Quote:
Originally posted by dux
And encryption *is* still then an issue. You can't decrypt public-key encrpyted data without the *private* key. Even the person who does the encryption can't decrypt without the private key. The public key encrypts, the private key decrypts.
|
Thanks for straigtening that out ... let me restate what I *meant* to say, with this different (and less convoluted) understanding of which key goes where for what purpose. The policing computer sends the request for files, along with the newly generated public key that its client has generated, retaining the private key. The file gets sent, encrypted, by the direct infringer. The proxy passes it along. Policing computer gets the file, decrypts it, and discovers it is a file that its company owns the rights to.
See the problem? You can't create an open network that also excludes the record companies and software developers. If Joe Blow can get online and get a copy of Office XP, so can Microsoft. Step one of the sucussful action against the proxy is complete -- we've proven direct infringment.
Quote:
Originally posted by dux
As for whether you could be shut down for proxying, the DMCA isn't quite clear and it might depend on the exact implementation. For it to be contributory infrigment there has to be financial benefit in letting the transfer procede (as there was with Napster). For it to be vicarious infrigement there has to be knowledge of the violation, and if the data is encrypted no one should be expected to decrypt it to find out. And there are substantial legitiment uses of the technology (such as giving censored peoples access to the free world, whistle blowing, etc.). Let me refer you to
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Napster/20...ite_paper.html
and you can judge for yourself.
|
No, for vicarious infringement, the person either has to know, or *should have known* the infringement was occurring. All you have to do is fire up a gnutella client to demonstrate that the person running the proxy *should have known* that it was being used to infringe on copyrights. The vast majority of the material is copyrighted. You know it, I know it, they know it. And if you don't know it, you should have known it.
Finally, the person running the proxy clearly contributed to the infringement by providing the proxy and thereby providing annonymity and connectivity to the other parties involved.
All it takes is one lawsuit. You don't have to sue everyone. Once you've succeeded against one poor schmuck, you could use the precident to get several proxies per day shut down.
Who would be stupid enough to run one of these proxies? Would you do it?
I'll say it again: The only thing that can save you from the big bad wolf is the law of large numbers. That means you need as many people actually sharing files as possible, and you need to do it in as decentralized a manner as possible. Proxies would centralize the network and give great big red targets for the record companies to shoot at.
The moral of the story is: SHARE YOUR FILES!
The other moral is : GIVE US A TOOL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE DOWNLOADING FROM US ARE SHARING THEIR FILES!
(y'all remember that this thread was originally about freeloaders, right?)
-Lurker
September 13th, 2001
Re: Re: Hmmmm 
Similar Threads 
Hybrid Mode
