Stanford Researchers Trying to Protect P2P Networks 143
dirvish writes "New Scientist has a story about efforts from researchers at Stanford to protect peer to peer networks from attacks that could be permitted by the proposed Berman Bill. Neil Daswani and Hector Garcia-Molina of the Database Research Department at Stanford University have mathematically modeled the Gnutella network to discriminate between nodes and supernodes. They then tested the nodes to find which rules could be applied to best avoid a malicious node on the network thus conserving bandwidth."
Is all this work really worth it?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is all this work really worth it?? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a trade-off the RIAA and others like it (MPAA) don't realize. The kind of tactics they're using are not just driving people away from the sanctioned download sites, but they're driving people away from CDs themselves!
They're hurting their own user base. Right now, it's a very small percentage of that user base, but it's the educated and motivated portion, which is a danger to them in the long-run.
The Republican takeover of the (U.S.) Senate has at least one positive outcome - the indefinite shelving of the Hollings bill.
Re:Is all this work really worth it?? (Score:2)
Re:Is all this work really worth it?? (Score:5, Interesting)
JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
Circumventing attacks technologically is a good thing.
But stopping Congress from passing bad laws is equally as important. Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] and help build a lobbying group that can defend our rights. Her's more info [eff.org] about what your money can do for all of us.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is your opinion, and you have every right to it. It just really bothers me when people say their opinions as facts that everyone else should acknowledge. Personally, I signed a petition showing my support for Ashcroft, which I would sign it again today if it was needed. He agrees with a lot of the things that I agree with. And, Yes, that is my opinion. The ACLU fights for the rights they believe in. Granted, not ever group can defend all of our rights. That is why you should support the group that most aligns with your own ideals. In my case, it would be the EFF, and Ashcroft. The two are made up of- and are people just like you and I. Just as we don't agree, in some cases, they don't either. Such is life.
I bet you're a Sonny and Cher fan (Score:1)
That is why you should support the group that most aligns with your own ideals. In my case, it would be the EFF, and Ashcroft.
I support Eldred [eldred.cc]. Those who support AG Ashcroft are Sonny and Cher fans.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
No comment required on the above. These are indeed Asscraft's constituents.
The above story describes a classic example of a technical fix for what is essentially a political problem. That congress would even consider a bill legalizing such nefarious activity on the part of a corporate elite speaks volumes about who these people in Washington really are. Though I do believe that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is only a matter of degree, I must say that Asscraft has taken political demagoguery to a level heretofore unknown since the invention of writing.
"Lobbying against the rightwing Republicans and Ashcroft is a good thing."
I would only amend this to say that "lobbying against the rightwing" politicians of whatever party "is a good thing." I would also dare to suggest that lobbying against leftwing politicians who have fallen under the charm of massive corporate campaign contributions to the extent that they support bozo legislation that can only lead to a technological spy-vs-spy series of escalating dirty tricks is a good thing.
Ashcroft is an idiot (Score:2)
damage while he is there.
Missouri told me what Ashcroft was (Score:5, Funny)
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2, Interesting)
As far the guy above admitting he supports
Asscraft, well lets just say anyone who supports a strong central authority who wants to invade every nook and cranny of my privacy is not on the same side as me.
Isn't that the kicker though? The Republicans for all their "less government in our lives mantra" sure are hell bent on not only telling everyone what they can and can't do to their body, but they want a MASSIVE government agency perpetually monitor our personal space as well.
I could go on and on why I'm shocked why anyone but white farmers with no exposure to minorities vote Republican, but suffice to say the "every man for himself/less taxes for the ultra wealthy" doctrine that the Republicans offer up year after year disgusts me. We live in a Community and for better or worse are "all stuck in this together". The sooner we all start realizing that and work on things like Full national health-care and tax laws which benefits more than the wealthiest citizens(elimination of capital gains and inheritance tax anyone?) the better off we will ALL be.
Its not like the Democrats are some perfect party who never sell out or aren't tagging along with some of Bush's proposals (what do you mean we have to support some of this crazy homeland security stuff to get reelected?), but when push comes to shove I'll take the party that better supports women, minorities, non-Christians, and in general the labor class.
You Republicans are now free to accuse me of waging class warfare, but remember your the ones whose policies encourge it.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
As for Ashcroft, and the rest of the republicans, they follow big money just as much as the Democrats.
Again, support the EFF.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows that the ACLU is hardly an unbiased organization. They support the first amendment, but only to the extent that it doesn't impede their own leftist agenda. Meanwhile, other important rights, like self defense and religion, are ignored or even attacked.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2, Informative)
-Craig
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:1, Interesting)
The EFF, OTOH, is someone I believe people on both sides of the aisle can support and so I do support them.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think it's the republicans you have to worry about. The democrats have been the ones pushing this legislation. A couple recent examples including the p2p bill in question:
CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act) - Sponsored by Sen. Hollings (D-SC), co-sponsored by 4 other dems and one republican.
P2P Bill - Sponsered by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal)
Also take a look at how the Music/Movie industry spends their money. 17 of the top 20 recipients are Democrat.
TV/Movies/Music: Top 20 Recipients [opensecrets.org]
Now who would you say is in the back pocket of the Movie/Music business?
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:1)
I would say both parties are, as is the case with any large business. Otherwise, why aren't more repubs opposing this indefensible legislation?
However, to the extent that it makes sense to differentiate between the parties, all the blame for the next two years' hideous legislation can be placed on the GOP, as they now control the entire federal government.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:3, Interesting)
I belong to both. I first joined the ACLU, but then I noticed that while they do alot of excellent work, they get alot of their money and support from wealthy people in the media industries. It therefore seemed there were certain issues, relating to copyrights and intellectual property, for which the EFF seemed more aligned with my interests.
I think both are excellent organizations.
-- p
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
It reminds me of the opposition to the war. All these left wing democrats were attacking Republicans while it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who were often the ones raising the difficult questions.
I will be honest. I hate knee jerk party politics. Those who say "ACLU no matter what" or "Democrat no matter what" or "Republican no matter what" or what ever really irritate the hell out of me. It turns politics into a debate about what team you are on rather than an effective discussion of ideas and their implementation. As soon as someone falls into those categories I'm almost always inclined to tune them out because I know all I'll hear are strawmen designed to help their team. It's like a pep rally from High School. "Go team go!"
Damn. What happened to politics being about effective service.
I can think of lots of rights that the ACLU doesn't fight for. If you worry about your rights, work with all sides and try to see all perspectives.
Don't you mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Land of the free" indeed. You guys need a new slogan.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:1)
Comrad, you need to report to a re-education camp.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:3, Funny)
Al-Akhwan Jihad Academy, [armyinkashmir.org]
South Kandahar,
Afghanistan
Salary:
free religious training & Stock Options in Heavenly pleasures (cashable upon death - shaheed)
Special perk: **FREE AK-47**
Tech defenses (Score:2)
I've also put up a few proposals for avoiding the "download slot saturation" attacks that the RIAA/MPAA was originally considering.
It's too bad that P2P people don't have a centralized forum for the discussion of this. Sure, groups like the GDF are good, but a lot of these ideas would be useful to multiple P2P groups, and everyone would benefit from a more attack-resistant, less exploitable network.
Want some cheese? (Score:1)
Computers, america.
movies, america.
mpeg encoding, america.
networking, america.
P2P networks, america.
IP NETWORKING, US Navy
THE GOD DAMN INTERNET, america.
Wouldn't it be nice if the world was still fighting over silk, or tea, or spices?
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the government makes a law that says you can't use missiles to blow up other cars in traffic, then the engineers have to abide by that law, even if they have access to plenty of knowhow and missiles. If the engineers want to blow up traffic with their missiles, they have to lobby legislators.
Explain to me again why similar logic should not apply to these stanford computer scientists?
If they are indeed working on systems to which the law does not apply, then that's one thing. That's scientific progress and appropriate technology policy needs to be formulated. But trying to tell legislators "we know better than you" is immoral.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:1)
The engineers also tell the legislators if their laws need adjusting
Explain to me again why similar logic should not apply to these stanford computer scientists?
The same logic does apply. There are no laws against p2p networks, so why shouldnt these standford computer scientists be free to build their "missiles" of p2p network defense.
If they are indeed working on systems to which the law does not apply, then that's one thing. That's scientific progress and appropriate technology policy needs to be formulated. But trying to tell legislators "we know better than you" is immoral.
The ability to tell legislators that "we know better then you" is a right given to us by the people that founded our country, which is sole reason why we still do have freedoms here in the US.
IMMORAL YOU SAY?? So was it immoral for the millions of people who basicly told legislators that that the people know better them them throughout our history to gain various rights we now take for granted today?
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe the engineers will just kill the legislators with their missiles and avoid the problem entirely. It's hard to pass laws when you're dead.
But trying to tell legislators "we know better than you" is immoral.
Yes, god forbid we should tell our elected representatives what we want them to do. Who the hell do we think we are? Citizens?
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
Tell that to the people of Missouri. In 2000 they voted for a man three weeks dead (Gov. Mel Carnahan) rather than elect John Ashcroft to the Senate. To quote a recent episode of The West Wing, sometimes "there are worse things than being dead."
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
... Look at what happened to Prohibition
The people have the Right to refuse to comply with laws, otherwise Prohibiton would still be in effect. That's why jails are nice and comfortable - because nice people end up there too like Kevin Mitnick and the DeCSS guy.
Police even put gay people in prison just for being gay, WHY DO YOU THINK WARFTP WAS WRITTEN? Here's why [jgaa.com]. The rest of the gory details are buried elsewhere on his site.
Re:JOIN the EFF. It helps. (Score:2)
Honestly... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't cut the head off the p2p snake, you try and at least two or three take it's place.
RIAA/MPAA should be looking at other alternatives rather than going in guns'a blazin'
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're also trying a tactic not very available to the scribes at the time of the printing press - the production of crippled printing presses that couldn't easily copy some documents. But that's like trying to legislate fixed-type printing presses when the movable-type printing press already exists. Again, won't work in the long run.
In the long run, the internet means that there IS NO "Information Economy". Economy as humanity knows it is effectively the redistribution of scarce resources, and the internet makes information non-scarce. Imagine your neighbour had a magic-car-cloning-ray. Would you begrudge him a clone of your car? You'd still have a car, he'd still have a car, everyone's better off.
It's not like he'd be stealing your car. Well, the internet is a magic-information-cloning-ray.
Bad analogy (Score:2)
All I want to point out is that the analogy with the car cloner wasn't exactly fitting. After all, the people who have been copying cd's or software have never complained about it. It's the manufacturers who have a problem with it, and I do believe the auto companies would be quite upset if people stopped buying cars. (Of course, in such a scenario, all they would need to do would be to 'borrow' the car cloner and see if it works on large piles of cash....)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
But you are missing the point. If we can now clone cars, there is no need for automobile assembly lines, since we can *all* have a car. What the IP proponents are proposing is that the cloning machine be outlawed in order to keep the auto manufacturers in business because they have some inherent right to exist, even at the expense of the populace at large. NOT COOL.
"But who will design the new cars?" some will ask.
Listen, if we have cloning machines and everyone can clone what they need, there will be a great deal more time for hobbyists who like to design new cars to come up with really fun new designs on their own. And as new designs come out, *everyone* can have one. No artificial limits, and everyone benefits, you see?
This is exactly what happens now in the free software community, so often maligned as idealists and communists and whatever else... but nobody can deny that the software is excellent... and that the programmers who work on it are happy, because they can work on what they like to work on, contribute it to the world, and expect other peoples' excellent contributions in return... it's a wonderful new age. Why kill it to save some company?
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
When we can find a fair way to distribute the atoms that make up stuff to have amongst the people of this world then this model will work.
If everyone could get everything for free then money would be unnecessary.
But just because that is how it SHOULD work does not mean that that is how it should work right now!
Ok, from the music point of view, yes, the record labels and record production/promotion companies are a dying breed. Let them die.
But car manufacturers? They do more than just design and build the cars, they test them for safety, they repair them etc...
And farmers do more than just grow food.
Its a nice idea and I hope that someday its time comes but I'm going to have to argue that it isn't here yet.
Except maybe for music... (but hey, we have to start somewhere)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:1)
The ones producing cars: car-manufacturers.
The ones 'producing' music: musicians.
So apparently the real issue are the musicians who want to make money from their music, no? Or are (mainstream) musicians being abused by the music-industry and do musicians not care so much about money after all?
Either way, what it comes down to is that apparently the issue is the pay-per-copy stance which is common in the music-industry.
Returning to the car-anology, the car-manufacturers (the music-industry) go out of business, because they're no longer needed and cars (music) are designed and produced by people themselves, not to make a profit, but because they need a car (wish to listen to music).
So in short, it seems that music will end up being produced and distributed because people wish to listen to music, not because they want to make a profit. Everyone can make a copy of any music he or she likes, and on one will be whining about 'lost revenue'.
Seems like the business model of musicians is outdated =P
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
I also clearly stated that I had no intention of arguing whether copyright infringement should be legal or not; it's clearly been beaten into the ground by now, and convincing anyone either way would probably be at least as hard as converting a deeply religious person to a diametrically opposite religion.
Besides, copyright law and all it's implications are too complex to really sum up in a format such as this. It would require something at least the size of a small book to go into all the pros and cons of the idea of copyright, how it's currently implemented, and what would happen if it was modified or abolished.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:1)
You forgot terrorists. Get with the times.
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
Actually, the reason is that a 200 year fridge costs a hell of a lot more than a 7 year fridge, and people aren't willing to pay the higher premium.
SImon
Not with Information and Not in Capitalism (Score:1)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:1)
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure the RIAA would like to control all distribution, but that is not what this argument is about. They didn't want Napster to stop trading all music, they wanted them to stop trading the music the RIAA controls (which, whether you like it or not is their right). Napster could still be around trading music from indie bands that want their stuff traded on it, but no one is interested in that, they are interested in downloading the newest Britney or Backstreet Boys song. If there was P2P that only traded in non-RIAA songs, the RIAA couldn't touch it, but anyone who makes P2P knows that people won't use it if they can't get what they want, and what they want is what the RIAA owns.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, but they did want Napster to stop trading all music. I remember on CNet when I saw a major setback in their case when the Judge said that they needed to provide a list of all copyrighted materials that Napster should be blocking. (I'm not discussing here the merits of trying to block selected content.) They weren't able to just close Napster down, because it did have non-infringing uses. If their copyrights were being violated, then they needed to produce a list of the infringed upon works. This was a major setback, and not what they were asking for.
A few years earlier, they sued Dimond for the Rio mp3 player. Stop all playing of sounds on a new type of device, just because it could be used to infringe copyrights. For the same reason this failed.
They also tried to get rid of audio home recording. Remember even back in the 1970's when they started putting these scary sounding copyright warnings on record albums? They didn't want you even copying to a cassette tape.
They want Napster to stop trading all music, because then you would have a way to listen to music that they don't approve of. (This may sound insane, but it is a plausible conclusion from the facts.)
Re:Honestly... (Score:1)
Whoa, I didn't know that. Are any of these still around?
Re:Honestly... (Score:2)
Dunno, does anyone else have more details on this?
Re:Honestly... (Score:2)
While the marginal costs of information replication are effectively zero, the fixed costs are not. Following your car-cloning-ray example, somebody had to assemble the first car, and whoever did that is paying more for their car then the cloners. Therefore, free rider mentality indicates no one will be the first to assemble a car by hand.
In software, the fixed costs can be amortized across many users, since they all want to use the identical information product. In addition, the fixed costs can be decomposed among many contributors because of the modular nature of (good) software.
In music, however, the fixed costs are more important because the products are not perfect substitutes, and a large-scale collaborative effort is not feasible. To put in another way, unless we all want to listen to a single album (the way we all run one kernel), made by many people contributing a few notes each, we need to find a way to sustain the fixed costs of music production, which in this case means feeding and clothing the artists.
The old model is terminal, but scarcity has not been eliminated.
-- p
Super-Node and Regular Nodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology seems to be a bit limiting from the story, would someone be able to provide more detail? I'm a bit concerned that it would significantly reduce the ability of a normal node to request files indenpendently of everyone else. It seems right now alot of P2P services suffer from "Me too" style networks, where if it is new and popular, everyone has it. But if it is even remotely indie, it seems you're the only one looking.
(as a slightly off-topic aside) Maybe that's just my bad luck, but I've been noticing that trend for awhile now. I wonder if that was the work of the *AAs...plague diverse and robust information exchange systems with a monomeme. Hmmmm....
Do what I do ... share the rare stuff (Score:1)
The rare/indie/hard-to-find stuff I make sure I share, because I knew how much trouble I went to trying to get it. So then there will at least be one more node with it
Re:Super-Node and Regular Nodes? (Score:3, Informative)
If you remember Gutella at first, every node was equal, so every search had to go to the 3 or 4 you where connected to and then the 3 of 4 they where connected to, and people with old computers and slow connections really slowed searching down. Now they (and KaZaA) use super nodes or super peers that have fast computers with lots of ram and a fat pipe. If (say) 20 people connected to a supernode, and the supernode was connected so several other supernodes, search speeds are improved dramatically.
this is just another example... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can see it, and you can hear it, somebody will figure out a way to copy it
Any fighting back is simply bad business for the RIAA. They need to embrace the Internet, and include it in their business model in a much larger way. Gone are the days where people spend $20 on a cd, at least most people.
Re:this is just another example... (Score:1)
They need to embrace Palladium enabled brain implants, and include it in their business model in a much larger way.
What about Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it apparently suffered from
Re:What about Freenet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about Freenet? (Score:1)
Re:What about Freenet? (Score:4, Insightful)
"it apparently suffered from
So it handles DoS's, just not very well?
I hopped in with the rest of the
But are their motives good? (Score:3, Interesting)
The chances are good that the researchers are going to want to keep their funding to their college from their corporate masters, and the knowledge is going to be given to the record companies to be used AGAINST the p2p networks.
Knowledge is power (Score:5, Insightful)
If other groups do research at least it will be a fair fight.
Maybe if looking at different types of attacks methods to protect against them will be found. If effective means can be found to validate requests this could go a long way to reducing all types of DOS attacks.
Attacking defending p2p networks is just a special case. This sort of research may be widely applicable.
Re:But are their motives good? (Score:5, Informative)
also, i'm not positive who is funding his research (that info is all public, if you look you can find out for sure), but i think it isn't corporate in nature - i think it is the defense dept. the US defense element has a high interest in securing p2p networks from attack since future military operations might be based on p2p technologies.
Re:But are their motives good? Of P2P networks? (Score:1)
Re:But are their motives good? Of P2P networks? (Score:2)
Answer: Yes.
People on (most) P2P networks are sharing this music (they're thieves).
People are just doing what they do. People want to listen to music. P2P provides it at acceptable cost vs. the RIAA.
People used to enjoy free music on this thing called Radio. But that has been corrupted, and it seems to not be enjoyed so much.
I think they're both bad....
Did you know that not watching television commercials is stealing. The people who skip the commercials, and the people who make them: I think they're both bad.
They are not thieves. They are copyright infringers. This is not the same thing as if I take your television set.
Thieves? Yep, I'm depriving the artist of a few cents, and the record company executives of a new sports car. I feel so baaaad!
The RIAA is a victim of their own monopoly pricing. (Or more properly cartel or perhaps oligarchy, I'm not an econ major.) They are the victim of their own making every bit as much as Microsoft is with Open Source. On at least two occaisions the RIAA has gotten into trouble for price fixing.
Open source in its modern form probably would have never emerged if a thriving competitive rich software environment existed with reasonable prices, as is the case with computer hardware. Do you think Napster would have emerged if everyone was happily buying reasonably priced music without any arm twisting? (No "album filler".)
(OT: I have a friend who laments how open source hurts Microsoft. I just tell him that Open Source is of Microsoft's own making.)
The people are revolting. The Boston tea party! Those thieves! Stealing the king's tea and dumping it into the river. Refusing to pay the tax. Refusing to comply and be subjugated. Changing culture to do away with tea drinking, and do away with "tea time" in America. The gall!
They are worse then thieves. They are terrorists! They took up arms against the king's soldiers.
Maybe everything isn't quite as black and white as seen through idealistic niave eyes.
Naaah! Nevermind.
P2P users are thieves, not copyright infringers, and should get the full punishment of any thief. Or maybe it is good that the crime of copyright infringement should have a much stiffer jail time than, say robbing a convenience store, after all copyright infringers are thieves of the worst kind!
Payback (Score:4, Interesting)
LAW and P2P (Score:4, Funny)
How about five years in prison for propsing/implementing a copying/p2p technology? Or the threat of a huge $100000 fine?
Strangely mostly people will be put right off. And peer-to-peer requires a peer to peer to...
The man with the lone telephone has no-one to call...
Not Strictly true (Score:1)
Re:LAW and P2P (Score:1)
How about five years in prison for propsing/implementing a copying/p2p technology? Or the threat of a huge $100000 fine?
Americans got the death-sentence, right? UK Police-men don't even wear fire-arms. How does the crime-statistics compare between the US and UK? One would think that US would be better of. But they don't.
The Problem is, punishment doesn't matter for the real criminals. It might deviate those how aren't sure if they want to comit one or not. But most criminals either don't think about the punishmet involed or think they won't get caught on thus will be left unpunished.
I think, what is true for criminals will also be true for civil disobeyant people.
Re:LAW and P2P (Score:2)
This won't stop it.
Can you say the word "prohibition"?
What about legal attacks? (Score:5, Interesting)
How to respond: find those loopholes and exploits in the legal system. Patch and re-open with a new and improved legal proof network. Continue the work at Stanford.
and once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing like earning a Masters/Ph.D that has practical business application.
The answer is rather simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, the system will allow you to legally borrow on a song by song basis. This should meet all current legal issues, because you will not be able to listen to a song while someone else is. But, because everyone doesn't listen to the same song at the same time, not everyone has to own every CD.
Even if DRM is implemented, there must be a way to transfer a file from device to device (assumably removing it from one device) This "system" will just facilitate that transfer on a temporary, song-by-song basis, and keep track of who permenently owns an individual song.
Think of it as a "universal library."
I would love to see the record companies try to find some problems with this. I think the supreme court would smack em on their collective asses.
Wireless+"True Sharing"+Lending Distributer = Totally legal way to screw the record companies.
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The cost to copy information in this age is *zero*. The worst thing we can do is use governments as a way to enforce artifical limits on such a valuable commodity which has been so difficult to come by for so long across most of the human race.
Instead of trying to reinvent newer technologies to remove their benefits and make them as useless as older technologies, we should be rethinking the paradigms which say that only some people should have access to information, as well as the paradigms which say that people have some inherent right to profit for coming up with it.
The age of the Internet may well be the beginning of an age of 'new communism' -- people contribue what they can, with the expectation that in return they will receive other peoples contributions as well; it is in in this way tjat they are fairly compensated. Rather like the way the free software movement works now.
I think the age of the "information economy" should be brought to an end entirely. It would be a shame to take the Internet, which is like an infinite hyper-library, and modify it so that it once again behaves like an old-fashioned book-based library, simply to ensure the maintenance of some kind of "information drought" status quo in the interest of profits.
More than a shame, I think it borders on evil to deprive others of knowledge that there is no *real* barrier to their having.
Except--- (Score:3, Insightful)
My brother is an independent recording artist. He's not signed to a label, but has a decent following. When he wants to produce a CD, the manufacture of tracks, mixing, engineering those tracks cost money. Hiring and paying engineers and additional musicians is not free. Even if you remove all barriers in distribution (ie distribute digitally; no record company) The actual recorded material has an inherent cost-- and therefore an inherent value.
While you're saying buzzwords like "rethinking the paradigms" perhaps you should be considering more than the distribution method.
While the most extreme of cyber-communists point to the open-source and free-software movements as an example of how "information should be free" They neglect to realize that the media created is a drop in the bucket compared to commercial software-- especially entertainment. Name one open source or free software game that can come close to competing with Grand Theft Auto or Age of Empires or Black and White or Resident Evil. They can't.
So, until the entire world becomes a communist state, where there is no money, and no motivation to work other than the betterment of mankind, (and this includes cleaning the toilets and laying the asphalt) people will be motivated by money, will need to be paid for their work, which will give an inherent value to IP.
Re:Except--- (Score:2)
So when I teach my kids how to read, write and speak, when they grow up can I sue them for copyright infringement whenever they read, write or talk? COOOOL
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:2)
So let's say that someone contributes to society by contributing creative works. Now are you saying that they "receive other peoples contributions" in that they get paid for producing creative works, or are you merely suggesting that they are allowed free access to the creative works of others ? Such a model is clearly a disincentive to anyone who would author creative works, because as valuable as the right to use the works of others is, it doesn't put food on the table.
So if you want to have a true communist model, then it can't just involve taking from creative people. That's not "communist" at all, that's merely greed on the part of people who don't value creativity. The people who make non-creative contributions to society -- the accountants, the farmers, the workers, etc, need to share their works too.
More than a shame, I think it borders on evil to deprive others of knowledge that there is no *real* barrier to their having.
But there is. This so-called "knowledge" requires resources to create, and those resources are finite. Someone has to contribute those resources.
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:1)
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:1)
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I consider any contract null and void unless I physically signed a full and actual contract. The whole click-through/shrink-wrap contract concept is bogus IMO. What I also think is bogus is FBI/US-Fed-Law warnings on video that also make fair-use statements illegal when they are not. It would be nice if for example if FBI warnings (being an apparent govt. notice) were regulated so that companies cant lie in the fine print about the illegality of actions which would come under fair-use. (Eg: The idea of the parent might come under fair-use, but the RIAA would have you in court, for a new interpretation, so quickly your head would spin.)
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:1)
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:2)
Its hard to argue that fair use rights apply to the physical CD and not just the music though
Re:The answer is rather simple. (Score:1)
- Wireless roaming P2P + standardized protocol.
- Artists consider publishing skills as important as playing their instruments
- Joe Rockstar finishes his mix and sends it out into the network directly. He asks for money.
- He gets none and goes back to work at the music store giving guitar lessons.
I'm a bit confused where the money will come from.
Long Term (Score:5, Insightful)
That will continue indefinetly, the real answer is not to allow such a blatantly stupid and damaging bill to be passed, and if it is passed, to get it struck down as soon as possible. Passing the technological edge back and forward in a war between the media monopolies and their p2p opponents, might sound fun to some, but its not the real answer.
Re:Long Term (Score:2)
More Hollywood bad news from Congress (Score:1, Informative)
Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA needs to figure out that they can capitalize on the piracy, because whether pirating music is ethical or not, it's going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the pre-release bootleg copies of The Eminem Show were really part of a stealth marketing campaign or something.
Re:Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:2)
I previewed the lyrics and decided it was too explicit. That is one I am not going to buy. Thanks for the preview.
Re:Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:1)
Re:Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:2)
Re:Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:2)
This is true. Rap is not my taste in music. My kids were asking for the music. In spite of being a geek, I do interface some with the kids and do care what they listen to. They did not get the album and know why.
Re:Will the riaa ever figure out... (Score:1)
kinda like that 'viral advertising' on hotmail... now everybody does it so it has lost it's potency
Guess they can get a couple more bangs out of it, then they can really close the p2p net
From the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
So this basically means that it's being rewritten and filled with all sorts of terms that most of the people in the senate aren't familiar with, and that most of them could care less about. It's all about misdirection. People went up in arms about the original bill, because they understood what it was talking about. The redraft, will more than likely be the same identical document. The only difference between the two, is that the second will have 40 pages of filler information that is there to confuse and misdirect those reading it, so that it becomes more of a hassle to read and comprehend it, than to just pass it along. That's just my opinion anyway.
The oldest trick in the book... (Score:3)
Copyright is being used as an excuse (Score:1, Insightful)
The government cares more about shuting down distributed, encyrpted, p2p system, that provides anonymity more than they do ones that act as strictly a client-server model, such as napster. Why do I say this you ask, well it's simple, government's desire for control over the flow of infomation trumps out any over any other consideration. No amount of lobbying will help, joining ACLU or EFF is futile, government interest are too great. One only needs to look at their latest campaign finance law, to see how much they care for "the people". This war on terrorism, will be their excuse to shut down p2p's and demand complete control over the code on the internet, and people are so damn blined by lies that they will go along with it. Everyone with a brain knows that doing this will not help any anti-terrorism efforts, just as Jesus spoke in parables, so that people didn't see, the "terrorist" will use whatever architecture that the government lays down and just "say it in code".
Technowar (Score:2)
Sad state of affairs (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a "circumvention of copyright protection?" (Score:4, Insightful)
It would seem defensible if it were framed as an effort to make P2P more robust in general, but to describe it as a hedge against actions of the copyright holders, IMHO, opens them up for some serious deep-pocket litigation.
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Maybe it has something to do with windows?