YESSS! According to Microsoft p2p is undefeatable

[Smoketoomuch]

Well, not quite ... that is, according to Microsoft. It may have come as a surprise to them that their on researchers/security advisors produced a paper that claims "that all efforts to stop content swapping/theft - possibly even including Palladium - are in the long term futile."

File swap nets will win, DRM and lawyers lose, say MS researchers
By John Lettice
Posted: 21/11/2002 at 15:24 GMT

A group of Microsoft researchers, including Paul 'Mr Secure PC' England, has delivered a paper which concludes that all efforts to stop content swapping/theft - possibly even including Palladium - are in the long term futile. This message, particularly the bit that dealt with the economics of DRM-enabled versus 'clean' content, must have gone down a storm with the audience.

Which, since you ask, was the Association for Computing Machinery DRM conference.

The paper, which is currently available here, is particularly striking in that it argues its way persuasively through the history, present and future of file sharing, the success or otherwise of 'attacks' (academicspeak for 'lawyers') on it, and concludes that file sharing will triumph.

Edit> rest of the article at ... what Shani says

[Shani]

I think he means..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28231.html

interesting

[Smoketoomuch]

Originally posted by Shani
I think he means..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28231.html

interesting

uh. thanks Shani - I had 6 articles open and must have c&pasted the wrong one. I edited out now

[justed]

Quoted from:

The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution

Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman… Microsoft Corporation

People have always copied things… even in the absence of network connectivity, the opportunity for low-cost, large-scale file sharing exists… any content protection system will leak popular or interesting content into the darknet… This is in contrast to the protection of military, industrial, or personal secrets… the darknet has a small number of technological and infrastructure requirements… We see no technical impediments to the darknet becoming increasingly efficient…

each person is connected to every other person in the world by a chain of about six people from which arises the term “six degrees of separation”… consumer broadband is becoming more popular, so in the long run it is probable that there will be adequate consumer bandwidth to support an effective consumer darknet…

Gnutella and Kazaa are under threat because of… lack of endpoint anonymity…global database is the only infrastructure component of the darknet that can be disabled…

relatively small darknets arranged around social groups will approach the aggregate libraries that are provided by the global darknets of today. Since the legal exposure of such sharing is quite limited, we believe that sharing amongst socially oriented groups will increase unabated… small-worlds darknets can be extremely efficient for popular titles…

Even if watermarking systems were mandated, this approach is likely to fail due to a variety of technical inadequacies… if it turns out that the deterrence of fingerprinting is small (i.e. everyone shares their media regardless of the presence of marks), there is probably no reasonable legal response…

Conclusions
There seem to be no technical impediments to darknet-based peer-to-peer file sharing technologies growing in convenience, aggregate bandwidth and efficiency. The legal future of darknet-technologies is less certain, but we believe that, at least for some classes of user, and possibly for the population at large, efficient darknets will exist…

In the presence of an infinitely efficient darknet – which allows instantaneous transmission of objects to all interested users – even sophisticated DRM systems are inherently ineffective… in the presence of an effective darknet… (DRM systems) complete(ly) collapse. We conclude that such schemes are doomed to failure…

There is evidence that the darknet will continue to exist and provide low cost, high-quality service to a large group of consumers… This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects.

In short, if you are competing with the darknet, you must compete on the darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security…

[theknife]

Helluva post, Smokie

[TankGirl]

An interesting story, Smokey, thanks for the link!

The conclusions of the study are sound and realistic. Free p2p trading is here to stay, and it is only good that the corporations start acknowledging the fact and preparing to live in the changed environment.

What was particularly interesting in this study was their understanding of the role of small trusted groups in the content ecology:

The darknet, which is their catch-all term for networks of content-swappers, originates as 'sneakernet', where overlapping groups of friends and colleagues swap stuff, so stuff gets around, but slowly. Attacks (lawyers again) at this stage are difficult because the groups' identities are largely unknown to the content owners.

The grassroot level trading networks have had over two years to develop since Napster happened. Many well-connected heavy traders do not even bother to go to the public networks anymore, as with a broadband it is easy to grab half a dozen quality albums a day from private FTP servers and from ICQ with a minimal risk of copyright nazi snooping. It is only a question of time when there will be p2p software that supports trust-based small group trading simultaneously with Kazaa/WPN-style global sharing. This kind of infrastructure will easily adapt to possible RIAA/MPAA hostilities as people can conveniently move their shares between public and private areas of the network, depending on how crazy the nazis will get.

- tg

[JackSpratts]

The Darknet?

Interesting paper but the authors are in no small way diminished by a few preconceived notions stemming from their industry based arrogance. Take the name they’ve given to the filesharing systems for one; "Darknet". Sounds pretty ominous and underhanded. All these things occurring in a hidden world beyond the reach of a civilized influence. But it’s their employer Microsoft who runs the Darknet - closed source, monopolistic, predatory, whose benefits flow first and foremost to the corporation and away from the people. Peer-To-Peer networks by contrast - created and managed mostly by the people for themselves, enable planet wide personal communications and are open to all comers, even adversaries. That’s the very definition of a Lightnet. So did Microsoft think people would believe DRM is for consumers? That reducing ones ability to acquire and use content benefits individuals? Who outside of Microsoft believes that? I doubt even the MPAA or the RIAA believe the over-heated rhetoric but to their credit the authors don't buy it either.

It has been ever thus. A small group in power marginalizes and demonizes a feared majority with pejorative labels and negative descriptions. In this case it’s one company, albeit massive, at risk of losing its dominance from open source competitors and from the very people it’s trying to control. No wonder they’re name calling.

Other than that the authors nailed it.

“This means that in many markets, the darknet will be a competitor to legal commerce. From the point of view of economic theory, this has profound implications for business strategy: for example, increased security (e.g. stronger DRM systems) may act as a disincentive to legal commerce. Consider an MP3 file sold on a web site: this costs money, but the purchased object is as useful as a version acquired from the darknet. However, a securely DRM-wrapped song is strictly less attractive: although the industry is striving for flexible licensing rules, customers will be restricted in their actions if the system is to provide meaningful security. This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the darknet, you must compete on the darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security.
Certain industries have faced this (to a greater or lesser extent) in the past. Dongle-protected computer programs lost sales to unprotected programs, or hacked versions of the program. Users have also refused to upgrade to newer software versions that are copy protected.”

Indeed.

Thanks Smokey! Let me add it's well worth the 16 page word .doc read.

- js.

[pod]

The conclusions of this study will be moot when major ISPs start limiting transfers on a large scale. You can't do much file trading when your 5GB cap is looming and it's only the 10th.

/edit/
I also don't see why anyone from MS would be saying this, just because in a (theoretically) locked down environment like Palladium, opportunities for main stream P2P will be small. There will always be users who will do whatever they want no matter what restrictions are placed on them, but this would not be an activity involving hundreds of millions like it is today.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by pod
The conclusions of this study will be moot when major ISPs start limiting transfers on a large scale. You can't do much file trading when your 5GB deadline is looming and it's only the 10th.

Then's there's not much reason to cough up the extra $50 a month is there? There's a business plan.

Edit: Bandwidth caps will kill attempts at selling IP content long before they kill P2P.

- js.

[SA_Dave]

And the factor that slows up distribution at the small group phase, lack of a central index, will eventually be overcome by comprehensive distributed indexes.

I've heard this somewhere before. Now if only I had a public link?

Hi there tg, Smokie and Jack.

[Smoketoomuch]

An update:

Microsoft, having entirely been shocked by a recent study demonstrating the futility of Palladium, decided to abandon its entire OS product line. They are going to develop their own flavor of Linux, and use their vast resources to quickly (re)gain their monopoly in the linux market by launching a worldwide campaign for Microsoft Linux. The first release candidate shipping in November 2003.

http://www.mslinux.org/

MS Linux: Shipping in November 2003
Microsoft Linux

Overview

Microsoft Linux provides all the power of the Linux Operating System with the ease of use you've come to expect from Microsoft Products.

Microsoft Linux brings a new level of productivity to Linux, without sacrificing flexibility, performance, and control. In addition to features like My Home Directory and My Configuration, Microsoft Linux contains greatly improved support for Web and Enterprise development.

With Microsoft Linux Enterprise Edition, you can create scalable multi-tier applications using our new Graphical User Interface command-Line Technology (GUILT)?. Extend your productivity with optimized support for Internet Active-XWindows? Technology and built-in Internet Xplorer web browser.

[justed]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
The Darknet?

Interesting paper but the authors are in no small way diminished by a few preconceived notions stemming from their industry based arrogance. Take the name they’ve given to the filesharing systems for one; "Darknet". Sounds pretty ominous and underhanded. All these things occurring in a hidden world beyond the reach of a civilized influence.

Luke… Luke, this is your father…

[theknife]

Originally posted by JackSpratts


Then's there's not much reason to cough up the extra $50 a month is there? There's a business plan.

Edit: Bandwidth caps will kill attempts at selling IP content long before they kill P2P.

- js.

Exaclty. I have no reason to pay for broadband outside of p2p...and they day they cap it, kill it. or cut it off, is the day I go back to dial-up.

[Shani]

Palladium sounds frightening..

[Mowzer]

It should Shani, its being built out of fear. Heres a brief history...

The RIAA and other such groups, one day got really really scared. Most of all Britney was scared file traders were stealing her pennies. The RIAA was scaring everyone! So they took on Napster. Eventually napster was tied up in court and they were happy.

On the other side of the globe, Chinese who pirate software by the minute, were scaring Microsoft. Microsoft in turn being scared, started to scare other companies.

Then Hillary Rosen woke up one day and realized file sharing wasn't dead, the RIAA was scared all over again. They in turn looked for comfort from the hollywood. The MPAA was thought of as being a strong body who would come up with something to solve everyones fears. But they weren't. They were scared too, scared of young hackers breaking dvd encryption.

The RIAA and the MPAA huddled in fear together, and went looking to other companies in the technology sector. Eventually there fears were settled, when a cd disc was born that couldn't be copied when played in PC devices.

Microsoft also had found ways to calm its fears, it was called Windows XP with product activation. But before everyone could take a deep breath and say "we conquered our fears" a 13 year old boy scared them all over again, when he drew on one of the Cd's with a felt marker, defeating the safe guard.

At the same time or there abouts, Microsoft got scared when Bill gates realized not only the chinese were still pirating his software but high-school kids right here in america on IRC warez channels.

Everybody is all-scared all over again. Microsoft took its own fears and started scaring other content producers, so more and more companies are getting scared and joining a trustworthy computing initiative. Its a self help group of sorts, similar to what alcoholics use for recovery. Except they deal in helping each other be scared and scaring others.

The RIAA and MPAA also being terrified all over again, met up with microsoft and all the other scared companies, and together they take each others fears and use them to sell each other things. One such hot item is DRM.
Digital Rights Management. MPAA has used it to set up a site where people can go and watch movies over the internet. Thats an example of a scared company scaring another company, and in turn trying to solve their fears.

Except they are still still scared, because the movies on-line site isn't open to Apple or *nix users. Both of who have been scaring microsoft since day one. This time though its hollywood who sacred of these guys as apple isn't making strong efforts to adopt DRM for viewing windows movies over the internet.

Finally one day a scared little voice, a engineer at microsoft spoke up, and said "We need to sell subscription services" and big billy gates said, "Indeed! we will turn users computers into interactive TV's where they pay a subscription and can watch/use the content we control" they call it Palladium.

Now everyone is calming down, from the RIAA to the guy who wants to be sure you pay up front for his crappy software.

Since everyone has been dealing and living in fear so long, all these companies and groups, especially microsoft are experts in fear.

Thats how they will market Palladium to you the consumer. They will scare companies into thinking firewalls are no good and only Palladium is the answer to keep hackers away. They will scare schools into thinking class room computers aren't safe from on-line pornography unless Palladium is protecting the students.

More importantly Bill gates will sleep better at night knowing the good people in china are no longer stealing his pennies.

Not to mention viruses. Wouldn't you rather be protected from viruses then being able to download music for free off the internet?

All the scare-dy cats are hoping so, repeating over and over to each other "We loves our Palladium, Loves our Palladium."


Thats the story of how computers will stop being open gateways for users to create openly on and manage freely, but just as simple as your cable TV and probably just as popular.

[justed]

It should Shani, its being built out of fear. Heres a brief history...

Good points… sadly true… and it’s called ”Fear-mongering”.

Fear-mongering is currently a growth industry, growing daily in the world.

There are some that will ascribe “9/11” as the commencement of Fear-mongering as we know it, but its roots clearly predate that tragic event.

Ever hear of efforts to ban; Pinball machines… video game parlors… home video games… the Internet? All because: ‘This ____ will have a corrupting influence on our Youth and will destroy Society.’

Every small-minded, shortsighted, single-interest pressure group has resorted to fear-mongering to ‘win’ its case.

In the broader world, we all survived the apocalyptic horrors of; blue jeans (in school) will destroy… sneakers (running shoes) will destroy… long haired ‘hippies’ (dope smokers all) will destroy… “Society”.

Just as earlier pogroms Prohibition etc, came and went, so too this will pass, with the only cost being the uncounted agony of uncounted people for uncounted years. But, someday our descendants will look back with little interest in our times and perhaps, marvel: ”What a bunch of stupid twits they are."

Small comfort, I know, but willful human stupidity knows no bounds. And I don’t see it getting any better. Not when there are continually new fears to fear, new advances in human freedom to attempt to restrict.