Quote:
Originally posted by lurker701
Thanks for straigtening that out ... let me restate what I *meant* to say, with this different (and less convoluted) understanding of which key goes where for what purpose. The policing computer sends the request for files, along with the newly generated public key that its client has generated, retaining the private key. The file gets sent, encrypted, by the direct infringer. The proxy passes it along. Policing computer gets the file, decrypts it, and discovers it is a file that its company owns the rights to.
See the problem? You can't create an open network that also excludes the record companies and software developers. If Joe Blow can get online and get a copy of Office XP, so can Microsoft. Step one of the sucussful action against the proxy is complete -- we've proven direct infringment.
|
The method I was suggesting is a little different, but what you are describing should work as well. Queries on gnutella are already anonymous, it is only file transfers that are not (unless by random luck you get a hit after only one hop). So the proxy is only for file transfers and has nothing to with the passing of queries or public keys. My thought was to send a public key with the response rather than the query (a little easier on bandwidth it is
). But it doesn't matter who's public key it is so long as it can get encrypted on one end and decrypted on the other. So, the policing computer gets the file and finds that it's copyrighted. For all they know the proxy computer is serving the file. Suppose by dumb luck they own both the proxy and the requesting computers. They still have to prove that the computer seen by the proxy is the one serving the file and is not a proxy itself. For a large network like gnutella, owning two computers involved in an infringing transfer is going to be rare. Given the unlikelyhood that they could even prosecute in that case, I don't see the RIAA (or whoever) investing so much in computing power and bandwidth for such a futile cause. It's much more likely in my opinion that they would try to have passed new laws that would make the technology illegal.
Quote:
No, for vicarious infringement, the person either has to know, or *should have known* the infringement was occurring. All you have to do is fire up a gnutella client to demonstrate that the person running the proxy *should have known* that it was being used to infringe on copyrights. The vast majority of the material is copyrighted. You know it, I know it, they know it. And if you don't know it, you should have known it.
|
I don't follow you. How could a proxy be expected to know that there is an infringment if the stream is strongly encrypted? ISPs aren't held responsible for the data they forward and most of that data *isn't* encrypted. Just recently eBay won a case concerning culpabilty for copyright infringement over their system (first time the DMCA has been thwarted so far in court in its short history).
Quote:
Finally, the person running the proxy clearly contributed to the infringement by providing the proxy and thereby providing annonymity and connectivity to the other parties involved.
All it takes is one lawsuit. You don't have to sue everyone. Once you've succeeded against one poor schmuck, you could use the precident to get several proxies per day shut down.
|
He/she may be contributing, but contributing by itself isn't illegal. Under the DMCA a contributor can be found guilty of either contributory or vicarious infringement, as you're aware. But to be found guilty of either you have to violate *all*, not any, of the elements of either case. A requirement of contributory infringement is knowledge of a direct infringement (by no stretch can a user be expected to know this from an encrypted stream), and a requirement of vicarious infringement is financial benefit. I don't see at all how a proxy, using the network layed out above, could be found guilty of infringement under the DMCA. The law of course may change, but that isn't the issue. And, again, there are substantial non-infringing uses.
Quote:
Who would be stupid enough to run one of these proxies? Would you do it?
|
Who would be stupid enough to share copyrighted materials over Gnutella? Would you?
Personally, I think I'd have a much better legal case, if not a perfectly sound case, with the proxy.
And yes, on the original point, everthing possible should be done to see that users share more files