible, horrible freedom!

    Server log ends.

    1. Re:Can anyone explain this MUTE error log by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice simpson ref. bump!

  42. Extra points by phorm · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but the data being moved could be purely a bunch of 1's and zeros. For example, if I pass through a GZIP'ed version of a file... I send it through in chunks through various sources (even Kazaa will chunk files). For example:

    (where Z is the final recipient, and A B C are senders of file chunks, others are random users in between)...
    A--->G--->Z
    B--->H--->Z
    C--->J--->Z

    Neither G, H, or J have an actual copy of the file, at most they have is a partial-derived work, or a bunch of bits passing through their bandwidth.

    Now, Kazaa goes straight with A-->Z, B--->Z etc, by adding middlemen A, B, and C can be virtually unknown from the perspective of Z, and Z somewhat unknown from the perspective of A.

    Anonymity for both side... and the middlemen don't actually have anything more than a few bits. How could anyone go after them when they don't have any copyrighted content on their PC's?

    1. Re:Extra points by scovetta · · Score: 1

      Ok, so unless the RIAA can obtain logs from the ISPs of {G,H,J}, then they'll never know about {A,B,C} (sort of how Freenet works, I believe).
      If the RIAA is Z, then it can easily determine that it received infringing material from G, H, and J. And actually, when you download from Kazaa, it breaks up the file sometimes between multiple uploaders, so from their perspective, there's little difference. {G,H,J} could all say, "But I wasn't sharing that file!" and then the logs come out to show that they were partially hosting it, and they're guilty.
      The RIAA could also pose as A and find that G downloaded part of a file through them, and G is liable there too.

      The RIAA hasn't sued downloaders yet, as far as I know, but that's just a feasbility issue, there's nothing much different between giving away kiddie porn and having it on your hard drive on a computer with no NIC, and there doesn't seem to be much difference between kiddie porn and mp3s in this matter.

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    2. Re:Extra points by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the idea is you aren't "partially hosting" anything.

      First of all, hosting implies that they are keeping storage of the file, they aren't - just routing - which I believe is one of the reasons why ISPs are (again, finally) protected.

      Remember, the RIAA is for the mostpart going after the people sharing the media in the first place (esp in out-of-US areas where downloading is fair use).

      "G" never in any way should receive a usable file, so there's nothing to nail them on. If it were to be used as a case in court, what would the RIAA do... you can't play the file, and an indivual song can be encoded many ways in compressed format, so how do you prove a file chunk (esp one just passing through somebody's bandwidth) was a piece or part of copyrighted works?

      And with your pr0n arguement... last time I checked you could classify the ISP as "giving away illegal pr0n," but the point is that they are no less liable than anyone else could be for a service that is "abused."

      And remember, a lot of people using this service might be more concerned with privacy, not "piracy," so intent arguements will go down the toilet.

  43. This will not protect you from the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And nothing will. Anonymous sharing is provably impossible. If you're wondering how MUTE can be broken you should first read their page describing it. The, consider:

    A neighbor node of yours says "Virtual address BLAH with public key BLAH want to know if you have any mp3s". You say "Sure! I have X Y Z." Neighbor node says "RIAA -- got ya."

    How do they do this? The public key given is theirs. There's no way to verify that the information is coming from some other computer -- this system implicitly trusts neighbor nodes to be honest. As soon as you end up with the RIAA as a neighbor node you're doomed.

    1. Re:This will not protect you from the RIAA by Xentax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Incorrect.

      You don't say *I* have XYZ. You say, "Virtual Address A123B456C has XYZ". Only you know that YOU are A123B456C -- the best your neighbors can do is realize that A123B456C must be close to them, because they have strong hints to route through you to reach A123B456C. Similarly, you can't ever nail down who asked for the file, because you just start seeing packets that say "Z789 wants XYZ". You'd have to be able to sniff a huge part of the network to find out who started asking for it first with any degree of certainty, because a node can't tell if its neighbors asked for XYZ, or are merely relaying one of their other neighbors, or one of THEIR neighbors, etc.

      The trick is that the system NEVER says WHERE A123B456C is, only who to route to in order to get "closer" to A123B456C. When you get packets headed for A123B456C, you (being the owner of address A123B456C) just happen to keep them, and not route them onwards. Even not routing isn't dangerous, because anyone who could observe THAT would just assume that your routing table has A123B456C as closer to the person who sent YOU the packet, and they have you as closer or don't know where it is -- that might tell them that one of you is A123B456C, but it might also mean that you just don't have good routing data either. Impossible to prove, that's the key.

      Virtual addresses, whose owners never identify themselves, are the key.

      And, of course, simply keeping all of the packets for A123B456C when you're NOT the owner of that address won't buy you crap, because you'd have to brute-force-decrypt every at least one of them against to determine the AES key (or the RSA private key, if you can somehow determine which packets were used for the key exchange). The RIAA doesn't have the resources to do that on any sufficient scale to make a difference.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    2. Re:This will not protect you from the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIAA computer -- "I want to find metallica.mp3. The public key is X" (X is their public key; i.e. they can decrypt everything)
      Your computer -- "I know where that is."
      RIAA computer -- "Gimme."

      If your computer sends the metallica in less than a certain amount of time, the RIAA can assume it's coming straight from your machine. Otherwise they just disconnect from you and connect to someone else. Of course this is all done as your neighbor node so that they have your IP.

      And if you think a judge won't buy "your honor, they're guilty unless they secretly have a T1 connection to get the file that fast" then you're being very optimistic. Say hello to a subpoena.

  44. Re:Someone post their IP! by cnmill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    192.168.0.1. Go ahead, motherfucker.

    --
    How sleepless is the egg, knowing that which throws the stone forsees the bone.
  45. Lets Test it by phreak03 · · Score: 1

    Install and connect to 208.191.148.152 [side note, watch my poor dsl line get slash doted] From what I can see its a W.A.S.T.E like aplication thats designed for a larger network arcatecture (automatic key transfer, less privacy and exclusion, but still better than kazaa) The icon for the program is a straight rip off of the waste trumpet For those of you in the know this comes from a book called the crying of lot 49, its a muted trumpet That is a sign for a secret postal service.

    --
    come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
    1. Re:Lets Test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I put in your IP as a host, It came up, nothing else so far

    2. Re:Lets Test it by phreak03 · · Score: 1

      Hey, i allready got like 5 people connected w00t my aim is daphreak07 my icq is 17654783 EVERYONE put alias's of your file folders in the shared folder Lets test this out I'm downloading at 20k some mp3's right now Working quite well

      --
      come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
    3. Re:Lets Test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey it's working! But where are files saved when they're downloaded? I can't find them anywhere.

      Nice speeds though... I got one at 70k/s.

    4. Re:Lets Test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      added yours.. connected now... my node is getting beat up....

      50K/sec up.. 150K/sec down

      Very cool though but bw limiting is sorely needed and i'm too lazy to shape my traffic right now.

    5. Re:Lets Test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not much to see, just search, download/upload lists,
      list of connections and a place to add nodes.
      Searching for "txt" finds a few files but not all download.
      It dosn't notice files that are in subdirectorys of the shared
      directory. It's crashed once so far and takes a long time to exit.
      Connections list somtimes dosn't update, look at netstat or your
      personal firewall connection list.
      Here are a few currently active nodes, they will probably be dead
      a couple of hours after the time of this post. all port 4900

      24.208.214.50 65.71.169.148 68.61.112.22
      62.3.69.171 150.101.30.106 202.52.36.144
      65.71.169.148 62.7.156.156 200.203.30.64

  46. Re: Bandwdth by nate+nice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want your idle bandwith to be used, try using Bit Torrent. It generally works well and you upload as you download. Honestly, the fact that more systems don't have this approach is sad. People don't seem to understand the ideas behind a paged, data multiplexing system.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  47. The Squeaky Organ Gets the Grease by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Who's palm do I have to grease to get a decent article put on Slashdot?!?

    That's not exactly how it works.

    First, apply the grease to your own palm.

    Then apply greased palm to a Slashdot editor ....

    I'll not say more; I'm already making myself nauseous.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  48. How this will be outlawed by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
    It will be pretty simple to outlaw this kind of thing. They'll just change the law so that if you knowingly participate in something like this, and your system delivers illegal material, then you are liable for that, unless you've got logs that show where your system got the material.

    It doesn't matter how much you encrypt, there is always a final link where someone gets the illegal material from someone in the system whose IP address they have. Make that person liable, and the system will fall apart.

  49. How? by billybob · · Score: 1

    How did you "add" servers? I cant find anything like that.

    --
    Joseph?
    1. Re:How? by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      on the "connections" tab.

  50. Mod parent up! by NoData · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That page is hilarious.

  51. Looks good but..... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1

    Nice application, but why do these programmers keep wanting to use ports higher than 1024? Most firewalls will block it. Now what I want to see is an application like this or BitTorrent to use port 80. This way it will get thru proxies and firewalls without having to pull your hair trying to get it to work... uh, at work ;)

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    1. Re:Looks good but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This becauase on a UNIX systems ports below 1024 require root privilages and are generally already set aside for some other purpose, thus most developers shy away from using them as a matter of habit.

    2. Re:Looks good but..... by dcocos · · Score: 1

      Nice application, but why do these programmers keep wanting to use ports higher than 1024? Most firewalls will block it. Now what I want to see is an application like this or BitTorrent to use port 80. This way it will get thru proxies and firewalls without having to pull your hair trying to get it to work... uh, at work ;)

      Not always true I worked on a client site that would sniff the traffic over port 80 and if it wasn't http it would drop the packets!

    3. Re:Looks good but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... tried that... is a good idea until it starts SUPER SEEDING until the entire T1 is used and IT comes knocking at your door

  52. Herbivore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm partial to Herbivore, myself...based on Dining Cryptographers, protects you even if your adversary can monitor everything that happens on the network.

    Except it's not released yet, and the website has no updates...anyone know that status?

  53. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by Bagels · · Score: 2, Informative

    Besides which, some clients, such as Shareaza make use of multiple protocols (in this case, BitTorrent, EDonkey, Gnutella, and Gnutella2) in an attempt to unify those protocols. Not a bad idea, really. That said, I'm still waiting for them to add support for the WinMX networks.

    --
    --- Bwah?
  54. ITs shit because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can just shut down..

    katcher.2y.net:4900
    monolith.2y.net:4900

    How tardy, not even a distributed of discovery caches like Gnutella.

    Single host to sign on.

    We just slashdotted a p2p network dudes.

    1. Re:ITs shit because... by Boltronics · · Score: 1

      I wondered what the hell was going on! Thanks dude.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    2. Re:ITs shit because... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Well if the servers eventually end up in a country that
      does not care about file sharing, then it will float .

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  55. Re:Slashdot Personals! by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

    Most "SWM"s on /. would mistake "SWF" for the Flash file format.

    Then they'd give you a good talking-to about not using SVG. :)

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
  56. JWZ got first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jamie zawinski nailed this on the 17th.
    http://jwz.livejournal.com/287613.html

    1. Re:JWZ got first post by Hatta · · Score: 1
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  57. honesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But isn't that what it's for? I don't think the RIAA would be fooled if they didn't say it, and I wouldn't be fooled. I doubt you would be either.

    This is software to facilitate piracy.

  58. Due to the sexualization of children by MTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I regret to inform you, that 13 year old girl is HOT.

  59. Re:Someone post their IP! by Justin205 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    $ ping microsoft.com
    PING microsoft.com (207.46.245.214): 56 data bytes
    ^C

    Go ahead and try to Slashdot 207.46.245.214.

    --
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  60. The Sender is quite vulnerable... by ThosLives · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This reminds me of an interesting bit of educated fiction I read about information passing methods used in intelligence communities (i.e., spy rings). The problem with this type of system is that you will always know the source of the (in this case) file. So, if you want to get the person sharing the file, you just back up the tree from anywhere. For instance - once you knoa a packet has stuff that you don't want sent, you can just back up the "sent from" arrow-tree and arrive at the sender, then send your cops or whatever to the point of entry. However, you have no way to locate the recipient quickly. This is NOT a Good Thing in some peoples' books, to be sure. The most secure information trasportation mechanism is the double-blind drop: the info source drops the [message] at some location, then the recipient picks it up from that spot. The recipient and sender do not know each other. (In spy rings, that means if one of them gets captured, the other one can't give info about them - the only weak point is the drop-point).

    For computers, if you really want anonymity, you use encrypted files, broadcast everywhere always, and always listen to every packet (which you have to do anyway to select out yours) and see if it's yours. If it is, you keep it, otherwise ignore it and pass it on. Granted, this will not find the "most direct" route from source to target, but it is the most secure.

    Network speed / anonymity are conflicting tradeoffs with the current implementation of the infrastructure.

    Observation: if everyone always captures the whole file - like what if you just copied and stored every single packet that came your way, and everyone did this - then how could "ownership" be enforced? Would this (assuming it's technically feasible) be a Good Thing? I'm not sure I know how to answer that one...

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    1. Re:The Sender is quite vulnerable... by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is an algorithm for several parties to have a conversation while keeping the actual sender of each message anonymous.

      It is called the Dining Cryptographers Problem.

    2. Re:The Sender is quite vulnerable... by nessus42 · · Score: 1

      The problem with this type of system is that you will always know the source of the (in this case) file.

      And just how would you do that with MUTE? You'd have to get a search warrant for your upstream node, perform forensics on that computer to determine its upstream node, get a warrant for that that node, etc., until you got to the source, and you'd have to do all this before the routes changed.

      |>oug

    3. Re:The Sender is quite vulnerable... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      For computers, if you really want anonymity, you use encrypted files, broadcast everywhere always, and always listen to every packet (which you have to do anyway to select out yours) and see if it's yours. If it is, you keep it, otherwise ignore it and pass it on. Granted, this will not find the "most direct" route from source to target, but it is the most secure.


      Yes, but since the risk is 99% on the sender, and 1% on the reciever (the RIAA wants to sue uploaders, right?) you could maintain anonymity for the sender, without very much of a decrease in performance.

      It's quite simple really... The reciever requests a file by sending a broadcast. Disinterested parties ignore that request, but the sender pays attention.

      The sender can send a pre-defined chunk of data, using random, spoofed IP addresses. The reciever merely needs to broadcast the replies (ACK, RST, etc) meaning that participants on the network are only shouldering about 100K of data when a 1GB file is transfered. That would give the sender 100% anonymity, while not degrading performance much at all.

      No encryption is needed to attain anonymity, and you don't need to use huge ammounts of bandwidth of third parties either.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:The Sender is quite vulnerable... by Isao · · Score: 1

      What you're looking for is Freenet.

  61. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by exhilaration · · Score: 1

    It's working great for those of us that have established private P2P networks with our friends.

  62. Perhaps I'm missing something by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

    but couldn't you create this with JXTA? I mean, It's a neat idea but doesn't JXTA already do all this? Except the bit about the ants...

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  63. I should be stated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that no group with billions of dollars to spend is technically incompetant. They are as competant as they feel they need to be, until they can no longer afford to be.

  64. And its purpose? k1dd13 pr0n, duh by ferret70 · · Score: 1

    What else (besides the few who really advocate it purely for freedom's sake) do you think an "untraceable" network is for?

  65. RIAA nightmare by ghettoreb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this is the ultimate product of RIAA's legal offensive. they have taken clear-text piracy, and driven it to encryption underground. it would be much harder for them to do anything about piracy with this in place.

  66. On why this 'anonymity' will be defeated: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will merely require more work to follow the chain, but the chain CAN be followed, because ISPs CAN still be subpoenaed.

    1) RIAA downloads a copy of infringing content from an IP. This IP may or may not have been the originator of the request.
    2) RIAA subpoenas ISP for traffic records of that host and identifies a transfer of the same size in bytes.
    3) If no such transfer exists, the current node is charged as the originator of the infringing content, voiding his or her 'cover' as a service provider. END.
    4) If a transfer of the same size is found, subpoena the ISP of that host for traffic records for the host.
    5. GOTO (2).

    Yes, it is a slow and more involved process, but that doesn't matter. The RIAA doesn't need to catch everyone.

    At up to $150,000 for a single infringing song, if even 2-5% of users are sued, many people simply will not take the chance. Especially as the media continues to publicize these lawsuits.

    No, if you are going to trade infringing content, trade it among trusted friends you know in person.

    1. Re:On why this 'anonymity' will be defeated: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't we JUST see an article about this here on /.?

      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/12/19/1611238.sht ml

    2. Re:On why this 'anonymity' will be defeated: by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Or just move to Canada and download all you like. :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  67. A plea for responsible advocacy. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But, this is the wrong (expletive deleted) approach.

    More importantly, I can't believe how many people seem to think this is a valid approach to the problem.

    First of all, anyone who writes FOSS should not be involved in developing these projects. Quite simply, this project is aimed at abrogating the rights of the copyright holder. If you develop FOSS, you too rely on copyright to protect your rights to distribute your code as you see fit. Why are you helping people to obviate the rights of other copyright holders? Doesn't this seem just a little antithetical?

    Now, before the argument about how developers aren't responsible for how their software is used, well to a point I agree. But, I don't think that you can hide behind this with a clear conscience. Joe Sixpack can't write this software on his own, so if you aren't legally an accomplice, you are ethically and morally. As for the software being used for legal mechanisms, well and good, but that doesn't mean that you could not have built in safeguards to prevent it from being used for unlawful purposes...

    Next, this is not the way to make the point to RIAA. For Joe Sixpack, the complaint is generally about the cost of music and so on and so forth. Well if Sears charges too much for _insert product here_ you buy it somewhere else. You don't go into Sears and steal it. Apparently this is simply because to do so means running a high risk of getting caught. So because the chance of getting caught is lower, that somehow justifies theft? Because that is what it is in the end. Rather than steal from RIAA, deprive them of income by lawful means, spend your money elsewhere. With all the artists in the world, I guarantee you can find some what create music you like, without having to resort to theft.

    RIAA has proven that they will resort to the courts and legislation as their first considered reaction. Since most folk seem to abhor the legislation RIAA has had there hand in to date, why are you fueling that fire? Do you really think RIAA is going to relent? As long as you continue to abbrogate their rights, they will continue to lobby for more and more legislation. If you choose other alternatives, RIAA does not have a leg to stand on, what are they going to do, get Congress to pass a law forcing you to buy music only from their members? Not likely. If you vote with your dollar instead of voting by compromising your morals, perhaps some of those member organizations will reconsider their membership. But as long as people circumvent their rights, and deprive them of revenues thereby they will continue as they have to this point. If people vote to deprive them of income by exercising their other options, RIAA members will have little recourse but to reconsider their policies, which is what you all purport to desire.

    Lastly, I _KNOW_ why I dislike RIAA, and why I won't conduct business with their members. My problems stem more from being a creator as opposed to being a consumer. For those of you who are only consumers, when you choose options that give RIAA grounds to complain, you are quite succinctly stating that you make your choices based on greed, just like RIAA does. It all comes down to the old adage, two wrongs do not make right.

    P.S. Doesn't anyone realize that SCO can point to these software projects as anecdotal "proof" that FOSS developers seek to undermine copy and property rights? Why give them more ammunition in their FUD campaign?

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
    1. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..."proof" that FOSS developers seek to undermine copy and property rights?

      Napster wasn't OS.

      KaZaA wasn't OS.

      AudioGalaxy wasn't OS.

      How is it possible to see this as "proof" against OS? If anything, the lawyers should argue against file-swapping in general, OS or not.

    2. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
      I never asserted that ALL of them were FOSS.

      However, those that are could be pointed to.

      As for it being "proof", notice the quote marks, I didn't say it was proof, I said SCO could use it in their FUD campaign.

      As for arguing against file-swapping in general, you point out one of the nightmare scenarios. RIAA gets a bill through which attacks file-swapping. This is precisely my point. If people continue as they have RIAA will be forced to consider more and more nightmare scenarios in order to protect their members property.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
    3. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never asserted that ALL of them were FOSS. However, those that are could be pointed to.

      ...which would serve no purpose, as outlined below.

      As for it being "proof", notice the quote marks, I didn't say it was proof, I said SCO could use it in their FUD campaign.

      No, you claimed it was proof.

      The general use of quotes is to indicate -- of all things -- quotes. You were implying that SCO would offer up evidence ("proof") against OS projects by pointing to copyright violations. If you are claiming that it is merely FUD, you should clearly point that out. Otheriwse, it's apparent backpedaling on your part once your'e called on it.

      ...you point out one of the nightmare scenarios.

      Actually, I pointed out no nightmare scenarios whatsoever. You're the one suggesting this one.

      RIAA gets a bill through which attacks file-swapping. This is precisely my point.

      You've completely misinterpreted what I've said, perhaps because you wanted to be fast in trying to refute my claim, or perhaps because you simply didn't understand it.

      I did not say anything about the number of lawsuits due to copyright violations. I simply pointed out that any claims against OS apps were unfounded, as they're clearly misdirected.

      Maybe you are confusing my post with that of someone else?

    4. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by WNight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you really think the RIAA would change, even if all unauthorized copying stopped overnight?

      DVD region codes were added to protect a business model, not to stop piracy. (I know that's the MPAA not the RIAA.) They didn't pay for laws like the DMCA to stop people copying, that was already actionable. They paid for these laws to force people to watch commercials at the beginning of disks, and keep from importing movies from North America to other regions before the theatrical release. In other words, they wanted the government to pass laws protecting their lazy business models. "We don't want to spend to money to make the product available in a timely fashion - please prevent anyone from filling this niche before we get to it."

      The RIAA is just as scuzzy in different ways. They pay the radio stations to play their music, but they also provide extra incentives for stations that only play RIAA content. They're actively involved in shutting out any competition, they complain about how expensive their business is and how they can't afford to pay artists much, yet the music industry is fantastically profitable - they complain when the industry doesn't keep growing at the expected rate. They use accounting tricks to make it appear that they lost money, yet if you believe their figures they should be billions in the hole, not incredibly rich.

      That's why I don't feel sorry for the effects of this - they could have played fair and they'd have gotten much more respect and cooperation for everyone.

      As to why I feel it's fair to use a copyright (the GPL for instance) to protect code designed to break copyright it two-fold.

      First, we must be free to break the law, or uphold it, or we have no freedoms. Many times, the actions seen as 'right' in a historical context have been illegal. The Boston tea party, the American revolution, the underground railroad, the underground railroad in Nazi Germany, the French Revolution. Some of these were undertaken for no more than financial concerns - the American revolution for example, but it ended up allowing a nation to self-govern.

      The point is that freedom requires the freedom to do the wrong thing, and that that wrong thing may end up being right in retrospect. We can't allow a circumstance where people aren't allowed to tinker with their belongings, as is currently the case with DVDs. To tolerate this is to tolerate much greater future injustice.

      Second, while I respect the stated intention of copyrights, "to encourage creators to create by providing a financial incentive", I see that this isn't free to society. Providing an unnatural monopoly (Unnatural in that it's natural to see what someone is doing or saying and incorporate those actions or words into your own. Ideas flow naturally.) costs society. We're intended to get "paid" for this by the new works being created which will eventually enter into the public domain.

      Copyright law as it stands today is untrue to those stated goals and unfair to one half of the equation - the citizens who pay for these protections and yet see absolutely no benefit. Current copyrights last so long that nobody who is alive today's children will be alive when the copyright on this post expires. How is this supposed to "give back" when you could be slapped down in court for quoting more than a line, even in direct response to me? The protections are too long, the punishments for violation are unreasonble, and the agreement is getting even more lop-sided.

      For these reasons I fight against the modern view of copyright as the divine right of big corporations to borrow any pre-existing content, yet forbid everyone from even thinking of basing anything on their content.

      I'm not anti-copyright, nor are most people, but we are anti-overboard-american-copyright-and-dmca.

      I'm not rich, so my voice on this issue is worthless in Hollywood and in government. I'm one person, and one vote (unless I get a job at Diebold), so nobody cares what I have to say. I have to act, and if that req

    5. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Some person said that the reason passive non-violence did work for Gandhi, was because of the freedom of press. That in addition to the obvious fact that the Brits actually gave a shit, and put pressure on the government. Obviously this wouldn't work with an opressive regime such as that of a Stalinistic Communist state.

      --
      Lalala
    6. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by zentigger · · Score: 1
      Well if Sears charges too much for _insert product here_ you buy it somewhere else. You don't go into Sears and steal it.

      As much a the RIAA would like you to believe otherwise, copying music IS NOT STEALING!.

      Period.

      Theft is a criminal matter. Copyright is a civil matter. Anyway, the argument has been clearly drawn up so many times before, I will not waste my own time pointing you to the legal definitions of theft and copyright. I trust you can figure out how to use google.

      Why do you support the propaganda campaign being spread by the RIAA?

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    7. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by NateSac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At first, this was a hard decision to make, to mod parent down, or to give up my mods to reply (I'm sure you'll figure out what I decided). I've been researching software piracy on the internet for the last 10 years. My research has shown conclusively that complaining on Slashdot isn't going to stop this network from sharing copyrighted materials nor would any safeguards built into the program... they would be circumvented almost immediately just like people used to wrap files up in fake mp3 files to get them into napster. Now, if you had some ideas on how to tell the difference between a good file and a bad file, or who should have the power to censor, please speak up, because it's a lot more complicated than you think. How would you solve the problem of defining what safeguards would keep a anonymous network from being filled with irresponsible file trading and still not take away features for a successful market for free speech?

      This project does not obviate the rights of other copyright holders any more so than http, or email, or even AOL. Any copyright safeguards added to this kind of project would go completely against the idea of free and unrestricted speech, and don't forget fair use! Is it morally wrong when I buy a game, the cd gets scratched, and I have no recourse but to go spend another 50 dollars on another game just for the license? We all know we don't pay for the software; we pay for the license to use that software. It's really a bad example because I haven't paid for a game in a long time, nor have I seen very many games that are even worth playing in a long time. Or how about this one, is it immoral for me to download a full game before I buy it to see if it's even playable on my computer? Every thing else I buy from the store comes with a money back guarantee normally, and if it doesn't work, they'll fix it. Is it moral for a company to sell me a game that really sucks and not allow me to return it?

      More importantly, Free [Anonymous] speech, at least in my country is one of my inalienable rights. This project is not aimed at taking away rights from copyright holders; it's about something completely different, Free Speech. Arguably the most important right we have (at least in the US) is the right to free speech. Free Speech, like our other rights, isn't just handed to us on a silver platter. It's our responsibility to us, the people to go forth and implement our rights. This project isn't just a new network to download Paris Hilton sex tapes. This project and others like it, are the cornerstone to ensuring that we keep our god given rights in the information age. We have to ensure that we have some sort of mechanism to guarantee free speech and that's what the Free and Open Source Software is really about.

      You're right about one thing; the FOSS movement really is the antithesis of Copyright. The very existence of the GPL threatens it. While I may not see its end of Copyright while I'm alive, it is an antiquated and dying beast. The system is so full of special interests and loops holes that it only serves to hold back man kind and stifle innovation and make the super rich even richer. Those with the most lawyers hoard other people's inventions, become filthy rich, and tell other people what they can and cannot do. I'm not sure that I will see the end of copyright during my day, but the FOSS movement will make copyright worthless someday. What value will software have when you can find something free that works better?

      And BTW, nothing is going to stop SCO from bitching either. Their ship (the traditional software development model) is sinking and they're just trying to clutch onto FOSS to stay afloat.

      --
      ::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
    8. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You don't go into Sears and steal it. Apparently this is simply because to do so means running a high risk of getting caught.

      No. It's because most people have a gut feeling that taking a physical object from someone else deprives the owner of the object, but making a copy of an intangible thing, at zero marginal cost, leaves the original untouched, and doesn't appear to deprive anyone of anything. Fear of punishment doesn't really factor in, because if I could make near-free molecular copies of Sears' products, I WOULD, because it would just feel right to break the law of artificial scarcity.

      Still, most people understand that the artists who create the intangible need to eat and might need an added financial incentive if they're going to create more (expensive) works, and so they'll gladly support them by going to unique movies, unique concerts, buying scarce merchandise, by directly donating/patronizing, by buying celebrity endorsed products, etc.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    9. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing something here.

      Let's say I make a popular open source filesharing application.
      'Popular' as in a lot of files are transferred, and most of them are probably copyrighted material.

      This would mean I, as a creator, am committing a morally wrong act because I effectively go against my own rights as a creator.

      But from my standpoint, because my software is free and open and I retain no rights to my work other than the recognition that I made it, my software isn't retracting from my rights.
      In fact, I'm doing the exact opposite.

      The cost of duplication of information is zero.
      You could explain to 'joe sixpack' (who doesn't exist other than as a superficial construct in the minds of people Who Think They Know Better) that copying information is stealing. While in fact it ain't. Really.

    10. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by cpgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wtf, it's not stealing... there is nobody being disadvantaged... media is coppied, not stolen, there is no disadvantaging the end user, if i could go to sears with a little raygun, point it at a product, duplicate it, and take it home, i would... at which point i suspect that there would be little need for currency under those circumstances anyway. now, in this current situation, an artist signs on with a label in a contract, the label publishes the music, the end user pays the record store, the record store pays the label, the label uses that money to sue people, the artist makes barely enough to eat and pay the rent. i'm not seeing how it disadvantages anyone but the record label because by means of darwinian evolution shouldn't exist in the near future anyhow. artists should begin to make deals with record stores and or make their music downloadable on web sites... i would hapily part with my hard earned cash if i knew it were going directly into the hands of the artist that i know and love. i'm all for supporting the artist, but the labels are obsolete.

      --
      May the coffee god Smile upon you!
    11. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      this project is aimed at abrogating the rights of the copyright holder.

      Like it or not, the copyright holders have long abused the power given to them by corrupt governments. Frankly, I like P2P, even though I don't really use it, because it keeps companies honest. By law, they could demand $1,000 for one CD/DVD, but things like this make sure that it is not reasonable to do so.

      Why are you helping people to obviate the rights of other copyright holders

      This is not a situation where people are using P2P to get slighly more rights than the author wanted them too (as your analogy would imply), this is a case where copyrights holders have an iron fist, and want to give you NO RIGHTS at all.

      Sure, you want to complain about P2P allowing people to illegially share files, but I bet you'd be praising the author it the P2P program was the only way you could downloaded a copy of some illegial OSS program like dvd-css, mplayer, ffmpeg, lame, wine, etc.

      I happen to think you are the one being hypocritical here.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good argument, but somewhat fallacious. For instance:

      Now, before the argument about how developers aren't responsible for how their software is used, well to a point I agree. But, I don't think that you can hide behind this with a clear conscience

      Change "developers" and "sofware" to "automakers" and "cars". Just about anything in our everyday lives can be used in an inappropriate manner, even if it has a 100% legitimate purpose.

      The argument, of course is "Well, the obvious intent is malicious". That's dangerous ground. Household knives have been used in countless murders. Ftp can be used to download illegally (has been for years). Should we outlaw technology because of "obvious malicious intent"? And if so, who would you recommend to be the grand judge of what is malicious software and what isn't?

      I personally think that there's been too much negative press about these technologies, and not enough positive press. Implemented correctly, these technologies could aid in business transactions, education, etc. It's all a matter of what it's used for.

      As far as IP goes, the whole sytem needs an overhaul. What is the point of keeping Steamboat Willy copyrighted for 99 years?

      Then there's the whole issue of when someone buys something, they should own it. Ford doesn't tell you what roads you can drive on and which you can't.

      None of this excuses what's going on, but these are the sentiments that I think people have. These are issues that need to to be discussed, not subpoenad. The RIAA should be embracing their consumers, not treating them like criminals. The tactics of intimidation used so far are more than a little disturbing.

      You're right, two wrongs don't make a right. But neither does four or five hundred.

      The Coward

    13. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what you say is right by choice not by the letter of the law.. when you are told to take the mark "666" by law or else... you have a choice not to. may ALL of you refuse it and not conform.... it`s your life it doesn`t belong to anyone to be marked, controlled or tracked.

    14. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, anyone who writes FOSS should not be involved in developing these projects. Quite simply, this project is aimed at abrogating the rights of the copyright holder. If you develop FOSS, you too rely on copyright to protect your rights to distribute your code as you see fit. Why are you helping people to obviate the rights of other copyright holders? Doesn't this seem just a little antithetical?

      No. When I give away code under an open-source license, after a few years, if somebody infringes upon my copyrights for something that is more than a couple of years out of date, I wouldn't take any action. This is because I believe in the principle of copyright - protection for limited times.

      Now, I really don't believe that people should be making money some 40-odd years after the song was written/recorded. I trade old music without any moral issues, and I don't believe that in any way contradicts my belief that my software creations should be protected by copyright for limited times.

      So because the chance of getting caught is lower, that somehow justifies theft? Because that is what it is in the end.

      Copyright infringement is not theft, dummy. I can't believe how many people are buying into that particular piece of FUD.

      Doesn't anyone realize that SCO can point to these software projects as anecdotal "proof" that FOSS developers seek to undermine copy and property rights? Why give them more ammunition in their FUD campaign?

      If they can stretch logic that far, then they have a limitless amount of FUD already. This will make no difference.

    15. Re:A plea for responsible advocacy. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1

      The legal nuances really are beside the point, the argument was not for the courtroom, but to appeal to the consciences of people who also create software, and for them to regard the rights of other copyright holders as they would have their own regarded.

      --
      "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
      "Talk minus action equals /." -
  68. Check the definition of theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Copyright definition does not meet the definition of theft. Check your words before you use them.

    1. Re:Check the definition of theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      symantics. It's still fucking theft morons.

    2. Re:Check the definition of theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Semantics. It's still fucking copyright infringement, moron.

  69. Netstat by visgoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say for instance I have a Metallica mp3 being shared out. What's to stop the RIAA from just downloading said mp3 and then using netstat to see who is sending them pieces of it? After that they could try to sue everyone who's providing even a small part of the whole mp3, couldn't they?

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    1. Re:Netstat by Microsofts+slave · · Score: 1

      The problem is that (if he would change his site) if you are using it for legit reasons then the way that mute works would have all sorts of people transmitting these mp3s etc. This way you cant really charge eveyone, because everyone on the network would be part of the problem.

      --

      Tragek

    2. Re:Netstat by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, they could sue their own ISP, since it provided all the bits to them.

      Of course, the ISP didn't know that it was transferring Metallica.

      It could sue every ISP that delivered a bit.

      Of course, those ISPs didn't know that they were transferring Metallica.

      It could sue every user that passed a bit.

      Of course, those users didn't know that they were transferring Metallica.

      ---

      There really isn't a difference between any of the above examples, legally, unless any layer KNOWS that they are transferring material illegally. And the users can claim that THEY only trade bootlegs of Pearl Jam live sessions, which are just fine. It's not their fault that others use the system for other songs.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Netstat by elviscious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same thing that stops the Post Office, UPS, or FedEx from being sued when someone mails anthrax.

      First of all the packets are encrypted (or wrapped up in a box if you will). The node doesn't know what it is. He's just doing his job. Would the RIAA try to sue the node.... maybe. But who is responsible for me downloading mp3s over a vpn from work? Yeah, me. I find it hard to believe that my ISP, my works provider, and anybody in between is responsible.

      2nd, this medium will be presumed innocent for transfering anything. Can you transfer the new Lord of the Rings movie? Yes. Lots of mp3s? All you want, and more. Can I transfer just about anything?! Absolutely, and this is the catch. I can transfer anything. Good or bad. Legal or not. Once that is established, the RIAA or whoever else can only concentrate on the two endpoints, and them only.

    4. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone on the network would be part of the problem.

      Not that's going to be one heck of a court case!

    5. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the postal service is there to deliver things to recipients, like the Internet is. These P2P networks that try to pass data through secondary (quote-unquote innocent) hosts are doing nothing but increasing internet traffic in the hopes of thwarting the RIAA. Other than trying to thwart copyright holders from finding the origin of someone illegally distributing their work, this methodology has no benefit. It won't stop the U.S. government from snooping (they know what you are doing no matter how deep you tunnel), and it increases network by a factor of N, where N is the number of nodes you use to escrow your activities. The P2P network as described in the article is nothing but a tool for pirates.

    6. Re:Netstat by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The person sending you the information won't actually have the file, so they won't be able to sue.

      There's no proof of ownership, just as if you shared 30 gigs of music then just happen destroy your HD before the authorities seize your computer. They won't be able to prove that you were actually sharing copyrighted information when you might've just been sharing 3.4 meg text files filled with junk called "Enter Sandman.mp3". Case dismissed.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    7. Re:Netstat by AuraSeer · · Score: 1

      That's why the packets are routed through multiple hosts. If you send out parts of that mp3, the recipient can't tell whether you are sharing it yourself or only relaying from somebody else.

      Plus, since the packets are encrypted, it's impossible for you to know what is being relayed through your machine. You could theoretically claim that you were not sharing any files, and had no idea that copyrighted material was being relayed through your connection. (Of course, making that claim doesn't mean a court would believe you.)

      From a technical standpoint it's a rather neat trick. Socially I'm not sure it's a great idea, because it may tend to enhance the perception that file sharing is a shameful, illegal act that must be hidden. But then I suppose geeks are seldom concerned about what the rest of society thinks.

    8. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you think they thought of that? Read the website, it explains everything. Your netstat isn't going to be showing anything but bogus information. The entire point of this app is that you can't ever get a real IP address.
      All IP's are virtual madeup numbers and all traffic is done using AES.

    9. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The RIAA is initiating civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions. The "presumed innocent until proven guilty" bit doesn't apply. If they have the ISP server log they have your knobs in a vise.

      BTW, IANAL.

    10. Re:Netstat by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have to have some proof that the file you shared was actually copyrighted material. If you use the "prove I was actually sharing this data" tactic and request an MD5 hash; they'll be screwed.

      It works the same with a speeding ticket. It's not a criminal prosecution, but the tactic works perfectly. Next time you get a speeding ticket, request to see that day's diagnostics results for the laser gun used to tag you. Say, "I wasn't speeding and I'm positive of this, however, if you can show me that the laser gun used to get me was tested for accuracy that day, I'll take the points and pay the fine." They very rarely test those guns and chances are, you'll be dismissed.

      You just need to be sneaky and ask to see proof that pertains to their source of info on what they're trying to get you for.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    11. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If they downloaded the file (and it's one of thiers) from your IP they've got you. You are not presumed innocent in a civil lawsuit, you have to *prove* that you are innocent. (Your Honor, Kazaa doesn't run on my Vic-20)

      Traffic court is an entirely different animal. It's not worth it for them to spend three hours proving that they don't need to calibrate their equipment every day when they could extract the cash from 30 non-fighters in that same time.

      There aren't enough cases being contested by file-sharers to overload the system to the point where poor excuses will get you off the hook.

    12. Re:Netstat by BubbleNOP · · Score: 1

      Just wait until relaying someone else's illegally acquired data becomes illegal by law...

    13. Re:Netstat by burns210 · · Score: 1
      well in freenet(and i thought in MUTE too, but maybe not) the fact that the informationis encrypted and uses middle men tries to fix this...

      A Freenet Example:
      you request song.mp3, which happens to be on node A... to get that file, you talk with nodes b, who talks to C who talks to A, who returns song.mp3 in little chunks in 'reverse-search order'(that is a-> c-> b-> you, the reverse of how you found it). Sine the info in encrypted, nodes B and C don't know what they are passing, and they way it is set up, is that you can't tell if node B is the originator of the file, or just someone passing it along.

      The Freenet Fork project, version 3 (and functional!)

    14. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You sure about this? I think you're innocent until proven guilty in all cases, other wise there would be rampant frivolous civil suits.

      So I could technically sue my friend in civil court and claim he did whatever on a particular day he can't recall, and as long as he can't prove what exactly he did that day, I'd win? What's to stop me from suing people left and right then? That seems to me like a huuuge problem if that were the case.

      Of course, IANAL... but common sense rules in this situation, no?

    15. Re:Netstat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am certain of that. And the system is rampant with frivolous lawsuits.

      It's a two way street. You have to prove that your friend (the one you are suing) guilty, and he has to prove himself innocent. If you have no proof and he has no proof then the judge can't make a ruling either way. (Which has the same effect as ruling your friend innocent)

      Of course there are costs associated with intiating a civil suit and if you are suing with malice he can countersue.

    16. Re:Netstat by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing multi-hop transfers with swarm downloading (as used in Bittorrent). In MUTE, you only connect directly to people who you know and trust in real life. All of your traffic goes through one or more of these trusted peers, and they forward it to one or more of their trusted peers and so on. If you look at netstat you'll only see the IP addresses of your friends - the actual source of the file is hidden behind a chain of other nodes, and you're hidden from the source in the same way. (Of course, the source might be one of your trusted peers, but you trust your friends not to work for the RIAA/MPAA/Burmese government, right?)

      Searches are flooded (as in Gnutella) so they reach every node in the network. Responses and downloads follow the quickest path discovered by the flooding process.

      Problems with this approach:

      * Flooding is not scalable. Every node in the network processes every search... as the network grows, the search traffic will come to dominate the download traffic and will eventually saturate the network. So you need to limit the range of searches (as in Gnutella), and if that's not enough you can use techniques like supernodes (FastTrack) and multiple random walkers (Gia) to improve scalability.

      * It's hard to join the network. You need to know someone who runs a node and trusts you enough to give you the IP address. The same situation exists with illegal drugs, and in practice they are widely available, but it might take a while for the "shady underworld of anonymous networking" to establish itself.

      * Packets make multiple hops in the overlay network, which adds up to a lot of internet traffic that someone has to pay for. There's a strong incentive for people to modify their nodes not to forward packets, or only to forward packets that originate or terminate at one of their trusted peers (result: no paths more than two hops long, hopelessly fragmented network). This is similar to the free riding problem in previous filesharing networks, with the added complication that free riders are hidden from their victims. I think GNUnet has a solution to this problem (a sort of micropayment system with no currency), but as far as I know MUTE doesn't.

  70. USE THESE IPS: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    208.191.148.152 131.155.229.140 80.161.130.57 81.62.54.78

    1. Re:USE THESE IPS: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No luck with any of these.

  71. Actually perfect for RIAA ruling... by hirschma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me preface that I'm neither a lawyer or all that knowledgable about networks...

    If I read it correctly, the RIAA can still get subpoenas. It has to do so with a judge involved, tho, making it much more expensive and time consuming.

    Having subpoenas on the cheap would allow them to put up an automated version of the client, pull a download, do a netstat, and then have someone that checks if a "valid" file arrived. If it did, they'd subpoena everyone that they connected to, and that would be that.

    Now, they can't use a cheapo subpoena method. MUTE is actually perfectly timed.

    Jonathan

  72. Re:Someone post their IP! by Rysc · · Score: 0, Troll

    127.0.0.1

    Give it yer best shot!

    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  73. USE THESE IPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    24.49.37.195 208.191.148.152 131.155.229.140 80.161.130.57 68.49.20.146 216.180.213.130

  74. IT WORKS! by phreak03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, i allready got like 5 people connected w00t my aim is daphreak07 my icq is 17654783 EVERYONE put alias's of your file folders in the shared folder Lets test this out I'm downloading at 20k some mp3's right now Working quite well My only complaint is the compete lack of msging, But I'm used to WASTE From what I can tell this is just a striped down Easier to use WASTE Personaly I like waste better but thats just me

    --
    come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
    1. Re:IT WORKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, if you could just keep those mp3s up there so I can get a copy that would be great. Don't have an IM account, buy my email is piracy@riaa.com

      Thanks

    2. Re:IT WORKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But I'm used to WASTE By the looks your used to AIM as well....

    3. Re:IT WORKS! by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Give me your home address. I'll send you a box of full stop's to use ;-)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  75. Sweet Release by OptimoosePrime · · Score: 2, Funny

    After reading the ant behavior thing I did an experiment. Let's just say releasing a smelly "pheremone" trail to the filing cabinet is a good way to make people not like you.

    --
    796F75617265616E65726400
  76. Sim Ant: TNG by merikus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoever developed this played Sim Ant a bit too much about ten years ago.

  77. Tristero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is surely no coincidence that they chose the muted post horn symbol of the Tristero.

    There's also an independant Tristero project putting together peer-to-peer components.

  78. You mean anon.penet.fi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple: Blame the "church" of Scientology.

    They managed to get Interpol to raid Julf's home.

    That was the end of anon.penet.fi.

  79. the release of mute only days after clay's article by dave_n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found it interesting that mere days after Clay Shirky article was posted on slashdot, a program that essentially describes his solution is posted.

    If you haven't read the article, you can find it here:

    The Article

    It's a pretty solid concept as far as defeating the RIAA for another round. I find it interesting that no matter what the RIAA does, someone always counters it. You figure they would adopt a new strategy, instead of just wasting enormous amounts of money on annoying everyone.

    --
    David Novosel "Two roads diverged, and I - I took the one less travelled by."
  80. Cool! by nado · · Score: 1

    I didn't know ants were encrypting their pheromone! ;-)

  81. Re: Bandwdth by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

    When your ISP cancels your account for excessive usage you might change your mind.

    A song from iTunes: 99 cents.
    Keeping your Net connection: priceless. :-)

  82. Unfortunately... by DarwinDan · · Score: 1

    But unfortunately, there is no central server (like gnutella or Napster 1.0) whereby one can simply launch the program and begin acquiring hosts. Maybe this should be a "bugfix" or feature consideration for the next version...

    --
    $DEITY bless $NATION
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by zalas · · Score: 1

      The central server would defeat the purpose of a distributed P2P system. You could have various sites distribute node lists a la Winny.

  83. Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe you should ask why your DSL is so asymmetric.

    Why are asymmetric connections so much cheaper and more common? Data flow is not more expensive one way than the other. Is it the man trying to keep the masses consuming what he dishes out, and keep them from distributing their own content?

    1. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it the man trying to keep the masses consuming what he dishes out, and keep them from distributing their own content?
      Yes, it is.
    2. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by jshare · · Score: 2, Informative
      Asymmetric connections are so much cheaper and more common because they slice the available bandwidth disproportionately.

      That is, they literally allocate more of the physical line to the downstream channel. At least on ADSL.

      This is because people (generally) care much more about how fast their download is than they care about their upload.

      They are giving people what they want.

    3. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So why can I get a 1500 down/ 768 up line for a reasonable amount, but a 768 up / 768 down line costs me more, not less, money?
      It's obviously not a problem with physical allocation of the DSL line bandwidth.

    4. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by landrocker · · Score: 1

      I vaguely remember another poster saying awhile ago that ISPs only have to pay for data injected _into_ other networks.
      Therefore they don't have to pay data charges for your downloads - only for your uploads. If this is true then it makes sense that ISPs limit upstream traffic, as it's costing them more.

      Actually, I'd kill for a dsl connection like my sibling poster has. Here in NZ if I want to get full DSL with a 10gig data cap I need to pay $1500 a month, so I'm stuck with 128/128k sdsl :(.

      Landrocker

    5. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 1

      Why are asymmetric connections so much cheaper and more common? Data flow is not more expensive one way than the other. Is it the man trying to keep the masses consuming what he dishes out, and keep them from distributing their own content?

      I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't the work of The Man. Often, data flow actually IS more expensive one way than the other. Some network providers have agreements whereby they pay little or nothing for their downstream data, with fees being based primarily on the upstream. This strange pricing situation is then passed on to consumers.

      And knowing is half the battle!

    6. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by hal9k · · Score: 1

      The real reason is that ISPs realize that a person can only download so much data before resources (hard disks or, if streaming data, memory). A person need not be at their computer to serve hundreds of others who are probably not using the same ISP. It is far less likely that even when a customer is using their computer they will be quick enough to download from hundreds of different places at once.

    7. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by inetuid · · Score: 1

      Let's see... High launch power from the CO on the bundle of copper means that the further you get the less dense the cables are and therefore less interference. If you look at it the other way the closer you get to the CO the more cables and the greater the interference. Hence its easier to have assymetic as it matched the physical layer characteristics.

    8. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the 768/768kbps service you probably get CBR QOS - guaranteed bandwith, in other words. It is almost always a waste of money since the network is big and empty, but if a buisness wants it then we'll take their money.

    9. Re:Perhaps one should ask why it is asymmetric by f0rt0r · · Score: 1

      Well, one idea I have that has not been mentioned yet is that they may be trying to lower bandwidth needs by making setting up a server impractical ( too slow for a popular ftp/web/whatever site ). Or, in the same stream of thought, by making setting up a web server impractical from home, increase their sales of Web-hosting accounts and storage space since customers cannot practically host such services from their residental connection.

      I hope that made sense. Here is an example of what I mean -
      Joe User wants to set up a fanboy web site but his upload speed is only 256k. He sets up the site on his home computer anyway and finds after a few months that it is become very popular and has outgrown its very limited upload capacity. Since increasing his upload speed is very expensive, he gets a web hosting account for less but also has to pay quite a bit more per MB storage than he would on a home-based web server solution.

      In other words, he gets forced into web-hosting and pays more that he would have if upload speeds were not so expensive when compared with download speeds. In addition, his web server can be shut down more easily now ( say, as the result of a DMCA violation letter ) that it is on the ISP's server than if it were on his home computer.

      --
      I can't afford a sig!
  84. the seriously hardcore eMule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    You do you realise that emule is in the top 5 of sourceforge projects AND its open source ! its also in the top 3 applications that cause massive amounts of bandwidth for ISP's

    someone needs to take all the hash and multipart engines from the mule(they have sussed fast hashing and integrity) and combine them with these kinds of encypted systems (and having a ed2k://hash|filname custom browser clickable protocol is a absolute must, forum communities spring up all over dedicated to certain subsets of files because even clueless people can write <a href="">links</a> themselves (and as they are just links to nowhere no one gets in trouble for hosting things) as the files are md5 hashed and metatdata is tied to the hash you can read comments or check the filename to see that your file is indeed the right one (or has been renamed) and the multipart downloading is solid and proven

    seriously, if these projects got together this anti-"the man"-encrypted-anon-thing could be working in an instant

    A.C.U.C

  85. At least I don't sell *their* MP3s by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    I think that the RIAA will take any drop in revenue as an 'attack by pirates'. So where does that leave me? For the most part, I don't trade songs, up or down. (I perhaps have 30 that I don't have the CD or Album for, and you can read my Journal for how BuyMusic.com, and Orchard Records are RESELLING my music.)

    Yet the RIAA will blame me as well as everyone else. They have already shown that they believe that *everyone* is a thief.

    Why should anyone act differently? Even if there was a massive boycott of Industry music, the RIAA will still lobby for laws favorable to themselves, and anti-consumer/citizen/fair use. If you're going to get screwed, might as well have something to show for it.

    OT - I still don't understand how with more content created every day than ever before, how and why copyright has gotten longer and longer. EMOT -Why are there so many ACs in this thread? Get a pair and log in, you pussies.

  86. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by gsperling · · Score: 1

    Would you be interested in sharing how you're doing that? I am seriously intrigued by your idea, and would like to set one up of my own.

    Thanks!

  87. Yes it uses TCP/IP but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    beyond normal TCP level routing, the program is doing it's own routing on top of that. tracing utilities will not work when you have routing being done at the application level. traceroute is not gonna work here because the routing is happening above the IP level (read: no ping/tracert). as long as each node isn't logging all routed traffic (which it shouldn't) then the moment a byte is forwarded on it's forgotten.

    example:
    Node's X, Y, Z

    -node X wants items A from node Z
    -node Y is an intermediary
    -a request for A is sent (at app level) from X to Y
    -node Y forwards (at app level) request to node Z
    -node Z responds to node Y
    -and node Y responds to node X

    traceroutes from X to Z are impossible because the nodes are identified by a application level network name and not an IP address, thus X doesn't know Z's IP, only Y's IP and that Y is able to talk to Z.

  88. alternative encrypted p2p software by mcryptic · · Score: 1

    filetopia has been around for quite some time, they also have a larger user base. They don't use "hops" by default but it is an option.

  89. More importantly by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    ...these notes will be sent to your neighbours each hinting that they be redirected to codename: "enter the sandman"

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  90. Copyrights by vjih · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm really wondering why we need this kind of anonymity while trading files over the internet. When was it that we forgot about the copyright laws and wishes of other people. If someone decides to restrict the copying, why shouldn't we respect their wishes ?

    Even the screenshots on that site clearly show distribution of copyrighted material that shouldn't be there after all.

    At the moment, I'm more concerned about the fact that I can't legally listen to CDs I've bought on my computer anymore. I'm pretty pissed about the fact that I had to return one CD back to the shop, that I bought few days ago. (And, yes I emailed BMG about this.)

  91. no predefined routers makes MUTE useless by NynexNinja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although the tool has a good design, the fact that there are no pre-defined routers makes the tool almost useless to most potential file swappers. It would be nice if there was a couple IP addresses pre-configured, or at least some mention of where to look for a start up group, i.e. an irc channel. The author basically expects many people to come together and share their own files with each other. Although this might have good intentions, the other sharing networks which all contain pre-configured routers and are ready to go "out of the box" are going to be used, not this tool.

  92. Wow, this could be the new Keller app by benk · · Score: 2, Funny
    (sorry, couldn't resist :)

    --
    -- "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." -- HL Mencken
  93. Re: Bandwdth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi!

    I noticed you misspelled "bandwdth" in the subject line. In the future, please spell it as "bndwdth" so as to conserve precious bndwdth.

    Thanks! :-)

  94. What I've been wanting instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a simple, free software that allows password-protected file sharing amongst friends. Security through trust.

  95. Irony? by mikewren420 · · Score: 1

    Noone else sees the irony of naming a filesharing network MUTE?

  96. OFF TOPIC Re:Reminds me of Crowds... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    I'd be interested in reading your thesis if it is publically accessible.

    1. Re:OFF TOPIC Re:Reminds me of Crowds... by tuxette · · Score: 1

      It is - in a "messy" format though (i.e. poorly edited and without a bunch of the attachments). It will be fixed eventually, but not before next year. At least it's in pdf. Is your contact information on overclockedcafe.com ?

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    2. Re:OFF TOPIC Re:Reminds me of Crowds... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Yes, look for a news post by GoaT to snag my addy, or look for Tom the Senior Editor on the contact page.

  97. Whoops, forgot the link by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

    http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002mar/gee20020 329010951.htm

    --
    -insert a witty something-
  98. MUTE, konspire2b, and Jason Rohrer by henrypijames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is interesting. MUTE is created and coded by Jason Rohrer, the same Jason Rohrer who created and coded konspire2b. Now what is the relationship of these two programs, particularly from the view of their common author? Is he "dumping" k2b in favor of this all-new MUTE?

    konspire2b came with a very intersting idea, but the implementation was less impressive. Especially the inability to deal with a "passive" Internet connection (behind NAT and/or firewall) is the reason that it hasn't gained a user base as large as it promised. It is simply a fact that many (if not most) private Internet users are using a passive Internet connection nowaday, and the procentage is even growing.

    Now MUTE comes again with a very intersting idea, but as we know, problems of technical details can kill good ideas quite often. Obviously, the concept is in some points similar to Freenet. One of Freenet's biggest problem is, just like k2b, it's inability to deal with pass internet connection. I think this issue may be the corner stone for MUTE, too.

    I am negatively biased against Jason, mainly because the "failure" of his k2b, and especially because of the document he published comparing his own k2b to BitTorrent, which earned quite some protests because many factual "findings" in the comparison seem wrong. To be fair, I must admit that since I am a member of the BitTorrent dev team, my opinion in this matter is biased from the start, although it has not prevent me to try out k2b, and will certainly not prevent me from trying out MUTE now.

    1. Re:MUTE, konspire2b, and Jason Rohrer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed in the MUTE cvs some of the code was a direct copy from konspire2b.

    2. Re:MUTE, konspire2b, and Jason Rohrer by edheil · · Score: 1

      Just tried it; can't connect to any hosts.

      One of the hosts in the seednodes.ini is 'katcher.2y.net'. I think that was one of the seed hosts for Konspire too.

      I liked Konspire. Got bored with it after a while but it was a really cool idea.

      The trouble with P2P networks is that, like instant messaging systems, their usefulness is their technical quality multiplied by their popularity. A lame but widespread P2P network is gonna be more useful than a very cool but unpopular P2P network.

      Rohrer seems to be good at publicity. He had Adam Curry geeked about Konspire, and Oliver Willis had a Konspire channel. Now he's got Slashdot and InfoAnarchy all gaga over MUTE. Hope it gets more momentum than Konspire. :)

    3. Re:MUTE, konspire2b, and Jason Rohrer by ToyKeeper · · Score: 1

      I've been running MUTE for the last couple hours, and I'm saddened that it's by the author of k2b.

      I lost about any possible respect for that guy after reading his k2b/bittorrent comparison article, doing the math myself, and finding how amazingly far off his conclusions were. It was like reading a SCO press release.

      Don't get me wrong... the guy's got some experience now and maybe he's a little more clueful.

      I've already had it fail to compile against the libs it wants, freeze up on me thrice, fail 80% of the downloads I attempted, fail 100% of uploads, and ignore its own config files. But then again, that's not bad for V0.1. :) Maybe I'll use it someday, once it can run for more than 30 minutes without crashing.

  99. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by corebreech · · Score: 1
  100. it's "buy" you insensitive clod by Fubar411 · · Score: 1

    Trying hard to respect your comment, but I keep thinking of you being "by that PIL album back in 1986" and thereby owning it.

    Too bad you're not confusing it with "bi", which can get me hot.

    1. Re:it's "buy" you insensitive clod by jred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, his PIL reference kept jumping out at me. I recently found a couple of PIL albums I unfortunately purchased at one time (What did I know, I thought "Johnny Rotten!!!"). I then proceeded to try & *give* them away, to no avail...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    2. Re:it's "buy" you insensitive clod by cluge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, chalk that up to my genetics. I have the "all thumbs" jene, err geen, err, jean, ARAGHAAH!!!! gene

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  101. Jim spoke to lawyers... by haeger · · Score: 1
    ..about this I think.
    Jim McCoy wrote MojoNation based on the advice he got from them. MojoNation has since then evolved into Mnet and HiveCache.

    I think You can find him on irc://irc.freenode.net/mnet or mail him on mnet-devel on Sourceforge.

    He should know more about this.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  102. ISP logging by Arch-out · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not sure, but is there a reason that ISP's have to keep logs of who used what IP address? If they did'nt then it could make the whole issue dissapear.

    1. Re:ISP logging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure, but is there a reason that ISP's have to keep logs of who used what IP address? If they did'nt then it could make the whole issue dissapear.

      Great idea ..... until one of the ISP's users decides to initiate a DDOS attack from within their network.... or the authorities come to the ISP with information on a user of theirs who is the leader of a massive kiddie porn ring..... or etc etc etc. ISPs need to log stuff for their own well being. If everyone in the world abided by the law, then we might have a different situation here.

      How does something like this get modded up to begin with?

    2. Re:ISP logging by NateSac · · Score: 1

      yeah, first thing I thought was, what about spam, but it i mean, spam still a hug problem, so its not like those logs are helping with that. I say we all just give up on the internet and go back to carrier pigionn

      --
      ::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
    3. Re:ISP logging by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Libertarian ethic? I'm reasonably sure they think that less regulation == teh r0xx0rz, and changing the laws so that IP logging isn't required would be less regulation.

      --
      [o]_O
    4. Re:ISP logging by shostiru · · Score: 5, Informative
      Just a few reasons:

      1. Because if we don't, we can be fined, shut down, or go to jail. Yes, really.
      2. To stop people from spamming you (intentionally or as zombies).
      3. To identify viruses and inform customers (some of them, e.g. Welchia, wreak havoc with an extremely common brand of routers).
      4. So our upstream providers don't drop us like a rock when we can't handle abuse reports.
      5. For bandwidth metered billing (we don't, some do).
      6. So when customer X calls and says "why can't I connect/get a DHCP lease/get to the web/etc" we can actually help them.
      7. So we can catch and resolve problems with RADIUS or dhcpd.

      If none of the above applied I wouldn't waste the disk space, because it's just not that thrilling to know that user jsmith had IP 1.2.3.4 yesterday at 15:00GMT. Of course, if you're paranoid, feel free to use Freenet, MUTE, or whatever.

    5. Re:ISP logging by Arch-out · · Score: 1

      OK I do understand reasons 2-7. Can you explain reason one a little more compleatly? Also how long do the logs have to be kept before they are erased?

  103. *everyone* is a thief. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 0
    Hey, I'm not defending RIAA. Like I said, I have very specific issues with RIAA.

    I am questioning the method by which the protest is being made. As you point out you do have 30 that you don't own the CD or album for, my total is zero. In point of fact, at any given time my total is zero. I completely boycott supporting RIAA. I haven't spent money for music from a RIAA member org since well before Napster was an itch in someone's cerebellum. For many years I have bought music directly from the artist.

    To be honest, I don't think I've missed a damn thing. I get music that I enjoy, and know that the money is going directly to the people who created it. Recently I have been looking over Lulu, and while I haven't bought anything there yet, I proably will. Lulu's percentage is certainly more favorable than anything RIAA returns to the original creator. My band is also giving due consideration to using Lulu as a distribution vector.

    Now before hackles rise, I'm not saying even that all music file-sharing is wrong. But, I think those of us who create software have an obligation not to facilitate unlawful actions for folk who can't create the software themselves. I can suggest two quick ways to do so:

    1) Scan the file to be shared, if it is in a common format for "proscribed" materials (or zipped "proscribed" materials.) and if present, refuse to deliver the file and pop up a warning, that the software may not be used to share such materials. Hell if sox can determine the type of file it is playing so can P2P software.

    2) The program can store received files in a catalog (in a binary format) and remove from the catalog files matching the above criteria after a time consistent with trying before buying. If the program is also capable of invoking a ripper and the default media application it would be easy to ensure that it did not remove from the catalog those files which it invoked the ripper for, and could allow the temporary conversion of files in the catalog for the purpose of trying, as well as cleaning up behind.

    These measures wouldn't even need to be bulletproof. If they prevent Joe Sixpack from doing it without learning how to obviate the protection, that is enough. If Joe Sixpack goes out and learns how to obviate those protections, that user deserves the full penalty of law, since the courts could have little choice but to view that as intent.

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  104. WTF? by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from the page:
    "your identity available to spies from the RIAA and other unscrupulous organizations."

    If you are the one breaking copyright laws, i dont see how the RIIA could be the "unscrupulous" one. I mean if what everyone wants is to legally share legal files, gnutella would work just fine.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can disagree with me here completely, but p2p looks like the best way to try to sprout democracy in places like China. You can call its use "unscrupulous" all you want I suppose, but I really see the RIAA vs. Piraters as a testbed of software we can send to China. If the RIAA can't determine the location of a supposed pirate, then a dissident is certainly safe in China.

      I imagine a day when Big Brother's power over media is usurped (yes I said usurped) by an encrypted connection tunnelled through a firewall. How unscrupulous that would be.

    2. Re:WTF? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Scruples and legality don't always go together...

      See DeCSS, lame, etc.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  105. What if my "neighbor" is using a modem? by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

    I read the description of how privacy is protected by directing traffic through "neighbors." In order to hide your IP address there are not any direct transfers. If my neighbors are using dial-up connections do I have to wait for them to upload and download each piece or is the software intelligent enough to route around the "weak" links?

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  106. I have the same question by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only I have more specific questions. The major problems with WASTE are as follows, in no particular order:

    • No access control.
      This is the big one. I cannot specify (by public key) who can access an individual shared directory. Since it already doesn't have any anonymity between users of the network, you don't lose anything by implementing this.
    • Poor encryption scheme. Encryption is at the level of links between nodes on the network, so traffic is not encrypted when it is flowing through a WASTE node. Encryption should be personalized to a specific user. (It appears to be done this way in MUTE.)
    • No collaborative uploading. Since files already have unique hashes it is silly for the network to not automatically search all other nodes (permissions, well, permitting - of course WASTE has no perms, see above) and let you download pieces of files from individual hosts, thus making the network inherently more powerful.
    • Caching is very stupid. When someone rescans their shared directories, I should not have to quit and restart WASTE just because I have caching turned on.

    WASTE was designed to be used without centralized management, but has no access control. This is dumb. It means that anyone on the network can add people who can then download your files and suck up your bandwidth when you would rather give priority to people you actually know and care about. As such it is only useful amongst very small groups of people who are all good friends.

    I plan to test MUTE very soon, perhaps as soon as this evening, but it would be nice to know if any of these problems with WASTE are addressed in MUTE.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I have the same question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Caching is very stupid. When someone rescans their shared directories, I should not have to quit and restart WASTE just because I have caching turned on. "

      In waste, just go to the path, and hit the search button twice, and it flushes the cache. or, you could just wait til the cache expires on its own.

  107. finding nodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could be mistaken, but could you not simply find the node using a minesweeper-type approach?
    Also, are there not legal issues in breaking encrypted transmissions? The RIAA(or any other party) would have to break/bend any law regarding this, for no justifiable reason, only a suspicion that the user is using it that purpose. (Unless the computer handling the end transaction(in the ant terminology, the food source) is hosting the files, and that would be entrapment, no?)

  108. A plea for coherent rebuttal. by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 1
    Oh nevermind, I get it. You were using a strawman attack on the part of my post having to do with SCO.

    Very good, quite funny, I wish you had a login though, that is some pretty subtle humour, and Lord knows I love subtle...

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
    1. Re:A plea for coherent rebuttal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were using a strawman attack on the part of my post having to do with SCO.

      You're half right. I was commenting on your SCO suggestion, but it is by no means a straw man attack. If you read it again, you'll see it perfectly addresses said comment. Had I tried to apply it to the rest of your post, you might be correct.

  109. and the headline said something about 'simple' by n3k5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    even so, though.. after i managed to get it to connect to *something*, ...
    What did you connect it to, to your other machine? ;-) Seriously, I searched their homepage, the docs, the archive I downloaded on their site, tried google, but found no way to get peer's addresses. Can anyone help?
    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  110. Re: Bandwdth by Echnin · · Score: 1

    Also eMule is very good for using idle bandwith. In fact, I'd say it's better than BitTorrent, because you can share more files at once with more easy. I've got 381 files shared (nothing RIAA or MPAA), and 1023 GB uploaded. That's since approximately November 2002 with my consumer ADSL connection.

    --
    Lalala
  111. Easy for the RIAA to pollute? by imkonen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well I'll probably get a RTFA because I'm not sure this would work, but fundamentally, the more a p2p protocall/program/implementation maintains anonymity and encryption, isn't it just that much easier for the RIAA to pollute it with bogus mp3s? Couldn't they "log-out" and "log back in" or whatever the equivalent concept is, with different handles/user names/whatever each time? If this technique can't track a file source's IP address, which would seem to be the whole point of going through all the obfuscation so the RIAA can't figure out who you are and sue you, then how would you be able to "blacklist" anybody who's collection is full of bogus tracks...like say some server the RIAA sets up to pretend to be 100s of users. In fact, if the "neighbor encryption" concept is good enough that you can't tell which users are near which other users, it wouldn't even matter if the RIAA used a block of 100s of IPs all in the same domain. As long as they log-out and log back in say every 10 minutes, you'll never be able to keep your search from finding them again. You could download one test file before downloading a whole album, but 10 minutes later, you might find the same bogus user again on a new search.

  112. Re: Bandwdth by Echnin · · Score: 1

    I guess I'm tired from watching LOTR late last night. "easy" in the second sentence should of course be "ease".

    --
    Lalala
  113. It'd be great if it worked by retro128 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hmm...Downloaded it and installed it, but the seed hosts included with the program, katcher.2y.net and monolith.2y.net are not active on port 4900, which seems to be the default port this protocol uses.

    The katcher.2y.net address resolves to 128.114.51.108, and monolith doesn't resolve at all. Reverse DNS lookup indicates that everything in that class C netblock belongs to UC Santa Cruz and nothing in there is talking on 4900. Seeing as how the seeders are not talking on port 4900 and there's no reference on the web pages for more of them, I'm going to guess that this program is more about a proof of concept than a serious contender on the p2p field.

    --
    -R
  114. Seed nodes? by scrod · · Score: 1

    Can anyone provide a few IP addresses so I can actually test this thing out? The two main "seed" nodes appear to be slashdotted.

    1. Re:Seed nodes? by scrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh fine, rape my cable connection. My address is 24.208.214.50, port 4900.

  115. Re:how many file sharing systems are there now? by smithy242 · · Score: 1

    I attempted a download of MUTE via the Time Warner Telecom mirror of SourceForge, and it gave a 404!!! (Another mirror worked, not sure which one. . .)

    Time Warner and big media looking out for their best interests???

  116. Re:Someone post their IP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    192.168.0.5

  117. Routing algorithm isnt new. "learning bridges" by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
    Referencing this page, it looks like the standard way that one sets up a routing table in a network switch, as I learned it in a Telecom Networks class.

    There's lots of examples of this, if you search on google. The first one I found is in this powerpoint (slide 9). For those of you who don't want to download a ppt, here's the relevant text:

    Basic Switching Algorithm
    - Maintain data structure called the switch forwarding table
    - The forwarding table is indexed by MAC address and contains port numbers
    - Packet arrives on port P with source S and destination D
    - Set Fwd(S)=P
    - If we have an entry Fwd(D) and Fwd(D)P, then send packet out Fwd(D)
    - Otherwise, flood packet out all ports

    I googled with "learning bridge OR bridges" network switch algorithm.

    This looks pretty cool, but it seems like there will be problems when nodes go on and offline, since broadcasts get used to find nodes. Won't nodes that come and go periodically cause problems -- or is this a non-issue?

    The idea that nodes go down will probably not be an issue, because you have a (two-way) TCP connection to the node, so you know when it goes down.

  118. Won't catch on, yet. by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    P2P systems that rely on the users manually bootstrapping to a second connection aren't going to catch on until a well known list of stable master servers is provided. This is too hard for the average p2p user when compared to the almost zero intellectual cost of entry to something like the fasttrack network. I remember edonkey2000 having some teething problems in this regard also.

    YLFI
    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  119. hopefully not a stupid question... by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


    Does the RSA encryption also help defeat packet-shaping done at the router level? If so, then that's also another advantage MUTE would have over p2p protocols like Gnutella.
    1. Re:hopefully not a stupid question... by Vic+Metcalfe · · Score: 1

      Traffic shaping is generally done by the port the communication uses (80 for web, 25 for sending email, etc). I had a quick look at the technical docs for this, but didn't see any mention of port selection. This leads me to think that it uses one port just like most other Internet services. The encryption has nothing to do with this. Still, I like the idea.

      I had a similar idea that kept me up one night until I got up and started writing specs for it. I can now sleep comforatably knowing someone else has put a lot more thought into it than I have!

    2. Re:hopefully not a stupid question... by joto · · Score: 1
      No, it won't.

      But why would you want to defeat traffic shaping at the router level? Most ISP's do no traffic shaping, and only optimize for max throughput, since that's what looks good in their advertizing brochures. It also happens to be best for most of their customers, who are in a better position to judge what kind of traffic shaping they want.

    3. Re:hopefully not a stupid question... by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      No. That's port-blocking. Packet shaping examines the protocol and then throttles the bandwidth allowed to that type of packet. I'm curious if the encryption will masquerade the type of packet this p2p app uses and thereby defeat packet shaping filters.
    4. Re:hopefully not a stupid question... by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      Many universities are already implementing packet shaping at the router-level. They want to protect their bandwidth from abuse by p2p apps that are mostly used to transport illicit content. They use filters like Packeteer. I'm curious if the encryption can trick these types of filters.
    5. Re:hopefully not a stupid question... by joto · · Score: 1
      They want to protect their bandwidth from abuse by p2p apps that are mostly used to transport illicit content.

      Well, then. Don't abuse the bandwidth the university provides you with, then.

      If the university blocks ports, I can understand people want to work around it, but if all they do are deprioritizing your file-trading to let other traffic through, you'd better play nice with them, since they are actually quite nice to you!

  120. Re: Bandwdth by cpgeek · · Score: 1

    hey, I signed up for "unlimited" internet... if they dare cut me off for "excessive usage" i'm going to send a bunch of lawyers in a VW bus with LART written on the side to my isp where they will say "NO YUO!" and hopefully get me some money in the process... or at least a bandwidth upgrade

    --
    May the coffee god Smile upon you!
  121. Sheesh....allright allready!! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    Enough talk, where are the hosts??

  122. do not underestimate your foes by mr_burns · · Score: 1

    Do not assume the RIAA is technically incompetent. Even if they are, they have plenty of money with which to buy expertise.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  123. trust by mr_burns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In theory, mute beats the problem of using queries and traffic analysis to see who's sharing what.

    However, since we no longer have a way of identifying those we download from and blacklisting malicious hosts, we are more vulnerable to an old problem:

    The file you think you're downloading could actually be a trojan that scans your shared directory and reports back to 'mama'. This along with a traceroute report to a known server and whatever it could conjecture are your personal details from productivity software, registration info, web autocomplete etc.

    So some form of pseudonymous reputation management system could be built in to mitigate that problem.

    OR, there can be an anti-malware app out there tuned to the kinds of nasties you'd find on p2p.

    Ideally both should be used, as each results in an arms race.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
    1. Re:trust by evilviper · · Score: 1
      The file you think you're downloading could actually be a trojan that scans your shared directory and reports back to 'mama'.

      No... There's no way an MP3 or AVI is going to "scan" anything. Don't want a trojan; don't download executables.

      Now, as for the problem of fake files on P2P networks (thanks to the RIAA) it shouldn't be very difficult for you to check the file after part of it has been downloaded, and if it's not what it claims to be, just ignore all files with the same hash.

      Personally, I don't worry about the problem too much, since it's a doomed proposition. The RIAA has to keep paying for more and more bandwidth, and it's not stopping anyone from downloading what they want.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:trust by descil · · Score: 1

      Who cares about trust? There's all sorts of p2p encryption, and they're using it.

  124. PKI by mr_burns · · Score: 1

    how are these RSA pubkeys distributed?

    It seems to me that if they're generated each time you start the app, that you'd need to give the keys to any host that requested them and trust that they aren't performing MitM. They're brand new keys, so they aren't signed and aren't part of any web of trust or certified by a trusted third party.

    Key crypto is wankery without key security.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  125. FRENCH REVOLUTION MK II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which side are YOU gonna be on, asshole? Fuck you and your IP. Your argument might fly with capitalists -- it ain't gonna fly with the revolution.

    Keep your head, dude.

  126. Mute IRC Channel Up and Running by Merrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, what with lack of seed IP's to get this whole thing started a few of us got together on efnet and setup a channel to try and get the whole thing moving. We have suceeded in transferring files amongst our selves at reasonable speeds now (we've seen 40-50K which ain't bad). SO come along and join us if you're interested in this new network. efnet #mute-net

    1. Re:Mute IRC Channel Up and Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally. This is exactly what I've been looking for. Now it actually does something instead of nothing.

    2. Re:Mute IRC Channel Up and Running by throwaway18 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >efnet #mute-net

      The conclusion of everyone who is talking in the channel is that this version is not usable due to frequent crashing. We can't tell if the routing works because the mesh constantly changes as clients crash.

      Files are only shared if they are actually in the files directory, it does not search subdirectorys.

      The connection list in the program often shows fewer connections than are actually open.

      To compile on FreeBSD 5.1, you have to change all 'make' to 'gmake' and remove "typedef int socklen_t" and change the path of bash to /usr/local/bin/bash for MUTE/configure.

      This uses broadcst search. It is disapointing that people keep reinventing the horribly inefficient original gnutella. Broadcast search will severely limit the search horizon (and probably overall size) of a mesh. We need a filesharing program that combines anonymity with an efficient search function, the state of the art is a distributed hash table with querys and results sent by UDP.

      It is a pity that this ended up on slashdot now. If this had been announced when a working version is available slashdot might have given it the critical mass of users to get it rolling.

      This has lots of potential and will be worth another look when it is stable

  127. seedHosts.ini File by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    These contents may be more useful than the defaults

    202.52.36.144 4900
    68.61.112.22 4900
    24.208.214.50 4900
    150.101.30.106 4900
    65.71.169.148 4900
    68.111.211.154 4900

  128. Firewall Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There doesn't seem to be any way to use it behind a firewall! Will the next release include support for it? I'm definately looking forward to using it.

  129. Unscrupulous by sshore · · Score: 1
    If you are the one breaking copyright laws, i dont see how the RIIA could be the "unscrupulous" one.

    Can't they both be unscrupulous?

  130. Needs some users..? by judowillreturns · · Score: 1

    Has anyone downloaded this yet?
    After searching with little hope and no response for the song I want, I searched for 'Metallica', but still got nothing.
    I searched for 'Britney Spears' (without quotes - those who listen to her are those who cannot spell - 8-year-olds), hell; even searching for 'hot babes xxx' didn't get me any response.

    My settings are; Inbound Limit: infinite,
    Outbound Limit: infinite,
    5 connections to other computers,
    Shares from files.

    In other news, does anyone know where the excellent WinMX went? And what good p2p applications are there to use in it's stead? Not Kazaa.

  131. Re:the release of mute only days after clay's arti by evilviper · · Score: 1

    You were obviously moderated up by someone who didn't bother to read the article.

    The article is completely moronic. The author spends a great deal of time saying that the solution to anonymous P2P is PGP... In fact, PGP is designed to keep two individuals' conversation private, and P2P is supposed to be PUBLIC distribution of files. Sorry, the two are completely unrelated... Encryption is not going to do a dammed thing for normal forms of P2P.

    OTOH, trusted networks will, but they do NOT need encryption of any kind, as the RIAA does not (yet?) have the authority to intercept all network communications through your ISP. Private/trusted networks need only to have some way to authenticate that their "friends" are not cops, or the RIAA/MPAA, and encryption doesn't offer that either.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  132. Problems with MUTE by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In theory, mute beats the problem of using queries and traffic analysis to see who's sharing what.

    Mmmf. I'm dubious.

    This sounds like a really neat project to play with (I like to bat around P2P ideas as well.).

    However, I'm going to assume (I can't tell from the routing document) that something here is incorrect.

    The TTL mechanism is UtilityCounter. You attempt to obscure the real TTL by randomly moving it around. However, it's still pretty easy to simply send a number of messages until a TTL range 20 apart is reached. The host distance is then identified. Thus, a map of the MUTE network may be built, though it will take more packets than the GnutellaNet.

    The main concerns I have with the MUTE protocol relate to flooding vulnerability. This is the same problem that GnutellaNet suffers from (and I have been working on in my own time). MUTE, however, is *extremely* vulnerable to flooding, far more so than GnutellaNet, for a number of reasons:

    * MUTE shoves data packets through the MUTE network. GnutellaNet sends them directly.

    * MUTE has phenomenally large TTLs, averaging 100.

    One can probably destroy a massive MUTE network (unless I'm missing something in the routing protocol) with no more than a modem by flooding the network with data transfer packets of 32KiB (the largest the MUTE protocol allows) and bogus to virtual addresses.

    I'd be interested in knowing whether there's an IRC channel for MUTE, since I'd be interested in poking at the design a bit. If any MUTE developers read this, would you point me in the right direction?

  133. Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand how to connect. Are you supposed to connect to someone else running MUTE or what? If so, haha.. as silly as this sounds.. anyone care to share their ip? or know where I can get a list of IPs that are running mute.

    1. Re:Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      efnet #mute-net

  134. I am so sick of the "GPL requires copyright" line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who says it misses the point completely.

    Richard Stallman is anti-copyright -- he invented the GPL to thwart and destroy copyright. Ask him, if you're so interested. I applaud him for having the chutzpah to say and do the right thing.

    The whole point of the GPL is poetic justice: it uses an unjust system to spite itself... but, trust me, RMS would have never, in a thousand years, dreamt up the GPL if copyright hadn't existed in the first place.

    Such a stance is too much for most middle-of-the-road Linux fans (it is, indeed, too much for Linus Torvalds). I read empassioned pleas on /. every day (usually in reference to the SCO fiasco), from FOSS fans who're adamant they're not anti-copyright communists: but, <snivel> OH NO!, look how we rely on copyright, even </snivel>.

    Pfeh. Eunichs and posers, all of 'em.

    Read, think, evolve. Or get off the planet, you wankers, you're boring.

  135. 512 bit keys cracked? by sshore · · Score: 1

    No one will ever see a post this far down and this late in the story, but..

    According to your article, the NSA may be able to crack 512 bit RSA keys. The 128 bit keys you're talking about are AES keys.

    The nice thing about cracking RSA keys is that you only have to try combinations of primes, not combinations of all numbers in the keyspace. It's quite a bit faster than brute-force.

    The best public algorithms for cracking AES is not that far off from brute force. Your 128 bit AES keys are still relatively safe.

    Silverman estimates that one needs a 1620-bit RSA key to provide security equivalent to a 128-bit symmetric cipher key (e.g. AES).

    Hope that helps

  136. How the hell do you use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriouisly, wtf is up with this program?

    Is it supposed to automatically acquire hosts, or do we manually enter them? Where the hell do we get this information from? The site has nothing on where to get host info.

    The app does NOT connect by itself. I've let it sit here for 3 hours and nothing. I've RTFA, looked all over the main site, even searched google. Nothing.

    How the hell do you use this? Does it even work?

    1. Re:How the hell do you use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The default hosts are down now but the guys in #mute-net on efnet have a decent list going.

  137. Re:the release of mute only days after clay's arti by dave_n · · Score: 1

    Ok, you didn't read the article too well yourself now, did you. He mentions PGP a few times, but in no way does he say that is what P2P networks have to do. For a description of why encrypting the data is important, I point you to a link on the MUTE page:

    The Article

    I suggest you read the bit at the very bottom of the page. It descibes how encryption can help prevent the RIAA from catching you.

    To make a brief summary of the article, the encryption would mean the RIAA could not see what you were trying to find, or even what you were actually downloading. Sure they could know that you might be downloading something illegal, but you could just as easily be downloading a new song your buddy wrote.

    So basically, maybe you should educate yourself, before you start making ill-thought remarks.

    --
    David Novosel "Two roads diverged, and I - I took the one less travelled by."
  138. Another safe move... by IchBinDasWalross · · Score: 0

    To keep the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") off your back, try moving to Canada.

    --
    Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
  139. No documentation; MUTE doesn't work by vonuan · · Score: 1

    I have created firewall rule allowing all traffic on TCP port 4900 but MUTE doesn't work. There is no documentation with the user distribution or on the sourceforge site either.

  140. MUTE IP's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded this program to give it a shot, but I could never manage to get onto the network due to a dearth of IP address's. The program has only two servers, and both of those appear to be non functional. I like the concept, but they will have to improve entry onto the network if this is ever to take off.

  141. She was right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Princess was right... but to update things a bit g:/Lord Vader/s/Lord Vader/RIAA/g

  142. Uh-Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MUTE > ./fileSharingMUTE
    Host name lookup failed: katcher.2y.net:4900

    Maybe this an RIAA boobytrap... Then again, are they really that intelligent?

  143. Sounds good but I can't get it even compiled by The+Terminator · · Score: 1

    *nt*

  144. WARNING: Cute jailbait girlie link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't open this at work, your boss might think you're a pervert

  145. How does it avoid detection by RIAA? by hendrix69 · · Score: 1

    The most burning legal issue is being detected as a file-sharer by RIAA, right? So how does disabling direct connections by routing traffic through mediate nodes achieve that? At least theoreticaly speaking, if RIAA were so inclined, they could deploy a large number of MUTE nodes until they create a situation in which the connection between the pirate-file-sharere and the RIAA-spy-node is completely filled with RIAA nodes (which could practically mean only a few nodes). It seems feasable. RIAA could then sue that sharer for whatever rediculous sum of money they manage to conjur up and cover the cost of this sting operation. So how does the ant protocol deal with this issue? Or did I misunderstand the basic idea behind the procotol in which case my point is MOOT?

    --
    The power of Christ compiles you!
  146. list of seeds by 2.246.1010.78 · · Score: 1

    join #mute-net on efnet here is a list of seeds: http://www.crimsonreport.com/mute-net/

  147. You've got it (Mod up parent) by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
    You are correct. This form of anonymonity is designed simply to disguise the sender from the reciever. (and perhaps vice-versa)

    The whole point is to thwart the type of investigation used by the RIAA where they download a file, then track down and prosecute the sender.

    It does not prevent the ISPs from sniffing out who is sending to whom if they were inclined to do so (they aren't).

    However you may really be onto something with that last idea. You've got extra overhead anyway, so just add a random 0-something number of extra hops on the end. Doesn't have to be many as long as it is fairly random.

    Still doesn't conceal the origin from an ISP or an agency tied in at the ISP (Carnivore part 3, anyone?).

    Good thinking.

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    1. Re:You've got it (Mod up parent) by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      "...Still doesn't conceal the origin from an ISP or an agency tied in at the ISP (Carnivore part 3, anyone?)..."

      I considered this, but I s'pose encryption partly covers it. If the contents are unknown, it'd be pretty hard to prove that they're illegal.

      What about hiding the source by changing packet sizes? I mean, say you're a node. You receive a request for packet X while receiving another to forward packet Y. Could you make it appear as though one were the other to external sources, while internally maintaining the correct endpoint info? Or what about splitting a packet into multiple packets, and routing them hither and yon, before bringing them back together? Although I guess thats kinda whats happening already...

      Anyways, thanks for the info.

      (tig)

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    2. Re:You've got it (Mod up parent) by araemo · · Score: 1

      "I considered this, but I s'pose encryption partly covers it. If the contents are unknown, it'd be pretty hard to prove that they're illegal."

      Thats one big advantage in the US, but it still makes me wonder how usefull freenet will be in totalitarian governments like china. If you are not hindered by due process, you can assume that anyone using these protocols is doing illegal things with it, and beat it out of them.

      "What about hiding the source by changing packet sizes?"

      This is already covered by most modern encryption systems. I forget which one I was reading about specifically, but older schemes(esp password encryption schemes) had weaknesses where a certain length cyphertext could only be made by a small subset of possible source texts. This made guessing cyphertext much simpler. These days, most schemes pad packets to the max size possible every time. No matter how much actual encrypted data is included. This makes it harder to guess what the packets contain.

      "Or what about splitting a packet into multiple packets, and routing them hither and yon, before bringing them back together? Although I guess thats kinda whats happening already..."

      I should really read the spec before saying this, but hopefully I won't look too stupid.

      I am going to have to assume that each packet will be encrypted between individual nodes, and at least partially decrypted at each node to get the routing information for the next hop. then re-encrypted. So theoretically during transport, it's impossible to know what an individual packet is for at ALL. It could be a search packet, or a request, or a data packet, or a search result packet. Of course, this is all assuming each node encrypts all data with the key of the next node over, rather than passing encrypted data straight across the network(or perhaps encrypts the payload, then sticks on a routing header and encrypts that WITH the encrypted payload, so A: Sniffers/ISPs can't tell where a packet is intended to go, B: nodes can't tell what's in the packet they're forwarding to it's destination.)

  148. Flooding attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In MUTE, what stops someone from flooding the network with packets with random destination addresses? Basically, it looks to me like those packets will get passed around until someone takes them.

    Hopefully there's a TTL value like Gnuella has, that drops packets after 7 hops (on searches). Of course, searches aren't as critical to get to a particular target as file transfers.

  149. The big question, of course.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we know this isn't a RIAA job? :)

  150. Mods: Please update this article by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 1

    Mute didn't work for alot of people because it was slashdotted. Please post up this URL http://www.crimsonreport.com/mute-net/ It's a list of seednodes.

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
  151. major flaw by jeanph01 · · Score: 1

    Their is a major flaw. RIAA could take the source code an modify the program so that it gives the real address of every node and with a little number of "trap computers" they would be able to bring some people to court.

  152. Share your files 24/7! Please! Get it going! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm doing my part! I turned off my usual Gnutella client I run 24/7 and turned this on, sharing all my files on MUTE only!
    This is cool!

  153. Someone write a linux kernel that runs "below" win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad people have to use windows to run filesharing aps.
    No wonder all the crashes!

    If you had a way to sort of stop windows and let a linux kernel take over 100% cpu, that would be great!

  154. Forget the folks, what's that chick's phone # by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can probably help her out and teach her a thing or two. About CD-Burning and mp3 archival, honest!

  155. SUBSCRIBE TO THE MUTE MAILINGLIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subscribe to the mailinglist via mail to: MUTE-THIRDGENERATIONGNUTELLIUM-subscribe@yahoogrou ps.com

  156. Has anyone gotten it working yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded it. Started it up. Everything looks fine; but my searches never find anything.

    I added the seed hosts that the listed and still nothing.

  157. Re:the release of mute only days after clay's arti by evilviper · · Score: 1
    He mentions PGP a few times, but in no way does he say that is what P2P networks have to do.

    Yes, he does say encryption is what is needed, indirectly of course... Multiple phrases saying things like the RIAA created "a real-world version of the scenario that drove the invention of user-controlled encryption in the first place." And comments like this one:

    In response to the RIAA's suits, users who want to share music files are adopting tools like WINW and BadBlue, that allow them to create encrypted spaces where they can share files and converse with one another.

    For a description of why encrypting the data is important, I point you to a link on the MUTE page:

    There are some very very big holes in their arguments. First:

    Thus, the RIAA performs a search for "mp3", and your node returns over 1000 results
    [...]
    the RIAA has all the information that it needs, so it stops right here. With the list of 1000+ infringing songs in hand, it files a subpoena against your ISP


    The truth is, they can NOT sue you based upon that information... They need some PROOF that you are ACTUALLY SHARING, and they need proof that those files actually contain the material that the name would seem to indicate. If they don't do that, then they have no basis for a lawsuit, since you can claim that it was anything else.

    Now, to the more prudent point:

    the RIAA might set up a computer on your local network that would listen to all of your Internet traffic

    Now, first of all, that would be completely illegial... The RIAA (wether they like it or not) do not have police powers, and so if they were to listen-in on the network, they would be doing so illegially.

    Secondly, that would be technically unfeasable... The RIAA is already wasting much money with this current tactic, so it's incredibly doubtful they would resort to something like this even if it would be legal.

    Finally, I never said that encrypt was bad, wrong, etc... Only that it will do nothing on it's own to increase privacy, and that there are many ways where encryption is not even needed.

    So basically, maybe you should educate yourself, before you start making ill-thought remarks.

    Take your own advice...
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  158. Re:HAXOREST = PWN3D BY CELERIAN by Celerian · · Score: 0

    Flamebait OO HA HA! KThkBye!

  159. Re:HAXOREST = PWN3D BY CELERIAN by hax0rest · · Score: 1
    *MRRP MRRP MRRP MRRP ANNOUNCEMENT MRRP MRRP*

    celerian is a fag. thatis all.

    *MRRP FUCK MRRP FUCK MRRP MRRP FUCK MRRP SHIT*

  160. Re:HAXOREST = PWN3D BY CELERIAN by Celerian · · Score: 0

    Hey man, take some Prozac. No need to be like this.

  161. Re:HAXOREST = PWN3D BY CELERIAN by haxorest · · Score: 0

    quiet u nigger. really! he's black! quite a nigger too

  162. Re:HAXOREST = PWN3D BY CELERIAN by Celerian · · Score: 0

    I ain't no n*gga, foo!

  163. You might learn something yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like when her dad teaches you about being buried alive in the desert.

    Under six feet of earth, no one can hear you scream, and if they can, they're fucked too.