Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

REBster

 [1/27] from: ryan:christiansen:intellisol at: 9-May-2001 17:40


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]

 [2/27] from: meta:dimensional at: 9-May-2001 17:20


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:

 [3/27] from: alanwall:sonic at: 9-May-2001 16:58


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):
<<quoted lines omitted: 17>>
> 8. User A's REBOL client authenticates each e-mail and then generates an > outgoing e-mail to User B including the attached file.
#8 is the problem as many pop servers limit the size of the mail box and most mp3s exceed that size.The answer may be to allow user B to access user A's hd with user A sending user B the path and setting the correct rights to that path.Just an idea Regards -- Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change. -- Confucius sent via Yam ver2.2 on AmigaForever verIV Be a Rebel get Rebol@ rebol.com UIN#=9391028

 [4/27] from: kenneth:nwinet at: 9-May-2001 18:58


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.

 [5/27] from: brett:codeconscious at: 10-May-2001 15:59


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....

 [6/27] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 10-May-2001 7:01


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

 [7/27] from: meta:dimensional at: 10-May-2001 10:07


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:

 [8/27] from: meta:dimensional at: 10-May-2001 10:11


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:

 [9/27] from: ryan:christiansen:intellisol at: 10-May-2001 11:33


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:

 [10/27] from: ammoncooke:yah:oo at: 10-May-2001 10:47


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

 [11/27] from: meta:dimensional at: 10-May-2001 11:41


[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.
Indeed. Just FYI, I'm assuming nothing. I'm certainly not here to accuse anyone of anything or launch anyone on a guilt trip. Your ethics are your own. My goal is to discuss possible design features of any REBOL file sharing system. I'm intrigued by your idea, and why not make it better than Napster? In that context, it's worth thinking about how we as a society should treat and value artists. If a file sharing system or some other system can be set up using REBOL that allows fans to pay a small, reasonable amount to download a song (for example, a dime), with most of that money going directly to the artist, then I think many people would be satisfied with that. Artists would be happy to be paid based on the popularity of their work and without being penalized the way they are by the record company system. Fans would be happy to support the artists they love without getting ripped off in the process.
> I have bought more > music since I began using Napster than before.
That's true for many people. But it's also true that some people reduce or quit buying music when it's available for free. Not everyone is as supportive as you are by seeking out and purchasing CDs, so why not make it easy for them to be supportive in the way they prefer to get their music?
> Using Napster helps you to > decide exactly what you want to have. We all know audio CDs sound better > than .mp3s.
At the moment. But it's easy to see that as bandwidth becomes more and more available and compression technology gets better and better the difference becomes less and less important. MP3 is already good enough for a some people (heck, vinyl LPs on crappy turntables were good enough for quite a while). I suspect the market for CDs will most likely diminish and more people will turn to the net for music in the future.
> Listening to .mp3s is like listening to the radio, except you > have more control over what you hear.
It has some parallels, but since you can keep what you hear and listen again as often as you want it's essentially different than traditional radio.
> 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.
That's a point that will continue to be argued. Meanwhile, if we have an opportunity to set up something that's clearly better, why not consider it? Such a system could allow for those artists who want to give away music for free to do so, while making it easy and inexpensive to download music from artists who want to charge for their work. I would love a system where I could download free music from artists who choose to make it available, and easily pay a nominal fee with no hassle for music from artists I feel honored supporting - especially if the money goes primarily to the artist and is paying for the songs I really like. Thoughts? Best Regards, -Jamie

 [12/27] from: meta:dimensional at: 10-May-2001 11:53


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 agree artists have the right to choose how their work is distributed. For some, free distribution may fit into their business plan, for others free distribution may wreck their business plan. One size doesn't fit all, so it would be a good thing if any new digital distribution system would be flexible enough to handle more than one case. I don't think it's off topic if we're talking about setting up a Napster-like file sharing structure with REBOL. Wouldn't it be cool to go one better and create a file sharing system that makes it easy for those artists who want to share music for free to do so, while allowing those who want to charge something for their work to do so? This goes beyond music into the realm of other digital work such as software, movies, etc. It's a big topic. Many ramifications. For example, some people may want to offer REBOL code examples for free, while others may want to charge a buck or two. I would not mind paying a few bucks for code I really need if it saves me hours of work or long searches through the currently incomplete documentation. (I already feel great about contributing to the REBOL economy by buying REBOL/View Pro.) Can't hurt to discuss these issues up front, IMHO. Best Regards, -Jamie

 [13/27] from: ryanc::iesco-dms::com at: 10-May-2001 11:37


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:

 [14/27] from: thundrebol:yah:oo at: 10-May-2001 12:52


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:

 [15/27] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 10-May-2001 14:04


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

 [16/27] from: ammoncooke::yahoo at: 10-May-2001 14:13


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

 [17/27] from: ryan:christiansen:intellisol at: 10-May-2001 16:05


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:

 [18/27] from: thundrebol:yah:oo at: 10-May-2001 14:14


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

 [19/27] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 10-May-2001 14:32


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
<<quoted lines omitted: 62>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -Einstein

 [20/27] from: thundrebol::yahoo at: 10-May-2001 14:59


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:

 [21/27] from: dmurrill:mindspring at: 10-May-2001 17:07


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.

 [22/27] from: ammoncooke:ya:hoo at: 10-May-2001 16:37


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
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

 [23/27] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 10-May-2001 15:54


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
<<quoted lines omitted: 83>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -Einstein

 [24/27] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 10-May-2001 17:02


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
<<quoted lines omitted: 126>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -Einstein

 [25/27] from: dmurrill:mindspring at: 10-May-2001 18:53


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.

 [26/27] from: schaeper:hyperverse at: 13-May-2001 19:24


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

 [27/27] from: dmurrill:mindspring at: 10-May-2001 19:14


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.

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted