Advertisement
Interested in hardware, diags, validation, Linux, C, ARM, Microcode and low level programming and blazing networks?
Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ed Felten's tinyp2p
Ed Felten has released tinyp2p,
a peer-to-peer system which requires all of 15 lines of code (it looks like
an entry for an obfuscated Python contest). "I wrote TinyP2P to
illustrate the difficulty of regulating peer-to-peer
applications. Peer-to-peer apps can be very simple, and any moderately
skilled programmer can write one, so attempts to ban their creation would
be fruitless."
(Log in to post comments)
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 15, 2004 17:17 UTC (Wed) by dash2 (guest, #11869) [Link] Not sure the argument holds. Although anyone can write p2p software, a network is only useful when it becomes large. Once it is large, it is probably a viable target for legal proceedings.
Even if the software has no clear legal owner (or there are many implementations of a p2p protocol), a network is only useful when many files are shared on it. Sharing is usually done mostly by a few people who share many files, rather than by everyone sharing a few files. Again, those people are viable targets for legal proceedings.
So even if p2p software is easy to write, it doesn't follow that banning it is pointless.
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 15, 2004 17:36 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] My thought is that Ed Felten is trying to help legislators see that thesensible road for them to go down is ban a particular kind of behavior (making material governed by somebody else's copyright or license accessible) rather than implementation of some relatively trivial and common programming constructs. Showing that P2P programs can have lots of legitimate and beneficial uses would be another part of that argument. Unfortunately, I'm kind of ignorant about the status of any proposed legislation to ban P2P software in some form. What about a company like Groove? http://www.groove.net/home/index.cfm Are legislators somewhere thinking of putting them out of business?
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 16, 2004 1:40 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] DISCLAIMER: IANALBernstein v. United States established code as free speech, meaning that it isn't lawful to ban a type of software outright any more than it's legal to ban certain classes of books or publications. However, it may be lawful to ban the use of such software. Compare this to bomb-making recipes: legal to write and publish one, not legal to use one to create and/or use an explosive device. So it's entirely possible that some brilliant, well-lobbied legislator might decide to try to ban P2P networks or the use thereof on US soil. This is the threat we need to fight.
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 16, 2004 15:59 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] One of my rural friends omce told me this story, when I was discussing with him the banning of (and widespread use of) explosives.
Farmers have apparently uesd (and continue to use) "potentially lethal" explosives to prepare a field for fencing or hedging of one kind or another. They take soda cans, fill them with explosives, put them into a relatively small hole in a certain way, and then rig a wire with concussion caps along the whole setup. He told me they can prepare for a fence in a significantly shorter time, and with far less work, than using other methods.
This pertained to the Oklahoma bombing---he said many farmers were put off by the notion that ownership of explosives somehow implied intent to harm.
I'm starting to view the right to own and operate a potentially "infringing" or "harmful" computer application the same way people have viewed the right to bear arms. It's said that criminals have moved from the streets to the Web, yet the Web doesn't have what one could call an "established police force." It could be argued, therefore, that some of the same software which might be used to infringe copyrights could also be used to help pritect oneself from abuse by other (domestic and foreign) Internet users. If such a link could be established, it would be a compelling proof of the two-edged nature or these technologies.
My favorite example right now is the MPAA's attack on BitTorrent. I happen to know that the technology is used to distribute a great deal of material that has nothing to do with the MPAA's or RIAA's members. Yet, from what I can tell, these rich folks are attempting to implicate the technology, rather than the abusers, for causing their problems. If people who are using BitTorrent for real work and commerce were to step forward and point this out, clearly and publicly, it might be a way to counter the MPAA and RIAA in their rampage against technology.
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 16, 2004 16:45 UTC (Thu) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] "...many farmers were put off by the notion that ownership of explosives somehow implied intent to harm."
Absolutely.
My belief is that you should be able to possess *anything you want*. The only legally defensible reason to restrict ownership of something is if that thing is dangerous by itself - e.g. certain biological and radioactive materials, where improper storage leads to a significant public hazard.
Ed Felten's tinyp2p Posted Dec 15, 2004 20:41 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Not sure what it is to do with P2P that legislation could ban anyway, given that Sendmail was P2P more than 2 decades ago. Is any lawmakers seriously considering banning any program which contains both client and server functionality ? Even if they do, people will still just implement P2P networks using seperate client and server programs, unless they ban the Internet and have done with it. So I think the point Ed is making with this one is moot.
Ed Felten's tinyp2p - I have a 0 lines of code P2P network Posted Dec 16, 2004 0:37 UTC (Thu) by Tara_Li (subscriber, #26706) [Link] Hell, what about good old-fashioned sneaker-net? Files crossed the country in a couple of weeks, not a couple of minutes, but even sneaker-net was pretty damn good! Remember those days of Computer Club meetings, when you brought your stack of floppies?
Think the new version: LAN parties.
Why obfuscate it? Posted Dec 16, 2004 2:24 UTC (Thu) by amk (subscriber, #19) [Link] What's the point of obfuscating the code in order to compress the program into a minimal number of lines? It makes the program look cryptic and hard-to-follow, but I think the point would be better made if the program was straightforwardly coded. Then the logic would be apparent, and more people would understand that P2P applications are not difficult to write.
Why obfuscate it? Posted Dec 16, 2004 8:35 UTC (Thu) by micampe (guest, #4384) [Link] Exactly. When I found this link I tought I'd used the code to learn how a P2P application works, but I quickly refrained when I actually looked at it.
Guess I'll have to ask Ed for a clean version.
Why obfuscate it? Posted Dec 16, 2004 22:17 UTC (Thu) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link] It's sometimes hard for me to imagine, but outside of programmers and computer geeks, just about any code is "cryptic". So expanding it won't significantly expand the audience that understands it, while reducing the impact of "just X lines".
Why obfuscate it? Posted Dec 17, 2004 0:34 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Well, the obfuscated version is easier to print on a T-shirt, for one thing... :-) (nice square form)
...I still have a couple "RSA munitions" shirts floating around. Maybe this could be made into something similar.
It's a disruptive technology. Posted Dec 19, 2004 3:17 UTC (Sun) by csawtell (guest, #986) [Link] The broadband Internet is a classic example of a disruptive technology. It is, without doubt, going to mean the the traditional content providers are going to have to re-think their way of doing business, because the ordinary 'information consumer' is not going to happily cave-in to overbearing publishers. While the content providing authors and publishers do deserve an economic return for their efforts, I question whether the current multi-mega-buck levels are in any way fair. Remember that sucessful film production is second only to drug dealing in it's level of return on investment.
I have just used BitTorrent to get three hours of very interesting television. Programs which I have no other way of obtaining, especially without the parsitic advertising interruptions. I do have some feeling of obligation towards the creators of the programs, but at the moment there is no way for me to pay for the privilege of viewing their works. Thus I an branded as a thief, a brand I really do not want to carry.
Let's try to make a new system which is fair to both the providers and readers & viewers. My suggestion is to allow a form of licenced distribution, it's so convenient for the end consumer. We need to create a legal system to allow 'narrowcasting' of niche digital material of all types. A system where people are able to run licenced BitTorrent trackers & hosts, and where micro-payments can be made conveniently. The technology exists at the moment, all that's needed is the will and co-operation of all concerned to stich it together to make a win-win-win situation for the authors & publishers, the banks, and the end users & consumers.
I don't see the problem. Could somebody please explain why it's not happening?
|
|
||||||||||||