P2P BitTorrent Tool Could Replace Pirate Bay

With the US and other G8 countries trying to outlaw The Pirate Bay and its ilk, an anonymous reader suggests that a solution may have emerged out of Cornell University. A new open-source project called Cubit is an Azureus plugin that provides decentralized approximate keyword search of torrents in the network.

Comments

Dude.

[Kingrames]

They haven't even passed their unconstitutional law. And here you are already defeating it. You're supposed to give them a few minutes of satisfaction.

Re:Dude.

[Theoboley]

Thats the way to stick it to the man.

Re:Dude.

[TRAyres]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch. I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out.

Re:Dude.

[sabrex15]

Cubit

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it unconstitutional?

Re:Dude.

[Kingrames]

I have to call BS on your pitiful argument here.

Just because it's written in the constitution (Slavery?) does NOT make it constitutional, and if it isn't there, it by no means isn't constitutional.

The courts decide, not the pedants.

Re:Dude.

[Chris Acheson]

Due process?

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that was the link in TFA, sort of, why do you post that?

Re:Dude.

[larry bagina]

Tip: The Constitution is a list of what powers and responsibilities the three branches of government have. The way you phrased your question (where is the right to xxxx) means you're giving them unlimited powers unless they're explicitely prevented. The correct question: Where in the constitution is Congress/the President given the authority to xxx.

Re:Dude.

[Taibhsear]

Oblig. Bill Cosby joke:
Noah: "What's a cubit?"
God: "Lets see a cubit... a cubit... I used to know what a cubit was..."

Re:Dude.

[AmaDaden]

Most likely because is was in TFA but not in the /. story. A lot of people (my self included, sorry) just read the comments and not the story. It's clear karma whoring but still helpful and relevant.

Re:Dude.

[unlametheweak]

Perhaps there needs to be a constitutional amendment allowing Freedom to Download and File Share. It seems much more practical (from a populous perspective) than the Right to Bear Arms.

Re:Dude.

[Sporkinum]

Man, you must be ancient! Damn! That makes me ancient! I used to have that album.....

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharing files containing child porn is illegal, sharing files with content you don't have rights to redistribute is illegal but sharing files is completely legal and protected in the constitution under the frist amendment.

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the constitution say we can't file share? Rights not specifically mentioned are automatically reserved to the people.

Re:Dude.

[0111 1110]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Dude.

[Wordsmith]

You used to have that album? Riiiiiiight.

Re:Dude.

[Shakrai]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch. I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out.

There isn't a right to share files but I'm pretty sure there's a right to free speech in there somewhere and a ban on "unauthorized information exchanges" doesn't seem very Constitutional to me.

Re:Dude.

[Shakrai]

Where does the constitution say we can't file share? Rights not specifically mentioned are automatically reserved to the people.

Actually they are reserved to the States or to the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:Dude.

[rikkards]

My Grandparents had it and I used to listen to it everytime we went there. Always loved the Chicken Heart that ate New York.

Re:Dude.

[iminplaya]

The sharing of information IS freedom of speech, not a subset, despite fraudulent claims of ownership. The fraud may be protected by law, but it's still fraud. The law is supposed to protect everybody, not just specific commercial interests, as this one does.

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a law in the sense that you're referencing, it's an international trade agreement.

Re:Dude.

[FredFredrickson]

Just because it's written in the constitution ... does NOT make it constitutional You must be one of those fancy politicans I keep hearing about..

Re:Dude.

[TRAyres]

Freedom of your OWN speech is protected. Not to share other people's speeches without their consent. There is a big difference there. Of course these people own what they say (or in the case of music, what they produce). They produced it. Just because you say it out loud once (or sing it at a concert) does not mean it instantly belongs in the public domain. I'm FOR music sharing and I think you have a poor argument.

Re:Dude.

[elrous0]

I think that the perfect time would have been about an hour after the forthcoming MPAA press conference were they declare "this new law will be a huge blow to pirates who think they can circumvent our laws."

Re:Dude.

[Kuros_overkill]

Are you confusing File sharing (fairly certian it falls under free speach) with Copyrighted file sharing?

Using P2P to share files - Protected

Using P2P to share © Files - Not so mutch...

Unfortunatly the law makers are indescriminate in their ways.

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only copies of information exist, "information" doesn't. they "own" THEIR COPY. If they don't want other people copying, they don't have to fucking release it, fine by me. Everyone's right to communicate without government interference simply overrides any purported right to prevent poeple distributing COPYS of some information based on similarity to another copy.

Re:Dude.

[morgan_greywolf]

Just because it's written in the constitution (Slavery?) does NOT make it constitutional, and if it isn't there, it by no means isn't constitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts? Is that you?

Re:Dude.

[debatem1]

I believe you'll find that in the ninth amendment, the same place you find most of the other rights you exercise.

Re:Dude.

[TRAyres]

Good point, although does anyone really care about sharing non-copyrighted files? Really? I can download books from Gutenberg.org without a decentralized P2P file sharing network. Get my drift? The distribution mechanisms of the web are just fine for stuff that you own. You can make a computer science argument and say that it would be a more efficient use of bandwidth or server time if things were done with P2P networks, but is that necessary? No. I thought they didn't mention sharing non-copyrighted works because that isn't what companies and artists are all pissed off about.

Re:Dude.

[TRAyres]

..The right to file share is in the constitution? Come on don't bullshit me. Nothing gives us the right to share the work other people own. We do it anyway, because we're starting to believe it is more inline with the freedom and ease of distribution of information.

Re:Dude.

[Enoxice]

Power and rights are different. See amendment 9, per plenty of posts in this thread.

Re:Dude.

[Mr2001]

Freedom of your OWN speech is protected. Not to share other people's speeches without their consent. There is a big difference there. I'd say there's virtually no difference at all. When words are coming out of my mouth, that's my speech. It doesn't matter whether those words also came out of someone else's mouth a few years earlier.

Of course these people own what they say (or in the case of music, what they produce). They produced it. That's nice and glib, but it doesn't hold up. A barber "produces" your haircut, so does that mean he owns it? A house painter "produces" the color of your house - does he own that? If I cut a piece of paper to a precise length, maybe even a length which paper has never been cut to before, do I own that length?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of "owning" something which is an attribute of something else. A haircut is an arrangement of hairs on your head. A poem is an arrangement of words on a page. A painting is an arrangement of color on a canvas. You can't own an arrangement any more than you can own a length or a weight; the idea is ridiculous on its face.

Just because you say it out loud once (or sing it at a concert) does not mean it instantly belongs in the public domain. Likewise, just because you say something out loud once (or sing it at a concert) doesn't mean you instantly "own" that utterance and, from there on out, should be granted veto power over whether anyone else can say it or sing it.

How about you say or sing whatever you want, and they say or sing whatever they want, and neither of you tries to get in the other's way? That's freedom of speech.

Re:Dude.

[iminplaya]

Just because you say it out loud once (or sing it at a concert) does not mean it instantly belongs in the public domain.

Well, it does to me. Like the man said, you can't unshine the light...or you may own the lamp, but you don't own the light that emanates from it....or something like that. My use of that light takes nothing from you. And I shall refer you to the other response from the AC, with I absolutely agree with, for further elaboration.

Re:Dude.

[Opportunist]

Free speech == free transfer of information. So far I didn't notice the IP holders claiming they own the hash for a certain file, just the right to distribute the file itself.

What's next? Banning negative criticism for games, goods, companies or services because some company claims they own the IP on talking bad about themselves? Because essentially that falls under the same rules.

Re:Dude.

[Antifuse]

Well, technically it's closing the barn door BEFORE the horse gets out. :) Since, you know, they're finding a way around the law before the law gets... Well, you know. :)

Re:Dude.

[macslas'hole]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Constitutional law isn't my field Neither am I, but I do know that the constitution does not grant rights to the people. It defines the structure, duties, and powers of government. This idea, that if it's not in the constitution it's not a right, has got to go.

Re:Dude.

[coolsnowmen]

While I think that is one of the most important amendments, just because it is not constitutionally forbidden, doesn't mean it is a constitutional right.

The converse is not always true.

Re:Dude.

[MSZ]

Useless toy. You can put in search terms and receive up to 50 results, said results being almost completely though not absolutely unrelated to the keywords. Definitely a new meaning to "approximate".

Now why couldn't it be exact keyword search, something Azureus lacks? That would be useful, while their plugin is not - at least not to me.

Re:Dude.

[Ultra64]

The right question is "Where in the constitution does it forbid file sharing?"

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Dude.

[digitrev]

Ahh, but here's the question. Is that an inclusive or an exclusive or? If it's exclusive, then any right the State has, you no longer have. If it's inclusive, then any right the state has you might have as well.

Re:Dude.

[LeafOnTheWind]

Copyright law predates the Constitution and Jefferson seemed to have no problem with it, so we can safely deem the concept constitutional.

Re:Dude.

[debatem1]

In case you ever take a break from bloviating to actually read the Constitution, the 9th amendment is the protector of unenumerated rights doctrine. If the courts agree, theoretically any restriction on government power can be derived from that source. That doesn't mean that file sharing is specifically addressed by the Constitution, but it does mean that just because a right isn't specifically addressed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This would be similar to the right to privacy or parenthood- both acknowledged social norms that have in recent years gained legal force.
Another possible derivation is the right to due process, which states that the government cannot strip from an individual that which they posess without due process of law, a deliberatey ambiguous phrase. If the courts held that, for example, the act of distributing copyrighted material were illegal, but that the act of downloading it was ambiguous, then any remedy of law would be prohibited to the copyright holders under due process doctrine. This would be much more similar to existing contract law, and would essentially represent the fact that you cannot deny to an innocent third party the fruit of a contract, even if that fruit were acquired via illegal means.
Note that I am not saying that this is settled law- it isn't- but you asked to be shown where in the constitution the right to filesharing can be found, and I've demonstrated at least two reasonable derivations of that right, each of which grows more plausible as file sharing becomes more acceptable. The Constitution is, in a very real sense, a living document, and to simply say that this-or-that isn't in there misses the point entirely. Bottom line being: nobody knows whether its protected or not, and until that's settled, you'd be wise to back down on the rhetoric.

Re:Dude.

[westlake]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The constitution explicitly granted Congress the right to issue patents and copyrights.

The rigorous "strict constructionist" - if there ever was such a beast - would argue that the rights retained by the people were the rights they held before 1789.

Interference with rights in real and intangible property met with a mighty cold reception in those days. It was what distinguished you from a slave, a tenant or a bonded laborer.

The Geek remembers Jefferson. He forgets Hamilton.

He forgets as well the Civil War Amendments and those which came after. Consider them a gloss on the then still resonant Biblical notion that every man was entitled to the fruits of his own labor.

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe even a length which paper has never been cut to before, do I own that length?

Worse, what if that precise length in nanometres (at standard room temperature and pressure) expressed in binary happens to be an encoding of "Happy Birthday" as a digital midi file? Does everyone who measures your paper suddenly owe the "Happy Birthday" copyright holders money?

In The Glorious American Corporate Reich the answer is of course "yes, you theiving paper-measuring number-knowing scum!".

Re:Dude.

[Dirtside]

When words are coming out of my mouth, that's my speech. It doesn't matter whether those words also came out of someone else's mouth a few years earlier.

Ignoring the fact that regular spoken words aren't copyrightable (a work must be fixed in a medium in order to be copyrighted), yes, it does matter:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8. Go argue with the Supreme Court that Amendment I trumps the Progress Clause in all cases; you'll lose.

Re:Dude.

[Mr2001]

I'm not arguing that copyright law is literally unconstitutional, only that it's incompatible with the principle of free speech.

One could argue, however, that "the exclusive Right to [one's] Writings" doesn't include veto power over other people's speech. It could be defined as the exclusive right to profit from the distribution or performance, for example.

I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to go along with that interpretation, though. Remember, this is the same Court that decided "limited Times" allows for retroactive extensions, even when it means copyright terms are effectively unlimited.

Re:Dude.

[cayenne8]

"Where in the constitution is the right to file share?"

Remember, the Constitution of the US is not there to enumerate your rights....but, to enumerate the limited rights and powers of the government. Essentially, it means you have rights to just about everything, until it is restricted by law...a law that has to be constitutional.

For example..you used to be able to own machine guns, and it was perfectly legal to do drugs like pot, and heroin....until they were outlawed (I won't get into the argument that this was still unconstitutional, that is another thread alone).

Re:Dude.

[sporkme]

9th Ammendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re:Dude.

[Zaatxe]

[...] but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch.

And so is calling copyright infringement "theft", isn't it?

Re:Dude.

[Dirtside]

I'm not arguing that copyright law is literally unconstitutional, only that it's incompatible with the principle of free speech.

That may be true, depending on how you define "free speech", but it's not incompatible with the way free speech is codified in the First Amendment. "Free speech" is not used by any kind of authority to mean "the right to say anything you want, ever, no matter what." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, fighting words, incitement to riot, etc.

One could argue, however, that "the exclusive Right to [one's] Writings" doesn't include veto power over other people's speech. It could be defined as the exclusive right to profit from the distribution or performance, for example.

It pretty much is defined as that. We need to make sure we're not conflating "speech" (what comes out of your mouth when you vibrate your vocal cords) with "speech" (expression in general). The circumstances under which you can legally suppress my verbal speech based on copyright law are very slim: pretty much only public performances of a copyrighted work. If I'm walking down the street with my friends and we recite a scene from "Star Wars" to each other, it's conceivable that George Lucas might have some legal recourse to enjoin us from doing so (since what we're doing probably wouldn't fall under fair use), but it'd be a tough sell, since we're just talking to each other and not intending to perform the work publicly (we only happen to be in public).

this is the same Court that decided "limited Times" allows for retroactive extensions, even when it means copyright terms are effectively unlimited.

Well, to be fair, it was really Larry Lessig's fault that he argued the wrong point of the Clause. He argued that all these repeated extensions didn't count as "limited times"; SCOTUS (logically) disagreed, saying that even if they keep extending it, it's still finite, since at what point is it too long to be considered "limited"? What Lessig should have attacked was the "promote the Progress" part of the Clause; retroactive extensions do not promote such progress, and times beyond a certain length also do not promote such progress. (In fact, according to Wikipedia at least, "Lessig would later regret basing his defence on legal arguments based on precedent, rather than attempting to demonstrate that the weakening of the public domain would cause harm to the economic health of the country," Eldred v. Ashcroft).

Re:Dude.

[Mr2001]

That may be true, depending on how you define "free speech", but it's not incompatible with the way free speech is codified in the First Amendment. "Free speech" is not used by any kind of authority to mean "the right to say anything you want, ever, no matter what." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, fighting words, incitement to riot, etc. Sure it is. Those authorities recognize that a law against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is in conflict with the principle of free speech -- but they also recognize that the First Amendment isn't meant to provide absolute protection for all types of free speech, just like the Second Amendment doesn't mean everyone can carry every type of weapon at every place and time. That is, you can restrict speech without "infringing the freedom of speech" in cases where the need for public safety, etc. overrides the principle of protecting free speech.

It pretty much is defined as that. We need to make sure we're not conflating "speech" (what comes out of your mouth when you vibrate your vocal cords) with "speech" (expression in general). The circumstances under which you can legally suppress my verbal speech based on copyright law are very slim: pretty much only public performances of a copyrighted work. "Speech" is a metaphor here, of course: I'm not only referring to vocalizations, nor is anyone else who talks about free speech in relation to copyright. The "exclusive Right to [one's] Writings" certainly has been interpreted to include veto power over what other people may write or transmit, even noncommercially.

Re:Dude.

[Scrameustache]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share? Where is it prohibited?

Re:Dude.

[Dhalka226]

That's nice and glib, but it doesn't hold up.

Perhaps it doesn't, but you certainly have provided no meaningful evidence of that point.

A barber "produces" your haircut, so does that mean he owns it? A house painter "produces" the color of your house - does he own that?

Unlike anything covered by copyright law, these are services. There's no possible way that you can give your haircut to somebody else, nor the paint job on your house. There have always been a different set of rules regarding services compared to products.

If I cut a piece of paper to a precise length, maybe even a length which paper has never been cut to before, do I own that length?

Your example here is a bit too contrived to respond to properly, but the answer is: Possibly. If you've truly discovered some miracle process by which you can cut something to a length with precision never before seen, you could try for a patent for that process and probably win it. And why shouldn't you? Thousands of years of human life, hundreds of years beyond the industrial revolution, and you've suddenly found a process more precise than anything we have currently? The world deserves to know how it works, and you deserve the chance to be compensated for it. (Want to drop it in the public domain? Love ya!) Fall all its flaws, that's what the patent system is intended for. However, this example, like all the others, is still an entirely different beast than copyright.

A poem is an arrangement of words on a page. A painting is an arrangement of color on a canvas. You can't own an arrangement any more than you can own a length or a weight; the idea is ridiculous on its face.

Well that really goes to how you define ownership I suppose. If you're of the mind that nobody should be able to exert controlling authority over ("own") something that is not absolutely tangible, I suppose there's nothing wrong with that belief. The world would certainly be a different place, and I'm not sure for better or worse.

The copyright (/patent/trademark) systems are all abused, there's no doubt about that, but I still support the notion that non-tangible things have value and the concept that we should try to support creation of those things. Further, I absolutely support the idea that somebody with more money than me shouldn't be able to come along and appropriate my work and drive me out of business solely based on the fact that they have more money than me. If I write a book and there's no protections for me against a big publishing company going "thanks," paying me nothing, publishing my book, undercutting me on price and giggling all the way to the bank... I won't write that book. Hopefully not every potential author would feel the same, but I'm sure enough of them would that there would be a damage done to society as a whole. (And for the record, I'm not an author; it's simply an example.)

There are some markets that would probably not be seriously affected, maybe even some that would be improved--music is likely one of these--but not all of them are like that. Some other examples of where lack of copyright would actually help would probably be interesting to see, in fact.

Another poster already responded about the concept that spoken word is not copyrightable because it lacks tangible form, so I'll leave that angle alone. What I will say in closing, since your focus is on an issue of freedom of speech, is that those very same founders who enumerated and guaranteed those rights in the US (and which has trickled to dozens of other nations over the years), and who explicitly gave every right they didn't list to the states or to the people, saw fit to permit Congress the authority to pass copyright (and related) laws. Absolute freedom sounds good, but it seldom works well in practice. We use the word "anarchy" to describe that, and it's not looked upon favorably.

Re:Dude.

[kiwipeso]

Where in the constitution is the right to file share?

Constitutional law isn't my field, but saying file sharing is a subset of freedom of speech seems like a stretch.

I do agree though: this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out. I don't know about the constitution, we don't have one in NZ.
But I do know I actually do have the right to share files for encryption research under the copyright new technologies amendment act.
In my country, for my purpose, filesharing is a true part of free speech.

Re:Dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of the press.... (ing board that in that time produced media such as local newspaper and works of literature)

Re:Dude.

[DavidShor]

The law is nonenforceable, and could only be applied selectively. This could, by a bit of stretching, raise 14th amendment concerns.

Re:Dude.

[Mr2001]

Unlike anything covered by copyright law, these are services. There's no possible way that you can give your haircut to somebody else, nor the paint job on your house. There have always been a different set of rules regarding services compared to products. You're begging the question here. Why should we treat writing as a product at all? The service model works perfectly well: writing is something you do, not something you manufacture.

If you've truly discovered some miracle process by which you can cut something to a length with precision never before seen, you could try for a patent for that process and probably win it. Well, that standard is a little unfair, don't you think?

You don't demand that writers discover a "miracle process" by which they can place words with "precision never before seen" -- they get a copyright just for arranging words in a sequence that hasn't already been used. Surely, then, it would make sense to grant a lengthright to everyone who cuts a piece of paper to a length that hasn't already been used. (Unless you can find prior art, I'll start by claiming 12,345 mm.)

The copyright (/patent/trademark) systems are all abused, there's no doubt about that, but I still support the notion that non-tangible things have value and the concept that we should try to support creation of those things. I agree that we should support creation of those things, but we don't need copyright to do that. Writers can get paid for writing the same way other people get paid for doing other services: by selling their labor to the people who want it to be done.

If I write a book and there's no protections for me against a big publishing company going "thanks," paying me nothing, publishing my book, undercutting me on price and giggling all the way to the bank... I won't write that book. Most writers would probably rather focus on writing, not on selling copies. Once they get paid for writing the story in the first place (by their readers, or by anyone else who benefits from having it written), it doesn't matter who distributes the copies and how.

If you're going to argue that this is one of the cases we're better off leaving it absolutely free, okay. That is what I believe. Writing, painting, composing, etc. are services like any other, and the market for those services doesn't need special rules. Abolishing copyright would lead to those services being funded directly, rather than indirectly through the selling of copies.

Consumers would have the freedom to share and experience any media without the hassle or expense of licensing. Artists would be able to build on the works of others, and they'd be spared the risk of investing their time in something that never pays off: they'd know up front whether their work was in high enough demand to be profitable.

Re:Dude.

[Auldclootie]

You are right. I just Googled and read the constitution - and all it told me was how many ways GWB has been a crim... However, I still think file-sharing would have been approved by the founding fathers if only for its Christian virtue of sharing what you have with others less fortunate....

Re:Dude.

[aussie_a]

Is that an inclusive or an exclusive or? I would love to resurrect the founding fathers just to show them that quote!

Re:Dude.

[aussie_a]

Are you confusing copyrighted file sharing (fairly certain it falls under free speech) with unauthorised by the copyright holder file sharing?

Re:Dude.

[digitrev]

Hmm. Deny them the release of death, revolutionize science, and possibly change the world only to show them some smart-ass math student's flippant remark? I like it.

Re:Dude.

[Taibhsear]

Swiped the vinyl albums from my stepdad when I was in gradeschool-highschool (circa 1990's). Played them on a fisher price record player. Good times...

Garden Variety

[Garden Vareity]

This is great news.

Re:Garden Variety

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Your first post ever, and that's what you decided to spend it on?

Re:Garden Variety

[dotancohen]

He signed up just for that. Well, that, and to have a conversation with twitter.

Re:Garden Variety

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

how's it feel to lose your slashdot virginity? not quite as satisfying as you expected, huh?

Re:Garden Variety

[Omestes]

My god, we're almost past 1.2 million UIDs. For some reason, this is shocking.

Re:Garden Variety

[Yvan256]

How is 1290600 "almost past 1.2 million UIDs"?

That's 1.29 million...

Abuse

[azzuth]

I would imagine this would just make it easier for the authorities to find those who infinge the copyright laws... count me out

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

And with Guitar Hero replacing actual music, soon there won't be anything left to steal! Now *that's* innovation.

Re:Good!

[AmaDaden]

30 years from now.... "Dude! Some of my friends and I found like these things in my attic. You can use them to make sounds and stuff. It's like video games but real! We were able to like play a song but it was like not a song from a game or the internet! It was like new!"

This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[nweaver]

As I contemplated when AT&T started saying they want to fight piracy on the wire, the most effective way is for the ISP to cooperate with the MPAA, where the MPAA gives a graph of "These people are exchaning a large copyrighted file, block it".

If ISPs move in that direction, this defense won't help, and thats probably the bigger threat for blocking P2P piracy, as there are always countries of convienece to set up piratebay like operations.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[FredFredrickson]

But wouldn't encryption fix that? yadda yadda yadda and so on..

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[blueg3]

No. All they have to do is use the same network the "pirates" are using and find people willing to send them data.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[Klaus_1250]

Nope. There are other things you can do of course. Reputation based schemes like Credence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(reputation_management_scheme ) applied to peers could help you boot off peers out of swarms with no or poor reputation. This would force certain organizations to build reputation up first, but keeping that will be a tough cookie. Won't be fool-proof, but will make it harder. Not many people will give RIAA/MPAA the thumbs up.

Then there is small world theory. Downloading stuff through trackers from people you don't know is somewhat silly. You should be able to get the same content (though a bit slower) through semi-trusted contacts. The only way to defeat that is infiltration by certain organizations, but, rather tedious and difficult.

You can also create a scheme where you us peers as proxies. Instead of downloading something directly, you ask a peer to relay a bunch of encrypted anonymous bytes for you. Will slow down speeds well over 50%, but difficult to defeat.

There about a billion more ways. The fact that they are not implemented yet, is simply because most p2p-apps/networks don't want to start an arms race.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[kvezach]

At which point some clever individual finds a new variety that circumvents such attacks.

Thinking a moment about it, I could envision (for instance) a peer-to-peer system that uses rateless codes along with a protocol on top of UDP, and an anonymous DHT. It wouldn't be BitTorrent anymore, but it could work like this: The one who wants files sends his IP through the anonymous DHT. Those with files transmit a nonce to that IP, and the requesting person replies (so as to prove he's giving the right IP). Then the senders transmit packets as given by a rateless erasure code encoding of the original file, and mark the packets with a fake source IP address. This works because erasure codes don't need any regular ACK-type feedback. Now add something like EigenTrust (or a robust variant of it) on top of the DHT to get rid of fake file uploads, and proof the erasure code against the case where some "senders" just pretend to have the file and send noise instead (there's a paper of how to do this, but I can't remember its title at the moment), and you're all set.

In the worst case, ISPs would implement egress filtering. That, itself, isn't a bad thing (as it prevents reflection denial-of-service attacks), and so in either case we win. And that was just a first stab; clever people could probably find some way of masquerading it as HTTPS, use secret sharing to say "but I wasn't really sharing the file, just a part of it", or whatever.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[pitchpipe]

The fact that they are not implemented yet, is simply because most p2p-apps/networks don't want to start an arms race. The arms race started with the end of Napster.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember hotline? You could make users agree to a statement that they were not involved with law enforcement, etc. before they downloaded. You could easily start a torrent site with this feature.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reputation could be required to be built by forcing peers with no or low rep to "seed" many more copies before they get a full file. They can be given a piece by 1 peer and not told about another peers until they've given that piece to 10 others (being told about what to give where on a need to know basis).

This means that trusted peers could be required to share 10x what they get and know only about a limited number of peers until they've been a member for a period of time. Thus any organisation wanting general access to large numbers of people is going to have to have participated in large scale "illegal" distribution of the very content they stop people sharing, or they can get a handful of people or less which won't be very effective.

Re:This can't stop "graph takedown" attacks...

[dlanod]

Reputation based schemes like Credence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(reputation_management_scheme) applied to peers could help you boot off peers out of swarms with no or poor reputation.

Personally I much prefer basing reputations off Creedence.

In *WHAT* network?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when can we expect *that* to get shut down?

Not trying to be a curmudgeon, but "de-centralized" doesn't mean much these days.

Re:In *WHAT* network?

[Dunbal]

And when can we expect *that* to get shut down?

      Just a couple months after everyone has stopped using it and is using something else.

Re:In *WHAT* network?

[blueg3]

It seems to work the other way. It'll get shut down about a year after a better solution is developed and about a month before everyone starts using that better solution.

Limewire/Frostwire?

[infonography]

Isn't this is exactly what it does.

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[blueg3]

Sort of. The main point of the Gnutella network (of which Limewire is a client) is searching. The network is inefficient, but it allows for arbitrary searching. This would be along the same vein as using a Gnutella-like network to share .torrent files, then using a BitTorrent client to actually transfer the data. (I haven't read the article, but I suspect their searching network is more efficient than Gnutella.)

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[Klaus_1250]

Gnutella (LimeWire et. al) has more than one way of searching. Through Ultrapeers, Ultrapeers and OOB-replies (e.g. not routed back through Ultrapeers) and Mojito (DHT).

Using Gnutella to search/index .torrents is already a long time feature of G2 (Gnutella 2, though it is NOT the successor of Gnutella), with Shareaza being the main client for the G2 network (along with very basic support for Gnutella, BitTorrent and eDonkey2000).

DHT-networks can be more efficient, but they are also vulnerable to attacks and pollution and are somewhat lossy.

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[pha7boy]

(I haven't read the article, but I suspect their searching network is more efficient than Gnutella.) so... how can I take anything you say seriously?

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[blueg3]

I wholly encourage validating my statements yourself.

However, by now I have read the article, their comments on the implementation, and a little bit of their code. :p

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[CastrTroy]

Why not just have a single torrent file which you download with all the latest torrent files in it? You could easily pass the single torrent file around the internet, and have enough copies of it, that trying to shut down all the sources would be impossible. Currently shutting down most of bittorrent is possible because there are only a few many sites where people go to get torrent files. If you could distribute the actual torrent list over bittorrent, then there would almost be no way to shut it down.

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[kars]

What the heck does DHT stand for? Department of Home Terrorism?

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[blueg3]

That's very vulnerable to multiple versions, losing information, wasting bandwidth, and poisoning.

Basically this system is to make a fancy decentralized way of having "the network" as a whole maintain a giant list of all torrent files. You could actually emulate your solution (have clients download all torrent files available) by using a neighbor-discovery system to essentially "search for everything". But most people are going to want to have effective searching without downloading a large metadata file that probably contains a lot of junk.

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[Klaus_1250]

Distributed Hash Table ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table ).

Re:Limewire/Frostwire?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Distributed Hash Table.

Kademlia

[Romwell]

I thought that we've had this kind of technology for years with eMule's p2p Kademlia...

Re:Kademlia

[blueg3]

To my knowledge, Kademlia uses exact keyword searching, not approximate searching. While distributed hash tables are a fairly effective decentralized searching mechanism, it's tough to move them from exact-match searching to more general searching.

Other DHT systems are also used to list peers for trackerless torrents and to find peers for particular files on networks like eMule (by searching by hash).

How many gigaquads does this thing index?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, you said cubit. My bad.

Gnutella

[spinkham]

And this differs from gnutella how?

Re:Gnutella

[Anonymous Coward]

because bittorrent provides vastly better download speeds and reliability than gnutella. Maybe someone needs to make a torrent-tella :-)

Re:Gnutella

[blueg3]

* The network is much more efficient.
* All this network is sharing is torrent metadata (.torrent files), while a BitTorrent client is doing the real transfer.
* Their keyword searching system, while allowing for finding the k-nearest keywords, is not fully general like searches on a Gnutella-like system could be.

Re:Gnutella

[blueg3]

I think there is already a mostly-unused torrent-tella-like system. It's really a very good solution, since Gnutella provides very powerful searching and BitTorrent provides high-bandwidth data transfer. This is actually more like using eMule's Kad to share .torrents.

As I mentioned somewhere else, though, people won't move from the index site + centralized trackers + a BitTorrent client until enough indexes and trackers get shut down that they need a new solution.

Re:Gnutella

[ThePhilips]

Didn't try that for a long time, but in past searching for (and downloading) torrents off the Gnutella worked miracles.

It was in the times when there were no such sites like PirateBay or TorrentSpy or SuprNova. Private trackers were majority and were pain to use and were often down.

Now it seems to be essentially same principle: search for torrent on one P2P network but download the content off another P2P network.

Re:Gnutella

[lightversusdark]

Torrent-tella
I award you brand-consultant of the year 2008.

Re:Gnutella

[deimtee]

I think if you call the client Torrent-tella, you should call the network Serpentine.

Re:Gnutella

[Yvan256]

Torrent-tella?

Then you have no choice but to make the icon/mascot a robot spider!

Linked in the article...

[colonslashslash]

Is this Google URL showing common mistakes in spelling Britney Spears' name:

http://www.google.com/jobs/britney.html

Hoyl ilitrite googaling batmon!

Re:Linked in the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's just her first name.

The nine billion names of Prittenny Speeres...

Re:Linked in the article...

[WK2]

If her name is misspelled in the filename, chances are that the file was encoded just as carelessly. Their are plenty of copies of each of Britney Spears's songs on each of the networks; there is no reason to include misspellings in your search.

Re:Linked in the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google would be hell on wheels, if their advanced search allowed using characters that weren't proper words or names. Some people know esquel and reg(ular expressions?|ex(p|es)?), and some don't.
I promise I wont DROP TABLES, or do self joins instead of group by with aggregate functions. I've changed, baby.

Re:Linked in the article...

[SinGunner]

I find it likely that both Britain Spears and Brandy Spears were not looking for the singer.

Re:Linked in the article...

[Hal_Porter]

It reminds of southpark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hippie,_Die
When Cartman plays the song Raining Blood, other music on his computer can be seen, such as 'Muhhrrtallicaz - Ride The Thunder' and 'Motorface - Death From Behind' which are spoofs of Metallica's Ride the Lightning and MotÃrhead's Shoot You in the Back.

Dupe (kind of)

[Ankur Dave]

The article from yesterday about Verizon and Comcast's pledge to support Bittorrent also includes information about Cubit.

Re:Dupe (kind of)

[Ruben Gonzales]

Dude, redundancy is a must here. Nobody reads TFA.

A poor replacement.

[hlt32]

Use of this will significantly increase the number of fake files uploaded.

At least TPB allows file comments which allows fakes to be spotted pretty fast.

Also, do not forget about the amount of traffic private torrent sites get - which this is not a real alternative to.

Re:A poor replacement.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

*private*

Well, private trackers aren't exactly private. They're more difficult to get into, but they're no more private than most of the 'net...

Re:A poor replacement.

[Paradise Pete]

Use of this will significantly increase the number of fake files uploaded. At least TPB allows file comments which allows fakes to be spotted pretty fast.

that's a good point. Though I imagine that very quickly sites would emerge which would allow rating and commenting on current torrents. The only difference would be not serving the torrent info files. Presuming, of course, that us peons would be permitted to at least discuss these things.

Re:A poor replacement.

[assassinator42]

Exactly what I was thinking.
Although I suppose people can use this instead.

Re:A poor replacement.

[Sir_Real]

And why couldn't some enterprising individual publish md5sums of known good torrents? And why then couldn't someone else write an additional plugin for Azureus?

Calling this a poor replacement is short sighted.

Re:A poor replacement.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if TPB site was distributed on the peers PCs with a sort of "black box" piece of software that would work with the collective to serve out. Some systems could be web servers and others help with DB stuff. The software would encrypt what was stored to help with privacy and would connect back with an encrypted link and form a type of freenet so serving wouldn't be blocked.

It might be slower but it should work and it would be unstoppable.

Re:A poor replacement.

[Mr. McGibby]

Because, in the end, it all relies on getting a trusted third party involved. It's the existence of a trusted third party that makes bittorrent so free of crap, not the technology itself. Problem is that the third party is subject to attack from the industry.

With the current setup, that third party is the site providing the torrent. You just want to replace that with some trusted third party sending out md5sums. They'll get attacked just like everyone else has.

Re:A poor replacement.

[hlt32]

Fair point.

I should clarify that "private" sites tend to have advantages which the OP cannot compete with.

- the maintenance of a good seed-leech ratio.
- can contain harder to find material.
- quality control over torrents - fakes are stripped out.

Re:A poor replacement.

[cavemanf16]

It's called freenet, and yes, it's dog slow and no one uses it.

Re:A poor replacement.

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB comments on legit (as in the file is what it says it is) often look something like this:

-Why is there a password for this file?
-There's no fucking password!
-This is fake!
-No it's not a fucking fake! ...

Re:A poor replacement.

[Omestes]

correction: its dog slow BECAUSE no one uses it.

Damn chickens and their eggs, or eggs and their chickens.

Re:A poor replacement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the torrents will be cryptographically signed by some trusted authority like the Pirate Bay team.

Self Healing

[Urger]

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -Joe Gilmore

Re:Self Healing

[WMD_88]

John Gilmore. :p

Re:Self Healing

[Urger]

"Slashdot interprets mistakes as mistakes and won't let you forget them" - Urger

Re:Self Healing

[Anonymous Coward]

no route to host you, no route to host hole.

Re:It needs Azureus?

[blueg3]

No, it's implemented in an Azureus plugin.

I see nothing in the design of their searching network that would preclude implementations independent of Azureus.

Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hankapobe]

I have to agree with the parent here.

I've read the GP's post and I've been pulling out the Old Constitution trying to figure out where he's coming from.

We, the US, are governed by the rule of law. And sometimes, the rule of law is very unfair for a few of us. BUT, it will correct itself eventually and to be honest, I prefer "eventually" to a bloody revolution. I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're governed by the constitution. Congress only has power to enact laws as stated within it.

They can create laws pertaining to commerce to promote the public welfare. Note that that says "Public" welfare, not "Private Interests". Filesharing is far more a public welfare than the RIAA's pockets.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Chris Acheson]

Congress can create whatever laws they want. Sure, the supreme court can strike down those laws, but they can also let them stick, at their discretion. It's not like the supremes are any more accountable than congress is.

I agree that free sharing of information (in all its various forms) is beneficial in a utilitarian sense. However, I think it's more important to point out that we do have the individual right to freely share information. The constitution and the law can infringe upon that, but they can't revoke it.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

We, the US, are governed by the rule of law. And sometimes, the rule of law is very unfair for a few of us. BUT, it will correct itself eventually and to be honest, I prefer "eventually" to a bloody revolution. I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version.

The problem is that, for the moment, the will of the people is being overshadowed by the will of the corporations/rich/government/folks-in-power.

Companies spend literally millions of dollars lobying the lawmakers. They give them various gifts, incentives, and outright bribes. Pretty much anyone elected to office, beyond the very local level, is in somebody else's pocket. Which means that the laws that get passed are not the ones that the nation as a whole wants, but rather what the people with lots of money to spend want.

The only thing that we the people can do about it is oppose those laws at every possible opportunity, and oppose them loudly. Protest peacefully but loudly. Civil disobedience. Circumvent whatever technical hurdles are placed in our way.

Perhaps this law is not actually "unconstitutional" in the literal sense of the word... I sincerely doubt if there's any text in there about a right to P2P... But I garontee that the founding fathers did NOT want us ruled by a government that doesn't listen to its citizens.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer "eventually" to a bloody revolution. I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

by:

Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source:

November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy, ed., 1939

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[pablomme]

No, we're governed by the constitution. Congress only has power to enact laws as stated within it. That's complete nonsense. The US constitution was written with the explicit intention of being amended, as it has been in 27 occasions. Actually, the constitution itself only sets up a basic framework, and it's the first ten amendments that give you any kind of rights.

And guess who has the power to amend the constitution.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule of law does not conflict with this saying:

"Laws are made for us; we are not made for the laws."

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[r00td43m0n]

I completely agree with Thomas Jefferson, but the few of us (relative comparison) are the only ones who care, the masses are too busy watching American Idol, Survivor, sensational news to pay attention to any of this anymore. So recently I have really taken to an excerpt from Fahrenheit 451:

Granger: "....When the war's over perhaps we can be of some use in the world."
Montag: "Do you really think they'll listen then?"
Granger: "If not, we'll just have to wait.....But you can't make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up under them."

So even though we check slashdot everyday and post these stories and our replies. The masses will not listen until they want to. They would rather be tuned out to reality and no one can force them to tune in.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

True the first ten form the "Bill of Rights" that you learned about in school, but I guarantee you the Fourteenth Amendment (granted it's based in large part on the Fifth Amendment but applied to state action) has a zillion times more impact than the Third Amendment ("no quartering").

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[fishbowl]

>it's the first ten amendments that give you any kind of rights.

No.

Something higher than government of men gives you rights.

You actually believe that you don't have rights except for those specified in the Constitution?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, the bill of rights recognizes rights inherent in all citizens. it does NOT vest or grant rights.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Schadrach]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give a list of rights you posess, it gives a list of rights that the government cannot take away under any circumstances. It's also stated in the constitution that any power not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states or the people.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[MPAB]

If the government had less power over each and every aspect of our lives, the lobbies would be of no use. But the knee-jerk reaction whenever corruption or lobbying becomes a problem is to give more power to the state, thus closing the circle.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[ksd1337]

the masses are too busy watching American Idol, Survivor, sensational news to pay attention to any of this anymore. Eerily reminds me of Brave New World.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[jcgf]

Something higher than government of men gives you rights.

Who/What would that be?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[k_187]

Doesn't matter, those rights exist and as such we have more than those that are specifically enumerate in the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it enumerate a right to privacy?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposed treaty (it's not a law, though new laws would need to be enacted to adhere to the treaty) does a lot of nasty things. It allows seizure and destruction of equipment used in copyright infringement. It allows for criminal charges in the case of infringement where there was no monetary incentive. It requires ISPs to give up personal information on alleged users without a subpoena (something that was tried before, and was struck down.)

The first issue above could easily be violations of the fourth amendment (though there's precedent for seizing property used in the commission of a crime--slippery slope isn't always a fallacy.) The first and second examples above could easily be a violation of the eighth amendment. Criminal damages for copyright violation? Seriously? For centuries, it's been a civil violation.

The third example has other impacts. It violates various presumed rights of corporations and individuals (the general right to withhold information from the government in absence of a subpoena), and the assumed rights of privacy which some people believe is inherent in the Constitution due to the first, third, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments, taken collectively.

The law also allows for ex parte searches of computer equipment, which has 4th amendment implications, too, though it's not as strong a violation.

No, the laws required to adhere to the terms of this treaty are unconstitutional. It's only a shame that we've been sliding away from constitutionality of laws over the past few decades.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[I_Voter]

Hankapobe wrote:

We, the US, are governed by the rule of law.

---
Many people who are familiar with U.S. constitutional history would tend to find that to be a provocative statement. The relationship between the law and the people has changed radically over time.

The following polemic article may provide some understanding of what I am talking about.

The Constitutional Relationship between the Law and the People
http://tinyurl.com/3du9ec

I_Voter

IMO: A history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. would show an ever increasing franchise, along with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry has far less political power today than they would have had in say 1830.

My ( under construction ) web site -
Political Power in the U.S.:
and why you don't have any!
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Even Thomas Jefferson didn't know the difference between "it's" and "its", eh?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Opportunist]

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic. To "even out", the lawmakers would have to listen to the people, and they evidently don't anymore. When every politician is only a corporation puppet anymore, and when every party is, the chances for "evening out" are slim to nil. Depending on who you ask we're already there or heading that way.

Personally, I think they already fear the bloody kind of revolution. It's the only halfway sensible explanation for the surveillance craze. Objectively it cannot serve as neither a deterrent nor a discovery tool for terrorism. It can, though, be used to find heads of possible revolutionary movements and act before they can gain a sizable group of supporters. The amount of dissatisfied and outright pissed off people who only need some sort of leader to riot is amazing. Also, it might work as a deterrent for riots like in Paris a few years ago, because people still do have something to lose.

History tells us, though, that this does change eventually. And I hope your eventually happens before mine does.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Mister Whirly]

"Something higher than government of men gives you rights.

Who/What would that be?"

Chuck Norris.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Opportunist]

Your conscience. At least mine is the ultimate decider for legal and illegal, not some law. Following unjust laws made unjust governments possible in the first place.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[neomunk]

You're absolutely right about that, but I'd like to point out that if the Air Force's recent little botnet experiment expands to the public, you might see the Third Amendment tested here soon.

Should be interesting.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Mister Whirly]

"Eerily reminds me of Brave New World."

Where's the Soma? Maybe the Soma is the 60" plasma they are watching on...

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY thing congress can do is create new laws. Any time Congress says they're going to do something, guess what? New law.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[neomunk]

The laws of physics and biology! I have the physics granted right to accelerate a 2 kg mass toward your skull, and your skull has the biological imperative to give way. By the same token, your community has the physics granted right to tie me to biologically supplied horses and utilize the grand laws of physics to rend me limb from limb for doing so. Most societies today chose a more advanced version of the limb to limb thing, whatwith the 'justice' system and whatnot, but you'll find that all the 'rights' you know and rely upon spring directly from the ability to -organize- those first few universally applied rights (I neglected a few, like chemistry, who played an increasingly greater role as time went on, and the recent addition of electromagnetism) in a manor that acceptable to the ones applying.

What we need is to stop talking about rights and start talking about universally applied unrevokable privileges that we will not tolerate being denied, and by not tolerating, I mean by applying our rights.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! Clever observation. I wish I had some points to mod you up.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[pbaer]

Violent revolution doesn't work unless you have vast public support. What instead happens is the violent minority is ostracised and considered a fringe group. Look at The Weather Underground. In protest of the Vietnam War they blew up public buildings for 10 years. Before each bombing they published a pamphlet that warned people of the upcoming bombing and explained their reasons for the bombing. In 10 years of doing this they had 0 casaulties. They should have been viewed as heroes, instead people considered them nutjobs. Nowadays they've been written out of history books.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[scipiodog]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give a list of rights you posess, it gives a list of rights that the government cannot take away under any circumstances. It's also stated in the constitution that any power not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states or the people.

Mod Parent up!

So many people in the US don't seem to understand this point. If they did, I personally think we'd be in much better shape overall.

The point of the US Constitution is NOT to delineate peoples' rights - it is there to explicitly state the ONLY circumstances in which the government can infringe upon them.

The Tenth Amendment specifically clarifies that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Essentially, all rights not mentioned in the Constitution one way or the other, no matter how obscure, are still in force.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[LeafOnTheWind]

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? Did you even read your own quote? He's saying that the people who rebel, while spirited and necessary, are wrong. Those who rebel will be "set right to the facts, pardon[ed] and pacif[ied]." I gather your point was that you believe us to be those who should rebel - and so we would be the one's who are incorrect and must be pacified.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Roxton]

The only thing that we the people can do about it is oppose those laws at every possible opportunity, and oppose them loudly. Protest peacefully but loudly. Civil disobedience. Circumvent whatever technical hurdles are placed in our way.

Excellent comment, but I just wanted to add to this. Vocal opposition is important, but we have an obligation to get our society's social infrastructure to the point where we can do more than that.

One thing we're seeing is grassroots funding of candidates via small dollar donations. That's a big deal, and I think everyone has an obligation to pitch some money at candidates this election cycle.

How sad is it that we had to pass a law to get cell carriers to allow phone numbers to be transferred when a user switches carriers? We need to find a way to, as consumers, bargain collectively with corporations without relying on the traditional congressional apparatus. In principle, it's 100% libertarian, removing the ideological reservations that some people have about public control of corporate activity.

The theoretically unbounded channels and abolition of time slots promised by on-demand media are setting the stage for independent journalism. We need to solve the problem of how people are going to get paid for content, and we need to make sure that the studios are no longer the gatekeepers for the content enabled on a growing number of Internet-enabled set-top boxes. Those challenges are certainly not unsurmountable, however, but we need to be cognizant of them.

Thanks for reading.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Kjella]

Your conscience. At least mine is the ultimate decider for legal and illegal, not some law. Following unjust laws made unjust governments possible in the first place. No, the ultimate decider of right and wrong is your conscience, legal and illegal are per definition defined by the law. That said, there are people without conscience (or a very distorted version of it), and I would also suggest that sometimes the majority's conscience is wrong. There's no absolutes here, letting everyone choose their own morality ("she looked like a slut, she deserved getting raped") is bad and so is the state doing all the thinking for you "well the law says copyright infringers should pay 1.5M$, thus it must be right". There's clearly more than one solution, particularly if you look historically. All you can do is pick some ideals, some freedoms worth fighting for and stick by them.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[nine-times]

In addition to this (I point this out whenever relevant) the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to allow the citizenry to rebel against the government. That's why the right to bear arms is in there, in case anyone ever wondered. It wasn't to permit people to hunt, it was specifically to allow the citizens to mount a military rebellion.

If you look at each of the rights enumerated in those first 10 amendments, you'll find that every one was denied to the Americans by the British government in an attempt to quell the rebellion. They were trying to set up their new government so that, if the government started getting out of line, they could overthrow it.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[archshade]

All these thing are basically physics are they not.
Just viewed in different ways. Everything you described if given enough computation can be modeled as various sub atomic particles and energy's affecting each other. It would just take a lot to model 4 horses and a person being torn apart

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[mrogers]

Where in the Constitution does it enumerate a right to privacy?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Persons, houses, papers, and effects... sounds to me like a right to privacy.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they don't outlaw it outright, they simply restrict funds to a trickle for states/municipalities/people/corporations/etc if they do something the federal government doesn't like.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[cayenne8]

"That's complete nonsense. The US constitution was written with the explicit intention of being amended [wikipedia.org], as it has been in 27 occasions"

You know....I wonder why it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the US, then another one to end prohibition....yet no such action has had to be taken to outlaw pot and other drugs?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[bluefoxlucid]

"Secure in their persons" doesn't exclude me from seeing your sister's boobs, right?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hal_Porter]

The laws of physics and biology! I have the physics granted right to accelerate a 2 kg mass toward your skull, and your skull has the biological imperative to give way. By the same token, your community has the physics granted right to tie me to biologically supplied horses and utilize the grand laws of physics to rend me limb from limb for doing so. Most societies today chose a more advanced version of the limb to limb thing, whatwith the 'justice' system and whatnot, but you'll find that all the 'rights' you know and rely upon spring directly from the ability to -organize- those first few universally applied rights (I neglected a few, like chemistry, who played an increasingly greater role as time went on, and the recent addition of electromagnetism) in a manor that acceptable to the ones applying.

What we need is to stop talking about rights and start talking about universally applied unrevokable privileges that we will not tolerate being denied, and by not tolerating, I mean by applying our rights. PRO WAREZ AND FREEDOM

I'm confused. I don't know whether you support my constitutional right to download Muhrtallikaz, in which case I should mod you +1 Insightful or oppose it in which case I should mod you -1 Troll.

If people post arguments which are incomprehensible like this one, could they please put "PRO WAREZ AND FREEDOM" or "PRO NAZI DRM MAFIAA" at the top of the post so moderators don't waste time reading the whole thing. It will be like politics. If I see a politician I don't have to listen to what he says - I just check his party affiliation and know whether I should agree or disagree. Hell eventually perl scripts could just automod all the pro freedom posts up to +5 and automod all the antifreedom posts down to -1.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hal_Porter]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

by:

Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source:

November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy, ed., 1939 Those patriots could be Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean though. He doesn't say anywhere the patriots have to be American.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hal_Porter]

Planting bombs, warning or not is still an irresponsible and illegal thing to do. Private corporations regularly get sued for doing much less bad things than this, even if they slap a disclaimer on everything.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[sheepweevil]

Your conscience. At least mine is the ultimate decider for legal and illegal, not some law. Actually, the law is the ultimate decider of legal and illegal. Your conscience is the decider for what is moral and amoral.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Artemis3]

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
From the preamble of the United States Declaration of Independence...

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[DavidShor]

As warm and fuzzy as that makes us feel, it's not really true. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, so long as it does not interfere with explicitly spelled out constitutional rights.

During the time of the founding fathers, this wasn't very important. But now that nearly every transaction(Economic or otherwise) has interstate(and usually international) intermediaries, the federal government has essentially unlimited authority to regulate it.

The only rights you have are then, those explicitly given in the constitution.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[DavidShor]

Quite frankly, there is no reason to believe that whatever government your revolution creates, would not quickly fall under the same problems as the current.

Unfortunately, infiltration by interest groups is a straight-forward by-product of democracy itself, not the moral failings of individual congressman. What do I mean by that? Perfectly rational politicians trying to get re-elected, even in the absence of personal greed(And assuming elections are free), will produce sub-optimal policies and fall victim to special interest groups. It's a standard result of public choice theory.

Sure, leaders can "Do what's right, not whats popular", but that is inherently undemocratic. It's an inescapable dilemma.

That's why every developed nation in the world has farm subsidies, and every nation sans Sweden has draconian copyright law as well.

The solution? Find a set of benevolent philosopher kings to run things. Failing that, keep in mind that the current system is quite good, and that revolutions are rarely worth it(French and American ones are outliers, most of the time it doesn't go so well...)

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[aussie_a]

Something higher than government of men gives you rights. You mean some mythical all powerful being?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[aussie_a]

So why aren't you out there marshalling your militia against the oppressors?

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Anonymous Coward]

"I sincerely doubt if there's any text in there about a right to P2P"

here in lies the real problem. most people today do not realize that the Constitution is NOT a list of things the People CAN do but a list of the things the government CAN do. if it's not listed in the Constitution, then the government CAN NOT do it. PERIOD! alas we are so far from that now, because the People have forgotten that one little fact.

"But I garontee that the founding fathers did NOT want us ruled by a government that doesn't listen to its citizens"

you are correct. they did not want us RULED, we were to be governed.

wake me when the shooting starts. we are far beyond the point of correcting the situation any other way.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[ravenshrike]

Of course, the problem is that the interstate commerce clause has been stretched more than Nina Hartley's vagina. And it still doesn't explain ANY of the gun regulations.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[neomunk]

Yeah, but I've given that little speech before, with the 'different applications of physics' approach, and it didn't seem to have to 'oomph' that using the various subsets of physics does.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[neomunk]

Was that your little troll attempt to tell me you'd downmod me if you ever had mod points?

WTF are you talking about? If you're going to go off on someone about incoherency, you should check the hypocrisy gauge before clicking submit.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[BlueStrat]

You know....I wonder why it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the US, then another one to end prohibition....yet no such action has had to be taken to outlaw pot and other drugs?

That's easy to explain. An amendment was needed in the case of alcohol because it is/was hugely popular and accepted across most demographic groups and a majority of the population as a whole. Also there was a large long-standing legitimate (and taxable) industry built around it.

The outlawing of certain drugs, especially marijuana and cocaine, were originally a tactic of racial and ethnic discrimination coupled with fears of floods of unemployed immigrants from Mexico during the Great Depression. After extended campaigns of propaganda and misinformation, these certain drugs became so distasteful to "proper" society that tactics used to make them illegal and prosecute offenders, that would otherwise raise a general outrage if applied to more popular and "accepted" things like alcohol or most any other substance or behavior, were given a pass out of a largely government-generated sense of fear and loathing among the larger populace.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hal_Porter]

Actually I do understand your post, at least I think. I think you're saying that just because something is possible - like accelerating a mass at someone's head or copying a file - it doesn't mean we have a right to do it. But I was making a joke about how pro file sharing posts are usually modded up and anti file sharing posts are modded down irrespective or the quality of the arguments. It's not really clear to "Didn't RTFA" types if your post is a subtle argument against the the idea that we have a 'right' to copy files just because technology makes it easy at this point or a really bad argument for that idea. I actually don't think the post works either way. So I wouldn't have modded you down or up.

Personally I'm ambivalent about file sharing. I don't really believe that just because it's easy to get music without paying that we have a right to do so. File sharing is temptation because you get stuff easily and for free and it's easy to see why it is so popular. I don't feel comfortable doing it, since it seems like it is stealing, but I don't really like the prospect of an internet locked down to stop filesharing. Really it annoys me more that people get moderated up for terrible posts stating that file sharing is some sort of inalienable right just because it's so tempting because it's sad to see smart people congratulate each other for making bogus, self serving justifications for their selfish behaviour.

If you made an argument for or against that I thought was original and pithy I'd mod you up though, even if I disagreed with it to some extent. Which is almost certain given my ambivalence.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[neomunk]

Actually, my post was on the commentary about 'rights', a much wider scope than filesharing. The point of it was that the word 'rights' has been stripped of any agreeable meaning, presumably by two different mindsets: the 'God-given rights' mindset and the 'what rights you can get from society' mindset (which is broken into 2 strong camps, right to enforced equality vs. right to be discriminatory with your personal property).

My comment was an attempt to point out that the banter about 'rights' that had started up wasn't going to go anywhere.

Re:Yes. What's unconstituional

[Hal_Porter]

Actually, my post was on the commentary about 'rights', a much wider scope than filesharing. The point of it was that the word 'rights' has been stripped of any agreeable meaning, presumably by two different mindsets: the 'God-given rights' mindset and the 'what rights you can get from society' mindset (which is broken into 2 strong camps, right to enforced equality vs. right to be discriminatory with your personal property).

My comment was an attempt to point out that the banter about 'rights' that had started up wasn't going to go anywhere. I'm an atheist but I actually sympathize with the God given rights side of the argument. It seems the like the US Constitution guarantees negative rights, like the right not to be censored or tortured by the government.

If you base your conception of rights on this, you end up with a small government and lots of freedom. But if you base your idea of 'what the government has a duty to give you' then you end up with hellish totalitarianism. People campaigining for 'what you can get from society' might end up pushing things in this direction. Which would be ironic, since that's the exact opposite of what they want.

But...

[Xenna]

...we still need trackers, right?

X.

Re:But...

[blueg3]

No. The decentralized-tracker problem is a ton easier than this problem, and there are already multiple decentralized-tracker solutions. Decentralized trackers are just done with simple distributed hash tables. What they've done is make a fancier DHT system for finding "near matches".

Re:But...

[Xenna]

That's a relief ;)

Re:But...

[blueg3]

I'm no Azureus fan, but once this tool gets to be a bit more refined, they are very well-situated to deal with the possibility of most major torrent sites being shut down. You can route data over I2P and Tor, there are decentralized tracking schemes, and there are decentralized searching schemes.

Re:But...

[nawcom]

Like moving it from java running on a java vm to something like c++ or better running off of a real cpu? the fact that the big client runs off of java is what got me to stop using it. especially when clients like transmission and deluge came out.

Re:But...

[aliquis]

No, I think the whole point is that there are already some functionality which name I don't know about which let the torrent client spread information about what files they are working with already, and this plugin makes it easier to search this information. So if everyone used a client which spread that + have this I think all you need to do is open up a torrent file and the other people will know about it, no tracker needed.

But I can be wrong and someone will probably explain it much better :)

Re:But...

[AnyoneEB]

Since Azureus uses SWT it seems like you should be able to compile it with gcj to native code without too much trouble. Google says it has been done.

Java is a perfectly fine language for native code. I wish more Java-based projects would release binaries for different platforms. Also note that the Sun JVM has been getting faster with every release, so although you may have found it unusable in the past, it may be fast enough for you now.

Re:But...

[blueg3]

What's your concern with it being Java? I don't see any performance difference between Azureus and other popular BitTorrent clients.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

1998 called and want their complaints on Java back

Re:But...

[Omestes]

For some odd reason Azureus BSoDs Vista every single time I use it. I can have uTorrent running for 6 days without ever quite realizing I'm using it.

I know its not a one time thing either, I'm guaranteed to BSoD with a minute of opening it. This, as well, is a Java problem, since I've had Firefox (2 and 3 RC1) BSoD Vista when handling Java. Java is the only thing I've found to consistently kill Windows computers.

On my Mac is just slows the full system to a crawl.

Re:But...

[blueg3]

Very odd. To be fair, I haven't tested it on a Mac. My SWT applications run just fine on the Mac, but who knows. Runs fine for me on XP and Ubuntu, though. Blue-screening would be a definite downside. (That's not really Azureus's fault, though. Generally Java programs that fail do so very gracefully. The Java VM, on the other hand...)

Re:But...

[Omestes]

To be fair, as well, it might not be Azereus's fault, I have about 400 dead installations of Java sitting around from testing apps, so there probably is some odd conflict. I'm just scared of reinstalling since I have no idea whats going to break.

Same thing with the Mac.

I always kind of view Java apps as the result of lazy programming. Sure, cross-functionality is nice, but Java still doesn't really hold a candle to traditional methods.

Against Azureus though, it has gotten to be 90% bloat by aspiring to be the new Napster or something (Vuze). I really don't need to be prompted to download the newest Britanny Spears CD when I'm just trying to dig up a new distro, or a CD from Jamendo.

Re:But...

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

Just so you know, there's an option in Azureus to not load the whole Vuze gui. I was ecstatic when I found this as I had been sticking with Azureus 2 just to avoid Vuze.

Re:But...

[LeafOnTheWind]

Linux aquarius.xxxxxxx.net 2.6.22-14-generic #1 SMP Tue Feb 12 02:46:46 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Azureus:
This session: Up Time: 222d
Total Transfer:
Up Time: 1y129d
Dl: 854.46 GB
Ul: 3.342
TB Ratio: 4.005

Azurues seems to work fine for me.

Go after the peers

[mavi_yelken]

If this methods becomes popular, taking down big torrent tracker sites would be even more meaningless and and cost-ineffective. I predict MAFIAA and its ilk will go after individual peers with renewed vigor and pour even more money into lobbying sorry bribing lawmakers to introduce even more ridiculous laws and shift the responsibility of enforcing these onto ISPs.

Re:Go after the peers

[digitrev]

What are you, crazy? They'll just go after the internet. From now on, only licensed ISPs are allowed to connect people, and only to licensed websites. Of course, the government will do the licensing, and with heavy lobbying, that means the various trade groups (RI|MP)AA, TV stations, Microsoft, Apple, etc... will do the licensing. Remember, it isn't paranoia if it turns out to be right.

Encryption doesn't help...

[nweaver]

Encryption doesn't help. You can participate as clients of a swarm to get the identity of the members of the swarm, which is the information the ISPs need to block the swarm.

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[Anonymous Coward]

swarm.

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[MostAwesomeDude]

But there are endless ways to encrypt and shift network data to appear innocuous. There are lines ISPs won't cross; blocking VPN, SSH, TLS, HTTPS is out of the question, and after the initial handshakes, they can't see what's being transferred.

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright holder (or its agent) participates in distributing a work, can that distribution still be called unauthorized?

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[Em Adespoton]

...but in this case, the swarm is created by search queries. I can see a return to member-only trackers that traffic in secret search queries....

In order for the RIAA, for example, to get around this, they'd have to infiltrate the tracker, submit a search query, start to download the resulting file and hope it truly is one of their works. Otherwise, they've just infringed on someone else's copyrights. They'd no longer be able to send IP-based grid takedown notices based on filenames alone, as the filenames would themselves be encrypted/obscured as would the search queries.

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[LeafOnTheWind]

You are missing the point - the nature of bittorrent is that the clients (seeds and peers) constantly perform new handshakes to induct a new peer into the swarm. Perhaps the only way to preserve filesharing is through darknets. (That is where encryption can actually help you).

Re:Encryption doesn't help...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how many swarms do you think exist and how could the ISPs possibly handle that much information? How you got modded to +5 for information that is just plain wrong and trollish I have no idea.

Dude, don't peddle your kiddie porn JUST STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Freakz

Installation...

[lixee]

I tried installing it on Ubuntu 8.04, and it complained about some non-existing Hyperspace file. I tried again by selecting the "Install for this user only" option, and it went smoothly. It's pretty neat. Beats having to scrape torrents...

Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

We, the US, are governed by the rule of law. Sure, if by "rule of law" you mean "arbitrary decree of unaccountable rulers".

And sometimes, the rule of law is very unfair for a few of us. BUT, it will correct itself eventually and to be honest, I prefer "eventually" to a bloody revolution. I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version. This is pure fantasy, and is the kind of thinking that leads to bloodshed. If abuses are not resisted through active, vigorous civil disobedience, then your "eventual correction" IS a bloody revolution.

Re:Nonsense

[morgan_greywolf]

This is pure fantasy, and is the kind of thinking that leads to bloodshed. If abuses are not resisted through active, vigorous civil disobedience, then your "eventual correction" IS a bloody revolution.

Sssh! Don't tell him. I prefer the bloody revolution version.

Re:Nonsense

[jcgf]

Digital files can be copied without depriving the original owner of theirs, be it software or music. Your money was taken from you leaving you with less (I hope your insurance covered it).

Now just imagine once 3d printers become cheap enough for the common household... Manufacturers of small cheap trinkets had better be worried because their time is next.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

oh dear god, I blew all my mod points this morning, but if I hadn't you'd be getting +funny.

Re:Nonsense

[neomunk]

The problem isn't that filesharing is like stealing a credit card, it's that some people are 'propagandized' enough to THINK that filesharing is like stealing a credit card.

Seriously, the first posted reply to this comment by jcgf points out why, but in his or her brevity jcgf doesn't bother to point out what everyone who's actually THOUGHT about this already knows: P2P is NOT inherently to be used to spread copyrighted information. Download a popular linux distribution with bittorrent and you'll max out your pipe (at least with residential broadband, 6MB down here), proving conclusively that P2P isn't remotely 'evil' no more than a gun is evil (in fact it would be LESS so, if both weren't EVIL==0).

The next point that you are (purposefully) ignorant of is a point mentioned in the summary of the article we're discussing; namely that wikileaks, a site that would be ludicrous to accuse of 'piracy' or 'theft', is going to come under the same draconian shield as distributors of Brittney Spears' new album (those evil unrepentant bastards). Now, I know that -some- people (those who very much enjoy their rose-colored lenses) are offended that wikileaks has the audacity to disrupt the 'socially acceptable' order of things, and will latch on to the flimsiest of pretexts to shut it down, but even they know they're trolling, but they're willing to troll for 'a good cause'.

Or, to sum this up: Quit trolling about piracy. You KNOW by now (as I've seen you be told numerous times) that your arguments are completely based on distortion and FUD, you're just making yourself look fanatical.

Re:Nonsense

[debatem1]

I love this logic- support the existing law or you are against an orderly society! We have the ability to change laws for a reason- bad laws get passed. And it's not unpatriotic or immoral to suggest that a law needs change. Bottom line: if you agree with a law, say why you agree with it instead of pretending that changing an unpopular law is morally equivalent to destroying the rule of law.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be.

Re:Nonsense

[MBGMorden]

They don't need a scanner - with things like Blenders 3D objects can be created and passed around as files pretty easily. Probably more data-efficient too. Scanning an object would be the equivalent of a "raster" image - an object created digitally to start with (and then "printed" into the real world) would be vector and easier to pass around.

Re:Nonsense

[jim.hansson]

I worked on one way back in 1998, it was used for scanning teeth.
not the one I work on but newer and smaller http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0805-digitial_dentist.htm

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

You are missing the point. They are not selling "digital files," they are selling creativity. The point of copyright is to preserve the intellectual property of the creators, not the physical property. Digital copies are indeed worthless, but the creativity they represent is not worthless (or you would not want it). Economics is the study of scarce resources and good musicians are a scarce resource.

Re:Nonsense

[jcgf]

Well, first they need to invent 3d scanners, and I haven't heard of those just yet.

Try googling 3d scanners, you'll find out how much you've been missing

Re:Nonsense

[Captain Splendid]

Well, first they need to invent 3d scanners

Not necessarily. Good blueprints or other suitable "source code" will do just as well. Not to mention that you only have to scan something once, so the scanner's not much of a bottleneck.

Re:Nonsense

[mi]

I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be.

Maybe, under your rock it is not. But in the modern world, making actual things is increasingly easy, while designing them is the hardest part. Be it music, or medicines, or (designer !) clothes, the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas and dealing with them as they see fit. Whether that ends up being selling (retail or wholesale via RIAA), or destroying, or giving away is up to the creator.

And it certainly ought to be this way — not even because they may otherwise stop creating, but simply out of fairness.

"Real property"? Ha-ha... You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL. And what "real property" will they be stealing? Oops... Your worldview was just exposed as inconsistent and thus wrong. Have a good weekend.

Re:Nonsense

[mi]

Digital files can be copied without depriving the original owner of theirs, be it software or music.

Wally, is that you?..

Re:Nonsense

[The MAZZTer]

It would cost you money to "print" the 3d trinkets so it wouldn't be a similar comparison. Similar to why book sellers aren't sweating because it costs money for ink and paper for you to print your own copies of books (not to mention bindings). But if you keep them in digital format (ebooks) there's no cost to you at all. Extend this back to 3d trinkets and the real trouble starts once we get realistic, immersive virtual reality with no limitations on what you can design or make. Like the taste of that bottle of expensive wine you have? Reproduce it in virtual reality, without any cost to you. You can have it whenever you want, and you can drink as much of it as you want without being inebriated (or if you LIKE being inebriated you can make it virtually inebriate you!) or needing to use the restroom.

(I was trying a car analogy but virtual cars don't actually help you GET anywhere in the real world... but then again the real expensive ones don't really get there much faster than the "everyday" cars I guess.)

Re:Nonsense

[mbius]

the creator is obviously and naturally entitled to owning their ideas

A student of the "paraphrase what he said and negate it" school of rhetoric, I see.

Anyone who has tried to make this work -- fairly -- realizes it can't. Trying has brought us to legal reductio ad absurdum, with USPTO overwhelmed by nonsense concept-squatting and the court system burdened with eight-figure (hence, "important") infringement suits.

In a perfect world, maybe the ancient Greek who figured out the major scale is entitled to royalties on every piece of tonal music ever "invented" (and for Jack Valenti's duration of "forever minus a day"). The rest of us realize that's idiocy: does the practically negligible difference in intonation from changing temperament count as materially different? What about timbre? Who ought to own the 12-bar blues?

Your suggestion our legal process need concern itself with the pockets on my jeans is ridiculous. I challenge you to argue "Amazon's" 1-click claim is any less so.

None of "original," "idea", "implementation" is well-defined. Even the comparably hyper-cooperative world of math publication sees hot debates over independent discovery. We therefore conclude "ownership" in this context is neither obvious nor natural. Enjoy your Monday. You will, no doubt, condemn any corporationy corporation, that is caught violating GPL

In much the same way I believe murder is wrong despite my willingness to shoot a guy who breaks into my home. Doing the best you can with the cards you're dealt doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property

Apparently you don't seem to grasp the fact that the idea of property in general, whether it is "real" (by which I suspect you mean tangible) or not is a human creation.

Re:Nonsense

[mOdQuArK!]

"Creativity" is worth whatever people will pay for it. If people won't pay a certain price for it, then it wasn't worth that much.

A lot of people have a greatly inflated idea of what their creativity is "worth", and when reality doesn't turn out the way they think it should, they turn to the government to force people to give them the money they think they deserve.

Re:Nonsense

[trawg]

P2P is NOT inherently to be used to spread copyrighted information. Download a popular linux distribution with bittorrent and you'll max out your pipe (at least with residential broadband, 6MB down here), proving conclusively that P2P isn't remotely 'evil' no more than a gun is evil (in fact it would be LESS so, if both weren't EVIL==0). Just to be pedantic, Linux distros and the software they're comprised of are typically also copyrighted.

Re:Nonsense

[Scrameustache]

I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

Then don't buy their music. That does not give you the right to infringe on copyright. Listening to music is not something you are entitled to, despite what some may think.

Re:Nonsense

[pyrrhonist]

Well, first they need to invent 3d scanners, and I haven't heard of those just yet. NextEngine
Roland ASD

Re:Nonsense

[mOdQuArK!]

If musicians don't want their music copied, then they shouldn't release their music.

That doesn't give them the right to control other peoples' real private property.

Controlling what someone else may or may not do with something they have purchased is not something "creators" are entitled to, despite what some may think.

More generally, if "creators" don't want their ideas spread, then they shouldn't make those ideas spread.
They don't have the "right" to control other people spreading those ideas.

People who "insist" they have the right to control what other people do with ideas should really get over themselves.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. No copyright means that no one will ever be able to make money from their intellectual property because there will never be any intellectual property. Thus, you destroy
1) books
2) scientific invention (no patents)
3) music
4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart.
Obviously you have not thought this through, and if you have, I'm afraid you have to "get over yourself" and realize that thousands of people over the past 300 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662)who are smarter than you have all thought that some form of intellectual property was necessary.

It occurs to me that it is highly likely that whatever you do for a job depends on intellectual property somewhere.

Re:Nonsense

[alexgieg]

Exactly! That's why no one wrote books, made scientific discoveries, produced musics or did research and development before 1662!!!

Oh, wait...

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

No one could copy it easily before 1662... did you even read the link i posted about the printing press?

Re:Nonsense

[mOdQuArK!]

Just because you can't understand how it's possible to make money based on ideas without IP laws doesn't mean it isn't possible. It just means that you're not imaginative enough.

That's true of most IP proponents, although a lot of their objections are mainly fueled by the idea that they think their "creativity" is a lot more valuable than it really is.

Your last sentence is pretty funny. I make a living by programming (among other things). I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out how I make a living without depending on IP laws while using a skill set which is almost entirely based on a manipulation of concepts & ideas.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

That means people aren't allowed to break into your home against your will, even if they're cops. It's quite a different matter if you hand your papers over willingly.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

No, I'm well aware. What are you getting at? Do you deny the right of property?

By "real property" I mean "property". Copyrights, patents, etc. do not, strictly speaking, convey property rights. The popularity of referring to them as such is a rather recent development.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas. If you're going to assert such a right, then the onus is on you to justify it.

As for my alleged inconsistency, copyleft is perfectly acceptable within the worldview that I've presented. Copyleft says "you may not prevent others from copying this or making derivative works". I say "you may not prevent others from copying or making derivative works of anything". Without copyright, copyleft becomes superfluous.

The source-distribution requirement of the GPL is, I'll admit, a bit less clear-cut. Enforcing it is not justifyable in all cases, but it is in more cases than you would probably expect. Regardless, I'll happily abandon it once copyright is abolished.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

Really? If that's true, then shouldn't we be seeing some particularly severe effects from the exponential rise in infringement that's been going on for the past several years?

Re:Nonsense

[DavidShor]

there is an effect you are neglecting: as copyright periods increase, this effects incentives in two directions: 1) the obvious, expected profits increase, increasing incentive to work. 2) Writers can expect to profit longer off of their previous work, allowing them to "live off there previous work" Because of the decreasing marginal utility from money, effect 2 overpowers effect 1 pretty quickly. There have been some nice papers on this( google "optimal copyright period"), and the current estimate is that a period of around 14 years maximizes incentives to produce. Anything above that actually decreases the amount of works produced. (This is only for copyright, the formula for patents depends on the sector)

Re:Nonsense

[DavidShor]

Remember, writers and content producers are a very small percentage of the population, and should not have very high priority in social utility function.

The only purpose of IP law is to increase production of information and research.

And as it stands now, it's an empirical near-certainty that copyright periods are far too long to serve the public interest.

Re:Nonsense

[DavidShor]

I'd like to point something out, the rationale for property at all, is the exact same one as for intellectual property.

Contrary to popular belief, property rights are a very modern invention, and large chunks of the world still do things relatively communally.

Developed nations implemented wide scale property rights only in the late 19th century, so as to avoid "tragedy of the commons" situations by giving owners of property an inventive to maintain it.

In other words, property rights were designed to overcome a market failure(Tradgedy of the Commons), much in the same way as copyright laws.

Both IP and property rights have severe costs(Think of absentee landlords owning multiple homes while others are homeless), but when property designed, they can serve the public good.

Conventional property rights are pretty well designed, IP laws not so much...

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't buy their music. That does not give you the right to infringe on copyright. Listening to music is not something you are entitled to, despite what some may think.

You must be new here.

Re:Nonsense

[mi]

There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas.

The argument was not about "coercive enclosure" (whatever that means) or "commodification of ideas". The argument was, whether property can be intellectual. I hold this truth to be self-evident — if I thought of something first, I get to own it. That particular implementations (such as USPTO) are clunky is irrelevant...

copyleft is perfectly acceptable within the worldview that I've presented

So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?

Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?

What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?..

The source-distribution requirement of the GPL is, I'll admit, a bit less clear-cut.

There is still hope...

Re:Nonsense

[ravenshrike]

AHEM

http://www.baen.com/library/home.htm

YOU LOSE! Good DAY Sir!

Re:Nonsense

[ravenshrike]

I have to pay for my bandwidth don't I? Also the power and the computer itself.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I disagree with large portions of copyright, especially software copyright. However, I think elements of intellectual property are necessary in our world.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

You misunderstand - I am not for current copyright legislation, I am only opposed to the parents proposal of no intellectual property.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

Once again, reform the laws, I am all for it. However, if you violate US law, prepare to be prosecuted to the full extent of it, because you have broken it.

Re:Nonsense

[sixsixtysix]

no kidding. what will they do when mass replicators are the norm? i always wonder this when the topic of copying movies or music is being discussed. what will happen when almost anything can be copied?

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

You are mistaking a lack of one piece of copyright for the lack of intellectual property. You see, if there is no copyright, what's stopping someone from taking your book (bestselling, perhaps) and publishing it themselves. Exact same book, indistinguishable from the other, just a different publisher. Now, your publicity makes you no money. Now, imagine this on the large scale. Harry Potter is sold by a thousand different publishers for nothing. Books as a medium are free and if you try and sell it, who knows how much money you are going to make - it might be nothing. Extend this to products.

Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

The argument was not about "coercive enclosure" (whatever that means) or "commodification of ideas". The argument was, whether property can be intellectual. I hold this truth to be self-evident — if I thought of something first, I get to own it. That particular implementations (such as USPTO) are clunky is irrelevant... "Only certain people may use this concept/process/pattern/etc [enclosure]. Others who do so will be deprived of their property and/or liberty [coercive]. The purpose of this is so that access to this idea may be sold [commodification]."

If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you that this is justifyable, you'll need to provide a better argument than "it's self-evident". Property is justified by it's rivalrousness, but that doesn't apply here.

So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?

Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?

What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?.. You are within your rights to install commercial software wherever you like, avoid giving NiN your email address, or refrain from sending a postcard to the authors of postcardware. Whether it is ethical or not is irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Since someone engaging in any of the above has not coercively or fraudulently deprived anyone of their life, liberty, or property, a coercive response is unjustified.

Re:Nonsense

[DavidShor]

Millions of US citizens engage in file-sharing and copyright infringement. It is impossible to arrest all of them for it. And to prey on the weakest individuals in our society, so as to make an example out of them, is both in-egalitarian and morally repugnant.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I disagree with large portions of copyright, especially software copyright. However, I think elements of intellectual property are necessary in our world. It's partway there. If it were true that a complete lack of imaginary property enforcement would result in no (or very few) creative works being made, then it follows that widespread infringement would result in a nontrivial decline in said production. It hasn't happened, so modus tollens.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

No, once again you focus only on the digital music side of intellectual property. You obviously don't understand the ramifications of the intellectual property theory - a simple look at wikipedia could have told you that all of the following fall under the heading of intellectual property:
Primary rights
Copyright
Patents
Trademarks
Industrial design rights
Utility models
Geographical indication
Trade secrets
Related rights
Trade names
Domain names
Sui generis rights
Database rights
Mask work
Plant breeders' rights
Supplementary protection certificate
Indigenous intellectual property

To use an example that I gave previously

Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

I'm aware of all that. You made a specific claim about music, though. I provided evidence to the contrary. Either defend that point or redact it.

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

To which point are you referring? If I in any way gave the impression that I was debating music I apologize, I believe I said "Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property." While a lack of copyright would certainly change the music industry as we know it, I am fairly certain that musicians could still make a living with live concerts. That does not affect my previous comments about the need for intellectual property or the fact that copyright infringement violates the law, though.

Re:Nonsense

[mi]

Property is justified by it's rivalrousness, but that doesn't apply here.

wn rivalrousness No information available for noun rivalrousness
No information available for verb rivalrousness
No information available for adj rivalrousness
No information available for adv rivalrousness

Khm, let's see: wn rivalrous -over
Overview of adj rivalrous
The adj rivalrous has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. emulous, rivalrous -- (eager to surpass others)

I'm sorry, but the self-evident argument seems far better than yours — at least, it can be understood...

You are within your rights to install commercial software wherever you like

I am? Is that you, Wally?

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

No copyright means that no one will ever be able to make money from their intellectual property because there will never be any intellectual property. Thus, you destroy
1) books
2) scientific invention (no patents)
3) music
4) trade secrets or products. R&D no longer exists (it makes you no money) and companies as we know them would fall apart. We don't even really need to consider live performances. Even with the massive increase in music copyright infringement, the business model of selling CDs (and individual tracks) seems to be doing just fine. So what gives? How much infringement does it take to collapse the music industry, or to have any negative effect at all?

Also, what do you make of the sales of Radiohead's "pay what you want" album? If your argument was correct in the case of music, shouldn't they have made little or no money from it?

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

Didn't try very hard, did you?

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

I will concede that the music industry may be just fine without copyright - there is simply not enough data. While it appears that money can still be made with rampant piracy, there are still laws in place preventing some people from pirating music. In addition, without copyright, companies could simply download the music and sell it to you on CD without giving anything to the artist. It's a tricky problem and one that I really was not debating. What I was debating was that the concept of intellectual property is needed in today's world, maybe not for music, but for other things.

Re:Nonsense

[Yfrwlf]

Ideas would still be come up with if there weren't laws giving one of the many individuals who happened to get to the patent or copyright office first a patent/copyright. With an increase in sharing of ideas, progress happens faster, and improved technology should give everyone more free time, and more free time should yield more ideas. What the world needs is some real competition occuring, not a few rich bastards trying to take as big a piece of everyone's pie as they can. Everyone's life will be improved if monopolies were non-existant. The government shouldn't be working to make companies as much money as possible, it should be working to get citizens the cheapest quality goods it can.

Copyright and patent law is like stepping in a trap. Once it starts, it clamps down on you bleeding you dry of money, until you can't afford to invest and invent because you have no spare time since you're always working because monopolies are suddenly everywhere, and businesses and employees have no spare energy, time, or money to spend on research. Instead, everyone is employed and laboring to line the pockets of the rich when it could be going to the good of the whole.

Also, patents have a chilling effect on inventors, when it should be the opposite, there should be incentives to cooperatively invent and openly share those ideas. It's a world that will probably never been seen because of the rich who are in charge of everything.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

The thing to keep in mind is that when people enjoy an artistic work, they generally want to support the artist who created it, in order to ensure that said artist continues to create things. People who engage in infringement, by and large, still continue to buy artistic works. This is why there's been no drop in sales to correspond with the increase in infringement.

For-profit infringement isn't a problem either. In fact, non-profit infringement has steadily been killing it. The people selling bootleg CDs and DVDs can't compete with the file sharers on price or ease of access, and they don't provide any of the benefits of supporting the artist directly. If the bootleggers try to trick customers by pretending to be endorsed by the artist, they can be sued for fraud.

In the case of copyrights on software, we have an even better counterexample in the form of open-source software. Plenty of resources are contributed towards OSS development by major for-profit corporations. These companies are able to take advantage of OSS without contributing, and yet they contribute anyway.

I think this presents a pretty strong case against the necessity of copyright. If you don't care to dispute it, I'll move on to patents (if you're still interested).

Re:Nonsense

[LeafOnTheWind]

I see no evidence of non-profit infringement "steadily" killing anything

Since then, several high-profile busts have been trumpeted in the official Chinese press. In early July, authorities in Shanghai shut down a DVD export ring, arresting six people, including two Americans, while seizing more than $83,000 in cash and more than 200,000 DVDs, according to state press accounts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A535-2004Sep6_2.html

Software copyrights and patents I have never made a case against, to bring up FOSS is without merit. As a FOSS programmer who also makes his living in IT, I believe copyright and patents need to be drastically cut on software, if not removed altogether.

I believe I have cited an example that proves that copyright, patent, and trademark are needed because this is happening in China:

Let's say you're Apple. You just made the iPhone and you release it. Well how do you make sure you make money off your product? You trademark it, of course, and copyright the entire design. Well, wait, there's no trademark. Almost immediately, 100 Chinese companies either buy and reverse engineer it or steal the designs from one of your factories. Sony, Samsung, and LG all release exact copies of your phone for a tiny percentage of the price. What's your R&D worth now? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is no longer beneficial for companies to have R&D - they can make more money copying other people's work. In addition, my father founded a company that develops new methods of cancer treatment and diagnosis. The equipment needed to do this testing is very expensive and he only has two employees. However, his success in the area has developed a number of revolutionary treatments, which he patented and then licensed rights to large pharmaceutical corporations. These licenses and patents are the company's only source of income, because it trades in knowledge, which is often equally as valuable as a solid product. However, I do not believe that Slashdot is the correct forum for this debate, so I will end this here.

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

I do not believe that Slashdot is the correct forum for this debate, so I will end this here. Alright. I'm still going to respond, though. Let me know if you care to continue elsewhere.

I see no evidence of non-profit infringement "steadily" killing anything "P2P File-Sharing Ruins Physical Piracy Business"

Software copyrights and patents I have never made a case against, to bring up FOSS is without merit. As a FOSS programmer who also makes his living in IT, I believe copyright and patents need to be drastically cut on software, if not removed altogether. I'm just trying to cover all bases, here. If we don't need copyright for artistic works, and we don't need it for software, then what do we need it for?

I believe I have cited an example that proves that copyright, patent, and trademark are needed because this is happening in China: This is an argument for patents, not copyrights. I want to put the copyright argument to bed first. As for trademarks, I don't see them as totally invalid insofar as they are a prohibition against fraud.

Re:Nonsense

[neomunk]

Yeah, you're right, my bad. I think the point still stands as valid though, in context.

Re:Nonsense

[msromike]

OK, I get it.

You make a statement completely devoid of any facts nor even briefly outlining your line of reasoning. If it matches up with the majorities mores it gets modded up. If it doesn't, no matter how well reasoned or supported, it is likely to get modded down.

Maybe they could add some type of automated modding process using Bayesian filters. That would save people from reading anything they don't agree with in the first place. It would leave a lot more time to go install Linux, or steal music, or to muse over whether Bill Gates is the anti-christ after all and how Microsoft has basically ruined the world.

---
Waiting for my troll and/or flame-bait email to arrive...

Re:Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

The onus to provide supporting evidence lies with the party making the positive claim. I'm making a negative claim.

If you care to present evidence to support "information is property", I'll gladly refute that evidence. Otherwise, save your posturing for someone who cares.

Obvious quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can't stop the signal."

riiight

[lazy-ninja]

"riiight, ...whats a cubit?" ("lets see, a cubit, I used to know what a cubit was") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wXFJjkubI

You might want to read the bill of rights closer

[Smeagel]

Specifically:

* Ninth Amendment â" Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It was put in there for a reason, to keep tyrannical laws from being passed that are clearly against rights that should be guaranteed to a human being but weren't specifically thought of during the writing of the constitution/BOR.

Decentralized? No servers? No trackers?

[xmuskrat]

We had applications like this previously to bittorrent that did not list files, and one of the big golden opportunities of not maintaining a file catalog was that you didn't really have the possibility of you having illegal content on it, it was just like downloading. You don't see companies like Microsoft or Mozilla getting pressure about the fact that people download copyrighted files there. Decentralized? As in no servers, no directories and no trackers for files? How do the individual nodes find each other? If you have something where nodes pass their knowledge of other nodes along (the longer you are connected, the more nodes you might potentially learn about) that could be interesting. But how can you have something totally decentralized? Can discovery truly work on a whole-internet-sized scale?

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[_KiTA_]

Specifically:

* Ninth Amendment â" Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It was put in there for a reason, to keep tyrannical laws from being passed that are clearly against rights that should be guaranteed to a human being but weren't specifically thought of during the writing of the constitution/BOR.

Somehow I doubt the founding fathers had "Dude, they should totally be able to pirate music, movies, and video games" when they were writing the bill of rights.

Although it is funny to imagine George Washington with a surfer accent. "GNARLY, I like, totally can't tell a lie, DUDE."

Having said that, I think they did have some pretty interesting ideas on copyright, trademarks, patents, etc, ideas that would be called "Dangerous Subversive Liberal Commie Nonsense" nowadays, didn't they?

Getting Rid of the TPB

[Kildjean]

This really saddens me... THE USofA seems obfuscated in ridding the world of the Pirate Bay... They should rid the world of Cocaine, Drug Dealers and blow the freaking farms in colombia... They should invade the freaking country and blow it all up. So if they want to rid us of TPB why can't they just pass a law that all ISP's in the US block out the servers of TPB, make it non reachable. I think getting the world rid of drugs is easier and more constructive than ridding it of TPB.

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[WK2]

The government finds Ron Goldman useful. They won't destroy him.

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[Hatta]

You realize that ridding the world of drugs is just as impossible as ridding the world of file sharers right?

The solution in both cases is the same, legalize it.

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[randyest]

I don't think "obfuscate" is the word you're looking for there. Maybe "obsessed with" or similar? Anyway, I disagree with your point -- both cocaine and filesharing should be legalized. The solution isn't to bomb and kill poor farmers in Columbia (you ghoul.)

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[0111 1110]

Hugo Chavez is that you?

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[rimugu]

Wow I knew pop music was bad for you, but never thought it was like cocaine.
Perhaps you are an expert on both and know.

I think pop music is legal and I have never seen it produce brain damage, but I have seen several with seizures and they say is dancing.

Do you think the same will happen with drugs. Will they stop being addictive the moment they are legalized?

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[Hatta]

Addiction is not the problem with drugs. Millions of americans are addicted to caffeine with few problems. The real problem is that the consequences of addiction are artificially inflated by their legal status.

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[digitrev]

Of course not. The issue here is that the total damage done because it's illegal is much greater than the damage done if it weren't. The solution is to control it, like you would alcohol and tobacco. Look at it this way, was the US better off during prohibition?

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is awful in a variety of different ways. Your Borat-like grammar and random capitalization aside (cocaine but not Colombia, wtf?) You want to blow a bunch of farmers up to protect people! This whole "we have the right to destroy and murder anything the current administration happens to be fixated on ATM" notion sickens me.

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[Scrameustache]

was the US better off during prohibition? It was if you were a hat maker :)

Re:Getting Rid of the TPB

[Hal_Porter]

Addiction is not the problem with drugs. Millions of americans are addicted to caffeine with few problems. The real problem is that the consequences of addiction are artificially inflated by their legal status. Exhibit 1

Alan goes to Starbucks and buys a skinny latté if he has time after lunch.

Exhibit 2

Having failed to pick up a john at the truck stop for a few hours in the middle of the day, Bob walks downtown and mugs an old lady to get the money to cocaine to inject into his genitals.

http://cocaine.org/health/dangers.html

He used to steal from his family but his brother beat the shit out of him and kicked him out.

Yup caffeine and cocaine addiction are totally the same thing. If caffeine were banned Alan would do what Bob does.

poison?

[Deanalator]

I think that the hardest part of adding search to any p2p system is that it is too easy for malicious users (*IAA thugs) to poison search results, and I don't see anything on their page that deals with that.

To design a reliable search system, you need to have a good rating system, and a solid trust model. At the same time, you need to avoid making the trust model so tight that new users cannot get any search results (freenet).

Also, I think it should be noted that a lot of bittorrent usage is moving towards the subscription model, so people should be able to search for channels as well, not just single files.

I am interested in seeing where this project leads, but I don't think people will be completely abandoning the well organized, well moderated torrent sites any time soon, but it will be nice to be able to search quickly for files without needing to open a browser.

Re:poison?

[pleappleappleap]

Thank you for the morality lesson of the day, Mr. Coward. Or can I call you Anonymous?

Re:poison?

[Deanalator]

Out of touch media distributors have nothing to offer the world. I use the most efficient media distribution model, and pay whatever they charge for it.

The only honest/reliable way to make money is to provide services. I pay money to theaters, I pay money for internet bandwidth. Hollywood can still make ends meet easily by charging for product placement (a service). Why should anyone get royalties for a service they provided years ago?

I think capitalism works much better when people are actually forced to contribute to society to succeed, and aren't just getting money because of a network of sketchy contracts and hundreds of years of lazy/greedy people manipulating our legal system for their own gain.

Re:poison?

[Helix666]

taking steps to reduce the number of people making unauthorised copies of their content: fair enough, they rely on that content to make them money.

Suing the living shit out of kids/dead people/et al for downloading an mp3: a little bit over the top, IMO...

I can understand someone who makes their living from producing content wanting to protect their income. However, the knee-jerk reaction from the recording associations is increasingly wild and they're likely to end up kicking themselves in the face, so to speak.

Offtopic:
I think the 'kid' who needs to grow up is you. Who else is hiding behind a mask and throwing insults at people? How very childish.

Re:poison?

[Tom]

it is too easy for malicious users (*IAA thugs) to poison search results, and I don't see anything on their page that deals with that. You could easily counter that with numbers and peer-reviews. PB already has a comment system that does a fairly good job of telling you about fakes. btjunkie has a rating system. There are solutions out there. None are perfect, but with enough numbers, you don't need perfection.

Re:poison?

[__aabvlw4075]

it will be nice to be able to search quickly for files without needing to open a browser. I didn't know anyone spent time at their computer without a browser open. It boggles my mind...

Re:poison?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Out of touch media distributors have nothing to offer the world.

I feel the same way about people that have no respect for others' property: They are leeches and deserving of contempt.

>The only honest/reliable way to make money is to provide services.
So people that sell goods should stop, and just give them away?

If I own a house, and wish to sell it at a profit, that's not an honest way to make money? Or a car? Groceries?

Now one could make the argument that a grocer, for example, is providing a service to his customers by creating a location from where people can obtain food: This saves them from having to gather it all theselves. That would, I suppose, make it "honest" in your eyes?

A grocer obtains goods from many places, and so in a sense is a "food distributor". And in fact, there are wholesale food distributors as well: They buy in bulk and sell to grocers, who sell to you... and both make money on the transactions.

Those dishonest bastards! Not only are they providing a service (the wholesaler to the grocer, and the grocer to you), but they are selling the goods at a markup and making money on those, too!

So, explain to me why media distributors are dishonest? Because they make a profit? The fact that their goods can be downloaded? That makes them out of touch with technology, true enough, but so are my parents, who never did learn how to program their VCR before it got replaced by a DVD player.

It seems to me that the copyright infringers are the dishonest ones.

Re:Decentralized? No servers? No trackers?

[blueg3]

There are multiple solutions to having no servers, no trackers, and a decentralized system. There is still the "bootstrap problem", where you need to find some nodes that are members of the network to connect.

Gnutella is one decentralized system. They moved to semi-centralized to efficiency. Freenet is decentralized. The decentralization approach here is most like distributed hash tables (I think the Wikipedia entry is pretty decent).

pink floyd meddle

[Rick Richardson]

Download Cubit 0.31. Put in string "pink floyd meddle".

Lots of hits. But no "pink floyd meddle".

Maybe next year...

Re:pink floyd meddle

[smellsofbikes]

One of these days, the MPAA is going to cut this program into little pieces...

Re:pink floyd meddle

[Anonymous Coward]

It's there when I searched for it...

Re:pink floyd meddle

[Artemis3]

I agree, this thing is broken. All it does is return a bunch of random torrentreactor results.

Re:Decentralized? No servers? No trackers?

[xmuskrat]

That's what I mean. As soon as you have a way to find one of the nodes, say a list somewhere, those easy to find nodes become a defacto "server" and they end up being the ones that get the legal pressure.

Ninth Amendment

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Any questions?

Re:Ninth Amendment

[k_187]

Yes, then were do we get that right? Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say we have a right, doesn't mean we automatically do have it.

Re:Ninth Amendment

[Mister Whirly]

For the millionth time in this post the Constitution does not grant rights to people. (It does recognize some rights of the people, but does not grant them those rights.) It limits what rights the government has. Anything not specifically mentioned is up to the state level or lower to sort out. Which is kind of what all those RIAA trials going on in different states is about.

Re:Ninth Amendment

[k_187]

Yes, but my point is that just because the constitution DOESN'T say we have something, doesn't mean that we DO have it. As you say, the vetting process for that determination is still taking place.

Re:Ninth Amendment

[cayenne8]

"Yes, then were do we get that right? Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say we have a right, doesn't mean we automatically do have it."

Actually, it pretty much means exactly that!! The constitution doesn't grant citizens rights...it grants limited rights and powers to the government. All rights do inheritly belong to the citizen unless regulated by the state, etc....

That explains why there are different laws in the states regarding the same actions....etc.

In another thread I gave an example. It wasn't that long ago that any private citizen could legally own a machine gun. It wasn't that long ago, that any citizen could legally buy, own and use most any drug they wanted to...pot, cocaine, heroin, morphine...etc. These were perfectly legal till laws were passed.

Riiight, Whats a cubit?

[lazy-ninja]

Noah's Ark - Cosby

I heard this song before.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

And then the priests of Temples of Syrinx will hound them to suicide.

Re:I heard this song before.

[Divide By Zero]

My kingdom for a [+1, Rush] moderation!

Now, where's my Shasta...

Re:I heard this song before.

[Enoxice]

My kingdom for a [+1, Futurama] moderation!

Re:I heard this song before.

[Enoxice]

Attention all planets of the solar federation: we have assumed control.

Re:I heard this song before.

[LeafOnTheWind]

My Kingdom for a [-1, Rush is overrated] moderation

Re:I heard this song before.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

My kingdom for some reavers to sic on you. :)

Re:I heard this song before.

[LeafOnTheWind]

fair enough :)

Blah blah blah.

[Duncan Blackthorne]

They can legislate anything they want. They can even attempt detection and complete blockage of any bittorrent and gnutella network activity. Like TFA, someone will come up with something else, and they'll try to block THAT, and so on and so forth. They may as well just pull the plug on the internet and make it government-only then -- but wait, we'll just go back to SneakerNET then, won't we?

MEMO TO WORLD GOVERNMENTS: You can't stop the signal. Stop wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Blah blah blah.

[Danse]

MEMO TO WORLD GOVERNMENTS: You can't stop the signal. Stop wasting taxpayer money. Unless taxpayers start making a stink about it, they'll keep right on wasting that money. They'll do that because the IP industry keeps throwing money at them to do so. As long as people are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption and accept the lame excuses we hear from politicians for their behavior, then we'll always be stuck in this situation.

Just Gro3at^H^H^Heat...

[hAckz0r]

Now I can get sued by the RIAA just for mistyping something that is even remotely close to some movie or rock stars name. I'll be searching for some new open source Matlab image loading and manipulation library and wind up being sued by the MPAA for trying to downloading "The Matrix Reloaded".

Next they will begin suing people for just "thinking" about typing in a query, that may or may not have been something 'close enough' to a portion of some MPAA's movie title. Fuzzy searches might just beget more fuzzy lawsuits by some slimy lawyer.

Good Luck With That tag

[plasmacutter]

I wish them luck with that.

Repercussions will or could include:
-widespread defection of at&t customer base to alternative isps.
-fcc complaints about net neutrality and censorship of false positives.
-possible first amendment complaints related to the former

the first on this list will of course have the most impact, but given the fcc's willingness to act in protection of the bit torrent protocol the second is quite plausible.

Google Spelling Correction

[pleappleappleap]

I absolutely HATE Google spelling correction. It often tries to correct obscure words I haven't misspelled and gives me far too many irrelevant hits. It also forces me to go back and add quotes around everything. It sucks.

I also don't like that they drop punctuation out of their search terms. Sometimes I WANT to search for ";;" or something.

Pointless

[Reason58]

There is no such thing as true peer to peer, and it is impossible to make a "decentralized" P2P client. At some point you need to contact servers to get data, and those are the points that will face legal pressure.

Re:Pointless

[Abcd1234]

Tell that to Freenet. Or the old Gnutella network. Or any number of other completely decentralized networks.

The only thing you need to participate in those networks is a seed peer. Yeah, that requires a central server to get to, initially (though once you're there your host cache will start to populate, and you're set). But once you're on the network, it's completely decentralized.

Re:Pointless

[TheHomunculusOne]

it is impossible to make a "decentralized" P2P client. Not true. Maybe if bittorent was new, but it isn't. People are always using it now. If each node is a server, they can all share server responsibilities. One drops off, a different one can help you connect to the rest of the "server cloud". Some sort of extremely simple redundancy server might help, but if set-up correctly, shouldn't be required.

Re:Pointless

[Tom]

Whoever modded parent up is an idiot. Of course there is true P2P. If that's suitable for the distribution of movies is another question, but parent obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Yeah, at some point you need to "contact servers to get data", big news. P2P doesn't stand for "all clients, no servers" - in a P2P network, everyone is server and client. So "contacting servers to get data" is, you know, a little bit on the obvious and boring side.

Re:Pointless

[LeafOnTheWind]

Then that central server becomes the point that will face legal pressure. I think you proved the GPs point for him.

Re:Pointless

[Reason58]

I'm glad to see even low UIDs do their share of trolling. The point of my post is that you can't build a decentralized file sharing protocol. It's like lossless random data compression or a perpetual motion machine. You can't just run a program and have it "know" where all the clients are. You have to hit up a server in one manner or another for it to work. Those servers are what will be taken down, just like TorrentSpy and ThePirateBay.

Re:Pointless

[Tom]

The point of my post is that you can't build a decentralized file sharing protocol. A few dozen research projects prove you wrong already.

You can't just run a program and have it "know" where all the clients are. You have to hit up a server in one manner or another for it to work. That's 1995 knowledge levels. Well, on the trivial level you are correct. But that ain't the whole truth. Bonjour allows you to run a program and know the entire nearby network, with no central server telling you. Various distributed protocolls like Freenet or DHT extend that to a more global scale.

True, you can't immediately know all the clients, but there are a whole lot of ways to do discovery within a fully decentralized network.

For a successful file-sharing network, you don't need to know all the clients, you just need to know enough of them to make your download succeed.

Re:Pointless

[Abcd1234]

No, it doesn't, because you can always get IPs out-of-band. Usenet, RSS, plain ol' HTML, and the information can be distributed, there's no need for it to be stored in a central location. Meanwhile, once your client is up, it's up. It seeds itself with new peers, and you never need the centralized server again. So the network, as it exists today, is completely decentralized. It only becomes complicated when you want to join.

Re:Pointless

[LeafOnTheWind]

True, but isn't joining a prerequisite for any P2P network? A darknet is completely decentralized, but its not as useful as the others because it essentially requires an already established trust system.

Re:Pointless

[Abcd1234]

But now you're just moving the goalposts. The OP never brought up the issue of "usefulness", however you might define that. We're talking, here, about the existence of decentralized P2P networks. And they do exist. In the absence of a centralized IP broker, yeah, they'd be harder to join. But that's completely beside the point.

Further, such a system is different from a darknet, in that IPs could be published in any number of ways, because trust isn't a fundamental goal. People could publish their IPs on websites, in public forums, on usenet, whatever you like. And as such, even the IP information becomes decentralized, accessible from any common search engine.

Re:Pointless

[LeafOnTheWind]

You are right. I can never see this as being a Bittorrent replacement, but you are correct that a completely decentralized P2P system.

I would still like it if someone came up with a useable but better decentralized version of BT, though. :)

ALERT RELEVANT WATCHDOG ORGANIZATIONS!

[plasmacutter]

According to the wikileaks article on this trade agreement was never brought to the attention of watchdog organizations!

Send email to the aclu, eff, and other groups to put pressure on these organizations before it's too late. We have one month to act!

If possible, send email to specific staff rather than general inquiry.

Re:It needs Azureus?

[pleappleappleap]

void Pot()
{
          Kettle(black);
}

Re:Decentralized? No servers? No trackers?

[argent]

There is still the "bootstrap problem", where you need to find some nodes that are members of the network to connect.

It's not true that there are CryptNet levels above level 10.

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[0111 1110]

Somehow I doubt the founding fathers had "Dude, they should totally be able to pirate music, movies, and video games" when they were writing the bill of rights. You seem to be missing the point of the 9th amendment. The whole point was that just because "the right to make and trade copies of digital information" was not included in that ancient document written with quills does not mean that we do not have that right. The point of the constitution was to limit the "rights" of the government, not those of the people. Remember these were the guys who were willing to go to war and die over a minor tax. I'm not sure how sympathetic they would be to protecting the aging business models of mega-corporations with more and more draconian laws and even larger and larger police states to enforce them. I think they would consider rampant piracy to be by far the lesser of the two evils. And as far as file sharing goes, clearly the people of the world have spoken in its favor.

When you misconstrue things it makes it easier

[Smeagel]

The right to file share would have more to do with the right to distribute your own works in an affordable method. Lots of companies (and bands) are now using P2P to distribute their LEGAL content.

What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that stopping people from printing should be legal because some people might print child pornography.

The ability to distribute and receive content in popular and easy ways would seem to be a very basic right.

the US is pathetic

[gailrob]

Maybe if they stopped dumping all my money (and every other tax payer) into attacking website owners in foreign countries and focused on getting our economy out of the shithole its in right now I'd have some respect for them. I honestly think over the years the US has become the most pathetic country on the planet. Gotta give props to the top 1% of the public officials and business owners though... they've mastered stepping on the entire planet for their personal gain.

I wonder if there was a time when the government in this country gave a flying shit about the people it was created to serve or if it always about racketeering?

Re:the US is pathetic

[Arcturax]

There was. 1776 to 1783.

Re:the US is pathetic

[jrmcc]

Where's my mod points when I need'em... +1 to the historical reference!

Re:the US is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly think over the years the US has become the most pathetic country on the planet.

The first three words there? Big lie.

Good

[Meneth]

The PirateBay admins themselves have been looking into ways to replace the Bay. This looks like a good alternative. However, due to the popularity of closed-source BitTorrent clients (uTorrent et. al), we'll need a stand-alone version of this Cubit.

Re:Good

[plasmacutter]

cubit is stand alone

Re:Good

[Meneth]

No, it's a plugin for Azureus.

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[Danse]

Having said that, I think they did have some pretty interesting ideas on copyright, trademarks, patents, etc, ideas that would be called "Dangerous Subversive Liberal Commie Nonsense" nowadays, didn't they? That's kind of the point really. Current copyright law bears no resemblance to what the Constitution calls for. The goal was to ensure that the public domain was continually being enriched with new works. So they implemented an incentive for people to create new works, namely a limited monopoly on the distribution of those works. Under current copyright law, nothing ever becomes public domain and they have turned it into a perpetual right to milk a creation forevermore without ever giving anything back to the public that gave them that monopoly to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, copyright law, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

I wish...

[nweaver]

a: These are the heavy users. in a flat rate pricing world, you WANT teh heavy users to get pissed off and go sompelace else.

b: "Blame the RIAA, they told us what was bad"

c: "Blame the RIAA, they told us what was bad"

Re:I wish...

[aussie_a]

I wasn't aware "I was following orders" was a valid defence in America. Hitler would be proud.

Re:It needs Azureus?

[section321a]

10 Print "Pot Kettle" 20 Print "Kettle = Black" 30 Print "Pot Black" 40 Goto 10 Sorry.... Is this too BASIC?

Dying

[HTH NE1]

I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version. Now that was uncalled for! What do you have against public blacksmithing?

The ACTA agreement would also make this illegal.

[plasmacutter]

The acta agreement calls for criminal prosecution of any facilitation of widespread copyright infringement.

This means ANY p2p client, including open source, will come under the gun.

azureus, newsreaders capable of binary download, limewire clients, and of course this tool.

Complete misunderstanding of how it works

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Where in the constitution is the right to file share? "

The constitution does not grant rights to citizens, it restricts congresses power. In other words it grants minimal "rights" to congress. Since the constitution does not grant congress the right to pass such a law, it is implicitly restricted from doings so.

It is an unfortunate artifact resulting from the ignorance of most contemporary US citizens with regard to how it all works, that this misunderstanding is so pervasive.

The first amendment does not grant citizens the right to free speech. It restricts congress' right to outlaw free speech.

ObWindowsDig: I suppose in a world where people use a shitty OS that has a default allow security policy, it is easy to see how this meme is so pervasive. Good government (if there is such a thing) is analogous to good computer security. The constitution sets a default deny policy on congressional behavior. Alas, when they enumerated a few examples of what congress cannot do, it became a popular misconception that if an example of what they cannot do isn't explicitly in the constitution, then it means they have a Carte Blanche. It is sad really, but then again that is the result of the intentional mis-education of the masses.

They are reinventing the wheel.

[shihonage]

eMule KAD has existed for a long time. It is a completely decentralized network that allows for serverless search, and it's been working well for years ! Not to mention... eMule is a damn snazzy and well-coded client, optimized and feature-rich.

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[Opportunist]

I also don't think they thought about chainguns when they wrote the 2nd...

But those things were written 200 years ago, and they had real problems at hand to think about. And some of the amendments aren't so important anymore (take the 3rd for example), but one thing's for sure when you read the constitution and try to find out what it was supposed to do, i.e. what the idea was behind it. The letter may have changed meaning and may be outdated, but the idea is easy to see: Give the people as much liberty as possible, limit government to the necessary minimum and most of all, don't let government influence the personal space and privacy. The first amendments protect every citizens immediate personal freedoms, the freedom to say what you want, the freedom to be the sole master of your house, and the means to defend your freedoms and in what defined way government may affect it.

That's the spirit behind the constitution. Funny enough, I don't see a single word in it that deals with protecting profit.

Re:Decentralized? No servers? No trackers?

[grumbel]

Do those bootstrap server step over any law? They don't tell you where to download files, they simply tell you where other clients are, kind of like DNS.

Moderated Torrent site

[nurb432]

How about just move the webpages and tracker links over to freenet but not the actual end data?

This would protect the people running the site, ( and make it more redundant ) but still provide for BT for the actual transfer.

Any site that isn't legit, will quickly fall out of favor, helping to keep poison seeds down.

It wouldn't be too hard to create a client that would do the search for you on these 'trusted' pages.

Re:Moderated Torrent site

[Deanalator]

The problem isn't *IAA putting up fake websites on freenet, the problem is *IAA creating thousands of fake users that can all vouch for each other, and claim all of the real media is fake.

Mediadefender has done this many times in the past (as proven by the email leak), and it is a common tactic that is most likely used by other companies in the business as well. This is a pervasive problem on even the most heavily moderated boards, and it is extremely difficult to deal with in an automated way.

Re:Moderated Torrent site

[Deanalator]

By the way, I am not knocking on your idea :-) I think it's a great idea for protecting the site operators from legal issues, but it does not help much with the more sketchy tactics that the media companies are turning to.

Re:Moderated Torrent site

[sshir]

Actually not that hard.

I think Carnegie-Mellon people come up with a solution: instead of global "reputation" score use personal (local) one.

Basically when you download stuff from people you mark them good or bad, then "the system" will cluster your opinions with others and provide you with scores to sources you don't know based on what people like you had to say about them.

So you see - if for example Mediadefender starts to pull that trick with many fake users then they will be clustered together and won't have any impact on, well, "honest" downloaders.
They can still build a reputation but it will go down the drain real fast as soon as they start to "use it".

scrivener's error, methinks

[ridgecritter]

I'm willing to bet that TJ, a master craftsman of the English language if ever there were one, didn't misuse "it's" for "its"!! (line 6 in the quote)

Re:scrivener's error, methinks

[ravenshrike]

Grammar in the late 18th century was very... fluid. Thus the pervasiveness of the two different second amendments, even though they mean the same damned fucking thing unless you will yourself to believe otherwise.

Old news

[AI0867]

Tribler has been able to do this since 2006.

Nice.....

[crhylove]

Now we can get a version that doesn't require the ruinous bloat that is java? Why isn't there a FOSS utorrent clone already? It's sad that a p2p program is the last bit of commercial code on my machine (besides Windows, though I have been dual booting....).

Firefox
Thunderbird
Open Office
7zip
Infrarecord
Cool Player Portable
Pidgin
VLC
UltraVNC
Mupen64plus

and
utorrent.

*sigh*

Re:Nice.....

[LeafOnTheWind]

Azureus does like to use memory when you have hundreds of torrents, but I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "the ruinous bloat that is java." When was the last time you used Java? 1998? Are you still running with 64 MB of RAM?

Re:Nice.....

[crhylove]

the JRE I consider malware. I've had consistent problems with it since 1998. I have not seen MUCH of an improvement since then.

I'm a little anal though, I only use FOSS portable apps, and refuse to allow any software to run in the system tray unless I am using it actively.

Still, there is no call for JRE to be so invasive in the system, and to be running constantly even when I don't have azureus or some other java app open. I've always hated java. I have good reason to. It sucks, locks up, slows machines down, and is completely unnecessary for every software that I care to use, with the minor caveat of azureus, however, I find azureus bloated and slow too, and use utorrent 1.5. You're talking to a guy who just barely switched out winamp 2.81 for CoolPlayer+Portable.

I'm still trumpeting a call and desire for a FOSS torrent app that is small, clean, and lightweight like utorrent. Until then, I'm sticking with utorrent. Sadly.

Re:Nice.....

[TheSeer2]

Java *is* a beast. Every time I've had to use Java in a web browser, be it Safari (for Windows), Firefox1,2,3, IE6/7 (I've used it on OSX, Fedora, Ubuntu and Windows 2000->Vista). If Java has to be loaded in a browser, it locks up the browser, then after a minute it becomes responsive again. The java applet then becomes usable but it makes the browser itself unresponsive to anything but the mouse and the browser's performance becomes blocky.

On the application side Java apps always take up far too much ram and reduce the viability of multi-tasking with a java app running in the background.

Re:Nice.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even run Azureus, and if so have you compared it to some of the other clients out there? Do that and then you'll know what the OP means by "ruinous bloat". When a torrent client is using somewhere around 50% of your CPU and over 300MB of RAM, there's a problem.

Re:Nice.....

[LeafOnTheWind]

http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
statistics seem to contradict you. On startup Java is slow, but when you're running azureus for months, even years at a time, a minute or so of startup is nothing.

Re:Nice.....

[EvilIdler]

Free and open, lightweight Torrent client? Sure, use Transmission.
http://www.transmissionbt.com/

Re:Nice.....

[chmod a x mojo]

have you tried deluge? it is almost as small as uTorrent, supports DHT and even looks somewhat similar. The only real drawback to Deluge is the file dialog ( at least in the version I have currently) requires you to go up one directory and then select the directory you wish to download into.

Re:Nice.....

[crhylove]

It is a decidedly worthy effort, but has not supplanted utorrent (yet!).

Re:Nice.....

[crhylove]

deluge and transmission have come a long way, but neither has succeeded in weening me off of utorrent. I have a maniacal ISP and setting up the trackers through TOR is just easier in utorrent. And it has some other advantages....

Re:Nice.....

[sznupi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halite_Client

"Halite is in active development and is gaining increased interest as an alternative, free, resource friendly BitTorrent client on Windows after Torrent was acquired by BitTorrent, Inc."

But I'm not sure why you're so opposed to the idea of using closed source software on...Windows. Especially if uTorrent is extremelly good software (and I think we'd hear by now/somebody would discover it if its closed nature and deal of Bittorent would pose any threat to users)

BTW, seeing as you greatly prefer light software I'd suggest Opera instead of Firefox/Thunderbird, Abiword/Gnumeric instead of OpenOffice, Miranda instead of Pidgin and smplayer instead of VLC ;P

Re:Nice.....

[crhylove]

Those are all good suggestions but I MUCH prefer firefox to opera..... And I am completely a VLC whore.

utorrent is not to be trusted since version 1.6 from what I've heard. I don't have access to the code, though, so I could be wrong, which brings me back to:

I go with FOSS unless there is a VERY good reason not to, and other than skype and utorrent, I don't have any!!!

Also, abiword has many bugs in it's screen display compared to openoffice writer. Also, it's not so much light software I'm after, but CLEAN software. I run everything portable and do not alter the registry. I am a HUGE fanboy of everything here:

http://portableapps.com/

And yes, they have abiword and gnumeric and miranda, too.... :)

Re:Nice.....

[sznupi]

There are other ways than acces to source code to discover that app is doing something suspicious...and I imagine some number of people keep an eye on what uTorrent is doing, considering how popular it is and so on...

As for the rest of your post...well, let us just agree to admit that we have different approach to minimalism ;P (in my case it's efficiency of apps and how well they behave that matters - but I don't mind if that involves registry (as long as usage of it is well behaved...))

PS. Why you're not on Linux if FOSS is so important? Occasional game without willing to restart? (as is in my case, usually due to p2p running in the background and Opera with hundred or two tabs open; reopening would take way too long for my liking). Skype for Linux can now do basically all of what Windows version can, and on Linux you have probably the lightest & most efficient bt client http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTorrent

Re:Nice.....

[crhylove]

I dual boot. But most of the apps I regularly use seem to work better in Windows, or are Windows only. Firefox is a good example. It works much better in Windows. Skype also works much better under MS. I get nearly double the outgoing resolution!!

No deposit, no return

[westlake]

Manufacturers of small cheap trinkets had better be worried because their time is next.

It is the geek who needs to worry when the designer and engineer is driven out of business by the unlicensed replicator.

He can't sell service because his product is disposable.

He can't recruit talent outside his own craft because he has nothing to offer as payment in return.

He can't live on the proceeds of a live performance. The sale of tee shirts and coffee mugs - the little trinkets his fellow geeks have made so easy to pirate.

Re:No deposit, no return

[skarphace]

Manufacturers of small cheap trinkets had better be worried because their time is next.

It is the geek who needs to worry when the designer and engineer is driven out of business by the unlicensed replicator.

He can't sell service because his product is disposable.

He can't recruit talent outside his own craft because he has nothing to offer as payment in return.

He can't live on the proceeds of a live performance. The sale of tee shirts and coffee mugs - the little trinkets his fellow geeks have made so easy to pirate.

Okay by me. This is when you enter the Star Trek style world where money is irrelevant. The only thing worth anything would be complex/large items(i.e.cars, houses) and food.

features needed!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already some p2p applications with a search function, like emule.
However, these are in no way an alternative to a good indexer. People need descriptons and screenshots of a release, the nfo (containing the install instructions, limitations, serials, cd-keys) comments and tags (real? working? virus?), number of downloads (popularity), the ability to subscribe to release channels (i.e. latest tv-shows so they get automatically downloaded each time), Top100 lists by filetype and genre, etc.
A search that indexes files like rld-xyz.iso is rather weak.

Get a real job

[Chris Acheson]

Tough luck. Time for a career change.

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[Stanislav_J]

Under current copyright law, nothing ever becomes public domain and they have turned it into a perpetual right to milk a creation forevermore without ever giving anything back to the public that gave them that monopoly to begin with.

Even after the teets have run dry, and there's no more profit to "milk" from a work, they will still hang onto the copyright to prevent anyone else from possibly themselves gaining any benefit from it. Sometimes there is no effort even made to profit from a work -- there are quite a few older TV shows and movies and such that are locked up in vaults, sitting there making zero profit for their rights holders, usually because the remaining appeal of the work is considered too narrow to be profitable. (Too small of a customer base for a corporation's lofty financial desires.) If they are no longer making money off it, whether through market forces or by calculated choice, the work should pass into the public domain instead of being held hostage.

Cognitive Dissonance

[westlake]

Anarchy is the radical notion that other people are not your property.

But the work of another's mind and hand is yours for the taking?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[hostyle]

Let me see ... 5 seconds at $10 per second ... carry the one ... you owe me $50 dollars sir. Expect an invoice in the mail.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Chris Acheson]

If you trade the product of your labor (physical or mental) to me, it becomes mine. You don't retain the right to determine what I do with it. I am free to make a duplicate of it, just as I am with any other item that belongs to me. If you don't like that fact, you're free not to trade with me in the first place.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[scarboni888]

that's fscking right, bitch.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[westlake]

If you trade the product of your labor (physical or mental) to me, it becomes mine.

But your download from the P2P nets isn't a trade with the producer. Nor have you bargained for the rights to its redistribution.

Then you are pretty fucking clueless aren't ya

[way2trivial]

Gosh- you haven't heard of it- it must not exist?

they do-- in lots of form factors and pricepoints.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=3d+scanner&spell=1

Oft Repeated Nonsense

[mcrbids]

Digital files can be copied without depriving the original owner of theirs, be it software or music. Your money was taken from you leaving you with less (I hope your insurance covered it).

Eh... duh? The issue isn't that "copying" a work deprives the original author of his or her copy. See the definition of "copy". You'll find that it's a very old word.

The issue is that in so doing, you destroy the merchantability of the work in question. Since economics require a balance of supply and demand, and since copying can be done infinitely (killing any such balance) then economic restrictions are in place so that economic activity can continue.

This is a *good thing*. If you want to do anything, push to have the copyright terms brought back the reasonable timeframe they initially were...

Now just imagine once 3d printers become cheap enough for the common household... Manufacturers of small cheap trinkets had better be worried because their time is next.

Hopefully, copyrights will apply then.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[alexgieg]

The issue is that in so doing, you destroy the merchantability of the work in question. Not really. You just change it. Instead of making an economic calculation based on how many people wanting your intellectual production might see themselves obliged to pay for it, you'll do it based on how many people wanting your intellectual production are willing to voluntarily pay you for it. There will still be paying people, just in a somewhat smaller amount, and under a different distribution. The end result will be a changed market, not a non-existent one. But it's not possible to predict in which way it'll change.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[Chris Acheson]

You don't have a right to merchantability beyond your ability to achieve it. Why would "loss of merchantability" be actionable in the case of copying, but not in the case of competition?

In the case of economic activity, more is not necessarily better. These kinds of interventions boil down to "make work" for producers, which doesn't actually serve any consumer needs.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[rohan972]

Instead of making an economic calculation based on how many people wanting your intellectual production might see themselves obliged to pay for it, you'll do it based on how many people wanting your intellectual production are willing to voluntarily pay you for it.

Well, most purchases of copyright works are voluntary anyway, certainly music and movies. I do understand what you mean though. There is also, how many people will pay you to experience your production vs how may people will pay you because they experienced your production.

As an example: we bought the movie "Cars". Our children now have various items of Cars merchandise that they like because they like the movie. So we have paid money for the movie and because of the movie. If the movie had been offered as a free download, they still would have made money from us. Less though, and nobody wants less money.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[DavidShor]

Yes, producers will do this. But it's pretty clear that production of intellectual property, while non-zero, is going to be below the social optimum. This isn't that big a deal with music, which is mainly a positional good anyway, but is more important with things like microprocessor research.

Mind you, there is a lot of economic evidence that our current copyright system decreases production(Long copyright periods produce income streams that can be lived off).

But the solution, is to change copyright periods so that we can can as close to the optimum level of production as possible(Some estimates are around 14 years, there is a lot of literature on the subject).

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[Morgaine]

You don't have a right to merchantability beyond your ability to achieve it. Why would "loss of merchantability" be actionable in the case of copying, but not in the case of competition?

Well said.

It's worth considering also that the fallacious "right to merchantability" has another silly counterpart in the "right to [potential] profit", which the content providers proclaim is being attacked by file sharing.

Using your form of words, it needs to be stated loudly and often that "You don't have a right to profit beyond your ability to achieve it." And "potential" merely means "maximum", and not that it's already yours.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[slysithesuperspy]

It just changes, perhaps they will make their money doing live concerts and give their music away for free.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[Peaker]

Long copyright periods produce income streams that can be lived off I think this is the minor thing stifling progress.

The much more important issue is that virtually all progress is a derivative work. Long copyrights disallow the creation of derivative works of anything under copyright.

Thus, virtually all potential progress is inhibited by long copyrights.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[DavidShor]

Yes, that is a very good point. I was trying to be terse, but here is more on the subject: There are 3 main costs to extending copyright beyond the optimal period. 1) As I talked about before, authors live off their previous work, decreasing incentive to work. This decreases the amount of content that society can produce. 2) Quite simply, people are deprived of their ability to consume content that they would have consumed if it were free. This is usually justified by "if the price was 0, then nothing would be produced", but beyond the optimal period, that is no longer true. 3) Copyright laws drastically increase transaction costs and make production of derivative works more complicated. Look at the difficulty of rescuing orphan movies, or the prosecution against fan-works.

Re:Oft Repeated Nonsense

[Hyperspite]

At that point, who cares about the national economy if everyone can print what they want? It's not like you'll get anything more for working.... Maybe land?

Not working in BitTyrant?

[The MAZZTer]

Does this not work in the Azureus-based BitTyrant or is it just me? I type in my query and hit search and nothing happens.

TorChat, Encrypted File Transfers

[Anonymous Coward]

TorChat has file transfer now!

http://code.google.com/p/torchat/

TorChat is a peer to peer instant messenger with a completely decentralized design, built on top of Tor's location hidden services, giving you extremely strong anonymity while being very easy to use without the need to install or configure anything.

TorChat just runs from an USB drive on any Windows PC. (It can run on Linux and Mac too, in fact it was developed on Linux with cross platform usability in mind from the very first moment on, but the installation on other platforms than Windows is a bit more complicated at the moment)

Tor location hidden services basically means:
Nobody will be able to find out where you are.
If they are already observing you and sniff your internet connection they will not be able to find out
what you send or receive (everything is end-to-end encrypted)
to whom you are sending or receiving from
where your contacts are located

Howto: Chat anonymously over the Tor Network with Torchat and Ubuntu!
http://www.ubuntu-unleashed.com/2008/03/howto-chat-anonymously-over-tor-network.html

*********************
But I still suggest a fork of the tor network for p2p trackers & file transfers, creating several networks

Re:You might want to read the bill of rights close

[Hal_Porter]

Although it is funny to imagine George Washington with a surfer accent. "GNARLY, I like, totally can't tell a lie, DUDE." That reminds me. There's a remake of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in the works.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20080402_bill_ted_remake_yep_and_we_got.html

Re coercive enclosure and commodification

[Morgaine]

> There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas. If you're going to assert such a right, then the onus is on you to justify it.

Bad suggestion (in bold). One thing people are never short of is justifications.

A better approach might be to describe harshly but accurately how those who coercively enclose and commodify ideas are actually seeking to create an artificial scarcity of product and an artificial curtailing of derivative invention. No amount of justification can make that right.

Re:Re coercive enclosure and commodification

[mi]

how those who coercively enclose and commodify ideas are actually seeking to create an artificial scarcity of product and an artificial curtailing of derivative invention.

Are you seriously spouting these SAT-words here to claim, that it is possible to create "an artificial scarcity" of songs? Or movies? Or purse-designs?..

Re:Re coercive enclosure and commodification

[Chris Acheson]

Well, he is making the positive claim, here. I can break down whatever justifications he provides.

Also, it's a deontological assertion. Were he to justify it, a consequentialist response wouldn't refute it.

It's right here in the Constitution

[OMNIpotusCOM]

Apparently it's the 9th Amendment

Proposed New Business Model for Artists

[PingPongBoy]

Here's how the argument has been going.

Digital files can be copied without depriving the original owner of theirs, be it software or music. Your money was taken from you leaving you with less (I hope your insurance covered it).

Eh... duh? The issue isn't that "copying" a work deprives the original author of his or her copy. See the definition of "copy". You'll find that it's a very old word.

The issue is that in so doing, you destroy the merchantability of the work in question. Since economics require a balance of supply and demand, and since copying can be done infinitely (killing any such balance) then economic restrictions are in place so that economic activity can continue.


Another poster has commented on the scarcity of good creativity.

But surely there is something flawed because after all, copies are next to free labor and materialwise and if you listen to a good song or look at a nice picture, you have a copy in your frickin head. If you can sing or draw, you can reproduce with a bit of labor what you experienced. Then what's so bad about having a machine do the recording especially when BILLIONS have been invested in advancing technology to the point where high fidelity copies are affordable by the masses? This technology is good for us and should be something we use and enjoy to its fullest extent.

To balance things out, there's a downside, though only a small one. If a good artist produces something easily copied, the solution is not to clamp down on the copying. The old business model depended on copies being difficult. In that business model, each copy sold for peanuts to individuals. Well, it's a no brainer to dump the old business model.

The new business model will be sell the first copy for what it's worth, by way of auction or expert opinion. So an organization can pay the artist the big bucks up front and let everyone have a copy for free. It works out to the same thing but with less ranting and more perceived fairness. It's a lot more user friendly too.

Then it's up to people, as it always is, to pay into the organization, which in turn makes art widely available. Aside from the rampant willingness of some politicians to give grants, people should recognize the value of art and fork out money to keep good artists producing--there is a willingness to contribute, from what I see of Wikipedia donations.

What any artist receives is a matter of subjectivity and debate, but the amount could be paid over a period of time based on how people respond. The main thing is to ensure that the cash is flowing and keeping everything smooth. Is that win win or what?

That's great and all, but...

[Laogeodritt]

... what about comments and description? Yes, the description is available in the torrent file ... though it may or may not be better than the description one would type in on an index website. As for comments, I rather appreciate being able to confirm the legitimacy of a torrent through user comments (especially for software) and be able to request information or help on minor problems from other users.

I actually am using Cubit

[scarboni888]

I did a search for Battlestar Galactica & the results were horrible compared to searching on TPB. It looks promising but so far it's not really useful.

That's as obvious as it gets

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously spouting these SAT-words here to claim, that it is possible to create "an artificial scarcity" of songs? Or movies? Or purse-designs?

That's what the RIAA etc are trying to do, create an artificial scarcity of music by seeking to make file sharing illegal.

It is a natural property of digital data that it can be replicated ad infinitum without cost or loss. Anything which seeks to limit that is attempting to create an artificial scarcity.

Tried it.....

[crhylove]

So, umm yeah, I tried halite. I tried opening a torrent with the right click "Open with" option, which failed, then I tried the open option natively inside halite.... also failed. I mean, I could not get a torrent to load 8 ways from sunday. It looks promising, but it's a long way from actually being usable!! :)

Re:Tried it.....

[sznupi]

I wuldn't know; yeah, TBH I haven't actually tried it, I'm just aware of its exisrence "just in case" (as I wrote I see no reason to be unhappy with uTorrent...for now (although latest beta seems to eb taking it in the wrong direction IMHO))

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion