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."
...although CPD was able to find a few duplicate chunks.
The Army reading list
...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.)
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
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.
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
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
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)
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."
"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."
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
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.
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."
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
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!!
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.
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!!
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
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.
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.
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?