Brightnets are Owner Free File Systems 502
elucido writes "OFF, or the Owner-Free Filesystem is a distributed filesystem in which everything is stored in reference to randomized data blocks, as opposed to a 1:1 copy of the original data being inserted. The creators of the Owner-Free Filesystem have coined a new term to define the network: A brightnet. Nobody shares any copyrighted files, and therefore nobody needs to hide away. OFF provides a platform through which data can be stored (publicly or otherwise) in a discreet, distributed manner. The system allows for personal privacy because data (blocks) being transferred from peer to peer do not bear any relation to the original data. Incidentally, no data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random." Their
main wiki page discusses a bit of what this means and how it might work as well. I've been saying that we need this for many years now, if only because we all have 10 gigs free on our machines and if we could RAID the internet we'd need fewer hard drives.
Not a Brightnet yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Data != Information (Score:5, Funny)
Defense: I didn't do it.
Prosecution: We found the body in your apartment, hidden under your bed.
Defense: It is true that I placed a fast-moving bullet into the air adjacent to his chest, but if there happened to be any later consequences, those were not clearly visible from the location of the trigger.
Jury: Hang him.
So yeah, this is no legal defense. But perhaps it wasn't meant to be one. It seems like subterfuge, countersurveillance, and plausible deniability than anything else. But that plausibility won't hold up long, because the courts will soon say "If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits." They'd make you extract the original content from the blocks, which hopefully haven't later disappeared off the internet, and if you couldn't do it then you'd be in hot water.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Only if you zip it twice and shake your laptop (or wiggle your PC) during the process for randomizing some bits.
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Short version (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly.... This is all petty semantics from a legal standpoint. When you're in civil court attempting to defend yourself, you can not argue about the law like you argue about DnD rules.
Re:Psst. Copyright doesn't work like that! (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, are you calling me a debian newbie, or a human-geek-slashdot newbie?
Either way, I'm fairly sure the output would actually be more like:
$ sudo apt-get install common-sense && man common-sense
common-sense is a meta package
The following NEW packages will be installed:
RMS-logic RMS-common_sense RMS-IP_thoughts
The following currently installed package(s) will be removed:
human_society
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
Re:Not a Brightnet yet (Score:4, Funny)
My network is still on the fence when it comes to the existence of God.
Are there turtles on the fenceposts?
Underneath, yes; it's turtles all the way down.
Standard Form for P2P Solutions (Score:1, Funny)
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to p2p file sharing. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(X) Pedophiles can easily use it to share child porn
( ) Regular internet traffic and other legitimate network uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will work for two weeks and then Comcast/Other ISPs will filter it.
( ) Users will not put up with it
(X) ISPs will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft/Apple will not put up with it
(X) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from sharers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
(X) MediaDefender
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new protocols
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new software to get movies
(X) Huge existing userbase of BitTorrent
( ) Susceptibility of protocols to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install patches to keep the protocol up to date
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of P2P sharing
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who share files
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) RIAA/MPAA Lawsuits
(X) Friends ratting out your darknet
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able share files without being censorted
( ) Countermeasures should not involve iptables rules
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sharing files should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!