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.
Say what?
I still don't get it. They have applied for patents to ban filesharing?
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
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?
This shows a big weakness with patent-oriented companies. Their greedy ideas combined with the need to file a patent on those ideas mean that we'll be TOLD how they're doing it, and can then work out how to get around it. Score one for openness and co-operation vs. secrecy and underhandness.
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
Groklaw has an listing of a HOW-TO on prior art. You need to scroll down to the third article.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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
Ahh, the wild, wild west of cybercrime law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just write analyses for people who are. If you would consider relying on information which was posted on Slashdot, you are too stupid to be allowed access to your own shoelaces much less an Internet account. Don't rely on the federal government to start prosecutions to save your sorry butt if your Kazaa craps out because content providers hire Macromedia.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
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!
Joe: Hey Bob! Did you pick up the new one from Metallica?
Bob: I sure did, buddy! Got it on CD. I ripped it and put it my iPod. Wanna borrow it?
Joe: Sure! I've got my iBook right here, this will just take a second. CDs rock! They're CD quality and no DRM!
Bob: (hands CD to Joe)
(Just at the moment, a masked man in tights with the log "MV" runs out from behind a bush, nearly tripping over his cape)
Joe: Egads!
Bob: Yowza!
Man: Wait kids! Don't copy that floppy!
Joe: Uhm, I'm 35? What floppy?
Man: I mean, I'm here to INTER-DICT in your PEER to PEER music swapping! (grabs the CD from Bob and quickly replaces it with a roughly-cut cardboard disk). You've been INTER-DICTED!
Bob: Wha?
Joe: Say, wouldn't it be easier to jump out from behind bushes if you weren't wearing that weird cape? I'm just sayin'.
Man: Don't laugh, Metallica's label paid me $10 Million to do this!
Bob: Wait a minute.. you work for Macrovision?
Man: (puffs up chest) The #1 Leader in Content Protection(tm)!
Bob: (Kicks "macrovision man" in the testicles, grabs metallica CD)
(Joe and Bob run away)
Joe: Whew, thank goodness it was Macrovision, I thought for a second I might not be able to copy your CD!
This is what Macrovision wants to do:
* Set up a bunch of fake P2P clients that look just like real clients (down to a faked version number, presumably). Give them a variety of IPs to appear as though the clients are widely distributed all over the globe.
* Give these clients enough resources so that at least some of them become supernodes.
And this is what the fake clients will be doing:
* Intercept search requests, and consult with their own private server before sending a reply.
* If the search includes a result for one of the copyrighted files on their blacklist, interfere with the results as follows:
o By removing the file from the list of search results
o By returning a fake search result that points to a nonexistent node as the source for the file
o Same as the above, but return a link to a functioning node that serves white noise
* If needed, the fake search results will include fake file hashes, or even true file hashes gleaned from the rest of the network. Any attempt to actually download the files pointed to by the search results will still fail, but it will consume valuable resources of legitimate P2P users.
In addition, Macrovision is thinking of somehow isolating certain legitimate nodes from the network -- by surrounding them with fake nodes "on all sides", as it were.
Essentially, Macrovision's plan is a DDoS on the network; or, rather, a way for the network to DDoS itself (by flooding it with fake search results and fake nodes). I don't know much about how BitTorrent or ED2K are actually implemented, but it seems like this attack would work, especially if Macrovision's fake clients manage to become supernodes.
>|<*:=