Slashdot Log In
Brightnets are Owner Free File Systems
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Monday June 30, @09:00AM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
from the something-to-think-about dept.
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.
Related Stories
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not a Brightnet yet (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this just a sophisticated form of encryption, using a large, randomly generated key?
If so, does it have any real advantages over conventional encryption? It seems that the disadvantage would be the need to have both the file (large) and the random data (large) instead of, conventionally, just the file (large) and key (small).
Also, I can't be the only one who found the summary, uh, confusing??
Reply to This
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Replying to my own post, but this IS just a sort of encryption - their main claim being because the data is encrypted, it's not copyright.
As has been pointed out below, the data transferred is not the thing copyrighted - it's what it represents. So it's an arduous and painful encryption, with high overhead, easy to crack and no plausible benefit. With some hand-wavy 'it annuls all badness from bad things' explanation.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Replying to my own post, but this IS just a sort of encryption - their main claim being because the data is encrypted, it's not copyright.
As has been pointed out below, the data transferred is not the thing copyrighted - it's what it represents. So it's an arduous and painful encryption, with high overhead, easy to crack and no plausible benefit. With some hand-wavy 'it annuls all badness from bad things' explanation.
Except that is probably bullshit to copyright lawyers
There's a great explanation of why in this essay, What Colour are your Bits. It's actually about another system based on the same sort of ideas.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php [sooke.bc.ca]
The fallacy of Monolith is that it's playing fast and loose with Colour, attempting to use legal rules one moment and math rules another moment as convenient. When you have a copyrighted file at the start, that file clearly has the "covered by copyright" Colour, and you're not cleared for it, Citizen. When it's scrambled by Monolith, the claim is that the resulting file has no Colour - how could it have the copyright Colour? It's just random bits! Then when it's descrambled, it still can't have the copyright Colour because it came from public inputs. The problem is that there are two conflicting sets of rules there. Under the lawyer's rules, Colour is not a mathematical function of the bits that you can determine by examining the bits. It matters where the bits came from. The scrambled file still has the copyright Colour because it came from the copyrighted input file. It doesn't matter that it looks like, or maybe even is bit-for-bit identical with, some other file that you could get from a random number generator. It happens that you didn't get it from a random number generator. You got it from copyrighted material; it is copyrighted. The randomly-generated file, even if bit-for-bit identical, would have a different Colour. The Colour inherits through all scrambling and descrambling operations and you're distributing a copyrighted work, you Commie Mutant Traitor.
To a computer scientist, on the other hand, bits are bits are bits and it is absolutely fundamental that two identical chunks of bits cannot be distinguished. Colour does not exist. I've seen computer people claim (indeed, one did this to me just today in the very discussion that inspired this posting) that copyright law inescapably leads to nonsense conclusions like "If I own copyright on one thing, and copyright inherits through XOR, then I own copyright on everything because everything can be obtained from my one thing by XORing it with the right file." That sounds profound only if you're a Colour-blind computer scientist; it would be boring nonsense to a lawyer because lawyers are trained to believe in and use Colour, and it's obvious to a lawyer that the Colour doesn't magically bleed to the entire universe through the hypothetical random files that might be created some day. You could create the file randomly, but you didn't. Maybe you could create a file identical to the complete works of Shakespeare by XORing together two files of apparently random garbage. "Why, so can I, or so can any man;" but that doesn't mean that I am William Shakespeare.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting it a little more plainly:
Copyright concerns provenance (similarity merely raises suspicion).
Patent concerns similarity (provenance is irrelevant).
However, both are unethical and ineffective anachronisms long overdue for abolition.
Let overpaid lawyers count the angels on a pinhead. It is not something computer scientists should concern themselves with, especially when litigation causes 99% of harm well before any judges get anywhere near investigating the provenance of bits - deciding which side of bread best provides inspiration as to the 'correct' judicial interpretation as to how bits should properly be constrained.
Use the GPL. It's a legal device against litigation.
Using BrightNets is a coder's sophistry, not a lawyer's. A coder may as well wonder why there's so much legal difference between copying an MP3 file and streaming it, when there's marginal technical difference. Conversely, lawyer's won't be fazed by significant technical differences if the end result is the same - they'll sue you first and leave the questions to judges in subsequent decades.
You might as well create a distributed and co-operatively administered 'YouTube' host with anyone legally permitted to upload and download so long as the hosted works were only 'streamed' to the public and taken down upon request (DMCA).
Lex Asinus Est.
Reply to This
Parent
Short version (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have here is a technical solution to a legal problem. Every time a story pops up on Slashdot with a legal solution to a technical problem, we laugh at it. Well, the other way around doesn't work either, folks.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a form of encryption, the purpose is not to hide the data but to share representations. The basic idea is let's say that I have files/blocks A,B,C. Instead of storing them directly I will compute shares that merge the information into a new set of blocks. None of the new set of blocks will contain copyrighted info - or if it does then who will own it because there are competing copyright claims. To get file A back out I need to take a selection of the shares and xor them together.
It's an interesting technical approach, but a classic FAIL. Geeks never understand the law, they assume that it is a mechanical system that can be gamed (well, because they're geeks). But no matter how the law it is written, it is interpreted by people. The first time that it was tried is court would be something like this:
Pros: Could you explain to the court what you uploaded to Brightnet? .... .... .... in several parts.
Def: It was a non-linear combination of the xor of
Pros: Did you upload Britney Spears - Chart Slag.mp3?
Def: No, that was never on my computer.
Pros: Did you upload something that allowed the mp3 to be constructed exactly?
Def: Yes
Pros: Copyright infringment through unauthorised distribution, the prosecution rests.
Def: WTF?
Reply to This
Parent
Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... I don't think that's the objective, exactly. I didn't read TFA as saying "material distributed in this way is not subject to copyright" but rather "none of the bits we're moving are copyrighted - go pester the people doing the uploading"
I also think there is a useful discussion to be had on the subject of numbers and the digital assets they may or not represent. If I zip up MS Office, for instance, I've turned it into a very long number. Is it reasonable to allow companies to claim ownership of such numbers? With the proper compression and/or encryption scheme, you could use any number (trivially in some cases) to represent a work over which you can claim copyright. Do we then let a corporation privatise the entire integer space? And if not, how do we distinguish between infringing and non-infringing uses of a large number?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the copyrighted data can be recovered it's considered distribution - in some cases even if the key itself is not distributed with the encrypted data.
The issue is that any piece of random data can be turned into copyrighted data. With the right key, you can turn John Smith's holiday photo's into copyrighted MP3's. But you can't sue John Smith because someone uploaded a key that can turn his photo's in copyrighted data. OFF stores random blocks of data, which can be used by multiple files. It doesn't store any information in particular, just random blocks. Random blocks that can be used for anything. It is the URL that turnes those random blocks into something.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, though, the law has it right. No matter what you're doing to break up, encrypt, hash, randomize, or distribute files, if the end-goal is to end up with a representation of copyrighted material then you're still breaking the law.
If you don't like the law, then go out there and do something about it. Trying to find a workaround for the law is just going to get the courts mad at you if you get caught. Information may want to be free, but right now it isn't (at least not the information that these kinds of things are being created for). Legitimize it, not strategize about how to avoid the problems that can come with it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once I actually understood what on earth they are on about, it seems like an interesting idea with very little basis in reality. Their main claim seems to be a magic-wand approach to getting round copyright, as opposed to a particularly useful distributed filesystem:
No data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random
Sure... So if I put in Brittany's latest album, then tell my friend to click on the url that 'reassembles' the 'truly random' data into, well, Brittany's latest album, then do you really think copyright has nothing to say?
Breaking news! Photocopying books is TOTALLY LEGAL if you use yellow paper and/or put the book in the machine upside down!
A correctly encrypted file also appears random. It does not mean it IS random, otherwise it would be, well, not very useful.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
For some of us that isn't a problem, since we don't believe in IP anyway.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Data != Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, no data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random.
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.
Reply to This
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, you won't fool a (competent) computer scientist with that, but a jury could be confused, to say the least.
Hans Reiser thought he could out-smart the jury. Look how well that worked for him.
Neither judges nor juries like to feel like they're being played. You play a game like that, attempting to confuse them with technology that's over their heads, and you're not exactly going to win them over.
The result of that kind of argument will likely be that they ignore the part that's confusing to them, and focus on the part that's simple to understand: you have the Indiana Jones movie on your hard drive, and that's a copyright violation. Simple.
Reply to This
Parent
From the Wiki (Score:5, Interesting)
"A simple analogy is seen in that every number has an infinite number of representations (3+2=5, 2*2+1=5, 10-5=5, 10/2=5, etc). Even if the number (file) in question can be copyrighted under current legislation, it is practically impossible and unreasonable to state that every other representation of that particular number is copyrighted."
Actually, no, it's not unreasonable or impractical. In fact, that's how it actually works. Star Wars is copyrighted as a DVD, Film, mpeg, script, live performance, song, interpretive dance, etc. ..right?
Reply to This
Worrisome... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://wiki.offdev.org/Talk:Why_is_OFF_safe%3F [offdev.org] :
Trojan detected with avg free
Another side to the safety issue. I'm hoping this is a false positive, as I like OFF
* avg free v7.5.516 virus base 269.17.13/1208 finds
o Trojan Generic9.AKLU in
+ offsystem.exe from OFFStystem-0.18.00-win-installer.exe from sourceforge January 3 2008
This is worrisome...
Reply to This
Re:The data would change from (Score:5, Informative)
The cool thing is that the files really are random. They are simply numbers that can be combined to make a copyrighted file but don't have to be.
In other words: (As stated on the wiki) you will infringe on copyright the second the random files are combined. But downloading and sharing the files is not a copyright infringement.
Reply to This
Parent