Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Service as P2P Distro Experiment
Not another doctor wrote to mention a PC Doctor article about the Sky by Broadband service. In addition to providing access to the internet, the service also helpfully downloads and installs the Kontiki P2P service. From the article: "What this really means is that Sky in all their advertising are making out that you are downloading content directly from them rather than other users. Also, the P2P link continues to run in the background after you've shut down the main application, eating up bandwidth by allowing others to download the files from your PC. Kontiki also collects and sends back to Sky a lot of information about your PC. There is no mention as to how this data is protected from unauthorized access, however, initial examination with Ethereal seems to show that all data is at least encrypted during transmission."
Submitter was created for the sole purpose of commenting on this article. His link leads back to the PC Doctor website, which I don't think most of us have heard of. It sells tech books and support.
On topic, this is pretty serious if true. We really do need a P2P content distribution system, but having it on the sly doesn't really work. I'd like a system whereby it's cheaper if you agree to seed for a bit voluntarily.
So you've decided to legally download movies... If you play with fire, you're bound to get burnt. Whether it's Sky's Kontiki client or some other P2P app, you're always running the risk of sucking up bandwidth with background services. And so what if you are? The maximum throughput is only slightly decreased and you get a bunch of extra features. Isn't that worth the tradeoff?
Fixed that for you.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I think I just 1-UP'd you on the smart-ass score.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Gee, never saw this coming, did we?
Anyway, content owners want the benefits of P2P without the risks. The MACHINE is OURS, however, so we can play hardball right back at them with a firm ethical foundation to stand on. We can fight back with the same methods:
We need something like a P2P "robots.txt" file that is somehow accessible to outside entities, containing the conditions under which our machines can become part of any content distribution system. It could implement (through standard settings) a license under which your machine can be used for such purposes by a third party.
Example: using such a file, I should be able to rig up my machine so that it advertises the fact that any content distributed on the machine must be public domain, open source, in uncrippled formats, etc. Distribution of any other content on such a system would constructively create a license to use that content in specified ways.
In other words, if you stream your content (even in part) through MY machine, then you're giving me the rights to distribute, copy, modify, reverse engineer, etc., that content. If you're not happy with that, don't distribute using my machine.
Putting this in a technical setting like a metatag or *.txt file makes it possible for any distribution software to check the setting. So when they argue that you "clicked the EULA" you can argue right back that the software "agreed to the terms of distribution on my machine." Then they get to argue that it's harder for software to employ a clear and standard permission check than it is for an average person to read and understand a crafty EULA that hides away the fact that you're becoming a peer in the distribution network.
I don't know if my explanation was clear but I think it's a good idea.