Slashdot Mirror
Reputation System Fights P2P Junk
yeejiun writes "Many of the files that are shared on p2p networks tend to be junk. Organizations such as the RIAA and music labels regularly pollute these networks with nonsense files masquerading as real music/video files. These junk files make it difficult for users to find what they want on such p2p networks. Some researchers at Cornell University have developed a reputation system called Credence, that works on the Gnutella network, allowing users to tell the good files from the bad ones."
quit downloading crap off of kazaa/grokster/morpheous/etc. dont trust brittneyspearsporno.avi.mpeg.exe
lameness filter thwarted.
Gotta love the torrents!
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Especially when there is no way of checking them in midstream.
I thought the primary purpose of P2P filesharing was to share legally swappable media files as well as other files like documents and useful freeware applications. Is there some nefarious entity flooding the P2P networks with garbage disguised as those files above? Why would you need to know the quality of the file's reputation?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
"making theft more efficient!"
if the RIAA is willing to create junk files, you really don't think they are going to create fake accounts to rate their junk files as "good"? ANY system you put in place that gathers "votes" from users can be manipulated.
Doesn't the eDonkey2000 network already have a system like this? Users identify fakes and report them, then the phony file information propagates throughout the network and the fake file dies.
Don't you mean the real illegal files from the fake illegal files? Seriously, it is no surprise to me why P2P has gotten a bad rap. Many of the users simply use P2P apps to commit piracy.
Yes, there are legit uses as well. But honestly, if you are looking for free music from a band that has released it as such, you can usually find it. It's the copyrighted commercial music and video that have tons of fake files, porn movies, etc...Not Jim Blow Sings the Blues, Live from Natrona, PA!
3. How does Credence know who is trustworthy and who is a spammer ?
Initially, it doesn't. As you vote for files, it stores your votes and discovers the set of peers with whom your votes are correlated. It also communicates with peers to find out about other peers with whom they in turn are correlated. The outcome of this computation is a numerical value computed for each file appearing in query results that reflects the probability that the given file is trustworthy. If you vote thumbs-up for good files and thumbs-down for bad files, you will be grouped with the vast majority of people who also vote honestly. You will then compute a high trustworthiness metric for all files that this (potentially very large) group of users has ever voted on. If you vote inaccurately (i.e. you are a spammer), you will compute a low trustworthiness metric for other non-spam files, and honest users will compute a low trustworthiness coefficient for your opinion. It is thus in your best interest to vote honestly.
Seems the trust system is prone to spamming itself. If the RIAA (or anyone for that matter) flood the system with bogus votes, then the "honest" votes will get ruled out.This seems only to be just another layer that's succeptible to the exact same pollution problems.
I put odds of this catching on and being succesful as currently documented at a big fat 0%
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
How is this any better than Bitzi and its Bitprints, which are already built into popular Gnutella servents like BearShare?
"Our client provides a peer-based judgement that a given object will possess the properties with which it is labeled and enables users to evaluate search results for authenticity before downloading."
Sounds exactly like Bitzi to me...
"Many peer-to-peer reputation schemes have been proposed in academia. Credence is the first practical implementation of a peer-to-peer reputation scheme."
I don't think so.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
-Most of the files on P2p are loaded with TROJAN Horses and Viruses ! Beware.
-You usually have to hold on to a 'bad' program just to review it for others in Kazaa . Kind of stupid.
-Usually have to look at size of file to determine if it's even worth downloading. Kazaa tried to use a metric like that for video.
-I thought of something like a Slashdot review system with creditable arbitrators . Damnit where are my props ?
-Emule does have good content but emule is ridiculously slow even with broadband.
lighten up.. dont you think your going a bit overboard?
serenity now!
if p2p files are legit, why do you need checksums.. these services will just cause more lawsuits nothing will be accomplished
lameness filter thwarted.
I thought the idea was to make a system where users can freely share files.
From 10-year-old girls sharing Britney Spears videos, to RIAA plants sharing crappy fake music, why can't we say that all people have rights online?
If a file appears to by RIAA-affiliated music, treat it as a junk file.
Why bother with music the artist doesn't want you to have? Just forget about it altogether and discover new music, even new types of music that you'd never realize existed, much less that you could enjoy.
It's a trust system that neatly tells the RIAA who to sue
OVERVIEW
.
Credence is a robust and decentralized system for evaluating the reputation of files in a peer-to-peer filesharing system. Our goal is to enable peers to confidently gauge file authenticity, the degree to which a file's contents matches its advertised description.
At the most basic level, Credence employs a simple, network-wide voting scheme where users can contribute positive and negative evaluations of files. On top of this, a client uses statistical tests to weight the importance of votes from their peers. And finally, Credence allows clients to extend the horizon of information by selectively sharing information with their peers.
Authenticity and Pollution
We define pollution broadly as any file with content that does not match its description. An authentic file, by contrast, has content that is accurately described by its metadata. We find in practice that pollution in current networks can be easily identified by users without any special knowledge or expertise. As pollution becomes more sophisticated, more advanced detection techniques will need to be developed to help users safely identify malicious content.
Voting
The Credence system relies on individual users as the first line of defense against pollution. After a user downloads and uses a file, she is given a chance to submit a single vote to the Credence system: a positive (thumbs-up) vote for authentic files, and a negative (thumbs-down) vote for a polluted file. Each vote is cryptographically signed and entered into the system.
Vote Gathering
Credence uses these votes collected in the network to determine the authenticity of content. Credence displays a rating for each file that appears in response to a user query.
First, the client software executes a search for votes, and downloads a number of votes randomly selected from the network. These votes are then aggregated into a single estimate of the authenticity of the file in question.
Each vote collected from the network is not used directly, however, since some peers in the network may accidentally vote incorrectly, or even lie intentionally about the file's authenticity. Therefore we assign to each peer a correlation coefficient, or weight, reflecting the historical usefulness of the peer's votes. In effect, this helps remove the incentive for an attacker to lie about the authenticity of files. A consistent liar is, after all, just as useful as an honest peer when it comes to distinguishing authentic files and pollutions. And an inconsistent voter will come to be be ignored by others in the network.
Information Sharing and Transitive Correlation
Peer-to-peer networks can grow quite large, and many clients might participate rarely, sharing and voting on only a few files. This means that alone, a client may have trouble quickly discovering peer correlations and other historical data. To alleviate this problem, Credence uses a technique called transitive correlation to quickly spread information among small groups of peers and help clients expand their horizon
In Credence, a client periodically requests historical data from selected peers in the network. This data contains information on how the peer voted in the past (cryptographically signed, as before), and information about how the peer is related to other peers in the network. The client can then validate this information for authenticity, then integrate it into its local databases. In this way, not only does the client take advantage of the work other peers do in evaluating files for authenticity, but also gains insight into the behavior of peers in the network. All this is done without need for user interaction, or any peer trust values, which can be difficult for a user to accurately determine.
Changes to the LimeWire Client and Gnutella Network
Credence is integrated into the LimeWire client, and works on top of the Gnutella network. The implementation is built entirely on top of existing primitives in the Gnutella protocol. It opens up no additional ports
Wow. I am so glad that these fine folks researched and invented a rating system for P2P networking. Because then networks like Shareaza and EDonkey wouldn't have to take the credit for having such a system several years ago.
While these "researchers" are writing their self-congratulatory paper for re-implementing other people's work, can I please get a doctorate in working them over with a baseball bat for being such jackasses?
Shocking.
I don't know that their tactics are effective - after all, networks like eDonkey|eMule seem to be pretty good at self-policing. But it's amusing to see the undercurrent of outrage in these 'stories'.
We all know damn well why the *AA folks do what they do.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
For those of you that can't be bothered to RTFA, this system takes a profile of how you vote on files and matches you with other people who voted similarly. Thus, the spammers would see different ratings than 'normal users.'
Illegal? Samir, This is America.
It is already very east to tell the junk files from the good ones. The junk ones will come from a very limited IP range. What usually happens is that the *AAs, and the companies they hire to pollute the networks will use the entire IP range they own to do that, but that usually still only amounts to a few class Bs. The good files on the other hand will come from all different class As.
The fact that I didnt get to play HL2 was compensated by the 2 hours of dwarf porn.
It's just a very bad troll, no need to answer it :)
The RIAA could easily manipulate this to cause legit files to be rated lower.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
-knowles
I like this idea. Media hordes, read as RIAA and MPAA, will constantly try to find technical ways to put the P2P genie back in the bottle.
/. mobs will just mock them.
For every Napster (Kazaa, etc.) they close, another will be spawned. For every fake or intrusive system they create to battle downloaders, another downloading method will be innovated. For every commercial they feature a celebrity crying copyright heresy,
It's no shattering concept there'll never be a checkmate for either side.
Some aim to please, I aim to tease.
Aren't there some implications with this idea, that maybe it's trying to enable people to download illegal or illegitimate files? I mean, many of these so-called "polluted" files are polluted for a reason: because they're illegal for just any person without a license to have. By coming out with an idea that goes against protections against this illegal downloading, I would think there's some sort of implied statement here.
Like what Slash does.
You misunderstand what you quoted... if they flood the system with votes, it matches them with the type of vote they make, when you use it you are matched with the type of vote you make... Thus, if you mod real files up then another user who mods real files up will trust your mods more than somebody else. If the evilpeople mod real files down and bad files up, then they will trust the mods of other evil people, but they won't trust your ratings, and you won't trust them.
Thus if you wanted to have a really easy way to find a list of crap files, you just have to mod down every real file you have, and mod up every piece of crap you have, then do a search. Your results will be clustered by the trust that the file you are getting is "like yours" or in that case, a fake.
Gravity Sucks
Hasnt Bitzi been doing this for years? The major pain about Bitzi thought is that people are too lazy to comment on good files, its only when they get VISTA's ;) that they comment.
FYI, Virii/Infections/Spyware/Trojans/Adware
In general its very disturbing how short sighted the high tech communicty has become. I don't think it's always been this way... but I haven't been around all that long.
If you look around you see this absurd childish opposition to any kind of laws that enforce copyright, or attempt to protect any kind intellectual effort. It's as if almost no one can go beyond the "I want it! I want it!" mentality to see how that attitude can come back to bite them in the ass.
I don't know about you guys, but I tend to like the horrible screeching noises coming from my newfound mp3's.
And my neighbors merely assume I have terrible taste.
Fuc...oh wait. Sorry. Too quick on the trigger. My bad.
If we had a P2P system that was encourage to boot off copyrighted works, we'd also have less junk (RIAA has no incentive to flood it with crap) but also maybe a viable platform for Independent artists to distribute their works...............
I was going to go further down this line of thought, but now that I think about it, with bittorrent and a self-promotional website, an independent artist can get his stuff out their with minimal bandwidth expenditure. I can't really feel for either side in the debate - people who want stuff for free and the RIAA who are even bigger leeches.
I haven't been on a P2P network for ages..... though I still lament the passing of old MP3.com because that was a convenient central place to find unsigned artists who wanted their stuff out there......
So what if there is crap out there, your an idoit if you download it, it's your fault, serves you right. Your dumb if you download the crap, hopefully you can read and you should be able to decipher the crap from the good stuff anyway. That is how people normally get viruses, they are always messing with crap that they dont understand. Learn how to surf the web if your going to get illegally downloaded stuff. Your going to end up getting screwed if you dont know what your doing.
The research and motivation for this is important. If peer to peer networks can be subverted, then they have lost their usefulness. IMO, the sharing of copyrighted data is unavoidable, and sacrificing the freedom of a protocol in an attempt to prevent it is shortsighted.
It probably would have been better for Cornell if it had been left as a paper, rather than implementing it.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
What happens if the 'polluters' mod 50% of the files correctly?
The Chair Corp. comic(*00-12)
Many hardcore file shares and hosters, dare I say most that would call themselves hardcore, are not in it for getting free content on demand when they want it. They are into collecting absolutely anything and everything they can get their hands on. In some collections, people wouldn't possibly, in their lifetimes,be able to listen to all the music or watch all those movies. But just the thought of having it makes many hoarders happy. And it's not even necessarily reputation amongst others. It could be in many cases, but not always. They just have to have it.
What's my point? Well, this is the greatest strength and weakness of peer to peer. Hoarders ensure a healthy flow of files, but they rarely actually check what they have. They don't check to see the software works, or if the music is a complete copy, or that the movie was cut down to a quarter of the original screen size.
This is what companies take advantage of, both those who want to hurt swapping, and those who just want to seed files for the purpose of installing some evil spyware. It's nice to have a bunch of people trying to seed the masses but cmon the point of file sharing is to pool our independent resources. For someone who doesn't have all day to search for files and test quality and whatnot, it is sometimes less painful to just go buy the CD than it is to actually try to download it amongst the mess of files that are out there.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The only place I haven't seen a large quantity of fake files or trojans is on usenet.
But maybe I've just been lucky...
That sounds like a bit of a contradiction in terms!
Free Firefox news reader.
Many many companies (and individual artists) have faced SERIOUS economic damage by attempts to thrawt P2P from being absolutely ubiquitous and maximally effective. Estimates are in the BILLIONS of dollars (US only) of lost sales in broadband connections, blank media disks, large hard disk drives, software support, consulting fees, home audio/video equiptment, and the like. And Western countries are fast falling behind as the majority of educated citizens from developing nations take advantage of the black market for these goods and services while Western citizens are blocked in droves by propaganda, political corruption, inferior substitutes, and FUD from fully participating in the open exchange of science, the arts, poltical discorse, and culture in general.
Credence will hopefully bring us a bit closer to reaching our current potential.
Another metric is Eigentrust out of Standard: link (warning: PDF). If I recall correctly, it computes the trustworthiness of a peer by computing its left principal eigenvector. This is the same method Google uses to rank pages in its search algorithm.
- shadowmatter
Use a P2P program that actually includes some 'anti-junk" features. I typically use Shareaza (probably not the best, and I'm sure someone will state a better P2P but the points still remains, Shareaza does offer some features these clients do not -- including a rating/comment system that goes with the file whenever anyone finds a search result for it). Usually I know if the file is a fake before I download because I use some obvious signs:
I prefer the client program including these features, especially when it's available to connect to several networks at the same time. Nothing worse then getting a 100MB+ file and realizing you wasted the bandwidth for not, or the program you downloaded wasn't the same as the file name (more legit, but not what you were looking for).
Do be careful because some files that are really a virus can be detected by AV as 'ok'. Thankfully I found the virus before it did much damage and by reading the Symantec AV report I was able to make sure I removed it completely. Just because one 'setup.exe' claims to be a setup program don't trust it unless you trust the name of the setup program -- "Program Setup Wizard" does not cut it!
Since Shareaza also supports torrents I usually go through torrent sites and have rarely had any 'junk' files from the torrents. The more junk the RIAA (and other companies!) try to spread the better we get at ignoring and working around it!
"ANY system you put in place that gathers "votes" from users can be manipulated."
That's what I keep telling the KDE users.
--
The "are you a script" word for today is deftly
12. How do I vote for a file? The search window has only a Ratings button, but no voting button. You can only vote on files after you download them. Once you have downloaded a file, go to the library window, select the file, and click either the thumbs up or thumbs down button.
Ofcourse I don't know whether a copy of said file on harddrive attained through other means counts as a full download...
So how do you break the system? Simple: request a lot of certificates, slashdot their "large file" server, and watch as legitimate peers are unable to use the system for lack of their own certificates. All you have to do is have more bandwidth at your disposal than two undergraduates do. What are the odds that the RIAA or an interested adversary with a bot-net can manage this? Survey says: pretty darn likely.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Usenet is always reputiable.
"Don't you mean the real illegal files from the fake illegal files? Seriously, it is no surprise to me why P2P has gotten a bad rap. Many of the users simply use P2P apps to commit piracy."
I'm assuming Cornell has better sense than that, and is doing this research for much better reasons that to simply give piracy a hand.*
Of course technological solutions are "short-term" solutions, and never solve the underlying social problem. Only delay it ever being solved, by the real means it should be.
*The Semantic Web for example could benefit from a good reputation system.
--
"The "are you a script" word for today is notarize.
I am not a pro-terrorist academic in the social sciences. I am a pro-communist academic in the social sciences. Get it straight.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Actually, while I doubt the OP intended it, he has a good point.
See, let's be honest about this. While there will *always* be jackasses out there who spam networks just because they can, and a few more people trying to shove spyware down people's throats, a pretty big chunk of the folks producing spam are those trying to prevent their copyrights (however overly-long-lived they may be) from being infringed upon.
So, the point is, that it's a good bet that a sizeable chunk of the files being shared aren't exactly legal.
Which means that you don't really want to make it especially obvious that you're sharing said file.
What this system does is provides a cryptographic signature on a small, publically downloadable piece of data that establishes that you have downloaded and *consciously examined* the file.
Frankly, this is pretty good evidence for someone trying to push an infringement lawsuit that you have infringed upon their copyright (yes, our work has MD5sum "foo" the same as the thing this guy is rating.
That being said, I do think that a more sophisticated method to this approach will win.
The largest problem on the Internet has always been rating and attributing data -- Google takes a pretty decent stab at some of the problem, and look how essential they've become. This just does a much better job.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I understand it perfectly. I also happen to see a hidden danger. Can you spot it?
--
The "are you a script" word for today is astute.
I don't know how many times it's been said, but I'll say it once again: RTFA. To all those who are saying "this could easily be abused by the RIAA, making legit files seem bad": RTFA. Assuming you have the ability of making the decision whether a file you downloaded is bad or good, this system works by correlating your vote data with users that vote like you do, meaning that since the RIAA will obviously be voting for bad files, those files may appear even WORSE on your end because of their input. A clever system if you ask me, much like Google's pagerank.
Organizations such as the RIAA and music labels regularly pollute these networks with nonsense files masquerading as real music/video files. ...as do the "renamers". I wonder if anyone has studied why such people rename files in this way?
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
[why say more?]
I can see two problems with this system. The first being if the spammers have a majority in the system and are voting all the spam files good and everything else bad. If this was the case, everyone else would be "untrustworthy" and the system would be flip flopped. A simple "absolute" would turn the system back around. The other problem would be more practical, in which the spammers vote a bunch of a good files good, and one of their bad files good. Making tons of these accounts, their trustworthiness should be alright (1 mistake is probably allowed for) and they succeed in polluting the pollution system. The ideal way to combat this is to say even one mistake makes you untrustworthy, but I'm thinking this would probably lead to a collapse of the entire system when the first user decides to vote wrong, and the system turns itself over. I'm not expert though.
Those researchers must have spent too much time downloading stuff, much of that time lost in downloading bogus files. I suppose one day they said 'enough is enough!, no more masquaraded files, we want our mp3s!', or something like that, so they did it. :)
Creativity and research usually comes from the needs of the very people who conduct it.
Technology ramblings : Simple is Beautiful
So, when's Slashdot going to impliment this "golden" system?
The system on Donkey/Mule network works in practice.
If a RIAA person marks all good files as bad, someone will notice this at some time and add a new, additional comment refuting the other one. At that point people will just have to accept the contradiction and see for themselves. The real good files propagate enough so that their availability will be the best recommendation.
Marking bad as good helps RIAA little, because many people will mark it bad anyway, or delete it from their disks before it becomes widely spread.
Another nice info on eMule is a list of differing names of all occurrences of the file (by its MD5 has) it has found. Those often reveal more info, because people rarely use the comment feature, but they might still change file names in an informative way. This is also useful in finding what language the video is, or codecs info, or release info.
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
"The research and motivation for this is important. If peer to peer networks can be subverted, then they have lost their usefulness. IMO, the sharing of copyrighted data is unavoidable, and sacrificing the freedom of a protocol in an attempt to prevent it is shortsighted."*
Which one? There's two different P2P networks. There's the one that by design gives you the benefit of bandwith sharing. And there's the other one that gives you anonymity, and bandwith sharing is just a side-effect.
The first isn't really in danger (except from the naive) because any material on that network can be persumed to be in the legal clear. e.g. Linux iso's, permission granted by the copyright holder.
The other however is the one that is being threatened moreso, and needs a "reputation"[irony alert] in order to continue functioning.
So no the protocol really isn't what's in danger, but the continuation of an illegal activity.
*Oh I should point out that by your argument HTTP could be considered "subverted" and therefore has "lost it's usefulness".
--
The "are you a script" word for today is sketchy.
This may automate the reviewing process
Man I wish I had some mod points right about now cause I'd definitely mod you up.
1. Mark a bunch of good files as good
2. Mark your bogus file as good
3. Spread your vote list on zombie network
4. Your votes corrolate highly with "good files", and there's no counter-votes by others (yet)
5. Trick lots of people to download it (the rating goes to shit eventually, but...)
6. New bogus file. Goto 1.
In addition, you have an issue with semi-good files. What if the encoding is flawed, should you mark it as bad or good? Either case can put you at odds with the general opinion.
Third, you have an issue with files trolling for incorrect votes. Create a "non-obviously" bogus file, which some people will mark bad, others good. You'll create a lot of conflicting votes and "noise" in the system to make attacks like above possible.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Who actually searches for files in the P2P client? Normally you visit some site where the releaser himself posted a torrent or an ed2k link and you download that.
I can't remember the last time I actually searched in eMule.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
couldnt agree more. P2P is superb stuff, and has all kinds of legit uses, but to pretend that its not 95% used to download copyrighted music and movies and thus save a few bucks is just denial.
There are far too may slashdotters who reply to any article on copyright with "get with the system dude! copyright is over!" usually they seem to be 13 year old kids who dont understand what its like to have your income and career based on developing electronic products.
Do people really think that Lord of the Rings deserved to sell just 1 copy, to the p2p hacker who ripped it?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Can this also be used as a metric for the RIAA and MPAA to decide which people to take legal action against? Go for the most trusted, most highly rated individuals and take out the most influential (central? critical?) nodes. In the same way that cliques of poisoners would stand out.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
First, you can't see the ratings in the search window. You must start downloading and only after connecting to some peers and starting the download, ratings start to appear.
Second, if you want to leave a rating of "Fake/Bad" you still need to host the file. Thank you very much, 2.5GB of gay porn just to tell people it is not really SWIII-ROTS-DVD_QUALITY.AVI - only malicious seeders of these files will retain the description ("Great quality! Not Fake!") and everyone else will delete the file after downloading - and stop spreading the rating.
What I like though is that you can give a description explaining WHAT is wrong with the file. Say, I started downloading LOTR-ROTK. After a while I see red icon: "bad/fake". So I read - Oh, yes, some idiot is spreadtng FOTR DVD edition, misnamed as ROTK. But I have the Fellowship only in the cinema screener with spoilers. So I just continue and end up with something different I had intended, but in the end something I like. It also allows for describing the file accurately - "VHS quality", "Heavy rip, all sound missing" or such.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
So, RIAA is doing Filesharing. Somebody sue them.
Do people really think that Lord of the Rings deserved to sell just 1 copy, to the p2p hacker who ripped it?
There was a time when home video didn't even exist, and yet movies still got made. After their initial run in theaters, movies would only be shown every now and then on tv late at night. They were basically filler programming for what would have otherwise been dead air. One might even argue that the average quality of new movies has been on a steady decline since then.
Just because I can package something for individual sale and ask people to pay for it doesn't mean it's right, copyrighted or not. Especially when the producers more than recouped the cost of production long before going to video and that copyright is going to be extended ad infinitum.
I disagree that these scientists are breaking any *legitimate* law, but if you accept as a premise that they are, then they are in fact breaking the law using taxpayer dollars.
Instead of modding that down it should be modded up so more people can discuss the ramifications.
Do we allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on civil disobedience? On that issue, I am very unsure.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Good, get your shit files, load up your computer with trojans, and then do us all a favor and fuck off.
Creedence Clearwater Revival will sue to stop this project from plying on their good name. Maybe this is the thing that brings the band back together.
"If you look around you see this absurd childish opposition to any kind of laws that enforce copyright,"
Thats a falsehood, the exact opposite is true. The high tech community is busy making all computers locked down with DRM to make big money from the *AA....erm... protect copyright for the *AA.
The backlash is against that, the idea that we can't make anything that MIGHT infringe copyright.
Here p2p is a good example of a corrupted data pool, it could be any body of deliberately corrupt data. Slashdot itself could improve its moderation system using this. But because you're so hung up on protecting copyright, you would prevent these guys looking into the problem?
Actually their research is valuable from a holistic point of view, and I'd argue that it is the MPAA/RIAA that is subverting P2P by doing what it's doing.
People who download music and videos illegitimately may be breaking the Law, but they are not subverting the P2P mechanism by doing so. The MPAA/RIAA are, and this represents a bigger technological obstacle to P2P as a medium than illegal files do.
This research attempts to address "the problem" of a single entity being able to corrupt the P2P mechanism and dilute confidence in the files on it. It could equally be a disgruntled ex-company employee or a rival company who could pollute the files of another entity for its own ends.
Despite everyone's views on the use of p2p networks, isn't it a dangerous precadent to set to allow these companies to steamroller over *anyone* who dares share copyrighted material. Is living in a DRM world where consumer rights are constantly reevaluated as to give us the least amount of enjoyment and freedom from our purchases worthwhile? It doesn't matter *who* these p2p sharers are, isn't setting the precadent of removing consumer rights by DRM (to copy, rip, burn for backup etc.) far more demeening and indefencible?
The MPAA / RIAA (or MPA / RIA as known internationally) and sister organizations are on a rampant -- a 'Shopping Spree' of sorts...
Which is why it is so critical to 'intercept' the cartels (which is illegal by definition) from the "games" they play. It is important to be able to recognize the games, and put and END to them.
The cartels (BSA, RIAA, MPAA, etc, etc, etc) are not separate entities, but "ONE" organization. Their 'networks' extend and reach into every nook and craney of our civilization, and have been doing so for centuries at least. These cartels have an extensive history of overthrow and corruption -- having infiltrated the highest levels of society and government.
These seamingly 'separate' groups, actually are a single entity through centuries of inter-breeding. Their tactics have been extensively and thoroughly documented. Being able to identity them and their acts in the key to preserving your rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>. A particular weapon of choice these Cartels employ, is a category called "mind games." The LAW, which is based on human language, is naturally subjected to "interpretation" and manipulation. The reality is such that LAWS are essentially POWERLESS, if it were not for the support of 'police' enforcement. This is true of all nations. Enforcement is through COERCION (by physical, economic, psychological, and whatnot) and BRIBES (kickbacks, "mutual assistance", etc).
Hand in hand with the above methodology, the 'cartels' have also employed a "classic" technique often seen in "magical acts." For those of your who know a magic trick or two -- the key element is "Deception by Diverting the Audiences' Attention Somewhere Else" while you do your 'trick.'
And this is exactly what has happened and are currently witnessing.
And this is the "Moral Abuse" on the people. The Western world, or the entire world for that matter, holds in high regards for "doing the right thing" and shunning "acts of evil."
By repeatedly POUNDING over and over and over again, into peoples' heads that file sharing, 'public showings' of music/video, and P2P, etc --- is STEALING --- what the CARTEL has effectively archieved, is the weakening of the person's moral fibre and their ability to defend themselves.
So what we have is "guilty WITHOUT the need to be PROVEN guilty." Henceforth, currently over 12,000 "lawsuits" and EXPONENTIALLY escalating WORLD-WIDE to rediculous numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the MPAA / RIAA "forget" to mention to address is the issue of whether or NOT they have the "right" (in its truest and purest form) to lay CLAIM to the "works of art" in question (whether music, literature, movies, or "ideas").
Because when you look at history and precendent, you will see that EVERY SINGLE 'work of art' has precedent and DEPENDED on PRIOR 'work of arts'. Not a single musician, producer, artist, intellectual, or any person for that matter, can claim they "created" it ALL ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT having learned and prospered from OTHER people's prior works. Not a single person, not a single ground of people, nevertheless a superficial cartel can possible lay TOTAL CLAIM of a "work of art" as ONLY theirs alone -- to do whatever they wish and to use as a tool to persecute people with.
Even the instruments and tools used to 'create these works of art' are the DIRECT influence from DIVERSE AREAS of the world --- with each nationality, each tribe, each person contributing, whether a lot or a little. Take for example the GUITAR and VIOLIN, which are the "classical" and "traditional" musical instruments in EUROPE --- But, did you know that the Europeans BROUGHT THIS OVER FROM THE MIDDLE EAST during their centuries of religious conquest. Heck, many many words in English are Arabic in origin. The same is true with Science and Technology, with the West originally benefiting from the knowledge and experence of the East -- only to later surpase the East, in wh
Where are "your props"? Learn to speak English, build a credible research basis (which may involve taking research training in the form of a PhD, and which will definitely involve implementing prototypes), and then publish...
Isn't there a better use of University research time than wasting it on programs attempting to make it easier to perform illegal acts?
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
"Just because I can package something for individual sale and ask people to pay for it doesn't mean it's right, copyrighted or not." Hi, this is reality talking, we'd like to know where you could have possibly formed such a delusional idea that people don't deserve to sell the things they made. I guess I will just go over to McDonalds now and grab a big mac without paying. I don't think it's right to pay and I haven't eaten for about 2 hours, so why should I have to pay?
What I usually do (I'm using aMule) is to verify the "file description" tab. There you have the filenames that are given by different people on the network. So if you see 3 or 4 different names for the same file, it is usually a fake. And this goes for every type of file, not only music/films. You can also do a "check fake" and it will redirect you to a site where information on fake files is kept more or less up to date.
I believe the parent to this had a lot of sarcastic wit in its invention, but there are serious uses for this.
Imagine a P2P network where there were no restricted copyright files. So all content on this network is released under a distributable licence or is public domain.
Say I am an avid astronomer. When I go looking for star charts and the like I will be rating up accurate astonomy papers and the like and rating down material that is based on astrology, which may have similar descriptive terms. My search results will closely align with other astronomers who have similar interests to myself, so in effect we will filter for the material we are interested in.
At the same time we will be voting down astrology papers, which people interested in astrology are voting up. Those with interests in astrology will have made their searches more relevant through this feature, while filtering out the 'noise' of astronomy documents.
There would also be two other sets created, documents neither group voted up, which may have nothing to do with the topic or may be spam or corrupt. And there would be items that both groups voted for. These might be very accurate star charts for example.
If I were a music fan and I enjoyed dance music, listening to every free act available to select stuff I like could be a painful and time consuming experience. However as the rating system learns my preferences it can direct me to songs that people of similar tastes have enjoyed. And by my rating them it may further align me with people of similar interests, beyond just saying we are say, trance music fans. On the other hand, I could always just download some lower rated stuff to broaden my horizons, so that option is not taken away from me. This also avoids the current music selection method of 'whatever we throw marketing dollars at / buy radio airtime for' and songs will have to sink or swim based on their own quality to a given group. If Sony have a botnet rating up their latest release (assuming they release some songs on a free distribution network to get more buyers) and the music isn't up to scratch, the botnets opinion will fade from relevancy in the human listener groups.
The particular strength of this system though is the ability to filter out spam and other junk. Your botnets that are misrepresenting say an audio advertisement file as the latest song from some rap artist will very quickly become its own community. Further because people have hopefully been 'categorised' as more than just rap fans due to subtleties in tastes, it would be very difficult for a bot net to align itself with all rap fans to infect the network with the spam.
Further if you are a person with strong beliefs, whether it be religious, political, gender-based or parental concern, if you rate items on the network according to what offends you and what doesn't, you will align yourself with people of similar mind and will avoid being 'offended'. When someone decides to be funny by posting photos of dead soldiers as 'rabbit pictures for children' because the are being funny (and I knew people who would have thought that hilarious in college, so people with that kind of dementia do exist) would either never make it into the 'concerned parent' rating group, or would have their credibility with that group shot quickly.
It also protects against censorship, because instead of 'offensive to most' posts being erased, they would simply be rated out of existence within thoise circles, while being rated highly in circles that appreciated that line of reasoning. So your conspiracy theorists or anti-establishment groups eg EFF could not be rated out of existence by bot-nets.
And for the true seedy underside, your terrorist or paedophile cells, only included because if I don't I could be attacked for advocating them, it actually would create clustering of people of such mindsets, which should make it easier for enforcement to identify them if they are doing their job right.
the article clearly states p2p networks are being used to pirate warez and RIAA is just trying to make it a little harder by introducing bogus files. This is really shocking. Gonna spank my hamster now.
Too bad he wrote as AC, but he has one of the most insightful points of the entire thread, an entire aspect that is overlooked.
The basic premise of the slashdot story is how cool it is that researchers are defending the acts of people to trade in uncorrupted *illegal* file trading.
After all, it seems the most if not all corrupted files are ones that, if they weren't corrupted, would have been illegal to trade anyway.
I think the RIAA and MPAA are scum sucking pigs who need bacon carved off their arses and handed to them. Still, I also think their concern about massive illegal fileswapping is legitimate, even though the leaders of their respective industries are the ones truly responsible for raping their own artists...
except that a lot of downloaders are too lazy to remove the fakes from their downloads (as seen on kazaa) so the fakes come from all over internet. It get even worse for files you cannot determine their validity during the download. They are availabel from the peers that share only a small part of the file.
ip filtering is a loosing battle.
However this credence thing will only be useful if a large enough percentage of the users uses this. And even then credence can be discredited (on a limited scale) by voting robots.
The system seems like a tool to use against the RIAA/MPAA to block pollution efforts. However, then the other shoe drops, and the RIAA/MPAA has a tool to target the highest ranked nodes/cliches/people. No longer do they need to figure out how many files you have.
They just have to find one file, extrapolate your rank to the average system rank, run a few numbers (and maybe a few inflated costs in there too), and bam... for sharing Happy Birthday To You.mp3, you get slapped with a $1 million infringement case because you happen to rank as a very high legitimate link.
On the other hand, this might be benefitial to take the heat off of the majority of the file trading community that honestly is NOT costing them any money. They don't need to target the casual "weekend downloader", who's rank should be significantly lower (being a new node on the network) than some guy with 4 160GB HDD's of the latest releases to theater and DVD. Nobody feel sorry when these guys (or gals) get busted. When 14 year old choir girls get busted, there is PR hell to pay. This system allows them to do that.
Didn't RTFA, but that's my first impression. A use to boost network quality, a use to increase (not decrease) the reach of the **AA's, and a use that may help both sides.
"Every tool has at least 2 completely unassociated uses. A spoon can serve food to your mouth, or gouge the eyes out of your enemies." - Me
I8-D
Yes, one would like to think that some of these goofs out there - though smart enough to download, would also have heard tell of anti-virus programs and STOP sharing the infected crap / clean their systems occasionally ...
Question Authority before IT questions You
...you still have to guard against vandals, virus spreaders, reputation poisoning attempts by unscrupulous rival operators, and innocents whose files have been trashed by coincidental factors eg: a failing hard drive.
No, you can't. Imagine this: The RIAA posts a lot of bogus files and rules Thumb Up. You now use this Information to rate files bogus.
Now some file named "TittneySpeasFullyNaked.mpg" comes out, which is *not* bogus. But the madam couhht real naked has enough $$$ to make the RIAA dummy accounts to vote Thumbs Up for this file, such that you, the one, who uses the nagative rating of them, will never see this file, as it must be bogus.
Thus, don't try to be too smart. Stick to the people you trust. As you even cannot trust those you don't trust that they never vote trustworthy.
-Tino
Just start downloading/sharing a 'blockbuster' and if you get a cease and desist email from a law frim, forwarded to you by your ISP, you are downloading 'the real thing'.
AT&ROFLMAO
Wait, you want to build a reputation system based on \.'s? You must be new here.
Businessmen make money by selling things, so their priority is to keep the supply of whatever they are selling (music, videos,...) under their control and to limit the spread of information in order to keep it rare and valuable.
Academics make money by having a reputation, so their priority is to do things that maximize the spread of information, because this boosts the reputation of the author.
Couldn't help but notice that WoW uses a P2P engine to spread it's patch cluters from user to user. So if we just go and make P2P illegal to stop the piracy since "that's the majority of its use". Then we're going to be mucking up some other more serious business models like WoW.
-- Just a thought.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Since the inalienable right to maximum profits is found right there in the Constitution, anything that gets in the way of maximum profits (thereby denying you your riches without limits) must, by definition, be "theft". QED.
Kythe
Will this make finding CCR on P2P harder?
"As you can see, your honor, according to a ranking system on the pirate file-sharing network, the accused had a high rank for carrying real, pirated files."
No, thank you.
vk.
I don't know why ppl would be against shoring up the p2p phenomenon. The RIAA is making obvious weaknesses with P2P, shutting them out - even if they're only contaminating the pool of pirate material can only be a good idea. What's to stop them from anonymously screwing with non-RIAA competetion or others from spreading garbage with similar tactics when noone is expecting it, like slipping advertisements into media for viagra.
That site sucks. Do they know that font sizes go below 72pt? I didn't even bother to look at the crappy content because the (lack of) design was ugly and unreadable. (And it sounds really lame and wrong anyway.)
that's not a fair analogy. here's a fairer one- McDonalds, through the magic of science, creates a machine that can produce a Big Mac out of thin air at zero cost. The development of this machine cost 10 million dollars. They have since sold a billion hamburgers for $1.00 each. People are now starting to get upset that they're charging $1.00 for something that costs them nothing to make, and whose capital investment they have long since recouped. How dare they!?
I very much doubt that the people downloading lord of the rings never actually bothered to pay for it later.
Most people I know download the movie instead of watching it in some overpriced cinema, in the case of lotr. I after went to see the last two in the cinema as the first was impressive.
I'm sure most people here on slashdot have also downloaded the movies... but then went out and purchased the super super incredibly stupidly long lotr edition on dvd.
Same happened with Sin City, was a good pirate, went again to the cinema as it was kick ass and will be sure to buy the dvd.
On occation I would download films that I would not even consider purchasing a cinema ticket or dvd for.
Heh they are so many films on sky movies that I would not normally watch.. I'm not going to run out and buy the dvd just because I decided to watch the film.
where is the loss of profit?
If its good I pay.. if its shit they should not expect money for trash.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
I use limewire, and I assume they are referring to those files that are about 106kb each that come up, regardless of what you're searching for. Like if you search for 'peanut butter apple monkey', you will possibly get peanut_butter_apple_monkey.mp3 up on the list, as a 106kb file. (I don't know how or why, I've just noticed this)
I for one never download those files, because I am rarely downloading anything that SHOULD be 106kb, so I leave them alone. If I'm downloading something that should rightly be 2 or 3 mb, then I'll not download files that are significantly smaller or bigger than that. Hence, I don't see why they need to create a system for this- I just assumed that people would get wise to it after a while.
Gee. It's good to know that we have this invention known as a Blockbusters, so you don't have to go out on an ethical limb.*
*Or do people not even try to stay off them?
They don't have to stop piracy completely, they're trying to make it more difficult for everyone to find what they want when they want it. And thereby push people to use pay services.
Take Napster. They hated napster, because everyone used napster, the selection was fantastic, and it was easy and fast.
If the RIAA can break the piracy up into smaller "p2p" networks it becomes more difficult to find want you want instantly on the different networks. Scare some of the big sharers off and its even harder to search.
All of a sudden 99 cents seems a nice price versus hours of searching. Steve Jobs noted when he released itunes, they had to make it easier/faster/more reliable/better quality than the free networks. They couldn't compete on price, (unless you count time).
As someone who is pretty busy(instert slashdot reading joke here) 1 dollar a song seems fair. Now if they'd make TV shows and other content available, things would look up.
Unfortunately, for you. Reality shows just how false your premise really is. The majority of the material on P2P networks is stuff that came out recently. That's also why all those arguments about copyright being too long are irrelevent, because anything shorter wouldn't make a difference as far as what people are actually doing.*
*The whole argument sounds like a "If she hadn't dressed like that. I wouldn't have raped her." type of blame that's favoured around here. e.g. "If the RIAA/MPAA didn't make their material look so good? I wouldn't have illegally downloaded it."
On the contrary, our tax dollars are going towards subsidies for industries whose business models depend on a market that no longer exists. When distribution and reproduction were expensive, you could make a lot of money in the IP racket. Now that distribution and reproduction are pretty much free, our taxes go towards:
As for technological dominance, gigantic potential economies are now suppressed in the name of protecting IP. And the curious, innovative, bravest, and smartest among us are systematically repressed to feed a petty, bullshit propaganda machine.
You, sir, are only a small bead of the slimey, glistening discharge of the cancer that has inflicted the youngest, most promising child of our culture. But you respond well to simple salves.
Will this make finding CCR on P2P harder?
No. Either search for "Creedence" (intentionally misspelled in the name of the band) or search for "Clearwater Revival". Or just look for the bathroom on the right.
This is a simple case of resarchers finding a way to make it easier to fulfill our basic right to copy.
Distributing a file on P2P might be illegal, but it is not immoral. This project is every bit as valid as anonymizer systems that let people in more oppresive regimes communicate illegal ideas.
Abolish Copyright. Restore Freedom.
Is to have a trust network.
One way to set up a trust network is activly. That means you make friends and trust them. This is like PGP. And is very effective for strong whitelisting.
Another way is passively. This includes looking for low-quality posts on slashdot and foe'ing them. People who care to make high-quality posts, in my oppinion, care enough to have high-quality-posting friends. Anybody who wants to can benefit from this by friending that person, and then +3 friend/friend-of-friend.
Sidenote: this is great because you can +3 trolls to find them and then foe them. It's fun to find bad content once in a while since I can ban it from then on.
---------
<New idea>
However, what has not been implemented yet, is an automatic friending mechanism. This is where you mark content as good or bad and the trust network is automatically updated based on how you trusted that file in the first place. This is more difficult to implemently as the wrong parameterization can easily lead to abuse of the system.
</New idea>
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
When can we expect this for the slashdot editors?
...you were midgOWNED!!1 Gotta love those fakes.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"On the contrary, our tax dollars are going towards subsidies for industries whose business models depend on a market that no longer exists. When distribution and reproduction were expensive, you could make a lot of money in the IP racket. Now that distribution and reproduction are pretty much free, our taxes go towards:"
Distribution and reproduction aren't the only costs. Why does your side keep ignoring that?
"* New laws and law enforcement whose goal is to increase the costs of distribution and reproduction"
So you basically want selective enforcement of the laws? Are you sure you want to go down this particular slippery slope?
"* Direct taxes on blank media"
Agreed, but then I'm not certain why people believe that actions (illegal copyright violations) shouldn't have consequences (DRM)?
"* Public airways/Public space polluted with spreading pro-dying industry FUD"
Another slippery slope. They're paying for that airtime, much as religion (another hated group) pays for their broadcasts.
"As for technological dominance, gigantic potential economies are now suppressed in the name of protecting IP."
Only if you *assume* that MegaCorps are the only benificiaries of IP.
Cop 1: I wouldn't hold out much hope for the stereo, though.
Cop 2: Or the Credence.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/
"With laws like the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, outrage is entirely warranted."
The prblem with the "I download because of the Sonny Bono Act" argument is that pirates have made it a known fact that they'll distribute the minute (if not before. the latest SW's) it becomes available.
"Furthermore, I have no sympathy for those companies; as far as I'm concerned, a lot of their copyrights are unjustifiable."
"Unjustifiable"? You might want to think through the ramifications of your position. Starting with ditching the "copyright is only about the RIAA/MPAA" attitude.
This aplies to emule/edonkey networks, since it's the ones that I.. er... read more about... in a book... cof cof...
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
The GP lost me at casting Cornell as "this superficially respectable University".
Further comment: "As an American who understands the role strong copyright laws play in the knowledge-based economy of today...", but most Americans don't live in the USA. Does strong copy right really help the developing American nations?
Glad we can all agree on something.
but to pretend that its not 95% used to download copyrighted music and movies and thus save a few bucks is just denial.
The same argument is made every time a new technology emerges and it turns out to be wrong every time. Cassette tapes, VCRs, hell, the printing press. Every time it is fought tooth and nail until the distributors eventually wake up to the fact that, "Hey! We can make a lot of money here!" See the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) if you need an emerging example. Personally, I hope the clowns suing children go under permanently because they've really shown their asses this time.
There are far too may slashdotters who reply to any article on copyright with "get with the system dude! copyright is over!" usually they seem to be 13 year old kids who dont understand what its like to have your income and career based on developing electronic products.
Most slashdotters defend copyright, since it is the foundation of the GPL. (And since 13 year olds aren't being excluded by the lawsuits, I'd say they have as much right to voice their opinion on slashdot as anyone else.)
Do people really think that Lord of the Rings deserved to sell just 1 copy, to the p2p hacker who ripped it?
Only one copy was purchased? It was without a doubt available on P2P for free. The only way the content distributors lost money was by not making it available as a paid, burnable download that works... like iTMS does with music.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
I always find it interesting how the RIAA and MPAA are able to pollute these networks.
The direct relation could be the Law Enforcement putting out fake drugs.
Both are attempting to reduce the criminality by providing a "fake". The goal is to pollute the network with so much junk that the behavior will cease to exist.
If law enforcement attempted this it would be a violation on so many levels. Why do we as a society allow this to occur.
I myself have never used one of these applications outside of research (I can hear the jokes already) but it plagues me that we allow the RIAA and MPAA to use these underhanded practices.
Could someone help clarify as to how this system calculates who you are similar to in terms of voting pattern? Suppose I'm a user that has downloaded A, B, and C. Does this mean the system would have to take someone who has also downloaded A, B, and C, and have voted the same way as me to give me an idea if file D is likely to be good?
With so many files, there would be a very small number of peoople that would have downloaded the same files as I have.
eTrade SUCKS
One major error in your analogy, while...
fake P2P files = fake drugs
riaa/mpaa != law enforcement
emule
and a good link site you trust.
eg:
example
But users need to find their own link sites, not one linked to above.