Beta

×

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!

New Wave Of File-Sharing Embraces Secrecy

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the on-the-down-low dept.

The Internet 500

twin-cam writes "There's an article over at The Inquirer that software developers are designing secret file sharing networks that will make it harder for the music and file industry to prove cases of piracy. According to Reuters, three file sharing networks are being planned which its users think will make it a lot harder for music industry to track and charge people on their networks. The first is Optisoft which runs on Blubster and Piolet, music-only file-sharing networks. Only a matter of time before the RIAA requests a data dump from the ISPs or just sues everyone using their network."

cancel ×

500 comments

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

fp fp GNAA SUX LOL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161327)

Work safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161563)

Hey. Great site. It is work safe too!

Go try it. Your boss won't mind.

Arms race. Again. Sigh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161340)

N/T

Good. (5, Interesting)

mfos.org (471768) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161347)

This was only a matter of time, and really the RIAA's heavy handed tactics, and the goverenments complacency with them have forced developers to take matters into their own hands. Now they're really screwed.

It's pretty easy to design a network that will at least frustrate attempts to recover identities of sharers. Now if only freenet would stop sucking.

Re:Good. (2, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161371)

The solution is exceptionally simple: When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it. You will have no problems.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161396)

Can I do that without buying another 15 songs and get a lossless copy that is free of DRM?

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161545)

> Can I do that without buying another 15 songs and >get a lossless copy that is free of DRM?

No, but you have no right to expect that.

And pedantically speaking there is no digital or analog format that is lossless.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161592)

No, but you have no right to expect that.

This is untrue. It may not be spelled out in the constitution but people have the right to form whatever expectations they please. They don't necessarily have the right to have their expectations fulfilled but that's something entirely different to not having a general 'right to expect'.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161646)

Can I do that without buying another 15 songs and get a lossless copy that is free of DRM?

It's called a CD single. Look into it.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161612)

Can I do that without buying another 15 songs and get a lossless copy that is free of DRM?

Of course not. That's not what they are selling. Can I get just one section of that orange? And without the peel please. And instead of you, the seller telling me how much you want, I'll tell you how much you get...

Doesn't work that way in a Capatalist society.

Re:Good. (1)

next1 (742094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161689)

you can certainly get the single track you want. buy 12" vinyl or a cd single. plus as a bonus, you'll get an instrumental and/or acapella to play around with and in many cases a remix too.

Good.-Arms race. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161433)

"This was only a matter of time, and really the RIAA's heavy handed tactics, and the goverenments complacency with them have forced developers to take matters into their own hands. Now they're really screwed."

Oh yeah. You're using computing resources that could be going elsewere in order to get free music and movies. So who's really screwed here? So let's all wait for the next level were we waste more time and money (arms race US vs USSR). Am I the only one to think that there are better ways, instead of playing the acceleration game?

Good?? (1, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161454)

Good?? Hey let's invent technology that makes copyright infringement easier, proving that the RIAA was right all along and p2p technologies are all about theft of services!

Come on. It's one thing to try and claim that p2p is being 'abused' by the users but when you develop something to hide where the data is coming from you're doing it to hide illegal activity.

Not only will this slow RIAA and MPAA down, but it can slow FBI, CIA, local law enforcement to stop child pornography, or other things like those terrorists that use computers from caves (sarcasm on that last one, I really don't think the morons in caves use computers that much)

Re:Good?? (4, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161540)

proving that the RIAA was right all along and p2p technologies are all about theft of services!

I think RIAA is very close to losing the ability to use that argument and be taken seriously. P2P, notably bit torrent, is being used increasingly by producers who can't afford a fat pipe for the whole world to download their stuff and by consumers who are tired of waiting in line at fileplanet.

The lion's share of P2P traffic is still illegal stuff, but if it can be shown that there are legitimate business models built using P2P for file distribution, RIAA's argument is effectively muted.

Re:Good?? (4, Insightful)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161611)

The legitimate use argument is apparently going to get a lot stronger. Didn't we just see an article about a mirror in Britain losing funding. If resources are so tight, then efficient systems are the way to go and we already have them --P2P.
Besides, as far as I recall, the only two cases that have gone to court in the States from the RIAA's lawsuits against P2P users were both no-shows where the defendants lost by default for failing to appear in court. The interesting part hasn't even started and that will be when people go to court and plead not guilty. Even if they lose, it's still just the beginning because the appeals courts are where the RIAA is going to be getting real nervous. The DMCA is known be problematic. That's why Congress is looking to cut it back before the courts do it for them.

Check Wikipedia for some great Bush quotes.

"There are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq."

George W. Bush
o 2004 April 30, welcoming Paul Martin to the Whitehouse

Re:Good?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161574)

Offhand, I'd say it is the RIAA who is abusing things when they are turning the U.S. legal system into a drive-thru subpoena shop. Who needs a judge? Powerful corporations should be able to bully consumers and educational institutions and subpoena whomever they like, right?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Re:Good?? (3, Insightful)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161580)

Not only will this slow RIAA and MPAA down, but it can slow FBI, CIA, local law enforcement to stop child pornography, or other things like those terrorists that use computers from caves (sarcasm on that last one, I really don't think the morons in caves use computers that much)

Oh yeah, because we all know that p2p is a technology that is either used by music and movie thieves, pedophiles and perverts, or the Osama bin Ladens of the world. Give me a break.

Re:Good?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161619)

This is "Insightful"??? Mods on crack again

Sure - let's set up the association that file sharing=kiddie porn=terrorism

You end up trivializing the others...

Re:Good?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161674)

It's Good in that it might give some of these Morons (i.e. American public) a clue that you can't win such things as "war on drugs" "war on file-sharing" "war on terrorism." These wars only serve to wipe out the symptoms and impose your silly ideals on others. Worse, much worse, these wars do nothing but destory.

It's Good in that some of these Morons might get a clue that it's them that are being the assholes, and it's their actions (not the drug dealers, file-sharers, or the terrorists) that are making their country worse and making US the laughing stock of the World.

Do you think when you declare "war" on someone, they're going to lay down and spread their legs passively and wait for you to screw them? No, they fight back, hit back, and you have to hit back harder, and so on. Nobody wins in a "war" except the commanding general who wins the battles. Your silly little American wars do nothing but destroy and escalate problems. Nobody's said anything up to now because it was localized and kind of funny to watch, but now you're spreading your diseased ideals outside, and that's shit.

The sooner your silly "wars" make your country go down the hole, the better I say.

Re:Good. (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161500)

Good what?

Good, yet more tools to make it even harder for authors to make a living?

Imagine a post-RIAA world, do you still think it's perfectly cool to copy their stuff and give nothing in return?

fwiw, I've been putting some work into what I think can be a new approach to the file-sharing situation, I call it DRUMS [turnstyle.com] .

Times change. Do you weep for the buggymaker? (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161630)

Every field of empliy goes through changes...the music creation industry is going through one now. Maybe Books will be next. Besides, in the future computer will compose our cool jazz!

Re:Good. (1)

Nos9 (442559) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161676)

I mean I can understand why the RIAA is upset at your average joe stealing money away from authors/performers, that's their job. If enough people do it it might put them (RIAA) out of work.

Data dump? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161349)

They better start building one heck of a computer cluster if they want to break the encryption. If anything, the RIAA/MPAA will give up the fight, and turn their efforts to getting Congress to pass some sort of tax on media, media players, your computer, your stereo, your car, your dog, your dinner, and anything else which could possibly be related to music or movies.

Re:Data dump? (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161479)

Actually, with the success of the RIAA and MPAA getting the DMCA passed, I would not be surprised if they started lobbying to require P2P networks to identify users in order to make tracking down pirates feasible.

Re:Data dump? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161486)

And how will they go after the people that still don't identify themselves?

Re:Data dump? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161509)

The same way that they are doing it now, by subpoena-ing their real world addresses by using their IP address.

Re:Data dump? (2, Informative)

Sven-Erik (177541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161521)

What about p2p networks outside the US? The DMCA might be far reaching, but it still has limits. Most other jurisdictions don't have anything like the DMCA, yet...

Anonymous file sharing already exists... (4, Informative)

boffy_b (699458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161350)

...anyone heard of FreeNet [sourceforge.net] ?

FreeNet is a nice idea (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161377)

But have you tried using it? Even for the technically oriented it can be a pain to use, and it's incredibly slow. It's fine for what it's designed, but that isn't for home users to trade copyrighted material.

Re:FreeNet is a nice idea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161653)

It's fine for what it's designed, but that isn't for home users to trade copyrighted material.

*cough* without the author's permission.

You don't need to hide if you're trading copyrighted material that you have permission to trade, or own the copyright on yourself.

Copyright law is not *only* for them. (mostly, now, but not only)

Re:Anonymous file sharing already exists... (2, Informative)

illuin (113072) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161403)

Too bad you can't search for anything on freenet -- you have to know exactly what arbitrary key the content you want was inserted under. I suspect that posting a set of song names and freenet keys on the web isn't going to win you any brownie points with the RIAA's lawyers.

Re:Anonymous file sharing already exists... (4, Informative)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161477)

Freenet is a piece of crap. Every 6 months the author pops up, talks about freedom, grabs some publicity ... but you know what he never does? Make his god damned p2p network work. It can take hours to load a page if they will load at all, there's no search mechanism, and its been that way for years. I ran a frenet node on a huge pipe (direct connection to sprint) for a year and was never able to load more then a few web pages with it. As it stands now, Freenet is totally worthless.

Re:Anonymous file sharing already exists... (4, Informative)

ReelOddeeo (115880) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161480)

Try Mute [freshmeat.net] .

The Freshmeat description says....
MUTE File Sharing is an anonymous, decentralized search-and-download file sharing system. Several people have described MUTE as the "third generation file sharing network" (From Napster to Gnutella to MUTE, with each generation getting less centralized and more anonymous). MUTE uses algorithms inspired by ant behavior to route all messages, include file transfers, through a mesh network of neighbor connections.


One key concept seems to be that all nodes are assigned a virtual address. Files are then sent from node A to node B. Packets from A to B are routed through the virtual network. But A and B's actual IP addresses are not known to any other nodes in the network, and thus not to any RIAA nodes.

is this making it easier for peadophiles? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161356)

music-only file-sharing networks

for now at least. How long untill they start transfering pictures and videos, making it even harder for police to catch the sickos?

Re:is this making it easier for peadophiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161393)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!

Re:is this making it easier for peadophiles? (1)

ozamosi (615254) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161426)

That network is music only, because they want to avoid quenes. They have been discussing other media types, but I don't think they will include that.

There are, however, other network that do support other types of media. Mute is one, Earth Station V (the anonymity on this one is questioned, but since it is very crackable in Piolet and Blubster i include ESV too) is another. WASTE is like DC, but ultra-anonymous. Here the sicos are free to be as sick as they want.

Re:is this making it easier for peadophiles? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161524)

Hey, speak for yourself, I like child porn.

Re:is this making it easier for peadophiles? (2, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161582)

I personally think music-only networks will just be a "warez" ring for copyright music, not an alternative distribution network for indies...

BUT, you take the bad with the good, and fully anonymous P2P is a good thing for folks who need it. People in countries where freedom is a dirty word, for example.

I doubt the music/general folks will let these freaks on their own networks, but if pedos start using this kind of thing the Police (or whoever monitors this shit) will step in and shut the affected networks down. And fair enough too. Civil suits are one thing, but it's really in the networks interests to keep it criminally legal, lest they find law enforcement tapping on their doors.

Freenet (4, Funny)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161358)

Use freenet... Oh wait it's unusable.

Re:Freenet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161692)

No it's not, it just takes a few days to download a file that isn't bigger than a few KB...

DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (4, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161359)

Here's something to think about, the DMCA isn't just for big mega corporations. Put together a private peer-to-peer network using some kind of encryption and use a trusted invitation method (like maybe Orkut) to invite people.

Protect your network communications under provisions of the DMCA. Obviously if the DMCA knows what you're trading then THEY are violating the DMCA because the only way they would know is if they somehow got on and broke encryption.

Someone more technically more adept should be able to figure out how to pull this off but there HAS to be a way to establish a peer to peer network (which is still legal) and protect it via the DMCA.

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (1)

boffy_b (699458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161446)

"Obviously if the DMCA knows what you're trading then THEY are violating the DMCA because the only way they would know is if they somehow got on and broke encryption."

I presume you mean "if the RIAA/MPAA knows what you're trading"

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (1)

Three Headed Man (765841) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161494)

I had an idea once, of sharing music on Kazaa whose Titles had been rot 13'd, and protect the title under the DMCA, so the only way they could know if I was offering copyrighted materials would be by violating the DMCA, punishable by blah blah prison blah fines blah castration blah blah.

Hey, it could work.

Another defense idea (1)

Cili (687222) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161498)

I think that a person can ask for retribution for (former) free advertising by sharing RIAA/MPAA/whatever files over the 'net,. too. It's in the same line of thought as asking for retribution for downloaded mp3's that are counted as "lost album sales", right?

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (2, Insightful)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161511)

The "problem" is that the DMCA forbids cracking / disassembling of the code.

But who needs that if you can download a free application to access the network?
And even better, if the project is OpenSource, they don't even have to hack the application. They just write some additions to the code and voila (fr).

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (1)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161523)

Encryption could be easy as inverse bits and like you said use some invite only system to distribute decrypt keys and they will have to break the DMCA inorder to see whats being passed.... But these new networks should not be "Music Only" ect... they should be open to all types of files so the legitimate use of the network is higher than restricted use (unless its for work that can be shared legally :0)

I'm not so sure (4, Insightful)

G27 Radio (78394) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161528)

The DMCA works for corporations because they can afford the cost of litigation. Your average person isn't going to be able to afford to win a DMCA case against the RIAA companies.

You'll notice that these DMCA cases are never seen through to the end. The little guy runs out of money, has to give up, and the big corps get their way.

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (4, Informative)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161541)

Protect your network communications under provisions of the DMCA.

DMCA Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201 (a) (1) (A) states " No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." If your network communictions is not protected under the copyright law, then it is not protected under the DMCA.

If you want to make statments of the DMCA, then you should at the very least read the appropriate Section [cornell.edu] before providing a layman's opinion, and back up your claim. While you're at it, you might as well read the entire section and get a complete understanding of the law in question.

If you want to really know how the DMCA works, then either consult a lawyer or enroll in law school yourself.

Someone more technically more adept should be able to figure out how to pull this off but there HAS to be a way to establish a peer to peer network (which is still legal) and protect it via the DMCA.
Peer-to-peer networks are legal - however, illegal activities performed on them are not. Even if the DMCA does protect all forms of encryption, it only takes a few sessions of a government comittee to change this.

Re:DMCA to the rescue! Yes, that's right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161616)

So all i have to do is put one of my many songs up for download on my private network and it's protected under the DMCA? No problem. Just one person with a wav file "raWr" and the whole network is covered.

From the article (4, Funny)

gid13 (620803) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161368)

An Optisoft spokesman is quoted as saying it will be "four times" harder for copyright holders to trace infringers... Exactly how is that quantifiable?

Re:From the article (2, Funny)

janbjurstrom (652025) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161463)

Perhaps they used the...

"One Ring to rule them all (1), One Ring to find them (2), One Ring to bring them all (3) and in the darkness bind them (4)"

...calculation?

Re:From the article (1)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161478)

there are 4 passwords to login. next queston? :)

WASTE (5, Interesting)

tokachu(k) (780007) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161369)

I've heard of this program a couple of years ago. That, and there will always be the file-trading madness at nearly every LAN party. If the recording industry sees this as breaking news, no wonder they're losing the battle -- they're about 5 years behind the rest of the modern world.

A Bad Thing (4, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161387)

this seems 100% just about making copyright infringement safer (especially the music-only one), not the kind of thing most /.ers will be in favour of.

this is a bad thing because they're playing up to the role of "the evil pirate" though since their aim to protect copyright infringers I doubt they could care less about hurting supporters of legitimate p2p.

Re:A Bad Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161413)

Not 100% (although I'll agree mostly so). There have been plenty of cases of the RIAA harassing people over files that were named like popular music but belonged to the owner. There are innocent people getting harassed by the RIAA and the MPAA, as well as the FBI and other law enforcement who seem pretty random in their investigations. This helps protect innocent people from undue harassment just as much as it protects the guilty. I'd also say that protecting the innocent justifies protecting the guilty. That's what half the amendments in the Bill of Rights are all about.

You're Totally Wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161620)

You're totally wrong, or I am. But I've got this feeling most /.ers aren't against illegal file trading.

I mean, most of the people on slashdot are internet "elite" in one way or another. Sure, there are lots of casual readers, like you or me, but the both of us probably know more about computers than the average american. We know about these networks. We know the new ones exist. We know that getting caught is very unlikely.

You know, I haven't really traded files in a long, long, long time. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a time when I did. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I'm willing to bet everyone on slashdot has one or two illegal files on their computer, and - to the people who respond to this post saying, 'Wrong! Liar! I'm a saint!' - the ones that don't are the exception to the rule.

Most /.'ers are 20-30something individuals in the high-tech industries with lots of stuff more important to worry about than getting caught filesharing. I just think your perception of the community is off.

Re:A Bad Thing (2, Interesting)

curator_thew (778098) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161623)


These guys just f**k up the internet for the rest of us.

What will happen is that the entertainment industry will leverage its weight to justify the broadcast flag and banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason, effectively painting any "encryption user" as being suspicious and illegitimate, and exerting greater control and oversight over legitimate users - leading to all sorts of privacy and data protection issues.

Isn't it about time that we all stopped stealing content from poor business models and started supporting content from newer business models?

Support the creation of a new and better world, not the plundering of an old and broken one.

Wheaties. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161394)

There's still the "pssing in the pool" attack. Remember just as in security, you can not achieve 100 % success. but you can make things more difficult for your opponent.

The first rule of file sharing (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161397)

is you do not talk about file sharing.

The second rule of file sharing is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FILE SHARING.

Re:The first rule of file sharing (1)

a CanofPropane (770216) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161453)

True, If everyone had said nothing about Kazaa or even Napster way back then we would of never gotten into this trouble... Its ok to tell a friend or noone will ever use it but you dont need to make a /. article to announce it

Re:The first rule of file sharing (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161533)

When Kazaa, Napster, eDonkey, WinMX and all the others have bitten the dust, I will still be trading MP3's on a fairly old internet chat service (wink wink).... which is where i started, if you don't count forwarding emails with .wav attachments on AOL.

God bless the good ole mass-mailer progs.

Re:The first rule of file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161561)

I am seeing more people file sharing.

So that means someone has been breaking the first two rules.

More new music is freely downloadable than cd-only (5, Interesting)

phr1 (211689) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161398)

Slashdot mentioned a few days ago [slashdot.org] that mp3.com held 1.7 million songs at the time Vivendi took it down. I also read recently elsewhere that there are around 30,000 CD's released in the US every year. At ten songs (average) per CD, that's 300,000 songs/year released on CD.

I don't know how long the original mp3.com was around, but it was probably less than 5 years, and it probably put up mp3's at a faster rate near the end than near the beginning. But even at a uniform rate over the whole 5 years, it sounds like one web site was distributing more songs per year all by itself, than the entire CD industry released put together (1.7 million songs / 5 years = 340,000 songs/year). Add to that the number of musicians who distribute their stuff through their own sites, and it's clear there's a heck of a lot more music being released as gratis downloads than as proprietary CD's.

Some people blame diminishing CD sales on unauthorized CD copying; others blame it on technological obsolescence (people buy DVD's instead of CD's now); still others say it's because poor artistic decisions by record labels result in releasing uninteresting music that people don't want to buy. I haven't yet seen a connection made with authorized, freely downloadable music, that people can listen to instead of buying proprietary CD's, just like they can run GNU/Linux instead of buying Windows, Apache instead of IIS, etc. Sure, a lot of mp3.com downloads are crap, but lots of commercial CD's are crap too.

Anyway, it seems to me that most of the music even on these "secret" all-music p2p networks is likely to be freely downloadable.

(Note: this post mostly rehashes an earlier comment of mine from that other thread, but the statistic is interesting enough that I felt it was worth posting again).

Re:More new music is freely downloadable than cd-o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161444)

mp3.com was up since at least 1996, i believe.

Re:More new music is freely downloadable than cd-o (1)

barks (640793) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161660)

...it sounds like one web site was distributing more songs per year all by itself, than the entire CD industry released put together ...

Yup, I can't say I miss the days of even trying to find a particular song, off a particular CD, in some hidden obscure part of a music store...or bothering to ask the min wage working brian child behind the counter for help.

Payback continues to be a bitch for the CD industry.

Re:More new music is freely downloadable than cd-o (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161696)

it sounds like one web site was distributing more songs per year all by itself, than the entire CD industry released put together

Well, you can't forget that many artists in the "CD industry" release a handful of songs on sites like mp3.com anyhow, so there's plenty of overlap.

Additionally, the number of songs is an arbitrary, weak comparison. If you want, I can whip-up a shell-script that will create more songs in a week than there are songs on CD-releases in a year. It will just sound like random noise, but never-the-less, I can beat-out the CD industry on simple numbers-of-songs alone.

So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone. (5, Funny)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161409)

In light of the more secretive file-sharing networks, I think the RIAA's next strategy is just going to be to open up the phone book from every city, town, and village in the country and file suit against every single American citizen, nearly every one of which will have to settle with the RIAA for a few thousand dollars, because it will be less expensive than hiring a lawyer to prove, say, that one doesn't even own a computer.

It doesn't matter who's actually right in a legal case. It only matters who has the lawyers. And the RIAA has the lawyers.

After the music industry has made hundreds of millions of dollars from suing every single American, the MPAA will follow suit (no pun intended) with their own campaign of legal terrorism, and then the patent trolls will roll out with patent infringement suits against absolutely everyone.

Welcome to the Age of Lawyers.

Lawyers are the new American nobility. You are either a lawyer or a lawyer's subject. In the 21st Century, all Americans who are not lawyers will be forking over whatever money they have to pay for lawyers to defend themselves against other lawyers.

Lawyers will be living in mansions surrounded by the rest of us, who will toil endlessly, day and night, to earn our masters' legal protection.

Hooray!

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161448)

Lawyers will be living in mansions surrounded by the rest of us, who will toil endlessly, day and night, to earn our masters' legal protection

So, let's just begin shooting lawyers before this day arrives.

Or BETTER!, Let's take all law books and stuff and lock them under the DMCA. That would be fun.

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161482)

At least it was a very funny rant ;)

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

and by (598383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161566)

While you're partially right in saying that it doesn't matter who's right when it comes to winning a case (really, it depents more on quality of attorney), you're wayyy off when it comes to your rant against lawyers.

Remember, lawyers work for clients; it's their professional responsibility to represent them fully and by every legal means possible. If the client (here, the RIAA) wants to stop filesharing and they want to take a course of litigation, the lawyers must serve or quit (and even that's difficult in terms of professional responsibility).

I wholeheartedly disagree with the RIAA's stance and it's tactics, but it's not the lawyers' fault that they must do their clients' bidding.

As for the "Age of Lawyers" and the "new American nobility," I don't even knot where to start. As it is, there are not enough fully-competant lawyers. The good ones get grabbed by big firms that can pay a lot, leaving the masses with sub-par representation. Courtrooms are having trouble keeping up with the caseload; there aren't enough judges to handle.

Lawyers aren't nobility; it's the corporations and the CEOs that are. Lawyers are here to serve. They're traditionally not even allowed to advertise. Sure, some make a pretty penny, but that's usually while working 60+ hours/wk.. There are also a huge number of lawyers who aren't so well off, especially those who manage their own first.

Finally, remember: lawyers don't sue; clients do. This is the RIAA's fault, the film industry's (and, truth be told, the downloaders are more than a little to blame).

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161608)

all lawyers must die

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161647)

lawyers don't sue; clients do

Indeed. Guns don't kill; people do!

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (4, Insightful)

AllUsernamesAreGone (688381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161578)

Who modded that "funny" for goodness sake? It should have got an Insightful or Informative IMO, it's just a shame /. doesn't have a "too bloody accurate by half" rating.

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

skasingularity (777400) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161596)

The term IANAL has never been so heartbreaking...

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161597)

I think the RIAA's next strategy is just going to be to open up the phone book from every city, town, and village in the country and file suit against every single American citizen, nearly every one of which will have to settle with the RIAA for a few thousand dollars, because it will be less expensive than hiring a lawyer to prove, say, that one doesn't even own a computer.

Good thing my name is unlisted. MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

They effectively already did this - in Canada (3, Interesting)

ozborn (161426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161625)

In Canada you pay a tax on blank media, the assumption being you are going to use it to break somebody's copyright. They didn't even have to open a phonebook, a few well priced lobbyists (lawyers probably) managed to get them their own source of tax revenue.
I don't blame lawyers per say, but I do think that if political parties take coporate cash (Liberals in this case) you can expect that they are going to return the favor to their benefactors.

Re:So the RIAA will just go ahead and sue everyone (1)

deutschemonte (764566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161693)

...campaign of legal terrorism...

Post 9/11 this phrase has a double meaning.

Both fairly describe the abuse of the RIAA/MPAA.

W.A.S.T.E. (5, Informative)

agoldenboy (780061) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161410)

I've used WASTE for a long time. It has in interesting history....involving AOL and others. WASTE is a VERY secure private p2p network. It uses keys similar to pgp keys and can use over 4000+ bit encryption if needed. However, the network does seem to fall apart after about 50 or so people have joined. It is only good for small groups, imo. If you have a MAC, i wouldn't even bother was WASTE for now, it's current development stage give basically no functionality. For pc users who just want to trade files with their friends, etc, its a great alternative to other p2p.

Social Networks (5, Interesting)

bendelo (737558) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161429)

I think the best way to keep the RIAA out would be to have filesharing networks based upon social networks (like orkut [orkut.com] ). You trade with your 'trusted' friends and their 'trusted' friends. You could set how many hops you were willing to spread.

Re:Social Networks (1)

C3ntaur (642283) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161531)

That's fine until the RIAA gets their hands on one of those 'trusted' friends and starts turning the screws. How many people will he give up to save his own ass? And how many people will they give up in turn? I think anonymous is a far better way to go -- if you're going to engage in this sort of thing at all.

Re:Social Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161645)

Once they start data-mining his computer they've got his copyright-violating friends anyway. They don't need his cooperation.

So yeah, anonymous P2P is the right idea, provided that it can be done securely and that it can't be made illegal.

Re:Social Networks (1)

Eamon C (575973) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161557)

This would be pretty cool.

If you're ultra paranoid, you'll only get files from and send files to your friends... and you have something like WASTE. If you're not worried, you'll trade with everyone... and you have something like Gnutella. Seems like this would also result in a pretty robust decentralized network, since each node will increase its connectivity on its own.

Re:Social Networks (1)

curator_thew (778098) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161595)

> I think the best way to keep the RIAA out would be to have filesharing networks based upon social networks (like orkut). You trade with your 'trusted' friends and their 'trusted' friends. You could set how many hops you were willing to spread.

Pirate away then. I remain safe knowing that my content is legitimate. I hope they bust you.

Thank you (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161468)

Really smart of you for mentioning it, thank you.

Mute-Net (1)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161490)

Don't forget about Mute-net.sourceforge.net

Mute is an encrypted filesharing system that has actually worked for me and although a little slow, it IS anonymous.

Hell, the new p2p app ... (5, Interesting)

torpor (458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161510)

... as far as I'm concerned, is the "VPN Name Resolution" service.

openswan and an IP address somewhere is all thats needed to 'bury a filesharing service'. It doesn't even have to be p2p ... I know of a fair few VPN's that are maintained with quite steady uptimes, all using plain ol' FTP as the internal-xfer-service of choice...

Its interesting that its come to this. Whats next - routers which won't route unless they know the protocols being encapsulated in the tund'd packets they're peer-transferring for? Sheesh, as if that will ever happen ...

(If anyone knows of some good VPN's, please share! heh heh...)

Re:Hell, the new p2p app ... (2, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161558)

Actually... Next gen P2P network could use unsecured unpatched windows boxen to hide whos shareing and doing what... That would cause alot of heat on redmond to secure their OS.. past and present :)

We're already using that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161670)

...to share spam.

Bit Torrent? (-1, Troll)

Bl33d4merican (723119) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161542)

Bit torrent anybody? www.bittorrent.com (yes we all know there are better clients and suprnova.org.

An Easy Solution (4, Interesting)

hacker (14635) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161562)

I proposed this solution about 4 years ago to one of the gnome-vfs guys at a Helixcode party in San Francisco "back in the day".

Basically you have a section of your local storage that is specifically set aside for this purpose, say a 5gb slice of your partition. This storage area is strongly encrypted with hashes that only you know (Blowfish, AES, whatever), via your own passphrase or private key.

When you send a file "to the network", that file is split into blocks, and encrypted with your public key, and those blocks are dispersed to everyone else on the network, in that encrypted fashion, and the "map" to reassemble them is dispersed likewise.

Every node with block #1, has a map which tells them how to get block #2, but not block #3. System with block #2 (which knows that block as block #1 to itself), knows how to get block #3, and so on. Sort of like the "Triad" mob system in Japan.

Your system requests a file, which is dispersed as a series of encrypted blocks, across hundreds, thousands, millions of other systems, and those blocks are reassembled, using those systems to find "The Next Block", and send it to you. You could also arrange it so that each "node" could know about the next 5 or 10 or 20 blocks, etc.

It is sort of a mesh between PKI + BitTorrent (which didn't exist when I came up with the idea), and the methodologies of common peer-to-peer networks.

You could further strenghthen the network by only accepting blocks from nodes you "trust" (via your own public keyring). Facilities to "swap blocks" across systems on a regular (or irregular) schedule, to keep the network "self-healing" would also be a good idea.. or keeping duplicate blocks in different parts of the "storage slice" for redundancy, etc. Storage is cheap.

In the end, this means that nobody can be accused of having "the full file", nor can anyone figure out what is in those encrypted blocks. Even if they had 1 block, there is no way to get all of them, or to accuse someone of distributing the material, since it would be moved around at irregular intervals.

What do you think?

Re:An Easy Solution (2, Insightful)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161629)

Holy shit, I need a cigarette, cause that sounds cool!

Actually, what worries me is that the RIAA/MPAA could try to cite that all private encryption are being used to infringe on their copyright, therefore making non-corporate encryption = evil. Then again, I'm paranoid about shit like that, so take this with some salt on the slippery slope. :)

freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161666)

Maybe you could call it something like free-net?
oh wait... how about tree-net??

File sharing traffic needs to be not obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161576)

Any new filesharing network needs to use a nonobvious port (443 like SSL traffic), so users of it arn't just sued into oblivion by guilt by association.

Not just hide IPs, hide the fact that it has traffic.

Suggestion for anonymous sharing... (4, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161584)

You could have an anonymous P2P app that has network performance that is nearly as good as current networks, like Gnutella/Kazaa...

All you have to do is allow the source of a file transfer it to the client without the client knowing the source's IP address. To do this, you simply have the server sending files with UDP and a spoofed source IP address. Since few networks have any egress filtering, this should not pose a problem.

Now, the client has to be able to tell the server to send packets faster/slower, and which packets didn't get through. Well, first you must have a huge window size (TCP term, but applicable) so that the server will send a massive ammount of packets before the client has to send back any responses...

When the client does eventually have to send a few packets to the server, it does so by broadcasting them to all-nodes (just as searches are handled). So, everybody gets them, and everybody but the server involved can just ignore them.

I left out some details, like all servers generating a random 32bit Unique ID every hour or so, and sending it instead of their IP address with search results.

Now, that's only the anti-RIAA anonymity. It'll make things 99% more anonymous, but any foe with the ability to monitor the network will be able to see what is happening. To combat that, you could just have search queries include the client's public key. The results can include the server's public key (encrypted with the client's public key) in addition to the search results... That would keep you completely anonymous, even from resourceful snoopers that can eavesdrop on your own network.

The best thing about this is the speed compared to other anonymous networks. No longer would it take an hour to download a small MP3, because you don't need any intermediary nodes (except for small-message-passing), direct from source to destination, at full-speed.

In other news... (-1, Redundant)

christurkel (520220) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161589)

New York (AP)--The Recording Industry Association of America (The RIAA) announced today they are filing lawsuits against every man, woman and child in the United States. "Anonymous file sharing has driven us to this," A spokesman said, "We don't know who is pirating music now, so we'll just sue everybody, just make sure we have all our bases covered."

And in other news, the 'Friends" finale drew 57 million viewrs, despite the MPAA saying people would just pirate it instead od watching it for free on NBC.

Who? (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161606)

...secret file sharing networks that will make it harder for the music and file industry to prove cases of piracy.
Great, so now theres another one, the FIAA? Whay havn't we had any trouble with them before?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9161617)

must...close...blockquotes...

Piolet vs Blubster (5, Informative)

EricKoh (669058) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161610)

Blubster comes with adware (GAIN), Piolet doesnt, as long as you remember to deselect them during installation...

How much longer... (1)

Phidoux (705500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161654)

... before the RIAA just decides to sue everyone on the Internet?

RIAA sueing people that shouldn't be? (1)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9161665)

Is it even considered illegal for somebody to download a song which he owns the original album cause the way they are sueing people, doesn't look like they are paying attention at what the user owns legally.

Also on a different note, I would like to pointout the frustration of knowing that in an average album, you'll only enjoy 2-3 songs and that paying for the whole album seems ridiculious. I guess this is why online music stores exist I guess, right?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>