Brightnets are Owner Free File Systems

elucido writes "OFF, or the Owner-Free Filesystem is a distributed filesystem in which everything is stored in reference to randomized data blocks, as opposed to a 1:1 copy of the original data being inserted. The creators of the Owner-Free Filesystem have coined a new term to define the network: A brightnet. Nobody shares any copyrighted files, and therefore nobody needs to hide away. OFF provides a platform through which data can be stored (publicly or otherwise) in a discreet, distributed manner. The system allows for personal privacy because data (blocks) being transferred from peer to peer do not bear any relation to the original data. Incidentally, no data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random." Their main wiki page discusses a bit of what this means and how it might work as well. I've been saying that we need this for many years now, if only because we all have 10 gigs free on our machines and if we could RAID the internet we'd need fewer hard drives.

Comments

Not a Brightnet yet

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

My network is still on the fence when it comes to the existence of God.

Re:Not a Brightnet yet

[A nonymous Coward]

My network is still on the fence when it comes to the existence of God.

Are there turtles on the fenceposts?

Underneath, yes; it's turtles all the way down.

Re:Data != Information

[larry bagina]

When the RIAA files a lawsuit, you can testify in court that you were actually downloading kiddie porn.

Re:Data != Information

[inviolet]

It's not the data that's protected by copyright, it's what the data represents.

No matter how you mangle the data when storing it or transferring it from one location to another, the end result is the same. They're trying to use semantics and technical voodoo to get around copyright law. It won't work.

Defense: I didn't do it.
Prosecution: We found the body in your apartment, hidden under your bed.
Defense: It is true that I placed a fast-moving bullet into the air adjacent to his chest, but if there happened to be any later consequences, those were not clearly visible from the location of the trigger.
Jury: Hang him.

So yeah, this is no legal defense. But perhaps it wasn't meant to be one. It seems like subterfuge, countersurveillance, and plausible deniability than anything else. But that plausibility won't hold up long, because the courts will soon say "If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits." They'd make you extract the original content from the blocks, which hopefully haven't later disappeared off the internet, and if you couldn't do it then you'd be in hot water.

Re:Huh?

[ZeroExistenZ]

If what they claimed is true doesn't that make a zip file of a dvd image downloaded via bit-torrent ( and everything ) legal?

Only if you zip it twice and shake your laptop (or wiggle your PC) during the process for randomizing some bits.

Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that!

[Oktober Sunset]

feed 'em to the dog and see if it goes bananas?

Re:Short version

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.... This is all petty semantics from a legal standpoint. When you're in civil court attempting to defend yourself, you can not argue about the law like you argue about DnD rules.

Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that!

[adpsimpson]

Wait, are you calling me a debian newbie, or a human-geek-slashdot newbie?

Either way, I'm fairly sure the output would actually be more like:

$ sudo apt-get install common-sense && man common-sense
common-sense is a meta package
The following NEW packages will be installed:
RMS-logic RMS-common_sense RMS-IP_thoughts
The following currently installed package(s) will be removed:
human_society
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?