Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents 259
schmecky05 writes "From Macrovision, the folks whom recently mandated "Thou shalt delete content promptly from thy Tivo" come the following 2 USPTO patent applications for Peer to Peer interdiction methods: "Interdiction of unauthorized copying in a decentralized network" and "System and methods for communicating over the internet with geographically distributed devices of a decentralized network using transparent asymetric return paths."
These patent applications describe (in pain staking detail) how Macrovision interdicts on Peer to Peer networks to prevent illegal copyrighted file sharing from many locations across the globe and avoid ban lists as well."
From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that some of the hash spoofing isn't spoofing cryptographically-strong hashes; not all networks use them.
If my interviewer's claims were correct, then this technology is v. effective at taking down certain files on certain networks. I unfortunately can't say more, because my interviewer declined to say more until I signed a NDA.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
The method according to claim 34, wherein one of the communications is search results, and the interdicting of unauthorized copying comprises: generating modified search results by replacing a pointer to a reference in the search results that matches a protected file with another pointer to a spoof file along with a hash value matching that of the reference, and forwarding the modified search results thr
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the USPTO accepts patents on anything the patent reviewer doesn't understand. Hash spoofing may not be usefully possible now (oh sure, you can brute force it, but by then everyone looking for the file will be long dead anyway), but in 10 years, 15 years, who knows? All Macrovision cares about is that if it becomes possible, THEY'LL be the ones doing it.
Re:From TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Informative)
And while you need to reduce the invention to practice, in order to get a patent, that doesn't mean that you need to actually implement it. Implementation is merely a good way of demonstrating reduction to practice.
Re:From TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
If it was issued on June 7, 1978 or earlier, it's 17 years from issuance.
If it was filed on June 7, 1995 or earlier, but did not issue until June 8, 1978 or later, it's the longer of 17 years from issuance or 20 years from filing.
If it was filed on June 8, 1995 or later, it's 20 years from filing.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Should we warn Macrovision that the NSA with quatum computers may be very displeased. Men in black may show up at the patent office and classify something that obviously Macrovision doesn't have working otherwise the men in black wou
Re:From TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
In any event, this is the sort of patent one ought to cheer for as it would have the effect of reducing the number of companies doing enforcement on P2P networks.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Or Macrovision will be the first against the wall.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Why does a FOSS organization not pursue this as a tactic? Suppose it patents every software idea in sight. Then, it has two choices (a) dedicate the resulting patents to the public or (b) enforce the patents to prevent anyone doing malicious things like this.
The GPL is venerated for taking copyright and turning it against proprietary software. Software patents are even more amenable to being used defensively.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
"Unauthorized" (unauthorized != illegal) sharing is safe.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to get bombed for this, but... I don't see how being part of the "something-for-nothing" crowd automatically makes you a genuis.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they might be talking about real hash spoofing. Kazaa, for example, only hashes a fraction of the file (atleast it used to), so it would be quite easy to spoof anhash there.
if you werent paranoid before... (Score:2)
P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what?
I still don't get it. They have applied for patents to ban filesharing?
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, we need someone with a vested interest in P2P surviving to patent every conveivable means of taking down a P2P network, so that if someone (RIAA, MPAA, Macrovision, etc.), attempts to do it, they can be sued.
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also - most sharing networks have it in their EULA saying that this type of activity will make it ok to ban the server. I say a bunch of them should sue Macrovision under their EULAs and potential DMCA infringement for unlawfully reverse engineering their "encryption" (hash method).
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:2)
Fortunatly you can simply get the files with fewer peers and less bandwidth (They use large commercial pipes for their servers).
If people start doing this they need to spend way more effort on customization connections and systems to keep up... simple. But painful
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see what you are confused about. They want to make sure that people aren't trading stuff owned by others so they are "ensuring compliance/conformity".
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:2)
>stuff owned by others so they are "ensuring
>compliance/conformity".
Most likely the "owner" is the one trading. The one trading typically do not hold the copyright to the work though, that is very different from owning something though. I for example own many books, but do not hodl the copyright to it. Some of those books could have been infringements of course 8for example if I had copied them) but I would still be the owner of them.
Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:2)
Stop Macrovisions funding (Score:3, Insightful)
Macrovision owns Installshield. Stop using Installshield for Windows apps and cut off a good amount of Macrovision's funding.
Re:Stop Macrovisions funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stop Macrovisions funding (Score:2)
Re:Stop Macrovisions funding (Score:2)
Isn't there some law against... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not harming the network (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:2)
Saying that that harms the network is like trying to argue that making murder illegal, and lockingup murderers, harms gun sales...
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:5, Insightful)
can you guarantee only illegal network activity will be affected by these measures?
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Macrovision feels they're not profitting richly enough, they're free to screen their customers more carefully or raise the price of their product. Deliberately flooding networks with extraneous junk is no better than flaming tires thrown on the freeway.
Yet the USPTO grants them a legal patent on it. Why oh why didn't the Black Panthers think of this one?
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that a distribution industry has been built up by otherwise worthless leeches who have convinced artists that they are necessary in order to dole out the artist's works to a wider audience of people.
These leeches, like the RIAA and MPAA, have no value other than their mechanisms of mass distribution. The web now threatens that controlled distribution because it is as far reaching as the industries distribution mechanisms, only it is free.
That is what this is really about and that is why these groups are fighting P2P so hard. They don't lose when their copyrighted works are shared, they lose when people realize that these industry relics are no longer necessary.
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't there some law against... (Score:4, Insightful)
they lose when people realize that these industry relics are no longer necessary.
One good way to fight them is to advertise and provide easy-to-use systems for broadcasting and paying for content on the internet. The problem at the moment is that most artists are exposed to RIAA/MPAA merchandising as a child and simply go with the flow when they grow up. Also, for most consumers going to a retail store to get CD's/DVD's is still more convenient than downloading. That needs to change.
People interested in fighting the RIAA/MPAA should be advertising and fighting for this big time. Word-of-mouth and the internet can compete with the mass media but it takes a concerted effort.
---
Copyright is a privilege, not a right.
Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Funny)
So if Macrovision patents the ability to forbid people to file share over P2P, that means that if anybody else tries to do the same, then they get sued by Macrovision?
This is great. This means that if the RIAA or MPAA attempt to do the same thing independently, then they'll be infringing against Macrovision's patents.
Wow. I guess two wrongs do make a right.
more mumbo jumbo (Score:2)
It's plain as day these companies are playing the field.
Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:4, Insightful)
Mind you, that said, there must be scope for a simple unbiased jury-of-peers approach? Register to be a patent advisor (volunteer work or for a small stipend), and each time a patent comes in they randomly select five people off the list with expertise in the area and send them the application.
If three or more agree it's new, non-obvious and patentable then the application goes ahead for formal review, otherwise it's rejected with a good explanation why (like "Because it's functionally identical to X", or "Because we've had The Wheel for a number of years now", or "Because it's a Business Model not an Invention, you corrupt, IP-grabbing patent-subverting fuck-tard").
Obviously you've have to be careful to have safeguards the jury *were* unbiased (eg, drawn from different companies from the one applying for the patent, no registering of patents in the same area as one they've adjudicated on for a period of X years (etc), but surely it's possible?
Any takers?
Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:2)
Why not make the documentation less stupid?
"It is claimed that said invention par takes in the action of said monotonous variations of the post-haste mentioned
I mean if you can't explain the jist of your invention without lawyer speak
If the patents were written so engineers could read them [in a timely fashion] you'd see more filtering of patents and less junk.
But nobody ever thinks t
Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:2)
And yes, patents are filled with mumbo-jumbo because they are to be understood by one skilled in the ar
Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, patenting this sort of stuff is genius. Now only Macrovision will be allowed to try and spoof hashes, etc. So P2P freedom fighters need only bankrupt/hijack 1 corporation!
We should think up more attacks and patent them immediately - anyone uses them gets sued! Don't forget the obvious ones like "restricting access to telephony over IP by port-filtering"..
Re:Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:2)
At best, it means that you only have to fight one company at a time.
Re:Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:2)
Indeed. They have to actively defend their patents though. If they do not, I believe the patents become moot (no longer enforceable). However, I'm sure it will be their pleasure to actually license the patents to some companies.
Re:Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:2)
We could have this patent at $.00001 a song
Groklaw and prior art. (Score:4, Informative)
Biggest pile of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is name recognition, though. If a high-profile company applies for a patent, maybe the system gives it a little easier ride, examines it a little less closely, than if "Joe Crackpot, ace inventor" is on the application.
The real problem is having business process patents and software patents in the first place. These things should not be patentable.
Restraint of trade by a monopoly is illegal, but if they get a business practice patent the government restrains trade for them. I don't get it.
Re:Biggest pile of money? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Biggest pile of money? (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Bingo. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahh, the wild, wild west of cybercrime law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just write analyses for people who are. If you would consider relying on information which was posted on Slashdot, you are too stupid to be allowed access to your own shoelaces much less an Internet account. Don't rely on the federal government to start prosecutions to save your sorry butt if your Kazaa craps out because content providers hire Macromedia.
Re:Bingo. -- This Could Work! You Spoof Them! (Score:2)
Catch them preventing you from downloading a legal file through a P2P network.
But wait you say, with the **AA is only paying them to block files of **AA members who claim copyright over this material. They wouldn't be blocking legal downloads
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Macrovision: An Old Grey Cat That Can't Catch Mice (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again, it is Macrovision, and Macrovision has a long and sordid history of injecting 'security' technologies that do much more harm [slashdot.org] than good, and at the end of the day are bypassable [slashdot.org] except by the painfully incompetent. Even the painfully incompetent were able to find the filter for the original Macrovision videotape "protection" -- and this before the internet had been commercialized. At the end of the day, it just annoyed more than hurt folks who were pursuing "novel" uses of content.
Look at this way: Adobe uses Macrovision's SafeCast [installshield.com] to protect Photoshop CS and now CS2. It does not take too much looking around to find 1) the applications and 2) numerous ways to get around it.
At the end of the day, Macrovision is a slow, old cat, and the mice they chase are not only faster, they are smarter too.
Re:Macrovision: An Old Grey Cat That Can't Catch M (Score:2)
ARGH The Pain! (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly, does that mean? The total number of words published each day on the front page of Slashdot is relatively low. It really wouldn't take much work to have someone who knows English to check the posts for errors (and dups?) prior to publication.
Frankly, the amusing and sometimes insightful posts by Slashdot readers are the only real draw to this site at this point. The news is usually late and laden with grammatical and content errors, not to mention the frequent dups.
What about technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, almost 80% of p2p traffic is of wrong nature, you might say, so whats the issue if it is stopped. Fair queston. Now, if you put a cap on innovation, then the common people suffer. let me give you an example. When Replay TV announced that their DVRs had the capability of auto-advancing commercials. Thsi was was far superior to Tivo's 30 second manual skip. Older ReplayTVs would AUTOMATICALLY detect a commercial break & advance the program.
What happened then? MPAA sued & forced Replay TV to disable this feature. Now, what there's virtually no advancement in DVRs, they now serve nothing more than glorified VCRs. The auto commercial advance in older Replay TVs would allow you to move from one program segmnent to the next, similar to the chapter system in DVDs.
Why do I quote this example? It is because MPAA/RIAA in trying to stomp out p2p are stymieing technology & innovation. On my dual boot machine I try a new linux distro almost every other week. If these people succeed in poisoning the networks, I would definitely be not happy.
And
Re:What about technology (Score:2)
And hence why I built my own PVR with Mythtv. "But a Tivo is cheaper" were the cries of many detractors. Now who has the last laugh. Sure the commercial detection isn't 100% perfect but it seems to get most of the shows I watch pretty well. Besides, I also have a 30 second (or however long I want) skip button.
Re:What about technology (Score:2)
What I disaprove even more is big corps trying to stymie ART. Specifically by discontinuining the production and distribution of thousands of albums deemed not profitable enough. If you want to buy a CD that's out of print you have to try to find it used (very hard considering it wasn't popular in the first place) or look for it in the p2p world.
What good is art if you can't ge
Re:What about technology (Score:2)
One word: DMCA *cackle*
Re:What about technology (Score:3, Interesting)
(As far as I know, the patent for the commercial advance technology in my RCA VCR expired long ago.)
Re:What about technology - ISP Cap on BT (Score:2)
You should complain to them since you are paying for bandwidth to use as you wish. And complain to your regional public attorney for false advertising unless they have specifically indicated in their ToS that they can limit your BT traffic.
Macrovision Patents (Score:2, Funny)
Could these patents be GOOD? (Score:2)
Fear (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Poisoning Not Interdiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poisoning Not Interdiction (Score:2)
If it's possible to distribute a corrupt video file that has "MPAA 0WN5 J00" in it, then it's also possible to distribute a linux distro that has a rootkit in it, and BT can legally defend against things like that.
curious (Score:2, Insightful)
i like this idea, lemme get a pen!
Patent to impede individual copyright control (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not about controlling copyright infringing P2P as it exists today.
it's about controlling the right to control distributed distribution of your own damn stuff!
eventually, the broadcast to consumer model of media distribution is going by the wayside. it will be replaced by artist to audience distribution over a distributed network of nodes whuch is run by the audience.
If an artist chooses to limit the distribution of his work to a 'paying' audience, he's gonna need some tool or other. if the tool is patented, then he's back in the 'pay some asshole' mode he's stuck with now.
Imagine that. A patent to make it more difficult for someone to profit from his copyright!
It should be possible ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternatively, have computers on the network keep hashed lists of failed downloads (filename, IP address) and the precise reason they failed (corrupt data, etc.). Transfer these lists whenever a file transfer is started.
It's up to the client what to do with this information if it matches their own ("182.165.3.43 keeps terminating downloads at 95%!"), but there are all sorts of nasty possibilities that take advantage of the fact that the legit part of the network has more bandwidth (data flood) and more CPU power than the poison nodes.
If this happens then an underground internet would (Score:2)
Who knows, maybe an underground internet is going to emerge due to all these controls. Or perhaps we can "virtualize" an underground internet with VPN te
it'll go something like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Bob: I sure did, buddy! Got it on CD. I ripped it and put it my iPod. Wanna borrow it?
Joe: Sure! I've got my iBook right here, this will just take a second. CDs rock! They're CD quality and no DRM!
Bob: (hands CD to Joe)
(Just at the moment, a masked man in tights with the log "MV" runs out from behind a bush, nearly tripping over his cape)
Joe: Egads!
Bob: Yowza!
Man: Wait kids! Don't copy that floppy!
Joe: Uhm, I'm 35? What floppy?
Man: I mean, I'm here to INTER-DICT in your PEER to PEER music swapping! (grabs the CD from Bob and quickly replaces it with a roughly-cut cardboard disk). You've been INTER-DICTED!
Bob: Wha?
Joe: Say, wouldn't it be easier to jump out from behind bushes if you weren't wearing that weird cape? I'm just sayin'.
Man: Don't laugh, Metallica's label paid me $10 Million to do this!
Bob: Wait a minute.. you work for Macrovision?
Man: (puffs up chest) The #1 Leader in Content Protection(tm)!
Bob: (Kicks "macrovision man" in the testicles, grabs metallica CD)
(Joe and Bob run away)
Joe: Whew, thank goodness it was Macrovision, I thought for a second I might not be able to copy your CD!
Hey.. I want you all to read this from the patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the above. They need to masquerade as a node in the network. Fix is simple. We now have to be
be more carefully in the way we accept server nodes. If their servers are not accepted into a network, then they can answer queries. This will not be difficult to break. Also if these servers do logged in as a server in gnutella, Limewire, or wherever, then we would have to perform a DOS and keep the server busy with the DOS so it couldn't answer the query.
This technology isn't new. There were many garbage mp3 files on napster at one time.
basically if you were unforunate enough to get a reply from one of these servers you would end up
with a mp3 of pink/white noise.
Send them 2^5 pizzas (Score:2)
There's the address (info right from their public website)
I hope Macrovision gets sued.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's gotta be a law against that..
Here's an Idea (Score:2)
Microdarkness (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microdarkness (Score:2)
Re:Microdarkness (Score:2)
In a nutshell... (Score:4, Informative)
* Set up a bunch of fake P2P clients that look just like real clients (down to a faked version number, presumably). Give them a variety of IPs to appear as though the clients are widely distributed all over the globe.
* Give these clients enough resources so that at least some of them become supernodes.
And this is what the fake clients will be doing:
* Intercept search requests, and consult with their own private server before sending a reply.
* If the search includes a result for one of the copyrighted files on their blacklist, interfere with the results as follows:
o By removing the file from the list of search results
o By returning a fake search result that points to a nonexistent node as the source for the file
o Same as the above, but return a link to a functioning node that serves white noise
* If needed, the fake search results will include fake file hashes, or even true file hashes gleaned from the rest of the network. Any attempt to actually download the files pointed to by the search results will still fail, but it will consume valuable resources of legitimate P2P users.
In addition, Macrovision is thinking of somehow isolating certain legitimate nodes from the network -- by surrounding them with fake nodes "on all sides", as it were.
Essentially, Macrovision's plan is a DDoS on the network; or, rather, a way for the network to DDoS itself (by flooding it with fake search results and fake nodes). I don't know much about how BitTorrent or ED2K are actually implemented, but it seems like this attack would work, especially if Macrovision's fake clients manage to become supernodes.
A patent to keep people from sharing information (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello Mam, (Score:2)
Re:pain staking (Score:3, Funny)
Re:pain staking (Score:2)
Re:pain staking (Score:2)
Re:pain staking (Score:2)
Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually they probably would, they're paid by the media industry to do this, and competition might mean the media industry goes to someone else.
Re:Illegal? (Score:2)
I'm thinking the only place this would be legal would be on private networks, not the common carrier Internet. I could see Macrovision offering the service to universities and businesses to help them curb their bandwidth usage and lawsuit exposure.
I think it would be offered just like Macrovision is offered to DVD and VHS tape publishers.
I hope Google, Yahoo, and MS sues them out of exis
Re:Illegal? Can be - use their weapon against'em (Score:2)
embed computer-generated, copyrighted haiku in the torrents and packets. License it such that interdiction is a violation of copyright. Then sue the britches off any **AA agent that intercepts the torrents or packets for DMCA and other copyright violations.
At the very least, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court.
Re:Illegal? (Score:2)
Why shouldn't they be accepted?
You're right, a patent doesn't make use of the invention at issue legal. Which just means that the patent isn't very useful while that's so.
But mere illegality is no reason to deny a patent; you can't go around selling drugs without FDA approval, but you get patents first. Worst thing that happens is that it's pat
Re:Illegal? (Score:2)