[ShinedBrass]

OK, Ive been thinking about this a little.

Can anyone see a problem with the following idea.

Emule logs into a server ( 1 of many )

Server assigns the client a number ( a realy big maybe 64 bit or 128 bit number ) and stores the IP address against that number.

From this point any transactions taking place are done with a ServerID number which maps to an IP address for that server and then the number for the client which the server turns into an IP address through a simple lookup table.

thus if we had 3 servers called 1, 2, and 3

and client 202.68.42.32 connected to server 1 it would be assigned number 100

the client then requests to look for a file foo.bar and thus this request would be sent to servers 1, 2 and 3

1:100:Seek foo.bar

the server 2 then discovers that client 1023 IP(205.22.44.55) has the file foo.bar and responds
2:1023:Found foo.bar to server 1

Server 1 then starts a transfer in much the same manor - note that NO IP address has been sent to the client.

and thus no one can hit you over the head with a hammer.

Input welcom

[leuk_he]

What are you trying to do here? Anonimity? in the final stretch client 1 and 2 should transfer file data and thus know each other ip.

[Andu]

The servers don't transfer content they just index the files (and no they will never do that). Otherwise it sounds pretty much like what the servers already do.

[ShinedBrass]

Andu, on Apr 17 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

The servers don't transfer content they just index the files (and no they will never do that). Otherwise it sounds pretty much like what the servers already do.

Hang on I'm a little confused here, I was reading that if a client logged onto a server it is possible for that client to then get a list via ip addresses ( and possibly other detail ) of who was downloading foo.bar

But if the returned value is just a number that was assigned to that client for that session then all they would see is a number as opposed to an IP address I.E it would be anonymous, admitidly not point to point as its now point-> server -> point but IP address could not be logged.

That was the idea .

[Andu]

I don't think there will ever be peer to server to peer because I don't see anybody paying for the servers that could provide that bandwidth. We are probably talking about lots of terabytes every day.

The server keeps the IDs. It only gives the source IPs once you've added it to your download list. You cannot to peer to peer without IPs.

[xylo9]

Hmmm... Protect the uploader with the copyright protection laws... somehow.

For example, to download file1, you first have to download a little protected key-file, file0, from the uploader, created and protected by the uploader as his intellectual property. To unlock it, you have to upload a little bit of file1 to the uploader, forcing you to upload file1 too. If you crack file0 without uploading some of file1 to the uploader, you're breaking the law for breaking content protection on file0. Of course it is up to the uploader (who is the copyright owner of file0) to pursue you, or not, which he will do if you later come and harass him for uploading file1 to you.
That protocol could be an option which releasers can disable in their client so they can upload the first few kb to anyone who wants it (someone has to supply some kbs freely).

Result: Non-releasers (99% of the community) are protected from harassment. Releasers are taking a risk anyway, and they seem to enjoy it. But supplying a few kb's freely is perhaps not that much of a big deal.

It's silly, I know... But hey, others (i.e. the harassment specialists) are using much bolder ideas everyday, and getting away with them.

This post has been edited by xylo9: 20 April 2007 - 09:49 AM

[m8h]

xylo9, on Apr 20 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

Hmmm... Protect the uploader with the copyright protection laws... somehow.

For example, to download file1, you first have to download a little protected key-file, file0, from the uploader, created and protected by the uploader as his intellectual property. To unlock it, you have to upload a little bit of file1 to the uploader, forcing you to upload file1 too. If you crack file0 without uploading some of file1 to the uploader, you're breaking the law for breaking content protection on file0. Of course it is up to the uploader (who is the copyright owner of file0) to pursue you, or not, which he will do if you later come and harass him for uploading file1 to you.
That protocol could be an option which releasers can disable in their client so they can upload the first few kb to anyone who wants it (someone has to supply some kbs freely).

Result: Non-releasers (99% of the community) are protected from harassment. Releasers are taking a risk anyway, and they seem to enjoy it. But supplying a few kb's freely is perhaps not that much of a big deal.

It's silly, I know... But hey, others (i.e. the harassment specialists) are using much bolder ideas everyday, and getting away with them.

Four words for you: "Free Open Source Software"
In other words - you can't force anything. And laws are different in every country, network is global.
Not that this already isn't said countless times before - some people just don't seem to get the concept of global network and free software.

[xylo9]

Well, let's assume emule implements such a protocol as the one I describe. And I'm using it. Then I won't upload anything to anyone unless they upload some of that file to me first. Open source can't help the downloader since the control is on the uploader's side. As for specific country laws, you're right, but it would still be better than nothing as it would (probably) help is several countries, some of them being those where most emule users live in. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer).

[PacoBell]

xylo9, on Apr 20 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

Hmmm... Protect the uploader with the copyright protection laws... somehow.

For example, to download file1, you first have to download a little protected key-file, file0, from the uploader, created and protected by the uploader as his intellectual property [...]

Why does this sound so familiar?

[m8h]

xylo9, on Apr 22 2007, 02:44 AM, said:

Well, let's assume emule implements such a protocol as the one I describe. And I'm using it. Then I won't upload anything to anyone unless they upload some of that file to me first. Open source can't help the downloader since the control is on the uploader's side.

Wrong again.
You can not force anyone to use your program for downloading (unless you start brainwashing people). So if people don't like it (and they won't, I guarantee this), they will use modified clients and they won't download from you.
If you try to implement this on the network protocol level, you'll find yourself sitting alone in that network, waiting for someone to download from you.

And again - discussed many times before, absolutely nothing new here.

[cplif]

Either you adhere to file sharing or not, every country has its own laws, some can even put you in prison for volume of tranfer. Use your vote to get a satifactory compromise, its the only issue at hand. I have explained to my adolescent kids that I would rather go to prison than to abandon my p2p capacity, and if that happens I will make as much noise as I can, Playing cat and mouse with industry has never worked, they individually have much more power than you, so only the collective attitude, be it political or de facto (millions of users thus voters) can be of any solution.
As an example, here in france, police services don't waste ressources trying to pry or know what you UL/DL, if they want to get you for some reason they just get a judge to smack a suspicion of child porn on you, stream in and seize your HD, then they take their measly time finding an unhappily copywrighted mp3 file you used for your brother in law's marriage and smack a civil suit on you.

Just to say that it may make absolutely no difference whatever you implement, hiding under the covers is ok for kiddies and austriches

This post has been edited by cplif: 22 April 2007 - 11:58 AM