It's not like writers don't have their work show up on Kazza et al as well. I periodically scan for my books, and I usually see them available.
In my case, I don't own the copyrights, so there's not a lot I can say about whether that's ok or not. If you assume it's hurting sales, then it also affects my royalty checks.
Actually, squid already has peer-to-peer functionality built-in now. Squid proxies can already work in a distributed fashion to form a larger meta-cache.
OK, so I thought I'd heard something about that. SO, what's the end result? If two clients behind two different peered squid proxies ask for the same file.. say squid A has it, squid B doesn't.... Does squid B get the whole file from A, or does it get half from A and half from the original site, or what? At the end, both proxies end up with a full copy of the file?
A squid proxy is more permanent than a client (can keep the cached copy available for some amount of time); it already has peer-to-peer code built in over udp, tcp and even multicast; and the firewall issues are usually already worked out;
So, just as it is with HTTP, you'd want your squid proxy to be both a BitTorrent client and BitTorrent "server" (tracker.)
Hmm... No, I take that back, I can't see why it should be a tracker.. just another peer (client). The original tracker site keeps doing it's same function, and the squid proxy just acts as a high-speed peer. I think there might need to be a change somewhere so that the client behind the proxy is told to favor the squid peer. It might eventually happen at random, but I wonder if you wouldn't want to help it.
(I'm assuming the squid proxy wants to help the users "behind" it, and not the entire world. At least, not the entire world beyond what it has to in order to get the file itself in the first place.)
Still need some extensions to HTTP servers and clients to make the process more automatic. You'd want the clients to volunteer Application/X-BitTorrent or something as one of the file types they could do, and then the web server would have to be able to respond appropriately.
That's probably not a bad place to put it. You still need to put the client functionality in, unless you're thinking of a peer network of squid proxies... (not that something like that is impossible.)
There's still a basic problem, which I've rambled on about on Slashdot before. Not all web content is suitable for BitTorrent. In fact, it's really only the big, static files.
Think about this article... it's different every time you load it.
Where you want to use BitTorrent is your.mp3 files, your movies, etc...
I think p2p is here to stay, and there are still features that need to be put in place univerally before it's mature, and all the various p2p flavors are comparable.
The various bits are there scattered across different p2p networks. IMNSHO, all p2p networks/clients ought to have:
-Swarming (as defined/used in BitTorrent) -Privacy/anonymity (perhaps as much as in Freenet) -Good searching (Kazaa, Napster, those types. With room for improvement all around) -Open-source clients with no ads/spyware -Decentralized/self-organizing networks (no central point of failure, or at least minimal) -Browser/web server hooks to autoswarm web content (there ought to be bittorrent:// links)
Pardon my BitTorrent bias. I moderate the bittorrent_help mailing list, so I have more exposure to that.
All these features should someday be pushed into numerous language libraries, so that they become ubiquitous.
Heh, I wonder how how $100 for 125Mhz MIPS32 with all needed hardware included compares to other platforms in terms of price/performance for distributed computing applications...
If you wrote a KLM version of NFS, you could. I'm under the impression that NFS is a kernel-compile option. I could easily be wrong, though... haven't compiled my own kernel since 2.2.
The hardware is obviously all there to do so. If you're good at cross-compiling your own kernel and packaging it in the appropriate format, you could get the software set up correctly, too. I think the main barrier to this kind of experimentation is that if you flash it with a non-working image, you've got no ware to put a new flash image back on with software.
The broadcom driver is a KLM, why would that stop you from upgrading the kernel?
(It's not the driver that's a problem; it's the fact that if you don't have a development version of the board that is easy to re-flash, and you flash it with something that doesn't boot perfectly, then you can't flash it via software any longer.)
Not yet, no NFS. This guy is specifically trying to avoid reflashing the box. You could of course compile a version of the kernel with NFS support and include the requisite utilities, if you're brave. One problem so far is that there's just the flash ROM, there's no oops-I-screwed-up-the-flash standalone ROM. So, if you render it unbootable, you've also lost your software flash programming interface, and it's time to break out the soldering iron.
The (potential) problem with any of these is the TV display. Basically, if he's got a regular (non-HD or related) TV, any text functions or web browsing will look like crap. If he doesn't already have an HDTV, then that will eat up most of the $1000.
If you take that into consideration, I believe a modded XBox is the only choice out of the settops under discussion here that can do component out at greater than NTSC resolution. Then there's always a dedicated PC. I don't think you can get both a PC and a HDTV for $1000. You might do an XBox (w/mods) and an HDTV for that, if you're OK with doing mod work and Linux sysadmin.
I see. So I can't simply buy a share of BMG, and help myself to all the BMG mp3s legally simply because BMG has not explicitly granted that right to shareholders. So does being a shareholder give me the right to do as I wish with all the corporate assets or not? No, of course it doesn't.
So, if a company is formed with the express purpose of sharing copies of something they have purchased with shareholders, does that make it legal? You think that might be so, if it's not explicitly prohibited.
So what gives anyone a right to make a copy of a copyrighted work ever, if they don't hold the copyright? Fair use (what little is left of it.) Fair use typically says that you are entitled to make a limited number of backup copies, or use small portions of the work in other works for reference purposes. The latter provision doesn't seem to apply here.
So, is it reasonable to think that a court would find that a reasonable legal definition of "backup" would be a single song for which copies exists on a million computers, all of which are being listened to simultaneously? I don't think so. That doesn't sound like a "backup" to me. Nor does it sound like "a limited number of backups."
And BTW "space shift the corporately owned CDs" would mean mailing CDs around, which you are probably free to do, as long as you no longer retain a copy. Remember that media is the container (plastic disc) whereas the bits it holds is content.
So yes, the premise of my note you are replying to seem ridiculous. That's because it is, and I'm mocking Cringely.
So you think the software license applies to the software copyright owner as well? You're saying Microsoft can't make copies of Windows in order to sell them, because of the EULA? Or if they can, then so could I, because as a proud owner of my single Microsoft share, I are Microsoft. So goes Cringley's theory.
We'll sell shares in the Library of Congress. They will be issued to all citizens of the US, and the government can come up with some sort of service to collect revenue to fund it. Then, we'll have the right to a copy of anything in the Library of Congress (inc, tm (r)).
Now to figure out some way to trick all of the producers of copyrighted works into giving a copy to the Library of Congress...
Yeah, I'm sure it would work great. There does seem to be this little "leap" there in the middle... let's see:
1) Buy 100,000 CDs 2) Suddenly every shareholder somehow now has a right to have a copy of that CD which they will make full use of (way beyond fair use) 3) Profit!
Wow, I'm impressed. Cringley has uncovered the long-sought step 2.
Really, I think he may run into a little trouble with the idea that a shareholder suddenly has rights to everything the corp has a single copy of. Heck, that wouldn't even fly if the corp held the original copyright. If it did, I'd be set! Buy a share of Microsoft, get a free copy of any MS software I want. Buy a share of SCO, I can run all the unix-like software in the world I want. Heck, I don't need Cringley, I'll just buy a share of each of the 6 or so music companies, and then I'm cool getting whatever I want from Kazaa.
But who knows, maybe in some strange way, he's right. Just in case, I present the open-source version of his plan:
I form a corporation for $100 dollars or so. I issue 10 billion non-public shares. I make each of you an officer in the corp, and issue you a share. You take a CD that you have a copy of, and transfer ownership of it to the corp. This is a distributed corporation, so you will be storing said CD in your home. You then rip the CD in MP3, OGG, etc.. and store on your harddrive. You then join the private corp p2p net. BTW, in order to actually sign up for the corporation and receive your share, you join the p2p network. To indicate that you wish to transfer ownership of your CD, you rip it and make the files available on the p2p network.
Yes, in the sense that the "illegal" trackers don't some to mingle with the legal content. The sites that seem to have ISOs and such don't seem to have The Hulk, and vice-versa.
There's always a chance that the legal stuff may be affected by reputation, or that the ??AA will somehow manage to get an insane law passed that outlaws even the non-infringing uses, but I think those are fairly unlikely.
It doesn't work the way you probably think it does. There's no relationship between the various trackers. Copyright holders can go after trackers with infringing content all they want. The trackers that stick to files that they can legally distribute should have no reason to be molested.
Bittorrent is a great application for those situations when large downloads like the Red Hat ISOs are hard to get through the normal servers. Piracy is piracy, and it should be shut down. End of story.
And that's the current situation. Notice that torrentse.cx is gone, and you can still get the RedHat ISOs. Different trackers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Jewel has absolutely no say in the matter, it's up to her record label. They tend to be not so generous.
It's not like writers don't have their work show up on Kazza et al as well. I periodically scan for my books, and I usually see them available.
In my case, I don't own the copyrights, so there's not a lot I can say about whether that's ok or not. If you assume it's hurting sales, then it also affects my royalty checks.
What I usually tell people is don't rely on obscurity, but go ahead and take advantage of it.
Actually, squid already has peer-to-peer functionality built-in now. Squid proxies can already work in a distributed fashion to form a larger meta-cache.
OK, so I thought I'd heard something about that. SO, what's the end result? If two clients behind two different peered squid proxies ask for the same file.. say squid A has it, squid B doesn't.... Does squid B get the whole file from A, or does it get half from A and half from the original site, or what? At the end, both proxies end up with a full copy of the file?
A squid proxy is more permanent than a client (can keep the cached copy available for some amount of time); it already has peer-to-peer code built in over udp, tcp and even multicast; and the firewall issues are usually already worked out;
So, just as it is with HTTP, you'd want your squid proxy to be both a BitTorrent client and BitTorrent "server" (tracker.)
Hmm... No, I take that back, I can't see why it should be a tracker.. just another peer (client). The original tracker site keeps doing it's same function, and the squid proxy just acts as a high-speed peer. I think there might need to be a change somewhere so that the client behind the proxy is told to favor the squid peer. It might eventually happen at random, but I wonder if you wouldn't want to help it.
(I'm assuming the squid proxy wants to help the users "behind" it, and not the entire world. At least, not the entire world beyond what it has to in order to get the file itself in the first place.)
Still need some extensions to HTTP servers and clients to make the process more automatic. You'd want the clients to volunteer Application/X-BitTorrent or something as one of the file types they could do, and then the web server would have to be able to respond appropriately.
That's probably not a bad place to put it. You still need to put the client functionality in, unless you're thinking of a peer network of squid proxies... (not that something like that is impossible.)
.mp3 files, your movies, etc...
There's still a basic problem, which I've rambled on about on Slashdot before. Not all web content is suitable for BitTorrent. In fact, it's really only the big, static files.
Think about this article... it's different every time you load it.
Where you want to use BitTorrent is your
I think p2p is here to stay, and there are still features that need to be put in place univerally before it's mature, and all the various p2p flavors are comparable.
The various bits are there scattered across different p2p networks. IMNSHO, all p2p networks/clients ought to have:
-Swarming (as defined/used in BitTorrent)
-Privacy/anonymity (perhaps as much as in Freenet)
-Good searching (Kazaa, Napster, those types. With room for improvement all around)
-Open-source clients with no ads/spyware
-Decentralized/self-organizing networks (no central point of failure, or at least minimal)
-Browser/web server hooks to autoswarm web content (there ought to be bittorrent:// links)
Pardon my BitTorrent bias. I moderate the bittorrent_help mailing list, so I have more exposure to that.
All these features should someday be pushed into numerous language libraries, so that they become ubiquitous.
Heh, I wonder how how $100 for 125Mhz MIPS32 with all needed hardware included compares to other platforms in terms of price/performance for distributed computing applications...
If you wrote a KLM version of NFS, you could. I'm under the impression that NFS is a kernel-compile option. I could easily be wrong, though... haven't compiled my own kernel since 2.2.
The hardware is obviously all there to do so. If you're good at cross-compiling your own kernel and packaging it in the appropriate format, you could get the software set up correctly, too. I think the main barrier to this kind of experimentation is that if you flash it with a non-working image, you've got no ware to put a new flash image back on with software.
The broadcom driver is a KLM, why would that stop you from upgrading the kernel?
(It's not the driver that's a problem; it's the fact that if you don't have a development version of the board that is easy to re-flash, and you flash it with something that doesn't boot perfectly, then you can't flash it via software any longer.)
Yes, but maybe that's because it was a Linux box to begin with.
Doesn't do the VPN function, though.
Not yet, no NFS. This guy is specifically trying to avoid reflashing the box. You could of course compile a version of the kernel with NFS support and include the requisite utilities, if you're brave. One problem so far is that there's just the flash ROM, there's no oops-I-screwed-up-the-flash standalone ROM. So, if you render it unbootable, you've also lost your software flash programming interface, and it's time to break out the soldering iron.
I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
a y_Resolutions_are_supported
One of the more useful links I found when looking into this:
http://playstation2-linux.com/faq.php#Which_Displ
The file is named "molpeg.mpg", I'm guessing that implies MOL, which the poster said he didn't want.
The (potential) problem with any of these is the TV display. Basically, if he's got a regular (non-HD or related) TV, any text functions or web browsing will look like crap. If he doesn't already have an HDTV, then that will eat up most of the $1000.
If you take that into consideration, I believe a modded XBox is the only choice out of the settops under discussion here that can do component out at greater than NTSC resolution. Then there's always a dedicated PC. I don't think you can get both a PC and a HDTV for $1000. You might do an XBox (w/mods) and an HDTV for that, if you're OK with doing mod work and Linux sysadmin.
I just write about it:
w book.cfm?ID=632 :)
http://www.elsevier-international.com/e-books/vie
I see. So I can't simply buy a share of BMG, and help myself to all the BMG mp3s legally simply because BMG has not explicitly granted that right to shareholders. So does being a shareholder give me the right to do as I wish with all the corporate assets or not? No, of course it doesn't.
So, if a company is formed with the express purpose of sharing copies of something they have purchased with shareholders, does that make it legal? You think that might be so, if it's not explicitly prohibited.
So what gives anyone a right to make a copy of a copyrighted work ever, if they don't hold the copyright? Fair use (what little is left of it.) Fair use typically says that you are entitled to make a limited number of backup copies, or use small portions of the work in other works for reference purposes. The latter provision doesn't seem to apply here.
So, is it reasonable to think that a court would find that a reasonable legal definition of "backup" would be a single song for which copies exists on a million computers, all of which are being listened to simultaneously? I don't think so. That doesn't sound like a "backup" to me. Nor does it sound like "a limited number of backups."
And BTW "space shift the corporately owned CDs" would mean mailing CDs around, which you are probably free to do, as long as you no longer retain a copy. Remember that media is the container (plastic disc) whereas the bits it holds is content.
So yes, the premise of my note you are replying to seem ridiculous. That's because it is, and I'm mocking Cringely.
So you think the software license applies to the software copyright owner as well? You're saying Microsoft can't make copies of Windows in order to sell them, because of the EULA? Or if they can, then so could I, because as a proud owner of my single Microsoft share, I are Microsoft. So goes Cringley's theory.
OK, I thought of an improvement.
We'll sell shares in the Library of Congress. They will be issued to all citizens of the US, and the government can come up with some sort of service to collect revenue to fund it. Then, we'll have the right to a copy of anything in the Library of Congress (inc, tm (r)).
Now to figure out some way to trick all of the producers of copyrighted works into giving a copy to the Library of Congress...
Yeah, I'm sure it would work great. There does seem to be this little "leap" there in the middle... let's see:
1) Buy 100,000 CDs
2) Suddenly every shareholder somehow now has a right to have a copy of that CD which they will make full use of (way beyond fair use)
3) Profit!
Wow, I'm impressed. Cringley has uncovered the long-sought step 2.
Really, I think he may run into a little trouble with the idea that a shareholder suddenly has rights to everything the corp has a single copy of. Heck, that wouldn't even fly if the corp held the original copyright. If it did, I'd be set! Buy a share of Microsoft, get a free copy of any MS software I want. Buy a share of SCO, I can run all the unix-like software in the world I want. Heck, I don't need Cringley, I'll just buy a share of each of the 6 or so music companies, and then I'm cool getting whatever I want from Kazaa.
But who knows, maybe in some strange way, he's right. Just in case, I present the open-source version of his plan:
I form a corporation for $100 dollars or so. I issue 10 billion non-public shares. I make each of you an officer in the corp, and issue you a share. You take a CD that you have a copy of, and transfer ownership of it to the corp. This is a distributed corporation, so you will be storing said CD in your home. You then rip the CD in MP3, OGG, etc.. and store on your harddrive. You then join the private corp p2p net. BTW, in order to actually sign up for the corporation and receive your share, you join the p2p network. To indicate that you wish to transfer ownership of your CD, you rip it and make the files available on the p2p network.
I think I'll call it Kazaa.
Yes, in the sense that the "illegal" trackers don't some to mingle with the legal content. The sites that seem to have ISOs and such don't seem to have The Hulk, and vice-versa.
There's always a chance that the legal stuff may be affected by reputation, or that the ??AA will somehow manage to get an insane law passed that outlaws even the non-infringing uses, but I think those are fairly unlikely.
Speaking of Sealand... has no one noticed that Ryan Lackey is giving a talk at Defcon about how Havenco died?
It doesn't work the way you probably think it does. There's no relationship between the various trackers. Copyright holders can go after trackers with infringing content all they want. The trackers that stick to files that they can legally distribute should have no reason to be molested.
The assumption of guilt and plug-pulling is in the language of the DMCA. They pretty much have to if sent a DMCA notice.
Bittorrent is a great application for those situations when large downloads like the Red Hat ISOs are hard to get through the normal servers. Piracy is piracy, and it should be shut down. End of story.
And that's the current situation. Notice that torrentse.cx is gone, and you can still get the RedHat ISOs. Different trackers.