REBster

Just a quick thought on a do-able REBOL-based replacement for Napster (a.k.a. REBster): 1. User A uses a REBOL client to send a list of shared files to a POP address, including an authentication code. 2. A server running a REBOL server checks the POP address periodically for new mail and downloads new mail. 3. The REBOL server authenticates each e-mail and stores User A's list of shared files and User A's e-mail address in a database. 4. Using a REBOL client, User B browses to www.sharemyfiles.com/rebolrocks.r and a REBOL-based CGI operation dynamically generates a page of links to shared files, which includes links to User A's files. The links to User A's files are a GET operation which include User A's e-mail address and the name of a shared file. 5. User B clicks on a link to one of User A's files. 6. The REBOL server generates an e-mail, sending it to User A including an authentication code, the name of the requested file, and User B's e-mail address. 7. User A's REBOL client periodically checks its POP account for new mail and downloads any new mail. 8. User A's REBOL client authenticates each e-mail and then generates an outgoing e-mail to User B including the attached file. Now the question is: does such a file-sharing model get around the legal improprieties brought to light in the Napster case? There is no continually active connection between User A and the server nor User B and the server. The server only posts a list of files another person says he or she would like to share and then sends an e-mail requesting the share. You could even have it so that when User A receives the request, he or she must click on a button that confirms the share. Thoughts? Ryan C. Christiansen Web Developer Intellisol International 4733 Amber Valley Parkway Fargo, ND 58104 701-235-3390 ext. 6671 FAX: 701-235-9940 http://www.intellisol.com Global Leader in People Performance Software _____________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you think, for any reason, that this message may have been addressed to you in error, you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we would ask you to notify us immediately by return email to [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com]

Napster, eh? The reason most often given for stealing creative works of artists is that the record companies are corrupt and charge unreasonable amounts for CDs while giving very little of the money to the actual artists. Unfortunately, stealing music cuts out the artists completely. Artists find themselves between a rock (record companies) and a hard place (fans stealing their work). The second most common reason given for stealing the creative works of artists is that people don't want to pay for a whole CD that contains more than the songs they really want. How about this: Instead of designing yet another system for stealing the creative works of artists, why not design a system that will let music fans pay reasonable amounts for the music they really want? Why not design a system that encourages further creative works by directly rewarding the artists, while at the same time saving money for ethical fans who want to support the artists they love without being exploited by the record company system? There's a chance to free both artists and fans here and help usher a new renaissance of music. (Or is it better to continue to exploit the artists even more egregiously than the record companies already do?) Thoughts? Best Regards, -Jamie Krutz [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] wrote:

Hello [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] On 09-May-01, [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] wrote:

> Just a quick thought on a do-able REBOL-based replacement for Napster > (a.k.a. REBster): > 8. User A's REBOL client authenticates each e-mail and then generates an > outgoing e-mail to User B including the attached file.

How about this as a model for not cutting the artist out completely... a) Artist distributes music for free... b) Music becomes very popular... c) Artist performs live concerts in packed stadiums and rakes in the money. d) Former gatekeepers find something upbuilding to do with there lives. e) Lawyers figure out that suing ones and zeros becomes a dead end career path. f) Encryption is used to protect personal privacy rather than desperate monopolies. g) People actually become creative.

Well, you could try carrier pidgeon as well, or perhaps smoke signals (could be slow), but if you copy something for which you do not have the right to copy you have infringed on the rights of someone else. Especially in Australia - our copyrights are automatic - as soon as I started typing this email copyright exists. I have not read about the particular legal improprieties that you refer to but I suspect it comes down this very specific point about the right to copy. Brett. P.S. I grant you permission to cause a copy of this specific email to be download into your computer or telecommuncation system memory, disk cache and telecommunication service provider equipment for you personal use only. You may also print it for historical records.. blah blah blah... Oh, what about escribe automatically archiving this email, hmm I'll think about that....

Excellent plan!! Couldn't have said it better. ;)) Enjoy!! Ammon

The performance model only works for some artists. It does not work for: -Artists who write music that can't be performed live. -Artists with health problems which preclude touring. -Artists with family obligations that preclude being away all the time. -Artists who would rather be recording than living out of a suitcase. -Etc. The fact is writing and recording music is itself worthy of support. Who are we to tell legitimate, creative artists to go get another job, to become nomads? You may as well offer this model: a) Artist gives away the results of hard work. b) Artist works at McDonalds so everyone else can exploit his art for free. Sure storage as ones and zeros make it easy to steal someone else's work. But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Thoughts? Best Regards, -Jamie Krutz Ken Anthony wrote:

What gives us the right to tell the artist what he should do for a living? What gives us the right to steal his creative works? Please explain, I don't understand this at all. Best Regards, -Jamie Krutz Ammon Cooke wrote:

You're assuming that just because someone downloads an .mp3 of a song that he or she intends on "stealing" the song. That's crap. I have bought more music since I began using Napster than before. Using Napster helps you to decide exactly what you want to have. We all know audio CDs sound better than .mp3s. Listening to .mp3s is like listening to the radio, except you have more control over what you hear. There will ALWAYS be people who copy songs with illicit intentions, no matter what format they are in. But when it all shakes out, Napster is a boon to the music industry. Jamie <[Meta--Dimensi] To: [rebol-list--rebol--com] onal.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBster rebol-bounce@ rebol.com 05/10/2001 11:07 AM Please respond to rebol-list Sure storage as ones and zeros make it easy to steal someone else's work. But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Thoughts? Best Regards, -Jamie Krutz Ken Anthony wrote:

Well, ok it is a good idea *if* the artists except it. Sorry for the OT stuff here, if you want to continue this please reply to my private email address. Thanks!! Ammon

[ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] wrote:

> You're assuming that just because someone downloads an .mp3 of a song that > he or she intends on "stealing" the song. That's crap.

> I have bought more > music since I began using Napster than before.

> Using Napster helps you to > decide exactly what you want to have. We all know audio CDs sound better > than .mp3s.

> Listening to .mp3s is like listening to the radio, except you > have more control over what you hear.

> There will ALWAYS be people who copy > songs with illicit intentions, no matter what format they are in. But when > it all shakes out, Napster is a boon to the music industry.

Ammon Cooke wrote:

> Well, ok it is a good idea *if* the artists except it. Sorry for the OT > stuff here, if you want to continue this please reply to my private email > address.

I think that its probably not too good for overall record sales (although I have seen statistics that "prove" me wrong). I also think its probably not to good for Britney Spears, NSync, or other made up "superstars". I dont believe in copyright infringement, and I believe an artist should have the right to license out his work like we do with software, same-same. But there is another issue here as well. It is about the little guys versus the big guys. The current system works like this, more or less: 1000s of small time, starving artists, try to get noticed by record company headhunters who sign up the ones *they* think have potential, and that are willing sign their life away. Some of these bands may succeed to become superstars and actually become very rich. Meanwhile the record company makes even bigger bucks just by picking who they want us to listen to. They are really the master of puppets. The new system thats in the process of becoming, works a bit different. Exactly how it will work is yet to be established, but I think it will work much like the software shareware/freeware system. 1000's of small time, starving artists, try to get noticed by distributing thier songs on the internet as freeware or shareware. If people like thier stuff, they might pay for it--anything more than a few cents is more than what they are making right now. The band can also sell promotional items and other songs or albums, appearances, etc. Some big differences... - The band makes all the money, not the record company. - The little guys have a better chance of getting noticed. - Public gets to pick who they like, not the record company. - We removed a big leech out of the economy, the record companies! I am all for helping expose smalltime bands to the marketplace. However, I do think its important not to distribute unauthorized material. --Ryan Jamie wrote:

A P2P-like file sharing system in REBOL is a neat idea, but it could be risky from a legal standpoint. If the application includes the ability to circumvent music (and/or software)copyright laws, apart from your own skin, I'd be concerned that REBOL Technologies might be exposed to a nasty lawsuit. It's a crusade that RT probably doesn't want to get mixed up in right now. It's not unusual that the music industry would try to implicate RT on the grounds that "it specifically enabled" the illegal activity. I can hear it now: Your Honor, we would not be here today if not for REBOL Technologies' blatant disregard for copyright laws. The fact is, in putting networking technology well within range of the average computer user, REBOL Technologies made it far easier to build illegal messaging applications than any other product in history. **And yet they did nothing to stop it.** All kidding aside, I'd avoid anything that could end up diverting time/resources from RT. If you build a Napster clone, make sure you confine it to the lab until you can implement the key security features. Also, the name "REBster", being a play on "Napster", isn't a great strategy if you hope to avoid controversy. I realize I'm advocating a position that may not be popular. Right or wrong, though, I'd prefer that RT keeps its money tied up in software engineers rather than legal defense. //Ed --- Ryan Cole <[ryanc--iesco-dms--com]> wrote:

Yes, these issues do need to be talked about up front. IMHO the ONLY way that we(REBOL Developers) who build this file sharing system can stay out of the mess NAPSTER is in, is by stating by some sort of splash screen, either in an installer, or first time it is run declare: This program was not made to allow users to easily distribute copyrighted material, & we WILL do all in our power to help prosocute those who misuse the service we provide. Of course the actually wording may vary, & to avoid later attorney fees, it would be smart to seek legal advice on how to display the message, & what it should say. Enjoy!! Ammon

I definetly agree. See my last post it has my view point on avoiding that kind of thing, however it is just my view point, & it might be good to get RT's permission before jumping into that kind of thing. Enjoy!! Ammon

This is the one thing that is keeping me from doing REBster. I'm just surprised no one lambasted me for wanting to use POP as the protocol. :) -Ryan "Ed O'Connor" <[thundrebol--y] To: [rebol-list--rebol--com] ahoo.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBster rebol-bounce@ rebol.com 05/10/2001 02:52 PM Please respond to rebol-list I realize I'm advocating a position that may not be popular. Right or wrong, though, I'd prefer that RT keeps its money tied up in software engineers rather than legal defense. //Ed --- Ryan Cole <[ryanc--iesco-dms--com]> wrote:

Thanks for reminding me-- yeah, that's a bad idea too. Just kidding :^) //Ed --- [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] wrote:

Public opionion makes all the difference. This is why napster was only mildly cremated, and slow cooked at that. The record companies are scared to death of public opionion backlash. It really shows, when you look at all the steps that they have taken to insulate themselves--almost like they are hiding something. A name not based off the word nabster (thief) would probably be a good idea. Napster has a degree of anonimity. The last time I used it, it didnt ask me if any of my mp3's where copyrighted as it made them available to the masses. I figured I was exempt when it did that. Only allow mp3's that were created by the uploader, and create a system of responsibilty that is put onto the uploader, not onto you. Each time someones uploads, or makes available an upload, they must agree to the terms of use. Its the same thing as putting software on shareware.com. --Ryan Ammon Cooke wrote:

> I definetly agree. See my last post it has my view point on avoiding that > kind of thing, however it is just my view point, & it might be good to get > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.

Want to build a useful POP-based app that people are clamouring for? Try this proposed Alias Manager App, which would manage workflow of e-mail tech-support: http://www.evhead.com/longer/2943130_essays.asp This proposal has created a mini sensation since Joel Spolsky mentioned it in his weblog (see the May 3rd entry): http://joel.editthispage.com People are willing to pay $$ to see this app, yet it doesn't look like much more than an intermediate-level .r file to me. Alternatively, you could create a web-based Bug Tracking tool similar to Joel's. Just some ideas for you that might keep lawyers out of your future. Cheers, Ed --- [ryan--christiansen--intellisol--com] wrote:

Hello all, Good topic Ryan. I am trying to get together a program myself for sharing files through POP. I heard from some that this was not reasonable given it limitations but really think about it, Rebol pushes the power of TCP/HTTP/SOCKS4,5. The biggest part is security issues and making it available in the browser which I think I have some hacks (workable but poorly implemented) ideas. You know you can still do it, just for now not allow MP3'S (this would discourage a lot) so many wouldn't use it for (stealing/sharing) that purpose. I am trying to stay away from the cgi thing unless people have there own %webserver.r which is do-able. Hey this is what Rebol was created for, to securely share files over all networks without Windows/Novel/Sun/The Q,/Cisco/SQL/Java/Etc... from always getting in the dang way.

Sounds good, but what do you mean by mp3's created by the uploader? Do you mean in the agreement we simply state, "WARNING, only upload this if it is YOUR work, or if you have written permission from the creator of this work" ?? --Ammon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Cole" <[ryanc--iesco-dms--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBster

> Public opionion makes all the difference. This is why napster was only

> public opionion backlash. It really shows, when you look at all the steps

> A name not based off the word nabster (thief) would probably be a good

> Napster has a degree of anonimity. The last time I used it, it didnt ask

> figured I was exempt when it did that. > > Only allow mp3's that were created by the uploader, and create a system of

I am not well versed in POP, what are its advantages over using FTP? Daniel Murrill wrote:

> Hello all, > Good topic Ryan. I am trying to get together a program > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.

Yep, thats what I mean. CNET's wording is "You must be the developer or publisher of the software, or an authorized agent, in order to submit a title." And it goes on to say later that "The program must not infringe on any copyrights." I might be tempted to use harsher language. I suppose if you really want to play it safe, just break up the system into parts. If you do this effectively, there is no one to sue, well except the uploaders actually making the infringement. Example: A service that says who has what, a dynamic search engine. A program shares your files, and registers your site with the search engine. Another program searches and downloads the stuff you want. Now who would be guilty? Furthermore If you made the stuff more or less interchangeable with what is already out there, that would really confuse the matter. Plus, if they sue one of these parts, you could probably get a significant amount of funding for your defense from those who dont want such a legal precedent to be set if you lose. Yahoo, Netscape, Ebay, CNET, and even Microsoft could have much to lose if the recording industry won. This could mean Yahoo would be responsible for what pages the link to. Or maybe Microsoft would have to limit what you could upload or download with Internet Explorer. Not going to happen. --Ryan Ammon Cooke wrote:

> Sounds good, but what do you mean by mp3's created by the uploader? Do you > mean in the agreement we simply state, "WARNING, only upload this if it is > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.

In some what of a reality, they all use "SOCKS3/4/5" protocol. The mother of these type programs is the FTP, wich IRC, Server, Proxies,POP,SMTP, Fileport... is what they are based upon with tcp. Pop has a 5mb per account limit and a file size of 2mb. But the ISP really controls the 5meg limit (just change it), and the 2meg thing... just pull from emails with consecutive subjects ie.. collect mail/subject [ request1 requset2] and parse at same time. Or have script do to-binary! %file.swf and each piece get it's own email subject ie... [fiel.swf1 fiel.swf2](this is streaming). Most people get info in the browser (until they get wise to Rebol) so you can use applet to recieve %file and Rebol cgi to put it on the web or just stick with p2p.

An interesting use of this concept would be what SETI is doing on a lot of desktops. SETI sends out data sets to my my desktop which crunches it when I am not on the computer. They have amassed probably 40 million years of computer time with this stragety. Perhaps we could create a server that would download computational programs to volunteers that would crunch numbers, while we are not using the system, and send results back to the server. Use FTP or sockets for the communication medium, but it doesnt really matter. Don't you know there would be a lot of interest from the scientific community to have millions of computer hours per day to crunch. Maybe we could do something like calculate a new digit of pi or find the next Mersenne prime. Just a thought, Tom Schaeper

Sorry I went off topic, I misread your question believe it or not. POP is faster because it's really FTP with limited bloatware abilities. You don't need to give access to a FTP server, or your computer, they just keep using there OWN email account. Nothing breaks on your end, they don't have to fight other traffic to get into there own email account. It's located at the ISP end and if they want directories like FTP they can do it under different account names("[me--this--com] [memoved--this--com]") if available. I must continue to build says the Rebol that rebels quietly decently, and with order.