What is Digg?191 Comments
- rubored, on 10/12/2007, -9/+121Yay!
Up yours, ***** RIAA! - linkinpark342, on 10/12/2007, -1/+67This is pure genius, whoever found this deserves a free beer.
- anonEmouse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63Finally something new in p2p!
oh yeah,
and screw you RIAA! - SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+62Lawsuit proof?
As it is the RIAA doesn't need any proof of wrong doing, they just spray out lawsuits, collecting from those who can't afford to fight. Thus removing any possible proof of wrong doing from this p2p network wont stop them from pumping out the random misinformed lawsuits. - Beamerboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53I posted this elsewhere, but I will post it here as well to try and help people understand the concept:
In reality, once you understand the concept, it can be used to build any file. You could generate your block cache from the binary code used to make virus files, then use those blocks to generate the files needed to remove the very same virus.
The simplicity and logic of the concept can be used to generate any data and potentially -all- data in the universe.
You could create a cache of blocks from your recycle bin, or from a linux distribution, or from your web browser cookies or any other data. And you can create any data file from a single block, simply by applying logical algorithms to that block.
If I need a binary string such as this:
10011001011010110
I can generate that string from a calculation on -any- other binary string.
The concept extends far beyond "copyright infringing" uses. People with a 2400 baud internet connection could potentially build an entire linux distribution from an image of all or part of their existing file system, which has been converted to blocks. That person would then not need to download many if any data in order to build that linux system.
It is a balance of resources, if you had a super computer you could generate anything from anything, the more blocks you already have in your cache, the less you need to generate through processing power. Alternatively, if you have a fast internet connection, instead of generating the blocks using your own processing power, you simply download them from anyone else who gives you permission.
The scope of the system goes beyond the bounds of anything previously put into practise.
Are we all then to be prosecuted for infringement? For example, your 10GB cache of blocks could contain -all- the binary strings needed to build a dvd of a movie that has not even been written yet, let alone filmed, marketed and released. You cannot sue people for having zeros and ones and you can't sue them for something that doesn't even exist yet, let alone have a copyright attached to it.
My webcache from Firefox potenitally already contains all the sequances of 1s and 0s needed to make the next blockbuster release.
Garbage In no longer means garbage out.
The theory of placing 100 virtual monkeys in your RAM with virtual typewriters, does indeed allow for those monkeys to eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Open your mind to the concept, instead of looking at it as something infinitely smaller than it is. This concept could and SHOULD revolutionize data to benefit the entire world. - horsefly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Yep, I tried it and it works. It's definitely a beta, though.
One annoying thing is that when a download finishes, you have to click "retrieve" before you can actually access it
I can't tell if the blocks it collects when you downloads something actually have anything copyrighted in them or not.
Maybe I'll write a program to look inside them and see - assuming they have documented the spec somewhere. - rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32I will say that the trend in file sharing - both from this system and many other new ones are to definitively breakdown the existing copyright scheme. The RIAA typically sues people for sharing a specific piece of content and then adjusts damages based on how many times that piece of content gets distributed. Since this is hard to calculate, they basically try to do some standard amount - which assumes a ridiculously high amount, and then they offer a settlement.
Bit Torrent makes this difficult because everyone downloading the file is essentially sharing it. Networks like OFF take it one step further where everyone is essentially sharing everything. The RIAA may try to make an example of some users by just sueing them for everything on the network, but their court cases are going to get messier and messier. - blype, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32accept or die.
I tried it and it works heh.
who needs a darknet when you can have this, a brightnet ! - rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Interesting...
"The Owner-Free Filing system has often been described as the first brightnet; A distributed system where no one breaks the law, so no one need hide in the dark.
OFF is a highly connected peer-to-peer distributed file system. The unique feature of this system is that it stores all of its internal data in a multi-use randomized block format. In other words there is not a one to one mapping between a stored block and its use in a retrieved file. Each stored block is simultaneously used as a part of many different files. Individually, however, each block is nothing but arbitrary digital white noise.
Owner-Free refers both to the fact that nobody owns the system as a whole and nobody can own any of the data blocks stored in the system. The latter claim is explained below and supported in the linked works." - LunchMoney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27come chat with the devs at irc.p2pchat.net #thebighack
- sancho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Who said GNUTella was lawsuit proof? It just couldn't be taken down by a lawsuit, but the users themselves could still be detected and sued.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Gnutella was supposed to be lawsuit proof.
- BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22No native Linux support? : (
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20O.O
I downloaded it, played with it, read comments up to here...
And I just realized how BRILLIANT it is...
Say I want to watch a movie, yeah?
So I dump my entire music collection in, and search for the 'recipe' to make the film I want to watch.
It then assembles large chunks of the film from little bits of my music collection, filling in the gaps by downloading what I don't have.
At first, the gaps will be large, as my cache is small... but as the cache expands, I download less.
Oh, my, GOD, is that efficient. - Beamerboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Explain how they are going to sue?
Let me draw you a picture of the events in a court.
The RIAA have your system (computer) with your block cache and they use that cache to build U2s new album. They choose to use that as proof of infringement.
In your defence, you could use the same binary cache to generate an image album of your child's 5th birthday party, or a video of your wedding etc.
There is no way the RIAA/MPAA could prove intent especially when for every single infringing example they produce you can produce an infinite number of non infringing uses from EXACTLY THE SAME DATA CACHE. - scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@SniperX
True until you are backed by someone big like the EFF that (technically) craps on the RIAA's chest. They're kinda waiting for this with TOR so they can defend it since it's kinda their baby
"Presently, no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology"
"While EFF cannot promise legal representation of all Tor server operators, it will assist server operators in assessing the situation and will try to locate qualified legal counsel when necessary."
Oh and if you get a DMCA notice because of a tor exit node make sure to send them the form letter back on this site http://tor.eff.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21This is pretty naive...for one, thinking that munging a data representation is somehow sidestepping copyright law, and secondly, thinking that laws can't be bought to make it illegal regardless of any apparent current ambiguity.
Any reversible transform on a work is a copy, regardless of the components of the transform. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"Who said GNUTella was lawsuit proof? It just couldn't be taken down by a lawsuit, but the users themselves could still be detected and sued."
Yeah, and at the time it was created, they weren't targeting users, they were targeting services (i.e. napster).
Build a better P2P network, and the **AA comes up with a new lawsuit strategy. - seanl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Plus, the fact that these folks have made it abundantly clear that their intent is to allow people to "allow others to use" copyrighted works will open them up to lawsuits. You can mod me down if you disagree with me, but it's the same as people who try to avoid taxes based on some weird interpretation of tax law or history. Much better just to not report and shut up about it. And much better to share with your friends and shut up about it.
- ROFISH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"Networks like OFF take it one step further where everyone is essentially sharing everything."
Sounds a lot like Freenet. - seanl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I've thought about this same sort of system myself, and it has a fundamental flaw: RIAA is not suing people because they're storing copyrighted works on their computer or sending them over the network, they're suing them for *making the works available.* If this system makes it very hard to determine who's making the work available, then great. However, if that is the case, all their legalese about what's stored on whose computer or sent over the network is completely unnecessary.
I wish them luck, but ultimately I think the only defense from lawsuits is to share with people you trust, i.e. darknets. - WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16This is mind-blowing; this idea is just too crazy. This goes beyond P2P software. You could change the way information is sent to computers, televisions, cellphones... whatever. This is like some kind of revelation. I wanna see this go very far.... very very far...
- TrueVox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13And that, my superhuman friend, is EXACLY what we've been trying to prove over at The Big Hack. You hit the nail on the head, free cheetos for you! :D
- Fett101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I've got it! I'll take this piece of paper and put it in 1000 different printers, each printing just a small dot, and out comes the Mona Lisa! I mean. What can they do? Dots of ink can't be copyrighted and It's not my fault that it came out looking like it! I could put it in the same printers and printed my own wedding picture too after all. It's fool proof!
- Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This is the difference between the **AA and people who actually understand the internet and the flexibility of digital data. We are able to adapt. We can look at the rules of a system and make them work for us, whether that system is a data protocol or the legal environment. They can only take a big stick and try to beat the system into submission. They believe that if they can control the rules of the system (buying laws) that they will have control. They can't understand that every system will have away through. The kind of control they want is simply mathematically impossible.
- cannibaljp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13not surprised that there is no Mac app yet, but it'll be worth waiting for.
i'd like to tip my hat to these lads.
cheers to ya! - Beamerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12anonydigg,
I understand that, but that is not what I was saying. The map is the only information you need to build the data, I am not saying that that map cannot be a large file in and of itself, obviously each map will be unique and as you said the size of the map depends on the amount of duplicated sequences. But in almost all circumstances that will still result in a significantly smaller datasize from the actual data you are building.
Hope that makes sense, I am getting a little tired now since it is almost 5am here. - Beamerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"Hardly an infinite number. In reality, unless I am completely mistaken about how this works, the actual number is 2. And I think that wouldn't cover your ass very well."
No it is not 2 at all, the number of different things you can generate is only limited by the number of inserts you have made. If my binary cache has been made from inserting my wedding movie into the cache, then I can get my wedding movie back out, and the same goes for -anything- I insert into the cache until such point as you hit the maximum number of binary string blocks needed to build any thing. All you need is a map (the hash) of how that data needs to be sequanced in order to be useable. - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@beamerboy
It's not that simple. That would be the holy grail of compression.(And we're not there yet) What this is, is essentially a shared dictionary for all stored content. The more data you are compressing, the more likely it is that you will have multiple versions of the same thing; and that makes the compression more efficient(in terms of target:source). If something isn't in the dictionary, then you can't generate it out of thin air no matter how much processing power you have. So the least amount of instructions necessary(ie downloaded content) for you to build target from source, without sufficient repetition in target, is still equivalent to target's size. - Beamerboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I have been having a chat with thse guys, they are really friendly, decent folks from what I can see. The concept they have come up with seems incredibly robust too from a legal standpoint.
I will be following this project very very closely. - horsefly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13According to their site, digital copyright doesn't make any sense, and they have a proof-of-concept program.
The screenshots look a bit rough, but I'll try running it later. - pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You are right Beamerboy but as shown by the past rulings our judges are complete ***** with NO understanding of technology...
- harlowsmonkeys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What programmers have a very difficult time understanding is that the law is not written in a programming language, and so does not suffer from the constraints that computer programs suffer from. In particular, the law can take into account intent. This makes it impossible to design systems that are truly beyond the reach of the law. If a system looks like it is, the law can easily be changed to cover it, and because the law can take into account intangibles like intent, it can do it in a way that does not outlaw legitimate systems.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14+1 for using "shenanigans"
"Hey Farva! What's that restaurant you like to go to with all the ***** on the wall?" - gometro33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I'm sure they will extend support to Linux and Mac if it grows in popularity.
- TrueVox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Source is right here: http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=96735
Hackaway! - thomashallock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10From a black box standpoint, If I've got a file on one machine, and want it on another, and I use this OFFs to obtain this exact file, I don't think I could argue that I didn't copy it. What am I missing?
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10They'll sue anyway, and since the judges won't understand this concept, they will probably win.
so.. STEP2: educate the masses so this is common sense. - GraysDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10They're using the GNU gpl in their license agreement... The copyright caught my eye and I had to laugh.
" GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc." - mpeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I don't see what's so interesting about this idea
even if they are building the data from existing data blocks in your computer, your computer still needs to know how it needs to build that specific piece of data (ie, that new movie you downloaded)
so what's illegal here is the data that helps you build that movie, not the data that builds the movie !
if I encrypt a movie and distribute it, is it legal just because I'm just sending a huge file of random data that (oh !) can be randomly converted to a movie file if you do some bit operations? - ZerozenOnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Holy *****, I smell a new information revolution. This is data nano-engineering !
- thomashallock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As for the streaming analogy, streaming is copying... you're just deleting the data once it's been played... but it's still being transmitted... but somehow streaming copyrighted works is legal, which I don't understand.
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Here's the source: http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=96735
- Carnage1337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is pretty naive...for one, thinking that munging a data representation is somehow sidestepping copyright law, and secondly, thinking that laws can't be bought to make it illegal regardless of any apparent current ambiguity.
Any reversible transform on a work is a copy, regardless of the components of the transform.
____________________-
the part that meny peole arn't yet managing to grasp is that it isn't encrypting data or performing operations on it. what the off system does is create multiple USES for data so not only does your file decrypt to your movie, but also decrpts to form a linux iso or a copy of the bible or 100s of other possible uses for binary data. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8to seanl's second post: that's one reason (I would think) they released it under the GPL. just try to stop that from being developed - the cat (and source code :P) is out of the bag and there's nothing that can be done to put it back.
- ninti, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Fascinating idea, but alas, it is probably based on flawed logic. Let me refer you to the OFF overview ( http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/wordpress/?page_id=4 )
-------
We showed above that (A+B) could represent, “Lawyers, Guns and Money”. Interestingly, at the same time (A+C) could represent, “Oops, I did it again!” Who then owns A, Warren or Brittney? Also (B+D) could represent, “Piano Man”. So who ones B, Warren or Billy? Each of these numbers can represent an infinite number of things simultaneously.
[...]
"No one person can lay claim to any one number. That is why I claim that these numbers are not copyrightable."
-------
Actually, copyright follows into a derived work. Taking a somewhat analogous real world example, if I make a new song and blend together a Beatles song and a Beastie Boys song, their contention seems to be that the new song is not owned by either of them. Alas, that is not correct, it is in fact partially owned by both, and you would have to get permission of both artists to distribute your new work.
Now just because we are talking about digital representations of these songs doesn't really change the underlying principles. Numbers can indeed be copyrighted, and if the number is copyrighted, a new number that has been directly derived from the original number can also be copyrighted. And if you derived a number from two original works (which is presumably how they derived B in the example above), both original copyright owners partially own the resulting number.
IANAL, and perhaps a creative lawyer could argue persuasavely enough to make the letter of the law sound like it comes on his side. Perhaps. This pretty clearly breaks the spirit of the law though, and would be slapped down at some level if ever seriously challenged. And the RIAA would bankrupt you while doing it. - randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You're not high, you may be a socialist, and you're not that smart. We (computer scientists) have been studying encoding for a long, long time. David Huffman founded the CS department I go to. Data can only be compressed to a certain poinnt. That school in Africa that wants to download a 4 gig uncompressed movie? Still going to need to download at least 3 gigs for a compressed version. That is one big fscking map you're talking about. This is all about avoiding copyright law, it's not some magical new information storage technology that will solve the worlds bandwidth problems.
- johnroth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sigh, I know I'm stupid but...
You guys keep saying "P2P" and "filesharing" but how the hell do I search for and download things? Is that not what this is for? - Sedako, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Matt2k
You don't need an extensive legal background to realize that this program could make it much harder for organizations like the RIAA to pin a lawsuit on it's sharers. Bashing people's opinions only makes you look like an ass... - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Really? I just used it to assemble me a copy of Gentoo's latest release. Only took about 20 minutes to do it, too.
But, I suppose you're right. It is only a tool for piracy.
Arrr. -
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is