Subject:
|
Re: Anonymity (was Re: Music Downloads and RIAA)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Jul 2003 01:23:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
327 times
|
| |
|
|
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:HHDAGy.1AIJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Sciortino wrote:
> > Sorry Richard, once again I've turned one of your posts to my own • purposes.
>
> Leech!!!
>
> [Blubster 2.5 Promises User Anonymity]
>
> <http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=186>
>
> There has been growing interest in protecting user identities since the US • music
> industry said they would start suing some of the 60 million American's • that
> share music online. Today Blubster 2.5 was released in the wake of this • growing
> threat. Although some users may have been using 2.5 for the last week or • so it
> has been officially released today.
>
> The key feature in this new release is making the end user anonymous. • According
> to OptiSoft's press release, which was sent to Slyck, "Version 2.5 takes
> advantage of a streamlined means of distributing large files to dissociate • file
> transfers from specific users".
>
> Pablo, creator of Blubster, added "Other means of delivering media files • could
> be compared to a postal system with an identifiable sender and receiver, • then
> Blubster's proprietary MP2P network could be likened to throwing a bottled
> message into the vast ocean".
I don't see what difference that will make. They're not sueing downloaders,
they're sueing sharers. In other words, they'll go after the bottle
thrower, not the person finding it. Even if no single user shares the
entire bottle, I don't think it'd take them long to start sueing for
"partial bottle" sharing. Now if users could truthfully claim that they
have no control over (or even no idea) what's being shared from their
computer, then perhaps there would be a case.
<the wheels turn... tom thinks up another screwball file sharing scheme>
If all files were distributed across the internet randomly and everyone ran
a distributed file sharing program, things would get interesting. The (very
big) snag is that many people would have to be online all the time and
running this program. Basicly, enough people to contain the entire body of
all files anyone wants. Now there are enough computers and inet connections
out there because pretty much all files are being shared now, but good luck
bringing them in under a new system.
But that snag aside, the program would be in charge of what particular
things were shared from your computer. The end user wouldn't have a clue.
All they would know is that they've set aside, say, 500 megs of space for
the Program and the Program filled up that space with unknown stuff that
it's sharing. There might be 100 mp3's, there might be 1000 tenths of
mp3's, there might be 2/3rds of a movie, who knows. Even then, I'm sure the
man would probably find a loophole fairly easily. Unless users didn't
*know* the Program was running. Perhaps they got it in a trojan? Anyway,
these schemes are getting rediculous. Untill you can hide the person
sharing the file (and if they're hidden, how does anyone get files from
them?), there will be no solution.
This "Blubster" will buy the usual few months of security untill the man
finds out what it is and how to access it, then everyone will be in same
place as usual. Theoretically, you'd be safe if you didn't share, but if
everyone did that, there'd be no files.
-- Tom
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Anonymity (was Re: Music Downloads and RIAA)
|
| (...) Leech!!! Blubster 2.5 Promises User Anonymity (URL) There has been growing interest in protecting user identities since the US music industry said they would start suing some of the 60 million American's that share music online. Today Blubster (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
