Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Networking

Is Rodi BitTorrent's Replacement? 618

tilleyrw writes "From ZDNet Blogs: 'Rodi is a small-client P2P application, written in Java, that improves on BitTorrent by allowing both content searches and full anonymity. It's released under the General Public License (GNU). Even your IP address can be hidden using Rodi through a process called "bouncing." That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C. Rodi can also be used from behind corporate firewalls and LANs using Network Address Translation (NATs), something most home gateways have.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Rodi BitTorrent's Replacement?

Comments Filter:
  • Nice! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:53AM (#12694183) Homepage
    Now I can anonymously download all of those legal Linux distributions, and non-licensed music I've been holding off on, and nobody will be the wiser, mwahahaha!

    -Jesse
    • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:59AM (#12694277) Homepage
      Really though, this doesn't sound so anonymous anyway. All the **AA has to do is set up a bunch of "C" machines, and keep logs.

      I do appreciate the ability for anonymity though (despite my dripping sarcasm), despite the fact that 99.99% of people will just use it to anonymously pirate things. I think the main use I can think of for actual anonymity is for use in political situations; to report ethics violations of the bad-guys, to point out crapulence in the government, etc.

      -Jesse
      • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Desipis ( 775282 )
        What about if you use multiple C's, and encrypt the data using a key only know by A and B (possibly even a public private key pair)? That way: A - doesn't know where the data is going. B - doesn't know where the data came from. C - doesn't know what the data is. Neither one of these would have enough evidence to sue another (unless they somehow work together).
      • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Informative)

        by Baorc ( 794142 )
        I don't know if you read the summary, but let me just refresh your memory.

        That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C.

        Therefore even if the **AA sets up a bunch of C computers, we can still hide from them. They evidently thought about this.

        • Re:Nice! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Enigma_Man ( 756516 )
          B (the guy sharing the file, and thus liable, the **AA usually gets the sharers, not the downloaders) still has his IP given to C though. A is anonymous, but B is not.

          -Jesse
        • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:55AM (#12694906) Homepage Journal
          I suspect the summary is wrong.

          If A's address is hidden from C, how can C send IP packets to A, performing the "middleman" role?

          Generally speaking, you can easily, right now, but probably not for much longer, spit out IP packets with addresses that are incorrect. Hence it makes sense that this is a system for hiding A's address from B. However, somewhere along the line, A's address has to be known by someone otherwise the packets will never be routed to A.

          Now B's address is quite probably hidable from C. The transaction would go something like:

          A to C: Would you proxy packets to me? Please, pretty please?
          C: Sure kid, knock yourself out.
          A (without a correct sender IP address) to B: You don't know who I am, but would you mind sending file "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Lucas, The Good Version" to C.
          B: Sure, here's the file.
          B (without a correct sender IP address) to C: You don't know who I am, I understand you have someone who wants this file. Here it is.
          C to A: Here's the file you requested.

          In the above, C's address isn't hidden. A's is, from B, but not from C. B's is, but A knows about it. For A to be the eventual destination of the file, someone must know A's address, otherwise the packets will never get there.

          As for the FBI intercepting this traffic, they really have few options. It's unlikely what A's doing is illegal, and there's no smoking gun with respect to B. If they are C, they cannot find out B's address so will not know who's copying their content. They know A's address, but A isn't copying anything.

          Incidentally, before anyone comments, I'm commenting on this as a technical solution. I do not endorse this as a way to facilitate copyright infringement, something I'm generally opposed to. A quick look at my posting history will confirm this.

          Indeed, I'm actually relatively unhappy with what's being proposed as, unfortunately, the primary reason it appears to have been developed has been to facilitate copyright infringement. Right now, as I said in a previous post [slashdot.org]:

          We need to disassociate ourselves with copyright infringement. We need to devise ways of keeping unauthorized music away from the P2P networks, and replace that content with new, original work, devising new and innovative ways to fund it.
          The best way to destroy a technology and ensure it cannot be used for good is to make its primary purpose bad and/or easy to legally attack. The kind of thing being proposed here today will make ever more draconian legislative attacks on Internet users a reality. We need a new approach.
      • Umm, since when did we need to justify anonymity in a free democratic nation?

        How about the fact that I don't want anyone to know who I am because they have no damn right to? Maybe I choose to anonymously share files. Maybe I choose to carry no ID when I'm out. Maybe I'd really like to be able to anonymise my websurfing and downloading, purely because I prefer it.

        Isn't that reason enough?
      • MUTE (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MarkByers ( 770551 )
        I haven't read how this softare works yet, but I can explain a bit about how a very similar piece of software called Mute [sourceforge.net] works.

        The paths between the sender and receiver are of variable length, between 2 and 5 links. If you are C and you receive a query for a file from A, you cannot be sure that A was the start of the chain. More often than not, A was simply forwarding a query from someone else. There is no easy way to see where the query originates from, even if you own a relatively large number of the no
    • Ironically...... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by StressGuy ( 472374 )
      He makes a point. While bittorrent has been under fire from the RIAA and the like, many of us (myself included) feel that this is inappropriate. The argument being that Bittorrent is just a way to more easily share files.

      Rodi,however, seems to add the ability to conceal your identity. I would have to side with "the man" on this one as this feature does nothing but facilitate illegal file sharing via anonymity.

      In a way, it makes it harder to attack Bittorrent. As an analogy, it's legal to own a handg
      • by mobiux ( 118006 )
        Wanting anonymity doesn't necessarily mean your doing something illegal.

        I just means I don't want people all up in my sh*t.

        • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @11:33AM (#12695375)
          Wanting anonymity doesn't necessarily mean your doing something illegal.

          No, it doesn't. But the vast, vast majority of people using a tool like this are doing so because it shields their illegal activities.

          Now, as a general principle, I don't like restricting people's behaviour without a very good reason. More specifically, I don't believe in automatically banning things that have legitimate uses just because they also have illegitimate ones.

          However, I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility, always. In exchange for the freedom to use these tools for their beneficial purposes, you take on the responsibility of not abusing that trust.

          Sadly, not everyone can be trusted to act responsibly; if they could, we wouldn't need laws and police and armies. What's needed is a balance where those authorities don't interfere with someone exercising their freedoms responsibly, but can interfere when the trust is abused.

          And that is why, on balance, complete anonymity on the Internet is not a good idea. I have no problem with being anonymous for routine use, but if you can't even be identified in the face of overwhelming evidence of a crime, backed by an order from the lawful authorities, something's wrong. At that point, for everyone who could genuinely take advantage of true anonymity to make a contribution to society -- and I'm sure these people do exist -- how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters, copyright violators, organised criminals, paedophiles, and even (really, for once) terrorists are we letting get away with it?

      • Doing something anonymously doesn't mean it illegal.

        It just means I don't want people all up in my sh*t.
      • While I agree that most people will use anonymity for general douchebaggery (pirating, etc), there are a few uses that I mentioned before that are very good uses for it, but they're more used for anonymous communication, not file sharing (I know they're both bits on a wire, but I mean the principle of the idea). Whistleblowers, ethical violation pointer-outers, and opponents of the current government can use anonymity for it's intended purposes, being able to point out people doing bad stuff without losing
        • Whistleblowers, ethical violation pointer-outers, and opponents of the current government can use anonymity for it's intended purposes...

          Sorry, but this is a major stretch. Yes, WB's may need anonymity, but I fail to see how all five of them need anonymous file sharing.

          One can go out of the way to find potentially legitimate uses, but as you say, most (as in 99.99%) will not use it as such...

    • Re:Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EggyToast ( 858951 )
      I realize that a great deal of the clout around anonymous P2P is for illegal reasons, but I do think developing P2P distribution methods that allow for anonymity is important. Not for legal reasons, but for marketing ones. I'm kind of sick of banner ads that say "Shop Maryland Stores!" because it picks up my IP and compares it to a table to see where I live. I don't want to use a P2P network to download [legal] movie trailers and have the movie people see "hey, these people in Maryland are pretty excited
  • by Hulkster ( 722642 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:53AM (#12694187) Homepage
    P2P interviewed [p2pnet.net] Rodi Developer Laryete a while back.

    First Post? [blogspot.com]

  • Not for me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mattygfunk1 ( 596840 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:54AM (#12694201)
    I don't mind who tracks my ISO downloads.

    __
    Laugh Daily funny free videos [laughdaily.com]

    • Most individuals have no reason to hide things by default.

      The problem is that some folks do have good reasons to hide things and if everyone else is gladly giving up their privacy then those with a good reason stick out like a sore thumb.

      If you thing privacy for anyone is important then some would say you should value it for yourself even if you dont need it. (yet)
    • In the case of BitTorrent, you have to actually set up port-forwards for the clients doing downloads. If you're a business and you've got employees needing those ISO downloads, either you put up the port-forwards, or hope someone sets up a Rodi tracker, etc. and have it work automagically for them.

      It's not just about anonymity- it's as much about NAT tunneling; something that I would have hoped the BitTorrent author would have given some thought about. For even legal P2P to work, it must account for situ
  • Boy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:55AM (#12694208) Homepage
    I'd hate to be C.
  • Will it install Malware, adware, nagware like Kazaa? I still stick with Unet groups.
    • Re:Malware (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jemm ( 747958 )
      " Will it install Malware, adware, nagware like Kazaa? I still stick with Unet groups."

      Shhh!!!, there's an unwritten rule on /. stating that no one will make mention of unet^H^H^H^H, um, never mind
  • by 3770 ( 560838 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:56AM (#12694220) Homepage
    So,

    Someone can download illegal and immoral content and the server will have a record of my IP?

    I don't think so.

    Even if it is well known that my IP wasn't the final destination.
    • I tend to agree.

      Given the state of some of the suits filed by the *IA I dont think they'd make the distinction.

      They captured YOUR IP as being part of the download transaction, so its YOUR IP they'd file suit against.
  • Replacement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erasmix ( 880448 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:56AM (#12694221) Journal
    I think Bit Torrent is here to stay. The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.
    • I believe so too, but not because of anon or content search. Instead, I see swarming as the killer app of BT, something that the Rodi spec goes over very superficially and even hints at using UDP.
    • by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann@slashdot.gmail@com> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:23AM (#12694550) Homepage Journal
      The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.

      I'm not sure if Bram Cohen would agree - he made BT to share software, not to pirate music or videos. Adding anonimity to BT is just what the lawyers need to say BT was MADE for copyright infringement.
      • That doesn't mean someone else can't add it in while keeping it compatible with BT.

        If he wanted such complete control over it, he wouldn't've released it under the license he used, which allows people to modify and redistribute derivative works. So there's no reason that someone couldn't simply make AnonymousBT that logs onto the same networks.

    • I don't consider the IP anonyminity to be the most useful feature (it's nice all the same, but any app could and would stand on it's own without it...)- it's the NAT tunneling. One of the biggest things about BitTorrent that's holding it back is that it requires a lot of work (yes, it IS that) to deal with NAT unless you're completely in charge of all portions of the network until you hit a routable address. Right now, BitTorrent will not work for you if your ISP NATs your access. It only works for those
  • See also: (Score:5, Informative)

    by RichardX ( 457979 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:58AM (#12694258) Homepage
    Other anonymous filesharing systems currently avaliable/in development

    MUTE [sourceforge.net]
    ANTS p2p [sourceforge.net]
    GNUNet [gnunet.org]

    and not specifically filesharing, but the I2P [i2p.net] anonymity layer allows for anonymous bittorrent amongst other things.

    Of these, I've found I2P is excellent, although requires a little time investment in setup, and MUTE seems quite promising - speeds are reasonable for an anonymous p2p system, but the user base is currently tiny. I've not had too much luck with ANTS, and haven't tried GNUNet
    • Re:See also: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mabidex ( 204038 )
      User base will not grow very well unless a candy client is developed so that most non-tech savy users can try it out, using a simple setup and controls.

      The technology looks promising for a few of these P2P dohickys, but if its not simplified, you'll never get the files you really want from the folks who have them, unless the client has a candy coated super easy setup with big toysRus style glow buttons.

      me
      • Perhaps a bit elitist, but I think this is a good thing. Lets be honest, if it goes mainstream, everyone loses because it will be broken by the **AA.

        The longer something can stay elusive with a small-moderate member base with large content (yes I realize that is an oxymoron) it will be better for Jonny nerd because Jonny football player won't be able to figure it out to get his latest fix of FITY CENTZ.

        My current best solution is a private hub for a group of large filesharing friends--enough users for 1)
  • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:59AM (#12694265) Journal
    I'm curious... would 'C' be seen as a Common Carrier in this case, much like ISPs ?

    If not... could they be 'liable' for any of the more shady/outright illicit material passing through them from B to A as they've willingly and knowingly become part of this Rodi thing ?

    ( Not to be confused with thousands of hacked boxes through which spam/viruses/etc. get sent, as I doubt most owners of those boxes aren't willingly and knowingly part of a spam/botnet )
    • I doubt it. By saying yes you want to be a "C" box, you're basically acknownledging the fact that people will be downloading illegal content using your machine as an intermediary (otherwise why else would they be using bouncing. I mean, really folks.)

      Now, if *everyone* had bouncing on by default, it might be a bit different. And probably horribly slower.
    • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:25AM (#12694569) Homepage
      ISPs are not common carriers. Thus, it's possible that they could be liable for what goes over the network. There have been court cases that have gone both ways. In response to this uncertainty, Congress set up a safe harbor at 17 USC 512. It makes things clear, but requires ISPs to take some steps to comply with it.

      For this sort of application, the 512(a) exception seems best. 512(a) protects C from liability stemming from C's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for C, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections. Note that 512(a) does not protect C from liability stemming from anything else it does.

      In order to qualify all of the following requirements have to be met:

      (1) The transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than C;

      (2) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by C;

      (3) C does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

      (4) No copy of the material made by C in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections;

      (5) The material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      (6) C must have adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of C's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of C's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

      (7) C must accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures. "Standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and--
      (A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
      (B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
      (C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers (such as C) or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.

      (8) C must be an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

      (9) C must be a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, which is inclusive of (8) above.

      (10) C must comply with applicable subpoenas and court orders.
    • It gets worse. If you set yourself up as a C box by running the software, and you know that your machine is being used to commit criminal acts such as piracy, then you and A and B can all be charged together as a conspiracy chain. And it gets even better: in federal court, conspirators are liable for all of the related criminal acts of their co-conspirators. So, if you as C help A and B pirate one mp3, and they use other Cs to pirate 1,000 other mp3s, you can probably all be charged for all 1,001 counts
    • I'm curious... would 'C' be seen as a Common Carrier in this case, much like ISPs ? If not... could they be 'liable' for any of the more shady/outright illicit material passing through them from B to A as they've willingly and knowingly become part of this Rodi thing ?

      How much you wanna bet that C will get sued no matter what? The traffic still goes through him, so his participation could be argued as contributory. This isn't anonymity -- it's a way to make everyone in the chain liable for something o
  • All the pro-DRM folks will be fighting to be C.
    Man-in-the-middle attacks, comming soon to a Rodi near YOU!
  • The government will rename the country U.C.A (United Corporations of America)... okay, maybe that'll be one of the last things they'll do.

    But they'll simply haul the person in who's using the masquerader's address and charge them as an accomplice to theft.

    • But they'll simply haul the person in who's using the masquerader's address and charge them as an accomplice to theft.

      Copyright violation is not theft.

      What's worse is that the punishment for actual theft of a DVD (maybe $50 or 3 hours community service) would be way less than the punishment for copyright violation (years in prison and 10k$'s fine). Because illegal filetraders are soooo dangerous to society, and actual thieves are not.
      • Copyright violation is not theft.

        What's worse is that the punishment for actual theft of a DVD (maybe $50 or 3 hours community service) would be way less than the punishment for copyright violation (years in prison and 10k$'s fine). Because illegal filetraders are soooo dangerous to society, and actual thieves are not.


        Let's rephrase my OP.

        They'll get the lawmakers to change things so that being an accomplice to copyright is a major offence with major punishment penalties.

        They'll haul in the one who
  • This seems to be a great app.. but, I am surprised why not many developers are using SWT to improve the GUI. Not to flamebait, but I have used SWT and Swing on Windows/Linux....and prefer SWT. If the developers only target the geek community, I dont see any day to day user trying the app... BTW, on a side note, Azureus (http://azureus.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]) is probably the greatest SWT app written, ever! ;-)
    • Distributing Java programs is tricky. Adding JNI DLLs makes it trickier. Write Swing and you know the interface is there, for free. You can distribute a jar file with a manifest and nothing else; no path problems, no DLL hell, just double-click the icon (hopefully). Path of least resistance.

      I'm not saying Swing is better, just easier to distribute (and more widely known; again, path of least resistance.)

      And I'd say the greatest SWT application ever is Eclipse.
      • I agree with your post.
        And I'll add that I like using programs written in SWT. But I've done some development in SWT and found that swing is a much nicer API from a development standpoint.
        For Example, most SWT GUI component consturctors expect an OR'ed list of constants to set attributes. Most swing components have default constructors that you then set properties on. Some people might prefer the SWT method, but I personally find the swing method easier.
    • I am surprised why not many developers are using SWT to improve the GUI.

      SWT has just as many disadvantages as advantages. It's really just an alternative to Swing, not "better" as many may claim. Azureus is one of my favorite programs, but its GUI also has a large number of minor issues on my Mac because of the SWT GUI. Had it used Swing, it would have been just as snappy as JEdit, Netbeans, and a few other Swing GUIs I run.

      Really, I have no grudge against IBM for releasing SWT, but programmers need to b
  • I did RTFA, but it left me a little confused. Actually a lot confused.

    Does C opt-in to being complicit in a transfer between B and someone? Does C get to know the details of the transfer? If so, is there anyway of C knowing whether or not what he/she is doing is legal? At least with bittorrent I can be mindful that I am only serving up bits I'm allowed to serve.
  • by AIX-Hood ( 682681 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:01AM (#12694309)
    Every few weeks news, another modified version of BitTorrent comes along which promises better search or less tracking. From the standpoint of a person operating a legal BitTorrent site, all of the things that these guys are stating as a feature, I would definitely not want. I most certainly want to track my users, run up statistics and use all of that to better inform my users of how well certain files are doing. I know many are just interested in making new anonymous p2p apps for warez, but their unending focus on it can't be helping the stigma against such p2p apps. Many will say "but! but! the opressed political activist in China! what about him?!" yeah.. I'm sure the teenage mp3 sharer really cares about that guy with his new anonymous p2p warez sucker.
    • Many will say "but! but! the opressed political activist in China! what about him?!" yeah.. I'm sure the teenage mp3 sharer really cares about that guy with his new anonymous p2p warez sucker.

      Those of us who care about the political activist in China are willing to tolerate warez as the price of freedom and anonymity.

      Those who only care about shutting down pirate mp3s, for whatever reasons, are also, by extension, shutting down political activists in China.

      Does that bother you?
    • I'm sure the teenage mp3 sharer really cares about that guy with his new anonymous p2p warez sucker.

      Perhaps not. But the totally legit downloader might. I do. I'll agree that, almost certainly, more than 99% of the traffic I get has nothing to do with resisting an oppressive government (unless you count the US's own Corporatocracy, and consider OSI a sort of political resistance movement)... But if I can help hide even one message that helps a Chinese dissident trying to communicate, I consider that a
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:03AM (#12694335) Homepage Journal
    With Bittorrent, I am actively working on one single file.

    This means that the RIAA/MPAA can only ever see that I am sharing one single file.

    Compare and contrast with kazaa etc where my entire drive (shared folders) are available.

    BT doesn't give anonymity, but it gives limited accountability, they can't prove I was uploading any other files unless they themselves connect to each one of them at the same time I am downloading. Once my client is closed, then bye bye.
    • Once my client is closed, then bye bye.

      And after that, you change the MAC address on your router and request a new IP from your ISP.

      For total fragmentation of data (that RIAA/MPAA can collect) you close your client before you finished downloading, do the new-ip-trick, and restart your client.

      rinse and repeat.
  • First, we have the ability to .... uhm ... well, second we can't forget that we can ... uhm ... screw it, is Episode 3 on the network yet??
  • .. and I am opposed to the draconian ways of which copyright is being enforced today, I have to say that this has very little use other than copyright infringement.

    I have a hard time seeing that going through hoops in order to hide your identity while dowloading stuff is going to be necessary for legal downloads so, while regular BitTorrent has many legal uses, this tool does not, making it more likely that providing the tool for download might constitute a crime.
  • a free software implementation of what skype have already done.

    now all that's needed is to port it out of bloody java and also to back-end this code into a VPN.

    in this way, you'd be able to hide ANY network traffic, not just VoIP and not just file sharing.
  • No.

    Long answer.

    Absolutely not.
  • by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:06AM (#12694377)
    ...is to embrace on-line distribution - even p2p itself!

    Look at how the iTunes Music Store put a dent in on-line music sharing by providing a better shopping experience and keeping the price low enough that people will choose it over p2p.

    Now if the RIAA/etc would recognize the benefits of p2p for distribution of large files, they could benefit from companies like Apple and Napster running storefront trackers. The user would purchase the .RIAA/etc_torrent of "Movie ABC" for $X that could only be used by their client software (iTMS, MusicMatch, etc) to download the music video or movie or what have you, then encrypt it. (This is what Apple does with the iTMS and why DVDJon was able to create another client that buys iTMS tracks but doesn't encrypt them.)

    The benefits would be an on-line revenue stream, lower costs of network bandwidth because of the torrent, and a way to win favor with the p2p file sharers today.
    • So how would that work? Would music stores distribute DRM-wrapped versions of their content via an open P2P network? If so, I want a cut of the money my P2P client/server is saving them on distribution costs. How about "upload 10 songs, download an unlocked song free!"

      The funny thing is that they would need to keep track of your uploads in this scenario to give you credit, which means trackerless networks need not apply.
  • Ho hum... (Score:2, Informative)

    by dirtyhippie ( 259852 )
    1) There is no significant protection here. A and B have to agree on a proxy. All the MPAA/RIAA has to do is a have a list of acceptable intermediate nodes C that are owned by them and not easily traceable to them, and push them out on the network. Now there is end to end encryption, but the MPAA knows who is talking to whom.

    Combine this with periodic searches as a client for restricted content, and you've got a list of people offering probable restricted content.

    They can even get trickier and start adver
  • As others have pointed out, C takes on liability. What do they get in return? Aside from ideological satisfaction and a sense of being 1337 (which may be enough), what would compel anyone to act as C?
  • ugly image (Score:3, Funny)

    by SamSeaborn ( 724276 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:17AM (#12694490)
    I'm not downloading it because that weird photo on their web page is ugly and freaking me out. I'm scared already.

    Sam

  • That one of the biggest BitTorrent trackers in the world, The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] has just closed...
  • It's not C that agrees to stand in the middle, it is A...You know, like in MPAA. The perfect position to prepare the lawsuit.

    PS: Yes, I know mixmaster and tor.
  • Eventually, the recording industry will realize that their DRM, lawsuits, and other forms of sharing "prevention" just won't work.

    They're going to have to change to a business plan that's different. The online music stores are a good start. More live concerts is another.

    CD's are going to finish becoming obsolete in about 30 years as rewritable forms of memory like USB sticks get smaller, contain more, and take over.

    They WILL change, or they WILL go out of business.
  • Let's say that according to fair use clauses of Copyright law, I can quote 10% of a song for non-commercial purposes. What if there was a P2P client that would only allow people to upload 10% of the file from you.

    Since you never share more than 10% of a song, you could use "fair use" defense (you can even provide critisism - "this song is good/sucks").

    The same P2P client would grab 10% of a song from 10 different people, each of who shares different part of the file...

  • Expectations (Score:2, Insightful)

    I find it kind of sad that even on Slashdot there is the "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide" mentality. I would like to be able to expect privacy even when I'm doing something *legal*.


    The expectation of privacy also counts when exercising your freedom from unreasonable search... you have to have an expectation of privacy. It's sad that ours has gotten so eroded that we no longer seem to have one. Our own culture undermines the bill of rights... Good hack on the governm
    • Re:Expectations (Score:2, Insightful)

      by doubledoh ( 864468 )
      Agreed. I'm amazed at how many technlogy users (who know the power and scope of invasive technology) seeminly WANT a big brother type paradigm to win. I don't think people realize that their nonchalance is even more damaging than those few brave enough and smart enough to cry foul. Nonchalance in numbers is EXACTLY what big governments want in order to achieve their goal of total control. Do I sound paranoid? I am. I'm truly scared that every day that passes is a day closer to Orwell's fears becoming a
  • by Punto ( 100573 ) <puntob@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:26AM (#12694586) Homepage
    what we need is a mix between freenet [freenetproject.org] and i2p [i2p.net]. This 'bouncing' thing is nice, but it slows down the transfer, because I don't know if the guys between me and the source of the warez have good connections.. It would be nice to have a network like freenet, where everyone holds a random bit of the data on a semi-permanent basis, and to be able to choose the ammount of hops I want to have between me and the people I want to connect to, like on i2p. If I choose to have 0 hops, and the other guy chooses to have 0 hops, we'd be connecting directly, but still we have no way of knowing it (because the other guy could have >0 hops before him). And even if we knew it, we would have plausible deniability; the other guy is just holding a piece of random data, he doesn't know what it is.

    This would be the first step in the evolution to anonymous p2p, it's a good compromise, and way better than the current method, where everything is done in plain view. If (or more likely, when) the thought police starts attacking this, _then_ we can move to the fully paranoid networks.

  • Backwards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:27AM (#12694592) Journal
    That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C.
    The problem is B. B is the guy that gets sued. B is the one offering the valuable service. B is the one that needs to be protected.

    Who cares if A can hide their identity? B can't.
    • Re:Backwards (Score:3, Informative)

      Gah!!! I have moderator points, and there's no -1 (stupid) moderation option. I am not surprised that a lone idiot (that would be you, Elwood) spouted nonsense. I AM disappointed that the moderation system resulted in a +4 (and probably a +5 by the time I finish typing) rating for the parent post. Sigh, overrated just doesn't cover it. Okay concrete thinkers, forget the A, B, and C example. Each participant can specify how many hops they want. So generalize to an B (leacher), C, D, E and F (seeder) ex
  • With BitTorrent and several similar applications, the application is supposedly justified by legitimate traffic, and this has been a big point against them being closed down in cases from the RIAA and similar corporations.

    As the level of privacy is taken up, notch by notch, it's the illicit side of it that seems to be prevailing. I saw a p2p system was used for one of my automatic WoW updates; I don't see any reason why to hide that from the web at large. If I wanted to get distributed file transfers, and
  • by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @10:39AM (#12694727)
    Why not just use TOR???

    TOR [eff.org]
  • a) As mentioned before, it doesn't protect the sharer, only the person asking for the file. The sharers are the ones the MPAA/RIAA want to go after.

    b) The fact that every connection is tunneled through an intermediary will significantly reduce scalability and throughput.
  • Order up another 55gal. drum of Mylanta and send it to the RIAA.
  • Instead of trying to spoof legitimate traffic on p2p networks in order to throw off the **AA and seeing as how they are starting to use UDP instead of TCP, I'm surprised nobody's come up with a trojan/virus that generates fake data for legitimate torrents and fire them off to ranges of ip addresses at random.

    I'd suspect the **AA would have a much tougher time rationalizing their witchhunts if even only 10% of network traffic related to bittorrent was actually false, both in terms of content and in terms of
  • heh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @11:12AM (#12695076)
    Rodi can also be used from behind corporate firewalls and LANs using Network Address Translation (NATs), something most home gateways have

    "Hello, Security? Hi, I need to have NATting set up for my workstation. What? Oh, just a P2P filesharing app. Yeah, it's pretty cool, it's fairly anonymous, and it can spoof its IP, and it.... Hello?"

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Working...