Slashdot Mirror
New Wave Of File-Sharing Embraces Secrecy
twin-cam writes "There's an article over at The Inquirer that software developers are designing secret file sharing networks that will make it harder for the music and file industry to prove cases of piracy.
According to Reuters, three file sharing networks are being planned which its users think will make it a lot harder for
music industry to track and charge people on their networks. The first is Optisoft which runs on Blubster and Piolet, music-only file-sharing networks. Only a matter of time before the RIAA requests a data dump from the ISPs or just sues everyone using their network."
...anyone heard of FreeNet?
Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
I've used WASTE for a long time. It has in interesting history....involving AOL and others. WASTE is a VERY secure private p2p network. It uses keys similar to pgp keys and can use over 4000+ bit encryption if needed. However, the network does seem to fall apart after about 50 or so people have joined. It is only good for small groups, imo. If you have a MAC, i wouldn't even bother was WASTE for now, it's current development stage give basically no functionality. For pc users who just want to trade files with their friends, etc, its a great alternative to other p2p.
DMCA Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201 (a) (1) (A) states " No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." If your network communictions is not protected under the copyright law, then it is not protected under the DMCA.
If you want to make statments of the DMCA, then you should at the very least read the appropriate Section before providing a layman's opinion, and back up your claim. While you're at it, you might as well read the entire section and get a complete understanding of the law in question.
If you want to really know how the DMCA works, then either consult a lawyer or enroll in law school yourself.
Peer-to-peer networks are legal - however, illegal activities performed on them are not. Even if the DMCA does protect all forms of encryption, it only takes a few sessions of a government comittee to change this.
Blubster comes with adware (GAIN), Piolet doesnt, as long as you remember to deselect them during installation...
I just spent half an hour removing all the spyware and adware that these programs installed.
DO NOT INSTALL PIOLET OR BLUBSTER.
--
Spoofing IP is probably a violation of your ToS, and can get you terminated. Egress filtering is rare but increasingly popular in order to block DDoS UDP attacks. Your network admin may think you're a DDoS zombie and cut your line too.
The second thing this network doesn't provide is any incentive whatsoever to share files or bandwidth. Networks that rely solely on the honor system doesn't get much (one of many reasons Freenet is slow).
Third, it's trivial to disrobe which server is sending you what. Instead of sending "to all nodes like searches", a hostile client would try them in order. Servers could tell eachother, but the server might be hostile too.
Fourth, the entire network sounds like a DDoS waiting to happen. I flood the network with UDP packets telling them to all hit one server. That server has no way to tell them he doesn't want those packets, since he doesn't know the network.
Hell, since you installed it voluntarily (as opposed to getting a DDoS trojan) they might even sue the network nodes for DDoS'ing them. Nothing like a little legal liability too. Not to mention the good press you'd get.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It would appear that all these "anonymous" peer-to-peer networks just make all users infringe rather than just those who choose to.
When I run a FreeNet node, items of data from other people are placed, in part, on my hard drive. If one of these items is part of a copyright-protected work, then the original distributor has committed copyright infringment. However, that is only the first copy. Any time someone else retrieves that item there is a chance that my PC will now supply some parts of the item, making another copy and thus infringing copyright.
Essentially any FreeNet user has a high probability of committing copyright infringment and cannot control this as he or she has no idea what data is all hashed up and encrypted in the data store. By this reasoning, it could be argued that it is in fact illegal to use FreeNet. I don't necessarily agree, but the fact that this possible argument exists could cause problems for anonymous peer-to-peer networks in the future.
This is sad, because anonymous networks have other uses beyond covert distribution of material protected by copyright, such as bypassing censorship.
No peel?
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
"People toss the term "monopoly" around quite inaccurately, I think."
Yes, people like you. I will correct your mistakes and misconceptions though.
"I mean, of course record companies have a "virtual monopoly" on making records. But canned air makers have a "virtual monopoly" on canned air. Super glue makers have a "virtual monopoly" on super glue. So what?"
Canned air makers do not have a monopoly since there is no barrier to entry, i.e. I myself can can air right now. Super glue is also not a monopoly since there are readily available alternatives.
In order for monopoly to exist you need: 1) Strong barriers to entry and no close alternatives.
The RIAA is a a monopoly in that they exert monopoly power like a cartel (e.g. OPEC). The blatent evidence is that the RIAA was recently fined for abusing their monopoly to gouge consumers and were fined under US anti-trust laws.
"Doesn't work that way in a Capatalist society."
Ok, let me tell you how it does work in a Capitalist society:
You either offer us what we want at a fair price, or we tell you to take that garbage and cram it up your arse. At that point, you go out of business, and someone else comes along and offers us what we want at a fair price.
Welcome to Capitalism 101, I'll be your instructor - my name is Reality.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The odds that any node fails increase dramatically as you add more nodes. With your proposal you can't even skip a block on temporary node failure, since you don't know the order of the blocks.
Seems to me like it would perform horribly.
I think the problem the music industry has is the many avenues that exist that actually does give away their products (to consumers that is), things like radio for example. This lessens the value of the product if you ask me.
Then there's also the consumer perception of the artists producing the music, let's face it, few of the major label acts are starving while many consumers are stretching their budgets and doing without some things they would surely enjoy.
A good example of giving it away exists for all in North America to enjoy, did you know that by installing a DVB-PCI card in your computer and then pointing an 18" satellite dish at Echostar7 you can listen to over 120 FREE audio feeds? In fact recently they added the 61 Sirius Satellite Radio music channels which are also unencrypted on the bird. You can also enjoy free audio feeds on several other satellites, these cost nothing beyond the initial purchase of equipment (less than $100).
So, consumers can listen to free music on the radio, they can receive free music via satellite and for some reason they are supposed to believe that downloading the song from the net is "theft"? I mean I could legally hit "record" on my DVB app here and get the very same song for free and at 192kbit as well!
I'm not arguing against copyright here - just pointing out that there is an anti-competitive form of monopoly that exists.
Perhaps one solution would be to free the music in a different sort of way - change the copyright laws so that copyright cannot be transfered from the original author - and then outlaw licensing schemes that are exclusionary - that would help the artists and protect the consumers and make the labels actually compete with each other day to day for customers.
If you ever get a chance listen to John Perry Barlow talk about bthe history of music copyright .... there was none for the longest time - wandering musicians played music, learned songs from each other and played them live. No one ever paid royalties ... it was only when the rise of the victorian middle class put pianos in people's houses that sheet music became under copyright, and after that recordings did the current way of looking at music as being owned come about .... untill just over 100 years ago music was free