Re: Dynamic Querying solutions open for comments

Am Dienstag, 20 de März de 2007 13:31 schrieb Philippe Verdy:
> So this means supporting and promoting free licences: Creative Commons,
> GPL, and so on. And making sure that those contents are catalogued
> somewhere with their signature. That's what LimeWire has implemented, but
> it is still not enough.

A start of a useful list of licenses for content would be: 

- CC-Licenses (not free, because they don't protect the useability of 
sources): http://creativecommons.org
- GNU FDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
- Art Libre: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
- LFFI (Lizenz für freie Inhalte): 
http://www.webstar.eu.tt/freieinhalte-webstar.html

It would be great, if software packages could be examined and the license 
extracted, so we can show GPL Programs as GPL. 

> For example, allowing to search for torrents and being able to check the
> licence from the torrent source. Gnutella will still be used to locate the
> location of torrent mirrors, so this will help existing torrent sources to
> scale better with more downloaders not requiring an access to the origin
> server.

I don't really see torrents being the way to go, but it seems quite doable. 
A free library shared among Gnutella-Clients which does the license checking 
would be the best option here, I think. 

> Remember that Gnutella is now heavily criticized from many places because

That's nothing new. 
But license showing would be great, nontheless. 

> Then we could develop a system allowing users to trade their licences
> legally (i.e. one licence for another), or to try a media currently owned
> by someone, using our own DRM system where the downloaded media has a
> temporary usage right for limited time, until they get a permanent licence,
> which they could trade online after selecting within the set of trials.

I'll oppose any DRM scheme. 
Any. 

Forcing users to anything isn't the way to go. 

Instead of DRM or any such nonsense, the best way is IMNSHO to show people 
their rights, which means to just show the licenses and say "the license 
allows you to do xyz with this file. Before you do anything else, please make 
sure, you have the rights to do so".

Because technology can and should never be law, and we can't check, if the 
users did acquire additional rights in some other way (for example by just 
asking the creator of the content for permission). 

> We really need more legal content on the Gnutella network, otherwise it
> will soon be banned completely, independently of the fact that there are
> legal files in the network.

Then you might consider joining Phex in pushing legal content into the net: 

http://wiki.phex.org/Decentral_Content_Subscription

A group for propagating legal files in Gnutella: 
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?t=62814

> If licences can't be directed traded between users online, may be we can
> offer to users the link to a place where such licence can be retrieved
> legally, so users can try their medias and then have the opportunity to get
> the licence very soon or will have to delete the media.

Here DRM should again be avoided. 

Users tend to buy good media, if it is sold at a reasonable price and isn't 
much hassle to get. 

Just offering a right-click option to buy a CD associated to a file from 
amazon should get many users to buy. 

Remember please, that as soon as you try to force users to do anything you 
want, you will be forced to force them to do everything other people want. 

> Here again, we place users with their responsabilities. The trade is that
> we change between a complete absence of control to a system that promotes
> the legal system, but with something that commercial media providers are
> not offering: free trying before buying, verifiable backup of user's
> licences, that no one will be able to contest, and more open catalogs than
> what the existing merchant sites are offering, where many contents are
> simply left completely unavailable.

For me  that switch is totally evil, because it is a switch to force users. 

> And then, why not incorporating in search results the list of legal
> sources. Instead of downloading the file directly from the GNET, the result
> would link to a place to get the licence and save it in user's portfolio.
> Then the download would proceed normally

That is a far better idea, I think. 
But only as long as you use the license as a legal file showing "I am allowed 
to have this content" instead of trying to enforce it. 

Just like a recipe from a shop, but much more convenient to use. 

Please don't try to embrace DRM in times when even Apple openly talks about 
abolishing it again. 

DRM is too much hassle, too expensive and too dangerous for the freedom of 
users to be used in any way. 


Best wishes, 
Arne
- http://www.defectivebydesign.org/


> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part
> > de Arne Babenhauserheide
> > Envoyé : mardi 20 mars 2007 12:52
> > À : [email protected]
> > Objet : [the_gdf] Dynamic Querying solutions open for comments
> >
> > Possible solutions to Dynamic Querying:
> >
> > - Drop Dynamic Querying.
> >
> > - Eliminate most/all of the Out Of Bounds query hits (that are sent
> > directly from the query match source to searcher) from Dynamic Querying.
> >
> > - Give UltraPeers a chance to sanity-check the data sent from leaves.
> > Bogons, LAN ips, hostile ip ranges (according to the UltraPeer's own
> > blocklist) could be blocked automatically instead of forwarded on.
> >
> > - If a Leaf or UltraPeer sends an UltraPeer a HUGE list of (seemingly
> > good) query hits, search it last for future searches. "Chatterboxes"
> > aren't good for maintaining reasonable network traffic anyway.
> >
> > - Have each Leaf and UltraPeer rate all its neighbors based on whether
> > they have received any good query hits from them and especially
> > whether a download from/upload to them works.
> >
> > - Implement Credence and ignore bad result for DQ ( http://credence-
> > p2p.org )
> > (I added that just now)
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]