Quote
Thinking about it, I wonder where the network would have be if such a statement of yours of servers being untrustable was ever claimed in the past (probably we just would have had Kad earlier, I suppose).
If you blindly use Kad, as you were blindly trust servers, you still may have bad surprise.
The problem is not the tool itself, the problem is the other peers, being 'servers' or 'clients'.
In a perfect world, without guys sharing copyrighted/illegal files, MPAA/RIAA would not even exist and force network nodes (especially well known nodes, also called servers) to add a filter that should work for at least the copyrighted files included in the official complaint, in less than a day. As the official complaint contains names (not file hashes), a server owner is forced to reject a legal files named "King ... you know what", because he doesnt want to spend millions of dollars in a trial.
In the real world, guys sharing legal files, might get sued by MPAA/RIAA, because MPAA/RIAA have *evidences* of them using a p2p application and sharing copyrigthed files. Think about it, because many p2p adepts wont be able to prove they werent sharing illegal stuff (they dont have the money to pay a lawyer)
Still, you can find many 'unfiltered servers' around (because MPAA/RIAA not yet sent them their lawyers).
Still, you can find many 'copyrighted files' shared by clients (because MPAA/RIAA not yet caught them)
So most of the time, the emule/edonkey 'network' just works as is.
I am the eserver author. I am not an evangelist. I wont lie saying that "emule/edonkey network is trustable", because it's not true.
Quote
If it appears that way, it's only because he condones the sloppy blanket filters that do more harm than good. Why wasn't a proper hash filter used instead to target the file itself and not the filename, disregarding even the dubious liability of metadata? Memory constraints, perhaps? Well, then isn't that a pretty decent argument in favor of not filtering in the first place? It's unreasonable to expect server operators to expend the extra resources to police their systems when most of them aren't even advertising their services to promote infringement; in fact, they usually encourage their users not to infringe. You can read all about that from the Grokster case.
eserver has the ability to filter by hashes since ages. And very fast. list of 100.000.000 hashes is OK.
If you are able to send the list of all hashes of the film "King ... you know what" that is copyrighted, then no problem, DsNo1 owner can replace the "king"OR "kong" filter by your list.
If you sign a contract with DsNo1 owner, taking the responsability of a single file not covered by your list being found on its server, no problem.
Quote
It makes sense that a filter option was implemented and the reasons for server admin adding keywords as a response to legal matters are clear. Since when were commonplace words copyrightable? And, no, it doesn't make sense. It's lunacy, a knee-jerk, panicked reaction to a spurious legal challenge. Do you think these server operators truly believe that making these words taboo is going to curtail the flow of illicit content in any appreciable way?
MPAA/RIAA have to the money to sue a server owner.
They have the money to copyright common words. Welcome to the real world.
If you can find money to open a trial, then I suspect this filter can go out.
For the moment, DsNo1owner prefer being called with whatever word you can chose.
Quote
Quote
Well...given that some people here think that "king" and "porno" are synonyms...
In a sense, they are: they're just common dictionary words used in a variety of perfectly legitimate contexts. The fact that a solitary word can be used to facilitate piracy in a single, narrowly defined context is completely unreasonable grounds for litigation. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. The problem is that the quick and speedy trial usually doesn't come quickly enough for most defendants and the Industry knows this. But I guess some words are more "serious" than others
Then explain us why DsNo1 received several official lawyers letters with explicit names to filter ?
Maybe you dont know german laws, but DsNo1owner had the choices of:
- closing
- filtering
- spend millions arguing that 'superman' or 'king' were common words.
Quote
Any keyword filter is impotent to completely halt "bad" material without severely sacrificing the rest of the network. Period.
Sure, but google have some filters too. And they have thousand of workers that are paid to fine tune their filters. Not DsNo1 owner.
Quote
Quote
To people that complains about censorship, I think they should sent letters to RIAA/MPAA, explaining why filtering is useless or evil. Do *something*, instead of just complaining over and over.
Oh, right, because we all know by now that the Recording Industry has a long, proud history listening and acting according to the consumers' bests interests. Don't you think it's been tried before, hence the "complaining over and over"?
Yes ? And what results did you get ?