P2P Clients with teeth...
 

Today is October the first, two thousand and two.

Its been an interesting few years on the file sharing scene.
Lately it seems all I have been reading is articles on things such as the RIAA employing Rialiban terrorists (small companies) to go after file sharing users. Looped files, scanning IP's and sending nasty notes to ISP's the list goes on.

If new laws pass to the benefit of the RIAA how long till we see clients developed that are smarter then whats out there as far as p2p apps today, ones that can fight back.

Will it be possible to merge a p2p app with counter measures for any possible evil tricks these RIAA co harts throw at p2p users?

I could just see some kinda firewall/p2p app merged together that reports every-time your IP is scanned by known apps used to look for illegal traders.

If there was a p2p app that clogged the RIAA's web site, when your not searching for files/downloading I would use it. Since the RIAA had the audacity to suggest making it possible to flood users trading files, I am sure a file share app of that sort isn't to far off.

As the years come the RIAA will probably get bolder with the things it trys to do to users, I think mad max p2p apps are on the horizon.

What are some of the main things file-sharing apps can do to protect users and fight back?

Re: P2P Clients with teeth...
 

I think you already made one good suggestion:

For example, a million Kazaa clients using their idle bandwidth to bombard the websites and servers of the RIAA and other p2p-hostile companies might already have an effect.... :CG:

Yes, and also better protected networks where non-contributing outsiders would have minimal access and visibility to the shared content and users.

- tg ;)

I like the idea of an opt-in DoS program that would replace the trojans and bots that make those attacks now. It would be the internet equivalent of a sit-in, and even though it is very illegal I think it would be an unstoppable and unignorable form of civil disobeidence.

To paraphrase Mowzer's theme I think the Internet is slowly transforming from frontier land into wild west; the natives and mountain men are being pushed out by claim jumpers, gun slingers, and wagon trains loaded with settlers. The once peaceful cyberspace is being flooded with novices, plastered with pop-up ads, and marginalized by governments and corporations. The internet is as yet a lawless land and nothing is permanent.

What specific sites would this DoS p2p app attack? The RIAA is an obvious choice but is that the only one, or shoud users be able to chose from a list? Or should they be able to chose any web site? It brings up a new possibility: web sites could have a infamy rating based on the number of attacks they recieve per day, like the way web sites' popularity is based on the number of hits they get. Companies could be formed just to track the number of attacks the various sites get, and eventually Windows would be bundled with a DoS program (hehe, maybe not).

Hot Damn! I really, rElLaY, REALLY like this idea!!

<sigh>.......if only there were such a thing...............

:tu: - good thoughts, Mazer!

I view the RIAA's website as a form of speech and so would be against any attempts to flood it.

i had a java .class file of some sort i ran from
a command prompt
that did multiple http requests to a site..

I will ask Nikki if she can add a opt in -DOS program into orb3's feature set.

I doubt she will go for it though. :J:

I actually don't tihnk it's illegal to repeatedly access a server, as long as you don't use other's computers to help without their consent (ie you can't send them an innocent looking file that takes part in a DDoS)

:D

W00t, first post!

i'm sensitive to this idea; and i agree. however i'd prefer to look at it as attacking there business (even worse in a legal sense; hehe). or, instead of attacking an riiaa site; think of it as attacking the servers the pro-copyright companies are using to snitch to ISPs... that's certainly not a form of speech.

its' not about the riaa putting up a site saying something i don't like and therefore attacking it. if they want to attack users by flooding, this idea is simply a way to attack back; the intent isn't to restrict there speech; but to simply find a way to fight back.