The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
My proposal for a Bittorrent based dowload service to compete with piracy and revolut Sound Enhancers & Exciters (HW)
Old 28th December 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
There is no conceivable way to differentiate a legal file transmission from an illegal one of the same content.
Perhaps you missed what I wrote earlier:

"If there was software designed to register each song already recorded- submitted by the rights holder, and then all songs recorded thereafter, an ISP would know what was illegal traffic, and detect it with some type of DPI."

Zap. Songs that have been registered, have to pay a toll to pass.

Songs not registered, like ruff or test mixes between artist and producer, pass through no problem. Guys like us get to continue to use the cyber lockers for their original intention.

IDing songs is easy already: Welcome to Shazam

Quote:
Furthermore current generation P2P programs have implemented techniques that effectively deal with such filtering techniques.
And those techniques, known to the new software, would be taken into consideration.
Old 28th December 2010
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
Perhaps you missed what I wrote earlier:

"If there was software designed to register each song already recorded- submitted by the rights holder, and then all songs recorded thereafter, an ISP would know what was illegal traffic, and detect it with some type of DPI."

Zap. Songs that have been registered, have to pay a toll to pass.

Songs not registered, like ruff or test mixes between artist and producer, pass through no problem. Guys like us get to continue to use the cyber lockers for their original intention.

IDing songs is easy already: Welcome to Shazam



And those techniques, known to the new software, would be taken into consideration.
If it was only that easy.

But it's not.

The problem isn't IDing the songs, it's IDing the legitimate uploaders, especially when you're using a distributed network.

And actually IDing the songs may not be as easy as you think. So far music pirates (being basically lazy dumbasses) have not implemented even the most rudimentary obfuscation techniques that have been in common use by software pirates for decades. I'm talking about double archiving busing multipart archives. An effective means of checking such files, if even possible, would slow traffic down to an intolerable degree.

Now whether music pirates would adopt these measures or not (they are, after all lazy and not very technical) remains to be seen, but the fact is that there are common, well known techniques to evade content checking by ISPs. It's not a very effective solution.

And if it could be made effective somehow it would pretty much close the door on any distributed system, although I don't really see how you can ID a file that being transmitted in little chunks from a dozen or more different sources.

I don't get what Shazam has to do with any of this.
Old 28th December 2010
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

How does any of the above not already apply to the websites you want to shut down?
Old 29th December 2010
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
How does any of the above not already apply to the websites you want to shut down?
???

What my point is that in this case a legal approach is more appropriate than a technical one. Attempts at technical solutions to legal problems simply beget silly tech wars that waste a lot of time and money.

The big problem now is that piracy is not underground, it's right out in the open where any mainstream yobbo can do it with little fear of reprisal.

Like shoplifting, there's no way to completely eliminate piracy, which is what these misguided technical approaches try to do. The point is to drive it back underground, out of the mainstream. The best way to do that is with a legal/social approach.

Offer legal alternatives that are fun and easy to use and don't put proprietary restrictions on users while hitting the illegal sites hard enough to keep them out of the mainstream consciousness.

The problem now is that illegal, antisocial activity has become the norm. It's like mob rule, with everyone in the city free to loot whatever they want out of stores. That's no good.


We're getting pretty far off topic her, maybe we should split this thread?
Old 29th December 2010
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
The problem isn't IDing the songs, it's IDing the legitimate uploaders, especially when you're using a distributed network.
then why not have an application, registration process? if people are going to get paid, they're going to have to be legit. Isn't this how itunes, tunecore, etc do it?

I mean, so idiot in a bedroom can not upload the Zeppelin catalog to Itunes as their own, just because they've registered with Tunecore.

Did I miss something?
Old 29th December 2010
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
then why not have an application, registration process? if people are going to get paid, they're going to have to be legit. Isn't this how itunes, tunecore, etc do it?

I mean, so idiot in a bedroom can not upload the Zeppelin catalog to Itunes as their own, just because they've registered with Tunecore.

Did I miss something?
Yup!
You didn't read my proposal all the way through, did you?

Idiots in bedrooms are specifically banned from uploading torrents. Only registered content owners would be permitted to upload.

Please also read the definitions section for the distinction between uploading torrents and seeding content. This is key and is something that is widely misunderstood among people who are not familiar with the nuts and bolts of the bittorrent protocol.

People who only have a casual knowledge of BT from passing exposure to the big, high profile public sites like TPB don't understand that the protocol contains all manner of provisions for controlling usage that these public sites don't implement. In addition to what's in the protocol proper there are also many assorted plugins for various aspects of security, content control, user control, etc. Some trackers have these features incorporated in the main code.
Old 29th December 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
Perhaps you missed what I wrote earlier:

"If there was software designed to register each song already recorded- submitted by the rights holder, and then all songs recorded thereafter, an ISP would know what was illegal traffic, and detect it with some type of DPI."
I've been told recently by John that I don't know the music business like he does. Likewise, I say he doesn't know the IT business like I do. But in this case he's right. I know he's right, because I'm currently working on implementing a state-of-the-art DPI solution for a national telco/ISP. What you want can't be done economically at the required speeds (> 1 Gb/s). Someone will eventually implement it in silicon, like the chips now available to detect and degrade / break VoIP traffic, but until then it's not practical.
Old 29th December 2010
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

I dont think I understand what you mean by "fast enough".

Apparently the system I'm thinking of is essentially already here; it's called Audible Magic.
Old 29th December 2010
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
I've been told recently by John that I don't know the music business like he does. Likewise, I say he doesn't know the IT business like I do. But in this case he's right. I know he's right, because I'm currently working on implementing a state-of-the-art DPI solution for a national telco/ISP. What you want can't be done economically at the required speeds (> 1 Gb/s). Someone will eventually implement it in silicon, like the chips now available to detect and degrade / break VoIP traffic, but until then it's not practical.
Thanks, Don! I do know a little bit about IT, but not nearly as much as an industry professional. I did used to subscribe to some of the industry tech journals but let those lapse due to lack of time.......
Old 29th December 2010
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
I dont think I understand what you mean by "fast enough".

Apparently the system I'm thinking of is essentially already here; it's called Audible Magic.
Audible Magic can't decode the kind of stuff required to do what you're talking about. Not even close.
Old 29th December 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

ok... How come?

Are you guys suggesting this is technologically impossible?

I would have a very difficult time believing that.
Old 29th December 2010
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
ok... How come?

Are you guys suggesting this is technologically impossible?

I would have a very difficult time believing that.
Impossible? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. Theoretically anything's possible.

On a practical, functioning basis, yes, it's functionally impossible at today's level of technology. Unless you don't mind slowing the internet down to the speed of a 56K baud modem.
Old 29th December 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but since the ISPs seem to have no trouble with other forms of filtering and DPI, why exactly are they going to have problems with mp3 files?
Old 29th December 2010
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but since the ISPs seem to have no trouble with other forms of filtering and DPI, why exactly are they going to have problems with mp3 files?
Actually they do. And it has nothing to do with MP3s, specifically. It has to do with the various methods that pirates have of encoding and encrypting files for transmission.
Old 29th December 2010
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but since the ISPs seem to have no trouble with other forms of filtering and DPI, why exactly are they going to have problems with mp3 files?
Do you really want ISPs looking at all of your traffic? It seems like more laziness and money being traded for liberty to me. There are ways to solve this stuf without completely throwing away our privacy (which thanks to the SCotUS is a Constitutional right.
Old 29th December 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 

All your traffic is already "looked at". The internet is the least private place on the planet in that respect. But no actual person is looking, unless they've got a court order that lets them.

So far no one has explained to me why what I suggested isn't possible.
Old 29th December 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
All your traffic is already "looked at". The internet is the least private place on the planet in that respect. But no actual person is looking, unless they've got a court order that lets them.

So far no one has explained to me why what I suggested isn't possible.
This is without the court order and a violation of law. Let's let the police enforce the laws and let the ISPs have an open pipeline to and from our homes.
Old 29th December 2010
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
...
So far no one has explained to me why what I suggested isn't possible.
The hardware doesn't exist to do it fast enough and at a low enough price point. You can filter an individual subscriber's data stream easily enough, but then you need a filtering engine for each subscriber - prohibitively expensive. Or you can use a fast filtering engine at an aggregation router,
where the links from tens or hundreds of thousands of subscribers are aggregated into one or more 10 Gb/s pipes, but then the engine speed requirements exceed the limits of current hardware. Fast engines are insanely expensive. Best practice these days is to do initial packet inspection "inline", at wire speed to minimise the bottleneck, then mirror (copy) only unclassified packets (or packets of interest) to offline inspection systems. This is OK for statistics and logging purposes, but not a lot of use for actually blocking the traffic, as it has passed by the time it is recognised.

I should clarify that the problem is not detection of an MP3 file transfer, for example. That's easy enough. The problem is determining which track it is and who owns it. The track info database would be huge. That sort of matching can't be done while data is passing at 10 Gb/sec.
Old 30th December 2010
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
Do you really want ISPs looking at all of your traffic? It seems like more laziness and money being traded for liberty to me. There are ways to solve this stuf without completely throwing away our privacy (which thanks to the SCotUS is a Constitutional right.
Hah! At last we agree on something!
Old 30th December 2010
  #50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
The hardware doesn't exist to do it fast enough and at a low enough price point. You can filter an individual subscriber's data stream easily enough, but then you need a filtering engine for each subscriber - prohibitively expensive. Or you can use a fast filtering engine at an aggregation router,
where the links from tens or hundreds of thousands of subscribers are aggregated into one or more 10 Gb/s pipes, but then the engine speed requirements exceed the limits of current hardware. Fast engines are insanely expensive. Best practice these days is to do initial packet inspection "inline", at wire speed to minimise the bottleneck, then mirror (copy) only unclassified packets (or packets of interest) to offline inspection systems. This is OK for statistics and logging purposes, but not a lot of use for actually blocking the traffic, as it has passed by the time it is recognised.

I should clarify that the problem is not detection of an MP3 file transfer, for example. That's easy enough. The problem is determining which track it is and who owns it. The track info database would be huge. That sort of matching can't be done while data is passing at 10 Gb/sec.
The problem is exacerbated with Bittorrent and similar distributed schemes because a file isn't transmitted from any single place, little pieces are sent from many different places, so blocking would be a real nightmare anywhere except the receiving point - and then you'd need to block it at each point downloading it, you couldn't block the senders. Blocking identified content the tracker would do nothing because no content ever passes through the tracker. Blocking the tracker would disrupt the network, but you have no way to id the torrentfiles because since they contain no content they're immune to fingerprinting.

The way to attack the problem is site enforcement, not regulation of the data stream.
Old 30th December 2010
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Good point about Bittorrent, I hadn't considered the "distributed content" scenario. (The project I'm working on is for "unmetered" traffic detection. It means that bandwidth consumed by visiting contributing sites, such as Youtube, TV networks that offer "on demand" access to already broadcast programs, Internet radio etc, is not counted towards your data usage.)
Old 30th December 2010
  #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Good point about Bittorrent, I hadn't considered the "distributed content" scenario. (The project I'm working on is for "unmetered" traffic detection. It means that bandwidth consumed by visiting contributing sites, such as Youtube, TV networks that offer "on demand" access to already broadcast programs, Internet radio etc, is not counted towards your data usage.)
Why not just have them embed a token in the datastream?
Old 30th December 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Why not just have them embed a token in the datastream?
Then the token has to be managed by the provider, and entered into the rule list for the DPI engine. The intention is that the content provider pays for the bandwidth, not the subscriber, so the provider's server IP address(es) is sufficient identification.
Old 4th January 2011
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
So, we're back to government action / legislation.

It's a sad reflection on society that that's needed... but Laws were written to this extent for a reason... if only they could be inforced in a meaningful way...

Everyone, if you haven't written or called your Congressman/woman lately.. there's no time like the present. Believe it or not.. they actually do tally their requests*.. but only usually take action if it's brought up enough times. Since most are out of touch.. they get their "concerns of the people".. by people being so motivated to contact them. I'll wait...

Done? good! Now start writing your second / third / fourth.... letter now.
Send them out every couple of days...


*staff does the tallying.. if they get enough calls/letters on a subject, then the congressman gets notified. KEEP CALLING!
Actually I'm not at all certain we need more laws - They need to start enforcing the laws we have.
Old 4th January 2011
  #55
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Actually I'm not at all certain we need more laws - They need to start enforcing the laws we have.
Exactly.
Right now there's ZERO enforcement.

And as far as the average law maker is concerned... there's no INTEREST in this subject. Let our side be heard, we're the ones affected... we're the ones who need to speak up!
Old 4th January 2011
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Exactly.
Right now there's ZERO enforcement.

And as far as the average law maker is concerned... there's no INTEREST in this subject. Let our side be heard, we're the ones affected... we're the ones who need to speak up!
No. The average LAW ENFORCER.
Old 4th January 2011
  #57
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No. The average LAW ENFORCER.
That's just it...
There's no dedicated force.
Local law enforcement hands out traffic tickets, and domestic disputes..
FBI (should) handle it, but doesn't.. there needs to be a "task force", with funding and the whole 9-yards.

Without IP in any of the law enforcement's 'to do' list.. it's off the radar.. and hence, ZERO enforcement.
Old 5th January 2011
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
I'll have to disagree, John.

The "cut" ISPs would take would be a fair trade to have them police the issue.

ISPs already filter content for a myriad of reasons. Spam is filtered. And those are actual words; free speech issue, right? Not so. And it's already been litigated:
- Google Scholar

I agree about what you say re: shuttering sites, but it won't be enough.
You do not want to open that bottle. If it became legal for ISPs to charge for a specific file going through their lines, the internet would be over. Think they'd keep it to music? Hell no.

Any site owner that didn't pay for the "your stuff doesn't get charged" premium upgrade service would have the same $0.30 slapped on any data traveling off their web page. The 'net would turn into a place where a user can visit McDonalds.com for free but get charged every time they go to SmallIndependentPage.com

You do not want ISPs to be able to charge for a specific type of file transaction.
Old 5th January 2011
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat View Post
You do not want to open that bottle. If it became legal for ISPs to charge for a specific file going through their lines, the internet would be over. Think they'd keep it to music? Hell no.

Any site owner that didn't pay for the "your stuff doesn't get charged" premium upgrade service would have the same $0.30 slapped on any data traveling off their web page. The 'net would turn into a place where a user can visit McDonalds.com for free but get charged every time they go to SmallIndependentPage.com

You do not want ISPs to be able to charge for a specific type of file transaction.
Amen!thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup
Old 5th February 2011
  #60
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rack gear / Piracy discussions
29
spaceman / Music Business
34

Forum Jump
Forum Jump