Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Internet

Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents 259

Posted by Hemos from the of-course-they-did dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents More

Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents

Comments Filter:

  • From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iopha ( 626985 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:04AM (#12542942) Homepage
    Abstract An interdiction system includes software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network, a query matcher that receives search results captured by the software agents and reports matches with protected files back to the software agents, and a central coordinating authority that coordinates activities of the software agents by sending instructions to the software agents specifying actions to be taken. Possible activities and related interdicting methods include manipulating search results before forwarding them on in the network, quarantining selected nodes in the network, performing file impersonations such as transferring synthesized decoys, performing file transfer attenuation, and hash spoofing.

    Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.

    • Re:From TFA: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Z-Knight ( 862716 )
      no, no...that was not "Hash Spoofing"...it was "Hashish Poofing"

    • Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nexx ( 75873 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:15AM (#12543066)
      I actually interviewed for a position on this team, albeit in operations and not development, so I might be able to shed some light than someone completely on the outside.

      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.

      • so did you get the job?
      • That'd be interesting to see. I read through some more of the patent and it gets a bit more specific:

        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)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:17AM (#12543102) Journal
      Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Since patents have a lifetime of 17 years it would be a waste of time patenting something that is not implementable (and I thought anyway that patents required that there be implementations) until 15 years hence.

        • Re:From TFA: (Score:5, Informative)

          by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:01AM (#12543567) Homepage
          No, patents filed these days have a term of 20 years from filing, not the old term of 17 years from issuance.

          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.
      • 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.

        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)

        by Shalda ( 560388 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @12:40PM (#12544500) Homepage Journal
        It's trival to invent a simple low-grade hash and then show a way to spoof it. I doubt they're spoofing any sort of high end hash. Conicievably, you could create a one-bit hash using the parity of a file. This would be trivial to spoof. That's proof of concept. Doing this in a useful context is not so simple, but it is sufficient for a patent.

        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.
      • In 10 or 15 years their patent will have expired.

        Or Macrovision will be the first against the wall.
      • All Macrovision cares about is that if it becomes possible, THEY'LL be the ones doing it.

        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.
    • Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.
      The motivation behind hackers is much more powerful than a paycheque... And those who have the motivation of greed are too stupid to be good hackers.

      "Unauthorized" (unauthorized != illegal) sharing is safe.

      • Re:From TFA: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by shmlco ( 594907 )
        And those who have the motivation of greed are too stupid to be good hackers.

        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.

    • They might be talking about something different than what you're imagining. One kind of "hash spoofing" might be a p2p client that claims to have a certain file (identified by the hash), but when another client connects, it just gets sent a stream of garbage.

      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.
  • I don't see how the recording of an audio/video signal can execute "stool pigeon" code, but the patent looks scary enough.

  • P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hostyle ( 773991 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:07AM (#12542973)

    Say what?

    interdiction

    noun

    1. A refusal to allow: ban, disallowance, forbiddance, inhibition, prohibition, proscription, taboo. See allow/prevent.
    2. A coercive measure intended to ensure compliance or conformity: interdict, penalty, sanction. See reward/punish/deserve.

    I still don't get it. They have applied for patents to ban filesharing?

    • Re:P2P Interdiction Patents? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oneiros27 ( 46144 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:11AM (#12543020) Homepage
      Sure, it makes sense -- they put up a bunch of crap to bring down the overall quality of the network, but if someone bans them, they can claim it's a patent violation.

      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)

        by nutrock69 ( 446385 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:54AM (#12544079)
        I call previous art. Kazaa has been useless for several years because half the files out there are hash spoofed - you can't download anything on Kazaa anymore without part of the file being corrupt because of this. When was this patent filed?

        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).
        • Not quite, the system used on Kazaa is that they have hundreds of zombie PC's sharing broken files.

          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)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:18AM (#12543109)
      2. A coercive measure intended to ensure compliance or conformity: interdict, penalty, sanction. See reward/punish/deserve.

      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".
      • >They want to make sure that people aren't trading
        >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.
    • Might want to upgrade that dictionary. Interdict also means to stop or waylay something in transit -- e.g., the Coast Guard interdicts boats carrying drugs.

  • Stop Macrovisions funding (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:07AM (#12542976) Homepage Journal
    Here's an idea:

    Macrovision owns Installshield. Stop using Installshield for Windows apps and cut off a good amount of Macrovision's funding.

  • Isn't there some law against... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:08AM (#12542977)
    ...deliberately harming a network? seems like there should be. or does that only apply if you're DOSing a company who can afford to buy laws?
    • any more than anti-spamming techniques such as server side filtering are harming the network.
    • How is this harming the network? If it works as should be intended, it'll only target copyrighted materials that the copyright holders haven't authorised for distribution in this manner.

      Saying that that harms the network is like trying to argue that making murder illegal, and lockingup murderers, harms gun sales...

  • Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hubang ( 692671 )
    Fradulent nodes posing in a network. This doesn't seem so new to me.

  • Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:09AM (#12543001)
    This shows a big weakness with patent-oriented companies. Their greedy ideas combined with the need to file a patent on those ideas mean that we'll be TOLD how they're doing it, and can then work out how to get around it. Score one for openness and co-operation vs. secrecy and underhandness.
    • Unless your workaround is determined to be a violation of the patent.

    • 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.

  • Why don't patent officers just do a simple check like "Is it full of mumbo jumbo which makes little to no sense?" if yes then instantly dismiss it. If no then judge it fairly.

    It's plain as day these companies are playing the field.

    • Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
      because, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then blind 'em with bull$#!+.

    • Re:more mumbo jumbo (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shaper_pmp ( 825142 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:30AM (#12543229)
      Because unfortunately all patent applications are full of mumbo-jumbo. And it takes a technically-skilled person to tell whether it makes no sense or not.

      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?
      • ... that said ...

        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 ... you clearly don't have a command on said invention and should be left in the cold anyways...

        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
      • PS: This is how the current system works, except your advisors are examiners. They have a monetary incentive to get you to formally abandon your patent. They do have expertise in the area. Examiner's are assigned to specific art units based on the technology. Further, they not only have knowledge of the area, they have knowledge of at least a portion of the patents that have already crossed their desk.

        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)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:11AM (#12543021) Homepage Journal
    The patents were filed March 18, 2004 and June 16, 2004. Obviously tons of prior art exists. Oh wait! It is the US we are talking about, the country where tons of obvious prior art does not matter, the US patent office has time and time again demonstrated that it only cares who gives them the biggest pile of money.

    • Re:Filed March 18, 2004.. Prior art! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:20AM (#12543129)
      The patents were filed March 18, 2004 and June 16, 2004. Obviously tons of prior art exists. Oh wait! It is the US we are talking about, the country where tons of obvious prior art does not matter, the US patent office has time and time again demonstrated that it only cares who gives them the biggest pile of money.

      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"..
      • Now only Macrovision will be allowed to try and spoof hashes, etc. So P2P freedom fighters need only bankrupt/hijack 1 corporation! ...except that they may well license the technology to third parties, and if bankrupted, would certainly sell it (or be forced to sell it) to cover debts, etc.

        At best, it means that you only have to fight one company at a time.
      • 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!

        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.

      • Donate $.50 to purchase Macrovision anyone?

        We could have this patent at $.00001 a song :P

    • Groklaw and prior art. (Score:4, Informative)

      by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <(su.0tixe) (ta) (todhsals-ga)> on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:24AM (#12543171) Homepage
      Groklaw [groklaw.net] has an listing of a HOW-TO on prior art. You need to scroll down to the third article.

    • Biggest pile of money? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:32AM (#12543251) Journal
      Maybe indirectly, through the IRS. But I don't think USPTO gets paid more to issue a patent to Microsoft or IBM than they do to issue one to your or me.

      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.
      • That's because you left out a word between "a" and "monopoly" in the last sentence. That word is illegle. Patents are LEGAL mopolies issued for limited periods of time. They used to have requirements like "no prior art" and "spark of genius", but they don't apply them any more as far as I can tell. I fully agree that being able to patent things like naturaly occuring nucleic acid sequences and math equations is nuts. At least the period is only 20 years, so others can utilize them before the heat death

  • I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GruntboyX ( 753706 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:13AM (#12543041)
    I wonder if this can be considered illegal because it causes destruction and harm to a computer network. I mean tall those 9/11 related computer laws have to be good for something.
    • Patenting illegal technology...what will they think of next...

    • Bingo. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by patio11 ( 857072 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:57AM (#12543527)
      Its actually been illegal for quite a bit longer than that -- assuming you want criminal prosecution (there are obviously civil torts, but you can't demonstrate you suffered damage if you were only prevented from commiting a crime yourself so that could be a wash), the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act of 1984 (ahh, what a year) provides for federal felony prosecution for anyone who "transmits any code or signal" which could cause "undesired operation" or "degraded [operation]" by any "protected computer" if you do it "without authorization". The law protects all computers involved in interstate commerce. But wait, thats hella-broad, isn't it? Yep, the courts have even recognized it -- as early as 2000, when the Western Washington court noted "[the law was] intended to control interstate computer crime, and since the advent of the Internet, almost all computer use has become interstate in nature." The commerce restriction is really a nullity, too -- its almost laughably easy to find a test under which your computer is engaged in commerce ("I pay for Internet access", "I transmit information from my computer which has material value", etc, etc -- even the fact you're breaking the copyright laws is probably enough to trigger the protection).

      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.

      • Its actually been illegal for quite a bit longer than that -- assuming you want criminal prosecution (there are obviously civil torts, but you can't demonstrate you suffered damage if you were only prevented from commiting a crime yourself so that could be a wash)

        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

  • Macrovision: An Old Grey Cat That Can't Catch Mice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:19AM (#12543115) Homepage
    This is not exactly new technology, it's just that Macrovision is trying to monetize it. Of course, who's going to protest the patent?

    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.

  • ARGH The Pain! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eander315 ( 448340 ) * on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:22AM (#12543152)
    "...(in pain staking detail)..."

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:24AM (#12543169)
    I don't get music or movies from p2p (now). But what I don't approve is this attempt by the big corps to stymie the technology. What essentially Macrovision is saying that it would sabotage a p2p network, thus rendering the network unusable for legal use.

    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 ,my cable provider Insight is artifically capping BT downloads for me. People should realize what dirty tricks RIAA & MPAA are upto.

    • 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.

      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.
    • "I don't get music or movies from p2p (now). But what I don't approve is this attempt by the big corps to stymie the technology."

      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
    • What essentially Macrovision is saying that it would sabotage a p2p network, thus rendering the network unusable for legal use.

      One word: DMCA *cackle*

    • Re:What about technology (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Cramer ( 69040 )
      they now serve [as] nothing more than glorified VCRs
      Actually, on this point, they don't rank even that high... my VCR has "commercial advance"(TM). So, where were the lawsuits against RCA? They were making these things 10+ years ago. Suing DVR makers for something they let others do is bullshit.

      (As far as I know, the patent for the commercial advance technology in my RCA VCR expired long ago.)
    • my cable provider Insight is artifically capping BT downloads for me.

      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.

  • Cheers guys - now we know how you go about prevent people from sharing files - we can go about preventing your prevention methods.
  • Could these patents actually be good? The patents can stop others from using simillar techniques and this should reduce the overall amount of these attacks on P2P networks. They also provide information about the attacks, and that information can be used to help defend against them.

  • Fear (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mother Sha Boo Boo ( 883424 )
    Well, after that: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/28/12 31257&from=rss [slashdot.org] , I only use BT for free content.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Well, nothing in that sounds like true interdiction. Interdiction would seem to suggest to me that once identified, a P2P client or host would be removed from routing information. This is simply an auto-poisoner... The hash spoofing is problematic. if they are able to do this effectively, this could cause trouble. Any efforts made by Bram to counteract this, could nudge bittorrent away from lawful use. Up to now, all features of bittorrent have been in support of lawful use (just not precluding unlawful
    • There you go, then.

      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)

    by william_w_bush ( 817571 )
    so... i could patent logging on to a p2p network, getting the ip's of peers and resolving them into an identity from their isps... then sue them if they tried to do the same?

    i like this idea, lemme get a pen!

  • Patent to impede individual copyright control (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Senor_Programmer ( 876714 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:07AM (#12543623)
    wake up and smell the horseshit!

    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)

    by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:14AM (#12543675)
    ... to generate public domain content with metadata such that it appears to be content that Macrovision is looking to disrupt. Then, when they do disrupt that content, sue them.

    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.

  • emerge. Also, the P2P protocols would be modified so Macrovision could not detect them. Maybe it is time to encrypt all P2P servers and clients. The hardest quest would be limiting the client/server code to only subscribers. (free of course). We would have to make sure the subscriber base doesn't have members belonging to the likes of any DRM company.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:34AM (#12543881)
    Joe: Hey Bob! Did you pick up the new one from Metallica?

    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)

    by MrJerryNormandinSir ( 197432 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:48AM (#12544022)
    A system for interdicting unauthorized copying in a decentralized network comprising: a plurality of software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network; and a query matcher that receives search results from the plurality of software agents, and reports matches of the search results with protected files back to the plurality of software agents so that the software agents can interdict unauthorized copying of the protected files in the decentralized network.

    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.

  • http://www.macrovision.com/company/directions/newo ffice.html [macrovision.com]

    There's the address (info right from their public website) :)

  • I hope Macrovision gets sued.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by d_jedi ( 773213 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @12:04PM (#12544175)
    They're INTENTIONALLY distrupting LEGAL use of a communications medium.

    There's gotta be a law against that..
  • Quit bitching and do something about it. Send $1 every time you post on slashdot to the EFF and other organizations are start patenting EVERYTHING you can think of from breathing to wetting yourself. Innindate (sp) the patent office with millions, perhaps billions of patents a year. Fight fire with fire people, it's not hard. It's so easy, go to your own profile here on /. and each month count up the number of posts you've done. Send it in to the EFF. In the US it's a charitable donation! DO IT! DO IT! I ow

  • Microdarkness (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#12544538) Homepage Journal
    I watch DVDs on my PS2. Some of the Macrovision "protected" ones (all legal, prepackaged commercial copies) swing through dark/light cycles while playing. That's not in the DVD specs! Has someone sued these Macrovisioned version vendors for violating the DVD trademark, with its quality assurances?
    • Due to the joys of the way DVDs work this is not really Macrovision's fault. The work required to produce a MV protected disc is to flip the 'protect with Macrovision' bit in the appropriate data structure on disc. Any screen-effects you see are due to the MV circuit in your decoder. You could try sue-ing Sony for not complying with their own specs but I'd imagine they would just give themselves the ability to get around it.
      • That's interesting, and kinda silly. Don't professional DVD pirates just flip the MV-bit back before writing? If so, shouldn't that bit be just a "do not copy", rather than "do not play" flag, if players screw it up?

  • In a nutshell... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bugmaster ( 227959 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @02:39PM (#12545851) Homepage
    This is what Macrovision wants to do:

    * 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)

    by eagl ( 86459 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @02:59PM (#12546084) Journal
    I thought the Catholic church tried this shortly after the printing press was invented. Are we to suffer another inquisition? A separation of the techno-elite from the techno-ostrich? It has all the social markings of a state sponsored holy war, except it's the pure sharing of ALL information instead of a religious text that is at stake.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close