Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Digital Restrictions Management for P2P Systems

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the just-because-you-can-do-it-doesn't-mean-you-should dept.

Science 261

Anonymous Coward writes "Digital restrictions management for an open-source peer-to-peer network. Researchers at the Georgia Tech Information Security Center have created a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella. The paper argues that DRM is beneficial to everyone including independent musicians and end-users."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post Haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Rhombus (104176) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017662)

Finally here
First post, just as I should be
Suck it down, baby.

Re:First Post Haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017682)

"Finally Here"

Fin-al-ly Here

Only four sylables, jerky

Re:First Post Haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Rhombus (104176) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017733)

Damnit, I know. :(

In my mad rush for 1st post, I omitted the word 'got'. First line was supposed to read 'finally got here'.

I'm so ashamed.

Someone hold me. I need to be held.

Re:First Post Haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017763)

I'm still you fan!

[Trolling Stones] an easier one is coming later (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017663)

Trolling Stones' lyrics quiz!
See if you can get them all without using a search engine
You must provide the artist and song title for full credit.

1) it aint me it aint me
i aint no senators son

2) what a snappy little mammy gonna
keep her pappy happy and
accompany me to the ends of the earth

3) she holds the hand that holds her down
she will rise up again

4) she had dumps like a truck truck truck
guys like what what what
baby move your butt butt butt

5) so hard and lonely to
when you dont know yourself

g to the oatse
c to the izzex
fo shizzle my nizzle the italian bmt is th best sub at subway

Re:[Trolling Stones] an easier one is coming later (-1)

govtcheez (524087) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017824)

1) Fortunate Son - Creedence, right?

4) Sisqo - Thong Song

5) My Friends, RHCP

Happy Troll Tuesday, my brotha! What specials does Subway have for us today?

I wonder . . . (2, Insightful)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017664)

. . . how this so-called "restriction" manager will recognize the compression/encryption method du jour. But if it gives the "content industry" a false sense of security and takes some of the legislative heat off of P2P and the general purpose computer, I'm all for it.

Re:I wonder . . . (1, Troll)

splanky (598553) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017737)

I find it so hypocritical that many of us obscure the real point of the 'content industry'. They don't want their IP stolen. We can avoid that label and talk about the ripoff prices of CDs, DVDs, and software but none of that makes theft right. I would be wicked pissed if my clients decided to not pay for code I wrote for them because they just stole it from me instead. Well that's why the content industry is annoyed. Rather than supporting another industry that makes it's living off of IP, some in our industry (software) have supported the theft of their IP. Almost everyone makes a living in one way or another off of their own IP. Theft is theft, pretty simple. And being proud of figuring out new ways to steal is shameful.

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017810)

Copyright infringment is NOT theft. They are distinct things. Try picking up some law books (and perhaps the Constition).

I would be wicked pissed if my clients decided to not pay for code I wrote for them because they just stole it from me instead.

Code you wrote for them. That implies to me that there is not an off the shelf solution and that they are paying you to write something custom for thier particular problem. So its doubtful they could steal something from you short of hacking into your network. Also, in the end you'll probably be giving them the source code, especialy if you work for an internet company like I do where there isn't really any escaping that. Usually, once they have it they can do as they please with it, except resell it. But what they can and cannot do is decided BEFORE we do any work for the client, and is clearly spelled out in our contract.

And should they break the contract, well tahts breaking a contract. But even that would not be 'theft' even if they chose to resell it when we did not agree to it.

Re:I wonder . . . (2, Interesting)

splanky (598553) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017891)

>Copyright infringment is NOT theft. They are distinct things. Try picking up some law books (and perhaps the Constition).

Thanks for the legal advice - but try searching on copyright infringement theft and you'll see that those law books you'd like me to read in fact disagree with your position. Finally, I don't think you'll find much mention of the IP issues in the 'Constition' or the Constitution.

Re:I wonder . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017826)

Theft is theft, pretty simple. And being proud of figuring out new ways to steal is shameful.
If it were really that simple, would we still be discussing it?

Re:I wonder . . . (2, Interesting)

splanky (598553) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017936)

I think we're still discussing it because of the scale of it and the economic ramifications of it. Back in the 80s, the much loathed music companies were complaining that home taping was killing the music industry. Of course they were wrong. But now, because of scale, file sharing actually is putting a serious economic dent in the music biz. It is simple to say that it's theft, but if we can't as a society convince people that theft is wrong - even if it's from a horrible industry - then it has massive economic ramifications. No one argues that it's ok to break into a neighbors house if they're not nice people, and we should also easily be able to say that it's not ok to ripoff music even if the record biz are a bunch of thieves themselves. Our arguments that we use to defend our theft (as p2p users) are so self serving that it's embarassing. Information yearns to be free, the music biz are thieves themselves, yada yada yada. Theft is theft - that is simple - but the changing attitude towards direct theft or the sheer size of it has serious implications on our economic structure as a whole.

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

Fig, formerly A.C. (543042) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017848)

Theft is theft, but I feel no remorse about stealing from thieves: and I'd say the RIAA/MPAA qualify, given their pricing and practices.

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

Ravensfire (209905) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017917)

No remores stealing from theives, or murdering murderers, etc etc etc.

So nice to see the morals and ethics of people.

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

Fig, formerly A.C. (543042) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018085)

That's true, I'd cheerfully execute a murderer... But I'd never harm an innocent. To go back to the original point, I don't find the RIAA/MPAA innocent. They have been ripping people off (artists _and_ consumers) for decades, and doing whatever they can (moral or not)to maintain a chokehold on distribution channels. I refuse to feel regret for any actions I might take against them, sorry.

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017745)

Not to mention the dozens or more different copies. The only way these restrictions will work is if there is active monitoring.

If I rip a cd track and compare it to someone else's rip, it would be different based on algorithm used, filters used to reduce noise and normalize the track, and length of rip. You could profile the music and make a "Tolerance Level" where the song would just have to be close, but would that affect cover bands?

I still dont understand why (2, Insightful)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017674)

they do this. They will have this out for about 20 minutes before someone figures out how to bypass it. Sure, some of the non savvy people will be restricted, but this is just another case of keeping the honest people honest. I think.

Re:I still dont understand why (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017716)

It's a plugin

Here is my guide to bypassing the system:

  1. Don't install the plugin.
  2. Err...
  3. That's it.
There is no need to bypass anything until it's installed mandatorily.

Re:I still dont understand why (1)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017841)

From what I understand of the article, it is a way to provide secure media over an insecure network. Unless it is implemented at every node, it will fail in the fact that insecure content will be available, but will still succeed in allowing a content provider to release information available only to their clients.
What happens when a client receives the content and turns around and puts it online unprotected? I don't think that they figured that out yet. Maybe encoded key encryption (like satellite), but even then... If it's playable, it's copyable!

Good faith effort (2, Interesting)

rushiferu (595361) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017926)

Maybe it's just an attempt to create "secure" file sharing networks to help keep the government from mucking around in the situation. I don't think anyone believes a plug-in will be the end all solution, but if people can show they are trying in good faith to fix the "problem" (whatever the problem may be) then it will be easier to keep poorly constructed DRM bills from being shat out by Congress.

YES! I've been looking for one of these! (0, Offtopic)

syd02 (595787) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017693)

"Build a better mousetrap and the world will
beat a path to your door." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Re:YES! I've been looking for one of these! (2)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017903)

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door

Well, unless you happen to be a mouse of course. The mice will run the other way.

I leave it to the reader to decide if they are inventor or mouse in a DRM situation.


Awesome! (1)

grub (11606) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017705)

As soon as I remove all the spyware/adware from my gnutella clients, this will be the first thing I'll install!

WTF ? (2)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017708)

...a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella

Do they really expect that people are going to download this plugin and install it ? Why would anyone want to do that ?

Re:WTF ? (4, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017748)

Why would anyone want to do that ?

If you havn't installed the plugin, or any DRM plugins, you must be a thief!

If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why don't you install it?

(Maybe now all the people that made that idiotic argument in the past in regards to every sapping of our rights will wake up a little)

Re:WTF ? (4, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017775)

This type of DRM doesn't so much restrict you as it adds extra abilities. Basically an "artist" releases a song with DRM controls (proprietary encrypted format) so if you just have plain old limewire, sure you can trade the file. But its going to do you no good (of course someone can convert the file to mp3 and start trading that, but it takes a bit of work) While if you have DRM you can listen to this file, under certain restrictions. The advantage of hooking it straight into limewire is that limewire will now be able to read the headers from the file, and possibily even as as a registration/buying carrier. So you can use limewire to pay to open up the songs. DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right. Its the attempts at mandating DRM and having players that won't play songs that other non DRM players will play.

Re:WTF ? (5, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017839)

>DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right.

Sorry, can you explain to me what exactly the rights of artists are? And why those rights are relevant to the artist given that 98% of the copyright in the western world is owned by corperations?

The artist is obligated to ensure that, upon claiming protection via copyright, his work is freely accessible 20 years after his death. Should he DRM-ize all his songs to expire after 6 months, and never publish them again, it is the artist that is breaking copyright law (by not making his work available to the commons after his copyright protection has expired.)

Re:WTF ? (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017890)

Er rather, maybe its 70 years or 90 years now, shit, I can't keep up with Disney's lawyers .. I forget how insane it is right now. Somebody care to clarify?

Re:WTF ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017944)

You have to wonder why Disney's lawyers keeps doing this (pushing the copyright expiry limit). After all, Disney is technically not dead, only "temporarily" deep-frozen, thus he wouldn't need any extension to protect his rights, now would he?

Re:WTF ? (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017945)

Well actually there is no obligation coded into law. They could continue to release DRM after the copywrite expires, its just that your not going to get into trouble for spreading the non DRM version around. NOW here is the problem. the DMCA (BOOO!) makes it illigal for you to convert out of DRM to standard format even after copywrite expires. But there is some working on getting that changed. But seriously an artist can use whatever means of distribution that artist wants to in my opinion. Obviously nowadays its the record company making that decision and that is pretty sickening. But just as a painter has his/her right of the medium of their painting so does a musical artist. I'm not going to be the one to tell them that their music has to be released in format X with tempo Y or any of that.

Re:WTF ? (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018013)

>you're not going to get into trouble for spreading the non DRM version around.

If copyright was introduced in order to break the publishers' monopoly on printing (1622, I think) .. ie, to force work back into the public domain, then what is the point of the entire law if I can release my music *only* in a DRM'd format?

DRM is not a musical format. It is a technology that, while its bits might sit beside my musical bits, is not technically part of the 'format' that I present my song in ...

It's not a medium. It's the package _around_ the art. So, doesn't the law of copyright become useless (toothless, worthless, etc) as soon as I'm legally allowed to distribute my work in a package that nullifies any intent set forth by copyright law?

Re:WTF ? (2, Insightful)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017849)

I believe this may be what some people refer to as a 'proof-of-concept'.

File Sharing and Religion (2)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018025)

What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.

Oh so I have the right to practice my religious beliefs, which say I should share whenever it doesnt remove anything from me or anyone else. So why the hell shouldnt I share my files? Its not taking anything away from me or anyone else, its giving to someone who didnt have before

Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.

This should mean, that the government has no right to create laws which restrict our freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to share or not. We should NOT have a SSSCA or any kinda law like this preventing us from sharing, it should be our choice, and the constitution says so.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.

This means the government CANNOT claim file sharing is wrong, and that I am stealing, because its promoting the beliefs of big media companies, who is the government supposed to be representing here? Them or Me? Instead the government should allow the people to decide, and tell the media companies to stop complaining and spend their money to fix their problem instead of trying to use our tax dollars without us even agreeing to it.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.

This says that I cannot be locked up in jail for sharing information, because if my religion beliefs that the whole purpose of life is to share information, it kinda goes against my whole belief system to be forced to not share.

Look I understand some information cannot be shared, information which directly harms other people should not be shared, such as some top secret government information where millions of lives might be in danger.

However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others?

Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.

Re:File Sharing and Religion (1)

Jonsey (593310) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018090)

The First Amendment does not allow absoloute freedom of religion, what is does grant is that provided your excercize of the First Amendment does not infringe on other's abilities to excercize the First Amendment, the government is not supposed to stop you.

Take human sacrifices for an example, replace stealing with killing in your arguement. The government will run you up the flagpole for it, because it too is illegal. Or, to view it by my method, your killing of that person infringes on their First Amendment rights.

It's the same view I have on many things, including sexual practices. People should be allowed to do what they want, provided it doesn't infringe on or impair someone else's ability to do so. I don't wanna be tied up, so don't tie me up.

Nice try on the arguement, but it really doesn't hold that much water

- Jones

Control of the uncontrollable? (1)

PaSTE (88128) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017710)

Seems to be that the industry accepts defeat at the hands of Gnutella and is looking for some way to keep control. Perhaps they are tipping their hand a bit too far with this one. Just pray Microsoft doesn't make the plug-in hard-coded into Palladium.

Re:Control of the uncontrollable? (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017859)

Who cares if MS does? For myself, I'm running Win2kPro, and I loved XP Home SO MUCH that I wiped the HD and put WIn2k on instead. I ordered Lycoris last night and already have Mandrake...One way or the other, Win2k is the LAST MS OS I'll buy.

Yeah right (0)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017711)

In the land of Congress and PHB's, "management" is usually synonymous with "telling you what you can and cannot do". That makes "rights management" an oxymoron and people who subscribe to them regularmorons. That it is digital is just sickening.

The Real Life world has a lot of problems, problems that were specifically engineered out of the online world. Things such as anonymity, file downloading, and HTTP were all designed expressly for the purpose of doing morally good things that were inexplicably illegal--like looking at porn. Now those jackbooted thugs are cyberstomping us and we need to fight back! Boycott!

finally (5, Funny)

tps12 (105590) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017719)

I'm always getting my digital rights all messed up. Especially when stealing movies on LimeWire, my time shifting tends to get tangled in my fair use, and since information wants to be free I end up with data all over the floor. This plugin will help me manage my digital rights, so I can finally focus on what matters: ripping off starving artists.

Re:finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017879)

Just remember: he who sacrifices paradigm to gain a little temporary decentralization deserves, and will get, neither.

Tentatively earns my approval... (2, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017724)

I'm apprehensive to any sort of restrictions (particularly mandatory restrictions) being put on my P2P activities. This sort of thing needs to be approached with some degree of common sense and respect for the system that has been in place for decades. Fortunately, it sounds like we're on the threshold of implementing a technological solution that won't unfairly impact all computer users.

It's all about the balance of our rights against the rights of content owners to protect their investment and realize their returns in the open market. Building in DRM where it's needed most as opposed to just dumping it into every piece of consumer electronics on the market seems quite sensible and reasonable. I'm certain people who have been getting a free ride off of the artists won't appreciate it, but I believe that besides cutting off an avenue of exploitation this will also help return the Internet to a responsive state as well as encourage the media giants to finally embrace this medium without hesitation.

It's got to end sometime, folks -- otherwise, we're gonna kill the golden goose.

Re:Tentatively earns my approval... (2)

Jerf (17166) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018036)

It's got to end sometime, folks -- otherwise, we're gonna kill the golden goose.

The golden goose is already on its last gasp, and DRM is the cage for the rest of us that will make sure that not only does it stay dead, but that nobody finds an alternative source of gold, 'cause we'll all be locked in the RIAA cage.

DRM is not about protecting artists, it's about protecting music companies. At least that's the way it's working now. Rest assured were it just about the artists that the RIAA would not bother buying laws that makes DRM impossible to crack.

Follow the money.

the paper misses a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017726)

They say that it will all be good if everyone plays by the rules. But will RIAA play by the rules? They will just hire another "Overpeer Inc" to break the network.

Benefits fro the end-users? (2, Interesting)

NorthDude (560769) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017747)

Do someone has understood what would be the benefits for the end-user?

From what I read, it would benefit the user only because "content providers" would be more willing to provide stuff over P2P network.
i don't think this is "benificial" at all to the end user.
It's like if they were telling me: Hey! If you accept to loose control over what you have, can do, their will be so much more content distributed!
Yeah, and so what? I don't give a dam what COULD be distributed online which is not right now!
I already can go out and buy what I need or want.
And If I'm a "bad" guy, I can download movies and MP3's anyway.

I don't want anybody having the control over what information I make available on a network. If this information ever is copywrited, come on home and arrest me.
If not, go away.

Re:Benefits fro the end-users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017782)

From what I read, it would benefit the user only because "content providers" would be more willing to provide stuff over P2P network.


1) Install plugin

2) Wait for 'content providers' to provide content

3) Remove plugin

4) PROFIT !!!

I wonder... (1)

RexRuther (221243) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017753)

...where the funding for the 'research' came from?

Frankly, I agree. (4, Interesting)

torpor (458) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017755)

On one condition: as long as the protocols for implementing the restrictions remain *OPEN*, *DOCUMENTED*, and *WELL DEFINED*.

So, what? It's not easy to do it and still actually engineer a restriction plan? Yeah?

Bugger it, who said it has to be easy to do this properly, and not end up with the complete social nightmare like what the good ol' U$ofA is currently happily building?

As an independent musician, as a technology freak (I work for Access Music, I make synthesizers for a living, and I use Linux extensively), and as a renegade from the New World Odor, I think it's good to have a system like this that works so that *ANYONE* - any musician, signed or not, represented by RIAA or not - can actually make their work available and get rewarded for doing so.

But it's gotta stay open, folks. Secrecy behind a corporate stigma is not the way this is going to be done ...

Re:Frankly, I agree. (3, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017821)

No crappy system is going to be made effective by simply hiding the implementation. The best system would be open and unencumbered by patent so that acceptance is more likely across the board.

I'm not personally for preventing Fair Use, mind you, but for stopping the unchecked spread of other peoples' property across the Internet merely because it's convenient and made of electrical impulses. An effective DRM system, in my mind, would not impede the easy transfer and playback we've gotten used to with dumping CDs to tape and MP3 or the like locally but would prevent (the convenient) bulk network transfer of content. I'm positive this would be possible if the major companies would sit down and work this out together rather than trying to figure out how to weasel cash from the whole scheme.

Re:Frankly, I agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017876)

I believe that you misspelt Odour

Re:Frankly, I don't give a damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017922)

I'm able to manage my own data thanks. I do not need restrictions on my own PC to do this for me.

Re:Frankly, I don't give a damn. (1)

JoeBlows (581471) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018031)

ummmm...I don't think that to the copyright holder, you can be considered responsable.

people like you have some odd thought that you have a moral right to this don't.

if you buy a copy, then you have the right to have an unencumbered MP3 or any other format or media that you wish to shift it to. however, folks on lime wire are stealing......I think this is a good balence between the government taking away all my rights and stoping illegal activities.

Re:Frankly, I agree. (2)

smiff (578693) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017980)

On one condition: as long as the protocols for implementing the restrictions remain *OPEN*, *DOCUMENTED*, and *WELL DEFINED*.

That could actually be done. Using the system layed out by the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance [] , you could construct a system that would only work if the code is authenticated by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM). All of the code could be open sourced, but only certain implementations would be signed. If your code isn't signed, the computer will refuse to run it.

The protocol could encrypt all communications so no one can 'sniff' the contents. The protocol could also require you to cryptographically authenticate that you are running trusted code before it lets you access content.

I have a problem with this. It means that you have to get permission from whoever holds the master key(s) in order to create a compatible client. The key holder will dictate the terms under which you may develop your client. It's kind of like the british government deciding who may or may not use a printing press.

Add 'content protection', change P2P software (1)

krinsh (94283) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017776)

There are going to be legitimate file-sharers, and illegal ones (unless they stop passing 'rips' around and become 'legit'). I'm not going to stir up arguments on the legitimacy of P2P; and don't want to.

However, I do believe that every time you implement 'content protection' you'll have a few sets of people that will just move on to the next system: folks that value their privacy and will equate DRM/copy protection with personal data mining; people that get tired of going through another string of 'keys' and 'registration' when they swap material with others; and finally those that are 'pirating' (whether it is because MPAA/RIAA groups or other people claim they are, or they are bootlegging stuff deliberately.)

before there was gnutella, limewire, and napster (0)

locutus2k (103517) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017777)

It makes me smile when I think of what was used before all of the gui based p2p networks... good old IRC and of course newsgroups. These things were here before, and the RIAA didn't really do anything about them (at least in comparison to what they are doing now). I really think they got mad only after this stuff became popular with the average LUSER.

It was sure nice when the average home user wasn't out mucking up a good thing. Granted, it's nice they are getting on the bandwagon, but I for one am sticking with what I know works. Besides, I've had no problems with viruses, poisioned files, and junk data.

Remember IRC welcomes you...

I guess I don't understand (1)

AAAWalrus (586930) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017790)

Okay, I started writing this post after only having read the abstract for the article, and I was confused about what the researcher was actually trying to accomplish. I read a little into the actual article and read this:

"The introduction of content protection systems for peer-to-peer networks will allow content providers to safely take advantage of the numerous benefits of the peer-to-peer distribution paradigm. This will lead to the availability of more content, richer content, new applications, and traditional content distribution business models in peer-to-peer systems."

I guess I just don't see this as a reality. The nature of peer-to-peer networks (as I see it) is that content is provided by peers, not businesses. In other words, it's the users that determine the content, not the RIAA or Microsoft or the government, or anyone else for that matter. And that is exactly people like the RIAA are against. As long as users are providing "illegal" content, content protection systems won't work.

Could someone who's read and understands the whole article pipe in? I have a feeling I'm missing some key point, but I just don't buy into what these researchers are claiming.

P2P is really hard to stop. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017792)

P2P cant be stopped, its not possible on an open internet. If they do, what prevents me from using other routes to get free music? Tunneling, encryption and so forth are possible routes P2P will take that will make it very hard to stop. Closed rings of P2P sharing with just friends is another.

The main reason that people seems so unwilling to pay is perhaps that much of todays music is no-risc-involved mainstream crap. Maybe if the music had some valye and if they stopped cramming two good songs in with 12 really crappy ones and call it an album. The fact that people seems to enjoy the ripping itself indicates that the industry has lost all contact with its customers.

Another thing is the lack of places to buy music online, whats up with that? Risk of content copying isnt an issue since it looks like thats very easy right now.

Stating the obvious... (2, Insightful)

Dr.Seuss (94326) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017795)

As an employee of GT College of Computing [] , I'd like to reiterate that Paul's opinions don't reflect those of many of us here.
Just like many other [] places in the world, we have dissenting opinions running around the office, too.

Censorship is never beneficial (5, Interesting)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017801)

Censorship is never beneficial. I warned that the DMCA could be used to prohibit access to free material (i.e. Adobe published Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven" in a DRM format. Project Gutenberg is now violating the circumvention clause regardless of who came first. See the Analog section of the DMCA for details.) This is the second step in the progression to a new dark age... My suggestion is fight fire with fire. Use an encryption format on the next P2P application then, in the EULA state that you cannot use the software unless you are a Non-Corporate, Non-Government agency. If a company uses the app to spy the contents, they are in voliation of the EULA and you sue. If the hack the client they violate the DMCA by circumventing the encryption.

My 2 cents

(I spell crappy... I know... Shashdot needs a spell checker... ispell plugin anyone?)

Re:Censorship is never beneficial (4, Insightful)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017882)

If a company uses the app to spy the contents, they are in voliation of the EULA and you sue

But then you'll set an EULAs-are-good legal precedent that M$ would just love to exploit...

Re:Censorship is never beneficial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4018046)

Uhm hello. thats already set.

microsoft is now cramming their shady eula stuff into their hotfixes and not the os...

spend 500 bux on the shelf for a product that has a decent license get it home and have a whole bunch more restrictions tacked on when you goto update.

People should really return windows 2000 because thats within your legal right to do. The product promises updates and bugfix'es as a selling point. If you dont accept that eula in the update then you have a right to return the software. In fact its recommended.

So all those who bought xp and want their FULL cash back for 2k go ahead. That'll teach the ms upgrade whores.

Re:Censorship is never beneficial (1)

smiff (578693) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018032)

in the EULA state that you cannot use the software unless you are a Non-Corporate, Non-Government agency.

That will stop the RIAA and MPAA for sure! Oh wait, they're both non-profit organizations.

Liberal Hypocrites (-1)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017809)

It really amuses me how you liberal /. fags are against Dubya/Ashcroft's war against terrorism because of supposed privacy violations. Your liberal queer heroes like FDR are the ones who started to turn this great country into a nanny state complete with a massive federal bureauacracy to watch over and control every aspect of our lives. So go jack yourseves off and quit crying. "As you are, I was; as I am, you will be" H Himmler

Every Time I read "Content" in this article (5, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017813)

I want to vomit a little more.

Maybe I'm young and naive, but it seems to me that the entire notion of "content" is offensive. Like the music or pr0n videos or what have you was simply items in a box, with no regard for what's inside.
Though I suppose you could fairly call Britney Spheres, Backdoor Boys, and We'Stync to be nothing more than worthless coporate content, I cannot equally call the 405 short, Mudhens, Indigo Girls, or a great number of other independant, thoughtful works "content."
It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.

The notion of content is what allows them to call copyright infringement "piracy", what makes them want to license every listening. The music/videos/whatever are cheap, taiwan-made products to be whored around as much as possible for the greatest profit.

What they're really exchanging is ideas, peoples feelings, and as Jefferson once said (paraphrasing) 'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'

I'm not saying anything about the entire legality of it, or what I think of this paper (Gee, I didn't know academics were whoring themselves to the entertainment industry lately) but this talk of 'content' is cheapening to the work serious musicians, directors, and artists perform.

Just venting. thank you for yer time.

Re:Every Time I read "Content" in this article (2)

SteveX (5640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017961)

Once a musician signs with a label and agrees to have their stuff recorded and sold on little shiny plastic things, it becomes content. Musicians are never forced to do so, and you're never forced to buy it.

The record companies find musicians, pay for the production of their stuff, and then get it into stores worldwide. Unless the musicians were filthy stinking rich already, that probably wouldn't happen without the record companies. Many artists don't get rich off their music but it does pay the bills or supplement other income. Getting paid to play music and go on tour is a dream for a lot of people.

Yes, any musician can put their stuff on and go play in local bars.. but unless your stuff is really, really good nobody's going to hear it. Really, who's going to notice yet another mp3. So you sign your rights over to the record company, they send you on tour, promote your music, get it on the radio, lots of people hear your music, and maybe you succeed and maybe you don't - but it's a chance you wouldn't have without them.

- Steve

Re:Every Time I read "Content" in this article (1)

Coriolis (110923) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017962)

While I agree in general:

It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.

Oh, please, people. It's music. Communication in sonic form. It requires a degree of effort, and the best examples of it require serious effort and a thoughtful mind. It is not, however, the sodding Trail of Tears. These people are not heroes, not deities, and most of them, I challenge, are as deep as a rain puddle, along with the rest of humanity. Just because they can put average poetry to music, it doesn't make them a great philosopher.

A little perspective on both sides, please.

Re:Every Time I read "Content" in this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017967)

Maybe I'm young and naive
There's no maybe about it.

I think it's a good idea... Think of shareware. (2)

javatips (66293) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017822)

The problem with DRM that people see right now is that the big media cie want to use it to restrict the ability of the consumer to use the content he pay for.

However, DRM can be use in way not to restrict restict the consumer but to make him know that someone took time to create the content and may want to be rewarded for it's work.

Picture this. I create a song or a nice little movie. I want to distribute it but also it would be great that if people want it, that they can send me money.

So I put it on the DRMuttela network (a p2p network that implement some form of DRM). Now a consumer find the content I created. When (or while) he download the content, a small window appear with asking him to send me some $$$ if he likes it. Also whenever the file is played, the player check if the content has been payed for. If not and the nag threshold has been reached, then the small window appear again.

If the user decide to pay me some $$$ then I send him a key or whatever that will tell the DRM system not to nag the consumer anymore.

Note that the DRM system should allow the user to actually transfer the file to another format. (I know this can probably allow the user to bypass the DRM altogether. But transfered file can be stamped in some way so the author can know retrace the key that was used to transert the file to the other format - this will be a deterent to user that want to share the transfered file)

If the system is not too annoying, then most people will not try to bypass it.

This will be like most shareware we have today. You can download them freely and some will nag you from time to time so you buy the software if you use it.

I know that big media cie will not like a system like this because there is not enough control but the small label or independent artist will see great advantage in such system.

Re:I think it's a good idea... Think of shareware. (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018066)

and that is the problem with most shareware today.

I have at least 5-10 apps that I paid for that are MINE and I cannot use because the moron-over-greedy programmer wrote it for a special key that changes each time. well now he is long-gone and I haveto scour warez and crack sites looking for either a keygen or a crack for that program.

Many many of us got burned by shareware and the overzealous control of the programmers. and those of us that got burned made sure we told many many others that we got burned. and Thus... shareware dies... It is nothing like it was in the 80's only a faded shadow of it's former self. because of their damned DRM they wrote into it.

Microsoft is doing the same now (Funny how shareware programmers were ahead of microsoft in this innovation) and starting to annoy their customers..

Now you want me to have to track you down every time I buy a new computer, reload the OS (if I'm a windows user... that's required almost yearly) or have to deal with hard drive failures? No thank you.

I will be one of them that will happily download a crack to completely defeat your protection so that my purchase stay's exactly that... a purchase and not the rental that many want it to be. I bought your song "balls on fire" and I demand the right to still have and play that song in 30 years.

ruh-roh (3, Informative)

Dan Nordquist (214523) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017840)

"I am sorry, but this paper was not intended for general distribution at this time. Someone that did not know this submitted the link.

"We are working on a content protection system for decentralized peer-to-peer systems. The goal of the system is to allow individuals and content providers(large and independent) to be able to distribute content using peer-to-peer systems but maintain some control over their work. We concentrate on maintaining an open peer-to-peer file sharing environment. Our implementation uses open-source components and standards-based security. Feel free to email me if you want more information."

Anybody copy the paper?

Amazing (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017854)

Wow, and there's me thinking its impossible to implement a 100% secure DRM system on an open architecture that is the PC. You guys have proved me wrong. Now i will install this plug-in in the happy knowledge that i can download RIAA/MPAA material with their blessings because my computer will loyally adhere to the rulings of the flag bits 'NO_COPY_H' 'EXPIRE_AFTER_24_HOURS_H' and 'ONE_PLAY_ONLY_L'. There is simply no way anyone could break this system its 'UNCRACKABLE_SARCASM_H' bit will make sure of that.

Computer Science - Before Hollings:
"If I can see it, I can copy it"

Computer Science - After Hollings:
"If the government says I can copy it, I can copy it"

Re:Amazing (1)

karmawarrior (311177) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017949)

Now, what if the flag was instead "After first play, allow 24 more hours of playing but no conversion to MP3 format. If user still wants to play it after that period, allow user to, by clicking on a button, send 25c to original artist and unlock file for unlimited access on own machine, including conversion to other formats and burning to CD".

Then you get something else. Hook that up to some sort of micropayment service, and it's a good deal. Sure, someone who wants to can, technically, redistribute an MP3 after paying the 25c to unlock the DRMed file, but there's little motivation to do so - if you want to send the original DRM'd file to a friend to say "Hey, check out XX" it's sitting there on your hard drive and perfectly legal to distribute. And putting the MP3 on your P2P client, rather than the DRM'd file, may get you into trouble and is merely sending a big fat FU to the person who put together the music, without any gain to you.

So, actually, I can see a voluntary DRM system working fairly well. Sure, some people will hack the clients, but for most people it'll be a "Well, this isn't that much of an imposition, and by enabling it I can easy reward the person who actually made the music I enjoy." P2P networks become, genuinely, systems that make it easy to reward artists rather than mechanisms to avoid doing so.

Given the website is down at the moment, I can't comment on whether the above is what they have in mind, but I'd be happy with something like that, and I wouldn't attempt to bypass the protections.

paper? (1)

forsaken33 (468293) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017856)

Anyone save that paper? Right now, it says "blah blah, paper not intended for distribution at this time". Mirrors/anything would be quite beneficial.

Re:paper? (1)

smd4985 (203677) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018078)

Another call for someone to make the paper available. We here at LimeWire would like to take a look at it and maybe even play with the plugin.

Susheel Daswani
Lime Wire LLC

Desperately seeking a VERB (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017857)

Digital restrictions management for an open-source peer-to-peer network.
This is not a sentence--it's missing a verb, and even if you threw one in there it would still be crappy... Does anybody edit these things before putting them up?

My suggestion would be to remove that line entirely.

Re:Desperately seeking a VERB (1)

nial-in-a-box (588883) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017920)

In addition, is it "Digital Restrictions Management" or is it "Digital Rights Management." Obviously they refer to the same thing so let's not dilute the issue with different names. (although I think restrictions is more appropriate)

I don't get it - why DRM for P2P? (1)

Captain Kirk (148843) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017869)

Users of Gnutella and its kin are devoted to the notion that once you buy a CD, you can redistribute its content as they see fit.

Whether you agree with them or not, that is what the software is used for.

So surely a DRM system for Gnutella users is like a code of ethics for burglars. They are the last people in the world to want one!

So I don't get it. What is the point in doing DRM for people whose main focus is to avoid intellectual property laws.

I don't want to get into whether intellectual property rights are or are not a good idea. But this DRM seems a futile exercise as no-one who uses Gnutella would ever use it.


Blame the dirty Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017870)

Have you ever noticed how the Jews are at the forefront of those trying to restrict our rights. Know your enemy. Study this list of Jews trying to destroy your freedom:
  • Rosen
  • Coble
  • Berman
  • Eisner
  • Redstone
The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer. Listen and learn about the Jew in this mp3 [] .

Re:Blame the dirty Jews (1)

Adam Fisk (536262) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017906)

You are insane.

Adam Fisk LimeWire LLC

Re:Blame the dirty Jews (1)

Adam Fisk (536262) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018081)

I was meaning to reply to the insane and disturbing earlier post that described the digital rights movement as an elaborate Jewish conspiracy -- sorry about that!!

Adam Fisk

LimeWire LLC

DRM (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017877)

I love the way they call it "Digital Restrictions Management" thats a very nice touch to an otherwise lame paper. Hopefully the mainstream press will get hold of that and make some bad publicity for Digital Rights Management

What other content? (2, Insightful)

rushiferu (595361) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017892)

A primary argument for DRM being good for Joe Computer User is that it will facilitate "content providers" to release more of their work onto the web. My question is, what is this golden material that will enrich all our lives once DRM is in place? I agree, an official distribution site would make it somewhat easier to find the material I want, but 90% of the time I really don't have any problems finding what I'm looking for now. All the "content" I would want to download to my computer is already available. I really don't want to log onto an official site and download every Simpson's episode onto my hard drive, I would rather just go out and buy a well-constructed DVD box set. Just my 2 cents though.

Cough it up! (3, Insightful)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017894)

Firstly, Limewire is GPLed [] so if they are going to use this, they better cough up the source code! GPLed fuckware will be a first... (not that it really matters as it would be torn apart as soon as anyone cares to anyways.)

Secondly, I wish people could understand that the reason user hostile software stinks has nothing to do with utilitarian advantage to any group - but the basic principle of liberty in the information society that the computers which are our eyes, ears, and mouths in this new world must serve us, and us alone.

Saying that "users will benefit from user hostile software" is like saying, "patients will benefit from doctors killing every third one to use his organs for the next two" or "people will benefit from lawyers not defending scumbags." We set down certain principles of the integrity and freedom that every individual deserves, and then we build our society and laws on top of that. Trying to restrict peoples actions by implanting control devices in the machines they use to communicate is such a hideous breach of that principle it can be considered no less than the 21st century answer to the totalitarian state.

Thirdly, it wasn't even an interesting paper and didn't deserve any attention for better or worse.

Re:Cough it up! (1)

tuxedo-steve (33545) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017932)

GPLed fuckware will be a first...

Pipped at the post, only a few stories back. []

Here comes the /. effect... (2)

tuxedo-steve (33545) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017898)

... have created a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella...
Gee, I bet P2P users have been really hanging out for that one. Somebody post a list of mirrors, 'coz I bet the main site's going to get hammered.

Shhyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. :)

peeves and rants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017904)

These guys publish something on the web, and they use a pdf instead of html, and I'm supposed to think they know what they're talking about?

The web is not paper. Preformatting the text (especially the stupid two-column thing) instead of letting the browser format it, can only make it less convenient to read.

So now, before I've even started reading their explanations, I'm already biased against them, because they've already shown major cluelessness in issues of technology, convenience, flexibility, and user-friendliness -- exactly the issues that come up within the context DRM. Before I even start reading, they have already taken a hardline pro-DRM stand, but without putting force any actual arguments, just pure grunting and assertion. Way to convince people, guys.

These people use the word "utilize" instead of "use." "Utilize" is a pretty reliable indicator of blowhards who have nothing to say but want to look sophisticated.

Oh, look... One of their arguments in favor of DRM is that Napster won't be allowed to reopen until they implement DRM. Therefore, DRM is good. Clever of you to leave out the other half of the story, which would expose that this is actually a circular argument. (DRM is good because DRM is good.)

Is the rest of the paper this bad? I have to admit I stopped reading after a while.

I'm unimpressed (1)

HerbieStone (64244) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017907)

It's an interesting read if you want to know how to build a DRM on top of an existing P2P Network. But the author doesn't go into the problems of what happens after the transmission is done.

I'm unimpressed.

Until now, it's either:

  • Big Brother on our computer or,
  • fighting back protection systems and be your own judge was is good and fair.

I don't see how the current power mongers with their lobby-money will ever create a system with is ok for everyone.

"We argue... we argue... we argue..." (4, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017919)

Go ahead, argue all you like. White is still white, black is still black, two and two still make four.

"We argue that the lack of content protection is currently hindering the introduction of richer content systems." Yeah, right... and here I thought the INTRODUCTION of Napster and AudioGalaxy had been VERY successful.

"Content owners will not make content available in the variety, quantity, and format that users want until adequate protection measures are in place." Bullpuckey. I own a Rocket eBook (= REB1100) which has hardware-based DRM locked to a serial number in the device. When I go on a trip I like to load it up with nice easy-reading current mainstream books. And, you know what? They're mostly not available. Never have been, even before the whole eBook scene died. I recently did a check--of about 44 titles on Oprah's book club, which I think is a good test since they're good books, widely distributed, have been out long enough to give plenty of time for conversion, etc.

In eBook format, with good DRM, about 6 titles are available.

In audiobook (cassette tape) format--with no DRM, and a much more expensive production process, about 35 titles are available.

So don't tell me that DRM will increase the choices available to me. It exists, and it doesn't.

Indeed, one of the whole premises behind the Rocket eBook/REB1100 was good hardware-based DRM. Why did it fail? It was (and is) a pretty good device from a techical, UI, and product point of view. The screen is a lot more pleasant to read than a Palm; it's a lot more portable than a laptop; I can settle in and have a fine "immersive" reading experience with it.

It failed BECAUSE of a) lack of content--I have more choice in the average airport bookstore than I do in the online "bookstore" for my device; b) overpriced content; and, c) BECAUSE of DRM.

Did anybody mirror the paper? (1)

hargettp (74445) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017921)

Just hit the link and it's gone. Only a page indicating that the paper was not yet ready for public consumption.

Even though I suspect I would disagree with the argument that DRM can be beneficial for the end-user, I liked that someone wanted to "play nicely" by using open source.

Judging by the tone of most postings so far, I'm guessing nobody else read it either. Pity, because there could have been an intelligent discussion about this paper.

Re:Did anybody mirror the paper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017953)

Dude, I mirrored the paper on my LimeWire.

What if its against my religious beliefs? (2, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017923)

What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?

There is a law, which specifically says that your religious beliefs come first.

Even if it werent an openGNU religious kinda thing as it might be for me, Its still very difficult to prove to anyone who has any morals, that sharing is bad.

People who want to buy a CD to support a musician, thats just fine, they will do that even if they own the Mp3s, to support the musician, The musician could sell mp3s and or CDs at their concerts and everyone would buy them.

The RIAA and MPAA however want to continue to be th e middleman. I'm not going to pay the middleman, I want to pay directly to a musician, Musicians should sell their own Mp3s directly to their fans via the web, peer to peer, and at concerts.

I agree peer to peer should allow us to pay if we CHOOSE to pay, If i listen to a song I like i should be able to push a button, and 25 cents should go DIRECTLY to the musician who made that song, no RIAA, no middleman, DIRECT payment via paypal or some other system not built yet.

We should choose what Music should be paid for, and what shouldnt. If Musicians dont want us listening to their music, they shouldnt release it to the public. If they release it to the public, its not their RIGHT as a musician to get us to buy every single thing they release, we should buy only what we want.

Thats how alot of other industries work, you try it, and then you buy it, or you pay the creator for the service and then they release their songs.

Re:What if its against my religious beliefs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4017983)

What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?

There is a law, which specifically says that your religious beliefs come first.
And my religion says I should kill every third person I see on the street.

I don't think it takes a whole lot of thought to realize that there are restrictions here.

Copyright Really Is Against Some Religious Beliefs (2)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018040)

What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?

That isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Islam believes all knowledge comes from God, and apparently the most respected, leading islamic intellectuals believe that the entire concept of intellectual property is against islam and against God. Not the government appointed lackey in Saudi Arabia, mind you, who will echo whatever values and opinions the government tells him to, but the leadership to whom the rest of the population listens.

Personally, I'm an athiest and find religions of pretty much every bent (Buddhism perhaps excepted) obsolete in the extreme, but this goes to show you that politics can make for strange bedfellows, and that if freedom of speech AND freedom of religion truly are paramount, then Copy Restrictions and Intellectual Property must lose.

Unfortunately, I think the reality is quite different. We can pay lipservice to the constitution, to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. ... just so long as it doesn't get in the way of the entrenched oligarchs collecting and hoarding even more of our hard earned dollars.

Hell, they just got done pilfering the life savings of the entire middle class of this country, and aside from a few sacrificial, symbolic arrests nothing fundamental is being changed or repaired. In any other country, where the populace isn't as well trained and conditioned into submission, this would be the stuff of revolutions. Not here in the US, though...gotta worry about them nasty terrorists instead (who have killed less than 1/10th as many people as common car accidents have within the last year).

P2P for the enterprise (3, Interesting)

asv108 (141455) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017946)

Whether you like it or not, DRM is the first step for implementing P2P in commercial and academic environments. At the university I work for, we are working on a P2P network for faculty and students to share ACADEMIC materials. To prevent unauthorized uses such as pr0n and mp3 sharing we decided just to have the userids of the original poster and all the sharers travel with the file throughout the network. As far as rights management is concerned, we decided that a very basic form which uses kerb to check if a userid is a student, faculty, or department member.

I realize there are a lot of posts here like "WTF, who would install such a plugin?" People need to look past P2P as just Internet file sharing. There are many uses for P2P in office networks, academic networks, and with wireless pdas, laptops, tablets, etc..

useless plugin. (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017947)

What is this going to do? stop gnutella clients from downloading a file tagged as "evil to download" so fricking what.. I have the source and I create a plugin that will "say yes to everything" and completely bypass this.

If it is going to do decryption so you can recieve a good file from an allowed source I dont see the point. All it will take is one person to get a good file and re-share it.

If they want to do DRM they HAVE to do it at the player and that will only annoy people not stop them. The best examples are the "protected CD's" defeated with a 95 cent magic marker.. it stopped nobody from ripping that CD and was easily defeated for all to enjoy.

they need to give up as the people that want the music/media will always win.

Protect me from myself, GTIS (1)

no_choice (558243) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017984)

You know, I had some doubts, but after taking a look at their Steering Committee [] , I have all the confidence in the world that these people should control what I watch and listen to on my computer.

On the same note (4, Informative)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 12 years ago | (#4017993)

It seems as though Sony's Pressplay service [] has been smacked with a clue bat.
Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."

They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction.
Company Website []

Absolutely nothing new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4018024)

This is equivalent to distributing encrypted files and using a dedicated player which checks access control rights. Of course you can distribute such files via P2P.

Of course, it also has all the drawbacks of previous systems in that tokens and keys must be either tied to the hardware to prevent copying, OR the application must query a remote site each time for verification and obtain an unlock key.

Finally the app must be tied to a "trusted" OS (non-free), or the digital content is easily snatched via pseudo-drivers.

No thanks. I like my general purpose computer.

Show Me The Money (5, Interesting)

limekiller4 (451497) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018028)

First, let me say that what I'm about to show might be entirely common among colleges, not just the Georgia Institute of Technology. But whenever I see some academic group pushing something that is inexorably linked to commercial interests, I start looking for a money trail.

EPICS, Georgia Tech Receives Software Grant to Improve Retention For Minority Students [] (2000)
This year, they'll have even more to celebrate, as Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announces a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented students over the next two years.

EPICS, Microsoft Partnership Donates Software to Hands On Atlanta [] (date unknown)
"Thanks to the partnership of the nationally based Engineering Projects In Community Service (EPICS) and Microsoft Corporation, a generous software gift was recently donated to HOA. This software, Microsoft Project 2000, will allow the organization to implement a system to improve its special events planning. "

Microsoft Exec to Address Georgia Tech Grads [] (1999)
Deborah Willingham, vice president of Microsoft Corporation's Business and Enterprise Division Marketing, will address Georgia Institute of Technology's 205th Commencement ceremony on Saturday, December 18.

Microsoft grant gives OMED another reason to celebrate at Tower Awards [] (date unknown)
This year, adding to the excitement, Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announced a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented [Georgia Tech] students over the next two years.

This was just a quick check on Google.

Again, there might not be a cookie jar that Microsoft doesn't have their fist in, but it might be nice to know.

Publicity, not technology (1)

joeljkp (254783) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018038)

This problem of piracy and copyright infringement is going to need a publicity solution, not a technological one. We don't stop murders by trying to make it technically impossible to kill somebody. We promote values that lead people to believe that it's a wrong thing to do, and we punish severely those that do it.

It won't be until the majority of the public feels that copyright infringement is wrong that it will be reduced. Either that, or actual enforcement of laws regarding it.

Trying to technically prevent it is just not going to work. There will always be a way around it, and those who support such measures will become terribly unpopular.

Removed (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 12 years ago | (#4018059)

Apparently the paper's been removed, so the link's invalid now. I'd ask for a mirror, but the message that came back from the link states that the paper's not meant to be distributed. :( Sounded like it might have been a good read.

Georgia Tech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4018075)

Paper taken down because people were reading and criticizing it?

The University of Wisconsin has a brass plaque that says "Whatever else may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the Great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

Other state universities might do well do emulate this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?