[REBOL] Re: REBster/REBshare
From: acme:wco at: 20-May-2001 19:28
This issue is bigger than nabster. Sharing MP3s is only the high-visibility
tip of the P2P file sharing iceberg. REBOL is perfect for P2P file-sharing,
and someday P2P will be pervasive, REBOL or not. All kinds of unprotected
work will be freely available, not just mp3 files. I really wish more
people would think further than the current mp3 controversy.
It makes sense for a pervasive P2P system to evolve that adds protection to
its distributable files. For example, how about a centralized db (like
napster's) that not only points to where everyone user's files are, but 1)
requires every user to agree to an enforceable contract and 2) only lists
files that have a required stamp, watermark, or encryption (like PGP) that
absolutely authenticates the file's origin. I might not call it REBster,
because it de facto implies piracy; as a quick thought, let's say REBshare.
It's true that it's impossible to stop people from ultimately copying and
distributing the work anonymously, but at least the piracy would not be
possible via REBshare.
Furthermore, REBshare itself should eventually be a distributable system.
That is, users would transact thru a single, central server, but several
servers would be distributed thru-out the world, with users usually getting
the quickest response from their local server. I think of it as a
'franchise' system, where there is still one central server that manages
all authentication and data watermarking methods, but the bulk of the
transactions are at the franchised server level. Well, all that could come
later, but a first design should not exclude eventual franchise-ability.
(OTOH, REBster might make a good name, gaining immediate
controversy/visibility, while the service's virtues would eventually
outshine the notorious name!)
--Ken.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Ah, you hate Microsoft too! So comrade, ven do vee plan to defect?
