Skip navigation

Tag Archives: copyright

Final Update

I have canceled the copyright-infringement-notice.com domain name and archived the text elsewhere on this blog. All of this content was written in 2012 and hasn’t been updated in years. I am keeping the post you’re currently reading for historical and entertainment purposes. If you follow any outdated advice or information given below, you do so entirely at your own risk. I am not a lawyer and only a fool would take anything I write as legal advice.


(WARNING: I make no promises here; my P2P software is vaporware until I get the details worked out. I don’t want anyone thinking there’s something coming until there actually IS something coming.)

First Generation: In the beginning, there was Napster. Napster was the first user-friendly MP3 sharing program. Sure, songs and media were shared via IRC and FTP sites before Napster, but Napster made it extremely simple and easy to share music with other people. The biggest problem with Napster was that the Napster servers ran everything: they maintained a master index of files and a list of users sharing those files, and connected users together to perform the actual transfer. When record labels got angry, they could easily point to Napster’s centralized catalog and say “there’s no reason you can’t block our songs from being downloaded, because you control the entire process!”

Second Generation: Ahh, yes…Morpheus, Grokster, LimeWire, and the infamous Kazaa. These networks dropped the central index by running searches directly from one computer to multiple other computers. In theory, this removed centralization and made it difficult to shut down the networks. Unfortunately, there was still centralization involved: someone had to tell the computers what other computers were on the network in the first place. The indexing of files was gone, but the network still largely relied on a parent company’s servers to operate. Some of this stuff is still around today with alternative servers being used, but they’re mostly defunct due to the third generation. Well, that and the fact that at least some of these networks had gaping security holes that were easily exploited to render them useless. It was easy as pie to flood the FastTrack network that powered Kazaa and Morpheus with corrupt data.

Third Generation:  Simply put, BitTorrent and eMule. These systems are hybrids; they operate both from servers (in BitTorrent they’re called trackers) as well as with a fully decentralized second network known as DHT (distributed hash tables, NOT dihydrotestosterone, for you chemistry nuts.) Multiple servers are available and there is much less centralization involved, plus DHT doesn’t go through “servers” at all: computers find each other through other computers, in what is known as the DHT “overlay network.” BitTorrent trackers exist which are completely open and that may be freely tacked onto existing torrents to prevent one tracker’s failure from killing the torrent.

However, one thing hasn’t changed since Napster: computers still communicate with each other directly, immediately revealing the IP address of the uploader and downloader to each other. Furthermore, the way that these networks’ servers operate means that hostile parties such as the RIAA, MPAA, porn production companies, etc. can simply connect to a server, request a list of peers for a supposedly infringing file of interest, and the server hands them a big batch of IP addresses that have that file. Even if the servers didn’t make it so easy, it’s trivial to extend a little more effort and scan the DHT networks for peers with that file, so elimination of the servers wouldn’t fix the issue. This is how content owners gather lists of IP addresses to threaten and sometimes drag into court.

Generation 3.5: MUTE file sharing. The reason I’ve labeled this as “generation 3.5” is because it didn’t quite catch enough momentum to grow, and because it still suffers from many security issues that have plagued P2P sharing since the beginning. My solution to the IP address revelation problem is more complicated than MUTE’s, but the essential idea is the same: pass data to peers who then pass them along to their peers, with the origination IP address not included. MUTE had the breakthrough idea for largely killing the IP address problem, but it seems that all effort went into the design of the routing scheme and algorithm, while tackling other logistical flaws was put on the back burner.

The most serious of these are the various forms of poisoning: index poisoning, where bogus index results come back, sometimes in huge enough quantities to make locating the intended data extremely difficult and frustrating; and file poisoning, where the “bogus” index results return real files that do not have the content expected. In the days of the FastTrack network, this became very common, with the worst example being MP3 files containing the first 20 seconds of a song looped repeatedly and cut off at the same track length as the original song, meaning that a cursory listen to the beginning of the MP3 to verify its content would “pass the test” while the MP3 would not actually be what was desired.

More Gen3-esque Software: Perfect Dark and Freenet. These programs have routing constructs similar to MUTE, and combine encrypted caches on the hard drives of users of the network as their “storage.” The only way to retrieve a file is to request it by its “key.” These networks add deniability to the storage of the data, since there’s no way for the user to know what’s in the encrypted data store. Unfortunately, these programs also suffer some issues; Freenet is designed to work like the Web rather than to share large files, and tends to be fairly slow and/or unreliable for that purpose (unpopular content in particular will slow down and eventually just vanish). Perfect Dark uses DHT, so it is no more secure for uploaders and downloaders than any other DHT implementation. Some users of Perfect Dark have been arrested in Japan for uploading popular television series, proving that anonymity is not protected by Perfect Dark in any meaningful way.

The next generation of file sharing programs has to fix the IP address issue completely, while also combating other major security problems (like poisoning, denial-of-service attacks) that have gone insufficiently addressed in previous peer-to-peer file sharing programs.

Don’t get too excited, but here’s where I am going with this: I am hesitant to announce vaporware, but given the amount of interest in my posts regarding copyright infringement notices and my own casual interest in the chilling effects of copyright trolling on free exchange of information and ideas, I have been working out the details of a fourth generation file sharing protocol that solves almost all of the issues surrounding file sharing’s general lack of anonymity and ease of censorship through lawsuits and settlement demands/threats.

I thought about how to fix the problems with torrents and DHT systems such as Kademlia. The solutions that came to mind seemed obvious, the practical applications that I began to come up with were full of glaring holes. When I solved the problem of tracking down an uploader or downloader by IP address, which is the obvious problem with all current systems, as the lawsuits and settlement demands clearly show, I thought I was a genius and wondered why no one else came up with the same solution…until I found programs like MUTE which work in a similar fashion. I thought about the problem in more depth, and realized that my perfect little system for losing the traceability of the IP addresses was merely the tip of the iceberg. DoS attacks, index and file poisoning, hash collisions, plausible deniability, man-in-the-middle attacks, and “Sybil attacks” are just a portion of the problems that have to be solved, and I think I’ve answered most (if not all) of these issues.

At some point, I’ll need help testing and implementing this, taking it cross-platform, and getting the word out about it once it’s confirmed to work as expected and stress tested in the real world. For now, I’m writing this to let my readers and the Internet at large know that the problem is being worked on. I look forward to the day that copyright trolls are, in a technical sense, neutered.

Here’s to my ideal P2P file sharing vaporware. When it’s more than an idea on paper, I’ll make a new post and link to it here. Stay tuned, everyone; this will be interesting.

Advertisements

Have you heard of the nine-year-old whose Winnie the Pooh laptop was confiscated during a police home invasion related to copyright infringement for downloading a single album? TorrentFreak has some very interesting commentary about the subject.  Apparently, a girl downloaded a single music album (and the download wasn’t even playable, it was broken or corrupted) and when the father refused to cough up a $600 “settlement fee” to a copyright authority, they had the police bust in and search the place, resulting in the confiscation of the young child’s laptop. The evidence was an IP address.

That’s right. An IP address was the evidence that the home invasion was based on.

Oh, sure, you could say that they got the subscriber information for who was leased the IP address, but the premise under which it was retrieved was that “IP address xxx.yyy.zzz.qqq is committing copyright infringement!” The lesson here is clearly to never live in Finland, since that’s all that is apparently required for a corporation to get the local cops to bust your door down and search your residence. The problem for the police and the copyright cops is that they didn’t end up targeting some tax-paying adult citizen off of that IP address “evidence,” they unknowingly went after a nine-year-old girl and took her laptop away.

You should read the TorrentFreak post for more information. It’s pretty interesting to think about. I’ve already mused on the reasons why accurately resolving an IP address to an infringer is nearly impossible, and this is one more real-world nail in that coffin. The interesting part for me is that the download in question wasn’t even functional; when the father found out the daughter was trying to download the music, he went out and bought the album in question for her. Even despite that, they still invaded the house and caused all that trauma and stole the laptop from the little girl. What a crock of you-know-what.

Final Update

I have canceled the copyright-infringement-notice.com domain name and archived the text elsewhere on this blog. All of this content was written in 2012 and hasn’t been updated in years. I am keeping the post you’re currently reading for historical and entertainment purposes. If you follow any outdated advice or information given below, you do so entirely at your own risk. I am not a lawyer and only a fool would take anything I write as legal advice.


UPDATE: I’m working out the details of a next-gen P2P file sharing program that should fix up most of the problems with P2P file sharing today, including the IP address targeting issue that spawned this article in the first place. I also found an Ars Technica article on why IP addresses aren’t enough to find file swappers.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME AND ENCOURAGED.

I have always wondered how it is possible to prove in a copyright infringement case that peer-to-peer file sharers and Internet file locker downloaders are individually responsible for what they’re accused of, short of a confession by the person being targeted. I thought that it’s about time to place my logic here. Feel free to post comments poking holes in this logic. (Comments are moderated, by the way…people seem to wonder why they don’t appear immediately, so please don’t double post.)

An IP address is not a computer, and a computer is not a person. You ultimately must sue a person; not a computer, and not an IP address. That’s obvious.

Putting a person behind a keyboard through evidence is nearly impossible. Let’s use an analogy where instead of proving that infringement has occurred, we’ll discuss proving that I posted this article. How can you prove that I am at my computer right now, posting to this blog? You almost certainly can’t. You know it’s being posted, sure, but the challenges that can be mounted against proving the identity of the poster are quite intimidating:

  • How do you know which of my devices I’m supposedly using? You might say “by the IP address it’s posted from” but if it was posted from the static IP of my business, it could mean that someone in my business gained access to my account, or that someone broke in and used my already-logged-in account on an unlocked computer, or any number of other possibilities.
  • Even if you can point to a device, how do you know that I was in control of the device at the time that the post was uploaded from it?
  • Assume you can prove that I was using a device exclusively at the time of posting and that the post came from that exact device. How do you know that malicious software didn’t do it? How do you prove that I took the actions at the keyboard that posted the content, and not something else that might have been on my computer?
  • Assume you proved all of the above, plus in a forensic examination of the hard drive of my system, you could find no evidence that malicious software of any type was present. It’s just as possible that an infection was present in RAM that does not write itself to the hard drive (thus only working until system shutdown). The instant I shut off the computer and provide it to your computer forensic investigator to comply with your discovery subpoena, it would be wiped out, leaving no trace. This isn’t necessarily likely since most malicious software authors want it to persist across reboots, but it is very possible and such an infection would be nearly impossible to make antivirus signatures for or analyze due to the fact that all traces of it are lost at reboot or power down. (There are possible ways to catch it, but they’re very difficult and likely also beyond the skill sets of most casual computer programmers, including myself.)

Keep in mind, all of this isn’t proving that I posted this blog post. This (except the point about infection that’s only in RAM, to some extent) is the process of proving that I was merely capable of doing so. It’s the digital equivalent of proving that someone had a gun in their hand while proving that a murder was perpetrated by that person: the tool is present, but they still have to aim and pull the trigger. How can you prove (once you somehow manage to meet the burden of proving everything above) that a person pulled the trigger and downloaded a copyrighted file? I can only think of one way: show that the computer in question actually downloaded the file over the Internet. The only way that this can be possible is through ISPs logging all packets in and out of your computer or through the copyright holder uploading the file to you. In the latter case, you’d have a solid argument that they gave you permission by offering the file up in the first place, which is almost certainly why no copyright trolls can show traffic logs of this nature. ISPs cannot possibly archive every packet that travels across the Internet (imagine trying to archive everything that flies over a 10 gigabit network connection; unless you have a storage device that can store a gigabyte per second and has millions of gigabytes free, it isn’t happening.)

I just don’t see how anyone proves definitively that someone was responsible for something over the Internet without the targeted person spilling too much information. What do you think?

[Added 2012-12-11] In the case of the majority of file sharing software, files are distributed in pieces that are significantly smaller than the total size of the file. Even if you can prove that someone joined a network and started swapping partial pieces of a file back and forth with absolute certainty (which we have established is extremely unlikely if going by an IP address alone), arguments can be made regarding this distribution method that weaken the case of someone attempting to prosecute:

  • Pieces of a file are almost universally useless on their own: The pieces of a file that are shared are generally of very limited use on their own; in the vast majority of cases, without the first piece of a file containing header information that lays out the format specifications of the file, pieces are often completely useless and might as well be random noise. One could argue that having an unusable collection of pieces of the file cannot be considered infringement, because (depending on the file format) missing the header data, the end-of-file data, and/or intermediate data required to connect pieces is sufficient to make it impossible for the computer to reproduce a copyrighted work or a portion thereof from the incomplete file. Video streams in particular encode “key frames” every few seconds, and between those key frames, the only data is what has changed between each successive frame; thus, damage or missing data for a single frame in a video file will render hundreds of video frames thereafter useless.
  • Did you verify the file data solely from the uploader you’re prosecuting? The architecture of most peer-to-peer file sharing networks is such that downloading a file’s pieces is massively multi-sourced across many users with low upstream bandwidth. It is nearly impossible that any given downloader will acquire the entire file from a single uploader, and particularly in the case of large files such as feature-length DVD movie rips, even if an uploader sends the file at 90 KB/sec (not unusual for a decent DSL package) a typical 702MB (CD-length) DVD rip would require 133 minutes of the uploader sending the data solely to the downloader at full upload speed. Needless to say, a combination of client throttling, possible ISP throttling, multiple uploads at once, and other factors pushes the typical home DSL connection’s contribution to a peer swarm closer to 5-10 KB/sec (based on my own experiments with monitoring individual peer bandwidth while downloading torrents of Linux install DVDs, most peers appear to contribute 10 KB/sec or less at a time.) The chances of obtaining a file from a solitary uploader are very slim, and it could be argued that if the copyright prosecutor didn’t download the entirety of the file data from the targeted uploader exclusively, then they are prosecuting that uploader based on file data from other people. This would be no different than someone giving the rights holder two pieces to a puzzle that shows a pattern of random dots until completely assembled, the holder getting the rest of the pieces from 50 other people, then prosecuting all of the people for offering out the entire infringing puzzle based on the revealed image of the fully assembled puzzle based on their obvious possession of only a fractional piece that is not even viewable without the other pieces. Failure to verify that the person has transmitted a complete, usable copy of the infringing file is not convincing when the individual pieces without all other dependency pieces are effectively random noise.
  • Most peers in a P2P file sharing network don’t even have the entire file in their possession to offer for upload in the first place. If the person in question doesn’t have the entire file, they aren’t in possession of the copyrighted work. For reasons outlined above, a partial file is effectively useless; without verifying that the infringing party is “seeding” (has 100% of file pieces and offers 100% of those pieces as downloadable from them) the prosecuting party cannot truthfully state in a court of law that the target possesses the copyrighted work without committing perjury.

I’m interested in any comments on this subject, or any points that I might have left out.

%d bloggers like this: