Slashdot Mirror
Software To Stop Song Trading
Shippy writes "Palisade Systems is about to launch new software that can identify and block copyrighted songs as they are being traded online. However, the article fails to mention that it will also stop legal song downloads. The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not. Here's some snippets from the article: 'If installed in a university, for example, it could look inside students' emails, instant messages and peer-to-peer transfers...', and 'Jacobson said the identification process would not work on an encrypted network, such as is used in several newer file-swapping programs. However, the Palisade software could also act to block those applications from using the network altogether.' Great."
Encrypted protocols increase in popularity.
to spend money and give students a paid subscription for music downloads (some colleges have) then spend money tracking file sharing?
I guess it's time to start bridging those WiFi networks around the world. If you can't beat em, fuck em. I start file sharing over WiFi networks. I look forward to the days of local BBSes again. (WiFi BBS?)
Life is not for the lazy.
I dont think this'll go over well, as there are SOME legal uses for MP3s.
It is not a god that would do evil biddings, but only a mortal and its limited knowledge would let such atrocities exist
Encrypt IM encrypt file sharing encrypt your email
404
Jacobson's web site: here
So, what if you .rar the file?
How does this effect pay-for programs like iTunes?
Also, is this RIAA-only songs being blocked, or other songs? Copyrighted doesn't always mean "undistributable". Someone may hold the copyright to something but may actually let people distribute it-- am I wrong there?
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
how do i tell this software that i want people to trade MY copyrighted music? if they block my file swapping would that be some sort of anticompetitive thing? just because the RIAA and its labels own the majority of music being traded doesnt mean that all the music being traded belongs to them.
If I send my friend an mp3 of me playing some music how can it tell that from me sending a copyrighted work? Is it reading the 'finger print' and then checking byte by byte? Isn't that going to kill traffic... But couldn't it be beaten by adding one extra byte to the file? Sending in another format?
Yes lets just block it immediately, because we all know in the US you are guilty until proven innocent...
Funny, on slashdot GPL violators are on step below Charles Manson, while copyright infringers of music, movies, and software are somewhere below jaywalkers.
Wait... it did say that it can look into student's emails and instant messages right? So basically it is giving the University free right to look into student's messages and claim that they are merely looking for illegal songs. There has got to be something that can be done by the students at these universities to block this. This is a total invasion of privacy. If any university tries to impose this onto the students attending, the students must do something. Hopefully we haven't lost all of our rebellious nature.
If you can hear it and if you can see it, it can be copied.
The PHBs insist upon wearing ties, not realizing a tie shuts down the oxygen reaching their brain. Won't they ever learn?
I wonder how this technology will hold up against stenography. Let me think about it for a moment. Hmm...
..is a P2P app that can run over an SSL connection, disguised as web traffic. I'd bet that could beat this thing. Does such a thing exist?
From the article:
"seeking audio "fingerprints" that could be compared with information in Audible Magic's database."
We've tried database-oriented filters to stop spam in the form of keyword lists and the like for years, yet spam is more of a problem today than it was 5 years ago. Why won't the same techniques that let spam slip past our filters let content slip past these filters? Add a byte here or there, run a very light encryption routine over a file and bam - one broken filter.
Even if the networks that use encryption in the protocol itself are stopped - encryption on the file level can be used on insecure networks and this software becomes useless.
Josh
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
...of an SSH tunnel? :)
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
And just the other day people were saying it'd never catch on.
The university I attend has explicit privacy rules, available for everyone to read. If I recall correctly this sort of thing would violate those rights awarded by the school and as soon as someone brings it up it'll disappear.
I'll stick to Usenet
moo.
'If installed in a university, for example, it could look inside students' emails, instant messages and peer-to-peer transfers...' In related news, Palisade Systems has now finished build 1984 of PacketHound
Hard Hat Area: Sig Construction Zone
Is this software going to intercept any archives (.rar, .tar.gz, .zip etc.), unarchive them and check them? I'm not against such software - Universities have a right to disallow file trading on their networks, just as I have a right to use an ISP which doesn't use such software for my home connection. However, I just think that this won't work, at least not without blocking or hindering so much legitimate use that everyone revolts against it.
sig under construction...
Holy crap! They've invented the firewall!
And doesn't this whole anti-filesharing thing pretty much smack of the antivirus game at this point? Every time you come up with a way to kill one, two new ones show up that you're not sure what to do with. The effect on stopping the phenomenon is nil, just one more IT guy required for every hundred users.
And how exactly can it detect copyrighted works transfered through, say, a VPN?
It can't.
Blocking the ports is asinine because there ARE legitimate uses.
Last I checked ISPs and ISP-like entities aren't required to filter out file sharing traffic.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is scheduled to make a press release Friday morning to announce his partnership with the MPAA and RIAA to release a product that he guarantees can block all illegal file sharing 100%.
The solution will be called "Knife". This aptly named solution will entail taking a sharp pointed object to cut a network connection cable in half. Knife is to be released in a Home ($99 - straight edge) and Professional ($199 - serrated) version.
Rumors are circulating about a WiFi solution Gates has pondered entitled "Complete Technological Annihilation via Nuclear Bomb Generated EMP fields".
Both are expected with a Fall 2004 release date.
What happens when I buy the song from iTunes and download it to my computer. Will they reimburse me if they block my legally purchased song?
What about streaming audio? Will I only get to listen to the stupid DJ's talking between the songs?
Does this software violate the DMCA by illegally decrypting encrypted channels between me on the road and my secure, legal music server at home? how about breaking into my VPN? Or listening into plain old HTTPS/SFTP/SCP/rsync-over-ssh ...
Or is this just some marketing-speak BS about some crappy pattern recognition software that doesn't really work (ie image 'watermarking' that survives recompression) ...
> They want to take the position of not filtering out all peer-to-peer [traffic], stopping copyrighted works but not the other content."
Here's the problem: how do RIAA and MPAA distinguish, legally, between copyrighted material that is permitted (fair-use), and that which is not? I'm talking about articles, fair-use media vs. illegal-to-distribute-or-possess copyright media. How do these watchdogs inform the public of such differences? The onus is truly on the RIAA/MPAA if you ask me. The story, strangely, is "Copyright © 2004 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved," which begs to question... how can a twelve-year-old truly understand this discombobulated law?
That's the problem with the whole thrust of the RIAA argument against P2P (that the illegal trading of this copyrighted material hurts business). What about Internet articles? These articles are copyrighted works, published to the Internet by their respective owners, but quite often articles are mirrored by websites like Slashdot. Sometimes the copyright owners like this mirroring, and other times they do not (they seem to flip flop on it, depending on the source). Therefore, the lack of consistancy *should* make it extremely difficult to win a copyright case, although somehow the owners always win.
IANAL, yet my argument is that two distinct laws ought govern copy protection, because this fork-in-the-road is quite ambiguous. Firstly, how are any of us to know the status of copyrighted materials downloaded? What if we download a song over P2P, expecting the song to be one of the songs that are fair-use, and we pass the song along to a ton of other people? Secondly, how do we distinguish between the legality copyrighted articles that are online and music, and the fair-use music?
Because there exists no truly accurate copyright-status repository, I think all the people under suit from a watchdog might have some ammunition.Without a bona fide/impartial database of illegal filenames and md5 checksums to verify your current P2P files, how can you be responsible for these files?
Furthermore, if you downloaded a song from P2P, you should legally be able to upload it back to that P2P, if you truly believed the files to be fair-use, which could truly be any file.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but how can one stop all "secure" file swapping communications w/o killing off unrelated important stuff? I tunnel through anonymizer.com when I surf, and I imagine any file sharing program worth its salt could do a similar type thing through the same port (22). Wouldn't they end up not only killing file sharing but also people checking their bank accounts, registering online, buying stuff on Ebay, etc?
As for looking into email, sheesh! Public key encryption will avoid that, and any attempt to block those types of communications would be rather stupid and overreaching.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
I'm interested to see how this will affect those who download from Usenet and IRC, my two favorite ways of getting music. Surely they can't block newsreaders and legitimate IRC clients.
"All art is quite useless." -- Oscar Wilde
If this is based on fingerprinting technology it would be pretty trivial to cutoff the Type 1 and Type 2 tags, reverse the content and stick'em back on. Reverse the process after downloading. Of course you could always UUencode the song and add a zip extension to it or a multitude of other tricks to hide what your doing.
Never underestimate the power of broke, bored, determined college students.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
So, I tape class today, and send it to you via email because you live on the opposite side of campus from me (or you are at your parents having a birthday for Granny). But now the MP3 of the lecture recording can't be sent.
Music transfer will be like spam or email viruses. It's a moving target now. They'll put something like this in place, someone figures out a way around it. The manufacture figures out a way to block the changes, start round two. Repeat as often as necessary.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
So, where's my encryption plug-in for Azureus and bittorrent trackers man?
Seriously, it's a proverbial game limbo, where the commercial interests setup up to stomp out piracy, and piracy reinvents itself instead of dying. I think the pirating trends on the internet will continue indefinitely, at least until the nature of the network itself changes.
Settle down there, Valenti.
what about that wildly popular cat iTunes. Will those downloads be blocked. You don't use a web browser to interface but it does work thru the http protocol does it not?.
Can i get some names.. who (legal downloads) are being blocked. I'd like a feel for the situation.
This does sound rather impossible i mean how? are they gonna check the hashes? just change a little osmething and that's useless.
it will also stop legal song downloads. The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not.
Uhm... no. That's not a legal download. That's a rationalization that some people have tried to claim, but it's not exactly one the courts have confirmed. You can format-shift your own copy of a song, but you can't take somebody else's copy of a song you happen to own a copy of in another format.
Unless you're the copyright holder, you don't really "own the song", you own a "copy of the song" that you're allowed to use. If all you've done is just buy the overpriced CD, you're still not allowed to distribute a copy of your copy under any conditions...
It wouldn't be so hard to just use some compression program to alter the file's contents and thereby thwart the new software. Either that or people could start trading .ogg files around, that would fix it.
Ban software. Make having an Internet connection a felony. Actually, just ban computer ownership for everybody except corporate and government executive management. Then legislate for a new tax to cover the cost of enforcing these bans, to be split 50-50 between the government and the RIAA/MPAA.Problem solved. Everybody happy.
Uh wont trivial obfsucation defeat this? Really we need to invest time into stenography as it should defeat this process. The university deplopment doesnt make much sense as one good CS major will tell everyone else to use steno and whamo everyone defeats it. You might have a play where users dont know each other or dont commuincate much to each other ala ISP.
Just another company trying to make a quick buck.
I doubt that it can even recognize a ROT-13 Mp3 attachment renamed "readme.txt".
It has a lot of catchups to do when students start sending encrypted traffic through ordinary channels. (an easy example, IM file transfer of a password-protected ZIP file)
When is the army going to install this in Iraq?
Oops, I forgot we don't deserve the same freedom as the Iraqis. Silly me.
Hmmm. Since I (and undoubtedly many others, I'm sure) use SSH for everything, I wonder how they plan to shut down even an insignificant fraction of any kind of sharing?
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
IF I use an SSH tunnel to bore out to a server outside their net would they also block SSH? Should we be blocking IP too? After all, bad things can go across TCP/IP networks!
When only government departments and agents, as well as "licenced" corporate users, are permitted to apply encryption methods? If anybody other than those authorised users is detected using an encryption method and is therefore by legal definition a criminal?
neither RIAA nor Audible Magic had given them a demonstration of the filtering tools. Industry trade group P2P United says it has repeatedly contacted the company asking to see the filters in action.
Ikezoye said he still has not demonstrated the technology for the peer-to-peer companies.
This brings up a ton of questions:
- What are they looking for in the content of P2P traffic?
- What defines copyrighted or 'controlled' material? Bootlegs won't be in there...
- If it ain't installed in the client, where is it installed?
- Will this work on server based P2P like soulseek?
- What possible gain is to be had by filtering this?
Studies have already shown that CD sales increase where there is a market of 'try before you buy'. (Australia, for example) When is the RIAA going to wake up and realize that the biggest marketing tool in history is at their command and they don't have to do a damn thing to prevent it?
Radio killed the vinyl star? Nope.
Video killed the radio star? Um, nope.
MP3 killed the video star? Maybe, but absolutely to the artists' benefit and not some fat f*ck from Clear Channel.
Filtering is way too invasive to even be considered an option. Sheesh.
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
If they've got software that can "name that tune" as it passes by in MP3... isn't that the holy grail for legalizing P2P?
All it would take is some authorizing legislation, and every time a P2P song passes through the toll booth, a few pennies (quanity specified in the law) get transfered to the song owner. Those pennies can either be asorbed by the ISP as part of their service, or they can pass it along to the customer as part of their bill.
There you go. If it can block it, it can log it too...
Audible Magic is another "tool' that performs TCP resets when it detects what it believes to be illegal file sharing.
This type of activity is introducing a frightening level of interference in the network as a whole. Imagine trying to troubleshoot network problems caused by tools such as these "accidentally" dropping network connections.
I'm torn in two over whether this is a good thing or not. OK, to be honest, I'm not torn at all, but I have to admit that after talking to a lot of people I have come to the conclusion that over 95% of all downloads on p2p networks are illegal sharing of music. The problem with this system is that it blocks the 5% of legitimate downloads.
Let me give an example. I live in a country where the use, possesion, growing and sales of marijuana is illegal, even if it's for saving someone with glaucoma or MS, and simply speaking out against these laws can draw attention from law enforcement and gov't types that would rather have us shut up rather than try and create a better world through civilized education and political activism. We use p2p file trading (bittorrent and WinMX) in order to distribute rather large video clips and audio files, partly because we can't afford high-badwidth servers overseas. These files are copyrighted by us, but we do want to distribute them, for free, and our medium is p2p sharing. I recognize that what we do is probably ~0.01% of the way p2p networks are actually used, but it is a legit use.
In a sense though, the illegal music/movie file trading scene has given us an additional edge. There are a lot of people using p2p that wouldn't if it hadn't been for the free music. The medium itself probably wouldn't have been developed so fast and so well either, for the same reasons.
So while I don't condone the illegal trading of files, I personally see it is a "grey area" where it may be illegal, but there probably is more benefit than not. (And I won't even go into the "but they wouldn't have paid for the music anyways" argument.)
Just a thought.
You know, I'm not one to break out the Star Wars quotes lightly, but : "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." What a dopey system. Everyone knows that the only way you're going to stop this kind of thing is through draconian legislation! :)
Software companies just are out looking for the quick buck.
They know for sure no protection is fail proof. They just think of something that looks clever to the unknowing, and convince them that their software can really do what it claims to do.
Then it gets cracked in matter of hours, but the maker of the software has already made it's profit.
We see this all the time. We just hear about the really lame protections that can be broken by holding the shift key or using a common black felt tip marker.
Still, the problem is not with inventing new protections, the problem is inventing new protections that don't work but prevent legitimate users to fully enjoy what they paid for.
They are grinding the fair use to a point where buying a cd (or movie or else) will only be legal if you play it using a DRM enabled device with you locked inside a black box connected to the copyright holder's server with a secret password key they will have given you after they made you swear an oath in front of a federal judge.
Freedom? Yeah, you're free to get fucked.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
...will it ever end?
We are definitely going to need all the extra bandwidth that is being toted as of late.
There is going to be so much crap in the pipe!
Encrypted P2P, bots sniffing each other's packet ends like dogs.
Enough already.
Yeah, it'll be alot slower, but I guess the only surefire way around this is to start burning entire MP3 librarys to CDs, iPods, USB harddrives ... whatever, and swapping music the old fashioned way.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
I've seen a few (hmmm....) articles/submissions regarding privacy issues vs. RIAA/MPAA vs. file sharing. While I love to see the fervent debate and great minds that post rhetoric to this site, these debates quite often fall into two or more discussion a) the technical ramifications b) the legal ramifications and c) the evil imposed by the aforementioned groups vs. what legal entitlement they have to impose such evil. This can lead to posts getting messy and off track sometimes. Maybe you can't have one without the other. Maybe I'm just some damn college kid (yeah, so...). I guess it's good to see that we have code monkeys, lawers, and philosophists posting to slahsdot.
this software is a solution that is worse than the problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
then, my friend, it is time for violent revolution.
...so anyone trying to write copyright-enforcing software will encounter a patent minefield. Actually, just abolish copyrights and patents--that's much better!
-I am an elective eunuch.
We definitely don't need no thought control.
The University System is a scam at its core. You can make something out of the social networking but it's severely over-priced and chronically stricken with hype.
At the end of the day, the University is a corporation that gladly sells students for questionable social engineering experiments.
If arbitrary rules on the Internet at your school bother you then stop putting money in their pockets. Universities need a serious check against their propaganda defining themselves as the only way to succeed in society.
Check the car your plumber drives during off hours.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Of course this just drives the networks to the binary.pgp groups, the zip groups, etc - but that sure cuts a hole in circulation. You go from "free for all" to "free for me and you" - essentially killing the entire concept of usenet.
Frankly, I don't think people who post top40 type stuff (the type of music most likely to be policed by this software) are helping "the cause." All they're doing is helping hype the people who have been running the show the last century - if those people want their stuff off the channels, I say more power to'em and I hope this lets them finally shoot off that last leg they have left standing. Let's see'em try to serve a takedown notice when I post Shiva in Exile or Brad Sucks... or even Linda.
The following IM conversation is brought to you by the fUtUrE between two hormonal college freshmens:
;-)
AeFr4tb0y69: Damn babe, you were so hot last night!
CutIeyPiEKit86: ya know I gots da bounce
CutIeyPiEKit86: oh papi
CutIeyPiEKit86: baby hit me one more time
>: This Instant Message session has been detected to contain copyrighted materials. The network administrators here at {INSERT SCHOOL_NAME} has been made aware at {INSERT TIME_STAMP} a copyright violation was detected and all parties including copyright holder(s) has been notified. Thank-you for using {INSERT INSTANT_MESSAGE_CLIENT_NAME} and have a wonderful day.
I suspect the ACLU will not be very far behind.
Surely, if this shows the tiniest chance of becoming widespread, the next release of Evil P2P Sharing Program X will include shared key encryption at either end. Both peers will exchange public key pairs, and the content will be encrypted so no sniffer program will have a chance of knowing what the content is.
But, far be it for me to stop people trying to hold back the tide
this is so gimicky. you can defeat finger printing by tagging a second of low volume static at the end of a song. the listener won't even notice it but it's audio finger print will be completely changed, rendering this thing useless. hell watch mp3 rippers implement this as a standard feature.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Funny, on slashdot GPL violators are on step below Charles Manson, while copyright infringers of music, movies, and software are somewhere below jaywalkers.
Seems funny, but actually it just shows you aren't looking at the issue correctly. In reality many of us don't give a hoot about copyright. What we really want is free (as in speach) software. When we complain about people violating the GPL, we aren't complaining because they're violating the copyright laws, we're complaining because they're getting in the way of free software.
Qxe4
.. and that's the HAM bands. Encryption is verbotten. Of course, the government doesn't follow it's own laws, witness, it's "legal" to broadcast without their "speech license" if we are in a state of emergency.
*But*, we are *always* under several overlapping "states of emergency"(one of the main reasons we do not have constitutional government-side isue), YET they still bust microbroadcasters whenever they feel like it for not having their license or paying their fees. In short, liars.
See, their laws mean nothing, they are there for THEIR convenience and THEIR profit, to be used ON you when they see fit..whether it's their own little idea or some lobbying force bribes them into it.. so don't be surprised if encryption on the net is made illegal, or to sort of slide into it first, they might make you register, pay a fee, get yet again another government "license" permission, and make you hand over your private key first before you use it. They already have gone on record saying they want that, various alphabet goon agencies, and eventually they get what they want. All they need to do is drop the buzzword "terrorism" now.
So - this software will block my VPN to work and not allow me to work from home?
Methinks that this software will die a quick death.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
So this software would make backing up your data illegal? I have all my CDs ripped, and I ftp them to another drive at another location frequently. This would stop any student from sending any of his MP3's to a computer at home for back up. That sounds fair.
Is it just me or does this sound like RIAA bought their own version of Carnivore?
It's even worse than that. Why should the rest of the world be alturistic enough so the parent post can practice piracy? What's in it for them? Plus don't forget WiFi is an "unlicensed" band. Can you say "oops" interference? The fact that people go to all this trouble (1), instead of working just a bit more to get it legally (or doing without, but that involves not getting what they really want, despite words to the contrary), simply just shows how selfish, and disrespectful humanity has become.
(1) Reminds me of the schemer who comes up with elaborate "get rich quick" plans, instead of just working like everyone else.
If this actually comes to pass, this will set a horrible precident for the future. To be allowed to intrude into private computers should be against the law, unless a search warrant is granted. Allowing this to be implemented in an actual setting would be disastrious. Not to mention that THEY get to decide what is copyrighted and what is not protected. --Those who would trade in freedom for security deserve neither. -- Jefferson
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
and that's the HAM bands
does tin foil help or hurt the reception of those?
seriously though, you have some good points if a bit overplayed
Dan Quayle posts as an A.C. on Slashdot!
gathers GREEDY RECORD EXECUTIVES from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GREEDY RECORD EXECUTIVES.
Are you GREEDY ?
Are you a RECORD EXECUTIVE ?
Are you a GREEDY RECORD EXECUTIVE ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time RIAA member.
RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GREEDY RECORD EXECUTIVE community with FOUR OR FIVE members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of RIAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 4 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of THE COMPLETE WORKS OF METALLICA and listen to it. (You can download the music (~280mb) using BitTorrent, by clicking here.
Second, you need to succeed in posting an RIAA "first post" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for thieves" website
Third, you need to join the official RIAA irc channel #RIAA on irc.riaa.com, and apply for membership.
Fourth, you need to pay the nonrefundable RIAA MEMBERSHIP FEE of FIVE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$5,000,000)
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!
If you are having trouble locating #RIAA, the official RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is lawsuitnet, and you can connect to irc.riaa.com as our official server. If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the RIAA Java IRC client by clicking here.
If you have mod points and would like to support RIAA, please moderate this post up.
______________$*________________________________
| _____________&@_______________________._a,____ |
| _________._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d_______#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP______j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01______"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| __"#,_________*@`_________`___-!^_____________ |
| __#1_,%________$^_____________________________ |
| __J1__$%______________________________________ |
| __jk___58___RECORDING INDUSTRY_ASSOCIATION____ |
| _______________OF_AMERICA_____________________ |
| ______________________________________________ | (c) RIAA 2003, 2004
` _______________________________________________'
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
It sounds like the only thing this is going to do is raise students awareness of privacy and their rights, and require universities, etc, to employ staff as pirate monitors.
In the meantime whatever losses musicians are supposedly suffering due to file trading will continue, either due to the innefectiveness of this technology and its application, or through the simple fact that people will get smarter.
At the end of the day its a law vs technology battle, and the law has a pretty poor track record to date
Now there are 2 things to look for when picking a college:
1) It must be amongst the top 10 party schools
2 It must not block file sharing
I was working for Palisade when they developed the first version of PacketHound.
Actually, I should say when they stole PacketHound, since it was actually created by a coworker in his off hours, outside of Palisade. The CEO at the time fired this guy and sued the developer to gain the rights to PacketHound. Kind of ironic that they stole something that is supposed to prevent stealing!
Like Palisade's original product, called ScreenDoor, PacketHound is just a packet sniffer that sends out TCP RST packets to disrupt connections. Palisade (and Iowa State University) actually have a patent on this, even though there have been firewalls and other programs (like Snort) which do the same thing, and predate the patent.
Palisade itself is a tiny company that is milking this one patent/idea for most of its products. But they are somehow good at getting press...
Simple. Ever heard of a man-in-the-middle? You make an SSH connection to a computer on the other side of this software. It detects you are using SSH, and steps in during the key negotiation protocol. Your client complains that the host key has changed. You either refuse the new host key and you're SOL, or you accept it and the software can still look for copyrighted material. You complain about security, but they claim your connection is still "secure" as it is reencrypted on both sides by this software.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Mutually assured destruction
as someone noted before, encrypt everything. It is not just good idea for file swapping, also, it is good practice incase of information leak.
anyway, that's not my point, I think it would be good idea if people can change the software slightly so that it block different thing, *cough*spam*cough*, it might be more constructive than blocking `any` kind of copyrighted material. Well of course, it would be nice there is no censoring of information, but we are too far away from that.
if you like this, thank you. If you don't, sorry I took your time to read this.
Hmmm... on a tech note, how will it actually stop the transfer?
I can think of a few, but none are ISP/Internet friendly.
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
how about complete albums in an encrypted zip file, with a trivial password?
Oh wait, laws will be "fixed", and zip files will be outlawed.
"It's the kind of thing we hear from universities or customers that act more as an ISP," said Doug Jacobson, Palisade's founder and chief technology officer. "They want to take the position of not filtering out all peer-to-peer [traffic], stopping copyrighted works but not the other content."
They want something impossible. Therefore, we've developed a program that kinda-sorta does the job and we're here to sell it...
maybe we just need to rename songs as .doc or .jpg. If that crap can still catch them, cram the song into real images or insert them into real office documents.
One may insert them into icmp packets (ping still allowed??). What if i encrypt all my email, will encryption be outlawed? The war on file sharing is turning into a war on drugs, we all know how effective it is.
I think anyone can still get packets and or out a given network can download and upload songs or anything. those big 5 labels are causing real damage trying to police the internet and deserves to die real fast
On a certain song in electronic format that I use to publicise my work.
If this program is used and filters out my song can someone be held accountable for intefering with my intent to distribute my work for advertising purposes?
Music is shared. The industry finds way to block it, but in doing so pisses people off. New P2P app. Random corporate ups ante, finds new way to find out identity of P2P user. New P2P program that blocks ID. People post about it on slashdot. People make funny comments, and get modded up. Piracy increases, RIAA makes new blocking program. Cowboy Oneal finally decides that he's sick of it all and declares a ban on P2P relating articles.
Anyways, down to real business: The more people try to stop people from downloading files, the more it becomes damaging to themselves. Not only are they blowing money on quick fix solutions that do nothing but piss people off and force them to resort to other methods, but in the end their problem is that people are going to download their crap no matter what. If they stop them from downloading, they sure as hell won't buy it, so they might as well let them be.
Now, I'm not saying that's the right solution, or there is a solution, but I think trying to stop it and potentially messing people up all over the board is just a haphazard and dangerous way of doing things. Go back to the drawing board... And as much as I hate to admit it, but I feel by the time they solve P2P, Mac will be in control of the market, we'll be insectoid alien slaves, and Elvis will have returned, and will have posted a story on the truth about aliens here.
GMail looking inside e-mails? Isn't this just doing the same thing? What is to stop them from releasing a "new, improved" version of this software to allow universities to look inside e-mails for other things? Phrases that look like part of a term paper, that I *may* be plagarizing (sp?)
FUD off
At least not going to college anymore, I don't (for now) have to worry about this. What I can see is this software is automaticly presuming you are guilty of music swapping, and searching your e-mail without due process (BTW, IANAL)
If the courts want to use an e-mail as evidence, do they not have to get a warrant? Why should this be any different?
harumph.
Jason A.
Do you see the FNORDS? I refuse to post anonymously, as I am fireproof!
Thats the slashdotter answer to DRM
The article says that personal e-mail will be ran through this as well, as a student about to go to college in the fall, this is truly disturbing. Is anyone else angry about the idea of their school looking through their e-mail? What if i'm sending a legal copy?
That should make the net more secure...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Haha, sorry I'm not laughing at you. I just noticed that the parent post was at two and your a one:troll. It's behaviour like this that makes people use words like "we" when it comes to slashdot, and point to when they say moderation doesn't work. There may be people who don't follow the party line, but apparently they're not getting mod. privilages (::puts on tinfoil hat::).
... this software cannot block file sharing.
If I decide to encode a song as a text file containing the bit-string of a song and slap that on a web server, what is this software going to do? Oh, sure, the size of that MP3 just jumped by a factor of sizeof(char), but its out there. Maybe it'll be smar t and read the first X bytes of any file it passes? What if the file is multiple parts? I can serve it on my web server. I can toss it up on NNTP.
In short, the only way this software can stop filesharing is to block the network connection entirely. This is perfectly obvious even to a dimwit like me.
404 Error:
Within hours of its release...
Also there's WASTE which offers encrypted p2p
http://waste.sourceforge.net/index.html
The wargame company that makes Combat Mission does this to their save game files. The files are encoded not encrypted and the data read in/out into the file is true plain text, but unreadable. You cannot tell this is an encoded file by any means I am aware, but the file loads up smoothly and quickly.
Seems to me iffin you wanted to defeat this new drive to invade privacy, making a software module that will allow you to store and transport music (and many other kinds of files as well ) files as plain text would be a tremendous blow to those efforts.
Dawn of the Dead
we have to start doing a fast rar or zip on our files before transmitting them? Hell, you could probably just do a rot13 shift on all the data in the file. /me gets to work, wondering what a rot n shifted mp3 file will sound like.
Please direct all fan mail to the head of Palisade, Doug Jacobson. dougj@iastate.edu
Check out his senate testimony(Google Cache). This guy makes a living spooking the spooks.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
IRC clients are incredibly easy to block with the hardware and software already out there. If your sys admin knows what s/he is doing, IRC can be completely blocked.
~UP
Eat the Path.
How could they prevent users ripping streaming audio which are *legally* broadcasted (in fact, by several radio stations as well as individuals)? Considering the fact that the user agent variable can be "adjusted" in most ripping programs, I wonder how could they ever find out what is being done to an audio stream.. is the user simply listening over winamp or actually ripping it and growing their collections royally.
Funny, on slashdot GPL violators are on step below Charles Manson, while copyright infringers of music, movies, and software are somewhere below jaywalkers.
That is because the GPL is a weapon for neutralizing copyright. It uses a copyright to thwart the practice of copyright itself. That is the beauty of it. The poison becomes its own antidote.
Think about it. If all reproducible works were GPL'd, then for most purposes copyright would be meaningless.
GPL supporters dislike GPL violators because they slow the working of the antidote.
Time to add SSL to P2P..
Actually according to the DMCA isn't downloading music you already own illigal? Or isn't that covered under the young people are automaticaly breaking the law when they use a computer clause?
Say I played a song on my guitar and sent it to my friend (which I do sometimes). I'm not making money off of their song. You can get tab anywhere for practically any song. Just so long as you aren't making money off of it. But since this program actually looks at the sound itself it wouldn't let me send this to a friend. Just a thought though.
Couldn't someone create their own proprietary music file format, create a ridiculous licensing scheme such that it's never licensed to companies like this, therefor they can never create applications like this to intercept it? Right now they just have to get an MP3 license to do this. What if the owner of MP3's patents said, "No!"
...that any algorithim could determine what is and isn't copyrighted. There are literally millions of unique songs on the net. Consider that each ripper will create a unique rip of a song (differing settings, differing qualities, header info, tags, etc.) that pushes the number of data variations potentiall into the trillions. The code will have to have a db to compare the datastreams digital fingerprint to. It will have to be very fast and constantly updated with every new tune. Alternately, I suppose they could use a heuristic method, but that will be entirely hit or miss with any given song that is checked.
This will not stop or even slow the flood of pirated music on the net. It is a stupid waste of time, but hey, I'm not footing the bill; full speed ahead!
A much easier way to stop music trading would be to just put everyone back on 33.6 modems.
Look at the GPL. The only reason the GPL can exist is because of copyright. When you make a work, it is copyright to you. That means no one can legally distribute it or derivitives of it without your permission. With the GPL you say ok, you have my permission to distribute it freely, but only so long as you publish the source for all derivitives, and give others the same rights I gave you.
Copyright simply means that the creator has control over who gets to distribute something. That means if the creator wants they can allow anyone to distribute the work freely, no strings attached.
Obligitory: You must be new here.
really, what's overplayed? the various cop shops want to be able to intercept any net trafic, they are on the record of desiring everyone's private keys. The FCC violates it's own laws on little guys, yet lets the fatcats skate most of the time and rip billions from the public. It's just data. The discussion evolved to "using encryption" and to me, starting with the one verified example I brought up, it's not far fetched to assume that sometime in the not so distant future it will be illegal, or highly regulated. They already made copyright infringement be a felony punishable by jail time and fines if the feel like it. Anyone see that one coming even 3 years ago?
If anything, I think more people need to get more upset over it, because a too-casual outlook towards this whole... creeping big brotherism and being a serf in your own nation afraid to enjoy life won't be stopped by ignoring it.
I don'thave a dog in the file sharing fight, don't do mp3's or movies, but I can smell a conjob when I see one, and the record and movie ghouls been pulling a rip of massive proportions for decades now. There's laws on the books and then there's laws that beg to be broken. Prohibition was one that went on way too long until it was a national embarassment. They started another stupid buncha laws, and not enough people spoke up and fought to stop it,so now we have the war on some drugs, that got us 1/2 way to a full-bore police state.
Sometimes ya just got to say no to stupid stuff. I walked with people who got refused service in restaurants because of their skin color,and it was "legal" for that to happen to them at the time. I took the gas when we tried to stop a stupid war that wasn't legal and was a scam based on a whopper lie, yet they called it "legal" and killed millions of people over it, both "our guys" and some other people, and they didn't care. And on and on, stupid things big AND little, but they all add up, and they all apply to everyone sooner or later. Even when you think this latest stupidity don't apply to you, eventually it will, because their job is to think of stupid things to make life more complicated and to make it harder to avoid "offending" them so they can "crack down" on you for..whatever. Just think of all the things they are gonna "crack down" on. Believe me, they won't run out of nouns to target. Eventually they'll get to something really important to you, "general you' I mean.
Now we got all sorts of stuff like that going on, PLUS we got this cyber world to deal with, and some things are just as stupid as the others. I say it's righteous to say NO to obviously stupid things. And the deal is, with government and their corporate pimps, it's the death of a thousand cuts with those people,they just keep coming and they ain't got no pity, you got to say "NO! quit cutting me" everytime they try it,no matter how small the cut is, and be quick with the bandaids and iodine.
If you keep taking the little cuts, because "oh well, it's just one little cut", pretty soon it adds up to be the equivalent of a meat cleaver in it's effects. It's like, what's the line, how far do you eat it when they are trying to make you eat it constantly?
In short, it's not tin foil hat if it's real,and if you can step back and look at the bigger picture and not get hung up on minutiae, and realise that they WILL cut you as often as they can think of a new way to do it.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
I don't think that stuff like this comes along with the intent to actually use it in the long term...
It's kind of like shopping at a place like Walmart. They have those stupid little detector things at the doors that go off and are supposedly to catch shoplifters. The fact that they are there is the deterrent. I have yet to see one person caught shoplifting, but have seen countless people doing some shopping, pay for the item(s), and walk out the door. Everyone stops and looks.
The music industry is doing much the same thing. They don't really think they are going to catch anyone doing serious damage, they just count on the deterrent factor, and they count on publicity. We need to stop making such a big fucking deal of everything the RIAA, et. al. does. It only empowers them.
iRATE is a program that downloads music that artists have put on the net. These downloads are also taylored to your own tastes, based on comparing what you like with other users. With this, there isn't a need for P2P music file sharing, and risking being sued by the RIAA, as copying this music is sanctioned by the artist. (Unsurprisingly, not much of this music is made by RIAA labels)
I would LOVE to see a university try to block that. A small private one might (and I emphize might) be able to get away with it but a big one? Forget about it.
Hell, our university REQUIRES SSH for many things. You can't telnet to the e-mail cluster any more, it's SSH only. Likewise the webmail is SSL only. You just don't have a choice, you'll use the encryption or you'll not use the system. My department is working on going to that. Going to be no telnet, no FTP, no unencrypted IMAP or pop. Everything will be SSH, SFTP (which is also SSH), or SSL. Unencrypted communications will be in-building only, or for things like the main website. You want to access any systems, you'll do it with an encrypted protocol, or use an encrypted VPN tunnel to get a local address.
So either SSL or SSH would work well. They are just too useful and used for too many things. Try and shut that down and you'll find backlash like you can't believe.
Not every college says their computing resources are for academic use only. Honestly, such a policy is kind of ridiculous - with such an agreement, you've suddenly said your students aren't allowed to do a whole host of things, such as use their campus network connection (or campus e-mail account) to keep in touch with family and friends. You've also said your students can't use the campus network to download games and all sorts of other stuff that you really shouln't be disallowing people who live on campus from doing.
At the college I went to, the computer center understood that the campus network and internet connection weren't just an academic tool. They were also a student entertainment service and a way to attract kids. A college with a TOS that doesn't allow this or has a generally crappy low-bandwidth internet connection in the dorms stands to lose a lot of good applicants to well-wired schools. Which isn't to say that the network was totally unrestricted - there were bandwidth caps on traffic going through all the popular filesharing ports, for example, and all non-port-80 traffic in the dorms was restricted during peak hours.
I have seen such policies on computer labs (with the understanding that e-mail is okay), and that does make sense.
If it's a private school, they are basically fucked. Falls under the same laws as a company more or less. Their shit, their rules. If they want to look at your traffic, they can make that part of the rules of using the network (or even of attending the school).
Public schools are a little different. Here it might not fly so well. Students would also then probably have a legit claim that the university should have to open up its dorms to 3rd party competitors for Internet access. As is, most public universities have a monopoly over data and phone service in their dorms. This isn't really challenged by anyone because it's a good deal. However if they start with severe restrictions (espcially something assinine like no encrypted traffic) I think you'll see a lawsuit to try to force them to open it up to competition.
> how can it tell that from me sending a copyrighted work
Basically, they do an md5 hash of the files most commonly traded that are copyright protected. If your file doesn't match (and it won't) then you should be in the clear, if these programmers aren't stoopid.
Yes, adding one byte to any file will change the md5 dramatically, so the watchdogs like RIAA have a random method for checking traffic.
These watchdogs are really just attacking randomly, and that aspect of their nature could actually prove a valuable defense for someone under fire (with a huge legal budget). Targeting twelve year olds pays off for the RIAA because they know damn well that a kid won't have a huge fortune backing them in court, and therefore such targets will settle out of court. I truly can not wait until the RIAA hooks someone with a serious hatred for them, with the cash to back it. Any lottery winners out there wanna have some fun with that money?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Secure protocols are becomming necessary to do bussiness. More and more places (including a great many systems) are REQUIRING the use of SSH, SSL, and so on to access anything.
More to the point, that sort of ban would interfere with professors and their research. You just try and do that, see how long it lasts. The RIAA can squalk all they like, if the deans and department heads unite against something, it's just not happening on that campus.
One thing University campuses could do that would bog down file sharing while allowing most "normal" internet usage is limit uploading bandwidth, perhaps on a mb/day basis.
If one guy with tons of songs can only share 10 of them a day, it would make it enough of a pain in the ass to encourage legitimate sales.
Not every college says their computing resources are for academic use only. Honestly, such a policy is kind of ridiculous - with such an agreement, you've suddenly said your students aren't allowed to do a whole host of things, such as use their campus network connection (or campus e-mail account) to keep in touch with family and friends. You've also said your students can't use the campus network to download games and all sorts of other stuff that you really shouln't be disallowing people who live on campus from doing.
Eh, that's where they point to that clause that says they reserve the right to non-enforce any policy and only apply it when they feel like it.
Just plain old text, can't be something bad with that.
A lot of people seem to think that ports have some mystical power. A port is just a number. It's just a number two processes have agreed to both use to keep track of who is talking to whom. You could not make a computer "think that" port 6989 is port 80, but it's trivial to configure a web server to listen on port 6989 for a connection on port 6989. It remains normal http traffic over a nonstandard port.
All's true that is mistrusted
it could look inside students' emails, instant messages and peer-to-peer transfers
Illegal search and seasure?
Hey I grew up in the midwest myself (notice I don't live there anymore though!), but why am I not surprised some backwards company like this would be based there - notice what other obsessive-compulsive christian-taliban products they sell.
As long as they can make it sufficiently inconvenient to copy music, most people won't bother. They're really not worried about people trading music face to face, because that is truly impossible to stop. Forcing people to encrypt individual files in a way that is difficult to intercept currently goes a great way toward dissuading the majority of users. Blocking known P2P applications based on the protocol's "fingerprints", especially encrypted ones like Freenet and Waste, will cut down on the majority of the remainder; these are the easiest and thus most-used methods of encrypted filesharing.
Thus, this software does exactly what the more tight-fisted copyright holders are trying to accomplish.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
According to the Copyright Board of Canada, downloading copyright files from P2P networks is completely legal, provided that the copying is done for private and noncommercial use.
Out of curiosity, does that extend to the people making the files available on P2P as well? Or is it just a "we won't go after you unless you upload" sort of thing?
Incidentally, Japan has a similar clause in its copyright law--"a user of copyrighted material is permitted to make copies for personal, family, or similarly limited use". A couple of people were arrested recently for sharing some movie or other, though.
What songs aren't copyrighted? In the US since the 1980's all works which can be copyrighted are by default unless the author specifically disclaims the copyright and puts the work in the public domain. How this thing could possible tell which copyrights have been disclaimed I don't know. But the point is that everything is copyrighted including this post. That does not mean you aren't free to view/listen to it. It depends on the license. What we need is something that knows what license a work is distributed under, not something that detects copyrights.
Here's a simple copyright detection algorithm:
bool CheckCopyright(Song s)
{
return true;
}
See my point?
Look out for a WinBatch script sometime in the near future that will have an MP3 embedded in it. I will post it on my web server.
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
> 'If installed in a university, for example, it could look inside students' emails, instant messages and peer-to-peer transfers...'
Damn, someone comes up with a piece of software that will snoop into your e-mails, im's and p2p, violating your privacy in an even bigger way than GMail and not a single person even mentions the fact that this program could be hijacked to snoop for things such as credit card numbers, passwords, etc. Atleast with GMail you have a choice whether or not you use the service. The people this software would effect don't exactly get the choose whether or not they participate in it's use.
Develop a big scarry product that feeds on the FUD surrounding p2p and then sell it to universities and corporations for huge bucks so you can afford to buy your music instead of download it..
It's brilliant!
For every copy protection or filter, there are tons of easy ways to bypass them. It doesn't give much details on how exactly it checks for the "audio fingerprints". For example, does it only check files ending in *.mp3? Solution: rename the mp3 you want to send to a *.exe file, then the recipient renames it back. Does it check all zipped (zip, rar, lzh, etc.) files also?
thehomeland(.org)
This is great . . . except that Dr. Jacobson, founder of Palisade Systems, is a professor at my school. Good bye file sharing on ISU's network. ;-)
Why harass him?
He's just bumped up technology a bit more. The whole P2P arms race is producing some of the fastest and best improvements in software ever. Encryption (aside from e-commerce) is essentially nonexistent -- except in P2P systems like WASTE and Freenet. I'm all for this -- he'll drive people to use encrypted systems, which I would have liked to see a long time ago.
It'd be awesome if people started distributing software that logged, spied upon, and retransmitted email by sniffing networks. We'd have PGP deployment en masse for the first time.
May we never see th
If an ISP claims to offer "internet service", but knowingly provides only "HTTP service", isn't that fraud?
"A college with a TOS that doesn't allow this or has a generally crappy low-bandwidth internet connection in the dorms stands to lose a lot of good applicants to well-wired schools."
Well in the context of this story, if the problem children keeps running from "well wired" school to well wired school? Then the only this will accomplish is that the bad apples are going to spoil it for everyone else (don't they usually?), and mean that what is presently happening with a few non-"well wired" schools will be more universal. Besides I think far too many people forget why we go to school (1). If I want to be entertained, I can certainly do it cheaper than going to school. Or at best, get your own Internet connection, and leave the school out of the schenanigans.
(1) Especially in this day and age of "retrain in order to get a new job". Why risk that for some dubious short-term benifits, that will end up hurting you in the end.
...to just slap a bandwidth quota on students? Perhaps with some white-listed sites that don't count towards the quota (specific coursework-related downloads/files, etc.)?
"They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
I want try it out at home on my linux box but I can't find it on Freshmeat.
Any ideas?
This stories up for three hours and /.'rs are already figuring out how to break this lame tech. The current copyright laws are screwed and partial. I look forward to the day when the RIAA lies down and dies.
Here's another reason to deprive them of money... Recording artists have a habit of losing it and *sucking* when they get fat and rich. Poor artists tend to produce better work. Do you believe that a musician deserves to be a multi-millionaire? Maybe... but Metallica used to truly rock and now they are a shadow of their former selves. They don't have to worry about me stealing there music anymore, no-sir-ee bob.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
All you would have to do is write the song out in binary, scan it in, save as a jpg and pgp the email.
Problem solved!
"This is a good point. Frankly make them sign a contract or a LOI stating that if they do anything illegal that they have to indemify the university of any illegal actions and take full recourse for the aforementioned."
And how's that that much different when you remember the last slashdot story about a young, college P2P'er being sued? Remember the outrage, and all the jokes following for weeks afterwards?
The only difference is that we'll have the same outrage, and how the university (backed by the RIAA) forced people to sign them, and The League of Sugarfree Slashdot Lawyers questions it's legality, using assertions pulled from a greatly abused dictionary, and a copy of Poor Richard's Almanac.
To borrow a common saying. Technical solutions don't work on people who want to ignore the rule of law. Terrorists and events after 9/11 are proving that, and P2P'ers are trying their hardest to prove it.
For starters, I'll be damned if your fscking spybot will ever acess my hard drive. Block all ports by default, opening as needed.
How, exactly, does a remote program ruffle through my files without my permission, anyway? Mandated backdoors? Screw them.
If it looks for an audio "fingerprint," how will it react if some 10-year-old wrote a 5K program to insert a random byte every N bytes of the MP3 (or any file)? If I do something as idiotic as flipping all the bits? The ways to foil things that search based on fingerprints are too many to name.
Who the hell gave you permission to look at my private e-mails? Oh, yeah... I DIDN'T!
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
How exactly will it react to a file named "Britney-Spears.mp3" that contains nothing but static? Did I mention the violation of privacy?
They've already admitted that it's completely impotent against encrypted traffic, and there are already encrypted p2p clients.
For the love of God, don't these control freaks realize when they're beaten?
OK, I think I've got most of the obvious replies out of the way. It's obvious that the current control freaks "up there" see the Internet, and realize quite well what it can and will do them if they can't nip it in it's budding stages. Kid yourself not: They will wage an all-out war against privacy on the Internet. And as always, all that is needed for evil to win is for good to do nothing.
Contact your congressperson. Have all your friends do the same. Snail-mail them. E-Mail them. Donate money to their campaigns. Get the word out!
And this will be cracked and worked around, just like every other attempt.
Actually they are more interested in keeping music off the internet in order to prevent bands from going independant, the internet makes them far less important than they once were.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
BINGO! BINGO! BINGO! Someone actually using their god-given brain, instead of following the popular dogma. To put it simply, a world that's strictly public domain, can have locks, as it were. Copyright just happens to be the most agreeable lock that the founding fathers could come up with.
Imagine a public domain were much IP is deliverd encrypted (also ironic that the P2Pers savior can also cut the other way) six ways to sunday with a thousand algorithms, and keys a mile long, were little is naked for long. DRM will not be in just our computers but elsewere in various forms.
And how will we get all this? Because people want to ignore the most basic rule of all. People want to be compensated for their efforts. Nowere in that does it speak of the nature of what is being produced.
Palisade (and Iowa State University) actually have a patent on this, even though there have been firewalls and other programs (like Snort) which do the same thing, and predate the patent.
If this is really the case then anyone can request to the USPTO that the patent be re-examined and hopefully thrown out based on the fact that the technology was obvious.
Didn't like Jacobson when I had him for CprE 308, liked him less after he put out some comments about porn, piracy, P2P, etc. to the Senate about six months ago, and definitely don't like him now. It was actually my wife that remembered the connection between Palisade and Jacobson - and she's got about the same opinion of him that I have. Let's face it, they've got a very basic idea and he's just trying to milk the hell out of the current climate for profits.
It's kinda like the "war on terror" Really it's a never ending escalation, because as soon as one side shuts down one mode of operations, the opposition evolves and comes up with something new. This will only be a hiccup in P2P - formats will evolve to produce inconsistent signatures on the exact same music, or encryption will save the day. If you really want to end piracy, it's a matter of creating a climate where users don't want to pirate - they'd prefer to buy, because they feel like they're getting something for their money. It might also have something to do with treating the customer like a customer and not like a criminal. Perhaps acknowledging that they have rights would be a first step, MPAA / RIAA.
Man these people are daft. "It won't work with encrypted networks, but hey, just disallow those and you're set!" Well, ignoring the fact that it's propgandistic bullcrap to paint all users of encrypted systems as copyright infringers, there's the fact that you can still encrypt the content and then send it over a plain unencrypted system. And I suspect this thing doesn't really know how to parse through even such simple "encryptions" as pkzipping your mp3.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
How about a Linux port of this?
p2p should have the same status as freedom of speech. Nobodys gonna control what is say or do within reason. My computer is part of me. I spend most of my waking hour being inside it/them. I also hate organizations for rich people that work together to slay the poor people, and im very on edge this morning coz i dont sleep much! grr
- vlu
Apparently the one form of communication governments and society will fight to protect is spam. Sure, universities and ISPs might block peer-to-peer sharing, shut down encrypted protocols, screen email attachments, etc. But they wouldn't dare infringe on the rights of spammers.
So maybe we just need a file-trading system which encodes all transfers as spam?
congradulations, BYU has been blocking ANY mp3 downloads for years... Waste still works though :)
or else!
If you really want to end piracy, it's a matter of creating a climate where users don't want to pirate - they'd prefer to buy, because they feel like they're getting something for their money.
Antipiracy work is not, fundamentally, an invalid method of doing this -- it devalues pirating, rather than increasing the value of the product, but it still produces a difference between the two.
The problem that content producers have is that, aside from tying a product to a service (a la MMORPGs), it's awfully hard to improve the value of your product without the value of the pirated product increasing an equal amount. How would you suggest that they convince people to purchase their product rather than pirate it?
Currently, the main benefits that a non-pirated version of software provides are (we'll leave out music and movies, which are even more difficult to differentiate from pirated versions):
* Support. Pretty much theoretical. A publisher can't profitably provide much support with the amount they make on a game.
My take: I don't think that support is a very useful factor. You can have "help forums" and require a login obtained through registration, but this is a severe impediment to all users, and it's easy to just use another non-publisher-affiliated forum.
* Ease of use, especially relating to updates. Generally, pirated copies of software are more difficult to install/use than non-pirated copies (though the fact that the user doesn't have to screw with putting his CD in the drive each time seriously impacts the value of many legitimate copies of software). The user can just run an update program, and the software is updated, etc. Not going to work on a cracked binary.
My take: This can work well, in certain situations. If updates are frequently released, it may be worthwhile -- the problem is that many people are just going to ignore updates. Releasing a buggy piece of software that needs updates to help facilitate this irritates users, and is disadvantageous in competition with other pieces of software. Multiplayer games are a good example of somewhere this can be done -- if updating is extremely easy, protocol changes can be made that break compatibility with older clients, which forces people to keep upgrading. The problem is that unless the copy-protection scheme is updated each update in the software (expensive and error-prone), it's generally pretty easy for crackers to just release updated patches. This is still a pretty good incentive. Half-Life/(Counterstrike) multiplayer used this in one of the most effective approaches I've seen, with proxied authentication. Sure, you could crack the client and play only on cracked servers, but it was enough of a pain in the ass that most people weren't interested in hassling with it.
* Guarantee of quality. The user knows that the software is not trojaned or broken.
My take: This is currently under-leveraged by software vendors. It is illegal for vendors to provide maliciously trojaned copies of their software, but they could deliberately break cracked releases in ways that are not immediately obvious -- a user gets to stage three in their game, or attempts to print, and just sees a dialog "This copy is pirated. Please purchase a legitimate copy of this software." and exits. Currently, there is only rudimentary work to detect fake pirate releases in the P2P world, and all the current efforts that I know of rely upon a centralized server (a la ShareReactor's fakes database). Such a server has heavy bandwidth requirements. There are unlikely to be many of such servers, and they can easily be tracked down by publishers. A business could provide a service of flooding P2P networks with bogus copies of software (as was attempted by the RIAA with Madonna's music) and shutting down all fake detection servers. It would be possible to set up a PKI trust network endorsing valid software to avoid a centralized server, but this has a number of problems of its own, in
May we never see th
Just turn off the internet!
just introduce daily transfer quotas for connections outside of the campus network(like 1-2 g bytes per day in the long run or risk getting banned)... ...and soon someone will most probably introduce some way to limit sharing to only the campus network(like a direct connect hub with the outside network banned - and everybody is happy since a local, f5*4n fast, big enough dc hub is all that they wanted anyways).
just blocking spesific ports works great for clueless newcomers though in limiting their idiotic use of kazaa.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
When did trading copyrighted music online become one of my "rights"?
It isn't (usually) legally a right.
However, I think some are speaking of ethical rights. Clearly, a lot of people do take issue with many current laws, be it drug law, the extremely-extended copyright law, or whatnot. They may not feel that the law is just.
Actually, I suspect that few people's ethics actually match up perfectly with US law. Do you believe that you cannot safely drink alcohol until 21 (a law that contrasts with most of the rest of the world)? Do you find yourself attracted to nude 18-year-olds, but repelled by nude 17-year-olds? Despite the fact that it's legal for an Olympic swimmer to stand by and point and laugh at a drowning person, would you consider it ethical? Is it ethical to continue to enforce a monopoly on reproduction of someone's writings sixty years after the producer of those writings has passed away? Is what SCO is doing ethical, even though US law shields executives of a corporation from criminal charges under almost all circumstances, leaving them free to continue doing what they're doing? Does your sense of ethics agree with the imprisonments that result from people using marijuana?
I'm sure that there are a few people out there that have an ethical system that fits *exactly* with all of the points above. However, I suspect that they are in the minority.
May we never see th
Filetopia http://www.filetopia.com/
seems to be the leader of the pack in encypted peer to peer, network is still small though, few thousand, as opposed to 3mil or so on Gnutella.
Anything more popular out there?
...and information wants to be, and will inevitaby end up being, free. That is a fact of life. The recording industry needs to understand this before they sink any more money into a useless cause. In todays world where any information can be digitized, and therefore copied, basing a business model on the scarcity of any kind of information (music in this case) will not, I repeat will not work. Musicians can make money off of live performances and distribute their music in a digital format for virtually nothing in terms of capital...which just leaves marketing as a needed skill that the recording industry can provide.
RIAA, WAKE UP, your business model is obsolete. Change it now or become irrelevant.
Encryption only works if other people do it too.
I use GPG. Nobody else that I know does, and so I cannot encrypt email to them.
How many people really use WASTE?
As for AIM encryption, how many people are using gaim, have the encryption plugin compiled in (which frequently doesn't work with the latest version of gaim), and don't mind the occasional compatibility problems the encryption plugin causes with other AIM clients? I've come to the conclusion that the *only* instant-messaging protocol that I know of with effective and widespread encryption is Jabber, but few people use Jabber -- sure, it's great for talking to your techie friends, but not everyone in the world is a techie.
May we never see th
Wow. I guess getting your PhD is useful.. I wonder if he got a grant for his "research" into P2P pr0n. Hell, he's probably getting paid for conferences. Dirty old bastard.
Add Palisade Systems to the ever growing list of "m----r f----rs who go up against the wall come the revolution!"
"As long as they can make it sufficiently inconvenient to copy music, most people won't bother. They're really not worried about people trading music face to face, because that is truly impossible to stop. Forcing people to encrypt individual files in a way that is difficult to intercept currently goes a great way toward dissuading the majority of users. Blocking known P2P applications based on the protocol's "fingerprints", especially encrypted ones like Freenet and Waste, will cut down on the majority of the remainder; these are the easiest and thus most-used methods of encrypted filesharing.
"
Currently is the operative word here. As soon as this technique is in any way widely used the p2p networks will evolve and people will either upgrade to newer versions of what ever program they use that stops this or switch to a new program. It happened with napster, it happened with audio galaxy and if this method becomes popular it will happen with old school p2p programs. The point that the parent poster is trying to make is that this technique will have pretty much no affect just like similar efforts had no affect on spam. In other words it wont cause any perceivable slow down, it will just be a minor inconvenience. This product seems designed to milk money out of clueless university staff who do not understand the technical issues involved in blocking filesharing, it reeks of snakeoil and opportunism. Finger printing relies on some sort of patern recognition it is very easy to write an algorythm to change a few bits here and their within a file and disguise it.
_________________________________________________
Ever heard about PASSIVE-mode? You should try it. Usually works even trougnh the most firewalled connections.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
...always have some extremely broad, general rules you may apply if you need a reason. Particularly if you're "giving" it away and can set the terms any way you like.
That doesn't mean they are going to enforce it strictly, it just means that if you're abusing their service in some way, chances of getting away on a technicality is slim and none.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"There's no way that any piece of software would be able to peek into encrypted sessions... so the only option this software would have would be a "deny all"."
Actually there's one very simple but obvious thing they could do. Proof of which I will write in the margins of this post.
was the only word that came to mind this morning
I think these colleges have got the wrong idea completely.. instead of blocking students activities they need to be protecting students by blocking the people that want to sue them :D
If I was admin, I would dump a list of MPAA etc onto my filter and see if they can cause problems then?! Thing is, it is not illegal at all.. a organization is quiet legally able to block these people that are scanning traffic from your network. I would also consider it if I where an ISP.
That the RIAA finds a watertight mechanism for blocking music downloads. What happens then?
At the end of the next quarter would you expect music sales to have gone up or down? My belief would be that it goes down, people can't try before they buy, and they won't buy a complete album when they only want a couple of tracks.
So what do the RIAA then blame the reduced sales on? Would they accept that it is their policies, the marketroid based bands or would they just put the prices up?
Do we then get into another cycle, or rather spiral, or would the RIAA finally accept that online music is the way of the future?
Let's say... you're transfering a song. This system compares the songs "fingerprint" to their database, seeking a match. So this implies that, theoretically, bitrate and file format don't matter. How about instead, before a P2P program sends a chunk of data, it uses a random, lossless encoding that preserves the MP3 format. In this situation, you would have to exchange keys in clear text, presenting a possible problem, but maybe not. Or why can't you make a P2P program that uses public-private key encryption over an unsecured connection? Basically, what I'm getting at, is that, in order for this to work, they have to A) Have the song you're trading in their database and B) Be able to identify which song you're trading. Since changing A is hard, focus on B.
Isn't it a felony to intercept/disrupt communications regardless of medium?
the RIAA will try to shut down the internet because it can be used for file sharing. after all it didn't help , people still trade their cds , but this time as in good old times by copying the cd directly, thus they finally realize the have to stop making business to achieve 100% IP protection.
...
but they themselves pushed the digital media , because it's much cheaper to produce cds because they are so easy to copy
the RIAA has the right to make money by selling IP (songs). but as long as they are in business they have to accept, that people want to do much more with their cds than just listening to it. On the other hand, imagine RIAA paying their fixed price for a CD-Master and then just selling 1 cd , because the rest of the world copied from that one cd?
as long as they keep missing the point, their fall is predictable.
It IS one of your rights if you are either the copyright holder or have been given explicit or implicit permission from the copyright holder.
I have dozens of MP3's that were given to me directly from a member of the band.
These have all been small bands with no CD for sale yet, and they want more people to listen to their music.
The RIAA, and their counterparts in other countries, are of course totally against small bands getting any free PR without having to sign away their first-born.
Regardless of how I feel about this particular app, Doug's a great guy - I took a networking class from him at ISU a few years ago.
no matter how encrypted your p2p data are, you will in the end share it with the world (friendly and unfriendly). all you files and information will be public and you computer will be acessible (ip) to people get the files, so you can get the files from other people.. the solutions is not technical, is political http://eff.org/IP/freeculture/
WTH, go to China or Cuba.. they are communists.
In the old days two or more kids would have their
own tape recorders. The kids would then load the master tape in one of them and a blank in the other. A cable was run between the output of one and the recording input of the one with the blank; the appropriate buttons were pushed and the copy would in due course be made.
Now we have 'progress'. Our kids are suckers who all bought CD's and now they are squealing like stuck pigs because their 'players' do not have recording ability. The industry suckered them. What choice they have now is to use laptops with Wi-Fi cards. Just form peer to peer networks with only each other and not anyone else but. Use WEP if there are snoopers about and all the spy scum will be locked out. Then share all you want the old fashioned way. All you kids know each other so you know what to do about finks in your own group. End of story. These 'networks' will harken back to the old days of tape recorders and will be in the words of Winston Churchill in the face of the old Nazis: "A mosquito armada that will be impossible to stop!".
BitTorrent beats this thing because it recognizes names of files through "apps like KaZaa or Morpheus". BitTorrent just passes data as pieces, and, as it's being downloaded from several different people at the same time, it won't get caught by the app... Or, of course, just ZIP whatever you're sending, and the software can't tell it's an MP3 or WMA without downloading the whole thing... Or, even better, use an encrypted program like DC++.
So people will have to start sharing Middle Eastern tracks that use different scales!
I tried to do it, and did not succeed.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not.
This is clearly untrue. As soon as a work is fixed into a particular medium, it's copyrighted. If I recorded the sound of my own farts as a WAV file, that would be copyrighted. Unless they block everything by default, and have a whitelist for things that have been placed into the public domain, they cannot "block anything that is copyrighted."
Why bother with encryption? Just set up some phony malformed files (and keep your mp3s rared whatever) and share all your bandwidths worth.
The system is supposed to work on audio-finger printing. I can imagine how easy a system like this could be DOSed. Now imagine all P2P users worldwide doing this (P2P-app prepares this stuff). It'd be the biggest DDOS of all time.
This censorship mayhem is so ambitious it's bound to fail.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
'Jacobson said the identification process would not work on an encrypted network, such as is used in several newer file-swapping programs.'
If thats the case then it seems stupid to even launch the thing in the first place.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
There is simply no way that something like this is EVER going to work.
..... and of course, actually performing the songs in the first place. That is the only job that can't really be done by anyone else {since one typically is not so interested simply in the song "Baby One More Time" but in Britney Spears' particular rendition of "Baby One More Time"}.
In the technological domain, it is impossible -- not merely difficult, actually impossible -- to prevent something that can be perceived from being copied. I shouldn't have to explain why that is the case -- I've done so often enough, on Slashdot and other places, that I'm already several shades of blue in the face. And just because I can't complete the reductio ad absurdum by proving it would require you to travel faster than the speed of light, or to create or destroy energy, or to have the pressure in a fluid act differently in different directions, or add a vector to a scalar, doesn't mean it isn't just as impossible as any of those things -- it might even be a fundamental law in its own right.
In the social domain, people have been sharing music since the first instruments were invented. They aren't going to stop just like that.
Traditionally, manufacturing audio permanent-storage media used to require specialised equipment not commonly available to everyone, and so the record companies had an advantage over the likes of you and me. This is no longer the case. {In fact, it hasn't really been the case since the late 1960s, when Philips invented the compact cassette.} The record companies could make records cheaper than anybody else; and if some Fred-in-the-shed set up in competition, he was liable to get himself bought out. With the advent of CD in the late 1970s / early 1980s, and the first really cheap players in the early-to-mid 1990s, almost everyone began replacing their old vinyl LPs with CDs.
By the year 2000, the mass replacement of LP with CD was almost complete, so people stopped buying quite so many back-catalogue CDs. The fashion for "Reality TV" shows led to a phenomenon of short-lived, disposable wannabe acts releasing albums that were not actually very good, and people soon stopped buying quite so many new CDs.
I don't know which is sadder: the fact that there seem to be people who think that it is possible to prevent copying, or the fact that they are attempting to do so with flagrant disregard for the fact that we might have obtained the necessary permission for said copying. {Until quite recently, it was the law in Britain -- dunno about other countries, sorry -- that you were to be considered as innocent until proven guilty. Upon which basis it would be up to the authorities to prove that you did not have the right to copy that material, and not up to you to prove that you did have such a right. However, in cases of racism, paedophilia and terrorism, the suspect is often considered guilty until, or even sometimes despite being, proven innocent.}
When you buy a CD, the money you pay gets split various ways. There are lots of things you are paying for: pressing the CD, printing the sleeve, packaging it all up, delivering it to a record store conveniently located in your neighbourhood
The best anyone can hope for is that people will make use of a system which allows them to compensate artists directly for downloading music. If I wanted to listen to Britney Spears singing "Baby One More Time", I wouldn't really object to paying a few pence to Britney Spears. I'd certainly hope that she'd slip me a few coppers if she wanted me to sing for her. What is bad, though, is that I'm expected to pay a small fortune for some record company to perform logistical services {stamping a CD, printing a booklet and delivering the whole thing} that could be obtained {albeit to a lesser standard, but hey --
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
That is the solution for everything.
:)
p2p-ssl
Work with certificates to prevent infiltration in your system. create smaller but secure overlapping communities. more than enough options...
Privacy is terrorism.
I think you've got the problem absolutely right. This is a direct consequence of two things: big media business abusing its monopoly, and a certain type of Joe Public breaking the law. In both cases, these are not good things, but they are done because the perps think they can get away with it.
As has often been said (but rarely heard) in these parts, the correct solution to this situation is to fix the problem, not to try to circumvent it by ever more devious means. The music industry should be compelled by the legal system to stop its price fixing practices, under the threat of having its business made seriously unprofitable by the courts. That will lead to reasonable competition in the market, and fairer prices and better distribution methods will naturally follow.
At the same time, I have no sympathy for the song-swappers who have been taking the piss for years because the tech was ahead of the law. You brought this upon yourselves. Copyright law is there for a reason. If you don't like the law, the solution is to seek to have it changed. If as many people agree with you as you think, that shouldn't be difficult, now should it? Of course, in this case, the widely-flouted law actually is reasonable, it's the failure of the authorities to enforce the flip-side of the law and smack the media outfits down that is causing the problem.
By carrying on with the current approach, all the oh-so-clever, we'll-just-use-encryption song swappers in this thread are simply inviting the inevitable: legislation to ban encryption in electronic transmissions, together with draconian enforcement rules and mandatory monitoring. This is a fight you cannot win. Wake up and start fighting the fight you can, or the world will be a worse place for your selfish actions.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's amazing what a change of two letters will do to a GNAA post.
Hmm...GNRIAA?
Private companies can't submit your to any of the conducts explained.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I would guess that now wireless cards are so cheap
a secondary private network just for p2p will grow up - there should be quite a lot of diversity in music tastes in a campus of thousands so plenty to swap without touching the internet - though I would guess some kind person(s) may bridge out to the internet to inject fresh material.
Said software filters out not only copyrighted files, but political speech as well? How long before said software will prohibit distribution of any copyrightable content, regardless of the owner's intent? (Thus preventing "publishing" by "unauthorized" parties...)
This is a serious threat to liberty.
Yeah, copyright infringement is illegal. But the primary reason why people use the Internet is the free flow of information. If we restrict the flow of information on the internet, people will instead move on to another medium where it is not so restricted. A literal case of "we had to destroy the city to save it..."
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
No, if all reproducible works were free-as-in-freedom, then copyright would be meaningless. Making software free-as-in-RMS requires copyright just as much as making non-free software, because it imposes artificial limitations on how the material may be used.
Using the word "freedom" to imply otherwise is just as disingenuous on the part of the FSF as claiming mass distribution of copyrighted works is "fair use" when you're not personally receiving money from it (but are profiting nonetheless), or using the deliberately inlammatory terms "software piracy" or "theft" to refer to such copyright infringement. All sides do it, but the debate would be more constructive if they didn't.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We have a research park that puts out crappy software, and we have riots too!
4 .pdf
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/galleries/pdf/04190
Its not what it is, its something else.
The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not.
And in other news, airport security will confiscate your knives before you board, whether you were planning on hijacking the airplane or not.
Just because you own the song in another format doesn't mean it isn't illegal for the person you're downloading from to distribute a copy of the song to you. And even if that were not the case, how do you propose that it distinguish between people who already own it and people who don't?
I used to run a dc hub on my campus just like this, but the university network services made me shut it down. I'm fortunate they didn't do anything else but that, but sure enough, shut it down and the next week was filled with rarely working internet. 800 normally internal-only file traders suddenly went to kazaa and the like...makes me smile
The technology is able to passively monitor the data traffic of a network and capture information about digital media transmission activity. Since the technology is not located 'in-stream', there is no performance impact of the monitoring on the network. Data of interest can be collected for reporting purposes and used to set policies for a bandwidth shaper or firewall, or individual transactions can be blocked in real-time, based on data characteristics specified by the network operator.
IANAL, but isn't bascially everything copyrighted unless it's done by the government or explicitly released into the public domain? Music, emails, fiction, poetry, etc. Heck, I bet even this post is copyrighted.
The problem is that, from the article, it's not at all clear what this software does. Does it just seek out some data somewhere that's an MP3 and delete it? And how does it differentiate between improperly transmitted MP3s and perfectly legitimate ones?
Who needs encryption? Just move from Songname.mp3 to Songname.mp3.zip/rar/ace/lzh/whatever. The compression should remove any 'fingerprint'.
Makes for a few challenges but it would easily defeat the system by the sounds of it.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
Someone should make a mp3 cache system for the schools. This magic box loaded with ATA disks and could jump in when college kids go to download the latest Justin Timberlake track. This could greatly reduce the amount of bandwidth being used. It could also be used to cache warez and porn.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
I was thinking about that, can you imagine... instead of BBSes running the Courier HST dual standards pimping the latest Sierra titles, drive in warez sites.... people drive into "the zone" or point a directional at a tall building and gain access to the host, trading files @ 802.11g speeds. It could be the future!
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
I control-click, you insensitive clod!
An SSL web server knows a private key that is required to initiate the connection. Any man-in-the-middle, such as any kind of "network security device", will NOT be able to masquerade as the server because it doesn't have the server's secret key.
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
Is it possible that work created by an artist is copyrighted and distributed themselves could be blocked?
If so, can blocking not be considered illegal? They would be blocking an independent artist from distributing their own works and thus potentially limiting their sales.
I think they need a better method of controlling file transfers. The best method is something they should have done a long time ago; create their own COMPLETE distribution network. This network would contain copies of every song from every genre, or at least attempt to. Then a small fee is charged.
The problem with current versions, correct me if I am wrong, is the lack of distribution rights. So if you go to a certain legit website and search for a file, you will not find much because that sight does not have the rights. These people really should stop and think about these rights issues a little more clearly.
While someone on Virgin Records may not want to be released on a site sponsored by TVT Records, they should realize that by combining to a central site or two would be more profitable.
I am sure that if given a fair price (= $1 per song) people would start using those sights. We realize that free-swapping is wrong, but if given a more thorough legit site we may actually do what is right.
What do you think?
>
>Hmm...GNRIAA?
Naw, that'd be more like GNMPAA, wouldn't it? :)
Still, someone owes me a new monitor. This one's got coffee all over it. Best slashalchemy (turning troll into gold) I've seen in a long time. Fucking brilliant!
Coolio the rap-bot will hunt down y'all punks who been tradin da songs and cap u in da head!
Where do we draw the line here? Is it ok to swap CD's with friends and let them copy them? would police really go to the length of busting people for that? no then what happens if you give friends copies of your music online - say by emailing an mp3? will that still get you in jail? i think not! Even if filesharing gets pushed further back to the point where people chat on IM before sharing songs (In a totally encrypted manner) then thats what will happen and the government and RIAA can keep their fucking noses out of my private conversations. You could kinda parallel this with drug dealing and prostitution, police regularly pretend to be customers so they can make a bust and theres no way to tell whos who, but close the gap abit and make sure you keep a tight-knit network of friends and the police will have a hard time getting in. So where do you draw the line? would the RIAA like to believe they can bust two friends looking over eachothers music collection?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They can get away with such heavy restrictions because you are in high school (minors for students, little or no faculty research, etc.). A college would have quite a bit more trouble, methinks.
Enjoy college this fall!
You'd be surprised to learn that average (antivirus) file scanner is capable of unwrapping and checking tar/gz/rar/ace/.. files up to ten levels deep. Some most advnaced ones do that in a pass-through mode, ie without buffering entire file. And only most primitive scanners rely on file extension when it comes to determining file content.
.mp3 4 times and then rar'ing it will not help. Renaming resulting archive back into .mp3 will help even less.
In other words zipping
As others pointed out, trusted p2p networks is a next logical evolution step. If properly implemented, it should last a while.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
"Actually they are more interested in keeping music off the internet in order to prevent bands from going independant, the internet makes them far less important than they once were."
I have to agree here. The RIAA/MPAA/Big Labels *are* terrified that bands/artists/content producers will, in the near future, simply no longer *need* them. They are simply seeing the writing on the wall, and trying to restrict/halt/regulate *all* content distribution that isn't under industry control now, while they still have enough power/money/control to matter. *That* is why they are willing to alienate large sections of their customer base, use questionable legal practices, borderline vigilantism, and anything else they can dream up. The copyright infringement reasons they give are largely a red herring, to distract from the true goal, making (and keeping) themselves as the *only* practical means of distribution on a wide scale, enabling them to screw both the content producers *and* the content consumers. Sadly, all too many people only see the smoke and mirrors "piracy/theft/copyright infringement" strawmen thrown up to cover the attempt at content distribution monopoly being perpetrated here.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The trend among content-filtering firewalls is to filter SSL sessions by splitting them in two - one from the client to the firewall and another from the firewall to the server. If the session cannot be split, it's rejected.
Eventhough it's client-friendly man-in-the-middle attack, which defeats the whole purpose of SSL, there is a demand for this functionality.
--
The way it works is the client installs extra root CA certificate, and the firewall is given its own CA-enabled certificate derived from the former. Whenever it sees SSL connection coming from the client, it accepts its on behalf of the server, handshakes with the server, then replicates server's certificate signing with its own key and proceeds handshaking with the client. And the client accepts this forged peer's certificate, because it traces back to 'trusted' firewall CA. Pure magic.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
When will these fools ever learn? This is already dead technology before it hits the streets. They kill file sharing apps such as kazaa people will just move on to something else. They still haven't even address the old techonologies yet. You can still download shit from usenet all day long.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Well, thats a nice utopia, but not entirely true. I'm in an independent band. We've had 33,000 downloads of our free MP3s in the last 2 years of having a website (whilst touring the country extensively, displaying a huge banner with our web address on it on stage every gig, and including the URL on every press pack, CD artwork, etc that we produce). And we've sold 2 CDs from the same page.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
it would be simplest for the universities to block p2p ports (for now.. when p2p uses port 80 this will be moot) alltogether! last time I checked, universities weren't supposed to concern themselves with providing students with a way to play music on their computers. they're supposed to be educating people!
bit shifting and rotation...
...
byte swapping...
reversal...
zip archiving...
uuencode...
stenographic merging...
flat-out encryption...
Ack! I'd better stop before I give them to many ideas...
Coderz 4 Life
You stop buying the product.
Seriously, the last time that I bought a CD it was used. The last time that I bought a movie it was from overseas. I find that small independent labels tend to turn out better music anyway.
This software can not hinder swapping:
We can reverse the media.
We can swap blocks in the media.
We can divide the media into parts.
We can distribute the media in small enough segments (e.g. 0.5-5 seconds) such that it will be computationally infeasible for them to maintain a block list - a single whole of media would be distributed in hundreds or thousands of parts with no one system sharing more than 5 seconds of any single whole media - i.e. "splitting" files, as in usenet.
We can setup adhoc wifi networks.
We can distribute content parts embedded in MS Office documents, in PDF documents.
We can use the mail system.
Don't you see, there is no way short of exhaustive whitelisting and mandatory palladium that they can stop this, or even significantly hinder it.
It simply can't be done.
Mark my words: We will have whitelist-only ISPs and policy making non-palladium computing devices illegal in 10 years unless we take a stand now and reverse course - by mandate, by policy, by the power of the people.
This is a legitimate rebellion. It is not "consumer" rebellion. "Consumer" is a term of the fascist jack-booted thugs who are trying to crush the rebellion. It is a rebellion of the people.
Downtrodden and oppressed peoples of the world unite!
Besides trying to block RIAA affiliated music, it also blocks non-RIAA affiliated music, like my own, which is still copywritten, but permitted for free download and dissemination.
Boycott RIAA affiliated music, don't download music that wasn't granted permission by the copyright holder. Let your dollars (or lack thereof in this case) tell the RIAA that you won't tolerate their draconian attempts at control, or their antiquated business model.
Support Indie artists/labels by purchasing their music. 9 times out of 10 the music quality is better, with more variety, and no DRM bullshit.
Just because they've announced they're rolling it out, doesn't mean anybody thinks it'll actually work without breaking the rest of their network.
Seems to me, this country (USA) was at one point a democracy. Basically, I seem to remember that 'what the people want, the people get' was the official policy.
So far, I haven't see one, even ONE, petition outside of a mall or on a college campus that has to do with this specific issue (of limiting free speech by requirung license fees and royalties).
In my opinion, only the original work, or the production therof, should be the source of income for an artist, not copies as well. This copyright thing is fairly new. I'd wouldn't like to think of what would have happened if copyright existed back when the only photographs were those made with paint and canvas. I seem to recall seeing many duplicates of famous paintings made by different artists without them paing royalties to the original artist.
You're welcome to correct me if you think I'm wrong...
is your CD available on Amazon.com? I would recommend doing whatever is needed to get it up on Amazon. People don't like to put credit card info into random sites. But people trust amazon to handle orders and private info properly.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I agree.
It does not take selling a CD to express yourself. Copyright does not support the right of the artists to express themselves, but rather it supports some imaginary right to profit, whether for the artists themselves or the labels they willingly and knowingly sign big money deals with.
I can't say it enough: there is no right to profit.
If you want to be a musician, fine, work a day job and purchase yourself a guitar and an amp, and get together with a friend who can sing and a friend who can play the drums.
I do not listen to commercial music. And I mean commercial in the broadest sense. I do not listen to any music that it sold as a product, music that is not available under terms as free as the GPL. I will not do it. It is a matter of conscience.
Consumerism is destroying our culture - has destroyed our culture. And now it is spreading to the rest of the world.
We, who have seen its effects, have an obligation to turn the tide of things now. The hour is late.
Is that SPAM filtering technology is initiated by the user of the service; this is implemented by the network provider. A user can opt out of SPAM filtering, but a user's ability to opt out of network filtering is severely curtailed. This is either turned on for all or none; if the majority wants this kind of filtering, they can effectively preclude a "free" internet from being used by even the minority.