Slashdot Mirror
Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents
schmecky05 writes "From Macrovision, the folks whom recently mandated "Thou shalt delete content promptly from thy Tivo" come the following 2 USPTO patent applications for Peer to Peer interdiction methods: "Interdiction of unauthorized copying in a decentralized network" and "System and methods for communicating over the internet with geographically distributed devices of a decentralized network using transparent asymetric return paths."
These patent applications describe (in pain staking detail) how Macrovision interdicts on Peer to Peer networks to prevent illegal copyrighted file sharing from many locations across the globe and avoid ban lists as well."
Abstract An interdiction system includes software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network, a query matcher that receives search results captured by the software agents and reports matches with protected files back to the software agents, and a central coordinating authority that coordinates activities of the software agents by sending instructions to the software agents specifying actions to be taken. Possible activities and related interdicting methods include manipulating search results before forwarding them on in the network, quarantining selected nodes in the network, performing file impersonations such as transferring synthesized decoys, performing file transfer attenuation, and hash spoofing.
Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.
Here's an idea:
Macrovision owns Installshield. Stop using Installshield for Windows apps and cut off a good amount of Macrovision's funding.
...deliberately harming a network? seems like there should be. or does that only apply if you're DOSing a company who can afford to buy laws?
Fradulent nodes posing in a network. This doesn't seem so new to me.
Sure, it makes sense -- they put up a bunch of crap to bring down the overall quality of the network, but if someone bans them, they can claim it's a patent violation.
So, we need someone with a vested interest in P2P surviving to patent every conveivable means of taking down a P2P network, so that if someone (RIAA, MPAA, Macrovision, etc.), attempts to do it, they can be sued.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The patents were filed March 18, 2004 and June 16, 2004. Obviously tons of prior art exists. Oh wait! It is the US we are talking about, the country where tons of obvious prior art does not matter, the US patent office has time and time again demonstrated that it only cares who gives them the biggest pile of money.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I wonder if this can be considered illegal because it causes destruction and harm to a computer network. I mean tall those 9/11 related computer laws have to be good for something.
This is not exactly new technology, it's just that Macrovision is trying to monetize it. Of course, who's going to protest the patent?
But then again, it is Macrovision, and Macrovision has a long and sordid history of injecting 'security' technologies that do much more harm than good, and at the end of the day are bypassable except by the painfully incompetent. Even the painfully incompetent were able to find the filter for the original Macrovision videotape "protection" -- and this before the internet had been commercialized. At the end of the day, it just annoyed more than hurt folks who were pursuing "novel" uses of content.
Look at this way: Adobe uses Macrovision's SafeCast to protect Photoshop CS and now CS2. It does not take too much looking around to find 1) the applications and 2) numerous ways to get around it.
At the end of the day, Macrovision is a slow, old cat, and the mice they chase are not only faster, they are smarter too.
What, exactly, does that mean? The total number of words published each day on the front page of Slashdot is relatively low. It really wouldn't take much work to have someone who knows English to check the posts for errors (and dups?) prior to publication.
Frankly, the amusing and sometimes insightful posts by Slashdot readers are the only real draw to this site at this point. The news is usually late and laden with grammatical and content errors, not to mention the frequent dups.
I don't get music or movies from p2p (now). But what I don't approve is this attempt by the big corps to stymie the technology. What essentially Macrovision is saying that it would sabotage a p2p network, thus rendering the network unusable for legal use.
,my cable provider Insight is artifically capping BT downloads for me. People should realize what dirty tricks RIAA & MPAA are upto.
Now, almost 80% of p2p traffic is of wrong nature, you might say, so whats the issue if it is stopped. Fair queston. Now, if you put a cap on innovation, then the common people suffer. let me give you an example. When Replay TV announced that their DVRs had the capability of auto-advancing commercials. Thsi was was far superior to Tivo's 30 second manual skip. Older ReplayTVs would AUTOMATICALLY detect a commercial break & advance the program.
What happened then? MPAA sued & forced Replay TV to disable this feature. Now, what there's virtually no advancement in DVRs, they now serve nothing more than glorified VCRs. The auto commercial advance in older Replay TVs would allow you to move from one program segmnent to the next, similar to the chapter system in DVDs.
Why do I quote this example? It is because MPAA/RIAA in trying to stomp out p2p are stymieing technology & innovation. On my dual boot machine I try a new linux distro almost every other week. If these people succeed in poisoning the networks, I would definitely be not happy.
And
because, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then blind 'em with bull$#!+.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
so somehow someone is going to pay attention to patent violations if they already dont care about copyright violations?
Because unfortunately all patent applications are full of mumbo-jumbo. And it takes a technically-skilled person to tell whether it makes no sense or not.
Mind you, that said, there must be scope for a simple unbiased jury-of-peers approach? Register to be a patent advisor (volunteer work or for a small stipend), and each time a patent comes in they randomly select five people off the list with expertise in the area and send them the application.
If three or more agree it's new, non-obvious and patentable then the application goes ahead for formal review, otherwise it's rejected with a good explanation why (like "Because it's functionally identical to X", or "Because we've had The Wheel for a number of years now", or "Because it's a Business Model not an Invention, you corrupt, IP-grabbing patent-subverting fuck-tard").
Obviously you've have to be careful to have safeguards the jury *were* unbiased (eg, drawn from different companies from the one applying for the patent, no registering of patents in the same area as one they've adjudicated on for a period of X years (etc), but surely it's possible?
Any takers?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Maybe indirectly, through the IRS. But I don't think USPTO gets paid more to issue a patent to Microsoft or IBM than they do to issue one to your or me.
There is name recognition, though. If a high-profile company applies for a patent, maybe the system gives it a little easier ride, examines it a little less closely, than if "Joe Crackpot, ace inventor" is on the application.
The real problem is having business process patents and software patents in the first place. These things should not be patentable.
Restraint of trade by a monopoly is illegal, but if they get a business practice patent the government restrains trade for them. I don't get it.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
" I should think Macrovision would hardly mind if other companies copy them and start similarly interdicting P2P users. "
Actually they probably would, they're paid by the media industry to do this, and competition might mean the media industry goes to someone else.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Well, nothing in that sounds like true interdiction. Interdiction would seem to suggest to me that once identified, a P2P client or host would be removed from routing information. This is simply an auto-poisoner... The hash spoofing is problematic. if they are able to do this effectively, this could cause trouble. Any efforts made by Bram to counteract this, could nudge bittorrent away from lawful use. Up to now, all features of bittorrent have been in support of lawful use (just not precluding unlawful use) One could argue that working to counteract hash spoofing makes bittorrent more secure (would not like to see someone hosting a torrent for a linux distro that could distribute malware).
so... i could patent logging on to a p2p network, getting the ip's of peers and resolving them into an identity from their isps... then sue them if they tried to do the same?
i like this idea, lemme get a pen!
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
wake up and smell the horseshit!
it's not about controlling copyright infringing P2P as it exists today.
it's about controlling the right to control distributed distribution of your own damn stuff!
eventually, the broadcast to consumer model of media distribution is going by the wayside. it will be replaced by artist to audience distribution over a distributed network of nodes whuch is run by the audience.
If an artist chooses to limit the distribution of his work to a 'paying' audience, he's gonna need some tool or other. if the tool is patented, then he's back in the 'pay some asshole' mode he's stuck with now.
Imagine that. A patent to make it more difficult for someone to profit from his copyright!
... to generate public domain content with metadata such that it appears to be content that Macrovision is looking to disrupt. Then, when they do disrupt that content, sue them.
Alternatively, have computers on the network keep hashed lists of failed downloads (filename, IP address) and the precise reason they failed (corrupt data, etc.). Transfer these lists whenever a file transfer is started.
It's up to the client what to do with this information if it matches their own ("182.165.3.43 keeps terminating downloads at 95%!"), but there are all sorts of nasty possibilities that take advantage of the fact that the legit part of the network has more bandwidth (data flood) and more CPU power than the poison nodes.
A system for interdicting unauthorized copying in a decentralized network comprising: a plurality of software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network; and a query matcher that receives search results from the plurality of software agents, and reports matches of the search results with protected files back to the plurality of software agents so that the software agents can interdict unauthorized copying of the protected files in the decentralized network.
Read the above. They need to masquerade as a node in the network. Fix is simple. We now have to be
be more carefully in the way we accept server nodes. If their servers are not accepted into a network, then they can answer queries. This will not be difficult to break. Also if these servers do logged in as a server in gnutella, Limewire, or wherever, then we would have to perform a DOS and keep the server busy with the DOS so it couldn't answer the query.
This technology isn't new. There were many garbage mp3 files on napster at one time.
basically if you were unforunate enough to get a reply from one of these servers you would end up
with a mp3 of pink/white noise.
They're INTENTIONALLY distrupting LEGAL use of a communications medium.
There's gotta be a law against that..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
I thought the Catholic church tried this shortly after the printing press was invented. Are we to suffer another inquisition? A separation of the techno-elite from the techno-ostrich? It has all the social markings of a state sponsored holy war, except it's the pure sharing of ALL information instead of a religious text that is at stake.