![]() |
|
Register | FAQ | The Twelve Commandments | Members List | Calendar | Arcade | Find the Best VPN | Today's Posts | Search |
New Feature Requests Your idea for a cool new feature. Or, a LimeWire annoyance that has to get changed. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||||||
![]() Quote:
They even must not read it out, exactly like the postal office must not open your letters. The Ultrapeers also don't pretent they had the data, but simply say, that a host they know (but whom they don't name directly) might have it, and that they can route that file to you. For this they simply use a session ID for that host, which expires after some time. Should that host no longer be online after that time, the information gets useless, and even more important: The information should never be stored any longer than a few days, so you have no "releasing the routing table", because there is none anymore. You can only get caught, when the police checks the logs of your provider and checks which connections correspond to which client, but that is much work, and thus they can't simply sue anyone, but have to focus on real crimes like distributing child porn, instead of hunting one half of the people with internet access. So it gives you privacy as long as the state doesn't crack down with really hard methods (and much money). I know that the USA are famous for their war on drugs, but I hope this would be too expensive even for them to do it for sharers of simple files, which doesn't really harm anyone. With this measure alone, getting the IP of a sharer will no longer be trivial, and you can't sue in masses. Quote:
Those two measures work together. Quote:
As you use the number 6 in your post I assume you read the part, which stated, that this should only be done, if the uploader already knows 6 other working sources. So there are at least 7 sources avaible for that file and half your paragraph originates from a wrong assumption. I ask myself, if that assumption was intentional. File Hashes make it possible to check, that you have the complete and correct file. Ironically, using this, "legitimate" content could get a boost, because there the original sharers wouldn't enable this measure, and downloads from them would most likely be faster. Also while this measure provides additional security against lawsuits, it only works against those lawsuits, which only holds as long as the laws aren't changed and even sharing only parts of a file is being made illegal. Butt till then it could give Gnutella a real boost of users. Quote:
The first sentence is sadly completely wrong. I assume you didn't read the whole thread, else you would know, that I AM BEING SUED AT THE MOMENT, and your talk about being too paranoid somehow "STRIKES A VERY BAD CHORD". *calms down a bit* I would even say (to come back to your two true sentences), that numbers are more important than to have the most efficient downloads. That means: the bandwidth we lose through proxying (most downloads will only work with half speed, except those which are being hosted by people who decide, that they don't fear to be persecuted) is less than that we win beause we get more sharers. To increase the numbers of sharers, those must be able to feel halfways confident, that they won't be prosecuted for something which doesn't really harm the music industry (the australian music industrie even makes more money than two years before. They were _very_ shy in admitting that) and harms the artists even less (if you want to discuss this, please start a new thread. I'll be in it, when I see it). Quote:
Quote:
All that followed was sadly: Share only what you are allowed by whatever laws are valid in your country, even if those laws are completely ludicrous and harm the artists by supporting the claims of a few monopolists. I don't trust the person I am downloading from, because I don't know that very person. Would you give your wallet to me, without knowing who I am? I wouldn't give mine to you (but presumable to some people in this forum, I might, because I got to know them, though not face to face). The main strength of p2p-networks is that you don't have to trust or even know the people you are sharing with and downloading from. Everyone agreed to give something to the network, so everyone gets more for him-/herself. A very simple system, which is called the "commons", or in german: "Allgemeingut" and "die Allgemeinheit unterstützen". The Network simply enforces strictures, which allow a certain trust which isn't bound to the person you are sharing with, but with the network. In earlier time, people trusted based on personal honor. Today, we can trust the structures of the Network and don't have to trust the integrity of its Users. Quote:
That means: Everyone should stop using p2p-networks, except, if they only share "legitimate" content. Which is no way of thinking forward. Try thinking of solutions to problems. The problems are: 1) Users are being sued 2) Users are afraid of sharing because other users are being sued 3) We have too few Users who share because they are afraid of sharing because other Users are being sued because they shared 4) Files get downloaded completely from a single User, who can then be sued, because we have too few alternative locations for files, because we have too few Users who share because they are afraid of sharing because other Users are being sued because they shared So the solution which tacks the root of the problem is to make it much harder to sue Users. I think you can figure out, how that problem tree (more a problem parasite) shrinks into itself, as soon as the root problem is being rooted out. Also: Don't be shy to think if those legal rights are legitimate rights. That means: Is it right, or better: Is is legitimate, that a music company can forbid me to share my music? Is the balance between the 1) Artists, 2) Distributors and 3) Listeners/Users as it should be, with the music industry mostly having a monopol and being able to control to quite some extent, which types of music the people can listen to (for example by not supporting smller artists and only supporting "blockbuster music")? The balance between the artists rights to be paid for their works, the distributors rights to be paid for distributing the artists works and the Users rigths to have access to cultural works and goods, always needs to be reassessed and it needs to be checked, if it is the best possible balance for the general public. At the moment I very much doubt it. Artists don't really get enought money (except the few big ones), people don't have enough legal access to cultural works for acceptable prices (No: 20$ for a CD isn't a reasonable price!), but big corporations make very much money. The pendulum must swing back to the Users/general public and the artists, aand that naturally hurts the music industry, so they fight against Gnutella, because it removes the necessity of their distribution structures. Maybe someday the Music industry will learn to use free sharing for their advantage by including a tag in the tags of CDs (in the CDDB or the FreeDB) which tells you, where you could get the whole CD, so you can buy it to support the artist, if you like the music (and yes: I buy CDs, even though I can get most of the music in Gnutella, because I want to support the artists (and those who enable artists to create their works). I simply think that filesharing programs should include an option to buy the CD of a music file you just downloaded with two or three clicks (maybe using the iTunes MusicStore or Amazon)). If they don't learn it, there is a good chance, that they will go down.
__________________ ![]() -> put this banner into your own signature! <- -- Erst im Spiel lebt der Mensch. Nur ludantaj homoj vivas. GnuFU.net - Gnutella For Users Draketo.de - Shortstories, Poems, Music and strange Ideas. Last edited by arne_bab; September 7th, 2004 at 02:49 PM. |
| |
![]() | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How about a tag to show... | kikii24 | New Feature Requests | 0 | February 4th, 2006 01:24 PM |
Won't Show Up | synthoflove | General Windows Support | 1 | December 29th, 2005 01:32 PM |
will not show up?!?! | Kai | General Mac OSX Support | 0 | August 22nd, 2003 03:30 AM |
show ip's in search window again? new method: show two of the numbers | Unregistered | New Feature Requests | 2 | September 3rd, 2002 09:35 AM |
BUG, mac rev 0.6.8, Show Log | lightstone | General Discussion | 0 | March 9th, 2001 11:13 PM |